DH Rule in NL

AZCB34 · April 30th, 2003, 09:00 AM

DWKB, I am very interested in your reasoning since I guess it surprised me you thought that. Figured you for more of a baseball purist I guess. Please let us know why you feel this way.

unc84steve · April 30th, 2003, 09:18 AM

Did this thread start from the DH poll thread?

Quote:

Originally posted by DWKB
Logistically, I could argue that the NL needs to adjust itself and adopt the DH.

Quote:

Originally posted by schillingfan
Is that a sick joke, or do you have some reasoning to back it up?

Quote:

Originally posted by DWKB
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't think I had some reasoning behind it. If you'd like to start another thread to discuss this I'd be more than happy to participate, but I don't want to take away from what this one is about (which I think is personal preference)

Was this the sequence?

schillingfan · April 30th, 2003, 09:55 AM

Well, I'm not sure why DWKB felt it was off thread topic to talk about why logistically he liked the DH. Interesting mind/emotionl dichotomy, I'm not sure why one should exist. I mean, the whole answer to the question is value laden.

Presumably the answer to whether or not one prefers the DH depends the answer to the question - "which makes better baseball?" That's certainly a value laden question, because I can't imagine an objective answer to that question. My idea of good baseball is low scoring, good defense, great pitching. However someone else may love lots of runs. It all depends on what you value. The DH makes for some differences, not only in strategy but in roster management as well. I'd argue that because of the DH benches are far less important in the AL than in the NL. So the NL will raise the value of a utility bench player, who has little purpose in the AL. The DH also allows for AL teams to draft players in Rule 5 because it's easy to stash an extra pitcher on the roster when you don't have needs for extra bench players. But those are still value related issues.

DWKB · April 30th, 2003, 10:44 AM

Sure thing AZCB34, anything to generate discussion:

There are several reasons I've seen for the extingueshing of the DH, so I'll address some of them and offer a counter.

WARNING: I don't profess these ideas to be truely original. I have formed my opinions based on arguements I've heard and read.

DH's are 1-dimentional players

Well yes, they can be. I won't argue against it. Baseball is filled with 1-dimentional players. Hell, baseball is filled with 1/2-dimentional players. If offense is one dimention and defense (and pitching) is another, then what is situational offense (pinch hitter/runner) or situational defense (LOOGY, closer)? Is that not 1/2 a dimention?
Last year our 12 man bullpen had a total of 3 ABs.

DH's aren't always 1-dimentional anyways. The DH position gives a team a lot of flexibility in how they chose to use it. Just because it is a 1-dimentional role does not mean that only 1-dimentional players can fill it (see Durham, Ray).

NL Pitchers have an advantage in interleague play and the WS

Well let's compare the two leagues in 2002:

Code:

Lg   AB   R   H  2B 3B HR RBI SB CS  BB   SO IBB HBP  SH SF   BA  OBP SLUG  OPS
AL  281  14  38   5  0  0   9  1  0  12  121  0    0  25  1 .135 .170 .153 .323
NL 4864 276 709 128  7 23 287  1  2 176 1820  0   15 557 16 .146 .177 .189 .367

The numbers can speak for themselves, but I don't see any real advantage (or ability) that the NL pitchers have over AL pitchers and I think this shows how 1-dimentional MLB pitchers really are.

The NL is the "pure" way to play the game

It is?

There are two leagues in the world that I know of that force pitchers to hit: the NL and the Japanese Central League.

HS, College, Minors, Mexican Leagues, Japanese Pacific LEague, AL, etc.. all have the DH implemented. The only time pitchers hit in the minors is when two NL farm clubs meet up and they "agree" to have their pitchers hit.

This is basically saying "I won't use a DH if you won't"

If the NL is the right way to play the game, then we need to run out and tell the rest of the world.

The DH takes away strategy

This is the most common of reasoning and probably the longest to address. So I'm going to ask Bill James to help me here (lots of quotes). James wrote an article in his Historical Baseball Abstract entitled: "1973: DH Rule Increases Strategy" (gasp!)

