Debate: The DH

[Greg Pappas]

A couple of months ago I began a thread/poll (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65702) that asked how one would vote were they given a voice in MLB's fictitious decision to implement a new rule designating that both the AL and NL must abide by the same rules... or more simply 'DH' or 'No DH'.

With the points arising again in another thread, I though reigniting a similar debate involving the merits of the 'DH' vs. 'Not having the DH' would be interesting.

I'd love to see some well-considered commentary on your or others (links please) feeling's on the matter.

Also, should the leagues play under the same rules, or are you okay with the status quo?

Thanks, and let's take this opportunity to showcase our mettle. ;)

[Greg Pappas]

BY PAUL DAUGHERTY
The Cincinnati Enquirer (http://www.enquirer.com/columns/daugherty/1997/09/091697_pd.html)


Baseball owners convene today in Atlanta - slogan, Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here - intending to emerge with a united plan on realigning the leagues. It would be simpler to melt the ice caps with a gas grill than to get these fellows to agree on anything.

You could put them all in a room with one clock and they'd argue the hour. But here we go.

At some point during these momentous discussions, the owners will talk about the designated hitter. Should we have it, should we not, and if we shouldn't, how do we ditch it without the players union throwing a tantrum?

American League owners are said to be lukewarm on keeping the DH. National League owners don't want the DH, would fight the DH and might refuse to field teams if the DH were imposed upon them. NL fans aren't crazy about it, either.

There has always been a snobbery at work in the NL, fatted by the notion that pitchers hitting and managers thinking is the superior way to play the game.


Shhh! Genuises at work

Personally, I'd rather see a hitter hit than a manager think. Basically, it boils down to this:
Paul Molitor?

Or Jim Riggleman?

Reds broadcaster Marty Brennaman, who knows what he knows, doesn't like the DH. He was calling minor-league games at its inception in 1973. Initially, Brennaman was enthusiastic. But as the year progressed, he soured. "It wasn't the game I grew up watching," he said.

"I love to watch a game that's got speed. I love to watch managers manage. As a fan, I like the opportunity to second-guess a manager."

This is the meat of the NL argument. "The romanticism of the game," Reds interim CEO John Allen calls it. Allen was a season-ticket holder in Kansas City when Hal McRae was one of the best DHs in the league. Allen still prefers the NL.

The purists sit in the stands with sharpened pencils, radio to their ears, debating lefty-righty percentages and promoting the greatness of the double switch. To them, thinking is an essential part of the game.

But these are not thinking times. These are not days for quietly pondering defensive replacements and the merits of middle relief. These are days of exploding scoreboards and the 24-hour highlight. Living in the time of Prime is a risky business for baseball, which dispenses its pleasures more slowly.

Baseball may have been more civilized and classy when everybody's pitchers had to know how to bunt. But that was a long time ago. When, it could be argued, everything was more civilized.


Turn up the volume

Now, everything is louder.
It's no coincidence that two of the three sellouts in Pittsburgh this summer came on nights when the club shot off fireworks after the game. Or that seemingly every NBA game must open to an avalanche of spot lights, dry ice and disco to be considered valid.

Just guessing, but you'd have to think casual baseball fans prefer home runs to strategy. They'd rather watch action than not. Watching other sports has made them familiar with having their senses assaulted. Judging from the increasing popularity of football and basketball, as compared to the National Pastime, they rather like the feeling.

It has been suggested that baseball's owners, to appease the players union, would trade an additional roster spot per team for a gradual phase-out of the DH. This would allow aging DHs such as Molitor, Chili Davis and Edgar Martinez to finish their careers.

But maybe this is the wrong move. Maybe the DH should be phased in, to include the National League. It would keep some star players in the league longer. Dave Parker and Don Baylor were valuable in the AL long after they'd have retired from the NL.

It would take some players out of the defense who really don't belong there. It would increase scoring. It might hold the attention of the exploding scoreboard generation. Baseball is losing that one. More double switches won't get it back.

[Greg Pappas]

By Bob Costas (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/bbw/bbw1828.htm)


Some changes in baseball — such as interleague play on a limited basis, or a thoughtful realignment — make perfect sense. Others — artificial turf, wild-card teams in the playoffs — make sense only to the baseball-impaired.

Then, there is the designated hitter. It's an idea not without merit and one which used to make sense — for the American League, at least.

In the early 1970s, baseball faced a crisis of popularity. The American League was especially hurting because of the disappearance of the Yankee dynasty and its slowness in signing black and Latin stars. That left the National League with a disproportionate number of the game's best and most exciting players.

In addition, offense was at its lowest point in generations. In 1968, the entire American League hit .230. Carl Yastrzemski won the batting title with a .301 average. Some 20% of all games in the major leagues that year were shutouts.

Clearly, something had to be done to juice the offense and to distinguish the American League from the National in an interesting way. The designated hitter was a logical response and it had some real benefits. It helped increase run production — the league batting average jumped from .239 in 1972 (pre-DH) to .259 in 1973 (first year of DH) — and it extended the careers of some popular players.

Now, except for enabling veterans such as Minnesota's Paul Molitor to continue playing, none of the other conditions apply any more. Everyone knows the offense has gone through the roof in every measurable way. If anything, the balance needs to be tipped back in the other direction.

With its new ballparks and exciting young stars, the American League no longer needs gimmickry to distinguish itself from the senior circuit. The disadvantages that were always present with the DH now tip the balance the other way. One of those disadvantages was highlighted recently by the ugly beanball incidents at Yankee Stadium and in Kansas City. Almost to a man, baseball people believe these situations would occur less frequently if the pitcher had to bat and face the prospect of retaliation.

More importantly, the loss of strategy and the over-emphasis on power at the expense of some of the game's subtleties is simply too great a price to pay for the advantages of the DH. Beside, anyone who has so short an attention span and so little appreciation for baseball that he can't bear to watch a pitcher bat is probably beyond hope, anyway.

The fact is the National League plays a more interesting game. The American League should try it, too.

[El Gordo]

As I said in another post; In addition I prefer to watch Ortiz, Huff, Hafner, Bradley, Guererro, Thome, Giambi, Thomas, and Sheffield continue to play baseball. I agree that it is preferable to watch any of these guys hit than to watch Tony La Russa micromanage.

[Fan4Life]

Do you know what reasons and or opinions were given at the time is was being considered as to why they thought it would be a good idea?

[byrdz]

Pitchers already exert beyond their fair share of energy during a game and in practice just by being the guy that holds the ball the majority of the time. They don't have the time or energy to do well at both hitting and pitching and shouldn't be asked to do so, but then I would have thought that was obvious from the stats.

I also don't agree that the NL is a more strategic game.

[orayole]

By Bob Costas (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/bbw/bbw1828.htm)

People like him are why I hate the National League and their fans.

I'd rather drop the National League from MLB than lose the DH.

[Greg Pappas]

People like him are why I hate the National League and their fans.

I'd rather drop the National League from MLB than lose the DH.

That's a bit harsh, eh? Explain?

[Greg Pappas]

Do you know what reasons and or opinions were given at the time is was being considered as to why they thought it would be a good idea?

This question confuses me, can you ask in a different way? :confused:

Did you mean what considerations were being tossed around by MLB? Unsure if that's your meaning. :o

[Fan4Life]

This question confuses me, can you ask in a different way? :confused:

Did you mean what considerations were being tossed around by MLB? Unsure if that's your meaning. :o

Yes, what led to the DH?

[orayole]

That's a bit harsh, eh? Explain?

The whole article was basically that the AL is inferior to the NL because of the DH and that people who like the DH know nothing about baseball.

[DrungoHazewood]

My answer to this question is rooted in the evolutionary processes that all systems go through as they mature. Baseball has gotten better and better at identifying and training players throughout history. As such, they've learned to discard those attributes that don't significantly contribute to winning ballgames.

Pitchers hitting is like a vestigal tail on a person. It's an interesting phenonmenon, but it doesn't significantly contribute to winning unless it's worked on and practiced and selected by scouts to such a degree that it negatively impacts the pitcher's ability to pitch. And pitching is what really matters.

You see this effect manifested in an obvious way by comparing the relative OPS of pitchers to those of the rest of the league throughout history: Pitchers were almost the equals of shortstops as hitters in 1880. Today their relative OPS is about 40% of the rest of the league. As hitters, major league pitchers wouldn't cut it in the Appy League.

It was perfectly reasonable to have a no-DH league in 1880, when your average pitcher hit like Mike Bordick. But an average pitcher today hits like the #6 guy in your high school team's lineup. It's not because they don't try, or because the DH ruined pitchers hitting in 1974. The trends have continued unbroken since the earliest days of pro ball, and if anything it has flattened out since the DH.

Pitchers can't hit, and there's nothing we can do about it except drastically lower the level of MLB competition. That ain't happening, so long live the DH!

[longflyball]

My answer to this question is rooted in the evolutionary processes that all systems go through as they mature. Baseball has gotten better and better at identifying and training players throughout history. As such, they've learned to discard those attributes that don't significantly contribute to winning ballgames.

Pitchers hitting is like a vestigal tail on a person. It's an interesting phenonmenon, but it doesn't significantly contribute to winning unless it's worked on and practiced and selected by scouts to such a degree that it negatively impacts the pitcher's ability to pitch. And pitching is what really matters.

You see this effect manifested in an obvious way by comparing the relative OPS of pitchers to those of the rest of the league throughout history: Pitchers were almost the equals of shortstops as hitters in 1880. Today their relative OPS is about 40% of the rest of the league. As hitters, major league pitchers wouldn't cut it in the Appy League.

It was perfectly reasonable to have a no-DH league in 1880, when your average pitcher hit like Mike Bordick. But an average pitcher today hits like the #6 guy in your high school team's lineup. It's not because they don't try, or because the DH ruined pitchers hitting in 1974. The trends have continued unbroken since the earliest days of pro ball, and if anything it has flattened out since the DH.

Pitchers can't hit, and there's nothing we can do about it except drastically lower the level of MLB competition. That ain't happening, so long live the DH!

You do a fine job of explaining how and why pitchers can't hit. But opponents of the DH are already aware of the fact that pitchers can't hit, and most of them probably have a good understanding of why.

You haven't posted an argument in favor of the DH. All you have done is explained that pitchers don't hit very well, as if this was on its face an argument against pitchers hitting. It is not.

[DrungoHazewood]

You do a fine job of explaining how and why pitchers can't hit. But opponents of the DH are already aware of the fact that pitchers can't hit, and most of them probably have a good understanding of why.

You haven't posted an argument in favor of the DH. All you have done is explained that pitchers don't hit very well, as if this was on its face an argument against pitchers hitting. It is not.

I think it's absurd that a league that advertises itself as the best baseball league in the world is perfectly willing to give several at bats a game to a high school level hitter. Someone who wouldn't have even been a 40th-round draft pick as a position player. Since we can't do anything about the fact that the vast majority of pitchers hit like high schoolers, the DH is a perfectly reasonable solution.

[Migrant Redbird]

The whole article was basically that the AL is inferior to the NL because of the DH and that people who like the DH know nothing about baseball.

That's more your perception than it is the article. Costas said that the NL plays a "more interesting game", not that the NL is a superior league. In fact, he contends "With its new ballparks and exciting young stars, the American League no longer needs gimmickry to distinguish itself from the senior circuit."

I've seen a host of posts this season on this very forum arguing that the AL is superior to the NL right now, citing the AL's better won-loss record in the All Star games and interleague play. Rightly or wrongly, that's just as much of an elitist attitude as you accuse Costas of having.

I personally think that AL fans are missing out on a lot of exciting baseball because of the DH. To illustrate, below are the top 10 hitting pitchers in the NL, ranked by OPS (minimum 25 at bats, to avoid exciting anomalies like Mark Worrell of the Cardinals, who hit a 3-run homer in his first ML at bat). For context I've interspersed a few of the Orioles' position players, who have had a great deal more at bats, for the most part.


RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Zambrano CHC 68 8 26 4 1 4 14 0 19 .382 .382 .647 1.029
2 Backe HOU 43 8 13 2 0 2 3 3 15 .302 .362 .488 .850
3 Owings ARI 39 6 12 2 0 0 1 4 15 .308 .372 .359 .731
4 Sabathia CLE/MIL 33 4 8 1 0 2 5 0 9 .242 .242 .455 .697
5 Looper STL 46 5 13 3 0 0 3 4 15 .283 .340 .348 .688
6 Hendrickson FLA 33 4 9 2 1 0 1 1 20 .273 .294 .394 .688
7 Wainwright STL 42 4 12 1 0 1 3 1 12 .286 .302 .381 .683
Payton O's 288 35 74 9 2 6 38 17 46 .257 .301 .365 .665
Cintron O's 103 9 28 4 1 1 7 4 12 .272 .299 .359 .658
Fahey O's 87 5 21 7 1 0 11 2 20 .241 .267 .345 .611
8 Peavy SDG 41 3 10 2 0 0 2 3 7 .244 .289 .293 .582
L. Hernandez O's 79 9 19 1 0 0 3 7 11 .241 .295 .253 .549
Quiroz O's 113 11 22 4 0 2 12 9 27 .195 .260 .283 .543
9 Hamels PHI 61 3 16 2 0 0 3 0 19 .262 .274 .295 .569
10 Cook COL 48 1 11 1 0 0 4 2 18 .229 .260 .250 .510
Castro O's 95 9 19 2 0 1 10 3 15 .200 .228 .253 .480
Bynum O's 112 13 20 3 1 0 8 5 31 .179 .220 .223 .444

Yes, I understand that not all pitchers hit this well, and even the "good" hitting pitchers tend to end up below the Mendoza line over their entire careers, but the production from the DH hasn't been all that great in recent seasons either.

Below are the stats for the AL Designated Hitters, ranked by OPS. Just below them are the hitting stats for NL pitching staffs, also ranked by OPS.


RK TEAM DH GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Texas 124 436 74 134 33 1 20 70 .307 .434 .525 .960
2 NY Yankees 122 448 79 132 28 1 19 61 .295 .398 .489 .887
3 Chicago Sox 123 440 81 112 26 0 29 81 .255 .373 .511 .884
4 Boston 122 461 80 129 28 0 23 90 .280 .390 .490 .880
5 Baltimore 123 483 75 134 37 2 24 93 .277 .337 .511 .848
6 LA Angels 122 464 64 122 17 2 20 69 .263 .326 .438 .763
7 Minnesota 123 455 70 119 19 4 16 75 .262 .327 .426 .754
8 Kansas City 123 480 50 127 25 0 19 64 .265 .305 .435 .741
9 Cleveland 122 455 55 112 31 0 14 71 .246 .330 .407 .736
10 Tampa Bay 121 422 55 101 22 0 18 49 .239 .314 .419 .733
11 Toronto 122 429 53 97 17 2 16 66 .226 .329 .387 .716
12 Detroit 123 470 57 101 16 1 20 61 .215 .307 .381 .687
13 Oakland 123 456 53 101 12 1 15 44 .221 .325 .351 .676
14 Seattle 123 472 43 104 16 1 13 68 .220 .267 .341 .608
AL Avg 123 455 64 116 23 1 19 69 .255 .340 .436 .777
NL Avg 8 30 4 7 1 0 1 4 .239 .307 .399 .706
MLB Avg 61 229 32 58 12 1 10 34 .246 .322 .417 .739

RK TEAM Pitchers GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Chicago Cubs 123 271 19 56 10 1 4 25 .207 .224 .295 .519
2 St. Louis 125 270 14 43 8 0 2 25 .159 .197 .211 .408
3 Arizona 126 260 15 41 13 0 0 21 .158 .188 .208 .396
4 Houston 123 243 15 37 4 0 2 8 .152 .195 .193 .389
5 San Diego 123 220 17 33 5 0 1 9 .150 .193 .186 .379
6 San Francisco 124 228 13 32 3 1 2 16 .140 .187 .189 .375
7 Milwaukee 126 269 12 39 10 1 1 16 .145 .170 .201 .370
8 Philadelphia 126 246 14 35 7 0 0 8 .142 .198 .171 .368
9 Atlanta 123 235 17 30 7 1 0 13 .128 .183 .166 .349
10 Florida 123 240 9 32 6 1 0 13 .133 .165 .167 .331
11 Pittsburgh 127 245 11 33 4 0 0 11 .135 .169 .151 .320
12 NY Mets 127 261 12 31 5 0 0 11 .119 .176 .138 .314
13 LA Dodgers 127 243 11 31 2 0 0 13 .128 .168 .136 .304
14 Cincinnati 123 220 11 23 4 0 1 8 .105 .136 .136 .272
15 Washington 123 199 7 20 2 0 0 5 .101 .152 .111 .262
16 Colorado 125 245 7 27 4 0 0 11 .110 .134 .127 .261
AL Avg 10 20 1 2 0 0 0 1 .115 .165 .150 .315
NL Avg 125 243 13 34 6 0 1 13 .138 .177 .174 .351
MLB Avg 71 139 7 19 3 0 1 8 .128 .171 .163 .334

Yes, the DH does result in more offense, but not all that much. Notice that the Mariners -- with the league's worst DH hitters -- is less than a hundred points better in OPS than the Cubs pitchers, the NL's best hitting pitching staff.

When we look at actual runs production, the effect of the DH kind of gets lost in the noise between the better and worse teams in both leagues. On average, AL teams score only about one extra run every 10 games -- despite having the DH advantage -- whereas the Cubs have scored over 200 runs more than Oakland so far this season.

The question which I've asked time and again which no advocate of the DH has ever addressed is what happens to the best hitting pitchers in a world where the DH is universal.

If Rick Ankiel's hitting skills had been allowed to atrophy from the day he entered professional baseball, would he have retained enough to have ever been able to switch from pitching to being a position player?

More crucial, if Rick had not had the opportunity to demonstrate his hitting prowess as a pitcher, would the Cardinals ever have been willing to give him a chance to make the transition?

If you don't believe that the Rick Ankiel success story is one of the most exciting and heart warming to have hit baseball since Ripken's ironman streak, just imagine what it might have meant to baseball history if Babe Ruth had played in a system where pitchers weren't allowed to bat for themselves. Babe might still have been able to make the HOF as a pitcher, but how would baseball have weathered the Black Sox scandal if there hadn't been the excitement of this pitcher who had switched over to the outfield and was hitting balls out of the park at an incredible rate (for the times)?

Daniel Cabrera being an obvious exception, pitchers are not the "automatic outs" which DH proponents insist they are. Most good pitchers take quite a bit of pride in being able to help themselves occasionally with either their bats or their gloves. One of the biggest stories this season has been the trade of CC Sabathia to the Brewers, and the string of victories he's notched since moving to the NL. Almost as intriguing is how well Sabathia has swung the bat, now that he has the opportunity to hit every time he pitches.

[BaltimoreTerp]

At this point, the NL is the gimmick league, since they (along with one of the Japanese leagues) are the only league to not have that rule.

To make an unequal comparison to a completely different sport (:p), it would be as though all levels of football played under present rules, but the NFC (as the "original" league) still required players to play both ways.

And of course there are the "slippery slope" arguments about how "traditional" you would want to have the game played.

An outdated rule is an outdated rule.

[BaltimoreTerp]

That's more your perception than it is the article. Costas said that the NL plays a "more interesting game", not that the NL is a superior league. In fact, he contends "With its new ballparks and exciting young stars, the American League no longer needs gimmickry to distinguish itself from the senior circuit."

I've seen a host of posts this season on this very forum arguing that the AL is superior to the NL right now, citing the AL's better won-loss record in the All Star games and interleague play. Rightly or wrongly, that's just as much of an elitist attitude as you accuse Costas of having.

I personally think that AL fans are missing out on a lot of exciting baseball because of the DH. To illustrate, below are the top 10 hitting pitchers in the NL, ranked by OPS (minimum 25 at bats, to avoid exciting anomalies like Mark Worrell of the Cardinals, who hit a 3-run homer in his first ML at bat). For context I've interspersed a few of the Orioles' position players, who have had a great deal more at bats, for the most part.


RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Zambrano CHC 68 8 26 4 1 4 14 0 19 .382 .382 .647 1.029
2 Backe HOU 43 8 13 2 0 2 3 3 15 .302 .362 .488 .850
3 Owings ARI 39 6 12 2 0 0 1 4 15 .308 .372 .359 .731
4 Sabathia CLE/MIL 33 4 8 1 0 2 5 0 9 .242 .242 .455 .697
5 Looper STL 46 5 13 3 0 0 3 4 15 .283 .340 .348 .688
6 Hendrickson FLA 33 4 9 2 1 0 1 1 20 .273 .294 .394 .688
7 Wainwright STL 42 4 12 1 0 1 3 1 12 .286 .302 .381 .683
Payton O's 288 35 74 9 2 6 38 17 46 .257 .301 .365 .665
Cintron O's 103 9 28 4 1 1 7 4 12 .272 .299 .359 .658
Fahey O's 87 5 21 7 1 0 11 2 20 .241 .267 .345 .611
8 Peavy SDG 41 3 10 2 0 0 2 3 7 .244 .289 .293 .582
L. Hernandez O's 79 9 19 1 0 0 3 7 11 .241 .295 .253 .549
Quiroz O's 113 11 22 4 0 2 12 9 27 .195 .260 .283 .543
9 Hamels PHI 61 3 16 2 0 0 3 0 19 .262 .274 .295 .569
10 Cook COL 48 1 11 1 0 0 4 2 18 .229 .260 .250 .510
Castro O's 95 9 19 2 0 1 10 3 15 .200 .228 .253 .480
Bynum O's 112 13 20 3 1 0 8 5 31 .179 .220 .223 .444

Yes, I understand that not all pitchers hit this well, and even the "good" hitting pitchers tend to end up below the Mendoza line over their entire careers, but the production from the DH hasn't been all that great in recent seasons either.

Below are the stats for the AL Designated Hitters, ranked by OPS. Just below them are the hitting stats for NL pitching staffs, also ranked by OPS.


RK TEAM DH GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Texas 124 436 74 134 33 1 20 70 .307 .434 .525 .960
2 NY Yankees 122 448 79 132 28 1 19 61 .295 .398 .489 .887
3 Chicago Sox 123 440 81 112 26 0 29 81 .255 .373 .511 .884
4 Boston 122 461 80 129 28 0 23 90 .280 .390 .490 .880
5 Baltimore 123 483 75 134 37 2 24 93 .277 .337 .511 .848
6 LA Angels 122 464 64 122 17 2 20 69 .263 .326 .438 .763
7 Minnesota 123 455 70 119 19 4 16 75 .262 .327 .426 .754
8 Kansas City 123 480 50 127 25 0 19 64 .265 .305 .435 .741
9 Cleveland 122 455 55 112 31 0 14 71 .246 .330 .407 .736
10 Tampa Bay 121 422 55 101 22 0 18 49 .239 .314 .419 .733
11 Toronto 122 429 53 97 17 2 16 66 .226 .329 .387 .716
12 Detroit 123 470 57 101 16 1 20 61 .215 .307 .381 .687
13 Oakland 123 456 53 101 12 1 15 44 .221 .325 .351 .676
14 Seattle 123 472 43 104 16 1 13 68 .220 .267 .341 .608
AL Avg 123 455 64 116 23 1 19 69 .255 .340 .436 .777
NL Avg 8 30 4 7 1 0 1 4 .239 .307 .399 .706
MLB Avg 61 229 32 58 12 1 10 34 .246 .322 .417 .739

RK TEAM Pitchers GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Chicago Cubs 123 271 19 56 10 1 4 25 .207 .224 .295 .519
2 St. Louis 125 270 14 43 8 0 2 25 .159 .197 .211 .408
3 Arizona 126 260 15 41 13 0 0 21 .158 .188 .208 .396
4 Houston 123 243 15 37 4 0 2 8 .152 .195 .193 .389
5 San Diego 123 220 17 33 5 0 1 9 .150 .193 .186 .379
6 San Francisco 124 228 13 32 3 1 2 16 .140 .187 .189 .375
7 Milwaukee 126 269 12 39 10 1 1 16 .145 .170 .201 .370
8 Philadelphia 126 246 14 35 7 0 0 8 .142 .198 .171 .368
9 Atlanta 123 235 17 30 7 1 0 13 .128 .183 .166 .349
10 Florida 123 240 9 32 6 1 0 13 .133 .165 .167 .331
11 Pittsburgh 127 245 11 33 4 0 0 11 .135 .169 .151 .320
12 NY Mets 127 261 12 31 5 0 0 11 .119 .176 .138 .314
13 LA Dodgers 127 243 11 31 2 0 0 13 .128 .168 .136 .304
14 Cincinnati 123 220 11 23 4 0 1 8 .105 .136 .136 .272
15 Washington 123 199 7 20 2 0 0 5 .101 .152 .111 .262
16 Colorado 125 245 7 27 4 0 0 11 .110 .134 .127 .261
AL Avg 10 20 1 2 0 0 0 1 .115 .165 .150 .315
NL Avg 125 243 13 34 6 0 1 13 .138 .177 .174 .351
MLB Avg 71 139 7 19 3 0 1 8 .128 .171 .163 .334

Yes, the DH does result in more offense, but not all that much. Notice that the Mariners -- with the league's worst DH hitters -- is less than a hundred points better in OPS than the Cubs pitchers, the NL's best hitting pitching staff.

When we look at actual runs production, the effect of the DH kind of gets lost in the noise between the better and worse teams in both leagues. On average, AL teams score only about one extra run every 10 games -- despite having the DH advantage -- whereas the Cubs have scored over 200 runs more than Oakland so far this season.

The question which I've asked time and again which no advocate of the DH has ever addressed is what happens to the best hitting pitchers in a world where the DH is universal.

If Rick Ankiel's hitting skills had been allowed to atrophy from the day he entered professional baseball, would he have retained enough to have ever been able to switch from pitching to being a position player?

More crucial, if Rick had not had the opportunity to demonstrate his hitting prowess as a pitcher, would the Cardinals ever have been willing to give him a chance to make the transition?

If you don't believe that the Rick Ankiel success story is one of the most exciting and heart warming to have hit baseball since Ripken's ironman streak, just imagine what it might have meant to baseball history if Babe Ruth had played in a system where pitchers weren't allowed to bat for themselves. Babe might still have been able to make the HOF as a pitcher, but how would baseball have weathered the Black Sox scandal if there hadn't been the excitement of this pitcher who had switched over to the outfield and was hitting balls out of the park at an incredible rate (for the times)?

Daniel Cabrera being an obvious exception, pitchers are not the "automatic outs" which DH proponents insist they are. Most good pitchers take quite a bit of pride in being able to help themselves occasionally with either their bats or their gloves. One of the biggest stories this season has been the trade of CC Sabathia to the Brewers, and the string of victories he's notched since moving to the NL. Almost as intriguing is how well Sabathia has swung the bat, now that he has the opportunity to hit every time he pitches.

You've made some really poor comparisons in this post. Whether it is taking the list of the best-hitting pitchers and putting them up against a couple of poor hitters from a mediocre team (three of whom are gone already due to their lack of offense and three of whom are unlikely to return), or the list of DH OPSs to pitchers' OPSs (ignoring the .426 point difference between the averages, which would be even more if the Mariners weren't morons), or the once-in-a-generation story of Rick Ankiel. Then there's Babe Ruth, which is irrelevant due to Drungo's point about different eras.

And I'll say this as someone who loves seeing what Sabathia has done with the Brewers: I couldn't give a LaRussa's tucus how he swings the bat, since that isn't why he is doing what he is doing :laughlol:

[byrdz]

Yes, what led to the DH?

You must not have read Bob Costas take, it's right there in black and orangy-brownish-tan-yellow.


In the early 1970s, baseball faced a crisis of popularity. The American League was especially hurting because of the disappearance of the Yankee dynasty and its slowness in signing black and Latin stars. That left the National League with a disproportionate number of the game's best and most exciting players.

In addition, offense was at its lowest point in generations. In 1968, the entire American League hit .230. Carl Yastrzemski won the batting title with a .301 average. Some 20% of all games in the major leagues that year were shutouts.

Clearly, something had to be done to juice the offense and to distinguish the American League from the National in an interesting way. The designated hitter was a logical response and it had some real benefits. It helped increase run production — the league batting average jumped from .239 in 1972 (pre-DH) to .259 in 1973 (first year of DH) — and it extended the careers of some popular players.


I personally like the way it's set up right now in both leagues and don't think that either league needs to adopt the others rules. It makes things more interesting and gives people options and spurs debates...

[DrungoHazewood]

You must not have read Bob Costas take, it's right there in black and orangy-brownish-tan-yellow.

I think Costas has oversimplified a issue with more complexity and a much longer history. The DH rule was first proposed in the 1890s, an era where 7+ runs per team per game were scored. It had nothing to do with increasing offense and everything to do with saving pitchers from the added exertion of batting, especially with the new 60' 6" pitching distance wreaking havoc on pitchers. The rule was brought up many times in the next 80 years or so, and there were a variety of reasons. The 2nd deadball era of the 1960s did help push the rule over the threshold necessary for adoption.

[DrungoHazewood]

I will compromise, and support elimination of the DH, if there's a corresponding rule that forces all position players to pitch a certain number of innings. If we're going to abhor specialization, let's abhor all specialization, not just the trendy kind.

Hell, I'd like to see a professional baseball league with the roster restrictions of 1880. 12-14 players per team, and substitutions require the consent of the other team. Almost everyone, including pitchers and catchers, have to play multiple positions. Some of your position players have to pitch since the other team would never allow a battered starter to leave the game. Relief pitching usually meant swapping the pitcher and right fielder. The DH is a minor blip compared to the expansion of rosters and unchallenged subs.

[Greg Pappas]

My personal take for the better part of my youth and adult life, was that the DH was a far more entertaining aspect than letting the 'stupid' pitcher hit. It used to drive me crazy watching the NL teams do the same ol' boring 'walk the 8th batter' routine. As I've gotten older (43 now) I've come to appreciate the reasoning behind the NL sticking with the tradition of allowing pitchers to hit, but as Drungo wisely pointed out, pitchers were pretty decent hitters at one point, in comparison to their fellow players. With a few exceptions, that is no longer the case.

A purist would argue that by keeping the DH rule, we're cheating the game by allowing players, who can no longer play the game in the field, a chance to further their respective careers and therefore cheat the record books, cheat the integrity of the hallowed American game, and the fans who long for a return of the 'right way' to play baseball.

While a purists point of view is not likely to be dissuaded, my own conclusion is that in the modern era of baseball, with the sport having an all-time low interest among youth, and with so many competing sports and varying entertainment to garner attention away from what was once America's great past-time; needs an infusion of excitement, a re-dedication to promoting the game to youth, and a strong campaign to promote MLB as the true powerhouse that it is. Taking away the DH would be counter-productive to these goals, yet adding the DH to the NL would once and for all re-unite the leagues as we head toward a better future... one with a DH throughout.

[DrungoHazewood]

I personally think that AL fans are missing out on a lot of exciting baseball because of the DH. To illustrate, below are the top 10 hitting pitchers in the NL, ranked by OPS (minimum 25 at bats, to avoid exciting anomalies like Mark Worrell of the Cardinals, who hit a 3-run homer in his first ML at bat). For context I've interspersed a few of the Orioles' position players, who have had a great deal more at bats, for the most part.


RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Zambrano CHC 68 8 26 4 1 4 14 0 19 .382 .382 .647 1.029
2 Backe HOU 43 8 13 2 0 2 3 3 15 .302 .362 .488 .850
3 Owings ARI 39 6 12 2 0 0 1 4 15 .308 .372 .359 .731
4 Sabathia CLE/MIL 33 4 8 1 0 2 5 0 9 .242 .242 .455 .697
5 Looper STL 46 5 13 3 0 0 3 4 15 .283 .340 .348 .688
6 Hendrickson FLA 33 4 9 2 1 0 1 1 20 .273 .294 .394 .688
7 Wainwright STL 42 4 12 1 0 1 3 1 12 .286 .302 .381 .683
Payton O's 288 35 74 9 2 6 38 17 46 .257 .301 .365 .665
Cintron O's 103 9 28 4 1 1 7 4 12 .272 .299 .359 .658
Fahey O's 87 5 21 7 1 0 11 2 20 .241 .267 .345 .611
8 Peavy SDG 41 3 10 2 0 0 2 3 7 .244 .289 .293 .582
L. Hernandez O's 79 9 19 1 0 0 3 7 11 .241 .295 .253 .549
Quiroz O's 113 11 22 4 0 2 12 9 27 .195 .260 .283 .543
9 Hamels PHI 61 3 16 2 0 0 3 0 19 .262 .274 .295 .569
10 Cook COL 48 1 11 1 0 0 4 2 18 .229 .260 .250 .510
Castro O's 95 9 19 2 0 1 10 3 15 .200 .228 .253 .480
Bynum O's 112 13 20 3 1 0 8 5 31 .179 .220 .223 .444

Not sure that saying a handful of pitchers hit better than the very worst position players is really helping your argument. Wade Boggs' career ERA was 3.86. Jimmy Foxx' was 1.52. Are we missing a lot of great baseball by not having position players pitch?


Yes, the DH does result in more offense, but not all that much. Notice that the Mariners -- with the league's worst DH hitters -- is less than a hundred points better in OPS than the Cubs pitchers, the NL's best hitting pitching staff.

The Mariners have a choice. They can use any type of hitter they want as a DH. They choose to devote the position to a player of fine, upstanding character, and good clubhouse deportment at the detriment of their W/L record. The Cubs have no choice. That they happen to have the best OPS among NL pitchers is an accident. No pitcher is picked to pitch for a MLB on the basis of his hitting.


When we look at actual runs production, the effect of the DH kind of gets lost in the noise between the better and worse teams in both leagues. On average, AL teams score only about one extra run every 10 games -- despite having the DH advantage -- whereas the Cubs have scored over 200 runs more than Oakland so far this season.

Park effects, the relative quality of pitchers vs. hitter, and other factors can a much larger effect than 1/9th of the lineup. The DH isn't about added offense - it was only that in the early 70s. In my mind it's all about keeping hitters 3, 4, 5 standard deviations below the mean out of Major League Baseball.

From 2000-2006 the median average for all pitchers with 30+ at bats was about .133, with an OPS of .340.


The question which I've asked time and again which no advocate of the DH has ever addressed is what happens to the best hitting pitchers in a world where the DH is universal.

If they're good enough they become position players, or they'll pinch hit. If they're not (and 99.999% of them won't be) they'll become pitchers who don't hit.


Daniel Cabrera being an obvious exception, pitchers are not the "automatic outs" which DH proponents insist they are. Most good pitchers take quite a bit of pride in being able to help themselves occasionally with either their bats or their gloves. One of the biggest stories this season has been the trade of CC Sabathia to the Brewers, and the string of victories he's notched since moving to the NL. Almost as intriguing is how well Sabathia has swung the bat, now that he has the opportunity to hit every time he pitches.

Sure they are. From 2000-06 one position player with 500 PAs had an OPS below .570 (Donnie Sadler). About 5% of pitchers with 30+ PAs had an OPS higher than .570. It is a fact that almost all position players hit better than almost all pitchers. Something like 20% of pitchers hit under .100, a level I'd equate with someone who has no ability or training as a hitter at all - or about what you'd expect out of a random player from another sport thrust into the batter's box at a major league park.

[longflyball]

I will compromise, and support elimination of the DH, if there's a corresponding rule that forces all position players to pitch a certain number of innings. If we're going to abhor specialization, let's abhor all specialization, not just the trendy kind.


I have a counter-compromise: the pitcher doesn't hit, and neither does anyone else. An 8-batter lineup.

[byrdz]

...

From 2000-2006 the median average for all pitchers with 30+ at bats was about .133, with an OPS of .340.

...

Sure they are. From 2000-06 one position player with 500 PAs had an OPS below .570 (Donnie Sadler). About 5% of pitchers with 30+ PAs had an OPS higher than .570. It is a fact that almost all position players hit better than almost all pitchers. Something like 20% of pitchers hit under .100, a level I'd equate with someone who has no ability or training as a hitter at all - or about what you'd expect out of a random player from another sport thrust into the batter's box at a major league park.

So...you're saying there's a chance. ;)

[66-70-83-??]

FWIW, if you are interested.....

Here is an audio file with a Chicago sports radio show interview with Bill "Spaceman" Lee.

He is against the DH.

He says the idea that the DH was to improve scoring in the AL is revisionist history. Finley and Kuhn pushed the DH so he could decrease the size of the roster. MLB changed the roster size to 24. Miller and MLBPA raised a stink and got it changed back.

Lee says it didn't increase scoring but it helped pitchers such as Catfish Hunter stay in the game longer and complete more games.

He also claims that the DH rule has played a role in decreasing the overall quality of pitching in MLB. Better athletes that play baseball as kids do not end up being pitchers because they want to hit too. He mentions Bill James as being against it and having written about it.

http://www.chriscomerradio.com/bill_lee/CRBillLee4-4-06.mp3

[byrdz]

He mentions Bill James as being against it and having written about it.

He may or may not have said that but this is one exerpt from his Historical Baseball Abstract stating that the DH rule actually increases strategy:


I'm not an advocate of the Designated Hitter Rule; I'm only an advocate of seeing the truth and telling the truth. What the truth comes down to here is a question of in what does strategy reside? Does strategy exist in the act of bunting? If so the Designated Hitter Rule has reduced strategy. But if strategy exists in the decision about when a bunt should be used, then the DH rule has increased the differences of opinion which exist about that question, and thus increased strategy...[the research shows] that there is more of a difference of opinion, not less, in the American League. (The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. Villard Books, New York. 1986. Page 260.)


Here's (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/designated_hitter_quotes.shtml) a ton more quotes on the subject, including ones from McPHailand Angelos.

[DrungoHazewood]

He may or may not have said that but this is one exerpt from his Historical Baseball Abstract stating that the DH rule actually increases strategy:

Unfortunately, that was written in the 1980s, in a time where teams still had meaningful benches and used pinch hitters for players other than the pitcher. AL teams really did have a strategic advantage in that they could do multiple subs throughout the lineup for offense and defense, and they didn't have to worry about saving everyone to hit for the pitcher, then go into the field afterwards.

Today there's little difference in number of pinch hitters used among AL teams, and the number is very low - because everyone keeps 11 or 12 pitchers and between zero and one bench players who can hit. Neither AL nor NL teams pinch hit or use defensive subs at all for regular position players - almost all strategy is gone from offense. The NL just gets to do a lot more pinch hitting because any semi-real player is better than a .130 hitter. That's not strategy, it's desperation.

[orayole]

That's more your perception than it is the article. Costas said that the NL plays a "more interesting game", not that the NL is a superior league. In fact, he contends "With its new ballparks and exciting young stars, the American League no longer needs gimmickry to distinguish itself from the senior circuit."

I've seen a host of posts this season on this very forum arguing that the AL is superior to the NL right now, citing the AL's better won-loss record in the All Star games and interleague play. Rightly or wrongly, that's just as much of an elitist attitude as you accuse Costas of having.

The AL being superior due to win/loss record is a whole hell of a lot different than saying one league is superior due to the way it plays the game.




I personally think that AL fans are missing out on a lot of exciting baseball because of the DH. To illustrate, below are the top 10 hitting pitchers in the NL, ranked by OPS (minimum 25 at bats, to avoid exciting anomalies like Mark Worrell of the Cardinals, who hit a 3-run homer in his first ML at bat). For context I've interspersed a few of the Orioles' position players, who have had a great deal more at bats, for the most part.


So you think the NL is more exciting because the pitcher hits instead of a DH? Either way someone is hitting. With the DH you don't get people like DCab trying to hit.

Imo, a pitcher's job is to pitch, not to hit.

[Migrant Redbird]

Not sure that saying a handful of pitchers hit better than the very worst position players is really helping your argument. Wade Boggs' career ERA was 3.86. Jimmy Foxx' was 1.52. Are we missing a lot of great baseball by not having position players pitch?

My point is that every year, it seems like there are a half dozen or so NL pitchers who hit as well or better than a half dozen or so of the worst hitting position players on the Orioles, and probably on most other AL teams as well.

The ten pitchers on my list had a grand total of 454 at bats. The 7 Orioles position players I listed totaled 877 at bats. Guess which group had a greater positive or negative impact on their respective team's offense?


The Mariners have a choice. They can use any type of hitter they want as a DH. They choose to devote the position to a player of fine, upstanding character, and good clubhouse deportment at the detriment of their W/L record.

My point is that most team aren't getting a .900 or better OPS from their DH. The O's have done a lot better this season, with an .861 OPS from their DH's, but last year they only got a .737. The year before, it was a .734. Over the last 9 seasons, the best that the AL DH's have posted is an .804 OPS, with most seasons in the .760 to .790 range. That's significantly better than the .341 to .374 average OPS which the NL gets from its pitchers, but it doesn't result in an overwhelming amount of extra runs scored. Over the last 8 seasons, the average AL team has scored between 25 and 60 more runs than the average NL team -- typically between 0.15 and 0.37 runs per game out of a total of 4 to 5 runs per game scored by the average team. It's not really noticeable, except for the excruciating pain which some AL fans experience when they watch guys like Daniel Cabrera flailing with the bat in inter league games. In my opinion, your distress is greatly exaggerated.

The average major league hitter gets on base about 1/3 of the time. The average pitcher gets on base about 1/6 of the time. Regardless of the exaggerated moaning by DH partisans, that's not really all that meaningful, simply because every NL team has to work around having their pitchers hit. The average NL team pinch hits about 1.4 times per game, compared to about 0.55 times per game for the average AL team. However, the average pinch hitter has an OPS of only about .650, over a hundred points worse than the average DH.


The Cubs have no choice. That they happen to have the best OPS among NL pitchers is an accident. No pitcher is picked to pitch for a MLB on the basis of his hitting.

Zambrano is a monster with the bat! So is Sabathia -- even though he didn't get much chance to demonstrate it while he was in the AL. You really underestimate the degree of excitement experienced by NL fans when their pitchers do make an offensive contribution, and the depths of disgust when their own pitchers yield up a game affecting hit or walk to the opposing pitcher. Contrary to the insistence of DH partisans, it ain't no automatic out when a pitcher bats.

Nor is it a given that NL managers will pinch hit for their pitchers. The depth both of the bench and the bullpen precludes them being able to do it routinely. I still recall a game from 6-7 years ago when La Russa left his closer in to bat in the bottom of the 8th (with a 4 run lead in his pocket). The opposing manager walked the light hitting Matheny to load the bases and get to Isringhausen, who promptly delivered a triple that cleared the bases!


Park effects, the relative quality of pitchers vs. hitter, and other factors can a much larger effect than 1/9th of the lineup.

Exactly! The DH doesn't make that much of a difference in overall runs production and the perceived "pain" of watching pitchers bat is like the perceived excitement of watching pitchers in the NL contribute with their bats -- mostly a matter of attitude and perception.


The DH isn't about added offense - it was only that in the early 70s. In my mind it's all about keeping hitters 3, 4, 5 standard deviations below the mean out of Major League Baseball.

If both teams have the same relative advantages and disadvantages, it isn't that much of a deal. NL fans are fanatical about requiring their pitchers to play both sides of the game; AL fans are reduced to trumped up arguments about the "distress" imposed upon them by watching a pitcher bat in order to bolster their arguments for AL superiority and mitigate their inferiority complexes. :)


If they're good enough they become position players, or they'll pinch hit.

No they won't, not in this age of specialization. Players who could go either way get channeled into one path or the other by their organizations and the proliferation of the DH in the minor leagues ensures that the hitting of the pitchers atrophies more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. The option goes away. And good hitting pitchers rarely get asked to pinch hit. Braden Looper has pinch hit only 8 times this season, and La Russa usually does that only in bunting situations. Zambrano, that monster, only has 14 total plate appearances in his career. Drysdale only pinch hit 25 times in his entire career -- and he had 7 home runs one season for a Dodgers team that was very challenged offensively!

Cal Ripken could have pitched, but the O's chose to develop him as a 3rd baseman instead. He'd have been a good hitting pitcher, but he wouldn't have been nearly as good of a hitter if he'd been restricted to 1/6th or less the plate appearances of his position playing kindred. Rick Ankiel could have entered professional baseball as a position player instead of as a pitcher, and apparently would have preferred it that way, but the demand was more for his pitching. If he hadn't developed the injuries that ended his pitching career (not the control issues), Rick would never have had the opportunity to become a position player.

Yes, Babe Ruth played in a different era, but it's difficult to imagine him making the transition from pitcher to hitter in today's game. His hitting skills would have atrophied as he worked his way through the DH heavy minor leagues. Ruth started every 4th day in 1916 and 1917 and led his team in wins both seasons (23-12 and 24-13), but the next season he was pitching part time (only 19 starts -- 18 of them complete games -- for a 13-7 record) and playing 1st base and the outfield, even though his hitting in 1916 and 1917 wasn't all that extraordinary even by the standards of today's pitchers. The Babe had an OPS of 121 in 1916 and 162 in 1917 (Zambrano's is 147 this season, Micah Owings had a 153 last year). While the Babe hit .325 in 1917, he only had 2 home runs, so it's a little curious to me that the Red Sox turned their best starting pitcher into a part time outfielder/first baseman in 1918, limiting his starts to only 19 games. (With 18 complete games, injuries surely weren't a factor?)

The Red Sox did win the 1918 World Series with Ruth only pitching part time, but their W-L percentage only improved to .595 in 1918, compared to .591 and .592 the previous seasons. One has to suspect that their record might have improved if the Babe had gotten Dutch Leonard's 16 starts (8-6, and a team highest 2.72 ERA among the starters) and some of the 6 starts by a hodge podge of relief pitchers.

The next season, with Ruth playing more games (111) in the outfield, hitting 29 home runs, and only making 15 starts (9-5 record, 2.97 ERA), the Red Sox W-L record plummeted to 66-71 and they finished 6th in the American League, well behind the Black Sox. While the reduction in Ruth's pitching starts probably was only a minor part of that decline, his home run hitting didn't do the Red Sox much good either that year.


It is a fact that almost all position players hit better than almost all pitchers.

It's also a fact that it doesn't make a lot of difference to overall runs production, but that individual pitchers can help themselves significantly by handling the bat well. It's just one more thing which we fans can cheer for our players for accomplishing.

I still remember that triple that Isringhausen hit in the bottom of the 8th inning back in 2003 and I recall the home run which rookie Mark Worrell hit in his first major league at bat this season. (Unfortunately, Dukes hit a walk off home run off Ryan Franklin to win that game.) I can't imagine any DH accomplishments which could be as memorable as those were.


Something like 20% of pitchers hit under .100, a level I'd equate with someone who has no ability or training as a hitter at all - or about what you'd expect out of a random player from another sport thrust into the batter's box at a major league park.

That's a gross exaggeration, unless you're talking about a multi-sport athlete like Michael Jordan with experience swinging a bat. Put a pro golfer or an English soccer player with no baseball experience into the batters box and you would see even greater ineptitude. There are guys like Daniel Cabrera who just won't work at it, but even Randy Johnson -- one of the most awkward guys I've ever seen in the batting box -- has managed to put up a .129 career BA.

[waroriole]

It really is strange that MLB has the rule and that it's not consistent with both leagues. What would football look like if in the NFC the offense played with an extra player. That said, I think the rule, in its present form, is what makes baseball so great, the quirks. Another quirk that Bud "Worst Comissioner in Sports History" Selig decided he would throw away in favor of a few extra dollars is the fact the AL & NL don't play each other until the WS and All-Star Game. I like the rule in its current form, and wouldn't want to see it change.

[66-70-83-??]

It really is strange that MLB has the rule and that it's not consistent with both leagues. What would football look like if in the NFC the offense played with an extra player. That said, I think the rule, in its present form, is what makes baseball so great, the quirks. Another quirk that Bud "Worst Comissioner in Sports History" Selig decided he would throw away in favor of a few extra dollars is the fact the AL & NL don't play each other until the WS and All-Star Game. I like the rule in its current form, and wouldn't want to see it change.

:scratchchinhmm:

Huh?

:confused:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[DrungoHazewood]

My point is that every year, it seems like there are a half dozen or so NL pitchers who hit as well or better than a half dozen or so of the worst hitting position players on the Orioles, and probably on most other AL teams as well.

The ten pitchers on my list had a grand total of 454 at bats. The 7 Orioles position players I listed totaled 877 at bats. Guess which group had a greater positive or negative impact on their respective team's offense?



My point is that most team aren't getting a .900 or better OPS from their DH. The O's have done a lot better this season, with an .861 OPS from their DH's, but last year they only got a .737. The year before, it was a .734. Over the last 9 seasons, the best that the AL DH's have posted is an .804 OPS, with most seasons in the .760 to .790 range. That's significantly better than the .341 to .374 average OPS which the NL gets from its pitchers, but it doesn't result in an overwhelming amount of extra runs scored. Over the last 8 seasons, the average AL team has scored between 25 and 60 more runs than the average NL team -- typically between 0.15 and 0.37 runs per game out of a total of 4 to 5 runs per game scored by the average team. It's not really noticeable, except for the excruciating pain which some AL fans experience when they watch guys like Daniel Cabrera flailing with the bat in inter league games. In my opinion, your distress is greatly exaggerated.

The average major league hitter gets on base about 1/3 of the time. The average pitcher gets on base about 1/6 of the time. Regardless of the exaggerated moaning by DH partisans, that's not really all that meaningful, simply because every NL team has to work around having their pitchers hit. The average NL team pinch hits about 1.4 times per game, compared to about 0.55 times per game for the average AL team. However, the average pinch hitter has an OPS of only about .650, over a hundred points worse than the average DH.



Zambrano is a monster with the bat! So is Sabathia -- even though he didn't get much chance to demonstrate it while he was in the AL. You really underestimate the degree of excitement experienced by NL fans when their pitchers do make an offensive contribution, and the depths of disgust when their own pitchers yield up a game affecting hit or walk to the opposing pitcher. Contrary to the insistence of DH partisans, it ain't no automatic out when a pitcher bats.

Nor is it a given that NL managers will pinch hit for their pitchers. The depth both of the bench and the bullpen precludes them being able to do it routinely. I still recall a game from 6-7 years ago when La Russa left his closer in to bat in the bottom of the 8th (with a 4 run lead in his pocket). The opposing manager walked the light hitting Matheny to load the bases and get to Isringhausen, who promptly delivered a triple that cleared the bases!



Exactly! The DH doesn't make that much of a difference in overall runs production and the perceived "pain" of watching pitchers bat is like the perceived excitement of watching pitchers in the NL contribute with their bats -- mostly a matter of attitude and perception.



If both teams have the same relative advantages and disadvantages, it isn't that much of a deal. NL fans are fanatical about requiring their pitchers to play both sides of the game; AL fans are reduced to trumped up arguments about the "distress" imposed upon them by watching a pitcher bat in order to bolster their arguments for AL superiority and mitigate their inferiority complexes. :)



No they won't, not in this age of specialization. Players who could go either way get channeled into one path or the other by their organizations and the proliferation of the DH in the minor leagues ensures that the hitting of the pitchers atrophies more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. The option goes away. And good hitting pitchers rarely get asked to pinch hit. Braden Looper has pinch hit only 8 times this season, and La Russa usually does that only in bunting situations. Zambrano, that monster, only has 14 total plate appearances in his career. Drysdale only pinch hit 25 times in his entire career -- and he had 7 home runs one season for a Dodgers team that was very challenged offensively!

Cal Ripken could have pitched, but the O's chose to develop him as a 3rd baseman instead. He'd have been a good hitting pitcher, but he wouldn't have been nearly as good of a hitter if he'd been restricted to 1/6th or less the plate appearances of his position playing kindred. Rick Ankiel could have entered professional baseball as a position player instead of as a pitcher, and apparently would have preferred it that way, but the demand was more for his pitching. If he hadn't developed the injuries that ended his pitching career (not the control issues), Rick would never have had the opportunity to become a position player.

Yes, Babe Ruth played in a different era, but it's difficult to imagine him making the transition from pitcher to hitter in today's game. His hitting skills would have atrophied as he worked his way through the DH heavy minor leagues. Ruth started every 4th day in 1916 and 1917 and led his team in wins both seasons (23-12 and 24-13), but the next season he was pitching part time (only 19 starts -- 18 of them complete games -- for a 13-7 record) and playing 1st base and the outfield, even though his hitting in 1916 and 1917 wasn't all that extraordinary even by the standards of today's pitchers. The Babe had an OPS of 121 in 1916 and 162 in 1917 (Zambrano's is 147 this season, Micah Owings had a 153 last year). While the Babe hit .325 in 1917, he only had 2 home runs, so it's a little curious to me that the Red Sox turned their best starting pitcher into a part time outfielder/first baseman in 1918, limiting his starts to only 19 games. (With 18 complete games, injuries surely weren't a factor?)

The Red Sox did win the 1918 World Series with Ruth only pitching part time, but their W-L percentage only improved to .595 in 1918, compared to .591 and .592 the previous seasons. One has to suspect that their record might have improved if the Babe had gotten Dutch Leonard's 16 starts (8-6, and a team highest 2.72 ERA among the starters) and some of the 6 starts by a hodge podge of relief pitchers.

The next season, with Ruth playing more games (111) in the outfield, hitting 29 home runs, and only making 15 starts (9-5 record, 2.97 ERA), the Red Sox W-L record plummeted to 66-71 and they finished 6th in the American League, well behind the Black Sox. While the reduction in Ruth's pitching starts probably was only a minor part of that decline, his home run hitting didn't do the Red Sox much good either that year.



It's also a fact that it doesn't make a lot of difference to overall runs production, but that individual pitchers can help themselves significantly by handling the bat well. It's just one more thing which we fans can cheer for our players for accomplishing.

I still remember that triple that Isringhausen hit in the bottom of the 8th inning back in 2003 and I recall the home run which rookie Mark Worrell hit in his first major league at bat this season. (Unfortunately, Dukes hit a walk off home run off Ryan Franklin to win that game.) I can't imagine any DH accomplishments which could be as memorable as those were.



That's a gross exaggeration, unless you're talking about a multi-sport athlete like Michael Jordan with experience swinging a bat. Put a pro golfer or an English soccer player with no baseball experience into the batters box and you would see even greater ineptitude. There are guys like Daniel Cabrera who just won't work at it, but even Randy Johnson -- one of the most awkward guys I've ever seen in the batting box -- has managed to put up a .129 career BA.

That's an awful lot of words to say that you hate the DH. I'll just leave it at most pitchers are embarrassingly bad at bat, and I don't think the best baseball league in the world should regularly ask players to do embarrassing things.

On second thought, the best baseball league in the world doesn't. At least when it's playing amongst itself.

[waroriole]

:scratchchinhmm:

Huh?

:confused:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm sorry, I'm not saying that he had anything to do with the DH. I really kind of went off on another tangent there. Looking back, I'm not honestly sure where my train of thought was going on that one. But I guess my basic point is that DH in only one league is one of baseball's strange oddities that make it such a great game. I just wouldn't want to see one of Bud's little rules that changes the game.

As far as Bud's ineptitude I would point out the following: Wild Card, Interleague play, Calling All-Star game a tie and having it determine home-field advantage, Canceling WS, Not being present for Bonds' 756 HR....I could go on.

[BaltimoreTerp]

:scratchchinhmm:

Huh?

:confused:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

By paying attention :laughlol:

[DrungoHazewood]

As far as Bud's ineptitude I would point out the following: Wild Card, Interleague play, Calling All-Star game a tie and having it determine home-field advantage, Canceling WS, Not being present for Bonds' 756 HR....I could go on.

A lot of people think that the fact that MLB's revenues are now approaching parity with the NFL kind of trumps Bud's other flaws. Bud is kind of a slimy creep in a lot of ways, but the game is awash in money. It's financially thriving.

[Migrant Redbird]

That's an awful lot of words to say that you hate the DH.

That's an awful[ly] cheap shot by someone who regularly writes lengthy posts on many other topics, but it's a lot easier than actually addressing any points.


I'll just leave it at most pitchers are embarrassingly bad at bat, and I don't think the best baseball league in the world should regularly ask players to do embarrassing things.

Some pitchers are embarrassingly bad, like Cabrera. Most of them manage to do a respectable job, but they're only about as successful as a position player because (1) they only get to hit in competition every 5th day, and (2) pitchers' success is measured more by the runs they prevent than the ones they produce. They're still part of the team and ought to have to play both ways. This isn't football.


On second thought, the best baseball league in the world doesn't. At least when it's playing amongst itself.

Keep milking that inferiority complex, why don't you?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Some pitchers are embarrassingly bad, like Cabrera. Most of them manage to do a respectable job, but they're only about as successful as a position player because (1) they only get to hit in competition every 5th day, and (2) pitchers' success is measured more by the runs they prevent than the ones they produce. They're still part of the team and ought to have to play both ways. This isn't football.

See, this is where the problem is. Most of them do NOT do an acceptable job; in fact, your own evidence proves that.

A few are good hitters, sure. But I'm sure you could find good pitchers among the other players in the major leagues, yet I don't see anyone asking for Nick Markakis to take the mound and give it a try.

In fact, if players have to play "both ways", why aren't you suggesting Albert Pujols take the mound to do his share of the team's pitching?

[Migrant Redbird]

See, this is where the problem is. Most of them do NOT do an acceptable job; in fact, your own evidence proves that.

I disagree. They don't hit as well as position players, but they do make real contributions offensively -- some much more than others. What's "acceptable" is a matter of definition; my criteria is less for pitchers than it is for position players, just as your criteria is probably less for middle infielders than it is for first basemen.

If we are going to use a DH for the pitcher, why don't we carry it to the next logical step and have 9 designated hitters and 9 defensive whizzes who only play in the field? Who wants to see Paul Bako fail time and time again?

I get discouraged when I see Kyle Lohse at the plate (.059/.059/.059) with only 3 singles in 51 at bats, but he's made those 3 hits count, driving in 4 runs this season. Projected out to 600 PAs, that would be 48 RBIs, almost double that of any of our middle infielders.

But the point is that it doesn't make a difference because all teams have to live with the differing hitting abilities of their pitchers. No team has an unfair advantage because their pitchers have to hit, but they do gain advantage if their pitchers are better hitters than the league average.


