Interleague play & the DH (merged)

What's better baseball? The best pitching for the situation against the best hitting for the situation? or forced removal of the best pitcher for a situation because he can't hit?

 

Better baseball is a game played by the players in the game. Baseball is a 9 man game, not a 10 man game. The substitution rules in baseball make it different than all other games. Once you come out, you can't go back in. And you can only exchange batting order spot for spot.

If a guy can't hit, then you have to make plans for that.

If your idea of good baseball is only the best pitching against the best hitting, then you ruin the whole game. You no longer need the 2-5 starters. You just want the #1 starter. You only need one hitter since you are looking for the best.

The fact is that baseball is not a game of "the best hitter against the best pitcher." It is a game of the next guy in the lineup against the guy on the mound.

 

Managers will tell you that there are strategy concerns on both sides. The strategy is different when managing a DH vs. no DH, but there is strategy involved nonetheless. So the whole "strategy" argument doesn't get us anywhere. The next question is what gives us the best game? Also, another question to ponder is: What is the only league in the whole universe that doesn't use the DH? The National League. Every other league, from the Minor Leagues all the way down to Little League across the globe uses the DH. The NL needs to conform to the rest of the baseball world. I'm essentially a purist when it comes to baseball, but there are times when we have to change, and the NL is past its time to change.

 

That is an entirely subjective opinion based on your bias. Head to head, it was what it was.

 

Ask Grady Little if there's strategy about pitching changes in the AL (see Pedro and the 2003 ALCS).

The AL bunts, too. And let's say you have a NL game with a man on first and the pitcher is up. My 5 month old niece knows the pitcher is going to bunt. Where's the strategy in that? About once a week I see pitchers bunt with 2 outs or no one on base. I want to scream. And you have a pitcher coming up to bat, down one, but a runner is on 2nd in the 8th. That pitcher is getting lifted. No-brainer, and no strategy.
As for double switches, that's a waste of two, sometimes three players. The pitcher is spent, a fielder, and often a PH. So now, an already stretched roster is stretched more by using up 10-12% of your lineup to make what is essentially one roster move. People say the DH encourages oafs just hitting. What about the NL encouraging mediocore players to just PH and field for an inning or two?

It can. But it isn't. Should we have punters learn to catch passes and run routes? Should we have goalies learn to wind up slappers? Should we have centers shoot threes? We have no problem segmenting players in other sports. Why the double-standard when it comes to baseball?

As for IL play, the Chipper Jones/SI argument (Boy, there's two good sources) just isn't convincing. The Braves have to play the Red Sox as their "historical" rival, but this year play the Twins, Indians, and Tigers. Chipper referenced the Marlins having to play Tampa Bay twice because of their "rivalrly." Sue the Marlins for being geographically near the Rays. But also, the Marlins play the...yep...Twins and Indians (and White Sox). No one plays IL after the break, I believe. So Chipper needs to stop whining (not going to happen anytime soon) and the Braves need to come up with a better excuse as to their penchat for post-season choking and loss of dominance in the now stronger NL East than the poor, mean people at MLB who schedule interleague play just to mess with the Rent-a-Braves.

Andy wrote:

You're right about the strategy thing being a red-herring. I'm a purist, too. And that led me to embrace the DH. As I said on the other thread, I'm tired of seeing pitchers loaf up to the plate, swing aimlessly, and giggle as they trot back to the dugout after inflating the opposing pitcher's K stats (which I think should be Sabrmetrically adjusted in the NL due to pitchers batting). It's insane that the leagues have no uniform rule on this issue. Typical baseball.

 

Moderator's Note

I am unable to find out why the other thread was closed. I was going to reopen the other thread, but since the conversation is moving along here, I'll just leave it closed. If anyone more knowlegable than me knows how to merge the two threads, I'd love to do it.

 

Threads have hopefully been successfully merged and reopened.

 

No, it is not entirely subjective. I agree that it is somewhat subjective, as is the nature of all sports arguments. There is sufficient data to form a reasonable opinion that the Tigers were the best team in '87. There is also sufficient data to form a reasonable opinion that the Cardinals were better than the Twins, as well.

 

This is not comparing apples to apples in my opinion. In basketball and hockey, and to some degree in football (where the wide receiver also plays free safety at times) the players are asked, not to merely play their specific positions, but rather to play offense when their team has the ball, and to play defense when their team doesn't.

It isn't a matter of a center shooting 3-pt FGs, it is a matter of that center doing his job on both sides of the ball. A pitcher has the same responsibility. When it's time to pitch, he pitches; when it's time to bat, he should be prepared for that as well. His responsibility to the team includes both offense and defense (at least in the NL) just as in most other professional sports.

