Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CBL-Commish
Dola,
Don't you think that bias would, in large part, be due to National League partisans telling anyone who asks that the DH is an abomination, that National League ball is true and right and just?
I think if you introduced someone to baseball today and didn't tell them the world was DH-less for 100 years, there's little chance they'd independently decide that the DH was an assult on the very foundations of the game. Most of the dislike is a historical artifact, kind of like love for complete games, or devotion to sac bunting.
The NFL, which doesn't have baseball's hidebound devotion to tradition, doesn't have anything at all like the controversy surrounding the DH. There's is no one of consequence who agitates to have regular players kick field goals and punt. They just decided it made more sense to have specialized kickers, and moved on.
|
The thing is, the DH rule is an odd hybrid thing. In football, you can have an entirely different set of people on the field depending on whether it's offense or defense, and you can sub guys in all you want. It's a very different game. If you're going to have a DH for the pitcher, why not for all the players? Why would you ever let Rey Ordonez hit or Mike Piazza field? Obviously they're not the best at doing those things, but it's a forced situation.
If you allowed baseball to have offensive and defensive squads, it would allow each group to specialize. Maybe it would be a better game. But would it be baseball? Does it matter?
Why stop at just a DH for the pitcher?
I'm not trying to pull off a slippery slope argument. I'm just saying that I think it would be more logical to have separate squads than to allow a DH for one guy.
If you introduced someone to baseball with the DH today and it had been a tradition, I don't think it would make the logic there any different. But you are right that it would not be nearly as much of a big deal if it had always been that way.