A few are good hitters, sure. But I'm sure you could find good pitchers among the other players in the major leagues, yet I don't see anyone asking for Nick Markakis to take the mound and give it a try.

It would be really rare for a major leaguer to switch from being a position player to pitching -- although I suppose there might be an outlier somewhere beyond the guys filling in during extra inning emergencies. It's even extremely rare for pitchers to transition into position players, although a handful have managed that easier task. The problem is that it takes a lot of work to reach the majors at a specialized position like pitching or catching, and most other position players would need to drop back to the lower minors and work at it to develop enough expertise to reach the major leagues again before getting too old. Even Rick Ankiel went back to Single A when he converted to the outfield and it took him a couple years to work his way back up -- but he did lose a full year to a leg injury along the way.


In fact, if players have to play "both ways", why aren't you suggesting Albert Pujols take the mound to do his share of the team's pitching?

We have Aaron Miles (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/milesaa01.shtml) for that. I'd rather have Albert playing a gold glove first base.

But your analogy isn't valid. "Both ways" means that players bat when the other team is in the field and take the field when the other team bats. It doesn't mean that Adam Jones ought to have to take a stint behind the plate, although he might be better there than some of your other Orioles catchers.

I have yet to see anyone adequately address the point of what it might have been like for baseball if Babe Ruth had played in a DH league and his managers would not have allowed him to develop his hitting skills. Yes, Ruth played in a different era, one without the silliness of taking away pitchers' bats. If his era had been like ours, maybe baseball would never have really recovered from the Black Sox scandal, without the excitement of all the Babe's home runs for the team in the nation's largest city. Can you really accept the responsibility of possibly depriving baseball of its next Babe Ruth?

[66-70-83-??]

I disagree. They don't hit as well as position players, but they do make real contributions offensively -- some much more than others. What's "acceptable" is a matter of definition; my criteria is less for pitchers than it is for position players, just as your criteria is probably less for middle infielders than it is for first basemen.

If we are going to use a DH for the pitcher, why don't we carry it to the next logical step and have 9 designated hitters and 9 defensive whizzes who only play in the field? Who wants to see Paul Bako fail time and time again?

I get discouraged when I see Kyle Lohse at the plate (.059/.059/.059) with only 3 singles in 51 at bats, but he's made those 3 hits count, driving in 4 runs this season. Projected out to 600 PAs, that would be 48 RBIs, almost double that of any of our middle infielders.

But the point is that it doesn't make a difference because all teams have to live with the differing hitting abilities of their pitchers. No team has an unfair advantage because their pitchers have to hit, but they do gain advantage if their pitchers are better hitters than the league average.



It would be really rare for a major leaguer to switch from being a position player to pitching -- although I suppose there might be an outlier somewhere beyond the guys filling in during extra inning emergencies. It's even extremely rare for pitchers to transition into position players, although a handful have managed that easier task. The problem is that it takes a lot of work to reach the majors at a specialized position like pitching or catching, and most other position players would need to drop back to the lower minors and work at it to develop enough expertise to reach the major leagues again before getting too old. Even Rick Ankiel went back to Single A when he converted to the outfield and it took him a couple years to work his way back up -- but he did lose a full year to a leg injury along the way.



We have Aaron Miles (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/milesaa01.shtml) for that. I'd rather have Albert playing a gold glove first base.

But your analogy isn't valid. "Both ways" means that players bat when the other team is in the field and take the field when the other team bats. It doesn't mean that Adam Jones ought to have to take a stint behind the plate, although he might be better there than some of your other Orioles catchers.

I have yet to see anyone adequately address the point of what it might have been like for baseball if Babe Ruth had played in a DH league and his managers would not have allowed him to develop his hitting skills. Yes, Ruth played in a different era, one without the silliness of taking away pitchers' bats. If his era had been like ours, maybe baseball would never have really recovered from the Black Sox scandal, without the excitement of all the Babe's home runs for the team in the nation's largest city. Can you really accept the responsibility of possibly depriving baseball of its next Babe Ruth?

Excellent post.

I have often used that argument about carrying the DH logic to its natural conclusion- if 1 DH is necessary to avoid having a pitcher (ie bad hitter) come up, then why not let a team bat its best 9, field the best 9 fielders, etc..... If the goal is to get rid of bad hitters, why not?

Some folks can't accept that there are people who prefer NL style. I grew up watching the O's in their heyday, pre-DH. I prefer no DH, but I am not militant about it.

After all, I didnt swear off baseball in 1973. I find it amusing how worked up some people always gets about it. It is like they are trying to convert the infidels over to becoming true believers as if its a jihad. :laughlol:

[66-70-83-??]

A lot of people think that the fact that MLB's revenues are now approaching parity with the NFL kind of trumps Bud's other flaws. Bud is kind of a slimy creep in a lot of ways, but the game is awash in money. It's financially thriving.

Wow. :eek:

That is a pretty strong and personal statement.

What is it that qualifies him as a "slimy creep in a lot of ways"?

[Sports Guy]

Excellent post.

I have often used that argument about carrying the DH logic to its natural conclusion- if 1 DH is necessary to avoid having a pitcher (ie bad hitter) come up, then why not let a team bat its best 9, field the best 9 fielders, etc..... If the goal is to get rid of bad hitters, why not?

Some folks can't accept that there are people who prefer NL style. I grew up watching the O's in their heyday, pre-DH. I prefer no DH, but I am not militant about it.

After all, I didnt swear off baseball in 1973. I find it amusing how worked up some people always gets about it. It is like they are trying to convert the infidels over to becoming true believers as if its a jihad. :laughlol:

If you prefer it, that's fine.

But don't shove the "its more strategy" bs down our throats because that is all that is...BS!

Its also very boring.

But again, if you like it, that's fine.

[byrdz]

My main reason for liking the DH is that pitchers, I feel, do enough work in the game by throwing the ball as much as they do while the rest of the fielders just stand there. I don't think it's fair to then ask them to bat as well. To me it kinda spreads out the workload evenly to have the DH but that's just my opinion.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Let's turn this thread around for a minute.

Since almost all position players are required to be competent with the bat just to keep a job in the major leagues, and even the exceptions (like back-up catchers and the very best defensive fielders) are always on the verge of being replaced with a better offensive player, why don't we expect the same thing from pitchers?

Why don't we expect a pitcher to hit at least as well as the starting shortstop or catcher?

[Bloopandablast]

One of the problems with this assertion is that one would think it should draw more fans to the ballpark than the "boring" NL game.

Granted there are other factors such as market size that a team is in, but the average attendance at an AL game year to date is about 30,600 and the average attendance at an NL game is nearly 34,400. (meaning a game hosted at an AL or NL park).

Somehow these "archaic rules" that the NL plays by, and that some think would be the death of the game in the modern era ......are clearly not stopping fans from coming to the game.

[Migrant Redbird]

One of the problems with this assertion is that one would think it should draw more fans to the ballpark than the "boring" NL game.

Granted there are other factors such as market size that a team is in, but the average attendance at an AL game year to date is about 30,600 and the average attendance at an NL game is nearly 34,400. (meaning a game hosted at an AL or NL park).

Better fans? :) More knowledgeable? Less infatuated with the long ball?

I suspect part of it is due to the NY dominance of the AL East. Boston sells out, but their park only holds 37,652 so they don't help the AL average much.

The Yankees lead in ML attendance this season, but 6 of the next 8 teams are in the NL. The Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Cards, Cubs, and Brewers. Only the Angels, Tigers, and Red Sox join the Yankees in the top ten.

The two worst ML teams in attendance are in the NL, but 9 of the bottom 12 are AL teams. 9 in the bottom 12 and 4 in the top 10 leaves the White Sox smack in the middle at #15.

Just out of curiosity, I went back through the attendance figures back to 2001. It's the same year after year -- the Yankees usually lead everyone, but only 1 or 2 other AL teams make it into the top ten. The AL may have (temporarily) the better teams, but they don't have the better fans. Or, maybe, you guys talk a good game about how the DH makes games more interesting, but your attendance figures prove the lie to that argument. Having the pitchers bat does make for more strategy, more second guessing of the managers, and a more interesting game to watch because of the unexpected things that happen -- things like pitchers actually winning ball games with their bats as well as with their pitching.


If you prefer it, that's fine.

But don't shove the "its more strategy" bs down our throats because that is all that is...BS!

Its also very boring.

I suspect that's because you're just not into the strategy that takes place during an NL game.

Yeah, I know that Jim Leyland claims there's just as much strategy in the AL. That's what is "BS". The argument that the decisions to pinch hit for the pitcher are pretty cut and dried is ignorant. I can't begin to count the number of times that I've disagreed with NL managerial decisions -- in both directions. Whether the decision to pinch hit or not is "good" strategy or not, I couldn't say, but it's definitely makes the NL manager's handling of his pitching staff much more complex than it is for AL managers.

An example: The one game which I've attended at the DC stadium was the 3rd game of their series this season with the Cards. Box Score (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WAS/WAS200806052.shtml) The Cards bullpen has struggled all season long, and this game was no exception. Rookie pitcher Mike Parisi got the start for the Cards and was behind 7-0 by the end of the 3rd, but La Russa left him in there to "take one for the team" and protect the over taxed bullpen.

In the top of the 4th, Troy Glaus hit a solo home run with 2 out to get the Cards on the board. The next 2 batters singled, bringing up Parisi with 2 on, clearly a pinch hitting situation, right? Not for La Russa, with the Cards behind 6 runs and wanting to protect his bullpen. He let Parisi hit for himself.

Parisi responded by doubling in 2 runs. The Korean War vet and Nats fan in the wheelchair next to me had reacted in surprise when I had criticized La Russa earlier in the game. Now he slapped me on the back and chortled about how great a move La Russa had made, letting his rookie pitcher bat, knowing that he was "due" for a hit. I took the ribbing in relatively good grace; after all, my pitcher had just driven in twice as many runs as the rest of his team!

Parisi gave up another run in the bottom of the 4th to give the Nats an 8-3 lead, and the top of the Cardinals batting order went down 1-2-3 in the top of the 5th. By now, Parisi had thrown 89 pitches, so La Russa relented and brought in another rookie just up from Memphis, Mark Worrell (no relation to former Cards closer Todd Worrell) to pitch the bottom of the 5th. Worrell responded with 2 scoreless innings of relief.

In between those scoreless innings, Worrell's turn to bat came up with 2 runners on and 2 out. Another obvious place to pinch hit, right? Not if you're Tony La Russa. He sent Worrell up to the plate for his very first major league at bat.

So what does Mark Worrell do? In his very first major league at bat -- heck, only his 4th plate appearance ever as a professional ball player, Worrell hits a 3 run homer! Needless to say, the vet sitting next to me was practically falling out of his wheel chair laughing at me as he kidded me about that "great strategy" of my manager. I was beginning to think about moving to a different section of the stadium. Just kidding; I was practically delirious with the excitement of watching my pitchers hit a double and a home run to drive in 5 of the Cardinals' 6 runs in the game.

Sadly, the Cards tied up the game in the top of the 9th, only to have their de facto closer, Ryan Franklin, give up a walk off home run to Elijah Dukes in the bottom of the 9th. It was a shame to spoil such a great come back like that but, while the pitchers delivered 5/8 of the game's RBIs, they didn't pitch nearly well enough against the hapless Nats to deserve a win.

So, in the end, it was ultimately a disappointing game to have watched, but it was still exciting due primarily to the batting heroics of our pitchers. We got down early, clawed our way back, only to lose it with a walk off in the bottom of the 9th. The first four relievers out of the bullpen pitched relatively well, putting up 5 innings of zeros on the scoreboard, but the Cards just couldn't score enough to overcome the 8 run hole our rookie starter put us in and our sorry excuse for a closer let the game slip away. Still, it was a very exciting and glorious come back, even if it ultimately fell short, and most of that excitement was from the hitting of our pitchers, not from their pitching. You poor AL fans are missing a lot more than you realize.

By the way, I'm writing all this to work off some of the frustration of the Cardinals blowing yet another game tonight down in Houston. Kyle Lohse pitched 8 strong innings, but made 1 mistake, by giving up a 2 out home run to David Newhan in the bottom of the 7th. He ought to have walked Newhan to get to the pitcher, but of course that would probably have brought in a pinch hitter with better stats than Newhan. Oh, and Lohse got one of the Cardinals' 5 hits, to pad his .059 BA. It's now .074! :)

[orayole]

Better fans? :) More knowledgeable? Less infatuated with the long ball?

I suspect part of it is due to the NY dominance of the AL East. Boston sells out, but their park only holds 37,652 so they don't help the AL average much.

The Yankees lead in ML attendance this season, but 6 of the next 8 teams are in the NL. The Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Cards, Cubs, and Brewers. Only the Angels, Tigers, and Red Sox join the Yankees in the top ten.

The two worst ML teams in attendance are in the NL, but 9 of the bottom 12 are AL teams. 9 in the bottom 12 and 4 in the top 10 leaves the White Sox smack in the middle at #15.

Just out of curiosity, I went back through the attendance figures back to 2001. It's the same year after year -- the Yankees usually lead everyone, but only 1 or 2 other AL teams make it into the top ten. The AL may have (temporarily) the better teams, but they don't have the better fans. Or, maybe, you guys talk a good game about how the DH makes games more interesting, but your attendance figures prove the lie to that argument. Having the pitchers bat does make for more strategy, more second guessing of the managers, and a more interesting game to watch because of the unexpected things that happen -- things like pitchers actually winning ball games with their bats as well as with their pitching.



I suspect that's because you're just not into the strategy that takes place during an NL game.

Yeah, I know that Jim Leyland claims there's just as much strategy in the AL. That's what is "BS". The argument that the decisions to pinch hit for the pitcher are pretty cut and dried is ignorant. I can't begin to count the number of times that I've disagreed with NL managerial decisions -- in both directions. Whether the decision to pinch hit or not is "good" strategy or not, I couldn't say, but it's definitely makes the NL manager's handling of his pitching staff much more complex than it is for AL managers.

An example: The one game which I've attended at the DC stadium was the 3rd game of their series this season with the Cards. Box Score (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WAS/WAS200806052.shtml) The Cards bullpen has struggled all season long, and this game was no exception. Rookie pitcher Mike Parisi got the start for the Cards and was behind 7-0 by the end of the 3rd, but La Russa left him in there to "take one for the team" and protect the over taxed bullpen.

In the top of the 4th, Troy Glaus hit a solo home run with 2 out to get the Cards on the board. The next 2 batters singled, bringing up Parisi with 2 on, clearly a pinch hitting situation, right? Not for La Russa, with the Cards behind 6 runs and wanting to protect his bullpen. He let Parisi hit for himself.

Parisi responded by doubling in 2 runs. The Korean War vet and Nats fan in the wheelchair next to me had reacted in surprise when I had criticized La Russa earlier in the game. Now he slapped me on the back and chortled about how great a move La Russa had made, letting his rookie pitcher bat, knowing that he was "due" for a hit. I took the ribbing in relatively good grace; after all, my pitcher had just driven in twice as many runs as the rest of his team!

Parisi gave up another run in the bottom of the 4th to give the Nats an 8-3 lead, and the top of the Cardinals batting order went down 1-2-3 in the top of the 5th. By now, Parisi had thrown 89 pitches, so La Russa relented and brought in another rookie just up from Memphis, Mark Worrell (no relation to former Cards closer Todd Worrell) to pitch the bottom of the 5th. Worrell responded with 2 scoreless innings of relief.

In between those scoreless innings, Worrell's turn to bat came up with 2 runners on and 2 out. Another obvious place to pinch hit, right? Not if you're Tony La Russa. He sent Worrell up to the plate for his very first major league at bat.

So what does Mark Worrell do? In his very first major league at bat -- heck, only his 4th plate appearance ever as a professional ball player, Worrell hits a 3 run homer! Needless to say, the vet sitting next to me was practically falling out of his wheel chair laughing at me as he kidded me about that "great strategy" of my manager. I was beginning to think about moving to a different section of the stadium. Just kidding; I was practically delirious with the excitement of watching my pitchers hit a double and a home run to drive in 5 of the Cardinals' 6 runs in the game.

Sadly, the Cards tied up the game in the top of the 9th, only to have their de facto closer, Ryan Franklin, give up a walk off home run to Elijah Dukes in the bottom of the 9th. It was a shame to spoil such a great come back like that but, while the pitchers delivered 5/8 of the game's RBIs, they didn't pitch nearly well enough against the hapless Nats to deserve a win.

So, in the end, it was ultimately a disappointing game to have watched, but it was still exciting due primarily to the batting heroics of our pitchers. We got down early, clawed our way back, only to lose it with a walk off in the bottom of the 9th. The first four relievers out of the bullpen pitched relatively well, putting up 5 innings of zeros on the scoreboard, but the Cards just couldn't score enough to overcome the 8 run hole our rookie starter put us in and our sorry excuse for a closer let the game slip away. Still, it was a very exciting and glorious come back, even if it ultimately fell short, and most of that excitement was from the hitting of our pitchers, not from their pitching. You poor AL fans are missing a lot more than you realize.

By the way, I'm writing all this to work off some of the frustration of the Cardinals blowing yet another game tonight down in Houston. Kyle Lohse pitched 8 strong innings, but made 1 mistake, by giving up a 2 out home run to David Newhan in the bottom of the 7th. He ought to have walked Newhan to get to the pitcher, but of course that would probably have brought in a pinch hitter with better stats than Newhan. Oh, and Lohse got one of the Cardinals' 5 hits, to pad his .059 BA. It's now .074! :)

So LaRussa decides not to pinch hit being down 6 runs and that makes it great strategy? Sounds like common sense to me. A lot of the stuff you call strategy is just common sense that anyone would do.

As far as attendance, it has a lot to do with competitiveness within each league. The NL has much more parity between itself because the NL as a whole is lesser so fans are in it longer. NL West for example. Also take in to factor the population of the cities/regions you mentioned. Mets, Dodgers, Cubs. Large Markets. NY, LA, Chicago. Suggesting that it's because the fans are more educated is ridiculous to say the least.

Also....any human being with enough strength to swing a bat quickly and basic hand-eye coordination can hit .075.

[ledzepp8]

So LaRussa decides not to pinch hit being down 6 runs and that makes it great strategy? Sounds like common sense to me. A lot of the stuff you call strategy is just common sense that anyone would do.

As far as attendance, it has a lot to do with competitiveness within each league. The NL has much more parity between itself because the NL as a whole is lesser so fans are in it longer. NL West for example. Also take in to factor the population of the cities/regions you mentioned. Mets, Dodgers, Cubs. Large Markets. NY, LA, Chicago. Suggesting that it's because the fans are more educated is ridiculous to say the least.

Also....any human being with enough strength to swing a bat quickly and basic hand-eye coordination can hit .075.

Yep, I don't get what kind of strategy is it s to not pinghc hit twhic e when you're doen by 6_ runs.

Sory I'm a little druonk.:laughlol:

[Migrant Redbird]

So LaRussa decides not to pinch hit being down 6 runs and that makes it great strategy? Sounds like common sense to me. A lot of the stuff you call strategy is just common sense that anyone would do.

What's "common sense" about conceding a scoring opportunity with 2 runners on base to pinch hit with an experienced major league player when you're down 6 runs with 5 innings left to play? You need to take advantage of scoring opportunities when they present, because you may not have enough of them in the later innings.

Yes, the odds are against making up a 6 run deficit, but it happens. As a matter of fact, it happened later in that very game. La Russa was just lucky that the pitchers he didn't pinch hit for happened to hit a double and a home run. I was thrilled when it happened, but that doesn't mean that pinch hitting wasn't the better course of action.

La Russa essentially conceded the game in order to preserve his bullpen, not because he thought it was impossible to make up the deficit. That might have been the best choice, but it's hardly a slam dunk. I suspect that many managers would have pinch hit in both situations and accepted the resultant impact on their overworked bullpens. In fact, I'm pretty confident that La Russa would have pinch hit in both situations if his bullpen hadn't been so depleted at that point.

What I failed to mention was that the previous night's game had been rained out, and was played as part of a double header the next day. In that first game, La Russa used 5 pitchers just to get through the last 3 innings. In fact, the closer who yielded the walk off home run to Dukes had gotten a save earlier that same day. There were 3 relievers who appeared in both games that day; the game 2 loser was the only one who gave up any runs.


As far as attendance, it has a lot to do with competitiveness within each league. The NL has much more parity between itself because the NL as a whole is lesser so fans are in it longer.

That's nonsense!


Also take in to factor the population of the cities/regions you mentioned. Mets, Dodgers, Cubs. Large Markets. NY, LA, Chicago.

All three of the examples you cite have teams in both leagues, which makes your point irrelevant except to the extent that team stadium location might be more convenient for one team than another, even though they're in the same market.


Suggesting that it's because the fans are more educated is ridiculous to say the least.

Well, your population argument falls flat on its face, so what else are you left with?

I was being facetious about the NL fans being more intelligent. There is a difference, though. Maybe it's because fans of the DH are more likely to abandon baseball as soon as exhibition football season opens up?


Also....any human being with enough strength to swing a bat quickly and basic hand-eye coordination can hit .075.

Yeah, sure they could. In a pigs eye!

[DrungoHazewood]

If we are going to use a DH for the pitcher, why don't we carry it to the next logical step and have 9 designated hitters and 9 defensive whizzes who only play in the field? Who wants to see Paul Bako fail time and time again?


Excellent post.

I have often used that argument about carrying the DH logic to its natural conclusion- if 1 DH is necessary to avoid having a pitcher (ie bad hitter) come up, then why not let a team bat its best 9, field the best 9 fielders, etc..... If the goal is to get rid of bad hitters, why not?

Because we don't live in a world where every idea has to be carried out to it's most laughable end. We don't live in a world where we're required to have instant replay in every conceivable situation, slowing the game to an interminable crawl, to make the point that instant replay is unworkable. We don't live in a world where you DH for all nine players in the field because eight of the nine players can hit adequately, and our point is to be sensible, not to have some kind of logic test with National League purists.

We're out to have a kind of baseball that's fun and enjoyable and played at a high level. Nine DHs is just a ploy, just a fanciful hypothetical construct designed to reduce the DH to a joke by people who don't like it and can't stand the fact that others do.

[66-70-83-??]

Because we don't live in a world where every idea has to be carried out to it's most laughable end. We don't live in a world where we're required to have instant replay in every conceivable situation, slowing the game to an interminable crawl, to make the point that instant replay is unworkable. We don't live in a world where you DH for all nine players in the field because eight of the nine players can hit adequately, and our point is to be sensible, not to have some kind of logic test with National League purists.

We're out to have a kind of baseball that's fun and enjoyable and played at a high level. Nine DHs is just a ploy, just a fanciful hypothetical construct designed to reduce the DH to a joke by people who don't like it and can't stand the fact that others do.

Not a ploy at all. If the goal is to get the bad hitters out of the lineup, as you have stated often, it makes sense. Let a team hit its best nine, field its best nine, etc.

I am ok with the DH. I remember, and liked the first O's DH (Tommy Davis) a lot. I just like the NL style too. That is what I was raised on. I am the type who would rather watch a 1-0 pitchers duel than a 14-11 slugfest. If that makes me weird or a neanderthal- so be it.

MLB did very well for close to 100 years without a DH. It isn't a radical concept to let pitchers hit.

[Migrant Redbird]

... We're out to have a kind of baseball that's fun and enjoyable and played at a high level....

