OT: DH rule under fire?

[youngLion]

Link

16th December, 2009 - 8:30 am
Chicago Tribune - The designated hitter rule could face its first real test since it was implemented in 1976 after commissioner Bud Selig set up a rule committee.

The American League has used the DH for 37 years, but the National League has never considered it.

Selig's 14-member committee will consider all on-field issues.

The commissioner did not mention the DH rule, but Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and longtime Braves executive John Schuerholz, both listed it as the one thing they potentially would change if they could.

Obviously this is a very long way from actually eliminating the DH, but it would be interesting if there was some real meaningful debate on the issue.

[MGD24]

Link

The commissioner did not mention the DH rule, but Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and longtime Braves executive John Schuerholz, both listed it as the one thing they potentially would change if they could.

I like that this is the difference between AL and NL..i hope it doesn't change for either league.

[Schad]

It's odd...I love watching NL baseball, but I can't really get behind a DH ban. Yeah, it makes sense that you should have to play both sides of the ball, but at the same time the practical side of it sucks.

You have guys like Matsui that can still hit and bring value to the game, but without the DH would be relegated to pinch-hitting duties, and it provides a way to overcome positional crunches; in the NL, a guy like Jake Fox has been squandered in the minors for a couple years simply because the Cubs didn't have a place to play him, and it would basically be the death knell for the careers of a lot of 1B types...it's already just about the hardest position at which to make the majors given the depth of talent and dearth of options (most of 'em can't exactly shift to the outfield).

At the same time, I don't think that I'd support the NL moving to the DH, either. I kinda like the fact that two halves of the same league feature such a large difference in rules. If the difference in roster composition was causing the AL to dominate the WS, I'd be in favour of changing it, but it hasn't...the 6-4 split in titles over the last 10 years indicates that while there might not be parity (as evidenced by the AL's advantage in interleague), it's hardly killing the game.

[kelso]

When you start paying pitchers 20mil, making them hit and risking injury on the basepaths is a big financial risk teams should not be willing to take. Also, having pitchers hit (almost all of them) is useless as they are brutal at it. Having a DH adds to the run scoring and offensive side of the game and allows pitchers to concentrate on pitching.

I would be for keeping things as they are or having NL use DH as well.

[mikero]

I hope it doesn't change either..... although it does strike me as extremely odd. Does anyone know how/why it was implemented in the first place?

[satyr9]

I used to believe in no DH 'cause I agree with the principle and the history of playing both sides, but they don't even allow the pitchers who can hit to take regular BP anymore. If pitchers are too valuable to even risk in the batting cage, then please just institute full DH. Watching pitchers whiff away is such a waste of time, if it weren't for the fact that the black hole in the offense forces more interesting strategic decisions, it would've been changed years ago. Still, just because you get double switches and stuff because of P's hitting, to me there's always more talent in the league with DH's and it keeps some premiere hitters around a couple extra years once they stop being able to play a position well.

Also, just ask yourself does Big Papi ever really get a shot in Bos if they had to play him at 1B no matter what? I think they go a different route and he's a superstar that never happened. IMO there's a place in this league for Ortiz or Edgar or whoever far more than there is a need to see 150 odd pitchers totally whiff through 100 ABs each a season.

[The_Hater]

Link

16th December, 2009 - 8:30 am
Chicago Tribune - The designated hitter rule could face its first real test since it was implemented in 1976 after commissioner Bud Selig set up a rule committee.

The American League has used the DH for 37 years, but the National League has never considered it.

Selig's 14-member committee will consider all on-field issues.

The commissioner did not mention the DH rule, but Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and longtime Braves executive John Schuerholz, both listed it as the one thing they potentially would change if they could.

Obviously this is a very long way from actually eliminating the DH, but it would be interesting if there was some real meaningful debate on the issue.

With salaries rising the past few years, getting rid of the DH would be a very easy way to cut $5-10 million off every AL team payroll. And the owners wouldn't mind that.

Does Jim Thome still get $10 million per if he's just a pinch-hitter? Obviously not. He likely even retires. And a lot of others in that mold would as well. The Jays themselves wouldn't have wasted all those millions on Frank Thomas. He would have been retired before he every got the chance in Oakland.

[Schad]

It would reduce payroll, but in so doing would essentially eliminate a large group of players from the league. I don't care if Frank Thomas doesn't get his cash, but I would to see the careers of a large group of players basically eliminated...for a homegrown example, Randy Ruiz and Brian Dopirak wouldn't have the slightest chance (not that they have a great chance as is) at carving out big-league careers without the DH.

[Modern_epic]

I can promise you guys it would have absolutely no affect on payroll. Eliminate the DH, and everyone else just gets paid a bit better. Payroll is tied to revenue, not player skill.

On the other hand, shad has hit the nail on the head as to why it would never happen. Eliminating a large group of players isn't going to happen. AL teams won't let it because they've already invested in players to DH, both in the majors and minors. And the MLBPA won't let it happen because they represent a large number of DHs who don't want to lose their jobs.

Which I think is unfortunate, because I'm all for the elimination of the DH. I mean, as a jays fan, I'm glad we get one. But for baseball, I think it is silly that on player doesn't hit, and one doesn't field. And silly that both leagues have different rules. And causes entertaining strategy. Plus people should stop being such wimps when it comes to pitchers hitting. If they always hit, they wouldn't be quite so awful at it.

Maybe if you gave them a 15 year time frame, those groups might let it happen. But even then it could cause some strange issues towards the end of that time frame as supply dwindles.

[PowerHouse]

It would be interesting. I mean a pitcher is a posisitonal player, so he should be able to bat.
A DH doesn't do anything but hit, how is that fair?

It may sound weird, but we should keep the DH and still make the pitcher bat. So that would mean a 10-man batting order.

[Modern_epic]

It would be interesting. I mean a pitcher is a posisitonal player, so he should be able to bat.
A DH doesn't do anything but hit, how is that fair?

It may sound weird, but we should keep the DH and still make the pitcher bat. So that would mean a 10-man batting order.

Do you have some reason behind this? Because that sounds incredibly weird, and I see no reason why they would even consider that.

It does make me randomly wonder, though: if teams were allowed a tenth player on the field, do you think they would make it another largely stationary slugger, or another good defending player? I would guess somewhere more towards hitting; throw a fourth outfielder out there and don't let any doubles or triples drop in, while getting someone who is a corner outfield bat.

[The_Hater]

It may sound weird, but we should keep the DH and still make the pitcher bat. So that would mean a 10-man batting order.

And change 130+ years of baseball tradition in the process? I don't get it.

[Raps in 4]

The DH makes the game more enjoyable. Pitchers are just wasting a spot in the order.

[Modern_epic]

How about we add another DH spot for catchers. 90% of them are wasting their spot in the order too.

[Raps in 4]

How about we add another DH spot for catchers. 90% of them are wasting their spot in the order too.

Catchers don't do nearly as much at their position to say they can't hit. There are plenty of decent hitting catchers, as opposed to pitchers. With that said, the DH could also safeguard pitchers from a few more injuries.

[Modern_epic]

How about we add another DH spot for catchers. 90% of them are wasting their spot in the order too.

Catchers don't do nearly as much at their position to say they can't hit. There are plenty of decent hitting catchers, as opposed to pitchers. With that said, the DH could also safeguard pitchers from a few more injuries.

Any position not having to hit safeguards the fielder from injury.

Catching, just like pitching, has been shown statistically to decrease the player's ability to hit, which isn't true of any other positions. When a catcher leaves from behind the plate, their offensive numbers go up. (I can't find the study right now, but I believe it was by Tom Tango.) Better hitters would make the game more enjoyable, right?