Should the DH be implemented in both leagues?

[Jim Lonborg]

With the Scherzer and Wainwright injuries this has become a front burner topic. My questions is whether there are many folks left out there who are really clamoring for pitchers to hit in the NL anymore. My personal thought is that it should be implemented in both leagues. 

 

[Lefty on the Mound]

During inter league play, MLB should allow each team to decide whether to use the DH or not. <br />
<br />
If their team chooses to have pitchers hit, NL fans will see their teams lose most of their home inter league games. <br />
<br />
IIf their team chooses to use a DH, NL fans will see that it makes for a better game. <br />
<br />
After one season of seeing more offense with the DH, NL fans will be clamoring for the DH in both leagues.

 

[koufax32]

The positive here is watching morally superior, Best Fans in the Game, Cardinal fans slowly realize that their purer version of the game cost them their ace this year.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Scherzer agree: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25163988/in-wainwright-wake-scherzer-adivocates-for-the-dh-for-both-leagues

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

But Double Switch!

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Yes, it is way past due. There is way too much specialization to expect pitchers to hit at this point.

 

[Average Reds]

The positive here is watching morally superior, Best Fans in the Game, Cardinal fans slowly realize that their purer version of the game cost them their ace this year.

 
That's some quality schadenfreude right there.

 

[charlieoscar]

Yes, it is way past due. There is way too much specialization to expect pitchers to hit at this point.

 
They didn't hit all that well in earlier days, either. If you go way back to when teams had basically one pitcher, then it was different but in my early days as a SABR member I did a study on hitting by Red Sox pitchers using data I got from Pete Palmer and work by Bob Davids (founder of SABR) to separate Ruth's batting into what he did only while pitching. I found that from 1901, on, the cumulative batting average by Red Sox pitchers was below .200 with the exception of one season (1904 or 1905...can't recall which). As time went on, the cumulative average kept getting lower because pitchers got less "ept" at the plate and they had some good hitting pitchers throughout the years. Once you might find some pitchers getting 200 AB in a season; now 70 is a lot. The last Red Sox pitcher to have at least 100 AB in a year was Mel Parnell in 1949.

 

[glennhoffmania]

To echo some of the stuff I said in the Wainwright thread but belongs in here, I think that having the same rules in both leagues, especially with interleague play, is a must.  There is no logical argument for forcing teams to play a chunk of games each season under different rules.
 
Sumner brought up a good point that if the goal is uniformity then the pro-DH crowd needs to justify it, not the pro-NL crowd.  That's perfectly reasonable.  However, the DH has been around for over 40 years and the MLBPA will never agree to give it up.  So if we're going to get conformity it'll be with the NL adopting the DH.  Whether that's the best answer or fair or whatever isn't really the point.  I can't imagine a scenario where the DH goes away in the AL.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Plenty of pitchers could be competent hitters, many were great hitters in high school, and even college, but they just don't get enough pro plate appearances to get and stay sharp.

 

[lexrageorge]

Plenty of pitchers could be competent hitters, many were great hitters in high school, and even college, but they just don't get enough pro plate appearances to get and stay sharp.

It goes way beyond this.  All hitters in the lowest levels of the minors were fantastic hitters in high school.  Despite getting tons of pro plate appearances, most of those hitters wash out before even reaching AAA, never mind the majors.  So the odds of a pitcher becoming a good hitter in the majors are already small.  
 
Add in the fact that the best pitchers in the minors are simply told to ignore hitting altogether, and yes the odds of a pitcher becoming at least a competent major league hitter are minuscule. 

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Well, that's more or less what I was getting at...your pitchers COULD become competent hitters, IF they had a chance to develop that skill. There are examples of pitchers who, for whatever reason, did a career reset, and came back as position players - Rick Ankiel and Adam Loewen as examples.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

...and the odds of any low minor leaguer becoming a good hitter in the majors are already small...

