The NL Needs the DH
by BSmitty on Jul 1, 2008 10:32 AM EDT
9 comments
A number of current MLB controversies have made it clear that the game is moving forward into a new era. One fan tries to find the best balance between past and present.
From http://www.splicetoday.com/sports/the-nl-needs-the-dh
Baseball is an exhilarating yet frustrating mess of contradictions, and this fan is caught in the trap—like millions of other men and women (save George Will, whose pompous moral certitude about the sport is immutable)—of trying to reconcile “purist” instincts with the undeniable improvements in the game over the past several decades. Last weekend, for example, while watching a slew of inter-league contests via the MLB “Extra Innings” package (which, regardless of varying prices depending on your locale and cable provider, costs less for an entire season of televised games than one day at a stadium for a family of four), I finally switched gears and figured it was time for the National League to acquiesce and adopt the still-controversial designated hitter rule.
Heresy, I guess, but what the hell; if you’re a Milwaukee Brewers’ devotee, wouldn’t it be delightful to see the world’s tubbiest vegetarian, Prince Fielder, in the dugout, contemplating his next plate appearance, instead of anchored at first base? One league’s dominance over the other usually runs in cycles, but the N.L. seems mired in a slump that’s likely to run longer than the Great Depression, and this was evident once again over the weekend. Sure, the strategy required of an N.L. manager is more intricate than A.L. counterparts with double-switches and more sacrifice bunts, but the two leagues might be more competitive if older free agents (or crummy fielders) could extend their careers as a DH.
That said, and here’s one of those curveballs, I can’t stand inter-league play, even though it pumps up attendance and allows fans to see star players who were once a mystery aside from the All-Star game (which, of course, has devolved into a meaningless exhibition game instead of a proud showcase) or the World Series. My 13-year-old son, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting next to in our matching easy chairs in the homestead’s television room, adamantly disagrees, but I chalk that up to his participation in a fantasy league with a bunch of school buddies. I just don’t like the disruption of the season’s rhythm, the fake “rivalries” cooked up by MLB schedule makers—sure, the Cubs and White Sox make sense, but the Rockies and Tigers?—for the sake of novelty and profit.
See the rest at http://www.splicetoday.com/sports/the-nl-needs-the-dh
0 recs |
9 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Honestly, I think the NL should stay the way it is. If people want equality between the leagues, maybe the AL should knuckle up and loose the DH. The push for the DH was suggested (sort of) in 1906, but it didn’t really gain steam until the 50’s and 60’s when pitching was extremely dominant. I think a pitcher had like 31 wins one year. Other changes were also made to add offense and excitement to game… The mound was lowered and the strike zone reduced. IMHO baseball was meant to be played the was the NL plays it. I look at the DH as a leftover from an era that decided they had to come up with a way to generate more offense… They thought fans would loose interest by constantly seeing low scoring games. At this point there’s plenty of scoring in both leagues. The AL is currently averaging 4.58 runs per game; NL 4.45. So, more or less, having a DH gives you an extra .13 runs per game. Cole Hamels, grab the wood, you’re up bud.
by foos05 on Jul 1, 2008 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh and Smitty, I realize that you’re just linking to this article and it’s not yours… My post isn’t directed at you, it’s just my feeling in general… Didn’t want you to think otherwise.
by foos05 on Jul 1, 2008 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Compromise
This would never fly-but my boss made this suggestion which was thought provoking for interleague matchups.
Bat 10.
Each team bats their pitcher AND a DH.
by Bilzo on Jul 1, 2008 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually that system wouldn’t sound too far out of wack… That was the original idea behind a “designated hitter” approach in baseball back in the early 1900s. It was toyed with for awhile then shelved until the late 50s/early 60s when it evolved into we have today…
I’m just under the impression that if you’re a professional athlete making millions of dollars, it’s not too much to ask for you to play the top and bottom of an inning… Plus it makes strategy a lot more important in a game.
by foos05 on Jul 1, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other problem with that is it dilutes the lineup by giving your best hitters fewer at bats over the course of a game and a season.
by dajafi on Jul 1, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The DH is completely unnecessary. I feel my point can be proven by looking in the AL and seeing the lack of quality DH’s. If the DH was such an important part of the game, why wouldn’t every team have a man who could smash the ball but plays defense like Ryan Howard. Most major leaguers can play defense, in fact, just about every major leaguer can play passable defense.
by Neduol Caz on Jul 1, 2008 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am all for the DH in the NL. First of all, the rule is already in place, so, it’s not like we can back out of it. I really see no reason for a pitcher to hit. Their job is to pitch, like a goalie in hockey’s job is to make saves, not score. I get no joy out of watching a pitcher get overpowered or fooled in an AB. In fact, I usually dread when the pitcher comes to bat. It is a waste of time. Factor in the built in advantage the AL has with already paying a guy money to be a DH, and you have me sold.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 2, 2008 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why not go all the way and have completely separate offensive and defensive squads? You’d still be allowed to play a given player on both offense and defense of course, but it would be optional, just like in football. You’d probably have to expand roster sizes a little bit, but that’s doable. Face it, most starting middle infielders and catchers in MLB wouldn’t be good enough to make a starting lineup if it wasn’t for the positions they played. Sure, they’re not as bad at the plate as pitchers are, but why water down the quality of hitting even a little bit?
by taco pal on Jul 2, 2008 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Taco – if we’re doing that, I say we limit the Offense to six hitters. That’s all you really need. It’ll also cut down on roster expansion. And if a few guys are going to get paid tons of money to never ever take the field, I want them constantly hitting. You get 6 Offensive guys (2 Pinch Hitters on the bench), 8 starting fielders (2 S(cr)ubs) on the bench), 5 starting pitchers, 5 relievers, and a closer… I’m picking my lineup now…
Hanley Ramirez
Chase Utley
Alex Rodriguez
David Ortiz
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
I think you may just be onto something here taco…
by foos05 on Jul 2, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
