SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Momentum growing for DH in NL
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 16, 2016 13:13:02 GMT -5
“@dgoold: Mozeliak says there is ”more momentum“ in discussions with GMs and owners for the DH coming into the National League. #MLB #cardinals”
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 16, 2016 13:28:11 GMT -5
Good. I somewhat get the reasoning behind people that like that pitchers hit, I just mostly disagree with it. It seems crazy and creates an unnecessary imbalance between leagues both competitively and #'s wise. The union certainly isn't going to oppose it, and I'm fairly confident that in either the upcoming CBA or the following one that the DH will be implemented in the NL. I'm actually amazed it hasn't happened yet purely out of the owners/GMs being terrified of a pitcher getting hurt (albeit unlikely realistically) doing something they are not "pros" at
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jan 16, 2016 13:36:37 GMT -5
I'm all for consistency between leagues in a sport that values stats so much.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 16, 2016 14:31:23 GMT -5
It's inevitable. Over time, the batting average of pitchers approaches zero. At some point (I'd argue we're well past that point in fact), it just become absurd to have them in the lineup. Plus, there's obvious financial incentives both in terms of protecting pitchers and because higher run scoring tends to drive attendance. I can understand some of the arguments for keeping pitcher hitting around, but I don't think any of them are particularly appealing to the people who are ultimately going to make the decision.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 16, 2016 15:03:58 GMT -5
All the arguments in favor of keeping the rule that pitchers hit fall away in front of the central reality for me: it's just boring to watch pitchers hit. The whole game hinges on the repeated battles between pitcher and hitter, and it's like the game just takes a little break every 9 batters ... might as well go get a beer.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Jan 16, 2016 15:09:49 GMT -5
I feel like any major proponent of keeping pitchers in the lineup is the same sort of person who endlessly spouts about some modern players "not playing the game the right way."
Get bats out of the pitchers' hands and make our sport more fun, and actually allow displaying emotion.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 16, 2016 15:34:02 GMT -5
It should also be pointed out that there are literally no pitchers who can hit. Greinke is the best by a pretty decent margin, and he's still only a .249/.300/.357 hitter over the past three years. That's an acceptable line for an exceptional defender. After that you've got Bumgarner who can run into one occasionally but he's .211/.250/.367 in the same period which MAYBE you'd let Andrelton Simmons get away with. As weak as those lines are, the drop-off after them still manages to be steep. Of any pitcher with 100 PAs in the last three years, only seven guys have cracked a .200 wOBA. Only six in that group have cleared a .200 batting average.
I just don't see the point.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Jan 16, 2016 15:47:38 GMT -5
It should also be pointed out that there are literally no pitchers who can hit. Greinke is the best by a pretty decent margin, and he's still only a .249/.300/.357 hitter over the past three years. That's an acceptable line for an exceptional defender. After that you've got Bumgarner who can run into one occasionally but he's .211/.250/.367 in the same period which MAYBE you'd let Andrelton Simmons get away with. As weak as those lines are, the drop-off after them still manages to be steep. Of any pitcher with 100 PAs in the last three years, only seven guys have cracked a .200 wOBA. Only six in that group have cleared a .200 batting average. I just don't see the point. Because maintaining tradition is a lot more important to some than making sense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2016 16:36:14 GMT -5
I'm someone who tends to stick with tradition over change, but the NL DH is a big exception for me.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Jan 16, 2016 21:43:43 GMT -5
Thankfully the half of baseball that is stuck in the 19th century is almost ready to move on. I know all of baseball will miss watching a great pitcher get taken out of a game because a slightly better, but still below average hitter, needs to take his spot in the order in the 7th inning. What will baseball ever do without that type of strategy?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 16, 2016 21:53:26 GMT -5
I think it's time for the NL to adopt the DH rule. It's well past time, actually. I understand the "strategy" element that the traditionalist bemoan but a lot of the strategy is actually knee-jerk strategy that any 4 year old can figure out easily.
Pitchers hitting made a lot of sense when the game was invented. Baseball in a way was like softball where the pitcher didn't have a ton of value and their bat was essential to keep them in the lineup. Early on batters could actually call for a low pitch or a high pitch to swing at. As pitching became specialized and eventually the 1 man rotation became a 3 man rotation, and then a 4 man rotation, and finally a five man rotation, the value of a pitcher's offense mattered less and less. Nobody cares if Tim Lollar could rake, but Bob Buhl could go 0-70 or Jon Lester could be so lost at the plate or that the average pitcher hits .150, making the strategy of pinch-hitting for them or having them bunt so obvious. The fact of the matter is that Tim Lollar couldn't hold his pitching job because he was a torch and if he could hit .250 nobody cared just like if Jon Lester gets batters out nobody cares if he ever gets a hit.