 

[Max Power]

 
They didn't hit all that well in earlier days, either. If you go way back to when teams had basically one pitcher, then it was different but in my early days as a SABR member I did a study on hitting by Red Sox pitchers using data I got from Pete Palmer and work by Bob Davids (founder of SABR) to separate Ruth's batting into what he did only while pitching. I found that from 1901, on, the cumulative batting average by Red Sox pitchers was below .200 with the exception of one season (1904 or 1905...can't recall which). As time went on, the cumulative average kept getting lower because pitchers got less "ept" at the plate and they had some good hitting pitchers throughout the years. Once you might find some pitchers getting 200 AB in a season; now 70 is a lot. The last Red Sox pitcher to have at least 100 AB in a year was Mel Parnell in 1949.

 
Connie Mack was calling for a DH in 1906, so it doesn't seem like pitchers were ever someone people wanted to see hit.
 
It does make you wonder about Babe Ruth. Would anyone have noticed that he could hit if there were a DH back then? Or would he just have been a pretty good pitcher for his entire career?

 

[SeanBerry]

Pitchers hitting is just one element of this. In the modern game, it's rare for a pitcher to get more than 2 PA's in a game.
 
The reason the NL game is better is the strategic element. Joe Maddon wanted to come to the NL for this reason. It's way more fun to manage a NL game. You use more of your roster and there is more involved with pinch hitters.
 
I hope the DH never goes away. That's likely wishful thinking on my part.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

To echo some of the stuff I said in the Wainwright thread but belongs in here, I think that having the same rules in both leagues, especially with interleague play, is a must.  There is no logical argument for forcing teams to play a chunk of games each season under different rules.
 
Sumner brought up a good point that if the goal is uniformity then the pro-DH crowd needs to justify it, not the pro-NL crowd.  That's perfectly reasonable.  However, the DH has been around for over 40 years and the MLBPA will never agree to give it up.  So if we're going to get conformity it'll be with the NL adopting the DH.  Whether that's the best answer or fair or whatever isn't really the point.  I can't imagine a scenario where the DH goes away in the AL.

 
I'm going to respond to your Wainwright thread point to argue that the acceptance of different ballpark dimensions shows that conformity is only selectively a goal of baseball. Your argument for conformity was that the DH/no DH rules "affects roster construction and puts the visiting team at a disadvantage in every series" - but that is true of playing in parks with different dimensions too. In fact, roster construction means the visiting team is at a disadvantage in every series because of the different dimensions, whereas the visiting team is at a disadvantage because of the DH/no DH rule only in interleague series. Is there a logical argument for allowing teams to play in these vastly varying conditions? Not really, except that aesthetically it's more pleasing to have these different ballparks. So we're back to aesthetics.

 

[grimshaw]

Yes please - though I would hope there would be a 26th or even a 27th roster spot added if it comes to that.  Taking away the DH in the NL takes away a lot of specialty type players (speed and defense types), and they'll have to start burning through pitchers more as well.

 

[charlieoscar]

Plenty of pitchers could be competent hitters, many were great hitters in high school, and even college, but they just don't get enough pro plate appearances to get and stay sharp.

 
I hit .500 but did I even get to the minors? I saw well enough to hit 78-80 mph batting practice fastballs but I certainly could not see well enough to pick up the spin on curves, sliders and the like. A lot of kids  could hit well but only to a certain level. If you take the top hitter from every high school team in the country for a year, how many will make the majors? How may will even make the minors?

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I'm going to respond to your Wainwright thread point to argue that the acceptance of different ballpark dimensions shows that conformity is only selectively a goal of baseball. Your argument for conformity was that the DH/no DH rules "affects roster construction and puts the visiting team at a disadvantage in every series" - but that is true of playing in parks with different dimensions too. In fact, roster construction means the visiting team is at a disadvantage in every series because of the different dimensions, whereas the visiting team is at a disadvantage because of the DH/no DH rule only in interleague series. Is there a logical argument for allowing teams to play in these vastly varying conditions? Not really, except that aesthetically it's more pleasing to have these different ballparks. So we're back to aesthetics.

 
I generally agree with you.  I guess my point is, why should that disadvantage be expanded to include lineup construction?  I think it's more than just the aesthetics, although that is a factor as well.  Obviously I'm going to be influenced by the fact that I'm a Sox fan, but forcing them to sit either Ortiz or Napoli every road IL game is nonsensical to me, especially if we're talking about the WS.
 
