I still don't fully grasp the whole DH rule argument. I want the DH. I don't want to see a pitcher strikeout or ground weakly to an infielder. Yes, it is dramatic when that rare good-hitting pitcher doubles in the winning run for himself, but that is rare. As for the late-inning strategy of double-switching and stuff, I would rather save my pencil lead.
For me, the DH rule adds simplicity to the game, especially during a replay.
I think the most sucicnct way to explain the anti-DH argument is that it breaks the idea of having each player play both offense and defense.
If you allow a batting specialist to hit for the pitcher, why not allow another batting specialist to hit for the shortstop? You could then move on to the catcher, the second baseman, and on until you have 9 men playing offense and 9 men playing defense.
We've seen this happen in other sports - most notably American football. People forget this, but there was a time not that long ago when football players had to play both ways, back before there was unlimited substitution. That's given way to specialization, which has given us overweight players that are incapable of playing for extended periods of time.
There's also no reason why a pitcher can't have at least some ability as a hitter. A lot of the lack of hitting ability by pitchers is a result of clubs not allowing pitchers to take batting practice - something that is mostly a modern phenomenon. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that sense: you think pitchers can't hit, so you don't let them develop any sort of hitting ability, causing you to further believe that your assumption was correct.
There was a time a century ago or so when pitchers would frequently be used as pinch hitters.
Hal McRae predates Edgar Martinez as a DH who was not old. McRae hurt his shoulder and his already weak arm did not translate well into a corner outfield spot so he became the Royals DH in 1974 at the ripe old age of 28
Another excellent post; but...to me the DH (as it has evolved over the years) is not a bad thing.
Adding an, actual, hitter to a lineup offers more options per trying to generate runs, imho
Thus...more strategy.
Where is the strategy in having a 9th man in the lineup (pitcher) who, for the most part, can only bunt.
Yes, there have been & are some good hitting pitchers; but, generally, not 'the guy' you want to see in a crucial situation...memories & highlights of David Ortiz, quickly, come to mind.
I get the decisions of switching, players, etc...but quite boring & forced, if you will...translation not a tough strategical decision; compared to more options at the plate per hitting & baserunning.
Very interesting and thought provoking. I am currently running a custom AL/NL setup with 10 teams - 5 NL and 5 AL. I end up playing the NL games first for the round of games, then switch to the AL teams and there is that difference for sure, especially having the DH and not thinking about when the pitcher is due up, like the NL. I don't want to say mindless rolling with the AL, but it is more on auto-pilot. I really like this idea - having 1973 AL teams and moving forward, to go back to non-DH days :-)
I still don't fully grasp the whole DH rule argument. I want the DH. I don't want to see a pitcher strikeout or ground weakly to an infielder. Yes, it is dramatic when that rare good-hitting pitcher doubles in the winning run for himself, but that is rare. As for the late-inning strategy of double-switching and stuff, I would rather save my pencil lead.
For me, the DH rule adds simplicity to the game, especially during a replay.
Enjoyed the read, though. :)
Thanks!
I think the most sucicnct way to explain the anti-DH argument is that it breaks the idea of having each player play both offense and defense.
If you allow a batting specialist to hit for the pitcher, why not allow another batting specialist to hit for the shortstop? You could then move on to the catcher, the second baseman, and on until you have 9 men playing offense and 9 men playing defense.
We've seen this happen in other sports - most notably American football. People forget this, but there was a time not that long ago when football players had to play both ways, back before there was unlimited substitution. That's given way to specialization, which has given us overweight players that are incapable of playing for extended periods of time.
There's also no reason why a pitcher can't have at least some ability as a hitter. A lot of the lack of hitting ability by pitchers is a result of clubs not allowing pitchers to take batting practice - something that is mostly a modern phenomenon. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that sense: you think pitchers can't hit, so you don't let them develop any sort of hitting ability, causing you to further believe that your assumption was correct.
There was a time a century ago or so when pitchers would frequently be used as pinch hitters.
Very good points I had not thought of. Thank you, Daniel.
Hal McRae predates Edgar Martinez as a DH who was not old. McRae hurt his shoulder and his already weak arm did not translate well into a corner outfield spot so he became the Royals DH in 1974 at the ripe old age of 28
Another excellent post; but...to me the DH (as it has evolved over the years) is not a bad thing.
Adding an, actual, hitter to a lineup offers more options per trying to generate runs, imho
Thus...more strategy.
Where is the strategy in having a 9th man in the lineup (pitcher) who, for the most part, can only bunt.
Yes, there have been & are some good hitting pitchers; but, generally, not 'the guy' you want to see in a crucial situation...memories & highlights of David Ortiz, quickly, come to mind.
I get the decisions of switching, players, etc...but quite boring & forced, if you will...translation not a tough strategical decision; compared to more options at the plate per hitting & baserunning.
Very interesting and thought provoking. I am currently running a custom AL/NL setup with 10 teams - 5 NL and 5 AL. I end up playing the NL games first for the round of games, then switch to the AL teams and there is that difference for sure, especially having the DH and not thinking about when the pitcher is due up, like the NL. I don't want to say mindless rolling with the AL, but it is more on auto-pilot. I really like this idea - having 1973 AL teams and moving forward, to go back to non-DH days :-)