Traditionalists don't want to admit it, but the fact of the matter is that pitching has become so specialized that the DH makes all the sense in the world. They whine, why not have a DH for the weak hitting catcher or the weak hitting SS? But as comparatively weak as they normally are, they aren't that far below average and you don't have five different guys playing SS in five days. Pitching is unique the way it has evolved, and I think now given the huge contracts it makes sense to have a spot where an injured player who can still swing the bat can earn a portion of his check DHing, and of course, if you have a DH who can rake like Ortiz, well you can't give that first type of player I described the DH spot, but if you have Ortiz, who cares?
And for the traditionalists who still insist they can't live without watching Zack Greinke hit, keep in mind that one day in 1987 I believe, Billy Martin DHed pitcher Rick Rhoden, so if Babe Ruth came along today he can pitch once every 5th day and remain in the lineup as a pitcher and he could DH the other four days.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jan 17, 2016 10:52:32 GMT -5
If they had the DH back in 1960, Ted Williams would have played another 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 17, 2016 11:55:56 GMT -5
Lack of a DH in the NL caused the financial crisis in 2008. Look it up.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 17, 2016 14:58:15 GMT -5
Mediocre starters who probably have more difficulty in the AL are totally against it. On the same vain, 35+ year old hitters who still have the ability to put up good numbers, but can't field anymore are all for it.
I'd rather have more offense. I'd rather not see 99% of the pitchers not with-in one mile of the bat rack. I hate it for the pitcher (and to some degree for the owner) when a multi-million dollar pitcher has to be placed on the DL because he pulled a hammy running to 1st base.
I'm all for seeing an athlete do what he does best, and not what he does worse. Bad fielder and good hitter? I want to see good hitting. Good pitcher and injury prone pitcher.....keep the pitcher healthy and let him do what he does best.
One last thing, the DH being used by both leagues would permit premier hitters to stay in a line-up even when there is inter-league play and they are playing in the NL city. If you are looking for the most entertainment, there is no question a fan would like to see the exceptional hitter up at the plate 4 times per game instead of watching their pitcher hitting.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Jan 18, 2016 3:01:28 GMT -5
Mediocre starters who probably have more difficulty in the AL are totally against it. On the same vain, 35+ year old hitters who still have the ability to put up good numbers, but can't field anymore are all for it. I'd rather have more offense. I'd rather not see 99% of the pitchers not with-in one mile of the bat rack. I hate it for the pitcher (and to some degree for the owner) when a multi-million dollar pitcher has to be placed on the DL because he pulled a hammy running to 1st base. I'm all for seeing an athlete do what he does best, and not what he does worse. Bad fielder and good hitter? I want to see good hitting. Good pitcher and injury prone pitcher.....keep the pitcher healthy and let him do what he does best. One last thing, the DH being used by both leagues would permit premier hitters to stay in a line-up even when there is inter-league play and they are playing in the NL city. If you are looking for the most entertainment, there is no question a fan would like to see the exceptional hitter up at the plate 4 times per game instead of watching their pitcher hitting. With so many interleavue games now, perhaps the easiest way to ease the NL fanbase and owners into favoring the DH would be to make the DH optional in i terleague games in NL parks. This protects AL pitchers from harm while giving NLpitchers and managers an option to experiment with DH. I wonder how many seasons the NLfanbase and pitchers, and even 'traditionalist' NL media and talking heads, would need to embrace the concept. No DH mandate necessary. Just a pro-active democratic option to insure parith wbile protecting those "poor, undertrained" AL pitchers from hurting themselves and their "real baseball" deprived francbises.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 18, 2016 6:07:49 GMT -5
I'm guessing that the ownership will use it as a negotiating tool (read carrot/cheese) for the next collective bargaining agreement. I can't see the players union not wanting it.
