Designated Hitter

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

The American League uses the designated hitter, the National League doesn't. What is your feeling on the designated hitter. Do you think that both leagues should use them, neither league should use them, or stay the same.

I personally don't think either league should use designated hitters. I think if you are going to be playing baseball in the major leagues you should have to play defense and not just hit. Designated hitters almost make AL managers irrelevant, they can almost just put their brain on cruise control throughout the game knowing that they don't have to make as many decisions or worry about defensive replacements, bunts, amd pitching changes.

 

[Mr. TM]

I grew up in the American League, so I love watching the Designated Hitter. I think its a great idea, instead of just having an almost blank position at the bottom of the order, you can have a guy who can get some much needed hits. It also protects the pitcher, as he does not have to bat, risk being hurt on the bases or in the box.

It can also be a good strategy to give an infielder a rest. If you have four outfielders, you can rotate them a bit, keeping them fresh.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I grew up in the American League, so I love watching the Designated Hitter. I think its a great idea, instead of just having an almost blank position at the bottom of the order, you can have a guy who can get some much needed hits. It also protects the pitcher, as he does not have to bat, risk being hurt on the bases or in the box.

It can also be a good strategy to give an infielder a rest. If you have four outfielders, you can rotate them a bit, keeping them fresh.

The DH can be fun to watch because it is all offense all the time, but I think that it changes the game too much from the counterpart. Plus it makes all the decisions the managers have to make easier. It takes almost no strategy for AL managers to decide when to switch their pitchers, use a pinch hitter, or use their bench at all. The DH was brought into the AL in 73 to boost attendance and what not because the NL was making more money, I think that is a shit reason for a rule especially since it changes the game so much. I just think that there should be no DH because it makes the game more interesting to me.

 

[Mr. TM]

Id rather a league that allowed my starting pitcher play longer, and not get pulled out of the game to give my team a chance of a run.

If it did make more money, doesn't that make it a good idea? If anything, the DH gives the manager a chance to use a better balance of offense and defense on the bench. If you are well rounded, but are down by a run, you can replace a defensive player with a player with pop. If you are an offensive team, and have the lead, you can slide in a defensive shortstop.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Id rather a league that allowed my starting pitcher play longer, and not get pulled out of the game to give my team a chance of a run.

If it did make more money, doesn't that make it a good idea? If anything, the DH gives the manager a chance to use a better balance of offense and defense on the bench. If you are well rounded, but are down by a run, you can replace a defensive player with a player with pop. If you are an offensive team, and have the lead, you can slide in a defensive shortstop.

I'd rather have a game that takes strategy on when to pull my pitcher, and when I need to take him out prematurely for a pinch hit. It takes so much more strategy in the NL game to win than it does having a DH.

The rule was changed because the American League was making less then the National League back then, The AL needed a gimmick to catch up with the NL, so yes it did make more money but only to catch back up with the NL that doesn't use the rule.

The DH takes away from all the strategy by having guys that can only hit or guys that can only field. I think if you're in the MLB you should need to play the whole game not just what you're good at. If a players is weak in a certain aspect of the game then he should work on it to become better.

 

[Mr. TM]

I'd rather have a game that takes strategy on when to pull my pitcher, and when I need to take him out prematurely for a pinch hit. It takes so much more strategy in the NL game to win than it does having a DH.

But that takes away from having your pitcher play a great game. He can be going on a 1 run game, instead you pull him out, because you hagvent scored yet. Sucks for the pitcher.

The rule was changed because the American League was making less then the National League back then, The AL needed a gimmick to catch up with the NL, so yes it did make more money but only to catch back up with the NL that doesn't use the rule.

And the gimmick worked. Sports need to evolve.

The DH takes away from all the strategy by having guys that can only hit or guys that can only field. I think if you're in the MLB you should need to play the whole game not just what you're good at. If a players is weak in a certain aspect of the game then he should work on it to become better.

The DH doesn't take away from strategy, it improves on it. Take for example Roy Halladay. He is my favourite player, but for years has played in the American League. It did him well, the reason, guy fucking sucks at hitting. So are you saying Halladay is not a complete player because he cannot bat?

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

But that takes away from having your pitcher play a great game. He can be going on a 1 run game, instead you pull him out, because you hagvent scored yet. Sucks for the pitcher.




And the gimmick worked. Sports need to evolve.



The DH doesn't take away from strategy, it improves on it. Take for example Roy Halladay. He is my favourite player, but for years has played in the American League. It did him well, the reason, guy fucking sucks at hitting. So are you saying Halladay is not a complete player because he cannot bat?

