Stupid Rules In Sports

[@SkitchP]

I'm all for the "purity of the game," and I felt a lot differently a few years ago. But I find nothing particularly exciting about knowing a rally is going to get cut short because the pitcher is due up, or about watching a pitcher flail helplessly (or worse, have his knees buckle) at 3 straight breaking balls.

The part I hate about NL ball is that what if you have a dominant starter pitching a gem, only to get pulled in the 8th because the guy ahead of him got a double and its a close game? The excitement of a CGSO is way more fun than a double switch that usually involves getting to see a utility IF move up in the order. I want to see that guy get a chance to close it out. It's just as much about allowing the pitcher to continue doing his actual job- pitching- as it is about not wanting to watch him hit.

Baseball is not what it was in 1924 where guys played in the summer, and worked in the winter- the playing field was more level for a pitcher to hit. Now these guys are in, most cases, identified as a pitcher when they're 12 and barely pick up a bat again until they're 26. So the purity arguments no longer ring true for me- things are different.

Also, the strategy argument is brought up over and over, and i read this point on twitter yesterday. Which situation requires more strategy..
Which utility IF to put into the game to pinch hit or double switch
or how to pitch to David Ortiz with a runner on 2nd, one out in the top of the ninth up by 1?

[philpritchard]

To be honest, I actually don't mind the idea that there are different rules in each league. I've watched it that way my whole life, so it's not a big deal to me. I just think that, 90% of the time, watching pitchers hit sucks.

If you think about it, there are different rules in every game on any given night. What other major sport has rules that depend on where the teams are playing? You can be in Comerica and have to hit a baseball 440 feet to dead center for a home run, and the next night be in US Cellular Field and only to swing a 60-degree wedge at 25% to hit a ball out to center.

The beauty of baseball.

Yesterday, Kevin Pillar put a defensive swing off a slider low and away and sent it the other way down the right field line. It looked like it landed about 10 feet foul and 10-20 feet from the wall. A guy with almost no power nearly hit an opposite field homer off the end of the bat on a defensive swing because Fenway.

[matt reeder]

I'm all for the "purity of the game," and I felt a lot differently a few years ago. But I find nothing particularly exciting about knowing a rally is going to get cut short because the pitcher is due up, or about watching a pitcher flail helplessly (or worse, have his knees buckle) at 3 straight breaking balls.

The part I hate about NL ball is that what if you have a dominant starter pitching a gem, only to get pulled in the 8th because the guy ahead of him got a double and its a close game? The excitement of a CGSO is way more fun than a double switch that usually involves getting to see a utility IF move up in the order. I want to see that guy get a chance to close it out. It's just as much about allowing the pitcher to continue doing his actual job- pitching- as it is about not wanting to watch him hit.

Baseball is not what it was in 1924 where guys played in the summer, and worked in the winter- the playing field was more level for a pitcher to hit. Now these guys are in, most cases, identified as a pitcher when they're 12 and barely pick up a bat again until they're 26. So the purity arguments no longer ring true for me- things are different.

Also, the strategy argument is brought up over and over, and i read this point on twitter yesterday. Which situation requires more strategy..
Which utility IF to put into the game to pinch hit or double switch
or how to pitch to David Ortiz with a runner on 2nd, one out in the top of the ninth up by 1?

There's only one David Ortiz. Many teams that employ a DH use it on players like Jack Cust - guys completely incapable of fielding.

The problem is that the DH is now institutionalized. It doesn't make it right, and like most NL fans, find it a disgusting aberration that is not real baseball - but with the DH in place at most levels of baseball, most pitchers don't see an incentive to bat. If they had to bat at every level we'd see more hitters like Zach Greinke, Carlos Zambrano (who one year had an OPS of .891 and hit 6 homers in another year) and Warren Spahn (35 lifetime homers!) and less Jon Lester, who couldn't hit if you gave him a boat paddle.