|
|
|
Post by 29sonski on Jan 18, 2016 6:26:37 GMT -5
Usually I prefer to deal with topics at surface level, which has been where the discussion here has stayed. Increased offensive production, pitcher preservation and consistency between the two leagues are all logical and valid points. To play devil’s advocate though, is the NL designated hitter a bargaining chip too? Since the new collective bargaining agreement is to be revised this year, could the DH be a negotiating “asset” that owners potentially toss to the players union, or vice versa?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 18, 2016 6:40:55 GMT -5
Multi-billions of dollars means that pretty much everything is a negotiating tool.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 18, 2016 7:05:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't use interleague play as a reason to use the DH in the NL, because I hate interleague play. But the two leagues should be playing a sport with the same rules to actually determine which team becomes the World Series champion.
|
|
|
Post by 29sonski on Jan 18, 2016 7:14:17 GMT -5
I wouldn't use interleague play as a reason to use the DH in the NL, because I hate interleague play. Do you hate interleague play because of the DH or for other reasons?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 18, 2016 7:31:24 GMT -5
I wouldn't use interleague play as a reason to use the DH in the NL, because I hate interleague play. Do you hate interleague play because of the DH or for other reasons? Both for now. It's hard enough to develop any kind of rivalry with 14 other AL teams, let alone 29 total. I have zero interest in seeing the Red Sox playing pretty much any NL team. It's obviously not for my benefit, but for the benefit of a team like the Marlins who draw 30,000 Red Sox fans living in Miami when they play each other. But who gives a damn about the Marlins coming to Boston? And it's really screwed up how lopsided the divisions are. An AL team that played the NL East more (with three 90 loss teams) and the NL Central (with three 97 win teams) less than another AL team had a huge advantage in the standings last year. There is no possible way to make the schedule balanced when you have interleague play. I also realize that it's going nowhere. I don't know anyone who likes it unless they're living in a city that has the opposite league play in it than their favorite team is in.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 18, 2016 8:28:21 GMT -5
Do you hate interleague play because of the DH or for other reasons? Both for now. It's hard enough to develop any kind of rivalry with 14 other AL teams, let alone 29 total. I have zero interest in seeing the Red Sox playing pretty much any NL team. It's obviously not for my benefit, but for the benefit of a team like the Marlins who draw 30,000 Red Sox fans living in Miami when they play each other. But who gives a damn about the Marlins coming to Boston? And it's really screwed up how lopsided the divisions are. An AL team that played the NL East more (with three 90 loss teams) and the NL Central (with three 97 win teams) less than another AL team had a huge advantage in the standings last year. There is no possible way to make the schedule balanced when you have interleague play. I also realize that it's going nowhere. I don't know anyone who likes it unless they're living in a city that has the opposite league play in it than their favorite team is in. I'm with you. I can't stand interleague play and feel it takes away from the World Series and the All-Star game and the mystique of separateness between the two leagues. I honestly feel it only exists because the powers that be were all too hot-to-trot for a Yankees/Mets series. The Sox get stuck playing Atlanta and Philly where there is no rivalry and for most part so do the other teams - get stuck playing teams where they really aren't true rivals. To me, the mystique is gone a little bit, especially when two teams play each other, and then wind up facing each other in the World Series, which is supposed to be a contest between the best team (left standing) in the two leagues. I think I'm a "traditionalist" of sorts. I still don't like the Wild Card. I like the thought of "first place" actually meaning something. I've always been of the mindset that a league or division should never have less than 6 teams in it or more than 8 teams in it. I grew up in the 26 team era (the Jays and M's were new teams), when there were 4 divisions, 7 teams in the AL East, 7 teams in the AL West, 6 teams in the NL East, and 6 teams in the NL West. First place really meant something back then. That's why, even though I still don't like the wild card concept, I do like the idea of the wild-card playoff, because it does make finishing in 1st place significant, even if you're only better than 4 other teams in your division. I admit I have outdated thinking here in that 6 to 8 team divisions don't work. In the "traditional" baseball era there were two 8 team leagues. With the first wave of expansion the leagues were featuring 10 team leagues which is way too many teams not making the play-offs, so when there was the second wave of expansion, four six team divisions were created under the two leagues, which to me, made better sense. So basically we went from a 12.5% chance of making the post-season to a 16.7% chance of making the playoff-s in 1969, which became 15.4% in 1977. The Wild Card increased it to 21.4% in 1993, and by 1998 it was 20%. Now with the new rules, it's 33.3%, but at least I console myself with the fact that now you only have a 10% chance of winning when in the post-season as opposed to the 50% it used to be when there was just two leagues and 16 teams. I got a sense of why this wasn't a bad things, even though the idea of the Wild Card seemed to run counter to my intuitiveness of what made baseball uniquely itself and not like football, hockey, or basketball. I realized that with Yankee money, the late 90s dynasty was small potatoes to what American League fans dealt with for a big stretch of time between 1921 - 1964 when unless your team was the Yankees, you weren't going to be watching/following October baseball for your team. So I guess the Wild Card helps prevent a stacked deck franchise like the Yankees or whoever else has more money to spend than whoever. Of course, now we're in an era where we know dollars spent than everybody else doesn't necessarily translate into more wins than everybody else, although it is still an advantage. And as far as the DH goes, I admit being influenced by the fact that I've never witnessed the AL without it. My first favorite player was Yaz who was DHing by then, and I was glad to be able to watch him play. I just think evolution of the game has made the idea of the pitcher hitting silly.
