Some possible MLB Rule Changes

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Nice try. Everyone's skills diminish with age. Some hit their ceilings earlier than others.

You didn't get the point I was making, but I don't want to write a book trying to make you understand.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Wonder how long before baseball decides to go to the new NBA draft method to pick teams for the All Star game? It's getting more and more clear every year that the AL and NL are no longer separate leagues. I've hated interleague play since its inception. Maybe it because I grew up a fan of a team in a one team state. I personally never gave a rat's knuckle to see the Mets play the Yankees, or the Cubs play the White Sox. I know the hair on my back stands on end every year when my Tigers battle the Pittsburgh Pirates. If I had my way, interleague play would be abolished and the two leagues would continue to use separate rules when it comes to the DH. Oh and one league umps would be forced to use the huge chest protector thingys too

With you on interleague play all the way. Interleague play never, ever, ever, ever comes into existence in my OOTP leagues because IMHO it's an absolute abomination. I'll reconsider this if the universal DH comes in, but right now hell no!

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by David Watts

You didn't get the point I was making, but I don't want to write a book trying to make you understand.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Nope. Missed the point. I accept they aren't expected to work on it. Some will even if management doesn't push them. Because some have the character to want to be good at every thing they are asked to do. Pitching, hitting, fielding, running the bases. Make MLB all DH and even they won't try to be good at hitting because there is no point.

There's already no point.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Again you missed the point. This is not about my preference. Look at my original post. I said this was about taking a long term approach. So do I think an all-DH MLB is better for the game in the long run? No. And I outlined my reasons. It is the rest of you that turned the convo into a "pitchers suck at hitting" topic in order to disagree w/my opinion.

Edit: I went back & looked & I was wrong. The "pitchers suck @ hitting" didn't start as a counter to anything I said. My bad.

The central point of the DH discussion is that pitchers suck at hitting. You can't have the discussion without addressing that. It is the entire reason every professional and college league in the world, except two, routinely uses the DH.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

What slippery slope? All I'm pointing out is poor hitters are part of the game. If that is what is bothering you guys, you are going to need more than just one DH per team in most lineups. So-called "automatic outs" aren't detrimental to the game.

The part where you said "let's have 4 DHs per game". It's shorthand for, "Well, if we're going to have one DH, then let's have two DHs per game. Or let's have four DHs per game. Hell, why not have nine DHs?"

A slippery slope argument is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant, usually negative, effect. It is considered one of the classic examples of logical fallacy. You can learn more about slippery slope here:

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/r...ery-Slope.html

I made a very specific case why the other eight position players do not require a designated hitter, and you know I did. Why you're pretending I didn't, I don't know.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

What slippery slope? All I'm pointing out is poor hitters are part of the game. If that is what is bothering you guys, you are going to need more than just one DH per team in most lineups. So-called "automatic outs" aren't detrimental to the game.

The only "automatic outs" in the game are pitchers:

2018 MLB Hitting by Position

P: .115/.144/.148, -25 wRC+
C: .232/.304/.372, 84 wRC+
1B: .250/.328/.432, 105 wRC+
2B: .254/.317/.395, 93 wRC+
3B: .251/.324/.425, 102 wRC+
SS: .255/.314/.409, 95 wRC+
LF: .253/.325/.420, 102 wRC+
CF: .249/.321/.400, 96 wRC+
RF: .255/.332/.427, 106 wRC+
DH: .254/.329/.457, 112 wRC+

One of these things is not like the other one
One of these things just doesn't belong

It doesn't matter which metric you want to use (AVG/OBP/SLG, wRC+). They are all saying the same thing. To wit, pitchers are abjectly abysmal at hitting. There may be other "automatic outs" scattered amongst the position players, but on average none of the different positions come close to the absolute, utter suckage that pitchers demonstrate at hitting.

Therefore, you don't need more than one DH per team to replace poor hitters in any lineup in MLB. You only need one to replace the pitcher. The best hitting position players are at DH, with a 112 wRC+. The worst hitting position players are at C, with an 84 wRC+. That's quite a gap, but it's nowhere near the gap between C and P at hitting. The gap between 84 wRC+ and -25 wRC+ is staggering. Grand Canyonish. Embarrassing. It demonstrates the complete, and utter incompetence of pitchers in the batters box. The time has come to bring in the DH MLB-wide, and put an end to this appalling ineptitude.

I haven't even mentioned the fact that the last thing you want your prized stud pitcher doing is swinging a bat or running the bases, lest he injure himself doing something he may not have done since middle school/spends little to no time practicing/is not paid a penny of his potentially upwards of $30 million per year contract to do. If I'm in charge of a club, I don't even want him making contact or bunting, and I really don't want him running the bases. Take your three hacks, intentionally missing the ball every time and come back to the bench please. Enough already.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

There's already no point.