The fact that every park is different is a unique aspect of baseball and it creates some advantages and disadvantages.  But I really doubt we'll ever see a requirement that every park looks identical.  But adding the DH to the NL is certainly doable and reasonable.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Pitchers hitting is just one element of this. In the modern game, it's rare for a pitcher to get more than 2 PA's in a game.
 
The reason the NL game is better is the strategic element. Joe Maddon wanted to come to the NL for this reason. It's way more fun to manage a NL game. You use more of your roster and there is more involved with pinch hitters.
 
I hope the DH never goes away. That's likely wishful thinking on my part.

 
I think it's totally ridiculous that there are totally different rules in each league...
 
Further, I think NL style baseball is fun to watch because of the tactical game managment elements that having pitchers hit creates. I also think the DH is fun because it gets great hitters in to the lineup over at best minimally competent pitchers (and at worst, completely incompetent ones).
 
So basically, I just like ice cream no matter what flavour you serve me - and if you ask what I want, I'm just going to stand and stare at the menu for 5 minutes while I try to figure it out.

 

[soxhop411]

Pitchers hitting is just one element of this. In the modern game, it's rare for a pitcher to get more than 2 PA's in a game.
 
The reason the NL game is better is the strategic element. Joe Maddon wanted to come to the NL for this reason. It's way more fun to manage a NL game. You use more of your roster and there is more involved with pinch hitters.
 
I hope the DH never goes away. That's likely wishful thinking on my part.

The MLBPA will never allow the DH to go away. It creates more jobs for players who either don't have a position or are a shitty fielder but excellent hitter among others. MLBPA cares about jobs for its players. (See Ortiz) where would Ortiz be right now without the DH?

 

[soxhop411]

@Ken_Rosenthal: Some of you are asking: Why not level playing field by eliminating DH in AL? I dont think union would ever give up those high-paying jobs.

Agrees with me.

 

[SeanBerry]

I agree as well. Total typo on my part. I meant to say:
 
I hope the NL-style never goes away. Likely wishful thinking on my part.
 
The DH is going nowhere. My brain obviously went somewhere when I wrote that post earlier though.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

...on the other hand, MLBPA also represents the numerous bench players in the NL that you have to have around to pinch hit for pitchers. That's not a higher paying job, but it represents more MLBPA members...

 

[Adrian's Dome]

If you want to argue that pitchers should hit because "all players should do everything", then what of the opinion that the team shouldn't have specialized pitchers, either? Want to take the starter out, swap him with the right fielder. Eliminate bullpens altogether, force a "pure game."
 
I've repeatedly countered the "is it really that bad watching pitchers hit?" question with "is it really that bad watching a position player pitching?"

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The reason the NL game is better is the strategic element. Joe Maddon wanted to come to the NL for this reason. It's way more fun to manage a NL game. You use more of your roster and there is more involved with pinch hitters.

More strategy is not he same as better strategy, though. What you are describing is basically "more moves because there are more shitty options to overcome." That's not superior, in my opinion. That's an inferior game that forces managers to get cute to work around less talented players attempting to not shit themselves at the plate. I'd rather see highly skilled players doing what they are highly skilled at more often. This also allows for a more strategic use of bullpens and more freedom to ride a starter during a great performance since you don't have to weigh the benefit of keeping that starter (or a reliever on a good run) in versus the downside of wasting an at bat.
 
Forcing managers to pick the least damaging of two bad options isn't entertaining to me and the fact that pitchers are getting hurt while hitting and running the bases just makes the whole thing ridiculous to me. Give me longer lasting great pitching performances, more great hitter versus great pitcher matchups, and less flailing at pitches that guy has no chance to do anything with because he only steps into the box two or three times a week.

 

[glennhoffmania]

...on the other hand, MLBPA also represents the numerous bench players in the NL that you have to have around to pinch hit for pitchers. That's not a higher paying job, but it represents more MLBPA members...

 
But adding the DH to the NL wouldn't eliminate any jobs.  It would actually expand the pool of players who still have some value, because playing defense isn't necessarily required.  It's not like the bench would have fewer players.  It would just mean that at least one of those bench guys would be in the starting lineup as the DH instead of sitting around waiting to hit for the pitcher.