That's all part of the strategy, do you pull your pitcher that's pitching a good game for a pinch hitter, or do you let hit stick it out and play small ball.

It worked to catch the AL up with the the NL, the National League didn't and still doesn't use the gimmick and it works just fine.

It does take away from the strategy though, it makes the decision of the manager that much harder. Should he keep Doc in for the next inning or pull him in favor of a pinch hitter, or let him bunt if the situation is right.

I'm not really trying to say Halladay is an incomplete player but he should at least be able to bunt when called on. Honestly though Doc is so good on the mound you don't need to expect as much from him at the dish. A position player on the other hand should be competent in the field and at the plate.

Baseball really is like a chess match between the managers, to me that makes it better and more interesting to watch.

 

[Mr. TM]

That's all part of the strategy, do you pull your pitcher that's pitching a good game for a pinch hitter, or do you let hit stick it out and play small ball.

It worked to catch the AL up with the the NL, the National League didn't and still doesn't use the gimmick and it works just fine.

It does take away from the strategy though, it makes the decision of the manager that much harder. Should he keep Doc in for the next inning or pull him in favor of a pinch hitter, or let him bunt if the situation is right.

I'm not really trying to say Halladay is an incomplete player but he should at least be able to bunt when called on. Honestly though Doc is so good on the mound you don't need to expect as much from him at the dish. A position player on the other hand should be competent in the field and at the plate.

Baseball really is like a chess match between the managers, to me that makes it better and more interesting to watch.

Well we are going to disagree on these parts over and over it seems.

The good thing about the DH is it gives players who are still great hitters, like Giambi, like Ortiz, like many others.

It give sthe games more runs, you have possibly 9 hitters on your team, not 8 and an easy out. This causes the AL pitchers to work more on their game, not getting that easy out.

I think the AL has done well, just look at All Star Games, Interleague Play, and the World Series the past 15 years.

 

[thepalaceprince]

Im a tigers fan so obviously I watch alot of american league baseball. Personally I like the designated hitter. It gives older guys a chance to still have an impact and it gives you more flexibility with your hitters because you can rotate a guy but still get his bat like what the roid sox do with varitek and martinez. I get what your sayin about AL managers not having to do as much but they still have to make alot of decisions during a game so I think your selling the AL managers just a little short. Altho I love the DH more then anythin I think the mlb needs to make both leagues the same whether they get rid of the DH or have it in both leagues it needs to be the same because the american league has been so dominant its sad and its not good for baseball

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Well we are going to disagree on these parts over and over it seems.

The good thing about the DH is it gives players who are still great hitters, like Giambi, like Ortiz, like many others.

It give sthe games more runs, you have possibly 9 hitters on your team, not 8 and an easy out. This causes the AL pitchers to work more on their game, not getting that easy out.

I think the AL has done well, just look at All Star Games, Interleague Play, and the World Series the past 15 years.

Come on this was gettin fun but ok we can agree to disagree, but anyone else should come state their case because I like this subject.

I think that it is nice to see those guys hit I just want to see them do more on both sides of the game.

I think that takes away from the fun but of trying to think your way through the game, but I see your point too.

I'll do some more research on that last point and maybe make another thread about it, I don't know all the numbers off the top of my head but I will try to get to that point later.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Im a tigers fan so obviously I watch alot of american league baseball. Personally I like the designated hitter. It gives older guys a chance to still have an impact and it gives you more flexibility with your hitters because you can rotate a guy but still get his bat like what the roid sox do with varitek and martinez. I get what your sayin about AL managers not having to do as much but they still have to make alot of decisions during a game so I think your selling the AL managers just a little short. Altho I love the DH more then anythin I think the mlb needs to make both leagues the same whether they get rid of the DH or have it in both leagues it needs to be the same because the american league has been so dominant its sad and its not good for baseball

I'm not selling them short at all, being a manager of a MLB team is a tough job period, but the NL managers have to do a lot more thinking when it comes to the DH because they don't use one. An AL manager just has to watch a pitcher's pitch count and let his offense do the work.

I agree that it the rule needs to be the same in both leagues but it needs to be no DH.

