...That is the question. Okay, let's get right down to business: I never liked the designated hitter and I never will. There, I feel better now. What's that? Oh, you want details! Well, why didn't you say so?Alright, for starters, one reason I dislike the DH is because when the idea was hatched by American League officials before the 1973 season it was not as much an attempt to improve the game as it was a cheap gimmick to boost league attendance, which was falling noticeably behind the National League. Obviously the intention was to spruce up the offense with the feeling that higher scoring games are more appealing (all of which made the record twelve 20-game winners in the AL an interesting first-year side-effect). The National League refused to go along and it's been the staple of the difference between the two leagues ever since. The other bad issue the DH provides is protection for pitchers who throw at batters. The baseball code of the jungle is that if a pitcher throws at your hitter, you at least brush that pitcher back or give him some chin music when he comes up; the old "purpose pitch." But as long as the pitcher doesn't have to bat, he doesn't have to worry. This has led to problems when umpires warn pitchers and teams when it comes to preventing on-field fights because not being allowed to retaliate, even in symbolic fashion, leads to more animosity that creates some attitude problems. Case in point: After Roger Clemens - a noted headhunter - beaned Mike Piazza in the head in 2000 and then threw the bat at him in the 2000 World Series
(the single most idiotic thing I've ever seen in a sporting event), Clemens was able to hide for two years from any retaliation from the Mets (with a lot of help from Joe Torre's rotation scheduling that kept Clemens out of Shea Stadium). That incident was partially borne of the DH because if Clemens had to bat in that game, he might have wound up with a lot more problems than any performance-enhancing drug could have cured. If nothing else, he would never have thrown the bat in the first place.I've heard all the pro-DH arguments a thousand times over, but I'll never totally buy into the DH in i
tself because it oversimplifies what's already a pretty simple game. I always enjoyed the cat-and-mouse strategies of late-game substitution patterns, especially when it involves pitchers. Face it, if Johan Santana is throwing a gem against your team and it's tied in the late innings, you're very happy if he's taken out for a pinch hitter. The DH eliminates that and it’s unfortunate because that often separates the good managers from the rest. I'm of the original way of baseball: Nine men bat, nine men play the field. Go ahead, call me "old school," "old fashioned," "traditionalist," whatever. I don't care. That's the way baseball’s been played for 140 years and I'm sticking by my guns.Now, that being said, I'm realistic enough to know that sticking by my guns in this case doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best thing for the game anymore. Maybe it's time for the DH to finally go universal - and not because I’ve changed my mind (I haven’t, at least not since you started reading this), but here are some reasons it should be considered:
1) Historically, pitchers have never been good hitters and it’s not always fun to have a pitcher batting with runners in scoring position, I’ll grant the DH lover that old debate. However, believe it or don't, the party of the first part that has made the best point for the 
existence of the DH is - the National League! Always refuting the DH whenever possible, the NL has shown it's hypocrisy by having many of it's minor league affiliates use the DH, making it virtually impossible for pitchers to even know how to swing a bat, let alone how to hit major league pitching and some of them have looked really silly trying. It's an embarrassment.
2) Some hitters have made outstanding careers from being a DH; Frank Tho
mas, Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz, to name a few, as well as many players who can still be useful as hitters if they can’t play the field or are too old to be effective defensively. In spite of my feelings toward the DH it's wasteful to put a player out to pasture if he can still hit.
3) The dreaded [Dum-dum-DUUMMM!!!!] - Pitch Count (EEEEKK!!!) This has led directly to the advent of the bullpen and the disappearance of the complete game and it's been an equal trend in both leagues. The way the game is played today, too many pinch-hitters would burn through the bench well before the end of the game, which has made the double-switch the strategy of choice outside of a straight substitution or a pinch hitter. Counterpoint: One reason it may not make a difference is because of the frustrating tendencies of many underqualified managers who are trying to make
a name for themselves by micromanaging an endless parade of pitchers to the mound for the lefty-righty righty-lefty matchups batter-by-batter. How many times have we seen a pitcher strike out a hitter and then get yanked in favor of a matchup, and then the new pitcher blows the inning or the game? Come on, already. The first pitcher struck the batter out! Leave him in the damn game! The matchups are important, but only to a certain point. If he's pitching well, let him finish the job. This is one of my pet peeves of baseball today and it's also one of the biggest reasons why games take so long to play. The DH won't necessarily solve that problem (in fact, it could make it worse, now that I think about it), but at least it would help save the bench in the event that a pinch-hitter is needed in a situation other than the pitcher's spot.
So basically, what it comes down to is this: Between all the pitching changes and double-switches pertaining to matchups and pitch counts, and the added situation of many of their pitchers not hitting in the minors, the NL has not only justified using the designated hitter, a rule they've been unilaterally opposed to for it's entire existence, but they've actually added to it's role. Well done, fellas. Congress would be very proud of your resolve. This is why I'm forced to reluctantly admit that the DH has evolved. I still don't like it, but it does have a purpose. So, with all this in mind, I propose one of two choices: Either have the National League as well as all levels of pro ball adopt it, or just abolish it altogether (The second one is my personal choice - not likely to happen, though). I can deal with the DH just so long as it doesn’t branch out into the other positions.
