When I was first reading/thinking about the SP-only DH, I'm pretty sure openers weren't a thing yet. But now, after reading the comments to Jayson Stark's Athletic articles on the topic (
1,
2), I appreciate it even more.
A few people made the point where you used to look forward to marquee starting pitcher matchups. Like on Youtube the other day, MLB was advertising Kershaw vs Darvish. Maybe they're not as good as they once were, but they're both names any MLB fan should know and it gets you interested in the game because you have an expectation that it should be at least a competitive game, if not better. We've gone away from that lately.
I applaud the Rays ingenuity. I really do. But, I think openers have hurt the game a bit. I appreciate how it gets your opponent to set their lineup one way and then you might turn to a pitcher of the opposite handedness. That's fine. But I think it'd be only fair if it also forced you to lose your DH or at least switch him to the field. If the other team is to be disadvantaged, so should you.
Stark relayed that one AL executive complained that if he's down 4-0 and they remove their pitcher that it will make it even harder for them to come back. Well, 1) I don't think it hurts
that much. A little, sure, but it's certainly not crippling. But more importantly, 2) develop/acquire better SPs then. I feel like that exec is just being a cry baby over it. The opposite might just as likely happen that his team is up 4-0, the other team pulls their SP, loses their DH, and it's just a little bit harder for them to come back.
He also complains that it eliminates late game drama and that's just absurd. If anything, if creates more late game drama! Late inning AL games are far too often a bore to get through. NL games are far more likely to be exciting in the late innings. I've watched enough games of both, I know. I'd much rather watch the late innings of an NL game than the same of an AL game.
I feel more sympathy for Adam Dunn (and FWIW, when he was referring to Ortiz I have to imagine he was also thinking of himself). But I don't think Dunn was thinking straight. First he was a big proponent of the idea, then he flipped and was a staunch opponent. I don't mind someone changing their mind, I just don't think he gave the idea that much thought before he was asked his opinion on it. Dunn's biggest problem with it seemed to be that David Ortiz would no longer ever get to bat in late innings. Then he was worried Ortiz would never get to bat if the SP was yanked early enough. And neither is true, Ortiz would more likely be switched into the field. I don't think Stark explained that to him.
And then finally, he had a problem with Lenny Harris being "as valuable" as David Ortiz? Well, I don't think that's quite true. Ortiz is still likely to get 2, 3, 4, or more PAs a game while Harris is likely to get only 1 or 2. Sure, Harris might get more chances at the game winning RBI and get celebrated after the game, but no one in their right mind isn't going to still appreciate what an Ortiz would do in his numerous PAs.
Nah, the more I think about this, the more I love it.