The Designated Hitter debate

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

And again, if there's the option to use the DH, why not have the option to designate other tasks be done for players who aren't that good at them?

Because there aren't any other valuable, regular tasks that one group of players is so abysmal at doing. It's not like all third basemen run a 28 second 100-yard dash. It's not like all first basemen have the range of a rock and the throwing arm of a 3-year-old girl. The DH is there for the one, specific situation where a group of baseball players is regularly called upon to do something they can't do at anything close to a major league level.

It would be like kickers and punters in football. They're not required to be multi-taskers because fans don't enjoy seeing 160-lb guys regularly getting compound fractures being smashed by real football players, or little guys with one-bar facemasks trying to cover T.O., or 260-lb lineman-kickers shanking extra points. Most people want to see, you know, football. Again, a sport with one specific situation where a specialist is a million times better than a multi-tasker.

If it has to be that way, why? If they've chosen to not be any good, then so be it, they can't hit when they come to bat.

Because pitching is hard, and it requires specalized skills, aptitude and training that make it extremely difficult to also become a good batter. It's become harder over time - pitcher's relative hitting has declined from the 1860s through today, and that decline continues.

Pitchers have to concentrate on pitching, hitters on hitting. At very low levels of competition natural skills still dominate over learned, honed, taught abilities so some players can both pitch and hit. But as the sport gets harder over time and as players need to work harder to become successful in one area the other atrophies.

If somone devoted half their time to honing their position player skills, and half their time to pitching they'd probably end up halfway good at both. And halfway good would make you the second baseman/pitcher of the Atlantic City Surf.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by attackemu

I think there's actually a bit less strategy without the DH. Pinch-hitting for pitchers is pretty much automatic. It's usually very clear when to do it and when not to do it. If things like double-switches, which are also pretty obvious, are what that argument refers to, color me confused.

Yeah, it more or less forced the manager to use pinch hitters and relievers at specific times. That means the manager's job is handicapped and easier. It definitely reduce the stress of when to take out a starter.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Because there aren't any other valuable, regular tasks that one group of players is so abysmal at doing. It's not like all third basemen run a 28 second 100-yard dash. It's not like all first basemen have the range of a rock and the throwing arm of a 3-year-old girl. The DH is there for the one, specific situation where a group of baseball players is regularly called upon to do something they can't do at anything close to a major league level.

It would be like kickers and punters in football. They're not required to be multi-taskers because fans don't enjoy seeing 160-lb guys regularly getting compound fractures being smashed by real football players, or little guys with one-bar facemasks trying to cover T.O., or 260-lb lineman-kickers shanking extra points. Most people want to see, you know, football. Again, a sport with one specific situation where a specialist is a million times better than a multi-tasker.

The fundamental structure of baseball is different than football. Baseball rules, basically, say that there are 9 players in the field and when they bat each of those 9 comes to the plate. But then someone had the idea because a particular group of those players can't hit as well, that someone else should do it for them. Does anyone else see this as coddling an idea?

I acknowledge that pitchers are bad hitters, but so what? Does that really take anything away from the game? If they're bad, they're bad. It's part of the game, at least it used to be.

If there was something inherently dangerous about a pitcher batting, then your football analogy may work, but we see it everday in the NL.

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Because pitching is hard, and it requires specalized skills, aptitude and training that make it extremely difficult to also become a good batter. It's become harder over time - pitcher's relative hitting has declined from the 1860s through today, and that decline continues.

Pitchers have to concentrate on pitching, hitters on hitting. At very low levels of competition natural skills still dominate over learned, honed, taught abilities so some players can both pitch and hit. But as the sport gets harder over time and as players need to work harder to become successful in one area the other atrophies.

If somone devoted half their time to honing their position player skills, and half their time to pitching they'd probably end up halfway good at both. And halfway good would make you the second baseman/pitcher of the Atlantic City Surf.

I still don't see why the two are mutually exclusive, or why someone can't become good at all aspects. I think pitchers are bad since the way the game is played doesn't require them to be good.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

The fundamental structure of baseball is different than football. Baseball rules, basically, say that there are 9 players in the field and when they bat each of those 9 comes to the plate. But then someone had the idea because a particular group of those players can't hit as well, that someone else should do it for them. Does anyone else see this as coddling an idea?

I acknowledge that pitchers are bad hitters, but so what? Does that really take anything away from the game? If they're bad, they're bad. It's part of the game, at least it used to be.