 

[SeanBerry]

Give me longer lasting great pitching performances, more great hitter versus great pitcher matchups, and less flailing at pitches that guy has no chance to do anything with because he only steps into the box two or three times a week.

 
Last year starters in the NL pitched longer into games than starting pitchers in the AL.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml

 

[8slim]

More strategy is not he same as better strategy, though. What you are describing is basically "more moves because there are more shitty options to overcome." That's not superior, in my opinion. That's an inferior game that forces managers to get cute to work around less talented players attempting to not shit themselves at the plate. I'd rather see highly skilled players doing what they are highly skilled at more often. This also allows for a more strategic use of bullpens and more freedom to ride a starter during a great performance since you don't have to weigh the benefit of keeping that starter (or a reliever on a good run) in versus the downside of wasting an at bat.
 
Forcing managers to pick the least damaging of two bad options isn't entertaining to me and the fact that pitchers are getting hurt while hitting and running the bases just makes the whole thing ridiculous to me. Give me longer lasting great pitching performances, more great hitter versus great pitcher matchups, and less flailing at pitches that guy has no chance to do anything with because he only steps into the box two or three times a week.

 
I agree wholeheartedly.
 
I don't find there to be that much more strategy in the NL version of baseball.  Most of the moves that are made due to pitchers hitting are obvious. It's like calling punting on 4th and 13 from your own 34 "strategic".  It's a decision, sure, but not one that takes unique skill to come to.
 
Mostly, I can't believe that in an era when MLB really needs more offense in it's game that they haven't pushed a DH into the NL.  It blows my mind that people are discussing banning shifts before they simply stop this charade of old-timey baseball in half of its games.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
Last year starters in the NL pitched longer into games than starting pitchers in the AL.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml

Because they got to face pitchers!!

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Last year starters in the NL pitched longer into games than starting pitchers in the AL.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml

 
 
You've overstating things a bit. 5.9 vs 6.0 is a tiny difference. In 2012 and 2013 they were both at 5.9. And this misses my point entirely. I'm not arguing that American League pitchers go deeper into games on average, I'm arguing about individual performances that may get cut short because a pitcher is due to hit in the next inning and walks a guy in the 8th of a scoreless game. Or where a pitcher who has been dealing is pulled in the 7th because his spot in the order comes up with 1 out and a man on 2nd. It's those individual moments I care about.
 
And besides, this was the least important of the reasons I listed. I want to see the best suited players on the field in every situation. Pitchers at the plate are not the best suited players for that situation in most any at bat. Forcing them to hit forces an inferior product on us for no reason.
 
Add in the injuries and this should be an easy call. I really don't get people who think no DH in the NL is some kind of boon to the game.

 

[jimc]

I actually like watching NL baseball just as much or more than AL. For me the pitcher hitting gives the game a nice rhythm. My perception is that there's a wider variety of situational hitting strategy due to the extra asymmetry in the lineup. The AL is more like every hitter going up with the same approach no matter what. The hitting side of the game feels more like a team effort in the NL because of this.
 
I totally accept the arguments for a universal DH, but count me in the weird minority that likes things the way they are.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Scherzer agree: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25163988/in-wainwright-wake-scherzer-adivocates-for-the-dh-for-both-leagues

""If you look at it from the macro side, who'd people rather see hit -- Big Papi or me?" Scherzer said. "Who would people rather see, a real hitter hitting home runs or a pitcher swinging a wet newspaper? Both leagues need to be on the same set of rules."

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I don't want to see Scherzer hit on a regular basis, but I'd love to see Big Papi pitch an inning just once.

 

[soxhop411]

https://twitter.com/hardballtalk/status/592769030353723395

https://twitter.com/hardballtalk/status/592769030353723395

link to tweet

 

[8slim]

 

https://twitter.com/hardballtalk/status/592769030353723395
link to tweet
 


 
That's a neat story, but "The Phillies knew the Pirates would vote however they voted."
 
Huh?  Why would that be?
 
I have a feeling that's not really what happened.

