The American League’s Designated Hitter rule

"Even if I agree that the pitcher is the most important defensive player, that still doesn't do away with the fact that in the AL they are only playing in half the game, the defensive side."

Let's really examine that. The game, or an inning, never starts without a pitch being thrown. From then on, a new "play" means a new deliberate action by the pitcher; usually a pitch, but also a throw to a base, or something negative (balk; drop ball) a pitcher does. So a pitcher is involved in every defensive play. The catcher would be second in defensive involvement, though on many plays he does nothing but 'back up', and if there are no base runners it is not critical that he even catch an unhit pitch. The first baseman is next, being in position for the putout on most ground balls. Then the other infielders, overlapped with the outfielders.

As for the offensive side, a player participates as batter 1/9 of the time, and if he gets on base, there is a maximum of 5 more batters through which he can remain on base. So he can be directly involved inoffensive play for up to 2/3 of the time his team is at bat, but the average is approximately 1/7 (14%), depending on the offensive output of his team.

So, putting this all together, a fielder may have no plays in a game, though that is a rarity, and on offense he will be involved in play about 1/7 of the time. If a fielder handles 6 plays a game (I don't know the average), that is 2/9 of all outs plus the base hits and error; plus he contributes about 1/7 of the offensive, which adds up to 25/63, or roughly 40%. If the 1st baseman handles 10 plays (conservative), that adds up to almost 60%. If the catcher is involved in 80% of the defensive play, that adds to about 94%. But the pitcher is involved in 100% of defensive play-- depending on perspective, even more than 100% of one position with backing up the plate and covering first base at times. So even if he does not bat, he is likely involved overall more than any players except the catcher and 1st baseman, with his job taking a much greater toll physically and also requiring more concentration. So however you look at it, a pitcher contributes at least in 50% of the game, while some fielders much less.

So, a pitcher playing in only half the game? Maybe true in a sense. But fielders can easily participate in less than that, and there is no question a pitcher's job takes a lot more out of him.

 

Then shouldn't the AL Pitchers have a better ERA then NL pitchers since they don't have the added burden of batting.

No, because there is not a significant portion of the batters they face that are pitchers, who hit .133 on the average. And batting does not take that much out of a pitcher; pitching does. I have, though, seen some NL games where a pitcher got on base, and the team in the field slowed play with the apparent motive of keeping the pitcher's arm tight for longer. They threw to first base where the pitcher was when he didn't get more than 2 steps as a "lead," and the pitcher in field had silly little 'conferences' with infielders once at a time, ... When a NL pitcher does get a hit or walk, there is no telling how often it may be because the opposing team wants him to, for such reasons.

Was surprised to see that they now have a designated runner rule.

I saw that rule invoked in a recent Little League playoff game on television, and I knew nothing about such a rule. And just last week, I saw a Mickey Mantle League (15-17 year olds) tournament game where it was used. The designated runner was put in for the pitcher who had a shutout going and was striking out 2/3 of batters he faced. When he came back out to pitch the next inning, the opposing manager threw a tantrum on the field, was ejected, and before he left he picked up 2nd base and threw it at the umpires in a little huddle near the mound. I know some amateur leagues do have a rule that any player came come out and return once if he returns to his same spot in the batting order. But this diplay shows the rules are not always known or fairly enforced (IMO).

 

"Also I do not believe that expansion necessarily diluted the playing talent."

It certainly diluted the pitching talent, as can bae shown by an increase in runs scored per team in the years of expansion....

The American League:
1961-- 4.53 runs per game; up from 4.39.
1969-- 4.09 runs per game; up from 3.41.
1977-- 4.53 runs per game; up from 4.01.
1998-- 5.01 runs per game; up from 4.93.

The National League;
1962-- 4.48 runs per game; down from 4.52.
1969-- 4.05 runs per game; up from 3.43.
1993-- 4.49 runs per game; up from 3.88.
1998-- 4.60 runs per game; same as previous year.

So the average increae of runs per team in expansion years is 0.33 runs per team-- +.36 for the AL and +.30 for the NL.