If there was something inherently dangerous about a pitcher batting, then your football analogy may work, but we see it everday in the NL.



I still don't see why the two are mutually exclusive, or why someone can't become good at all aspects. I think pitchers are bad since the way the game is played doesn't require them to be good.

Don't you think arguments like this are more excuses why it's OK not having DH, while admitting DH is better at the same time?

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

I still don't see why the two are mutually exclusive, or why someone can't become good at all aspects. I think pitchers are bad since the way the game is played doesn't require them to be good.

They're mutually exclusive because it's too hard. Do you really think that pitchers choose to hit like crap? Of course not. They just can't devote the time and effort necessary to become good hitters and good pitchers at the same time. If it was possible, someone in the past 25 or 30 years would have done it. But since 1980 the highest OPS for a pitcher (min 100 AB) is .679, and the average is .363.

Of course the game doesn't require them to be good hitters, because the compromise required for that to happen would be a serious decline in their pitching ability.

Players work out all the time, they hire personal trainers, personal nutritionists, they go to winter ball to hone their skills, they go to crazy offseason boot camps to stay in top shape, guys like Nolan Ryan would ride the bike for hours after a 120-pitch start, some of them take dangerous, illegal drugs to boost their performance... yet you argue that pitchers can't hit just because they they can get away with it? I find that notion ridiculous.

If there was a pitcher who could pitch 200 innings to a 3.50 and put up an .850 OPS he'd make $25M a year. The incentive is there - it's just an impossible goal.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Don't you think arguments like this are more excuses why it's OK not having DH, while admitting DH is better at the same time?

I'm not quite getting what you're saying. I don't think the DH is better as a rule. Yeah, a DH is a better hitter than a pitcher.

CBL-Commish, I'll have to concede that one to ya. I disagree that it's impossible, but I'll agree that it is extraordinarily improbable to the point it might as well be impossible.

But (you knew this was coming), IMO, that a pitcher can't hit well doesn't mean that he shouldn't hit at all.

I wanted to stay away from the strategy and "spirit of the game" arguments but I can't really separate them from what I want to say.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

But (you knew this was coming), IMO, that a pitcher can't hit well doesn't mean that he shouldn't hit at all.

That's fine. I don't like watching really bad hitters hit, others disagree. I can deal with that. They're not going to have the DH in the NL anytime soon, so you can get your .056-hitter fix anytime you want.

[reds1]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Game.set.match

Nah, don't like that.

He basically flunked out in the NL and didn't find success until he hooked up with free spending Yanks.

And wasn't it Torre who said that his job didn't really start until the 6th inning?

Lazy bum.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

But only one is man enough to pitch. Too bad he plays with eight wimps.

Eight wimps who will come back and play four more games while the pitcher "rests" ?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

I'm not quite getting what you're saying. I don't think the DH is better as a rule. Yeah, a DH is a better hitter than a pitcher.

CBL-Commish, I'll have to concede that one to ya. I disagree that it's impossible, but I'll agree that it is extraordinarily improbable to the point it might as well be impossible.

But (you knew this was coming), IMO, that a pitcher can't hit well doesn't mean that he shouldn't hit at all.

I wanted to stay away from the strategy and "spirit of the game" arguments but I can't really separate them from what I want to say.

Well, other than the spirit of the game or tradition, there just doesn't seem to be any specific benefit of not having DH.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by attackemu

I think there's actually a bit less strategy without the DH. Pinch-hitting for pitchers is pretty much automatic. It's usually very clear when to do it and when not to do it. If things like double-switches, which are also pretty obvious, are what that argument refers to, color me confused.

But there's practically no meaningful pinch-hitting in the AL. How could there possibly be more strategy with next to no meaningful pinch-hitting? That makes no sense. Practically the only time I see pinch-hitting in the AL is just to get some time for a backup or bring in a starter who is having a day off but you find yourself down so you bring him in. Those are the no-brainers. What's not a no-brainer is having to decide whether you should give up a pitcher who is pitching well for a better hitter. Now I'll give you that it's become less of a problem with pitchers pitching so few innings, but that's another problem.

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why can't baseball be like football, where you always find whoever best for a job to do that job. Football has advanced away from the amateurish "one player, several roles" for a long time.

This is my nightmare. Damn football. If only more Americans preferred soccer, hockey or basketball to football.

