2B7D6B7F706A7A717C6B597E74787075377A190 wrote:
What it comes down to for me is that every player in the line-up was meant to both play in the field and hit. Changing that incredibly important rule was too much for me.
Baseball has always been a game of give and take. You put up with a poor fielder because you want his bat in the lineup. Or a light hitting SS like Mark Belanger is worth a spot in the lineup because his defense is so good. A Russell Martin hitting .226 in 2013 is worth his weight in gold because of what he does for the pitchers. And a pitcher's value on the mound is worth his weak bat in the lineup. And players who excel both in the field and at bat are special. But I suspect there will come a day far into the future when there are both offensive and defensive platoons in baseball. The principle is the same. Why make players bat whose value is primarily defense.
DH To National League
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
DH To National League
1C313C2D2A3B2C6C6F5E0 wrote: As fans, we have no say in the DH matter. It's coming and I doubt few if any will give up following their favorite NL team because of the DH. But I can say from my own perspective that I've been a fan of the Orioles since the mid 1960s as my 2nd team. And while I don't follow them with the passion I have for the Pirates, I've been familiar with them and AL baseball for a long time and watched and attended countless games. But I never reached a point where I felt the DH was fine and enjoyed AL baseball as much as NL baseball. It's always been a barrier to me fully enjoying the AL game. It's all so simplified when you add a thumper to the middle of the lineup whose defensive liabilities are no longer an issue and you no longer can pitch around the bottom of the order to get to the pitcher who might even help his own cause with a sac bunt or an infrequent hit. But the DH is coming and that's the only baseball we'll have. A lesser version of the game IMHO. But that's that. In time, future generations will have a hard time believing the game was ever played any differently. [highlight]But for those of us who grew up on one version of the game and don't want to see it changed, I suspect most of us will accept it without ever fully embracing it[/highlight].
I think this right on the money. However, there aren't that many of us (or really people in the country) that are older than 60. Even fans of NL teams if they are young enough played with dh in high school and on up.
I attended a community college in the 1970's and its conference included the dh and a designated runner. I'm glad that the designated runner hasn't caught on.
I think this right on the money. However, there aren't that many of us (or really people in the country) that are older than 60. Even fans of NL teams if they are young enough played with dh in high school and on up.
I attended a community college in the 1970's and its conference included the dh and a designated runner. I'm glad that the designated runner hasn't caught on.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
DH To National League
It's hard to say whether I will continue to watch MLB. I used to be a big fans of the Steelers. I haven't watched them or any NFL games for 20 years. I just got feed up with the commercialisation of the game and couldn't tolerate it. It could happen in MLB, I don't know but for sure there is a point where you lose long time fans. The question is, are the owners and players in touch with their fans, and will there be new fans to replace older fans who leave voluntarily or by just passing on.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
DH To National League
Commercialization of sports bothers me as much as anyone. We see it and hear it everywhere we go. Every pitch is brought to me by....
And, it's not limited to sports, either. We see museums having exhibits sponsored by some entity that may or may not be "here" five years or even five months from now.
It's no longer "The Pittsburgh Pirates." It's as if it's "The PNC Pirates." Seems to hold true for just about any team in any city.
I'm anything but thrilled about it, but at the same time, I recognize that without it, it could be The San Antonio Pirates.
It's one of those things that we choose to accept it, or find some other form of entertainment other than sports. There is commercialization in amateur sports, too. Look at any major college, university, or minor league club.
The way I've reconciled it is by going back to the basics. The basics are-
A) One man on that hill, holding the ball, doing his best to get the guy he's staring at out.
B) Eight teammates all around him trying to help him in that effort.
C) One guy at the plate, doing everything he can to get on base and/or help his teammates advance, if any are already on base.
D) May the best man win.
E) And, may those best men be Pittsburgh or PNC Pirates.
Some form of commercialization has been around forever. It was just less visible and less audible in past eras.
And, it's not limited to sports, either. We see museums having exhibits sponsored by some entity that may or may not be "here" five years or even five months from now.
It's no longer "The Pittsburgh Pirates." It's as if it's "The PNC Pirates." Seems to hold true for just about any team in any city.
I'm anything but thrilled about it, but at the same time, I recognize that without it, it could be The San Antonio Pirates.
It's one of those things that we choose to accept it, or find some other form of entertainment other than sports. There is commercialization in amateur sports, too. Look at any major college, university, or minor league club.
The way I've reconciled it is by going back to the basics. The basics are-
A) One man on that hill, holding the ball, doing his best to get the guy he's staring at out.
B) Eight teammates all around him trying to help him in that effort.
C) One guy at the plate, doing everything he can to get on base and/or help his teammates advance, if any are already on base.
D) May the best man win.
E) And, may those best men be Pittsburgh or PNC Pirates.
Some form of commercialization has been around forever. It was just less visible and less audible in past eras.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
DH To National League
406D60717667703033020 wrote:
What it comes down to for me is that every player in the line-up was meant to both play in the field and hit. Changing that incredibly important rule was too much for me.
Baseball has always been a game of give and take. You put up with a poor fielder because you want his bat in the lineup. Or a light hitting SS like Mark Belanger is worth a spot in the lineup because his defense is so good. A Russell Martin hitting .226 in 2013 is worth his weight in gold because of what he does for the pitchers. And a pitcher's value on the mound is worth his weak bat in the lineup. And players who excel both in the field and at bat are special. But I suspect there will come a day far into the future when there are both offensive and defensive platoons in baseball. The principle is the same. [highlight][/highlight]Why make players bat whose value is primarily defense. [highlight][/highlight]
This is the crux of it for me. If the DH is such a good idea then why not continue in that vein and have designated runners and fielders, too? A fundamental part of the game is that all of the players have to hit and play in the field. Teams have to live and die with the weak bat or glove as a result. That’s a major consideration that helps make the game better than any other.
