Roster Construction: AL vs. NL

[jose melendez]

This is a question that I don't know how to answer or even really how to attack properly, but I'm guessing folks here may have some thoughts.
 
With the NL having pitchers hit and the AL having the DH, presumably the optimal construction of a 25 man roster is different for the two leagues.  
 
In my mind, in the AL one really needs to have that one high quality hitter outside of the eight men in the field to play DH--after all he's getting 4 or 5 PAs per game. In the NL, where pinch hitting is more common, it seems intuitive that a team is better served by having a number of decent to good pinch hitters, as oppossed to the one masher who doesn't start the game in the field.
 
With less need for pinch hitters in the AL, presumably  there's more value for the great D no hit catcher, or the just pinch run guy.
 
Intuitively this seems right to me, but is it?  Maybe depth is just generally so important that it doesn't much matter from league to league.
 
Are there any analyses of this, or does anyone have thoughts on the question?

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Are you even sure AL teams need an all-bat no-glove pure hitter at DH? The Sox do it for Ortiz, but other teams prefer to use it as a spot to give players some rest.

 

[jose melendez]

Are you even sure AL teams need an all-bat no-glove pure hitter at DH? The Sox do it for Ortiz, but other teams prefer to use it as a spot to give players some rest.

No, I'm not.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think the Red Sox are on the right path here, though there is very likely some recency bias as well as some good old fan bias at play in my opinion.  Constructing a roster with a lot of average or better players and a lot of versatility in what positions they can play would seem to give a manager the best possible tools to face any situation that pops up in any given game.  Daniel Nava being able to play left, right and first, or Mike Napoli being able to offer an emergency catcher while covering 1st and DH well, Bogaerts being able to play short or third, Victorino playing right and center (or left if necessary), Bradley being able to play any outfield position, Gomes being willing to back up left field and come off the bench late in games, Middlebrooks taking reps at 2nd to broaden his usefulness, developing Mookie Betts to to cover multiple positions, are all playing into the idea that having pieces you can move around the field as necessary without having to suffer poor at bats strengthens the team.
 
Maybe this will end up being a flash in the pan, but I think we're going to see a good run of teams that can assemble rosters with that flexibility being the one's making the playoffs more consistently.  There are only a limited number of players who can offer that flexibility with an above average bat, so this likely won't become a league wide phenomenon, but I think we'll see it at the top a lot and the idea of solidified roles will erode just a little bit.
 
How this plays into the NL vs the AL is a bit more fuzzy, but as it pertains to a roster like the Red Sox, I think you have to keep in mind that even in the AL they are the exception rather than the rule in having a full time DH who really doesn't do anything else.  In that respect, I think the leagues have been moving toward each other, rather than further apart over the last decade or so.

 

[metaprosthesis]

Are you even sure AL teams need an all-bat no-glove pure hitter at DH? The Sox do it for Ortiz, but other teams prefer to use it as a spot to give players some rest.

 
People talk a lot about the concept of DH as a rest position, but the facts don't really point to that philosophy being in use.  If we look at games played at the DH position, there are some clear sets of roster situations.*
 
First, there are teams with a devoted (or at least majority time) DH.  Ortiz, Billy Butler, V-Mart, and Kendrys Morales each played at least 122 games at DH.
 
Then, there are teams that appear to have wanted a devoted DH, but the player got injured.  Hafner started 67 games, all at DH for the Yankees; Berkman started 69 games with 65 at DH for Texas; and Luke Scott started 63 games, all at DH for Tampa Bay.  When these guys were out, their teams did apportion time at DH among a number of players, but I don't think that's a product of roster design.
 
Then, there are teams that have a couple guys that share the majority of time at DH.  Konerko and Dunn combined for 124 games at DH for Chicago, Lind and Encarnacion combined for 116 games at DH for Toronto, Giambi and Carlos Santana combined for 105 games at DH for Cleveland, and Pujols and Hamilton combined for 102 games at DH for LAAA.
 
Oakland and Minnesota seem closest to using the spot as a place for rest from the field, though in both cases there is a trio of players who account for over 100 games at DH (Doumit, Willingham, and Mauer for MIN, and Smith, Cespedes, and Coco for OAK).
 
Lastly, you have Baltimore and Houston, both of which cycled a lot of guys through the position, but they all sucked and their number of games played and number of games at DH are pretty close.  That merely reflects how badly their rosters are built and how little depth they have (or had last year, anyway).
 
So, basically, I think it's not totally correct to say that "other teams prefer to use it as a spot to give players some rest."  Oakland and Minnesota seem to use their rosters that way to some degree.  Baltimore and Houston put whoever arrives on time to the game there.  The rest of the teams appear to have a plan for DH, and then it is a matter of whether or not that plan can stay healthy.  I also think that it's notable that, other than Oakland's players, if you look at the names in this post, they are primarily "all bat-no glove"-type guys.  The DH is definitely a position that front offices seek to fill, and they seek to fill it with players of a particular type.
 
 
 
* All the numbers above are just for 2013 and are taken from B-Ref.  A more in depth look is probably warranted before any real conclusion is drawn.