Quote:

What the DH rule actually does…is to eliminate from the game a series of forced, obvious moves, which involve in fact no option on the part of either manager, and thus no strategy. You've got a .113 hitter at the plate. A runner on first, and nobody out in the fourth, and you have to bunt don't you? Where's the strategy? With a DH up there at least you can do something. You're down four runs in the seventh with the pitcher leading off, and you have to pinch hit for him, don't you? What's strategic about that? The DH rule saves the pinch hitters, and thus in effect makes the roster larger. As such it creates, not eliminates, strategic options for American League managers.

James backed this statement up by running a study to see how SAC hits and pinch hitters were used in the AL and NL from 1968 to 1986. James compares the standard deviation in the AL and NL in how these strategic tools are used and then compares the leagues to each other. What James discovered was that although they are used less in the AL, the situations they are used in vary much more than they do in the NL.

James sums up his thoughts in a way I couldn't put better myself:

Quote:

What the truth comes down to here is, a question of in what does strategy reside? Does strategy exist in the act of bunting? If so, the Designated Hitter Rule has reduced strategy. But if strategy exists in the decision about when a bunt should be used, then the DH rule has increased the differences of opinion which exist about that question, and thus has increased strategy. But if strategy is an argument, then I would argue that there is more of a difference of opinion, not less, in the American League.

To add a personal observation of last nights game:

ARIZONA 3RD
-Bottom of the 3rd inning
-C Moeller singled to center.
-B Kim sacrificed to catcher, C Moeller to second.
-C Counsell grounded out to second, C Moeller to third.
-J Spivey struck out swinging.

0 runs, 1 hit, 0 errors
Florida 5, Arizona 0

This, to me, isn't strategy, it's desperation. I can't call it stupid because I don't know that BB had another option, but what good does a SAC do you when you're down 5 runs? The 7 pitchers in that game went 0-2 with 2 Ks and a SAC.

All of this isn't to convince the "purist" or "anti-DH" people to convert. It's just another point of view. I have no problems with people saying they prefer the pitcher hitting, I just don't like the questionable excuses as to why it makes the game better.

If you put all of these together (already 1-dimentional players in the NL, lack of offensive contribution of these players, practically every other league in the world uses DH, no increas in strategy and possibly a decrease) you can argue that the NL should be the league to change its rules.

moviegeekjn · April 30th, 2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DWKB

To add a personal observation of last nights game:

ARIZONA 3RD
-Bottom of the 3rd inning
-C Moeller singled to center.
-B Kim sacrificed to catcher, C Moeller to second.
-C Counsell grounded out to second, C Moeller to third.
-J Spivey struck out swinging.

0 runs, 1 hit, 0 errors
Florida 5, Arizona 0

This, to me, isn't strategy, it's desperation. I can't call it stupid because I don't know that BB had another option, but what good does a SAC do you when you're down 5 runs? The 7 pitchers in that game went 0-2 with 2 Ks and a SAC. [/b]

This all depends on how you view the game. If you only focus on the offensive side for that half inning, of course you'd love to have more viable options with Kim's at bat... Having the DH does make a manager's job much easier when he doesn't have to consider how to incorporate the pitcher into the mix.

But there's another way to view game strategy as well... One viable strategical option would have been to pinch hit for Kim since it was fairly apparent that he didn't have his "A" game going--a move that would have used more of the bench. Without the DH, the manager must continually weigh the benefits between staying with the pitcher and using the bench. It's not all cut and dried.

unc84steve · April 30th, 2003, 12:17 PM

John, you say "It's not all cut and dried." Of course, not. DWKB never said it was.

Schillingfan, you said: "Well, I'm not sure why DWKB felt it was off thread topic to talk about why logistically he liked the DH. Interesting mind/emotionl dichotomy, I'm not sure why one should exist. I mean, the whole answer to the question is value laden."

Here's why we are in a different thread. This is a different topic because you asked DWKB a question: "Is that a sick joke, or do you have some reasoning to back it up?"

Schillingfan, you specifically quoted DWKB's quote: "Logistically, I could argue that the NL needs to adjust itself and adopt the DH."

Ironically this was was from his full post

Quote:

Originally posted by DWKB
Are we talking personal preference or are we picking a side and arguing logisticlly for it?