 

[SumnerH]

 
I think it's totally ridiculous that there are totally different rules in each league...
 
Further, I think NL style baseball is fun to watch because of the tactical game managment elements that having pitchers hit creates. I also think the DH is fun because it gets great hitters in to the lineup over at best minimally competent pitchers (and at worst, completely incompetent ones).
 
So basically, I just like ice cream no matter what flavour you serve me - and if you ask what I want, I'm just going to stand and stare at the menu for 5 minutes while I try to figure it out.

 
This is basically where I am.  I don't see a huge need for the rules to be identical between the two leagues, and I enjoy watching both games.
 

Mostly, I can't believe that in an era when MLB really needs more offense in it's game that they haven't pushed a DH into the NL.  It blows my mind that people are discussing banning shifts before they simply stop this charade of old-timey baseball in half of its games.

 
I'd dispute the notion that MLB _needs_ to do something to add more offense, but banning shifts is definitely dumber than adding a DH in the NL.

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

 
That's a neat story, but "The Phillies knew the Pirates would vote however they voted."
 
Huh?  Why would that be?
 
I have a feeling that's not really what happened.

 
ESPN did a deal on this, too, and had the same line, backed up by the Phillies GM at the time - they had close ties and a strong arrangement.

 

[Lars The Wanderer]

2014 league .OPS
AL .706
NL .694

 

[glennhoffmania]

Argument for the DH in the NL by CBS.  Needless to say, I agree with pretty much all of this:

 

On the DH, though, I continue my pragmatic stance. Both leagues should play the same rules, especially given season-long interleague play and the most important series of the year -- the freaking World Series -- handicaps the road teams by making them play with different rules than they're used to. I often think forward to, say, 20 years down the road when both leagues have had the DH for roughly 15 years and imagine explaining to younger fans that once upon a time the leagues had different rules. They'll laugh.
 
Seriously, it's like only allowing the three-pointer during games in Eastern Conference venues in the NBA or having a different number of downs in the AFC vs. the NFC.
 
Thus, if we're being honest, it's very dumb to have different rules. Both leagues should have the same rules. If you want to argue the DH should be banned, OK, but this isn't happening. Neither side -- the player's union or the owners -- would ever want to do this. So in making it universal, it's bringing the DH to the NL that is the logical conclusion.
 

 

Also, pitchers suck at hitting. They are colletively hitting .089/.111/.103 this season. The good hitters, like Madison Bumgarner and Travis Wood, would still be allowed to hit if the managers in question chose to not use a DH during their starts.
 

 

[8slim]

 
 
 
 
 
I'd dispute the notion that MLB _needs_ to do something to add more offense, but banning shifts is definitely dumber than adding a DH in the NL.

 
I suspect that a lot of people here agree with you.
 
I disagree, but that's what makes this crazy world go 'round.

 

[8slim]

 
ESPN did a deal on this, too, and had the same line, backed up by the Phillies GM at the time - they had close ties and a strong arrangement.

 
Interesting.  Thanks.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Interesting.  Thanks.

 
I have heard Bill Giles tell that story in person and my recollection is that it was reported at the time.  (That could be a false memory.)  Regardless of the media angle, it's true.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

 
That's a neat story, but "The Phillies knew the Pirates would vote however they voted."
 
Huh?  Why would that be?
 
I have a feeling that's not really what happened.

 
You'd be very interested, then, to watch this recent Keith Olbermann clip, which covers the history of the 1980 vote by the NL on whether the adopt the DH:
 
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12776775
 
It's short, entertaining, fair to both sides, and gives you a sense of how absurd this whole thing is.
 
(sidenote: KO really is very engaging when he's doing sports, the guy has a talent and passion for it, he was an idiot to ever move into politics)

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

""If you look at it from the macro side, who'd people rather see hit -- Big Papi or me?" Scherzer said. "Who would people rather see, a real hitter hitting home runs or a pitcher swinging a wet newspaper? Both leagues need to be on the same set of rules."

 
Seems like Heyman was just stumping for Boras' agenda:
 
http://deadspin.com/lame-ass-baseball-controversy-comin-through-1700789654?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow