crazietalk.net

Baseball is a game of oddities. First of all, it's the only major sport where a team can come up with whatever dimensions it wants to for its field. Yes, the bases have to be 90 feet apart, but the outfield can be whatever distance the home team wants it to be and the fences can be whatever height the home team wants it to be. Also, the home team can decide how much foul territory they want to have. Pretty far out.

Likewise, baseball is odd in that you have different rules for each league, namely, the designated hitter rule. Sooner or later, this will not be the case. Eventually, baseball will decide on keeping or doing away with the DH for both leagues. This brings us to our poll question:

Regarding the DH, are you for it or against it?

Discuss.

-Earl Weaver Jam

Both teams should have the option of using the DH, or not, in all interleague games, including the World Series. If the National League purists are so dead set against it, let them bat the pitcher if they want. But let the AL team use the DH in NL parks.

I am not a fan of the DH. Of course, I grew up in mainly NL cities - Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Houston, Tokyo, and Seoul - so I'm biased. OK - kidding about the last 2 but was a Pirates fan at that time. The game is different with the DH - I don't think the manager has to do as much strategizing.

DukieInKansas wrote:The game is different with the DH - I don't think the manager has to do as much strategizing.

I hear this all the time but I must really, really, REALLY disagree. I think the strategy is equal, but different. Haveing a legitimate hit threat at the plate makes the manager think more. "Do I bring in a pitcher to face the DH? Do we walk him intentionally?" Those are just two examples (it's late). A pitcher is basically (yes, with some exception), an automatic out. I could make the argurment that this "auto out" makes for LESS strategy needed by the manager.

Anyway, I've never bought the argument that the DH demands less strategy. If anything, as mentioned, I can make the case for the opposite.

I wonder what Robin Yount is doing right now.

-EJ

Designate hitters are kind of like place kickers in football. They each have their unique talents, they practice hard, they're part of a team's success and share in their losses. They're also the most laughable and damning position in both sports.

EarlJam wrote:

DukieInKansas wrote:The game is different with the DH - I don't think the manager has to do as much strategizing.

I hear this all the time but I must really, really, REALLY disagree. I think the strategy is equal, but different. Haveing a legitimate hit threat at the plate makes the manager think more. "Do I bring in a pitcher to face the DH? Do we walk him intentionally?" Those are just two examples (it's late). A pitcher is basically (yes, with some exception), an automatic out. I could make the argurment that this "auto out" makes for LESS strategy needed by the manager.

Anyway, I've never bought the argument that the DH demands less strategy. If anything, as mentioned, I can make the case for the opposite.

I wonder what Robin Yount is doing right now.

-EJ

Of course, without the DH, the manager has to decide whether to leave a pitcher in that is doing really well but is up to bat in what could possibly be the third out of the inning - should he pull the pitcher or let him take his at bat. With the DH, I don't think the manager has to give it much more thought than any other good batter on the opposing team.

Of course, it's an argument that you will never get the other side to change their opinion.

I defer to the immortal words of Crash Davis:

"...I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter..."

...and domed stadiums
...and while I'm at it...they are the 'Boys of Summer' not the 'Boys of Spring into Autumn'
When World Series/Playoff games get snowed out your season is too freakin' long.

DukieInKansas wrote:

EarlJam wrote:

DukieInKansas wrote:The game is different with the DH - I don't think the manager has to do as much strategizing.

I hear this all the time but I must really, really, REALLY disagree. I think the strategy is equal, but different. Haveing a legitimate hit threat at the plate makes the manager think more. "Do I bring in a pitcher to face the DH? Do we walk him intentionally?" Those are just two examples (it's late). A pitcher is basically (yes, with some exception), an automatic out. I could make the argurment that this "auto out" makes for LESS strategy needed by the manager.

Anyway, I've never bought the argument that the DH demands less strategy. If anything, as mentioned, I can make the case for the opposite.

I wonder what Robin Yount is doing right now.

-EJ

Of course, without the DH, the manager has to decide whether to leave a pitcher in that is doing really well but is up to bat in what could possibly be the third out of the inning - should he pull the pitcher or let him take his at bat. With the DH, I don't think the manager has to give it much more thought than any other good batter on the opposing team.

Of course, it's an argument that you will never get the other side to change their opinion.

My great uncle, who I would dare to say knew more about baseball than pretty much all of us combined, hated the DH and aluminum bats.

DinK is right, but didn't even take it as far as it can go. To take it one step further, managers also have to decide if a pitcher is struggling and is set to come up to bat that inning, does he try to let the pitcher get out of the jam, then bring in a pinch hitter, or does he pull him, and then either waste a pitcher by bringing in the pinch hitter, or have another pitcher taking the at bat. Plus, when making selections for a team, the NL GM has to at least CONSIDER how well a pitcher bats. An AL GM doesn't really care a whit. And there are some pitchers who are decent hitters. Heck, I don't know if it still holds, but at the three week mark of the season, the top 3 Astros hitters by batting average were starting pitchers.

I totally agree with your uncle re aluminum bats: the crack of the bat > the ping of the bat

I'm not sure the 3 top batters, based on batting average, on the Astros being pitchers is saying much. It just may be that the Astros stink.

DukieInKansas wrote:I totally agree with your uncle re aluminum bats: the crack of the bat > the ping of the bat

I'm not sure the 3 top batters, based on batting average, on the Astros being pitchers is saying much. It just may be that the Astros stink.

My point was just that GMs in the NL have to at least give a PASSING consideration to their pitchers' ability at the plate.

bjornolf wrote:

DukieInKansas wrote:I totally agree with your uncle re aluminum bats: the crack of the bat > the ping of the bat

I'm not sure the 3 top batters, based on batting average, on the Astros being pitchers is saying much. It just may be that the Astros stink.

My point was just that GMs in the NL have to at least give a PASSING consideration to their pitchers' ability at the plate.

I agree with that. My comment was more a crack at the hapless Astros - harkening back to my days in Houston when they gave away tickets to high school students who made honor roll. Games were fun but no expected them to win anything.