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

They're mutually exclusive because it's too hard. Do you really think that pitchers choose to hit like crap? Of course not. They just can't devote the time and effort necessary to become good hitters and good pitchers at the same time. If it was possible, someone in the past 25 or 30 years would have done it. But since 1980 the highest OPS for a pitcher (min 100 AB) is .679, and the average is .363.

Of course the game doesn't require them to be good hitters, because the compromise required for that to happen would be a serious decline in their pitching ability.

Players work out all the time, they hire personal trainers, personal nutritionists, they go to winter ball to hone their skills, they go to crazy offseason boot camps to stay in top shape, guys like Nolan Ryan would ride the bike for hours after a 120-pitch start, some of them take dangerous, illegal drugs to boost their performance... yet you argue that pitchers can't hit just because they they can get away with it? I find that notion ridiculous.

If there was a pitcher who could pitch 200 innings to a 3.50 and put up an .850 OPS he'd make $25M a year. The incentive is there - it's just an impossible goal.

Not all pitchers work that hard on their pitching and even the ones that do I'm sure could find some time to work on their hitting if they really wanted to. The thing is they wouldn't get to bat much anyway and most are so far away from having a replacement level OPS that most probably figure it's not worth even trying. If even one pitcher got consistently decent at hitting while not seeing his pitching noticeably suffer, I'm sure at least some other pitchers would try to see if they could do it too. Of course, it would help if pitchers in the minor leagues and the AL hit because then we'd have a better chance at seeing someone do that. As it is, it's hard to blame them for feeling it's just not worth the effort.

[kq76]

The way I see it, some things are just right the way they are. Not everything needs to be suped up. Often the most beautiful things are the most simple. I could get a digital watch with a whole bunch of funky features, but I don't want that. Give me a simple, albeit nice-looking, one that has two hands and I'll cherish it more than any other. Now I don't know what the sales numbers on watches are and I'm sure there are many many people who prefer that digital watch with the backlit glow and a bazillion other features, but how many of us grow out of that stage and end up going back to the simple sundial style? I can't remember the last time I saw someone with a digital watch while I'm pretty sure everyone I know opts for the old style.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by kq76

But there's practically no meaningful pinch-hitting in the AL. How could there possibly be more strategy with next to no meaningful pinch-hitting? That makes no sense. Practically the only time I see pinch-hitting in the AL is just to get some time for a backup or bring in a starter who is having a day off but you find yourself down so you bring him in. Those are the no-brainers. What's not a no-brainer is having to decide whether you should give up a pitcher who is pitching well for a better hitter. Now I'll give you that it's become less of a problem with pitchers pitching so few innings, but that's another problem.

That's not true at all. Meaningful late game subs are about matchups, both for pitchers and hitters. I have no idea how you'd consider them "time for a backup". If you consider those no brainers, it just means you under-estimated the importance of them.

Double switch basically is a forced move that burnt up two options of a manger at the same time.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by kq76

This is my nightmare. Damn football. If only more Americans preferred soccer, hockey or basketball to football.

Ever notice how goalies play by a different set of rules than the rest of the team in soccer and hockey?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why can't baseball be like football, where you always find whoever best for a job to do that job. Football has advanced away from the amateurish "one player, several roles" for a long time.

I think I'd find the NFL twice as interesting if teams had 30 players, the starting 11 played both sides of the ball, and substitutions were made to gain a specific advantage in a particular situation with the knowledge that you'd be downgrading overall value at one position for the rest of the game. Would introduce more strategy to personnel decisions, I think, without necessarily requiring players to play iron-man style for an entire game.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's not true at all. Meaningful late game subs are about matchups, both for pitchers and hitters. I have no idea how you'd consider them "time for a backup". If you consider those no brainers, it just means you under-estimated the importance of them.

Double switch basically is a forced move that burnt up two options of a manger at the same time.

What's "not true at all"? I honestly don't see all that much meaningful (as in it really matters) pinch hitting in the AL. It's almost as if managers have it in their heads, "Well, I've already got my best 9 out there". This business about all these great strategic managers? Give me a break. Nowadays all you probably need in an AL manager is somebody with psychiatrist skills to handle all the egos. With the lower scoring environment of the NL you need to make moves (not just pinch-hitting) to scrape out a run here and there. With the DH and the higher scoring run environment all they do is just line those guys up and go base by base. Yeah sure, there is some meaningful pinch-hitting going on, but attackemu said there's more strategy with the DH. How often is a DH meaningfully pinch-hit for? Not very often. How often is pitcher meaningfully pinch hit for? A whole lot more. And even when you do pinch hit for a DH, you're only considering who is a better hitter, not that you'd also be losing your starting pitcher who could be having a good game. I'm not even making the argument that there is more strategy without the DH (I do think that, but I'm not going to bother arguing it), I'm just saying it's nonsense to say there's less.