All things considered, I'd much rather see the NL game. It's all I know, I'd rather see pitchers bat, and I'd rather see everybody on the field have to field and bat their positions. Call me a traditionalist. The DH is an easy substitution to keep guys with one skill in the game, and it rubs me the wrong way.

[Monkey_Driven]

Sounds like there is a strong possibility of college basketball adopting a 30 second shot clock. Definitely a step in the right direction.

[philpritchard]

If they had to bat at every level we'd see more hitters like Zach Greinke, Carlos Zambrano (who one year had an OPS of .891 and hit 6 homers in another year) and Warren Spahn (35 lifetime homers!) and less Jon Lester, who couldn't hit if you gave him a boat paddle.

As I mentioned before, Greinke and Zambrano are really, really terrible hitters. Spahn, too.

[@SkitchP]

I'm all for the "purity of the game," and I felt a lot differently a few years ago. But I find nothing particularly exciting about knowing a rally is going to get cut short because the pitcher is due up, or about watching a pitcher flail helplessly (or worse, have his knees buckle) at 3 straight breaking balls.

The part I hate about NL ball is that what if you have a dominant starter pitching a gem, only to get pulled in the 8th because the guy ahead of him got a double and its a close game? The excitement of a CGSO is way more fun than a double switch that usually involves getting to see a utility IF move up in the order. I want to see that guy get a chance to close it out. It's just as much about allowing the pitcher to continue doing his actual job- pitching- as it is about not wanting to watch him hit.

Baseball is not what it was in 1924 where guys played in the summer, and worked in the winter- the playing field was more level for a pitcher to hit. Now these guys are in, most cases, identified as a pitcher when they're 12 and barely pick up a bat again until they're 26. So the purity arguments no longer ring true for me- things are different.

Also, the strategy argument is brought up over and over, and i read this point on twitter yesterday. Which situation requires more strategy..
Which utility IF to put into the game to pinch hit or double switch
or how to pitch to David Ortiz with a runner on 2nd, one out in the top of the ninth up by 1?

There's only one David Ortiz. Many teams that employ a DH use it on players like Jack Cust - guys completely incapable of fielding.

The problem is that the DH is now institutionalized. It doesn't make it right, and like most NL fans, find it a disgusting aberration that is not real baseball - but with the DH in place at most levels of baseball, most pitchers don't see an incentive to bat. If they had to bat at every level we'd see more hitters like Zach Greinke, Carlos Zambrano (who one year had an OPS of .891 and hit 6 homers in another year) and Warren Spahn (35 lifetime homers!) and less Jon Lester, who couldn't hit if you gave him a boat paddle.

All things considered, I'd much rather see the NL game. It's all I know, I'd rather see pitchers bat, and I'd rather see everybody on the field have to field and bat their positions. Call me a traditionalist. The DH is an easy substitution to keep guys with one skill in the game, and it rubs me the wrong way.

Doesn't the fact that you're referencing Zack Greinke as a best case situation hurt your argument though? The guy is a .214 hitter and you're mentioning him as one of the best?

And we live in a world where there are all sorts of guys with "one skill" that stay in the game- be it a glove only defensive replacement, a backup catcher that "calls a good game," or any one of 50 relief pitchers in any given year. Top of the line starting pitchers are in some cases a 200 million dollar investment for a team and their fans to see them at risk of getting hurt because of 'tradition' to me is crazy.

[matt reeder]

I'm all for the "purity of the game," and I felt a lot differently a few years ago. But I find nothing particularly exciting about knowing a rally is going to get cut short because the pitcher is due up, or about watching a pitcher flail helplessly (or worse, have his knees buckle) at 3 straight breaking balls.

The part I hate about NL ball is that what if you have a dominant starter pitching a gem, only to get pulled in the 8th because the guy ahead of him got a double and its a close game? The excitement of a CGSO is way more fun than a double switch that usually involves getting to see a utility IF move up in the order. I want to see that guy get a chance to close it out. It's just as much about allowing the pitcher to continue doing his actual job- pitching- as it is about not wanting to watch him hit.

Baseball is not what it was in 1924 where guys played in the summer, and worked in the winter- the playing field was more level for a pitcher to hit. Now these guys are in, most cases, identified as a pitcher when they're 12 and barely pick up a bat again until they're 26. So the purity arguments no longer ring true for me- things are different.

Also, the strategy argument is brought up over and over, and i read this point on twitter yesterday. Which situation requires more strategy..
Which utility IF to put into the game to pinch hit or double switch
or how to pitch to David Ortiz with a runner on 2nd, one out in the top of the ninth up by 1?

There's only one David Ortiz. Many teams that employ a DH use it on players like Jack Cust - guys completely incapable of fielding.

The problem is that the DH is now institutionalized. It doesn't make it right, and like most NL fans, find it a disgusting aberration that is not real baseball - but with the DH in place at most levels of baseball, most pitchers don't see an incentive to bat. If they had to bat at every level we'd see more hitters like Zach Greinke, Carlos Zambrano (who one year had an OPS of .891 and hit 6 homers in another year) and Warren Spahn (35 lifetime homers!) and less Jon Lester, who couldn't hit if you gave him a boat paddle.

All things considered, I'd much rather see the NL game. It's all I know, I'd rather see pitchers bat, and I'd rather see everybody on the field have to field and bat their positions. Call me a traditionalist. The DH is an easy substitution to keep guys with one skill in the game, and it rubs me the wrong way.

Doesn't the fact that you're referencing Zack Greinke as a best case situation hurt your argument though? The guy is a .214 hitter and you're mentioning him as one of the best?

And we live in a world where there are all sorts of guys with "one skill" that stay in the game- be it a glove only defensive replacement, a backup catcher that "calls a good game," or any one of 50 relief pitchers in any given year. Top of the line starting pitchers are in some cases a 200 million dollar investment for a team and their fans to see them at risk of getting hurt because of 'tradition' to me is crazy.

They could just as easily get hurt fielding their position, slipping in the shower or hunting in the offseason (all of which happen). A much higher cause of pitching injuries is burnout, none of which have anything to do with hitting. I understand the desire to mitigate risk, but why should they be excused from hitting? It's an escape hatch for teams, since you can have a guy who can only do one thing (either to replace the bats of pitchers with guys who hit better, or more so to let hitters who cannot field stay in the game).

I get that even the best hitting pitchers are terrible hitters. Having MLB.TV and being a National League fan, I've watched them all. But I'd rather see a pitcher hit than see somebody like Billy Butler come up to the plate. He's a one-way player with no value or purpose in the game other than to come to the plate and hit. He's a glorified pinch-hitter, except that he gets to stay in the game.

The discussion over the DH seems to be a one-way street, in that pitchers cannot hit. But what about pitchers? The game isn't solely about hitting. Being a fan of pitchers myself, I love seeing the pitcher come up when the starter is in a jam. It works both ways. Sometimes the pitcher gets a hit, and it's awesome. That's a pleasure that's far more memorable than seeing whoever AL teams run out in the 9th spot (I imagine it's somebody like Elvis Andrus) succeed at a somewhat higher rate.

More than anything it boils down to aesthetics - NL fans mostly prefer the NL game, and AL fans mostly prefer the AL game. This is why we should never have allowed interleague play, which is another thing I find disagreeable.

[matt reeder]

To piggyback on what I just wrote, Michael Baumann has an article up on Grantland where he basically describes everything I just talked about, but in more eloquent terms: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mlb-n ... ainwright/

Key passages:

From an aesthetic standpoint, I love the man-bites-dog quality that comes with a pitcher batting. And it’s not just that I like laughing at Bartolo Colon — it brings me extra joy when a pitcher gets a hit. Last year, NL pitchers hit .125/.156/.156, while the league as a whole hit .249/.312/.383. Now, you can look at that .125 batting average and .156 OBP and say that position players are about twice as likely to get a hit or get on base as pitchers, and that pitchers are overwhelmingly likely to make an out. But position players are, too. If a position player bats eight times, he’ll get two hits; if a pitcher bats eight times, he’ll get one. For any given spot in the lineup, that’s about the difference of a hit every other game, and I’m happy to swallow the extra out in order to see the pitcher reach base. A position player reaching base is routine; a pitcher reaching base is cause for celebration.