The central point of the DH discussion is that pitchers suck at hitting. You can't have the discussion without addressing that. It is the entire reason every professional and college league in the world, except two, routinely uses the DH.



The part where you said "let's have 4 DHs per game". It's shorthand for, "Well, if we're going to have one DH, then let's have two DHs per game. Or let's have four DHs per game. Hell, why not have nine DHs?"

A slippery slope argument is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant, usually negative, effect. It is considered one of the classic examples of logical fallacy. You can learn more about slippery slope here:

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/r...ery-Slope.html

I made a very specific case why the other eight position players do not require a designated hitter, and you know I did. Why you're pretending I didn't, I don't know.

This whole post is condescending. Thank you for "dumbing down" the discussion for me.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

The only "automatic outs" in the game are pitchers:

So the aforementioned Logan Morrison & Chris Davis aren't? Gotcha.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So the aforementioned Logan Morrison & Chris Davis aren't? Gotcha.

Davis had one of the worst offensive seasons for a player in major league history, with a 46 wRC+. Were he a pitcher, he would have been 10th best hitting pitcher last year.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So the aforementioned Logan Morrison & Chris Davis aren't? Gotcha.

He addressed this in the exact post you quoted:

Originally Posted by actionjackson

The only "automatic outs" in the game are pitchers...There may be other "automatic outs" scattered amongst the position players, but on average none of the different positions come close to the absolute, utter suckage that pitchers demonstrate at hitting.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So the aforementioned Logan Morrison & Chris Davis aren't? Gotcha.

Pitchers: .115/.144/.148, -25 wRC+
Morrison: .186/.276/.368, 74 wRC+
Davis: .168/.243/.296, 46 wRC+

Pitchers make those two look like fantastic hitters, so nope.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Pitchers: .115/.144/.148, -25 wRC+
Morrison: .186/.276/.368, 74 wRC+
Davis: .168/.243/.296, 46 wRC+

Pitchers make those two look like fantastic hitters, so nope.

From these stats, Pitchers are to Logan Morrison as Logan Morrison is to J.D. Martinez. Pitchers are to Chris Davis as Chris Davis is to Matt Olson. That's how much of a gap we're talking about here.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

This whole post is condescending. Thank you for "dumbing down" the discussion for me.

Hey, man, you asked.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Davis had one of the worst offensive seasons for a player in major league history, with a 46 wRC+. Were he a pitcher, he would have been 10th best hitting pitcher last year.

But since he hits "like a pitcher", and you guys think that level of offense should be subbed for, then the logic progression of your position would dictate everyone, no matter the position, should have a DH. Otherwise, poor hitting no longer becomes a legit reason to use the DH.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

But since he hits "like a pitcher", and you guys think that level of offense should be subbed for, then the logic progression of your position would dictate everyone, no matter the position, should have a DH. Otherwise, poor hitting no longer becomes a legit reason to use the DH.

A designated hitter has never been considered for position players, unless you want to call a pinch hitter a DH, which by definition it is not. Therefore your "logical progression" argument is asinine because nobody thinks that designated hitters should be for position players let alone thinking that "because pitchers have a DH other should too." You're just creating silly strawmen at this point.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

A designated hitter has never been considered for position players, unless you want to call a pinch hitter a DH, which by definition it is not. Therefore your "logical progression" argument is asinine because nobody thinks that designated hitters should be for position players let alone thinking that "because pitchers have a DH other should too." You're just creating silly strawmen at this point.

Never said it was considered. I am saying if that is why you think having pitchers hit is asinine, then that is the next step. or "slippery slope" you've stepped on.

[David Watts]

I probably shouldn't have inserted Morrison and Davis into the discussion, as it really has nothing to do with the DH. It just amazes me that these guys were given so many at bats at such a low level of production. But, then there's Jackie Bradley Jr. who was hitting nearly as bad as both Davis and Morrison, but went on a tear over the last couple months to raise his average to .234. Thing is, Bradley has defense on his side, so even when he isn't hitting, he helps his team. Not sure if you can say the same for Davis and Morrison. I think it's safe to assume all three of these guys were constantly trying to right the ship. Hitting a baseball isn't easy and when you throw in the home run or bust mentality, it only becomes harder. Cobra is right though, skills do deteriorate. But, Davis and Morrison had skills to deteriorate. Not sure Justin Verlander ever had those skills to begin with.

[Cobra Mgr]

Look. At this point I've had my fun with this give and take. Most of you have no idea what the bottom line is in all this.

