God NL baseball is awful

[DrungoHazewood]

Pitchers like Mike Hampton and Jason Marquis who really can hit very well make up for all the Cabreras and Durens at the plate.

What an absurd pair of examples. Jason Marquis has a career OPS of .554, or about 80% as good as Paul Bako, our resident flailing, hacking, defense-only catcher. The same guy most of us think shouldn't be anywhere near a major league roster, even as a backup. Mike Hampton has a career OPS+ of 66, and 10 of his 15 career homers came as a Colorado Rockie. In fact, a full 1/3 of his career homers came in Coors Field, an extreme hitter's park that he pitched only 12% of his games in.

Those guys don't even come close to making up the gap. Without them, NL pitchers still have an OPS around .350 over the past 20 years.

Since 1990 there are 22 pitchers with an OPS over .500 in 200+ at bats. Two over .600, and none over .700. There are 13 more (35 total) with an OPS under .300, and 13 with an OPS under .250.

You know what would be like an OPS under .250? A pitcher with an ERA of 15.00. Wouldn't it be a great example of symmetry and history and tradition to set up modern major league rosters and rules so that, say, Freddy Bynum had to face 50 or 60 batters every year as a pitcher? It would be ugly from a performance standpoint, and that 15.00 ERA might be optimistic. But maybe that's just the price we have to pay so that our game doesn't blaspheme itself by letting one-dimensional players take the field.

[tennOsfan]

All of these numbers going back and forth in this debate. OPS this, SLG that, foreign exchange rates, variable APRs, and I don't know what.

Baseball is not a mathematical exercise. It's entertainment. Brian Burres just wacked a two-out single with two strikes and pitch off the lower outside corner of the plate. I enjoyed that hit more than any by the Orioles in over a month. Mainly because he wasn't supposed to be able to do that -- the OPS says so ... or does it?

Put these stats down for 10 seconds and actually watch some baseball. You might see something you enjoy, like a pitcher getting a hit now and then.

[DrungoHazewood]

One more point to make. If the DH was responsible for the decline of pitchers hitting, there are some data points we can check for evidence.

First, as Eight pointed out, pitcher's relative hitting hasn't declined any faster since 1973 than before.

Second, you'd expect NL pitchers to be far better than AL pitchers with the bat, as they practice and get game reps with the bat, while their AL counterparts mostly don't. NL Pitcher's OPS since 1990 is about .360. AL pitcher's is .321. OK... there's your difference. The pitchers that try to hit are .040 better than those who don't. Not much when you consider the difference between NL pitchers and MLB shortstops is close to .400 OPS points.

Third, you'd expect pitchers to hit better when they first come into the league, and decline throughout their careers. In college and high school more pitchers play other positions and bat regularly, so they'd have more recent batting reps early in their MLB careers. But that's almost certainly not the case. I need to do more research, but of the top 50 seasons in pitcher's OPS since 1990 (min 50 PAs), only 10 came from pitchers younger than 25. 15 came from pitchers aged 30+.

I have to conclude that had the DH never existed pitchers would have a cumulative OPS only a small amount higher than they do today.

[DrungoHazewood]

All of these numbers going back and forth in this debate. OPS this, SLG that, foreign exchange rates, variable APRs, and I don't know what.

Baseball is not a mathematical exercise. It's entertainment. Brian Burres just wacked a two-out single with two strikes and pitch off the lower outside corner of the plate. I enjoyed that hit more than any by the Orioles in over a month. Mainly because he wasn't supposed to be able to do that -- the OPS says so ... or does it?

Put these stats down for 10 seconds and actually watch some baseball. You might see something you enjoy, like a pitcher getting a hit now and then.

You know what I'd really enjoy? Chris Gomez pitching 3 1/3 shutout innings. He's not supposed to be able to do that, either.

And I watch plenty of baseball, thank you.

[NittanyOsFan]

All of these numbers going back and forth in this debate. OPS this, SLG that, foreign exchange rates, variable APRs, and I don't know what.

Baseball is not a mathematical exercise. It's entertainment. Brian Burres just wacked a two-out single with two strikes and pitch off the lower outside corner of the plate. I enjoyed that hit more than any by the Orioles in over a month. Mainly because he wasn't supposed to be able to do that -- the OPS says so ... or does it?

Put these stats down for 10 seconds and actually watch some baseball. You might see something you enjoy, like a pitcher getting a hit now and then.

The problem with this is pitchers getting hits becomes a side show. I'm really happy Burres got a hit. But then you see him come up in the 5th with bases loaded and looking completely overmatched.

[TGO]

All Baseball Games Should Be Played On Orange Artificial Turf And Home Plate Should Be Located In A Pit Of Sand!

[66-70-83-??]

FWIW, here are some quotes against the DH from Baseball Almanac from Rob Neyer, Bob Costas, Jayson Stark, and others...............

