Fictional League: To DH or no DH???

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by uruguru

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.

Isn't this specifically a thread to discuss why each of us prefer either DH or non-DH? I'm giving my own personal opinion, which is that DH adds a lot of depth because it means you can do something with your bench other than just add ~100 to the wRC+ of a hitter 4 times a game.

It has nothing to do with money or post-hoc rationalization. I much prefer the DH game, prefer watching baseball with DHs, and find the game a lot more strategically complex with DHs.

[AdequateRandomGaming]

The invention of the DH is ridiculously high on the spectrum of bad human inventions. It's up there with pumpkin spice and the formation of the band Nickelback. Definitely not great company to be with.

[klkitchens]

Originally Posted by kq76

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.

cool, thanks for that correction. He did come up with orange baseballs though, right?

[klkitchens]

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.

Wasn't disingenuous at all. The fact of my point remains the same. If you DH for the SS (or any position) who hits below the Mendoza line, then eventually SS will hit worse and worse because they don't get enough at bats. Sure pitchers are in 1/5 of the games and already have an at bat reduction (thus reducing their chance to improve and keep their skills up), but it doesn't change the main purity that the same nine field and the same nine bat.

If there is strategy with the DH, it's far less than the strategy required without the DH -- at the very best that's a wash in terms of an argument.

Yes, there are many who imagine the DH is better... and the AL was their petri dish. But like a virus from a lab, the DH has escaped and infected the NL now too, probably for ever. MLB is now a zombified version of baseball.

[klkitchens]

Originally Posted by uruguru

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

probably some long extra inning games would prove this.

Well maybe not...

https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...98507040.shtml

The 19-inning July 4th game in 1985, only three PH for the actual P (who was double-switched in the 8th spot). And because of the drain on the bench, the PITCHER, Rick Camp hit the game tying home run in the 18th.

THAT is pure baseball. No ghost runners. No DH crap. Just a wonderful, game that was over "when it was over".

Originally Posted by uruguru

Look, no one is arguing anymore for the DH to be eliminated.

I am. I will till I'm dead (like MLB is currently dead).

Yes, the owners are in the business to make money. But find ways to do that without bastardizing the game.

I would never tell my sister (if I had one) to change herself to meet some fickle man's perceptions of what makes a woman great. MLB should not have ruined baseball just to get more fans. Find way to educate fans on the game the way it is. Next thing you know we will have aluminum bats, GMO baseballs, and all other sorts of nonsense.

Don't believe me? Look at the other crap they've changed the last few years to make it "better" (which they've failed to do). Profitable sure, but not better by any stretch.

[klkitchens]

Originally Posted by AdequateRandomGaming

The invention of the DH is ridiculously high on the spectrum of bad human inventions. It's up there with pumpkin spice and the formation of the band Nickelback. Definitely not great company to be with.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by klkitchens

Just a wonderful, game that was over "when it was over".

Bad for TV, though, and that's too much money to turn down. Those broadcasters need content that begins and ends in well-defined time slots so that they don't interfere with the non-sports programming. TV = extra innings bad. MLB Owners = ghost runners?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by klkitchens

probably some long extra inning games would prove this.

Well maybe not...

https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...98507040.shtml

The 19-inning July 4th game in 1985, only three PH for the actual P (who was double-switched in the 8th spot). And because of the drain on the bench, the PITCHER, Rick Camp hit the game tying home run in the 18th.

I found this one:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...96804150.shtml

Mets used 4 PH for their pitchers, the Astros used 3.

Of course, the game was 24 innings long, the longest 1-0 game in MLB history. Two hapless offenses against two star pitchers (Seaver & Wilson). The Mets used 7 relievers, the Astros 4.

It was the Year of the Pitcher, in the Astrodome. Even the All-Star Game in the dome finished with a 1-0 score that year.

[klkitchens]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Bad for TV, though, and that's too much money to turn down. Those broadcasters need content that begins and ends in well-defined time slots so that they don't interfere with the non-sports programming. TV = extra innings bad. MLB Owners = ghost runners?

And fortunately for them, those are very rare. But ruining the game as a whole for the sake of outliers is insanity.

