The National League should adopt the DH

[cephasjames]

The National League should adopt the designated hitter - Bless You Boys

Injuries to pitchers are not the primary argument for implementing the designated hitter universally. The fact that pitchers batting provides no redeeming quality to the game is the strongest reason.

MLB?s lack of universal designated hitter rule leaves modern game out of tune - SBNation.com

The American League did away with the practice of requiring pitchers to bat in 1973, creating the designated hitter position. National League teams are at somewhat of an advantage for interleague play, but the requirement that pitchers must hit can also be a momentum killer. So, are they really at an advantage?

The thread title comes from the title of the first article I posted. I personally think that pitchers batting should remain for NL only games. But for interleague games it should be 100% DH no matter where the games are played. Because both leagues know how to use a DH while both leagues do not know how to use pitchers batting.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I personally think that pitchers batting should remain for NL only games. But for interleague games it should be 100% DH no matter where the games are played. Because both leagues know how to use a DH while both leagues do not know how to use pitchers batting.

Seconded.

[stl jason]

another take on it... sort of disputes the quote that the NL has the advantage in interleague play...

Has the AL or the NL Benefited More from MLB's Interleague Play Era? | Bleacher Report


while I tend to be a traditionalist with regards to pitchers batting/strategy of the game; I think it's inevitable that both leagues will end up with the DH eventually...

[CD1083]

I understand both aspects of the argument, but I think of a baseball team as being nine people, not ten. While the pitcher does not normally provide any offensive ability, there are some pitchers who do and the strategy element of deciding when/if to pull a pitcher for a pinch hitter is something that makes the game incredibly nuanced.

[Leo_The_Lip]

I've always thought of DHers in the same light as punters and place kickers in the NFL. The game has long ago evolved to the point real players no longer kick, so why is it such a sin to have pitchers no longer bat?

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

[ra7c7er]

I'd rather see the pitcher hit. but eventually the DH will come over to the NL.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Nah. I prefer Natural League rules over Artificial League ones.

[CD1083]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

I've always thought of DHers in the same light as punters and place kickers in the NFL. The game has long ago evolved to the point real players no longer kick, so why is it such a sin to have pitchers no longer bat?

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

Do you think the intentional walk should be eliminated as well? Just send the batter to 1st? What about the dropped 3rd strike rule? Or the balk, or banning the shift? Some of these may seem crazy, but how close to an arcade game are we trying to get?

I agree the game shouldn't be held back in tradition, but there are some things that just make the game what it is. Japan doesn't use the DH, I didn't play with the DH when I was a kid. It just seems like the DH is an artificial way to make the game more exciting.

Having the NL go to the DH would cause the game to lose something. No longer would we see a pitcher go deep or help his own cause. I guess I just happen to appreciate the little things. One of my favorite baseball memories is watching Carlos Zambrano go deep at Wrigley field. Such an unexpected and a fun moment that isn't possible with a DH.

[chucksabr]

.122/.153/.152.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I personally think that pitchers batting should remain for NL only games. But for interleague games it should be 100% DH no matter where the games are played. Because both leagues know how to use a DH while both leagues do not know how to use pitchers batting.

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

[Orioles1966]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

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

Yeah-I want to watch Texas play Oakland 60 times a year.

[chucksabr]

I hate Interleague games. I always have. Interleague play has cheapened the World Series and the All-Star Game. The latter, in particular, is hardly any better or more important than the NBA or NHL All-Star Games (partly because of all the nonsense activity they have around it, like Home Run Derby, that has seemed to eclipse the actual game in importance).

</rant>

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by CD1083

Do you think the intentional walk should be eliminated as well? Just send the batter to 1st? What about the dropped 3rd strike rule? Or the balk, or banning the shift? Some of these may seem crazy, but how close to an arcade game are we trying to get?

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

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orioles1966

Yeah-I want to watch Texas play Oakland 60 times a year.

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. And s***can Interleague play entirely.

That works out to 162 games a year, all within one league. Done and done.

This will almost certainly never happen. But it is the most elegant solution available. And think of how many billions of dollars Baseball can make by abra-cadabra-ing two teams out of thin air.

[Orioles1966]

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. And s***can Interleague play entirely.

That works out to 162 games a year, all within one league. Done and done.

This will almost certainly never happen. But it is the most elegant solution available. And think of how many billions of dollars Baseball can make by abra-cadabra-ing two teams out of thin air.

It's actually 19 games between divisional rivals. That's 76 games per season. Almost 47 percent of the schedule. That's too many divisional games.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

The National League should adopt the designated hitter - Bless You Boys

MLB?s lack of universal designated hitter rule leaves modern game out of tune - SBNation.com


The thread title comes from the title of the first article I posted. I personally think that pitchers batting should remain for NL only games. But for interleague games it should be 100% DH no matter where the games are played. Because both leagues know how to use a DH while both leagues do not know how to use pitchers batting.

Many NL teams dont have that good of a player who is a quality DH. Sure even the backup C batting even say .200 is better then what 99% of the pitchers can do. I like the DH, but for the AL only . I like seeing one league have it while the other does not. Also I am getting tired of other pro leagues only caring about offense. What happened to defense & strategy? NL is about strategy. I like TLR & Maddon hitting the pitcher 8th. Would like to see someone hit them 2nd. Of course that only works if the # 1 guy always gets on base.

[The Game]

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. And s***can Interleague play entirely.

That works out to 162 games a year, all within one league. Done and done.

This will almost certainly never happen. But it is the most elegant solution available. And think of how many billions of dollars Baseball can make by abra-cadabra-ing two teams out of thin air.

I like that idea a lot, but I would like to see a 4-6 game season series vs in state rival or an interleague rival. I like playing the Cubs 6 times a year vs a meaningless exhibition game.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Orioles1966

It's actually 19 games between divisional rivals. That's 76 games per season. Almost 47 percent of the schedule. That's too many divisional games.

Divisional games are supposed to mean something, that's why there are so many of them. After all, the winner of the division gets to go to the postseason. If non-divisional games mattered as much as divisional games, there would be no point in having divisions - just take the top four teams and let them go into the playoffs. And I'd much rather see the Cubs play the Cardinals 18 times than see the Cubs play the Angels 3 times.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orioles1966

It's actually 19 games between divisional rivals. That's 76 games per season. Almost 47 percent of the schedule. That's too many divisional games.

Not in my plan. In my plan, it's 18. And since there are only three other teams in a division in my plan, that's only 54 games per season.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by The Game

I like that idea a lot, but I would like to see a 4-6 game season series vs in state rival or an interleague rival. I like playing the Cubs 6 times a year vs a meaningless exhibition game.

Why, since the entire point behind my plan is to get rid of interleague play entirely, I have to reject your modification out of hand.