"I grew up with the DH. I grew up with Hal McRae, the best DH (before Edgar Martinez, that is). And I can't stand watching pitchers hit. Or rather, trying to hit. Or trying to bunt. All that said, I'm starting to wonder if it's time, after 30 years, for the designated hitter to go the way of the Federal League, flannel uniforms, and multi-purpose stadiums. The DH was originally installed because American League owners thought attendance needed a boost — actually, what the American League needed was better owners — and they thought that more runs would lead to more fans. Did it work? Attendance went up 17 percent in 1973, the first season of the DH. This was proof enough for the owners, and so we've had the DH ever since. But there's a lot more to attendance than scoring tons of runs, as any number of National League teams have proved since 1973. And perhaps more to the point, nobody needs help scoring runs any more; there are plenty of hitters with power and plate discipline to go around, and there are plenty of teams that don't care much whether their sluggers can actually play in the field without embarrassing themselves. So while it's been fun, and we'll always remember Hal McRae and Edgar Martinez fondly, 30 years is long enough." - Rob Neyer on ESPN.com (April 4, 2003)

"I screwed up the game of baseball. Baseball needed a jolt of offense for attendance, so they decided on the DH. I never thought it would last this long." - Ron Blomberg [the first DH ever] in The Journal News (April 5, 2003)

"It's 30 years down the DH highway, and this rule makes even less sense now than it did in 1973 — if that's possible. Here are five reasons baseball should abolish this abomination now (by Jayson Stark in ESPN.com on April 4, 2003):

1. Once, it was at least slightly intriguing to have two leagues playing the same sport using different rules. Now, with interleague play, it's not intriguing anymore. It's absurd.

2. Let's take that one step further. The DH rule may have cost the Giants the World Series. This was a team constructed around its bullpen, not its spare bench parts. So Dusty Baker essentially had no DH. In fact, his Game 7 DH — Pedro Feliz — was a guy who had made it through the first six games without an at-bat. No other sport would tolerate a situation this farcical.

3. The idea 30 years ago was that the DH would allow some beloved older hitters to extend their careers once they could no longer play the field. Whatever happened to that brainstorm? All these beloved older hitters DH'd Opening Day: Ken Harvey, Al Martin, Jeremy Giambi, Matt LeCroy and Josh Phelps. Face it: The DH is now just an excuse to be one-dimensional.

4. The only reason to have a DH rule is that fans allegedly like more offense. Obviously, DHs are better hitters than pitchers. But how much more offense does this rule really generate? The average AL team scored one more run every three games than the average NL team last year — and got one more hit every four games. So we're talking about two extra runs a week. That'll pack 'em in, all right.

5. Finally, the game is simply way more interesting without the DH than with it. Period. Ask any manager which is more strategically challenging — managing a game under NL rules or AL rules. It's no contest. It's baseball's cerebral side that separates it from all the other games ever invented. And the game is way more cerebral with no DH than with it. That's one thing that hasn't changed in 30 years — and never will.

"Primarily, every rule change over the past ten years has been against the pitchers - lowering the mound and the designated hitter." - Gaylord Perry

"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." - Bob Costas in USA Today Baseball Weekly

"The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws." - Rick Wise (1974)

[Mark Carver]

FWIW, here are some quotes against the DH from Baseball Almanac from Rob Neyer, Bob Costas, Jayson Stark, and others...............

Well... in that case, let's get rid of it, since their opinions have more weight to them then others.

[SurhoffRules]

Well, I'll go on record as being for the DH. It really doesn't have anything to do with wanting to see the pitcher hit or anything like that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's damned hard to be a pitcher. You have to hurl a ball 90+ MPH and be able to change speeds and have the skill to put that tiny ball over a very small target to begin with. And now that most umpires don't call the high strike and the mound has been lowered, it's damn near impossible to be a great pitcher anymore. Honestly, the most I can hope for, on a given night, is that a pitchers goes 7....maybe 8 innings. Why the h*ll should they have to bat in addition to that. Call the high strike, raise the mound, then maybe I'll think about changing my position.

And, for all of the "you play the field, you should bat" fanactics out there, I call bullhonkey. The 2nd baseman isn't responsibile for throwing the pitch, neither is the left fielder or the shortstop. Being a pitcher isn't the same as playing the field. No one else in the field has the put the ball into play, they all react to the ball. It would be like having the the goaly in hockey forced into a shoot out(and yes, I know the shootout is a recent addition). Being a major league pitcher is nothing like being a major league field and don't act like it is.

And no one enjoy a 1-0 game more than I. Pitchers rules...

[66-70-83-??]

Well... in that case, let's get rid of it, since their opinions have more weight to them then others.

You forgot the , I think.

Thanks for your "enlightened" post. It added much to the discussion.

I guess you didn't notice the "FWIW" that I started it with.

I thought (and others that gave me rep pts did too) that some other well known (and respected) peoples opinions were appropriate considering that it is the topic at hand here.

[66-70-83-??]