I say that because when the designated hitter was first introduced, the talk was that they’d eventually
make further changes that would allow a designated runner for every occasion, which we almost had in 1974 when Oakland A’s owner Charley O. Finley experimented with a similar idea by signing world-class sprinter Herb Washington in 1974 strictly as a pinch-runner - which led to the most bizarre regular season numbers ever for one player: 92 games played, 29 steals, 29 runs and not one single at-bat. The A's used a few other athletes in that role as well. With the DH being a success and Finley's "DR" in use, the consideration at that juncture was that they could expand the concept even more so by putting a designated fielder for every good hitter who couldn't field or a DH for any slick-fielding banjo hitter. Baseball would become like football in that the nine best hitters and the nine best fielders would play separate roles. I shuddered whenever I thought about it because it would have deformed baseball beyond all recognition. It amazes me that some people were actually talking about this as a viable way to improve the game. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed. Besides, the one thing they didn't count on - or maybe they did? - was that the teams would have to double the rosters to make it work and as it turns out, that was probably the best reason for the owners not to do it (if they considered it at all - after all this is theoretical). One can only imagine what the payrolls would be like if they went through with it. If the fact that they didn't make baseball a designated sport was based on payroll considerations, then that could be the very first fringe benefit of the ridiculous salaries. Am I being absurd? Does nine work stoppages since 1972 with millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners sound any less absurd?
Speaking of irony, for a very short time in the 19th century, some major league teams were permitted to use a designated runner for the batter, usually the pitcher, and in some other instances, temporary substitutions were allowed. Hopefully it will never be proven that they were ahead of their time.
existence of the DH is - the National League! Always refuting the DH whenever possible, the NL has shown it's hypocrisy by having many of it's minor league affiliates use the DH, making it virtually impossible for pitchers to even know how to swing a bat, let alone how to hit major league pitching and some of them have looked really silly trying. It's an embarrassment.2) Some hitters have made outstanding careers from being a DH; Frank Tho
mas, Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz, to name a few, as well as many players who can still be useful as hitters if they can’t play the field or are too old to be effective defensively. In spite of my feelings toward the DH it's wasteful to put a player out to pasture if he can still hit.3) The dreaded [Dum-dum-DUUMMM!!!!] - Pitch Count (EEEEKK!!!) This has led directly to the advent of the bullpen and the disappearance of the complete game and it's been an equal trend in both leagues. The way the game is played today, too many pinch-hitters would burn through the bench well before the end of the game, which has made the double-switch the strategy of choice outside of a straight substitution or a pinch hitter. Counterpoint: One reason it may not make a difference is because of the frustrating tendencies of many underqualified managers who are trying to make
a name for themselves by micromanaging an endless parade of pitchers to the mound for the lefty-righty righty-lefty matchups batter-by-batter. How many times have we seen a pitcher strike out a hitter and then get yanked in favor of a matchup, and then the new pitcher blows the inning or the game? Come on, already. The first pitcher struck the batter out! Leave him in the damn game! The matchups are important, but only to a certain point. If he's pitching well, let him finish the job. This is one of my pet peeves of baseball today and it's also one of the biggest reasons why games take so long to play. The DH won't necessarily solve that problem (in fact, it could make it worse, now that I think about it), but at least it would help save the bench in the event that a pinch-hitter is needed in a situation other than the pitcher's spot.So basically, what it comes down to is this: Between all the pitching changes and double-switches pertaining to matchups and pitch counts, and the added situation of many of their pitchers not hitting in the minors, the NL has not only justified using the designated hitter, a rule they've been unilaterally opposed to for it's entire existence, but they've actually added to it's role. Well done, fellas. Congress would be very proud of your resolve. This is why I'm forced to reluctantly admit that the DH has evolved. I still don't like it, but it does have a purpose. So, with all this in mind, I propose one of two choices: Either have the National League as well as all levels of pro ball adopt it, or just abolish it altogether (The second one is my personal choice - not likely to happen, though). I can deal with the DH just so long as it doesn’t branch out into the other positions.
I say that because when the designated hitter was first introduced, the talk was that they’d eventually
make further changes that would allow a designated runner for every occasion, which we almost had in 1974 when Oakland A’s owner Charley O. Finley experimented with a similar idea by signing world-class sprinter Herb Washington in 1974 strictly as a pinch-runner - which led to the most bizarre regular season numbers ever for one player: 92 games played, 29 steals, 29 runs and not one single at-bat. The A's used a few other athletes in that role as well. With the DH being a success and Finley's "DR" in use, the consideration at that juncture was that they could expand the concept even more so by putting a designated fielder for every good hitter who couldn't field or a DH for any slick-fielding banjo hitter. Baseball would become like football in that the nine best hitters and the nine best fielders would play separate roles. I shuddered whenever I thought about it because it would have deformed baseball beyond all recognition. It amazes me that some people were actually talking about this as a viable way to improve the game. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed. Besides, the one thing they didn't count on - or maybe they did? - was that the teams would have to double the rosters to make it work and as it turns out, that was probably the best reason for the owners not to do it (if they considered it at all - after all this is theoretical). One can only imagine what the payrolls would be like if they went through with it. If the fact that they didn't make baseball a designated sport was based on payroll considerations, then that could be the very first fringe benefit of the ridiculous salaries. Am I being absurd? Does nine work stoppages since 1972 with millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners sound any less absurd?
Speaking of irony, for a very short time in the 19th century, some major league teams were permitted to use a designated runner for the batter, usually the pitcher, and in some other instances, temporary substitutions were allowed. Hopefully it will never be proven that they were ahead of their time.
No comments:
Post a Comment