I, personally, like having different rules in the different leagues. It's what I grew up on.

Logistically, I could argue that the NL needs to adjust itself and adopt the DH.

We are in a separate thread because I suggested starting separate threads in these types of cases. Specifically, this is a case where people are discussing a topic like "DH vs no DH." Then someone, often DWKB, posts a comment. Someone else disagrees, strongly. But, close inspection of DWKB's post may show that he is saying something different than appears at first glance. Here, DWKB asks are we talking about preference or debating a side? It seems that's what you are saying in this thread.

We start arguing about what what the issue is, about Bill James, who started it, if DWKB ever listens, etc. Some plea for people to return to the original topic. We've seen it at least 10 times. If we see something happen 10 times in baseball (like World Series home field advantage), we'd know it "always happens" This pattern always happens.

That's why I suggested using separate threads. Schillingfan, you asked "Is that a sick joke, or do you have some reasoning to back it up?" That was a question to DWKB he could have simply answered "Yes." You would have said he was being a jerk. He could have simply dumped some links and some Bill James quotes. By past behavior, you would have said that wasn't a right way to post.

It even a separate issue than the original survey topic. The issue he's "arguing" is "why the NL should be have to adapt to the rule" That is a related, but different question to a survey queston:

dh v. no dh
Keep the D.H yes or no. with 2 "choices"

No, eliminate it.
Yes, keep it.

How often do you see a survey put the No "choice" before the Yes choice?

In fact, the survey doesn't even have the 3rd choice we are debating: "expand it."

He specifically said this is not the preference he has. He said he likes having the DH in the AL and no DH in the NL.

I hope that helps.

DWKB · April 30th, 2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moviegeekjn
This all depends on how you view the game. If you only focus on the offensive side for that half inning, of course you'd love to have more viable options with Kim's at bat... Having the DH does make a manager's job much easier when he doesn't have to consider how to incorporate the pitcher into the mix.

But there's another way to view game strategy as well... One viable strategical option would have been to pinch hit for Kim since it was fairly apparent that he didn't have his "A" game going--a move that would have used more of the bench. Without the DH, the manager must continually weigh the benefits between staying with the pitcher and using the bench. It's not all cut and dried.

I don't agree at all. Lets look at the "considerations" that a manager would have and see if the NL has more to weigh.

1) How is the pitcher performing?

If the pitcher is performing so poorly that you need to pull him before his first AB in the 3rd Inn than an AL manager would have to consider pulling him at the same time and the DH would perform just like a pinch hitter would. If the pitcher isn't performing that bad then you let him hit (or bunt). Not much thought in this particular situation.

2) Is your bench used up?

Well this is the 3rd Inn again so if you're bench is used up by now then you're in bigger trouble than letting your pitcher hit. So no, you don't have to think about having a pinch hitter available in the 3rd Inn

3) Has your pen had a lot of usage lately?

Both the AL manager and the NL manager has to consider this option. There is nothing special in the NL that makes this weigh more.

4) Will you run out of pinch hitters in the later innings?

I think any 10 year old can grasp the concept of the double switch, which greatly reduces this potential. The amount of times a manager actually might run out of bench occurs in less than 2% of the season. In this particular game I didn't see any special consideration by BB as to go to a pinch hitter at the time. IOW, I wasn't surprised by him having Kim go up to bat in that situation. Really, any time you go to your bench you have to consider losing your flexibility. Same thing goes in the AL. In last nights BOS/KCR game (7-2) there were 3 PH used. In our game (7-5) there were 4.

If I've missed a consideration then anyone feel free to add and we'll discuss it.

Of course, non of this answers my original complaint that Kim was bunting in that situation, (I never questioned him batting) but I am free to go on a slight tangent even if I'm defending myself on something I never said

schillingfan · April 30th, 2003, 12:57 PM

I'm still waiting for DWKB's defense of his position. I've decided he really onlyl likes to knock down everyone elses, but never offer his own opinion or back it up with analysis. Maybe I'm wrong, but he's setting up a straw man of other people's arguments and attacing them. That doesn't explain his position. Only argues why other people are wrong.