Since you're a Tigers fan and you think that the AL has been so dominant in recent years that it's not even funny, tell me how dominant the AL was in 2006.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I would assume that this issue would be split pretty evenly, in that fans of AL teams like the DH, and teams of NL teams hate it. I am a Yankees fan, and as such I love the DH. When Roy Halladay was traded to the Phillies, everyone started talking about the chance of him having one of the best seasons in recent history, just because he is getting "an inning off" with the pitchers spot, and the 8th hitter, whom for the most part is almost as bad as a pitcher. This is why I like the DH. Why should a pitcher have an inning off every few innings?

Also, Blue Cardinal, you mentioned about how there is more strategy involved with pitching changes. Some people would argue the opposite. There is actually no strategy in being forced to remove your pitcher, just because he is coming up to bat. In the American League, you need to pay close attention to when a pitcher is starting to falter (not just pitch count), and then pull the plug on him. There is much more strategy in figuring out when to pull a pitcher, then being forced to for offensive production.

In the 20 inning marathon between the Mets and Cardinals, the Cards had to use 2 different position players to pitch, because they ran out of pitchers. That was a joke, watching these guys who don't know how to pitch trying to pitch in a TIE GAME(and not doing well). How many of those pitchers were "forced" to come out of the game because their spot was up in the batting order? That was why the position players made a sham of the game. In the American League, that does happen, but it is rarer, and usually in blowout situations, because pitchers can go longer.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I would assume that this issue would be split pretty evenly, in that fans of AL teams like the DH, and teams of NL teams hate it. I am a Yankees fan, and as such I love the DH. When Roy Halladay was traded to the Phillies, everyone started talking about the chance of him having one of the best seasons in recent history, just because he is getting "an inning off" with the pitchers spot, and the 8th hitter, whom for the most part is almost as bad as a pitcher. This is why I like the DH. Why should a pitcher have an inning off every few innings?

Also, Blue Cardinal, you mentioned about how there is more strategy involved with pitching changes. Some people would argue the opposite. There is actually no strategy in being forced to remove your pitcher, just because he is coming up to bat. In the American League, you need to pay close attention to when a pitcher is starting to falter (not just pitch count), and then pull the plug on him. There is much more strategy in figuring out when to pull a pitcher, then being forced to for offensive production.

In the 20 inning marathon between the Mets and Cardinals, the Cards had to use 2 different position players to pitch, because they ran out of pitchers. That was a joke, watching these guys who don't know how to pitch trying to pitch in a TIE GAME(and not doing well). How many of those pitchers were "forced" to come out of the game because their spot was up in the batting order? That was why the position players made a sham of the game. In the American League, that does happen, but it is rarer, and usually in blowout situations, because pitchers can go longer.

My problem with the DH is the DH gets defense off, and the pitcher gets offense off. The 8th spot hitter in the NL is different from the spot hitter in the AL being that in the NL your 8th guy needs to be a guy that has a high on base percentage so that he can get on and the pitcher can bunt him over if need be and extend the inning.

There is way more strategy in when to pull the pitcher in the NL, you have to decide if you would rather have him hit and go out for the next inning or go to the bench and burn one of your bench players for a pinch hit. In the AL you don't need to do that at all you just have to take him out when he's done, no strategy involved.

Your proving my point on the 20 inning game for me, it was a chess match between the two managers on when to pull a pitcher in favor of a pinch hitter in a close game. Also the decision to put position players on the mound as opposed to using the closer, saving him for when you get the lead. In the AL it can happen but only when a manager doesn't want to use a pitcher in a blowout, that takes no strategy except saving your arms for the next day.

 

[Stormtrooper]

My problem with the DH is the DH gets defense off, and the pitcher gets offense off. The 8th spot hitter in the NL is different from the spot hitter in the AL being that in the NL your 8th guy needs to be a guy that has a high on base percentage so that he can get on and the pitcher can bunt him over if need be and extend the inning.

It isn't about getting one side of the ball off, it's about letting pitchers concentrate on pitching, and not risking injury doing something they aren't qualified to do. If pitchers weren't all such shit hitters, then it would be fine, but pitchers bat more then 100 points less then a regular hitter, so the AL doesn't want them to be out there so they can make a fool of themselves.

There is way more strategy in when to pull the pitcher in the NL, you have to decide if you would rather have him hit and go out for the next inning or go to the bench and burn one of your bench players for a pinch hit. In the AL you don't need to do that at all you just have to take him out when he's done, no strategy involved.

In the NL, you don't have to decide when to take him out, that decision is made for you, because his spot in the batting order is due up. In the AL, the pitchers success is all that determines when he is removed from the game, which is more strategic then being forced into a decision. The strategy is knowing when he is done, and if he can go 1 more batter. That is strategy based on pitching. Less thought goes into whether to pinch hit for a pitcher then whether to sub him out.

