The Designated Hitter debate

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

You don't think some astute people, having never been introduced to the game, would ask why one particular field player doesn't have to bat whereas one particular batter doesn't have to field?

And surely they would take whatever you tell them as given. Rules are just rules, and you don't question why chess pieces move in specific ways.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

The thing that always got me, in high school or little league, isn't the ace pitcher usually the best hitter on the team too. And you see it a lot in college too. Every year in the CWS there are a number of ace pitchers who DH on their off days. So what happens to these guys between boyhood stardom and big league stardom?

Isn't that the same case in a lot of professions? Engineering jobs are a lot like that. College engineering students are jack of all trades, and whoever good at one subject are often good at others too. Nobody does it all at the "big league" level either.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And surely they would take whatever you tell them as given. Rules are just rules, and you don't question why chess pieces move in specific ways.

Sure you can, why does a knight have the ability to move through pieces, but the rest dont?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

Sure you can, why does a knight have the ability to move through pieces, but the rest dont?

You CAN question, but a reasonable guy WON'T mind it. Rules are just rules, and you just play a game by the rules.

You don't question why a knight moves that way because you don't really care, and you don't have the prejustice of how moves should be in specific ways.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

You CAN question, but a reasonable guy WON'T mind it. Rules are just rules, and you just play a game by the rules.

You don't question why a knight moves that way because you don't really care, and you don't have the prejustice of how moves should be in specific ways.

But I do care why a knight has that ability, just as I care why the DH exists.

[ctorg]

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.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Why stop at just a DH for the pitcher?

For the reason I mentioned before: there's an absolutely clear demarcation between the hitting ability of pitchers and the hitting ability of everyone else. Every single other position has an average OPS between 90% and 110% of the overall league average. Pitchers are at about 40%, and have been under 50% for many decades.

Every other position has stars who are .900 or 1.000 OPS players. Catchers have Mike Piazza. Many second basemen and shortstops are great hitters. In the past 50 years it's been extremely rare for a pitcher to be a good enough with the bat to even qualify as a poor hitter at any other position. The highest career OPS for a pitcher since 1980 is .673, by Dan Schatzeder.

Pitchers' futility at the plate was unique in baseball before the DH, so it's not that odd to have a unique solution to deal with their ineptness.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

For the reason I mentioned before: there's an absolutely clear demarcation between the hitting ability of pitchers and the hitting ability of everyone else. Every single other position has an average OPS between 90% and 110% of the overall league average. Pitchers are at about 40%, and have been under 50% for many decades.

Every other position has stars who are .900 or 1.000 OPS players. Catchers have Mike Piazza. Many second basemen and shortstops are great hitters. In the past 50 years it's been extremely rare for a pitcher to be a good enough with the bat to even qualify as a poor hitter at any other position. The highest career OPS for a pitcher since 1980 is .673, by Dan Schatzeder.

Pitchers' futility at the plate was unique in baseball before the DH, so it's not that odd to have a unique solution to deal with their ineptness.

I guess then the question becomes is it a problem that pitchers are bad hitters?

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

For the reason I mentioned before: there's an absolutely clear demarcation between the hitting ability of pitchers and the hitting ability of everyone else. Every single other position has an average OPS between 90% and 110% of the overall league average. Pitchers are at about 40%, and have been under 50% for many decades.

Every other position has stars who are .900 or 1.000 OPS players. Catchers have Mike Piazza. Many second basemen and shortstops are great hitters. In the past 50 years it's been extremely rare for a pitcher to be a good enough with the bat to even qualify as a poor hitter at any other position. The highest career OPS for a pitcher since 1980 is .673, by Dan Schatzeder.

Pitchers' futility at the plate was unique in baseball before the DH, so it's not that odd to have a unique solution to deal with their ineptness.

To me it is a band aid for the fact that pitchers don't concentrate on hitting. It removes from the game something that I really like: the idea that each person in the field must also take a place in the lineup. Those who concentrate too hard on one or the other will be lacking, so those who can do both are more valuable. I prefer to either have two squads or have everyone do both things. The middle ground is not a comfortable setup for me. Obviously you feel a bit differently. There is no right or wrong, really.

[mikev]

A lot of relief pitchers and closers don't hit in the national league, either. Maybe we should get rid of relief pitchers since they don't take a place in the lineup.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by mikev

A lot of relief pitchers and closers don't hit in the national league, either. Maybe we should get rid of relief pitchers since they don't take a place in the lineup.

That's true. Trevor Hoffman may get into the HOF with a career batting line of 4-for-33, while pitching in 747 games. That's about as specialized as any player has ever been. Frank Thomas and Harold Baines played a lot more two-way baseball than Hoffman ever has.

Edit: the unchallenged substitute rule didn't come into effect until 1891. Maybe we should go back to the pure, unaltered state of the sport, and get rid of ultra-specialized late inning substitutes. If you can't play two ways for the whole game, why play at all?

Originally Posted by dudeosu

I guess then the question becomes is it a problem that pitchers are bad hitters?

I guess that's completely subjective. But I can't think of many (any?) other situations where professional athletes are routinely asked to perform specialized, specific tasks they're only competent doing at a high school, or very, very low professional level.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by mikev

A lot of relief pitchers and closers don't hit in the national league, either. Maybe we should get rid of relief pitchers since they don't take a place in the lineup.

But they do have to take a place in the lineup. That's the point. They still become a strategic obstacle, something to be dealt with or double-switched into the game. There is no way around it in the NL. If you put your best reliever in in the bottom of the 8th inning and his spot comes up in the top of the ninth, you have to consider whether it is worth pinch hitting for him or not. I like that.