|
|
|
Post by 29sonski on Jan 18, 2016 8:41:54 GMT -5
Do you hate interleague play because of the DH or for other reasons? Both for now. It's hard enough to develop any kind of rivalry with 14 other AL teams, let alone 29 total. I have zero interest in seeing the Red Sox playing pretty much any NL team. ... Thanks. I take your point, but disagree about difficulty developing AL rivalries. At least I have no problem stoking rivalries! Also, there is always going to be schedule imbalance to some degree, whether interleague or exclusively intraleague. As to Miami, I’d have enjoyed Stanton and/or Fernandez taking on Fenway last July. It was good to see Gordon and Yelich though. I like baseball in general. Seeing different teams, players and stadiums in the regular season adds to its appeal for me. So, I have no qualm with interleague games at that level. That said, I admit there’s a disparity in interleague play. AL and NL rosters are not built the same. The strategy and style of play vary between the leagues, but in the end there are 27 outs. I enjoy predicting the double switch or seeing pitchers lay down the sacrifice from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 18, 2016 8:57:11 GMT -5
Do you hate interleague play because of the DH or for other reasons? Both for now. It's hard enough to develop any kind of rivalry with 14 other AL teams, let alone 29 total. I have zero interest in seeing the Red Sox playing pretty much any NL team. It's obviously not for my benefit, but for the benefit of a team like the Marlins who draw 30,000 Red Sox fans living in Miami when they play each other. But who gives a damn about the Marlins coming to Boston? And it's really screwed up how lopsided the divisions are. An AL team that played the NL East more (with three 90 loss teams) and the NL Central (with three 97 win teams) less than another AL team had a huge advantage in the standings last year. There is no possible way to make the schedule balanced when you have interleague play.I also realize that it's going nowhere. I don't know anyone who likes it unless they're living in a city that has the opposite league play in it than their favorite team is in. To the first point: people who want to watch Jose Fernandez or Giancarlo Stanton instead of seeing the Orioles for the 63rd time that year? To the second, playing a wider variety of teams would seem to lead to a more balanced schedule, no? What's so balanced about the NL East now? Any halfway decent team in that division has a tremendous advantage. The Mets were a .500 team last year when playing outside the NL East.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 18, 2016 9:53:05 GMT -5
A funny story as to why there is no DH in the NL. In response to increases in American League attendance because of the designated hitter, the National League held a yes/no vote on August 13, 1980 to determine whether or not the league would adopt the designated hitter. A simple majority of the 12 member teams was necessary to pass the rule, and the measure was expected to pass. However, when the teams were informed that the rule would not come into effect until the 1982 season, Philadelphia Phillies Vice President, Bill Giles, was unsure of how the team owner, Ruly Carpenter, wanted him to vote. Unable to contact Carpenter, who was on a fishing trip, Giles was forced to abstain from voting. Prior to the meeting, Harding Peterson, general manager for the Pittsburgh Pirates, was told to side with the Phillies. The final tally was four teams voting for the DH (Atlanta Braves, New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, and San Diego Padres), five votes against (Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, Los Angeles Dodgers, Montreal Expos, and San Francisco Giants), and three abstentions (Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, and Houston Astros). Five days after that meeting, the Cardinals fired their general manager, John Clairborne, who was the leading proponent for the adoption of the DH rule, and the National League has not held another vote on the issue ever since and that is the reason why there is no DH in the NL.
|
|
|