The National League should adopt the DH

[MarkInCincy]

I HATE the DH and always will. Why not take even MORE strategy out of the game and have a designated runner for any player you designate in the lineup, so that every time your slowest, crappiest baserunner gets on the DR can run for him. Or a designated fielder with another DH hitting for them.

I will never think the DH is a good idea no matter the argument

[chucksabr]

Here, I have your divisions all picked out. This assumes a new franchise in Montreal and Charlotte (bold represent new franchises; italics represent league changes to make this work):

American League
East: Boston, Yankees, Montreal, Baltimore
North: Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, White Sox
Midwest: Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota
West: Seattle, Oakland, Angels, Colorado

National League
East: Mets, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh
South: Florida, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte
Midwest: Cubs, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee
West: San Francisco, Dodgers, Arizona, San Diego

And if Charlotte doesn't work as a major league expansion city―after all, it's a terrible AAA city, like Portland was―then put the new team in Indianapolis, put them in the Midwest with the Cubs et al., and move Cincinnati to the South.

This setup maintains league-franchise integrity to a significant degree―the only two clubs that move are 90s teams without generations-long history to protect―and you also keep all the significant baseball and geography rivalries intact.

You're welcome.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by MarkInCincy

I HATE the DH and always will. Why not take even MORE strategy out of the game and have a designated runner for any player you designate in the lineup, so that every time your slowest, crappiest baserunner gets on the DR can run for him. Or a designated fielder with another DH hitting for them.

I will never think the DH is a good idea no matter the argument

[MarkInCincy]

Since we've already headed down the slope, lets go all out 'specialization' ...
9 designated hitters in your 'offensive' lineup
8 designated fielders and a pitcher in your 'defensive' lineup
9 designated runners/bunters/hit and run/fly ball hitters for long SF chance for your 'special teams' lineup
of course if you wanted there could be overlap just like football

[joefromchicago]

I'm not convinced that the DH has increased the offense to any significant degree. For teams that use the DH, it just means that they can keep a weak-hitting catcher or middle infielder in the lineup. In effect, a pitcher who hits .133 is replaced by a shortstop who hits .220. Ho hum.

Apart from the effect on strategy, the biggest change wrought by the DH rule has been to lengthen AL games. Given that games are already too long, I don't think that's something that we should be encouraging.

[chucksabr]

Just looking at Baseball Reference, the American League had outscored the National League by an average of 7% since the advent of the DH. It was as high as 15.2% (1996), and was less than the NL only once: in 1974, just before the AL figured out that you didn't have to put your worst hitter in the DH spot.

This year the AL is outscoring the NL by 11.7%, which is on the high side.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I got a better idea: let's eliminate interleague games.

That's going to be a bit difficult with 15 teams in each league.

Originally Posted by chucksabr

I don't. I think 18 is enough.

Here's how you can get rid of interleague play: add one team to each league. Set up four 4-team divisions in each. Play each team in your division 18 times, play each team in the other three divisions nine times each.

Four-team divisions suck. Too little variety in opponents, too easy for one team to dominate. In addition, under your scheduling format, out-of-division games carry much more importance that divisional contests—108 games total out of the division compared to 54 within. That means divisional contests account for just one-third of the overall schedule. (NFL clubs play a higher proportion of their games against division rivals—6 out of 16 games, or 37.5% of the schedule.) With such an arrangement you get a higher chance for a division winner sporting a sub-.500 record.

Contrast this with the NL from 1969-92 and the AL in 1977-78 when clubs played 90 games inside their division and 72 games outside it (i.e. 55.6% of the schedule was divisional contests).

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

.122/.153/.152.

This right here.

I want the players to play the game. I like the fact that the manager makes minor decisions. It shouldn't be up to the manager to win a game by pinch hitting for the pitchers in the 6th or 7th inning and then doing a double switch. It should be the best players trying to get the best hitters out. That's strategy.

A pitcher has to strategize to get 9 hitters out vs. a pitcher strategizing to get 8 hitters out.

Easy choice for me.

[ra7c7er]

The NL can't adopt the DH until Bartolo Colon retires.


----


Also players get hurt all the time. The Wainwright injury shouldn't be a catalyst for a DH in the National League. We are so reactive and woe is me when star players get hurt. Nobody cared about home plate collisions till Buster Posey and Yadier Molina both got horrible injuries in the same year (you know what I mean people cared but untill star players started dropping it was green light to run over whatever scrub is behind the plate). Then all the sudden "We have to stop this barbarian play".

What about pitchers getting blasted in the face by line drives. That's a MUCH MUCH more serious thing that someday is going to kill someone in the MLB it already does at lower levels but nobody is clamoring for a pitching machines or BP screens for pitchers. Heck we don't even want BP screens for base coaches (why is this not a thing a couple years ago a guy lost an eye and in 2007 a coach was killed by a line drive)..... oh wait those guys weren't future HOF'ers. We will want BP screens for base coaches when a MLB base coach dies or suffers a catastrophic injury.

Injuries happen to players and, oh gosh, star players. We can't just say the game has to change because of one guy's injury. Non star players are hurt more seriously all the time at the plate and we don't care at all.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

The NL can't adopt the DH until Bartolo Colon retires.


----


Also players get hurt all the time. 1) The Wainwright injury shouldn't be a catalyst for a DH in the National League. We are so reactive and woe is me when star players get hurt. Nobody cared about home plate collisions till Buster Posey and Yadier Molina both got horrible injuries in the same year (you know what I mean people cared but untill star players started dropping it was green light to run over whatever scrub is behind the plate). Then all the sudden "We have to stop this barbarian play".

