Fictional League: To DH or no DH???

[koohead]

I play a fictional league and for the first ~40 years of my league I have had 1 subleague have the DH and the other no DH. Just went through expansion and toying with rule changes I may implement to continue the league evolution (playoff structure, RP rules, shifts, roster size, etc). The first thing on the list is DH. curious what you all are doing with your fictional leagues. thanks!

[snepp]

I almost always play with DH in all leagues. The only time I don't is when I start a really small league with the intention of making it part of a planned evolution, usually coinciding with an expansion.

[Pelican]

I am no fan of the DH rule; but in contemporary sims (when the DH was in effect at least in the AL) I toggle it on everywhere, because i can’t tolerate two sets of rules. This is one reason I enjoy pre-DH era historical sims.

[Syd Thrift]

I've been going according to history in my dynasty so "next year" (I'm in late June of 1972) I'll be adding the DH to the AL. Growing up I was a fan of a team in the DH league so personally I'm not like super attached to the concept of pitchers hitting but I do like the way the two leagues had different rules for a long time and how that encouraged different strategy. It's also of course what I grew up with and probably the current generation of younger baseball fans, assuming there are any left, will likely prefer nothing but DHes.

YMMV though. If you've never done a non-DH league or vice versa that alone might be a good enough reason to implement (or not implement) the rule.

[Bluenoser]

36 Team Fictional MLB - No D/H either league.

The 9 players who take to the field with glove in hand are the same 9 who shall step to the plate with bat in hand.

[The Game]

IRL I love the DH, Baines is my all time favorite after all. In OOTP I hate it but I also hate the automatic out P's are. I prefer leagues without it but I do use it for both subleagues in my main league the EBL, MLB, EL DH, GL no. IBL does not have it.

[kq76]

IRL, no DH. In OOTP, yes DH.

I really enjoyed watching the late game moves of the no DH game, but for OOTP I like the roster flexibility of having the DH. Plus, I don't want to agonize too much over making hitting substitutions.

However, if I had my wish, we'd have a hybrid game where we'd have the best of both worlds. A DH would start, but you'd lose them once the SP left and you'd go to pitchers or pinch hitters hitting instead. That would also have the added benefit of encouraging teams to keep their starters in the game longer.

[Pelican]

So, confession. As my 1971 sim rolled into 1972, my Phillies had rookie Mike Schmidt (who had a stunning September in 1971) and Graig Nettles (acquired from the Native Americans for Don Money) at 3B. So I toggled on the DH Rule for both leagues, a year early for the AL, and fifty years early for the NL. So much for tradition. Not that other NL teams don’t have DH guys as well.

In softball, I recall we had not only ten guys in the field (4 OF - I was RCF) but both a DH and an “extra hitter” and the pitcher batted, so twelve guys in the batting order. The DH and EH were usually big slow fat guys who would be a huge liability in the field. You would think it would take a long time to turn over the batting order, but this was slow pitch, so the game scores looked like football scores, and we had limits on HR per team per game. LOL.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kq76

IRL, no DH. In OOTP, yes DH.

I really enjoyed watching the late game moves of the no DH game, but for OOTP I like the roster flexibility of having the DH. Plus, I don't want to agonize too much over making hitting substitutions.

However, if I had my wish, we'd have a hybrid game where we'd have the best of both worlds. A DH would start, but you'd lose them once the SP left and you'd go to pitchers or pinch hitters hitting instead. That would also have the added benefit of encouraging teams to keep their starters in the game longer.

I'm realizing now that when my league flips over, this will be the first time I've done a DH league in OOTP since... man, it's got to be over a decade.

[r0nster]

i like one subleague having DH the other no DH

[koohead]

Thanks for all the votes and details on your thoughts....interesting how the majority is one or the other and a distinct few have a mix.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by koohead

....interesting how the majority is one or the other and a distinct few have a mix.

I've never understood those who say, "I can't stand the leagues having different rules". To me that's like saying, "I only like chocolate ice cream and I don't want to ever try another flavour ever again". Chocolate ice cream is my favourite too, but I wouldn't want to not at least try something else every once in awhile.

I know, not everyone who would vote for only one would say that, but some do.

[klkitchens]

Originally Posted by koohead

I play a fictional league and for the first ~40 years of my league I have had 1 subleague have the DH and the other no DH. Just went through expansion and toying with rule changes I may implement to continue the league evolution (playoff structure, RP rules, shifts, roster size, etc). The first thing on the list is DH. curious what you all are doing with your fictional leagues. thanks!

Never use the DH, ever.

MLB should have made both leagues equal by removing the DH in the AL, not screwing up the NL!

[uruguru]

The DH was purely an AL ownership financial decision to sell as many tickets as the NL by scoring more runs. It had nothing to do with improving the actual game played on the field.

And for a long time, whether you were a fan of the DH depended highly on whether you followed an AL or an NL team.

I grew up in Houston, so no DH for me. It wasn't until I moved to Dallas that I met baseball fans who honestly thought it was better.

[klkitchens]

Originally Posted by uruguru

The DH was purely an AL ownership financial decision to sell as many tickets as the NL by scoring more runs. It had nothing to do with improving the actual game played on the field.