MLB has had plenty of good-hitting pitchers, so the argument cannot be made that pitchers cannot hit. The fact is that they are not expected to produce at the plate so they give little or no attention to this aspect of the game. I know for a fact that they didn't learn that in Little League. It has been my experience that the pitcher was often the best hitter on the team.

 

That's because in little league usually the best athlete is pitching and he is also the best hitter, too. But as he gets older and the competition increases, he will go in one direction or another. If his "ticket" is pitching, he is going to put all of his effort and concentration and practice into his pitching, because if he is a great pitcher and an awful hitter, he will still have a chance to be drafted. But if he is merely a decent pitcher but also a decent hitter, then he will probably never be drafted.

This happened in my own "career" - I was a good hitter and pitcher in LL. Pitching became my thing early on, so I concentrated on that more. By my senior year of H.S., I could barely muster a .250 batting average, but I was also a much better pitcher - good enough to play 2 years of [small] college ball. Had I not concentrated on pitching growing up, I wouldn't have been a good enough pitcher or hitter to play college ball at all.

Considering all this, I think the DH is a natural progression for baseball. It has always been said that pitching is 75% of the game. Well, since it is such an important aspect of the game, then it is natural for the pitchers to focus wholly on their craft. I'll take a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA and .100 BA over one who has a 5.00 ERA and .300 BA anyday. Also consider that starting pitchers only play every 5 games, do they need to worry about their hitting? No, they spend their off-days studying opposing hitters, healing/training their arm, running, etc. Because what they gain in being a better pitcher is so much more important than their hitting. Thus, the DH makes sense and is part of the natual progression of the game, as evidenced by every league in the known world to adopt it, save the inferior National League.

 

I once overheard a major league scout talking to a player in camp. The player was trying to quote his HS batting avg and so forth and the scout said "Son, everyone can hit in HS" :laugh: Same is true of LL to an extent. Andy is spot on about the pitchers in LL.

This happens next to never. Devin Hester of the Bears is being moved. Woodson was moved to strictly DB in the NFL (likely due to his lackluster numbers in college).

But some players' positions are strictly defensive or offensive. That doesn't lessen their worthiness to their team. It just is what it is.

The number of good hitting pitchers is never, ever a long one. These are the exception, and not the rule. I wouldn't imagine more than 10% hit more than .200. I'd love to see the hard numbers. I can't find many doing just a quick scan.

That's kind of making my point. The position has evolved. It's time for the NL to get with the baseball world.

 

I imagine that more than half of major league managers would have made the same decision. You have your ace out there ... the franchise player, a veteran, who says "I can do this." If it works out, no one complains. If Grady Little brings in the pen and the same thing happens, people would have said he should have left his ace in there. So he was in a no win situation, I think.

Not nearly as much, I don't thin.

Which you would not see in the AL. It is strategy about who and when to do it, and who to bring in.

The point of the double switch is to affect the batting order. For those who don't konw what a double switch is, here you go: In the previous inning, the #8 batter (say a second baseman) made the last out. Now you want to make a pitching change, but the pitching is first up. So you bring the pitcher in for the #8 batter, take the second baseman out and insert the new second baseman into the #9 spot so he leads off hte next inning and the pitcher does not bat for eight more hitters. It is a play to protect the pitcher. You would rarely see that kind of strategy in teh AL

As for wasting two or three players, most games end up with 8-12 players who never get in the game anyway. So wasting them is hardly a concern.

Furthermore, in the NL, you have to anticipate extra innings with your pinchhitters.

I think this is a weak argument. I think the argument about the integrity of the game is more important.

Aside from football, all those players do all those things, or at least are put in a position where they might have to. Even teh punters catch passes at times and run routes, depending on the situation.

The true analogy is a designated free throw shooter. Should Shaq have a designated free throw shooter because he can't shoot? Or Ben Wallace? If Ben Wallace has a DFTS, then the Pistons are probably world champs for the last two years. But the game doesn't work that way. You play the game with the players. If you want a 10th player, then find a spot for him.

First, the Braves have historically not been a Rent a Brave team. They did it from within for the most part. Second, when your season comes down to losing by one game and missing the playoffs, and the team who got in ahead of you swept the Devil Rays while you split with the Red Sox, that's not right. Not in baseball. Thirdly, I didn't know Chipper said that. He is a bit of a whiner. But the facts speak for themselves. The Braves IL schedule includes three teams that will compete for their division. The system needs to be worked out more, or better yet, abandoned.

So purists like a 9 man game being played by 10 men? How does that work? How can a purist embrace a modern invention that was designed in part to add scoring?

 

I agree 1,000%. Pedro at 70% is probably better than 95% of what he had in his bullpen, and I'm being generous. Still, it was a huge strategic situation

If that's true (Big "if"), other factors are in play. Managerial style, situation, etc. There is a caricature that AL teams never play small ball, and I don't think that's a fair one.

Not quite. The who and when is taken care of. Who to bring in? Come on, Larry, you're reaching, friend. That's like saying Tony Dungy is a better stategist than Marvin Lewis because he has to decide if he's going to throw on first down or pass. Both make that decision (or their play-callers do...you get my drift) You make it sound like no one is ever PH for in the AL, and pitchers don't get lifted there.

True. And why do we make a double switch? So a lifetime .079 hitter doesn't have to come up in a critical situation. The double switch argues for the DH, IMHO.

But you don't play every man on your roster in every sport. Why do it in baseball, where you have to play 162 games, some games starting 12-14 hours after your last one ended? You're reaching again.

Huh? The AL doesn't play extra innings? The AL doesn't use PH?

What exactly did you think was weak? I don't follow. And the "integrity of the game?" Who thinks the DH affects the integrity of the game? That's just an emotional bromide, if you will, similar to saying church bulletins affect the integrity of worship :laugh:

Oh come on. When is a punter ever put in at WR? When is your goalie put in on the PP? When is Shaq or Greg Oden screened at the top of the key to shoot a three?

Not quite. The DH can come in and play defense (a little known wrinkle to the rule). However, a defensive player cannot drop down to DH. There are other DH wrinkles in other leagues. Plus, the DFT would be a situational player, not a role player. The analogy would work if you had a Designated Bunter, for instance. Wait, we do...the pitcher :laugh: The DH is like a P or G.

The fairest of your points. We have found a spot for him...the DH

You really want to make that argument? I'll concede (anyone with a brain would) that the Braves have a good farm system. Trading some of those guys away helped them rent some of the guys they did. The list of players that the Braves "Yankeed" away from other teams for the playoff run is as long as Interstate 75. It's within the rules. But if you're going to do it, you don't need to choke in the playoffs.

Okay. But what did team A do against the Nationals vs Team B? Who did Team A play while Team B played their meatier part? If Team A only took 2 out of 3 from the Royals or split the season series with my Reds (it pains me to say that), then team A should shut up. And, most of all, what did the teams do head-to-head? Take care of your own business. If it comes down to just one game, that should be easy to do.

And the Fish play three that are supposed to contend for their division, too. And the Fish play the Braves, what, a dozen times? Take care of the Fish, and the Braves will be okay. As for Chipper, I admit I don't like him because of his whining and because of his arrogance. People who know him tell me he's about as arrogant as they come. And he signed autographs in 1995 as "Rookie of the Year" - in August. While I don't think Nomo should've gotten it, he did.

So purists have no problem with people incapable of playing a role playing the role? Purists like seeing bunts with no one on? Purists like seeing pitchers laughing as they flail their bats? Purists like inflated statistics? We can do that both ways The 9/10 men thing is just talk. The DH didn't just come about to "Affect scoring." I have always heard of it being adopted in lower leagues to protect P from injuries from batting, baserunning, HBP, etc. Because of safety to P arms in LL, the DH is starting to find its way all over.

Good discussion, Larry! Always appreciated, friend.

 

I think you will notice that the advent of the DH (1973) came around the same time that starting pitchers began taking 4-5 days between starts rather than 2-3 days as in the "olden days". Back in the olden days, starting pitchers routinely pitched in 40-50 games a year (and threw a lot more innings per game), so their hitting skills were a little more polished. But now that the typical starter only pitches 30-35 games (with a lot fewer innings), they have even less time to work on their hitting "skills."

So yes, the DH is a modern invention that was a good idea due to the changes in the game. You can complain all you want, but pitchers are never going to be starting 40 games a year and throwing 300+ innings anymore, so the game needs to adapt to the natural changes that occur.

As an analogy, National League anti-DH purists remind me of KJVO.

 

I used the church bulletin analogy. I didn't want to use the A-Bomb of KJVO! :laugh:

Good call on the advent of the 4 day rest being the norm. I forgot about that.

I wonder if "purists" want the mound moved back? The bases 45-60 feet apart as they once were? The first pitched ball not called as a ball or strike? Foul balls count on one bounce considered an out? Five balls a walk?

I know..I'm being extreme....maybe

 

If you hate the progression of baseball, then go further back than that, to there being no standard number of bases and getting runners out by soaking them-- hitting them with the ball when not on base.

 

Forget the DH, lets bring this rule back :laugh: Now that would make things interesting.

 

In that game 7, Pedro was done. He had nothing left in the tank. The Yankees hadn't hit him hard at all until that inning (7th?). Everybody except Grady Little could see it. Unless the only pitchers in the pen were Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley, Pedro had to be taken out. I think the setup guy was Timlin and Foulke was the closer, 2 guys who were very capable of killing the Yankees rally.