Well, I'll go on record as being for the DH. It really doesn't have anything to do with wanting to see the pitcher hit or anything like that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's damned hard to be a pitcher. You have to hurl a ball 90+ MPH and be able to change speeds and have the skill to put that tiny ball over a very small target to begin with. And now that most umpires don't call the high strike and the mound has been lowered, it's damn near impossible to be a great pitcher anymore. Honestly, the most I can hope for, on a given night, is that a pitchers goes 7....maybe 8 innings. Why the h*ll should they have to bat in addition to that. Call the high strike, raise the mound, then maybe I'll think about changing my position.

And, for all of the "you play the field, you should bat" fanactics out there, I call bullhonkey. The 2nd baseman isn't responsibile for throwing the pitch, neither is the left fielder or the shortstop. Being a pitcher isn't the same as playing the field. No one else in the field has the put the ball into play, they all react to the ball. It would be like having the the goaly in hockey forced into a shoot out(and yes, I know the shootout is a recent addition). Being a major league pitcher is nothing like being a major league field and don't act like it is.

And no one enjoy a 1-0 game more than I. Pitchers rules...

That is a silly analogy brought on by DH fans several times here.

In the NL (AL pre-DH) you always had the NINE defenders (regardless of position) bat. The 2B, LF, or SS never pitched. Nor did the SS have to play RF for an inning. All 9 played the field on defense, all 9 particiipated in offense by batting.

A better analogy to the DH would be a rule change in hockey- right now all 5 skaters (LW,C,RW, D, D) play defense and offense. "Stay at home" defensemen usually lack offensive (shooting) skills.

How about the NHL, in an effort to improve scoring, allow the referees to freeze the action when the puck gets into the offensive zone- so a defenseman can be replaced by an offensive minded forward. More scoring would result. Perhaps they can also make the goal 2 ft wider and 1 ft higher too (ie like lowering the mound height).

The reason for the DH coming into existance is no longer an issue. There is no problem scoring runs today in MLB.

First the mound height is lowered. Then the DH. What will the DH/More Scoring proponents propose next ? Aluminum bats ? Move the rubber in to 55 ft 5". Or is the game "just perfect" now ?

Although I am arguing in favor of NO DH- I know that it very likely here to stay. I can live with that. If I was king- I would probably remove it. But, I am really not militant about it. In the end- I love and appreciate BOTH AL and NL baseball.

There are pros to both sides of the debate that comes down to NL-more strategy, AL-more runs.

[tennOsfan]

For those who scoff at the NL fans' joy of strategic decisions, there was quite a discussion on last night's game thread on whether Trembley should've pinch hit for Burres in the fifth.

He opted to see if he could stretch some more work out of Burres on the mound, but a good argument could be made that a pinch hitter was in order.

You'd never have that discussion with the DH rule.

Seriously, I enjoy baseball either way. What I object to is people who are totally close-minded to one set of rules. The NL people who think the AL isn't baseball, and the AL people who act like there's zero joy at all in not having the DH. Open your minds.

[davearm]

The one rule everyone is forgetting that needs to be removed is that darn infield-fly rule. It's completely arbitrary that a batter is called out without the fielders having to do anything. It also removes all of the strategy involved with the baserunners having to guess whether the infielder will catch the ball or not.

All kidding aside, I like the DH rule. I think it makes for a more enjoyable game. I also think it makes the core part of baseball, the batter-pitcher matchup, better. Sac bunts with 1 out and intentional walks of bad number 8 hitters to get to an even worse batting pitcher seem like something a manager has to do instead of wants to do.

The slippery slope, "purity", or "balance" arguments seem hollow to me. If "balance" is what is desired why doesn't each player have to pitch one inning since there are 9 players on the field and 9 innings in a game? Why not have the players rotate positions every inning like in volleyball? Neither way is the right or wrong way to play baseball.

However, I do like pitchers batting in the NL. It provides a little change of pace during the long season. The different DH rules give the leagues their own flavor, something unique to baseball unlike the NFL or NBA. My personal preference though is not to see a pitcher bat 162 games a year.

Actually, it's something that managers don't do. At least not very often.

I can't recall the last time I saw a #8 hitter intentionally walked.

This misconception has truly taken on a life of its own around here.

[66-70-83-??]

Actually, it's something that managers don't do. At least not very often.

I can't recall the last time I saw a #8 hitter intentionally walked.

This misconception has truly taken on a life of its own around here.

Me neither. Not now in NL or back in the day...............

Belanger (or on occasion Etchebarren would be in the 8th spot) were never intentionally walked either.

[AgentOrange]

Actually, it's something that managers don't do. At least not very often.

I can't recall the last time I saw a #8 hitter intentionally walked.

This misconception has truly taken on a life of its own around here.

I am pretty sure it happened last night, which was kinda strange. But I agree it doesn't happen as much as you would think.

The pitchers are not automatic outs and the last thing a pitcher wants to do is extend an inning, even if the odds are better that you can get the pitcher out over the number 8 hitter.