And for a long time, whether you were a fan of the DH depended highly on whether you followed an AL or an NL team.

I grew up in Houston, so no DH for me. It wasn't until I moved to Dallas that I met baseball fans who honestly thought it was better.

Yep... was Charley Finley who came up with IIRC. I've heard the AL fans claiming it was "better" because pitchers cannot hit... But some SS can't hit either and are in there for their gloves. Using the DH makes the same sense as having a Defensive-9 and an Offensive-9 and the two don't have to be the same at all. Why do this lunacy for a single position?

The DH was something to be tolerated during the All-Star game (in an AL park) or the World Series. I liked the Red Sox as my favorite AL team (my heart belonged to my Braves however), but still just put up with the DH when watching them from time to time. Then the abysmal interleague play came into fashion and more and more folks got on the all-DH bandwagon, imagining it was a better way.

Watched the Braves win their last WS and was excited to get back to watching baseball after all the off-field garbage that had been going around. Fired up game one of the 2022 season and saw that the DH had infected the NL and immediately turned it off.

With this and all the other new rules, the MLB had killed baseball for good.

I miss baseball since it died.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by klkitchens

Yep... was Charley Finley who came up with IIRC.

Oh, heck no. As best as we can tell, it was thought up by William Chase Temple back in 1891, 27 years before Finley was even born. And after that even more advocated for it, like Mack, Heydler, and McGraw. You could say Finley convinced the AL owners to adopt it, which counts for a lot, but he definitely did not come up with it.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by klkitchens

I've heard the AL fans claiming it was "better" because pitchers cannot hit... But some SS can't hit either and are in there for their gloves. Using the DH makes the same sense as having a Defensive-9 and an Offensive-9 and the two don't have to be the same at all. Why do this lunacy for a single position?

This is an extremely disingenuous argument. From 2000-2019, 35 pitchers had 500+ PAs. Their wRC+ ranged from 60 to -56, only two were above 50, and barely half (nineteen) were above 0. 184 SSs had 500+ PAs in that same timeframe. All but two were above 50 wRC+, and 161 were above 60 (the best pitcher).

You are free to have the opinion that no-DH is preferable to DH, but please don't frame it as if there's no possible way anyone could reasonably prefer the DH when many people think it vastly improves the game, makes it much more enjoyable to watch, and adds a ton of strategic depth to the manager's decisions.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

This is an extremely disingenuous argument. From 2000-2019, 35 pitchers had 500+ PAs. Their wRC+ ranged from 60 to -56, only two were above 50, and barely half (nineteen) were above 0. 184 SSs had 500+ PAs in that same timeframe. All but two were above 50 wRC+, and 161 were above 60 (the best pitcher).

You are free to have the opinion that no-DH is preferable to DH, but please don't frame it as if there's no possible way anyone could reasonably prefer the DH when many people think it vastly improves the game, makes it much more enjoyable to watch, and adds a ton of strategic depth to the manager's decisions.

The ability of pitchers to hit has diminished greatly as a result of the widespread adoption of the DH into the minor-leagues, so looking at pitcher offense since 2000 is, as you say, "extremely disingenuous".

Secondly, the widespread consensus opinion of the DH when it was introduced was that it removed strategic depth to the game because pitchers could now be freely swapped without any consideration to the effect on the lineup.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by uruguru

The ability of pitchers to hit has diminished greatly as a result of the widespread adoption of the DH into the minor-leagues, so looking at pitcher offense since 2000 is, as you say, "extremely disingenuous".

My apologies for trying to limit it to pitchers that most people watching baseball today had actually seen try and hit. I can certainly go further back if it makes you feel better.

1950-1999: 201 pitchers with 500+ PAs, the highest is 93 wRC+, only 8 are above 60 wRC+, and only 121 are above 0.

SS in that same timeframe: 318 overall, high of 135, 246 above 60, and none below 32.

Originally Posted by uruguru

Secondly, the widespread consensus opinion of the DH when it was introduced was that it removed strategic depth to the game because pitchers could now be freely swapped without any consideration to the effect on the lineup.

I can't speak to what the "widespread consensus" was decades before I was born. I can tell you that today, it seems quite clear to me that with our modern understanding of baseball, the DH adds a ton of strategic depth. "Should we have a 110 wRC+ hitter hit instead of the -25 wRC+ hitter?" is not a particularly interesting strategic question to me. The answer is yes, all but at most once in the game- which has the side-effect of removing any ability to PH, PR, or have defensive subs for the 8 other slots in the lineup since 4/5 of your bench needs to PH for a pitcher every single night.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

since 4/5 of your bench needs to PH for a pitcher every single night.

Find me any single game in the history of baseball where a team pinch-hit for their pitchers 4 times in a game.

Look, no one is arguing anymore for the DH to be eliminated. You guys won the argument. Just take a knee and enjoy your victory celebration. You don't need to fabricate bs arguments to rationalize why it was the best decision.

The owners are in the business to make money and the DH makes money. That's why we have it. Anything else is just post-hoc rationalization.