And:

Because we know optimal tactics, optimality has become a kind of goal in and of itself. The most effective strategy isn’t always the most entertaining, and valuing optimality over all else is an aesthetic choice. There’s an argument for the DH in that it makes it less risky for a team to sign an older player at the left end of the defensive spectrum, because he can DH later in his career. Why is that a rational good? Why is Billy Butler, from a rational standpoint, a player we should like to watch more than Ben Revere? I like to watch younger players who can run and don’t strike out much and play good defense. That’s an aesthetic choice, but so is liking players who don’t do those things. And in a zero-sum enterprise with little impact on the real world, an enterprise whose primary goal is to elicit aesthetic and emotional responses from those who consume it, valuing optimality above all else is an aesthetic choice too.

[philpritchard]

For any given spot in the lineup, that’s about the difference of a hit every other game, and I’m happy to swallow the extra out in order to see the pitcher reach base. A position player reaching base is routine; a pitcher reaching base is cause for celebration.

This seems odd to me. To me, it's a lot like saying you would prefer to watch Ryan Goins hit instead of Jose Bautista because if Goins does something useful it was more unexpected and therefor more exciting.

[@SkitchP]

They could just as easily get hurt fielding their position, slipping in the shower or hunting in the offseason (all of which happen). A much higher cause of pitching injuries is burnout, none of which have anything to do with hitting. I understand the desire to mitigate risk, but why should they be excused from hitting? It's an escape hatch for teams, since you can have a guy who can only do one thing (either to replace the bats of pitchers with guys who hit better, or more so to let hitters who cannot field stay in the game).

Yes, there is no question injuries can happen doing any of those things, and the pitchers getting injured hitting is really just a reaction to very recent events- it is not all that common. But there is an effective, proven way to eliminate part of the risk all together- which is using a designated hitter. Obviously there is no way, within the flow of the game to have a defender replace the pitcher. They've been excused from hitting for 40 years in half the league, almost as long as there have been divisions.

I get that even the best hitting pitchers are terrible hitters. Having MLB.TV and being a National League fan, I've watched them all. But I'd rather see a pitcher hit than see somebody like Billy Butler come up to the plate. He's a one-way player with no value or purpose in the game other than to come to the plate and hit. He's a glorified pinch-hitter, except that he gets to stay in the game.

Id rather see a good hitter hit against a good pitcher. Id rather see a good pitcher stay in a game because he's a good pitcher, not taken out because he's not a good hitter. I want to see the best do what they do best.

A recent start by Shane Greene against the Pirates really drove this point home for me. He was pitching a 3 hit shutout against the Pirates through 8, and was due up second in the bottom half. Score was 1-0 (i think). He was in the on deck circle when Jose Iglesias doubled with no body out... and so Shane Greene got pinch hit for. He didn't get a chance to finish his gem off. I realized how annoying this must be for starting pitchers, because it bugged the hell out of me as a fan. And the result? We got to see TWO guys with just one job- a pinch hitter AND a closer.

The discussion over the DH seems to be a one-way street, in that pitchers cannot hit. But what about pitchers? The game isn't solely about hitting. Being a fan of pitchers myself, I love seeing the pitcher come up when the starter is in a jam. It works both ways. Sometimes the pitcher gets a hit, and it's awesome. That's a pleasure that's far more memorable than seeing whoever AL teams run out in the 9th spot (I imagine it's somebody like Elvis Andrus) succeed at a somewhat higher rate.

This feels akin to rooting for the high school team trainer that gets in the last 30 seconds of a blowout in basketball. Yeah, it's a nice story when he hits that 3, but it doesn't make the game better. It's just... cute. Admittedly I loved watching the pitchers hit the first couple years as an AL fan. It was enjoyable watching the little competitions they'd have among each other, and getting excited for a seeing eye single. But it was a novelty, and has not proven sustainable.