Your proving my point on the 20 inning game for me, it was a chess match between the two managers on when to pull a pitcher in favor of a pinch hitter in a close game. Also the decision to put position players on the mound as opposed to using the closer, saving him for when you get the lead. In the AL it can happen but only when a manager doesn't want to use a pitcher in a blowout, that takes no strategy except saving your arms for the next day.

In this instance, save your "strategy." I would rather see people who know how to pitch pitch, then see a mockery of pitching being made by some third baseman or outfielder. When there is a DH, you don't have to worry about pinch hitting, so you don't have to worry about pulling a pitcher before he tires. Therefore, a pitching staff can give you more innings then an NL staff, when the manager pulls people when they can still go. Tony LaRussa used up all of his pitchers (including the closer), and was forced to use position players. Jerry Manuel still had a starting pitcher left who was willing to go in (he ultimately got the save in the 20th). They each played 20 innings, but since one team kept pinch hitting, they had to put someone in who didn't know what he was doing, and the Cards lost the game.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

It isn't about getting one side of the ball off, it's about letting pitchers concentrate on pitching, and not risking injury doing something they aren't qualified to do. If pitchers weren't all such shit hitters, then it would be fine, but pitchers bat more then 100 points less then a regular hitter, so the AL doesn't want them to be out there so they can make a fool of themselves.


In the NL, you don't have to decide when to take him out, that decision is made for you, because his spot in the batting order is due up. In the AL, the pitchers success is all that determines when he is removed from the game, which is more strategic then being forced into a decision. The strategy is knowing when he is done, and if he can go 1 more batter. That is strategy based on pitching. Less thought goes into whether to pinch hit for a pitcher then whether to sub him out.



In this instance, save your "strategy." I would rather see people who know how to pitch pitch, then see a mockery of pitching being made by some third baseman or outfielder. When there is a DH, you don't have to worry about pinch hitting, so you don't have to worry about pulling a pitcher before he tires. Therefore, a pitching staff can give you more innings then an NL staff, when the manager pulls people when they can still go. Tony LaRussa used up all of his pitchers (including the closer), and was forced to use position players. Jerry Manuel still had a starting pitcher left who was willing to go in (he ultimately got the save in the 20th). They each played 20 innings, but since one team kept pinch hitting, they had to put someone in who didn't know what he was doing, and the Cards lost the game.

It is about taking on side of the ball off, a DH only hits and a pitcher only pitchs. It makes certain players in the AL so one dimensional. For instance David Ortiz makes a fool of himself when he has to play 1st, if there was no DH he would have to work on his fielding to pass as an everyday player, thus making him a better player. Pitchers should learn how to hit as well, they don't have to be .300 hitters since they cotribute so much on the mound, I'm just wanting them to have to contribute at the plate too.

In the AL you don't have to decide when to take your pitcher out, when he's done he's done. There is no risk or decision that goes into it. In the NL you need to be thinking one inning ahead the entire game. If you know the pitchers spot is coming up in the 7th and you are down a run but he is still pitching good, do you take him out for a chance at getting some offense off your bench or do you let him hit and keep him in for the next inning, not knowing if he's tiring too much to be effective. That is a tough decision.

I'm not going to save my strategy because strategy lost that game for the Cardinals. Tony took risks and they didn't pan out, Manuel saved his closer and got the win. I know that was a long game and probably boring to most but I loved it, trying to out think your counterpart not knowing how long the epic encounter would last. You're right though if there was a DH neither manager would have to worry about pulling a pitcher too early, taking away all the decision making and risks of the manager. Tony LaRussa got beat in that game plain and simple, he made the wrong moves at the wrong time and it burned him in the end.

 

[Stormtrooper]

It is about taking on side of the ball off, a DH only hits and a pitcher only pitchs. It makes certain players in the AL so one dimensional. For instance David Ortiz makes a fool of himself when he has to play 1st, if there was no DH he would have to work on his fielding to pass as an everyday player, thus making him a better player. Pitchers should learn how to hit as well, they don't have to be .300 hitters since they cotribute so much on the mound, I'm just wanting them to have to contribute at the plate too.

David Ortiz playing 1st isn't as bad as a position player pitching. Ortiz is at least somewhat competent at 1st (and this is coming from a Yankee fan). The guys that pitched for the Cards didn't know what they were doing out there. When a guy got on base, they had to tell them to actually come to the set position, in order to not get a balk. Ortiz at least knows how to play first.