You can want all-DH. That is your preference. Good. You can think it is better for baseball. Good. That is your opinion. You can have reasons that your opinion is based on. Great. But the same goes with me if I choose the opposite position. NEITHER OF US IS WRONG. Neither opinion should be criticized. This black & white thinking some of you have is the reason why there is so much chaos & disharmony in the world. You can't let someone just have a different point of view no matter how benign it is. It's madness. At this point, continuing the discussion is the only thing that would be asinine. So....

Done.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Never said it was considered. I am saying if that is why you think having pitchers hit is asinine, then that is the next step. or "slippery slope" you've stepped on.

It's more the point that if virtually the worst hitter in history is still better than nearly all pitchers, maybe it makes sense to not have pitchers hit? As much Of an "automatic out" that Davis was, he was still miles ahead of an average pitcher.

Like, to me, if pitchers could hit at "Davis" levels, then I'd be perfectly happy to dump the DH in both leagues and all around the globe. But they're just so far below that that it simply is embarrassing, and I'm not sure I see the point in it anymore. Sure, I appreciate the strategic options in the NL game, but at this point, we're not turning back the tides and pitchers aren't getting any better as hitters, so I'm fine with giving up on them and accepting the DH.

[chucksabr]

That’s really the crux of the biscuit. It’s not merely that pitchers are sort of bad hitters. They are orders of magnitude worse then even the worst hitting position players.

Harking back to actionjackson’s table up the page, the difference between the worst hitting position (catcher) and the best hitting position (DH) is 28 wRC+ points. The difference between the worst hitting position and pitchers hitting is nearly four times that.

Requiring pitchers to hit is the equivalent of requiring every position player to take an inning on the mound during the game. Sure, some of them would get better at it if only they worked at it, and surely they must have time to do so. But it would still be a far worse game, because they’ve never worked at it, and they never will work at it, so they would be incompetent at it.

Every college and professional league in the world, save two, has already recognized the futility of sending pitchers up to hit. It’s long past time for at least one of them to get on board.

[chucksabr]

There's also a very good reason pitchers were required to hit in the first place: they were actually acceptable hitters when the game first started, because pitcher was more or less just another position.

When baseball started out as "base ball", the job of the pitcher was not to strike the batter out, or fool the batter into hitting the ball weakly, or anything along those lines. The job of the pitcher was to allow the batter to put the ball into play, so fielders could put the batter and baserunners out. It was the whole point of the game. In fact, batters were able to shout out their preference of where the pitcher should deliver the ball, and the pitcher was duty bound to deliver it there. Pitchers didn't play with velocity or location or spin. Heck, putting spin on the ball was very controversial at the time, and there was a huge debate as to whether a pitcher should be allowed to do this.

Point being, pitcher was not such a unique or difficult position, and just about anyone could pitch if they wanted to. But as pitching evolved from being relatively cooperative with the batter's requests to a strictly adversarial endeavor to put the batter out, more players who aspired to be pitchers had to put more work into perfecting the now very important job of pitching, which naturally took attention away from their working on improving their batting skills. At a certain point, pitchers stopped working on their batting altogether, taking batting practice only on an as-needed basis to avoid being embarrassed at the plate, until even that outcome didn't matter anymore.

Courtesy of Fangraphs, here's a look at how the hitting prowess of pitchers evolved in the era of professional baseball, which spans back to 1871.



I've included both batting average and wRC+ here, in an attempt to try to appeal to everyone's preferred way of looking at stats.

In the first decade of the professional game, pitchers batted well into the .240s, not much different from the skill positions of catcher and shortstop, and the wRC+ would occasionally almost touch 90. That's about the same as catchers hit today. But as pitching continued to become more important and pitchers evolved more tactics to perfect to fool batters, the kind of tactics that require their full concentration and attention to hone, their hitting started to plummet, and by 1891, pitchers' batting average dove under .200 for the first time. So alarmed were the elders of the game that even Al Spalding, a founder of professional baseball, proposed that pitchers "be eliminated entirely from the batting order and that only the other eight men of the opposing clubs be allowed to go to bat."

So even in 1891, people in a position to know knew that pitchers should not go to the plate. Connie Mack followed up in 1905 with the first real suggestion of the designated hitter, an additional hitter in place of the pitcher, instead of just taking the pitcher's slot out and reducing the order to eight.

Still, for whatever reason, no changes were made and pitchers were allowed to hit, getting only worse and worse at it. You look at the batting averages on the chart above go up and down and you might think, hey, look at the 1920s and 1930s, pitchers got back up over .200, so see, they can get better at hitting! But then you see that wRC+ did not spike up with average and you remember, oh yeah, that's the era back when entire leagues hit .300. Taken against that, pitchers hitting .200 isn't impressive at all.

Today, pitcher hitting levels are the very worst they have ever been, and as pitchers pitching become better and much harder to hit, as it inevitably does, pitchers hitting is fated to get even worse still, because pitchers never work at getting better at hitting, and they never will.