But likewise, breaking news doesn't start and end in well-defined time slots either... but it still happens and is still covered.

[koohead]

.

[uruguru]

I don't even understand the Nickelback hate. I looked it up once and it was all traced back to some comedian slagging them online as a joke, and it just caught on and became a meme to hate on Nickelback.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I don't even understand the Nickelback hate. I looked it up once and it was all traced back to some comedian slagging them online as a joke, and it just caught on and became a meme to hate on Nickelback.

Wildly off topic lol. The only people that hate Nickelback are those that are easily influenced by memes

[kq76]

Originally Posted by klkitchens

... the main purity that the same nine field and the same nine bat.

I see good and bad in both games and I do have an appreciation for the same nine bat as those who field, but I wouldn't use the "purity" argument. To say that there was ever a purity about baseball suggests that it was instantly born the way you like it, like a baby, like some God gave someone a dream telling them, "here it is, now go forth and spread this game". Yeah, no, if you look back at the rules, pre-and post-Knickerbocker rules, I'm sure you'll see rules that you'd think were crazy. The game has clearly evolved. It even evolves without anyone really meaning to change it, like with how players took longer and longer to the point where recently the game was so long people had had enough and pitch clocks were deemed necessary. You may have an opinion on the high water mark of the game, but to say it was once pure, unadulterated if you will, is just silly. Unless you truly know how exactly the game was first played and honestly enjoy that game more than today's, but I don't think anyone can really say for sure what the game was first like, not even baseball's pre-eminent historians.

Besides, if you maintain a certain state of the game, from any point in its history, you're short-changing yourself. If we took a poll of thousands and thousands of baseball fans I have no doubt that some of the new rules would be voted down, even after giving some time for people to get used to them, but I'm also sure some of the new rules would be approved. By giving things a chance you give yourself an opportunity to improve and you can always revert the bad.

From this thread and the one you started, it sounds like you've disallowed yourself from even the possibility of enjoying any change of the game from some point in time and I think that's just rather sad. It's okay to have a favourite time period (a lot of us here, including myself, have a great appreciation for the game of the mid-80s), but allow yourself the possibility to enjoy changes. Otherwise you might really miss out on something better, like hopefully one day a hybrid DH.

[zappa1]

I have a 40 team fictional setup with no DH at all. I started it in 1968 though. If as I move along the game adds it at some point, I'll go with that. I'm in 1972 now and still no DH. By the way I like it very much.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by kq76

I see good and bad in both games and I do have an appreciation for the same nine bat as those who field, but I wouldn't use the "purity" argument. To say that there was ever a purity about baseball suggests that it was instantly born the way you like it, like a baby, like some God gave someone a dream telling them, "here it is, now go forth and spread this game". Yeah, no, if you look back at the rules, pre-and post-Knickerbocker rules, I'm sure you'll see rules that you'd think were crazy. The game has clearly evolved. It even evolves without anyone really meaning to change it, like with how players took longer and longer to the point where recently the game was so long people had had enough and pitch clocks were deemed necessary. You may have an opinion on the high water mark of the game, but to say it was once pure, unadulterated if you will, is just silly. Unless you truly know how exactly the game was first played and honestly enjoy that game more than today's, but I don't think anyone can really say for sure what the game was first like, not even baseball's pre-eminent historians.

Besides, if you maintain a certain state of the game, from any point in its history, you're short-changing yourself. If we took a poll of thousands and thousands of baseball fans I have no doubt that some of the new rules would be voted down, even after giving some time for people to get used to them, but I'm also sure some of the new rules would be approved. By giving things a chance you give yourself an opportunity to improve and you can always revert the bad.

From this thread and the one you started, it sounds like you've disallowed yourself from even the possibility of enjoying any change of the game from some point in time and I think that's just rather sad. It's okay to have a favourite time period (a lot of us here, including myself, have a great appreciation for the game of the mid-80s), but allow yourself the possibility to enjoy changes. Otherwise you might really miss out on something better, like hopefully one day a hybrid DH.