So your explanation for the substantial difference between AL and NL average attendance is what? Weak baseball heritages in cities where the Yankees dominated the league for 50 years? Disinterested fan bases? Disadvantaged marketing areas? Smaller fan base populations? Or just NL fans being too stupid to recognize that NL baseball is an inferior product?

Whatever the reason for the attendance disparity is, the DH isn't doing much to fix it. Maybe it's time for the AL to consider dropping their stupid DH and playing the NL brand of baseball?

[DrungoHazewood]

So your explanation for the substantial difference between AL and NL average attendance is what? Weak baseball heritages in cities where the Yankees dominated the league for 50 years? Disinterested fan bases? Disadvantaged marketing areas? Smaller fan base populations? Or just NL fans being too stupid to recognize that NL baseball is an inferior product?

Whatever the reason for the attendance disparity is, the DH isn't doing much to fix it. Maybe it's time for the AL to consider dropping their stupid DH and playing the NL brand of baseball?

Since when was this argument at all about attendance?

It's about keeping amateur hitters out of major league lineups.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not a ploy at all. If the goal is to get the bad hitters out of the lineup, as you have stated often, it makes sense. Let a team hit its best nine, field its best nine, etc.

Again, this silly, silly argument that if one is good 20 is better. Again, we don't live in a world were we're required to take every argument to it's craziest ends. With the current state of politics, religion, sports talk radio, etc. it may seem that way, but this is baseball. Really, we're allowed to say it's ok to DH for the pitcher without advocating two-platoon baseball and lions lying down with sheep. Really. We don't shoot people for non-wildly-extreme belief systems here.


MLB did very well for close to 100 years without a DH. It isn't a radical concept to let pitchers hit.

Sure, there are a lot of generally accepted ideas that aren't necessarily smart, or currently relevant.

[Bloopandablast]

Since when was this argument at all about attendance?

It's about keeping amateur hitters out of major league lineups.

The case has been that the game is boring in the NL. That the game needed the DH to move forward and get out of a rut and add excitement by replacing a pitcher hitting with a guy whose sole job is to hit.

Certainly, since this is such a rousing success it should be that this exciting game would have left the NL ballparks empty and the AL ballparks full.
Seems to not be the case and diffuses the argument that the game is more exciting with the DH in the AL.

[TommyD4207]

We're out to have a kind of baseball that's fun and enjoyable and played at a high level. Nine DHs is just a ploy, just a fanciful hypothetical construct designed to reduce the DH to a joke by people who don't like it and can't stand the fact that others do.

And this isn't?


I will compromise, and support elimination of the DH, if there's a corresponding rule that forces all position players to pitch a certain number of innings. If we're going to abhor specialization, let's abhor all specialization, not just the trendy kind.

Sounds pretty much the same, to me.

[BaltimoreTerp]

And this isn't?



Sounds pretty much the same, to me.

They started it! :laughlol:

[DrungoHazewood]

And this isn't?



Sounds pretty much the same, to me.

I think you missed the sarcasm. My suggestion was intended to show the fallacy of their "everyone has to be a well-rounded player if it's real baseball" and "if it's good for one position it's even better for everyone" arguments. I clearly don't want to see Brian Roberts and Adam Jones pitching any more than I want to see Jeremy Guthrie hacking away.

[DrungoHazewood]

The case has been that the game is boring in the NL. That the game needed the DH to move forward and get out of a rut and add excitement by replacing a pitcher hitting with a guy whose sole job is to hit.

Certainly, since this is such a rousing success it should be that this exciting game would have left the NL ballparks empty and the AL ballparks full.
Seems to not be the case and diffuses the argument that the game is more exciting with the DH in the AL.

No one has shown a shred of evidence that attendance is better in the NL than the AL once you control for market sizes, team performances, ballpark capacities, competing other sports, and other effects.

[BaltimoreTerp]

No one has shown a shred of evidence that attendance is better in the NL than the AL once you control for market sizes, team performances, ballpark capacities, competing other sports, and other effects.

As a percentage of average capacities (45,479 for the NL, 46,530 for the AL) over the past three years, the NL averages 73.53% of capacity filled, and the AL 66.06%.

The average age of an NL ballpark is 19 years (median age: 8), and an AL park 28 years (median age: 18.5). And that includes Yankee Stadium as post-renovation age (32).

Even among newer ballparks (I started with 19 years: Toronto), the NL averages 72.59% of capacity and the AL 62.85% (dragged down by Tampa Bay, Toronto and Baltimore). Cut out Toronto and Tampa Bay, since they are really different then the "new" ballparks, and the AL number rises to 67.58%.

I haven't tried to do market size or the rest, though the AL does seem to be dragged down by Baltimore, Seattle, Cleveland and Texas, while the only new NL parks with the same problem are Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, so team performance may be involved (especially with Toronto and Tampa Bay).

[Bloopandablast]

No one has shown a shred of evidence that attendance is better in the NL than the AL once you control for market sizes, team performances, ballpark capacities, competing other sports, and other effects.

1) What he says above (Balt Terp).
2) You should be showing me stats that would show a vastly more exciting game drawing larger crowds to AL games. You do not because you can not.

[Migrant Redbird]

1) What he says above (Balt Terp).
2) You should be showing me stats that would show a vastly more exciting game drawing larger crowds to AL games. You do not because you can not.

But Jon insists that fans find the game more exciting with the DH. Both AL and NL fans appear to disagree with him, as represented by their voting with their wallets.

I don't think he's got a gate receipt to stand on.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But Jon insists that fans find the game more exciting with the DH. Both AL and NL fans appear to disagree with him, as represented by their voting with their wallets.

I don't think he's got a gate receipt to stand on.

But I didn't take market size or performance into consideration, which based on who is dragging down the AL in newer stadiums could be VERY important to the discussion.

I'm surprised you would be willing to jump to such a conclusion without looking at all the evidence.

[Migrant Redbird]

But I didn't take market size or performance into consideration, which based on who is dragging down the AL in newer stadiums could be VERY important to the discussion.

I'm surprised you would be willing to jump to such a conclusion without looking at all the evidence.

According to the Baseball Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml), the average AL "consolidated statistical metropolitan area" (CSMA) is about 6.87 million people, whereas the average NL CSMA is significantly smaller, 6.09 million people, which would suggest even more strongly that the "more exciting" AL game ought to bring in more fans -- but it isn't!

As for team performance, there are 4 teams in the playoffs every year. That means that 12 NL teams miss the post season, compared to just 10 AL teams, which should also pull down the average NL attendance.

And we all are well aware that the AL has won more inter league games in recent seasons, which also ought to be depressing average NL attendance. Why isn't it?

Everything -- average CSMA, frequency of post season play, and the excitement of having "real hitters" batting instead of those stupid pitchers, ought to cause AL attendance to be higher than NL attendance. Yet, in actuality, it's the inverse -- the "dull" NL game is outdrawing the "exciting" AL game by a significant margin.

Do you think, maybe, that "real" baseball fans might just happen to prefer the "duller" NL game?

Yes, I'm aware that's a very "shallow" statistical analysis that doesn't take into account a host of other factors which affect baseball attendance, but those factors ought to average out to some degree. However, the disparity in average NL attendance over AL attendance is rather large -- pretty large to explain away by things like competing major league sports, inequality of competition, or franchise historic legacies.

Personally, I think the argument that the NL game is duller because pitchers have to bat is "busted". It might be less interesting for you, but the average baseball fan doesn't seem to agree with you.

[Migrant Redbird]

Well, it happened again last night!

Cards had a 5-0 lead on the Diamondbacks, going into the top of the 6th. All Star Ryan Ludwick led off the inning with a double.

Playing "small ball", La Russa had his snail-slow catcher sacrifice the runner over to 3rd. The Arizona pitcher tried to field the ball and catch the runner at 3rd, but dropped the ball. He picked it up and still had time to get Molina at first, but forgot how slow Yadie is and didn't even look.

While pitching to Lopez, the 'Zona pitcher bounced a pitch that his catcher didn't handle cleanly. The ball rolled a little ways in front of the plate and Yadi took off for 2nd. The catcher pounced on the ball and ought to have gotten Molina at 2nd, but his throw was high and wide and the shortstop couldn't get the tag down in time.

So then, the 'Zona manager decided to walk Lopez intentionally and load the bases to get to the Cardinals pitcher, batting as usual in the 8th spot. While a fairly good hitter for a pitcher, Wainwright had struck out in his previous two at bats. However, he crossed up the 'Zona manager's strategy by lining the first pitch down the left field line for a double, driving in 2 more runs. The runner he moved from 1st over to 3rd also scored eventually (on a double play), giving the Cards an 8-0 lead.

It was great seeing the Cards finally stop the skid, after being swept in Houston and losing 8-6 in the first game against Arizona. It was even more delicious seeing Wainwright double in those 2 runs, after Lopez was intentionally walked to get to him.

The Cards are 5-1/2 games out of the wild card now, with the Phillies in between them and the Brewers, so their chances of making the post season are now virtually nil. It makes it discouraging to watch the team play, especially when they get blown out 12-0 by the Astros with their best pitcher starting. However, I still know that there will be a few bright spots in September, such as the opportunity to watch one of our pitchers spoil the best strategies of an opposing manager.

[Migrant Redbird]

And again today. #7 hitter hits a grounder that would have been close at 1st, but the Snakes infielder throws the ball away and Lopez ends up on 2nd with 1 out. The pitcher comes up when a sac bunt would have been useless, so he's swinging away. Lohse hits a zinger like Wainwright's last night, except it's down the 1st base line, and doubles home the run. He raised his BA from .091 to .107 and his RBIs and hit counts both from 4 to 5.

Yeah, a DH would produce more runs, but it wouldn't be nearly as much fun to watch.

Unfortunately, the bullpen blew yet save. Lohse left after pitching 6 shutout innings, but the Cards still lost 4-3 and missed another chance to pick up a game on the Brewers and the Cubs.

Both the Cubs and Brewers are showing signs of falling apart from the strain. With Zambrano ailing, the Cubs have lost 5 in a row, while Sheets has issues and the Brewers have lost 3 straight. If the Cardinals hadn't let the Astros sweep them and the Diamondbacks take 2 out of 3, they could have climbed back into contention. The NL Central is trying to live up to its preseason reputation.

[Bird_Man]

I kind of like it as is with 2 leagues with differing rules.

There seems to be a lot of militancy going both ways.


I do believe that NL is more strategic, even if some pro-DH people don't want to admit it.

AL is a bit more offensive and that appeals to some.

Why not leave it at that?

[davearm]

No one has shown a shred of evidence that attendance is better in the NL than the AL once you control for market sizes, team performances, ballpark capacities, competing other sports, and other effects.
Nor have you shown a shred of evidence that the AL does a better job of delivering "a kind of baseball that's fun and enjoyable and played at a high level."

At least there's logic behind the premise that attendance figures ought to reflect the quality of the product being put on the field.

You've got no logic on your side -- just your own personal preference.

Now you're clearly entitled to your personal preference, just don't try and sell it as being reflective of the majority opinion amongst all fans. As I said, you've offered nothing to support such a conclusion.

[davearm]

If you prefer it, that's fine.

But don't shove the "its more strategy" bs down our throats because that is all that is...BS!

Its also very boring.

But again, if you like it, that's fine.
Of course there's more strategy involved in managing an NL lineup than an AL lineup. To deny that is just nonsensical.

Now you may prefer to trade that additional strategic component for a more competent hitter in place of the pitcher, and that's fine. Lots of folks feel that way.

Just don't tell me that putting that more competent hitter in the lineup doesn't simplify things, and reduce the decisionmaking the manager faces over the course of a ballgame.

Heck this year's All-Star game is Exhibit A. Just try to imagine the sort of headaches Hurdle and Francona would have had if managing their pitching staffs also had implications for their hitting lineups. That would've elevated a messy situation to a complete nightmare.