2) What about pitchers getting blasted in the face by line drives. That's a MUCH MUCH more serious thing that someday is going to kill someone in the MLB it already does at lower levels but nobody is clamoring for a pitching machines or BP screens for pitchers. Heck we don't even want BP screens for base coaches (why is this not a thing a couple years ago a guy lost an eye and in 2007 a coach was killed by a line drive)..... oh wait those guys weren't future HOF'ers. We will want BP screens for base coaches when a MLB base coach dies or suffers a catastrophic injury.

Injuries happen to players and, oh gosh, star players. We can't just say the game has to change because of one guy's injury. Non star players are hurt more seriously all the time at the plate and we don't care at all.

1) I don't think anyone is saying Wainwright's injury is a catalyst, not that I've seen anyway. I think it is just seen as yet another reason to continue an ongoing conversation - a conversation that seems to wax and wane and wax and wane.

2) I think baseball is really looking into how to address comebackers. I've heard of major leaguers testing head protection while throwing like normal to see how it would work, but so far all the head protection that's been tested has been a hinderance to pitching.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Here, I have your divisions all picked out. This assumes a new franchise in Montreal and Charlotte (bold represent new franchises; italics represent league changes to make this work):

American League
East: Boston, Yankees, Montreal, Baltimore
North: Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, White Sox
Midwest: Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota
West: Seattle, Oakland, Angels, Colorado

National League
East: Mets, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh
South: Florida, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte
Midwest: Cubs, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee
West: San Francisco, Dodgers, Arizona, San Diego

And if Charlotte doesn't work as a major league expansion city―after all, it's a terrible AAA city, like Portland was―then put the new team in Indianapolis, put them in the Midwest with the Cubs et al., and move Cincinnati to the South.

This setup maintains league-franchise integrity to a significant degree―the only two clubs that move are 90s teams without generations-long history to protect―and you also keep all the significant baseball and geography rivalries intact.

You're welcome.

Loved this when I saw Detroit in the same division as Toronto. But, I won't stand for any setup that leaves Houston in the AL I call for a do over. That being said, I do like the fact that this would get Texas and Houston out of the West.

[Westheim]

... and in turn I will say that the American League should lose the DH, and play ball like it oughta be.

I've already explained why I like NL baseball better in the last thread that struck the same spot in the landscape. Won't bother to go all in again. In short: more diverse, more exciting, more interesting game.

And it is true that this topic has been washed to the top again by Scherzer and Wainwright getting hurt in the same week. Like injuries batting can't happen to other players? Ask Giancarlo Stanton or Ryan Howard.

Meanwhile, I have little doubt that the DH will eventually spill over and spoil the NL's good baseball, if only because I am sure of two things: 1) people in controlling positions are stupid, and 2) the world hates me outright.

[CD1083]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

None of those things has anything whatever to do with my point about specialization.

I misinterpreted what you said. By bad.

[kq76]

Yeah, it's cool when a pitcher gets a hit, even better when they homer, but what's far more important is the drama involved in late inning NL games. Late inning AL games are too often fall asleep boring whereas NL games are almost never boring late. I love that with the NL game you're thinking along, "What should the manager do here? And if he does this then what about that?". With the AL game there's practically none of that. It's almost always the same 9 guys hitting all game long with time-dragging pitching change after pitching change.

I can't counter the DH fans' point that watching pitchers hit is too often boring and the increased risk of injury is concerning, except that it probably only happens on average twice per side a game, but still, it is a decent point.

There is a better solution though: the DH is in the game only as long as the starting pitcher stays in the game. After the starting pitcher leaves, it's NL rules. That means relievers could hit, but pinch hitters will probably be used instead.

Anti-DH fans argue that 9 men field, only 9 men should bat, but how often do relievers bat? Almost never. They're pinch-hit for, so why not SPs too?

With this solution you'd also see less reason to take out a SP pitching a great game. There's actually reason to keep him in longer because then you're not losing a player from losing the DH. The more innings by SPs, the less pitching changes, the better in my book.

I'd very much like to see the above SP-DH solution. I could see the AL trying it out first though (it doesn't take away their DH as he can be switched to the field yet it adds more late-inning drama) and then maybe the NL saying, "okay, that's not so bad, we could switch to that".

But if it's only a choice between the AL-DH or no DH, then definitely no DH. I think NL owners and fans alike appreciate the nuances of their game too much to switch to the AL style of play. There needs to be a better option like the one above or it'll, thankfully, never go to the NL.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Loved this when I saw Detroit in the same division as Toronto. But, I won't stand for any setup that leaves Houston in the AL I call for a do over. That being said, I do like the fact that this would get Texas and Houston out of the West.

How would you change it?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

How would you change it?

I would swap Milwaukee and Houston. The Astros used to be my gateway to the National League. Now, I still watch their games, because I can, but it's not near as fun.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I would swap Milwaukee and Houston. The Astros used to be my gateway to the National League. Now, I still watch their games, because I can, but it's not near as fun.

Hmm ... I suppose we could and it would be OK, although I think Milwaukee is a better fit with the Cubs and Cards than they are with the Rangers and Royals.

Although, speaking selfishly, it would mean the Tigers come to Milwaukee 1X or 2x each and every year, and I can live with that.

[swoboda]

No on the DH for the NL
more offense will come when the hitters adapt to cut down on strikeouts

[madjac74]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

All sports have become more specialized and to ignore that trend for 'tradition' misses the point of progress and evolution.

So where does that end? When we have pitchers who only make 1 pitch a game depending on the count and situation?

[Goody]

Originally Posted by madjac74

So where does that end? When we have pitchers who only make 1 pitch a game depending on the count and situation?

25 man roster kinda trumps that argument.