Great post.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kq76

I see good and bad in both games and I do have an appreciation for the same nine bat as those who field, but I wouldn't use the "purity" argument. To say that there was ever a purity about baseball suggests that it was instantly born the way you like it, like a baby, like some God gave someone a dream telling them, "here it is, now go forth and spread this game". Yeah, no, if you look back at the rules, pre-and post-Knickerbocker rules, I'm sure you'll see rules that you'd think were crazy. The game has clearly evolved. It even evolves without anyone really meaning to change it, like with how players took longer and longer to the point where recently the game was so long people had had enough and pitch clocks were deemed necessary. You may have an opinion on the high water mark of the game, but to say it was once pure, unadulterated if you will, is just silly. Unless you truly know how exactly the game was first played and honestly enjoy that game more than today's, but I don't think anyone can really say for sure what the game was first like, not even baseball's pre-eminent historians.

Besides, if you maintain a certain state of the game, from any point in its history, you're short-changing yourself. If we took a poll of thousands and thousands of baseball fans I have no doubt that some of the new rules would be voted down, even after giving some time for people to get used to them, but I'm also sure some of the new rules would be approved. By giving things a chance you give yourself an opportunity to improve and you can always revert the bad.

From this thread and the one you started, it sounds like you've disallowed yourself from even the possibility of enjoying any change of the game from some point in time and I think that's just rather sad. It's okay to have a favourite time period (a lot of us here, including myself, have a great appreciation for the game of the mid-80s), but allow yourself the possibility to enjoy changes. Otherwise you might really miss out on something better, like hopefully one day a hybrid DH.

Exactly. We need to be embracing new things, not crying about stuff that's been in the game for 50 years now. I also feel like what the "purists" seem to truly hate are new rules. You don't see them doing much of anything to try to implement rules to get up to date with the huge changes in the ways people view and analyze baseball today. I mean, there are literally "purists" in here deriding the pitch clock as if the addition of the pitch clock doesn't push the game back to the pace it was played at during the 70s and earlier.

To the DH, I do my fake old times league where I'm currently in 1972 and man oh man I have got to say, I am raaaarin for that designated hitter rule. For one thing, I did grow up in an AL town (Seattle!) and so it doesn't bother me so much in the first place. For another, holy moly is '72 bad - it's basically The Year of the Pitcher 2, with ERAs sitting in the low 3s and leaguewide OBPs barely cresting .300. To the weirdo question before... I'm not sure I've pinch-hit for the pitcher 4 times in a game yet although I've come close and the only reason I didn't get there was that I ran out of the bench in a couple of the 19 inning games I've played out (which yes, those might sound fun from afar but in reality they're kind of just big long slogs where eventually you have to either choose to destroy your entire bullpen for one game or just plain ruin one guy for the next week). An extra hitter would go a long way towards eliminating those things.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

For one thing, I did grow up in an AL town (Seattle!) and so it doesn't bother me so much in the first place.

This is it exactly. People need to drop the pseudo-intellectualism about which set of rules is better and acknowledge that the most formative part of their opinion is what team they followed as a kid. Sort of like the old argument about your religion of preference being highly correlated to what country you were born in.


However, I will say that there is an appeal in arguing that everyone on a MLB team should own a glove and be able to use it. Being able to field and throw are traditionally two of the fundamental skills of the game.


Being anti-DH does not mean I am against new rules. It just means I am against that rule in particular.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by uruguru

This is it exactly. People need to drop the pseudo-intellectualism about which set of rules is better and acknowledge that the most formative part of their opinion is what team they followed as a kid. Sort of like the old argument about your religion of preference being highly correlated to what country you were born in.

Again, I would ask that you please stop insulting or pretending like some opinions are less valid, just because you disagree.

I grew up in Montreal following the Expos.

[uruguru]

huh. I thought you were the guy who started calling someone's opinion extremely disingenuous.

I think they are all opinions and none are more valid than the other.

[84Cubs]

I was a long time advocate for no DH in real life. But other than some entertaining moments like a pitcher hitting a homer, I don't want to watch a pitcher hit nor do I want to risk having a pitcher get injured by hitting or running the bases.

I understand it takes away strategy, but I don't think having pitchers hit improves the product.