Designated Hitter

[Thumper]

Should the AL keep or get rid of the DH?

 

I think so. I don't think it's a bad thing but I just feel the pitcher should have to hit. He's no more at risk than anyone else and in my own opinion how the game should be played. When my grandfather played in the minor leagues, the pitcher always hit, when my uncle was in highschool, the pitcher always hit. All the DH does is add another power bat to the lineup. Which isn't BAD, but it really isn't needed. Some pitchers can hit really well actually.

 

But if you really weigh it out you can see there's more good reasons to have it than not to have it.

 

Having the DH

- Adds another power hitter to the lineup.

- Reduces risk of pitcher injury.

- Saves pitcher's stamina.

- Allows people with weak throwing arms or slow runners a second chance in the Show.

 

Without the DH

- Brings back old rules of baseball.

- Allows pitcher to more hitting time.

 

I can't thinkg of anymore without's. So if you have some please share.

 

So what's your thoughts on the DH Rule?

[Cocos Disciples]

David Ortiz. My vote is yes.

[Gom]

The truth is that it takes away from the strategy. Now, a manager just takes out a pitcher without a thought to whether he is up next inning or not, there isn't a double switch anymore.

 

Coco's Disciples, I am disappointed in you with that statement. It means you just care about it because your team has the best DH in baseball. Does that mean if you didn't, would you want to see the DH eliminated?

 

The DH was instituted to increase the scoring. In 1968, Yaz lead the AL in batting with a .301 batting average. Bob Gibson recorded an ERA of 1.12.

 

Those days are long gone now.

 

Where I like the added offense a DH brings, I would rather see more managerial strategy in the game. This is why I don't like the DH. I like baseball the way it was designed, in this case.

[ORS]

Personally, I don't care either way. There are good reasons for the DH, like the fact that the game has becomed so specialized that the DH is a just a natural extension of that. There are good reasons for no DH, like the fact that the game is more pure when every player who takes the field should swing the bat. Whichever they choose is fine with me.

 

What I don't like is the fact that the whole league doesn't play the same way. The AL builds it's roster and plays the game around the AL rules, and vice versa for the NL teams. When they go and play the game at the other's park, they are at a tactical disadvantage. That's kid of s*****, if you ask me. One league (the major leagues), one set of rules.

[Cocos Disciples]

The truth is that it takes away from the strategy. Now, a manager just takes out a pitcher without a thought to whether he is up next inning or not, there isn't a double switch anymore.

 

Coco's Disciples, I am disappointed in you with that statement. It means you just care about it because your team has the best DH in baseball. Does that mean if you didn't, would you want to see the DH eliminated?

 

The DH was instituted to increase the scoring. In 1968, Yaz lead the AL in batting with a .301 batting average. Bob Gibson recorded an ERA of 1.12.

 

Those days are long gone now.

 

Where I like the added offense a DH brings, I would rather see more managerial strategy in the game. This is why I don't like the DH. I like baseball the way it was designed, in this case.

 

As a baseball fan, you're right, I would like to see it abolished. It takes away a lot of the strategy of the game. As a Red Sox fan, I'm lovin' it.

[Gom]

Of course. Our two teams will have the financial ability to spend for a big time DH. We always will. As a Yankee fan, I like the DH. Overally, however, I don't like it.

[See Red]

Eh, I could go either way. I'd like to see the strategical aspect of it but I can't stand seeing guys at the plate who have no business being at the plate. You get the occassional pitcher that can hold his own, hit for a low, but somewhat respectable average, and then you have the guys who just go up and flail at everything and it's just ugly to watch.

[Thumper]

Eh' date=' I could go either way.[/b'] I'd like to see the strategical aspect of it but I can't stand seeing guys at the plate who have no business being at the plate. You get the occassional pitcher that can hold his own, hit for a low, but somewhat respectable average, and then you have the guys who just go up and flail at everything and it's just ugly to watch.

 

 

Got ya there.

 

But I'd have to agree with the some pitchers being good, some pitchers not. But I feel all in all, if all you do is go up to the plate to hit, what business do you have there other than to boost an average? Let the pitchers play.