Steve I honestly have no idea what you said. I don't get your issue, I don't get why a discussion needed to be moved. Obviously there is some thinking here that is not being stated.

I mean honestly I wanted to know why he thought logistically the DH was better. I still haven't seen that answer, now have I?

Undoubtedly I'm being crabby, but DWKB always presents stats why other people are wrong, but I've yet to see him take his own position and defend it, so we could attack him.

AZCB34 · April 30th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Interesting. The NL was the way everyone did it but the DH has been in the game long enough now that it has been indoctrinated into other levels? When did college and the minors et al put the DH into effect?

What would the NL using the Dh do to the type and level of play? Would we see fewer bases stolen? Higher scoring? I am making an assumption (possibly erroneously) that the AL has significantly fewer stolen bases, more scoring (thus higher ERAs).

Finally, do you consider the AL better baseball than the NL (obviously this is your personal preference)?

Young Gun · April 30th, 2003, 07:51 PM

The DH rule in the American League has kept some of the aging veterans in baseball around a few more years.

Ryanwb · April 30th, 2003, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Young Gun
The DH rule in the American League has kept some of the aging veterans in baseball around a few more years.

Yeah, I think Harold Baines died on the bench a few times and they had to revive him so he could hit

Young Gun · April 30th, 2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ryanwb
Yeah, I think Harold Baines died on the bench a few times and they had to revive him so he could hit

that was too funny.

DWKB · April 30th, 2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Young Gun
The DH rule in the American League has kept some of the aging veterans in baseball around a few more years.

Was this meant as a negative or a positive? Is it just the DH role that has done this or are their other roles/factors?

moviegeekjn · April 30th, 2003, 09:18 PM

Does every point have to have a negative or positive value?

Even before the DH was instituted, many NL players in the 1960's used to regard the AL as a retirement league, with its emphasis on sluggers and playing for the big inning--the DH made that philosophy official.

unc84steve · May 1st, 2003, 07:21 AM

We are talking about preferences & differences. To me the DH feels unnatural. I like filling out a lineup card with 9 spots. I accept one with 10. Even though I know the NL one will be messier with flip-flops, etc. "National" always meant tradition.

National Football League.
National Baskeball Association
National Hockey League

not AFL, ABA, WHA. Heck, I used to think the New York Stock Exchange sounded "National" with the N-start. The "upstart" AL (1901 vs. 1876) and their DH gimmick didn't surprise me, it fit in.

To me National is Coca-Cola & American is Pepsi. Okay?

But that's emotions. Logic tells me otherwise. Time is passing the DH by. High schools, colleges, every minor league has the DH in the rules in some form. They say it allows for more players, as if that's a good thing. It's not. More players mean more specialists. We need more teams with smaller rosters so players have to have all-around skills, including hitting pitchers who hit.

Back to logical reality. Earl Weaver used plenty of creative strategy with a DH. He'd find cheap bench players with diverse skills, for example a LH-catcher-OF. Or a good fielding 2B/3B who could steal a base & hit an occasional HR off a lefty pitcher depending on the matchup. What he'd do was focus on strengths. Others would focus on weaknesses. The first guy was slow & killed by lefties. The second one hit .220. That's why they were freely available.

But what the DH allowed was Weaver to run the game on 2 separate tracks. He had a 4-man rotation and a 9-man staff, because he defined roles and committed to them. With a 16 hitter squad he could pick the best overall lineup each night Bob Brenly style (it's the opposite

). But if he found weak-hitting Mark Belanger up with the baseloaded in the 4th, Weaver could send up a lefty pinch hitter. Because of the various skills on his bench, he could bring in a good glove to replace him and not miss much. Such moves would continue as the game went on.

Nine Innings describes the workings of one 1982 AL between Baltimore & Bud Selig's Brewers. Such details and so much more about baseball are described.

Again, I'm not saying I like the DH. And Weaver did fine without the DH. (1969-1971 wins: 109, 108, 101) It's that Tony LaRussa would use his roster differently in the AL--heck he did--he came up with lefty specialists there. Weaver would do the opposite. Gene Mauch's Angels bunted 3 times more than Weaver's Orioles would. The "logical argument" for a DH is that it allows for more creativity.