[matt reeder]

For any given spot in the lineup, that’s about the difference of a hit every other game, and I’m happy to swallow the extra out in order to see the pitcher reach base. A position player reaching base is routine; a pitcher reaching base is cause for celebration.

This seems odd to me. To me, it's a lot like saying you would prefer to watch Ryan Goins hit instead of Jose Bautista because if Goins does something useful it was more unexpected and therefor more exciting.

Basically, yeah. That and the fact that he had to hit, like everyone else.

Look, there's no convincing AL fans that pitchers hitting is something that should be exciting. I doubt you'll ever be able to convince me that the NL should adopt the DH. It's the only style of baseball I like, and it's the only style of baseball I want to watch.

[matt reeder]

They could just as easily get hurt fielding their position, slipping in the shower or hunting in the offseason (all of which happen). A much higher cause of pitching injuries is burnout, none of which have anything to do with hitting. I understand the desire to mitigate risk, but why should they be excused from hitting? It's an escape hatch for teams, since you can have a guy who can only do one thing (either to replace the bats of pitchers with guys who hit better, or more so to let hitters who cannot field stay in the game).

Yes, there is no question injuries can happen doing any of those things, and the pitchers getting injured hitting is really just a reaction to very recent events- it is not all that common. But there is an effective, proven way to eliminate part of the risk all together- which is using a designated hitter. Obviously there is no way, within the flow of the game to have a defender replace the pitcher. They've been excused from hitting for 40 years in half the league, almost as long as there have been divisions.

I get that even the best hitting pitchers are terrible hitters. Having MLB.TV and being a National League fan, I've watched them all. But I'd rather see a pitcher hit than see somebody like Billy Butler come up to the plate. He's a one-way player with no value or purpose in the game other than to come to the plate and hit. He's a glorified pinch-hitter, except that he gets to stay in the game.

Id rather see a good hitter hit against a good pitcher. Id rather see a good pitcher stay in a game because he's a good pitcher, not taken out because he's not a good hitter. I want to see the best do what they do best.

A recent start by Shane Greene against the Pirates really drove this point home for me. He was pitching a 3 hit shutout against the Pirates through 8, and was due up second in the bottom half. Score was 1-0 (i think). He was in the on deck circle when Jose Iglesias doubled with no body out... and so Shane Greene got pinch hit for. He didn't get a chance to finish his gem off. I realized how annoying this must be for starting pitchers, because it bugged the hell out of me as a fan. And the result? We got to see TWO guys with just one job- a pinch hitter AND a closer.

His manager didn't have to pinch hit for him. How many pitches was he at? In the NL a manager would probably have him bunt Iglesias over to 3rd, then count on the leadoff man to drive him in. It's sound baseball, as it has been for over a century.

I've watched plenty of complete game shutouts in my life from NL pitchers, and there are as many in the NL as in the AL. In the NL you pull a guy just as much because he has nothing left as you do for a pinch hitter. The absence of a DH helps a pitcher go longer, as he has more easy outs. And yet, I'd rather watch the pitcher bat because of all the reasons I've stated before.

[@SkitchP]

They could just as easily get hurt fielding their position, slipping in the shower or hunting in the offseason (all of which happen). A much higher cause of pitching injuries is burnout, none of which have anything to do with hitting. I understand the desire to mitigate risk, but why should they be excused from hitting? It's an escape hatch for teams, since you can have a guy who can only do one thing (either to replace the bats of pitchers with guys who hit better, or more so to let hitters who cannot field stay in the game).

Yes, there is no question injuries can happen doing any of those things, and the pitchers getting injured hitting is really just a reaction to very recent events- it is not all that common. But there is an effective, proven way to eliminate part of the risk all together- which is using a designated hitter. Obviously there is no way, within the flow of the game to have a defender replace the pitcher. They've been excused from hitting for 40 years in half the league, almost as long as there have been divisions.