Conclusion: Expansion does increase run production on a per game basis. Note also that expansion years are 'friendly' to offensive records... Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's homerun record in an expansion year (1961), Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb's stolen base record in an expansion year (1962), and Mark McGwire set a new homerun record in an expansion year (1998).

 

There is some truth to that, but it's really the recent expansions ('93, '98) that have made it a point to be sure their new parks are "hitter's parks." The Astrodome-- without which the concept thereof Houston would not have been awarded a franchise-- was definitely no hitter's park, and indeed, a staff of young fireballers set a major league strikeout record in 1969 there. The Mets built Shea, and that is not considered a hitter's park either. I'm not really sure about San Diego's Jack Murphy Stadium or Montreal's Jarry Park, but Royal Stadium in KC is definitely a "pitcher's park."

I think it was starting with the 80's that new stadiums-- for expansion teams or for established ones-- were believed to increase crowds and ticket and concession sales if they were conducive to more offense. Not only that, but older stadiums still in use also made changes to make them more hitter friendly; like Yankee Stadium moved it's long power alleys in consideraly.

But back to question about pitching talent... Since the 60's expansion did not feature ballparks that were conducive to more power hitting, and yet power hitting increased, we can still conclude that expansion leads to more offense, which clearly results from poorer pitching quality.

 

"The D.H. adds 10 points to your team batting average and a half run to your team E.R.A."

This old idea still has merit in that it was not too far off-base for the 2004 season. The AL league batting average was .271 and the NL average was .262. The AL league E.R.A. was 4.63, while the NL league E.R.A. was 4.05.

One surprise in comparing the 2 leagues was that, despite the higher batting average and E.R.A. in the AL, NL teams averaged 8.98 hits per game, while AL teams averaged 8.72. This indicates the DH makes more than a difference in hits, but also in what happens to base runners, like moving them with ground outs and/or pitching around or intentionally walking more hitters-- the NL walked an average of 3.36 batters per game, while the AL walked 3.32. The AL's run per hit ratio was .575, while the NL's was .516, which is a considerable difference in summing the average of 5.01 runs per game for an AL team and 4.64 for an NL team. So in choosing which hitters to pitch to, or around, and advancing runners, and thus overall in making hits count, the DH amounts to more than just facing 9 batters intead of 8 1/2.

Another 'partial' surprise was the the AL strikes out more hitters per game than the NL-- 6.40 to the NL's 6.24. But this supposedly can be explained by the more "free swinging" tendencies around which AL offensive strategy is built. Although pitchers strike out a lot when they try to hit, the opposing team is probably willing enough to let them miss a breaking ball or else hit or bunt it into the dirt-- as well as having no fear of giving the #8 batter hittable balls. I used to think that when Nolan Ryan struck out 383 in the first year of the DH, he would probably have gotten more than 400 had he been in the NL, with just 17 more K's facing pitchers rather than DH's. Looking at the overall strategical points, that is no longer my opinion.

 

I really like the strategy of a rare opportunity like this. That was good thinking. I remember one time having seen that done in a major league game, on television. Probably if the batter had not made it safely to 1st, he would have been fined; as teams have their "fine book" about what it will cost a player for certain mental errors, like this and failing to back up a play when it's your responsibility, or missing a signal.

I remember once on a softball team we had runners on 1st and 2nd, the one on 2nd having a bad knee and could not run fast at all. At the hit ball, both runners took off, the lead runner rounded 3rd, but thought he didn't have a chance, so he slowed up, while the next runner had almost caught up with him. In the meantime, the batter was trying for 2nd, so the lead runner stood near-- but off-- 3rd base, and his ploy worked. The outfielder threw to 2nd, then the lead runner took off for home and had it made before the team on defense even noticed he had stopped just past 3rd . They tried to claim a double out, but the umpire agreed the runners did not touch the base at the same time and that he did not have to go home immediately after the next runner touched it. He would have been caught in a rundown if they had seen what he was doing, but he just stood straight up; maybe he was right in front of the base coach, so he appeared to be the base coach .