In the AL you don't have to decide when to take your pitcher out, when he's done he's done. There is no risk or decision that goes into it. In the NL you need to be thinking one inning ahead the entire game. If you know the pitchers spot is coming up in the 7th and you are down a run but he is still pitching good, do you take him out for a chance at getting some offense off your bench or do you let him hit and keep him in for the next inning, not knowing if he's tiring too much to be effective. That is a tough decision.

"When he's done he's done." That is a load of garbage. The strategy is "can I leave this guy in to get the next batter, or should I put in the fresh guy?" That's strategy. Saying "Oh, I need a run, I want my pitcher to keep going, but the chance at 1 run is more important, so my pitchers day is done too early" isn't strategy, it's whatever the opposite of strategy is. Everyone is quick to use that as proof of AL managers not needing "strategy," and it's ridiculous.

I'm not going to save my strategy because strategy lost that game for the Cardinals. Tony took risks and they didn't pan out, Manuel saved his closer and got the win. I know that was a long game and probably boring to most but I loved it, trying to out think your counterpart not knowing how long the epic encounter would last. You're right though if there was a DH neither manager would have to worry about pulling a pitcher too early, taking away all the decision making and risks of the manager. Tony LaRussa got beat in that game plain and simple, he made the wrong moves at the wrong time and it burned him in the end.

1. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 20 inning game, but the 2 guys that came in for the Cardinals made a mockery of pitching, which 99.99% of position players do.
2. Again, this garbage about taking out all the decision making. The decision is tougher to make when the guy is on the mound then when the guy is sitting on the bench about to grab a bat (something the pitcher is incompetent at). The decision is infinitely easier for NL managers, because the situation makes it easy (we need runs, we need somebody competent at getting runs, lets pull pitcher). In the AL, the decision is tough (our starter is generally a better pitcher then the reliever, can he go 1 more batter in this tight spot, or am I better off with a fresh arm).

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

David Ortiz playing 1st isn't as bad as a position player pitching. Ortiz is at least somewhat competent at 1st (and this is coming from a Yankee fan). The guys that pitched for the Cards didn't know what they were doing out there. When a guy got on base, they had to tell them to actually come to the set position, in order to not get a balk. Ortiz at least knows how to play first.


"When he's done he's done." That is a load of garbage. The strategy is "can I leave this guy in to get the next batter, or should I put in the fresh guy?" That's strategy. Saying "Oh, I need a run, I want my pitcher to keep going, but the chance at 1 run is more important, so my pitchers day is done too early" isn't strategy, it's whatever the opposite of strategy is. Everyone is quick to use that as proof of AL managers not needing "strategy," and it's ridiculous.



1. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 20 inning game, but the 2 guys that came in for the Cardinals made a mockery of pitching, which 99.99% of position players do.
2. Again, this garbage about taking out all the decision making. The decision is tougher to make when the guy is on the mound then when the guy is sitting on the bench about to grab a bat (something the pitcher is incompetent at). The decision is infinitely easier for NL managers, because the situation makes it easy (we need runs, we need somebody competent at getting runs, lets pull pitcher). In the AL, the decision is tough (our starter is generally a better pitcher then the reliever, can he go 1 more batter in this tight spot, or am I better off with a fresh arm).

Ortiz has been talked about in the MVP discussion a few times and I think he should be more than passable on defense and actually play the whole game to even be mentioned. 1st is the only positon Ortiz could play and should play, Lopez and Mather aren't pitchers at all but went to the mound when a pitcher was needed, and Lopez didn't do half bad for not being a natural pitcher.

That is bullshit sir. When a pitcher in the AL is done you change him out for a fresh arm, the only strategy that takes is knowing when he's done and which pitcher to put in next. In the NL you have to do the same thing but put in the fact that you need to watch where you are at in the order, the score, and who you have left on your bench if you pinch hit for your pitcher. That makes the decisions that much harder because you have to think more.

1) I didn't like the position players pitching either, I actually made a post about it the day of. I respect them that they would go in to play a position in the MLB that is not even close to their natural position, and did a decent job considering the circumstances.
2) That was garbage, everything an AL manager has to do a NL manager has to do that plus more. When you are the manager on a NL team you have to know situations, who to use or save at certain points of the game, how to actually use a bench player, everything an AL manager has to do but with out a guy that always hits for the pitcher and a pitcher that never has to hit.