I get that even the best hitting pitchers are terrible hitters. Having MLB.TV and being a National League fan, I've watched them all. But I'd rather see a pitcher hit than see somebody like Billy Butler come up to the plate. He's a one-way player with no value or purpose in the game other than to come to the plate and hit. He's a glorified pinch-hitter, except that he gets to stay in the game.

Id rather see a good hitter hit against a good pitcher. Id rather see a good pitcher stay in a game because he's a good pitcher, not taken out because he's not a good hitter. I want to see the best do what they do best.

A recent start by Shane Greene against the Pirates really drove this point home for me. He was pitching a 3 hit shutout against the Pirates through 8, and was due up second in the bottom half. Score was 1-0 (i think). He was in the on deck circle when Jose Iglesias doubled with no body out... and so Shane Greene got pinch hit for. He didn't get a chance to finish his gem off. I realized how annoying this must be for starting pitchers, because it bugged the hell out of me as a fan. And the result? We got to see TWO guys with just one job- a pinch hitter AND a closer.

His manager didn't have to pinch hit for him. How many pitches was he at? In the NL a manager would probably have him bunt Iglesias over to 3rd, then count on the leadoff man to drive him in. It's sound baseball, as it has been for over a century.

I've watched plenty of complete game shutouts in my life from NL pitchers, and there are as many in the NL as in the AL. In the NL you pull a guy just as much because he has nothing left as you do for a pinch hitter. The absence of a DH helps a pitcher go longer, as he has more easy outs. And yet, I'd rather watch the pitcher bat because of all the reasons I've stated before.

Oh i am not saying they dont happen- just that they are less likely. And giving away an out is not a sound argument for allowing a pitcher to hit.

[Norah]

I'm all for the "purity of the game," and I felt a lot differently a few years ago. But I find nothing particularly exciting about knowing a rally is going to get cut short because the pitcher is due up, or about watching a pitcher flail helplessly (or worse, have his knees buckle) at 3 straight breaking balls.

The part I hate about NL ball is that what if you have a dominant starter pitching a gem, only to get pulled in the 8th because the guy ahead of him got a double and its a close game? The excitement of a CGSO is way more fun than a double switch that usually involves getting to see a utility IF move up in the order. I want to see that guy get a chance to close it out. It's just as much about allowing the pitcher to continue doing his actual job- pitching- as it is about not wanting to watch him hit.

Baseball is not what it was in 1924 where guys played in the summer, and worked in the winter- the playing field was more level for a pitcher to hit. Now these guys are in, most cases, identified as a pitcher when they're 12 and barely pick up a bat again until they're 26. So the purity arguments no longer ring true for me- things are different.

Also, the strategy argument is brought up over and over, and i read this point on twitter yesterday. Which situation requires more strategy..
Which utility IF to put into the game to pinch hit or double switch
or how to pitch to David Ortiz with a runner on 2nd, one out in the top of the ninth up by 1?

Yup. All of this.

[matt reeder]

They could just as easily get hurt fielding their position, slipping in the shower or hunting in the offseason (all of which happen). A much higher cause of pitching injuries is burnout, none of which have anything to do with hitting. I understand the desire to mitigate risk, but why should they be excused from hitting? It's an escape hatch for teams, since you can have a guy who can only do one thing (either to replace the bats of pitchers with guys who hit better, or more so to let hitters who cannot field stay in the game).

Yes, there is no question injuries can happen doing any of those things, and the pitchers getting injured hitting is really just a reaction to very recent events- it is not all that common. But there is an effective, proven way to eliminate part of the risk all together- which is using a designated hitter. Obviously there is no way, within the flow of the game to have a defender replace the pitcher. They've been excused from hitting for 40 years in half the league, almost as long as there have been divisions.

I get that even the best hitting pitchers are terrible hitters. Having MLB.TV and being a National League fan, I've watched them all. But I'd rather see a pitcher hit than see somebody like Billy Butler come up to the plate. He's a one-way player with no value or purpose in the game other than to come to the plate and hit. He's a glorified pinch-hitter, except that he gets to stay in the game.