 

The only set back to not having a DH is these days, there's more likely to be more intentional hits at the pitchers, which could end their career. And people can be that much of an ass to do something. You know it would go down between the Sox and the Yankees. We'd be trying to knock out Wang, the Yanks would be shooting for Beckett or Dice K.

[example1]

Sorry guys, but despite being a diehard baseball fan I just could care less about watching a pitcher hit. I don't care if it is more "pure" or "symetrical" with all fielders hitting. I haven't been impressed by many pitchers hitting, even if they are life-long NL guys. I just don't care. I want to see players do what they are best at whenever possible and I actually see symetry in the DH being the replacement for the pitcher. Half the time the pitcher bunts, which could be called strategy... but boring strategy. I don't feel compelled to watch Ortiz or Hafner or Giambi field, but they are all capable of doing so just fine. Teams are better and the game is better if the 9 spots are filled with hitters.

 

Nobody feels compelled to say that all hitters should pitch, do they? Then why feel compelled to have pitchers hit?

 

Overall, like ORS, I don't really care. I love the game either way, but I get angry with Doug Mirabelli coming to the plate and there are very few pitchers who would hit much better.

[Sox Fan In Indy]

Maybe it's because I don't watch much N.L. baseball, since I'm usually watching the Red Sox or Yankees, but when I do, I hate having what is pretty much an automatic out every couple innings. I can see why some people like the strategic aspect of having no DH, but, personally, I watch baseball for the talent, not the strategy. If I want strategy, I'll watch chess.

 

I agree with ORS about how both leagues need to have the same rules. The road team in the World Series is at a distinct disadvantage, playing with rules they only have to play by for a few weeks of the year in June. (Actually it's probably harder for an A.L. team to remove a player from their lineup than it is for an N.L. team to have a bench player go up and hit.) I remember reading some writer a few years ago saying it would be like if in the NBA, the Western Conference played without a 3-point line, and the East did. Then in the NBA Finals, the Eastern team would have to adjust to not having a three point line, and vice versa for the Western team. That wouldn't make sense. So I don't like how teams in the World Series have to adjust to having an extra player or removing an extra player from their lineup.

[CrespoBlows]

Sorry, but watching the pitcher bat with RISP, drives me insane.

[Gibsons 67 World Series]

With as many things wrong with the DH as have been discussed - the most relevant in my mind is that it's lengthening the career of players that would otherwise be chumps. Old, hired thugs who lack the physical ability to move, defend and react...the results are bloated career numbers and salaries. It's just one of the many ways the DH defecates on the game, it's history and the way it was meant to be played.

[schillingouttheks]

David Ortiz is a thug? I don't think so.

[Gibsons 67 World Series]

A thug? No.

 

Could Helen Keller play better defense? Maybe.

 

But a thug - definitely not.

[schillingouttheks]

He can actually play pretty solid defense. He's really not as bad as you may think.

 

But watching him try to handle a wild throw above his head would be f***ing hilarious

[Rodney Harrison]

1.01 Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires.

 

Notice it says nine players, not eight and two halves.

[Gibsons 67 World Series]

He may be a solid defender - we'll never know as long as the #*&%^#* DH rule is in effect or when the Sox make the WS next.

 

I just know - as an NL fan - the perception of his defense is mirrored by various misplays we see on sports shows.

 

I want to gripe about a second point, too: the DH also makes a pitcher who actually CAN hit (maybe not a 30/30 guy, but could definitely be a threat) much less of a strategic weapon. As someone who has followed a team with a silver slugger at the pitcher position, it's exciting to know you have that advantage over another team with an offensively inept throwboy on the hill.

[BillBuckner1986]

The DH rule is what makes the AL dominant. How many times do you hear about someone having to go to an AL team because DH is the only position they can play at that stage in their career? Just look at the White Sox. Thome and Konerko both are solid 1B. In the NL, you have to choose between one or the other, or put them in an odd position. OTOH, the DH position gives them flexibility. I personally think it's a bitch spot and you don't deserve to be in the big leagues if you can't field properly.