Stupid Rules In Sports

[philpritchard]

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.

I've mentioned it a couple of times, but my argument here isn't that the DH should be used in the NL. I really don't care either way. My argument is that pitchers suck at hitting and that watching them bat is boring.

[Chris_H_2]

Gotta love The Onion:

[philpritchard]

They could just as easily get hurt fielding their position, slipping in the shower or hunting in the offseason (all of which happen).

It's kind of embarrassing to admit that, when Marcus Stroman tore his ACL ( ) while fielding bunts in practice, a lot of Jays fans were complaining and blaming the injury on the organization because - I shit you not - pitchers shouldn't be risking injury by practicing fielding.

This is a thing that actually happened. Like... it actually happened.

[matt reeder]

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

It doesn't matter at all to me. At least the pitcher had to play the game both ways, which is the way it has been since the beginning and the way I think it should be.

The reason pitchers suck at hitting more than ever is that they don't have to hit at a lot of levels. Make them hit and their hitting will improve because they have to work at it. Force the guys playing DH to actually work on their fielding to keep making the team. That's the way it always has been.

Our society is awash in facile arguments in favor of convenience. Just because something is easier, or easier to understand, does not automatically make it superior. Just because pitchers suck at hitting, why give a job to somebody else who cannot hold down a position on the field? Make everybody earn their keep based on the relative merits of their 2-way play. I realize it isn't perfect either way, as there are plenty of position players who are terrible at fielding but remain in the field because they excel at hitting (Matt Holliday comes to mind), but making players field and hit, you keep the egalitarian, two-way nature of the game intact.

Again, baseball should be about more than who hits the best, and to allow somebody to hit without fielding and field without hitting without taking them out of the game erodes the very nature of the game itself.

[CopperTom]

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

A better comparison would be DH v P + PHs

[numbers]

I'm so in favor of the different rules for the AL and NL that I hate how interleague play has diluted it.

[BigRedLedbetter]

Gotta love The Onion:

I'm so in favor of the different rules for the AL and NL that I hate how interleague play has diluted it.

I don't mind interleague play I just wish there was not SO much of it.

[MadTIGERmaN]

I watched Kershaw turn a game around last year with a base hit, went 1st to 3rd on Harper (who didnt charge the ball thinking, hey, its the pitcher running he isnt going to take 3rd) and then score on the next hit to give the dodgers the lead.
yeah, pitchers suck hitting, yeah, theyre HORRIBLE (I could get more hits than Ben Sheets, all of us here probably could)

as a Brewers fan, who loved Molitor, and has now watched NL ball for about the same number of years as I watched AL ball... NL is a far more interesting game to watch, it really is.

[Green Habit]

What are people's thoughts on the NBA draft lottery? It looks like they could double down on it.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-l ... is-coming/

I've long been averse to the concept of luck boiling down to who gets a superstar. But is tanking a serious enough problem in the NBA that the lottery meets the Churchill principle of "the worst form possible, except for all the others"? Baseball doesn't seem to have a problem with buyers and sellers, and they have a lot more games to fill seats with. Is it a legit problem in the NBA because one superstar can change the face of a franchise?

So it seems like this is in the news again. I gave a little thought this morning to an alternative, and here's what I thought was the best idea I came up with.

Abolish the first 14 picks of the draft, and replace them by having the non-playoff teams each sign one rookie before the draft. If you want the best incoming talent, you have to make a case to them that your team is the best place to go, as opposed to some dumpster fire that currently would try to tank to get the exclusive rights to someone.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I like the idea of reversing the order of the non-playoff teams. That way teams will try to win to the very end. For example, this year OKC would get the number one pick and minnesota the 14th.

[Monkey_Driven]

I like the idea of reversing the order of the non-playoff teams. That way teams will try to win to the very end. For example, this year OKC would get the number one pick and minnesota the 14th.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. Take the Wolves for instance. They actually tried to put together a respectable team but injuries to their best players really decimated their season. If they got the 14th pick they would be screwed over twice. It would deter teams from actively tanking but sometimes you just have terrible luck.

Any change is going to have a lot of consequences and will likely not be implemented for several years due to the picks being traded already that are well in the future.

[Green Habit]

Also, could that provide a different tanking incentive for a mid-range team to lose a couple games to forgo an 8 seed for the #1 overall?

[Bammer]

18 is a stupid number.

A round of golf would be perfect at 12 holes.

[tommymtcom]

18 is a stupid number.

A round of golf would be perfect at 12 holes.

I think they should reduce the number of innings in baseball as well.

[Bammer]

18 is a stupid number.

A round of golf would be perfect at 12 holes.

I think they should reduce the number of innings in baseball as well.

I would be happy to see MLB and NBA shave their regular season lengths by a month.

Hoops in June and Baseball in November are just, well, stupid.

[tommymtcom]

I think it would be nice if they could find a way to make baseball more boring.

[Green Habit]

18 is a stupid number.

A round of golf would be perfect at 12 holes.

I don't watch a lot of golf, but does TV even broadcast all 18 holes except for like the top 5 on the leaderboard? It seems like there's a way to self correct whatever length problem there might be.

[Green Habit]

OK, I found this rule incredibly stupid in the SEA/DAL game earlier today:

The penalty was an illegal shift on Dallas that normally doesn't stop play. But the problem with this is that the Seahawks stopped the Cowboys on 4th down and the game would have been over, but they weren't allowed to decline the penalty and the Cowboys got another shot at 4th down. It wasn't close to affecting the outcome of this game, but this is something that could rear its ugly head in a more consequential moment in the future. The defense should be allowed to decline that penalty in that situation if they want.

[spike]

OK, I found this rule incredibly stupid in the SEA/DAL game earlier today:

The penalty was an illegal shift on Dallas that normally doesn't stop play. But the problem with this is that the Seahawks stopped the Cowboys on 4th down and the game would have been over, but they weren't allowed to decline the penalty and the Cowboys got another shot at 4th down. It wasn't close to affecting the outcome of this game, but this is something that could rear its ugly head in a more consequential moment in the future. The defense should be allowed to decline that penalty in that situation if they want.

agreed, i was scratching my head at that one too.

[Simple Torture]

Earlier in that game, too, didn't Seattle try calling a timeout immediately after calling one (which isn't allowed) in order to try and get out of a too-many-men penalty, and since the refs blew the whistle as if they were going to give them the timeout, they couldn't give them the too-many-men penalty? It was a weird sequence.