Id rather see a good hitter hit against a good pitcher. Id rather see a good pitcher stay in a game because he's a good pitcher, not taken out because he's not a good hitter. I want to see the best do what they do best.

A recent start by Shane Greene against the Pirates really drove this point home for me. He was pitching a 3 hit shutout against the Pirates through 8, and was due up second in the bottom half. Score was 1-0 (i think). He was in the on deck circle when Jose Iglesias doubled with no body out... and so Shane Greene got pinch hit for. He didn't get a chance to finish his gem off. I realized how annoying this must be for starting pitchers, because it bugged the hell out of me as a fan. And the result? We got to see TWO guys with just one job- a pinch hitter AND a closer.

His manager didn't have to pinch hit for him. How many pitches was he at? In the NL a manager would probably have him bunt Iglesias over to 3rd, then count on the leadoff man to drive him in. It's sound baseball, as it has been for over a century.

I've watched plenty of complete game shutouts in my life from NL pitchers, and there are as many in the NL as in the AL. In the NL you pull a guy just as much because he has nothing left as you do for a pinch hitter. The absence of a DH helps a pitcher go longer, as he has more easy outs. And yet, I'd rather watch the pitcher bat because of all the reasons I've stated before.

Oh i am not saying they dont happen- just that they are less likely. And giving away an out is not a sound argument for allowing a pitcher to hit.

There were more complete game shutouts in the NL last year than in the AL. I am of the opinion that giving away an out is generally not sound baseball policy (regardless of how I feel about pitchers batting), but this happens just as often in the AL as in the NL. In this case though, you'd likely have a weak-hitting 9th place hitter instead of a pitcher, who would quite often do the exact same thing.

[philpritchard]

This seems odd to me. To me, it's a lot like saying you would prefer to watch Ryan Goins hit instead of Jose Bautista because if Goins does something useful it was more unexpected and therefor more exciting.

Basically, yeah. That and the fact that he had to hit, like everyone else.

Doesn't that seem kind of insane to you? I watch professional sports to see people who are among the best in the world perform at a high level. I want to see Billy Hamilton run the bases instead of Billy Butler even though it would be really exciting and unexpected if Butler tried to steal. I want to see Andrelton Simmons chasing down a ball in the whole even though it would be more unexpected to see Derek Jeter make that play. I want to see Craig Kimbrel come in to finish off the game in the ninth even though it would be way more unexpected to see Jo-Jo Reyes succeed in that role.

Again, this isn't an AL vs. NL thing for me and I'm not even really for or against the DH. I just don't see the allure of watching someone who sucks at something try over and over again.

[Green Habit]

I'm real impressed with the discourse here. Most of the time DH debates are pointless because both sides get so emotional about it.

[@SkitchP]

There were more complete game shutouts in the NL last year than in the AL. I am of the opinion that giving away an out is generally not sound baseball policy (regardless of how I feel about pitchers batting), but this happens just as often in the AL as in the NL. In this case though, you'd likely have a weak-hitting 9th place hitter instead of a pitcher, who would quite often do the exact same thing.

Anytime the Tigers have to go to the bullpen, Im going to be bothered by it, so that's why that situation bugged me so much.


Yeah, your 9th hitter is generally going to be your weakest hitter. But you're not replacing a weak hitting starting pitcher with Adam Everett- because you aren't taking the weak hitting SS or C out of the game to let the pitcher hit. Generally (not always obviously) that guy is hitting 8th now. So now you have an inning every 3 that is lucky to be hitting a combined .230. I don't see the allure in that.

I like low scoring, pitchers duels more than high scoring steriod fueled craziness, but 6 pitch, 1-2-3 innings where there is very little likelihood of something "good" happening from an offensive perspective removes any tension from the game. Not to mention the fact that if an 8 hitter gets on with 2 outs, regardless of speed, he's not going because you don't want the pitcher leading off the following inning.