When I said get some time for a backup, I meant when it's a blow-out managers will often let a bench player get some playing time. That's certainly not meaningful pinch-hitting.

Me under-estimating? Maybe it's just you over-estimating how important it is to give a bench player some playing time in a blow-out or how difficult it is to see that one player has better match-up stats.

Originally Posted by mlyons

Ever notice how goalies play by a different set of rules than the rest of the team in soccer and hockey?

Ever notice how goalies contribute to offense too? Ever notice how goalies are limited by where they are on the field/ice?

[attackemu]

Well, pinch-hitting, even in the NL, is of pretty secondary strategic importance. The most important thing a manager does strategically is make pitching changes. In the National League, as skipaway pointed out, that's an obvious decision 99% of the time when the pitcher's coming up to bat. In the American League, the decision is much different because you only have to factor in match-ups and how well your pitchers are pitching on a given day.

For example, if your left-handed starter has thrown 110 pitches going into the 7th inning of a time game, has pitched a good game, but has three right-handed batters coming up to face him, do you leave him in? If you're a National League team, and he's due to bat in the 6th, its an easy decision. Not so much for an American League manager. Hell, if the American League didn't have the DH, Pedro Martinez would have pulled in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS for sure. No-one would argue the importance of that strategic decision.

And if there isn't any meaningful pinch-hitting in the AL, anyway, that's bad managing. A good manager would exploit matchups in late innings of close games, and use pinch hitters lots of times.

[attackemu]

dola,

and the NL featured more home runs, doubles and triples than the AL this year so I don't know that I'd argue they need to "make more moves to scrape out a run."

[Prodigal Son]

If you really wanted to make a football analogy, you'd have to use a position that was fundamentally different from all the others. So maybe a punter. A pitcher is like a punter--and there are a ton of different rules for engaging the punter on the football field compared to the other positions. Same with the kicker. Same with the QB, for that matter. You can hit every other player with the ball below the knees except for him.

It's not unprecedented for sports to treat unique positions far differently than the others. Hell, soccer goalies can use their hands.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by kq76

What's "not true at all"? I honestly don't see all that much meaningful (as in it really matters) pinch hitting in the AL. It's almost as if managers have it in their heads, "Well, I've already got my best 9 out there". This business about all these great strategic managers? Give me a break. Nowadays all you probably need in an AL manager is somebody with psychiatrist skills to handle all the egos. With the lower scoring environment of the NL you need to make moves (not just pinch-hitting) to scrape out a run here and there. With the DH and the higher scoring run environment all they do is just line those guys up and go base by base. Yeah sure, there is some meaningful pinch-hitting going on, but attackemu said there's more strategy with the DH. How often is a DH meaningfully pinch-hit for? Not very often. How often is pitcher meaningfully pinch hit for? A whole lot more. And even when you do pinch hit for a DH, you're only considering who is a better hitter, not that you'd also be losing your starting pitcher who could be having a good game. I'm not even making the argument that there is more strategy without the DH (I do think that, but I'm not going to bother arguing it), I'm just saying it's nonsense to say there's less.

When I said get some time for a backup, I meant when it's a blow-out managers will often let a bench player get some playing time. That's certainly not meaningful pinch-hitting.

Me under-estimating? Maybe it's just you over-estimating how important it is to give a bench player some playing time in a blow-out or how difficult it is to see that one player has better match-up stats.



Ever notice how goalies contribute to offense too? Ever notice how goalies are limited by where they are on the field/ice?

When you got a lineup with a pitcher, it's obvious who your better pinch hitters would be replacing.

When you got a lineup with a DH, you'd have to actually use your pinch hitters under the right situation. One thing you didn't talk about at all is the reliever/pinch hitter match ups. That's one of the few chances for managers to have huge influences on the game.

In the case of NL, managers pretty much just replace hitters/pitchers by formula: whenever the pitcher is coming up to hit.

In AL, you change pitchers and hitters according to the game situation more.