[matt reeder]

This seems odd to me. To me, it's a lot like saying you would prefer to watch Ryan Goins hit instead of Jose Bautista because if Goins does something useful it was more unexpected and therefor more exciting.

Basically, yeah. That and the fact that he had to hit, like everyone else.

Doesn't that seem kind of insane to you? I watch professional sports to see people who are among the best in the world perform at a high level. I want to see Billy Hamilton run the bases instead of Billy Butler even though it would be really exciting and unexpected if Butler tried to steal. I want to see Andrelton Simmons chasing down a ball in the whole even though it would be more unexpected to see Derek Jeter make that play. I want to see Craig Kimbrel come in to finish off the game in the ninth even though it would be way more unexpected to see Jo-Jo Reyes succeed in that role.

Again, this isn't an AL vs. NL thing for me and I'm not even really for or against the DH. I just don't see the allure of watching someone who sucks at something try over and over again.

By removing the obligation of the pitcher from hitting just because he sucks at it you are implicitly stating that he plays by a different set of rules than anyone else. What's insane about that? Just because he sucks at it you shouldn't be rewarding his suckitude by removing his obligation to do so. Pitchers in the NL are required to hit, and they do. Even if they suck, they have an incentive to improve. The pitchers complaining loudest about hitting in the NL are the ones who pitched in the AL and never had to hit, and thus didn't work on their game.

All of this really means that you should remove the DH from the AL and force the David Ortiz and Billy Butlers of the world to play their positions - that is, learn how to field adequately enough to stay on the field on a legitimate basis.

We won't change our minds here, but I find the idea of players whose sole obligation it is to hit and who don't play the field just as appalling as you find the idea of pitchers hitting.

There were more complete game shutouts in the NL last year than in the AL. I am of the opinion that giving away an out is generally not sound baseball policy (regardless of how I feel about pitchers batting), but this happens just as often in the AL as in the NL. In this case though, you'd likely have a weak-hitting 9th place hitter instead of a pitcher, who would quite often do the exact same thing.

Anytime the Tigers have to go to the bullpen, Im going to be bothered by it, so that's why that situation bugged me so much.


Yeah, your 9th hitter is generally going to be your weakest hitter. But you're not replacing a weak hitting starting pitcher with Adam Everett- because you aren't taking the weak hitting SS or C out of the game to let the pitcher hit. Generally (not always obviously) that guy is hitting 8th now. So now you have an inning every 3 that is lucky to be hitting a combined .230. I don't see the allure in that.

I like low scoring, pitchers duels more than high scoring steriod fueled craziness, but 6 pitch, 1-2-3 innings where there is very little likelihood of something "good" happening from an offensive perspective removes any tension from the game. Not to mention the fact that if an 8 hitter gets on with 2 outs, regardless of speed, he's not going because you don't want the pitcher leading off the following inning.

The allure and the tension comes from the fact that a pitcher is more likely to get the outs he needs to stay in the game, and sometimes he doesn't take the pitcher seriously as a batter and has to pay for it. Again, there's more to baseball than somebody's competence as a hitter, and that's what AL baseball fans don't seem to grasp sometimes. To NL baseball fans, the beauty of the game comes from the fact that everybody plays by the same rules, regardless of their skill.

How seriously do I feel about this? I've seen relief pitchers bat, and I am okay with it so long as it doesn't happen very often.

A final thought: do you think Yordano Ventura would have acted like such a bitch if he knew he had to bat the next inning? That was the first thing that came to my mind.

[philpritchard]

To expand on this comment that I think is just crazy:

For any given spot in the lineup, that’s about the difference of a hit every other game, and I’m happy to swallow the extra out in order to see the pitcher reach base. A position player reaching base is routine; a pitcher reaching base is cause for celebration.

Based on last years stats, the difference between an average offensive DH and an average offensive pitcher over 650 plate appearances (basically a full season) is:

+35 singles
+18 doubles
+1 triple
+21 HR
+38 walks
-107 strikeouts
-66 sac bunts