What it comes down to for me is that every player in the line-up was meant to both play in the field and hit. Changing that incredibly important rule was too much for me.
Baseball has always been a game of give and take. You put up with a poor fielder because you want his bat in the lineup. Or a light hitting SS like Mark Belanger is worth a spot in the lineup because his defense is so good. A Russell Martin hitting .226 in 2013 is worth his weight in gold because of what he does for the pitchers. And a pitcher's value on the mound is worth his weak bat in the lineup. And players who excel both in the field and at bat are special. But I suspect there will come a day far into the future when there are both offensive and defensive platoons in baseball. The principle is the same. [highlight][/highlight]Why make players bat whose value is primarily defense. [highlight][/highlight]
This is the crux of it for me. If the DH is such a good idea then why not continue in that vein and have designated runners and fielders, too? A fundamental part of the game is that all of the players have to hit and play in the field. Teams have to live and die with the weak bat or glove as a result. That’s a major consideration that helps make the game better than any other.
DH To National League
6A3C2A3E312B3B303D2A183F35393134763B580 wrote:
What it comes down to for me is that every player in the line-up was meant to both play in the field and hit. Changing that incredibly important rule was too much for me.
Baseball has always been a game of give and take. You put up with a poor fielder because you want his bat in the lineup. Or a light hitting SS like Mark Belanger is worth a spot in the lineup because his defense is so good. A Russell Martin hitting .226 in 2013 is worth his weight in gold because of what he does for the pitchers. And a pitcher's value on the mound is worth his weak bat in the lineup. And players who excel both in the field and at bat are special. But I suspect there will come a day far into the future when there are both offensive and defensive platoons in baseball. The principle is the same. [highlight][/highlight]Why make players bat whose value is primarily defense. [highlight][/highlight]
This is the crux of it for me. If the DH is such a good idea then why not continue in that vein and have designated runners and fielders, too? A fundamental part of the game is that all of the players have to hit and play in the field. Teams have to live and die with the weak bat or glove as a result. That’s a major consideration that helps make the game better than any other.
I don't remember it, but didn't having offensive and defensive players ruin football? From what I've read in the 1950's only two or three players could be subbed for and then by late 1950's early 1960's two platoons came in. I am pretty sure by time AFL started it was offensive and defensive players.
I don't view football and baseball as being equivalent and think baseball needs to stop at DH.
What it comes down to for me is that every player in the line-up was meant to both play in the field and hit. Changing that incredibly important rule was too much for me.
Baseball has always been a game of give and take. You put up with a poor fielder because you want his bat in the lineup. Or a light hitting SS like Mark Belanger is worth a spot in the lineup because his defense is so good. A Russell Martin hitting .226 in 2013 is worth his weight in gold because of what he does for the pitchers. And a pitcher's value on the mound is worth his weak bat in the lineup. And players who excel both in the field and at bat are special. But I suspect there will come a day far into the future when there are both offensive and defensive platoons in baseball. The principle is the same. [highlight][/highlight]Why make players bat whose value is primarily defense. [highlight][/highlight]
This is the crux of it for me. If the DH is such a good idea then why not continue in that vein and have designated runners and fielders, too? A fundamental part of the game is that all of the players have to hit and play in the field. Teams have to live and die with the weak bat or glove as a result. That’s a major consideration that helps make the game better than any other.
I don't remember it, but didn't having offensive and defensive players ruin football? From what I've read in the 1950's only two or three players could be subbed for and then by late 1950's early 1960's two platoons came in. I am pretty sure by time AFL started it was offensive and defensive players.
I don't view football and baseball as being equivalent and think baseball needs to stop at DH.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
DH To National League
737671777F756C71786B6D60190 wrote: I don't like the DH either. I'd rather they do something much more creative like allowing the pitcher to stay in the game even if he's been pinch hit hit for, and maybe something like allowing each bench guy to pinch hit two times per game, or some other concoction where pitcher can stay in and bench guys get more at bats. But baseball just isn't that creative. It is what it is. I can live with the DH.
[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
-
GnatsEyelash
DH To National League
What they've done is put hitters who have fielding limitations above pitchers who have offensive limitations.
I imagine it will change the market for a guy like Steven Brault, who has an ability with the bat that augments his pitching. On the other hand, I believe we'll see longer careers for some who keep the reaction times acceptable at the plate, but become field liabilities due to bad wheels.
I imagine it will change the market for a guy like Steven Brault, who has an ability with the bat that augments his pitching. On the other hand, I believe we'll see longer careers for some who keep the reaction times acceptable at the plate, but become field liabilities due to bad wheels.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
DH To National League
I find it interesting that people...suggest...."level playing fields" have issues with level playing fields with how the game's played.
Reality is reality. Reality is that the AL is not reverting back to pitchers hitting.
NL pitchers are now going to be evaluated equally to their AL counterparts for the first time in nearly 50 years.
The pros and cons have been debated for years.
The "why stop here" question is silly, IMO. If that's the fallback argument, then it's probably not nearly strong enough to warrant merit.
Reality is reality. Reality is that the AL is not reverting back to pitchers hitting.
NL pitchers are now going to be evaluated equally to their AL counterparts for the first time in nearly 50 years.
The pros and cons have been debated for years.
The "why stop here" question is silly, IMO. If that's the fallback argument, then it's probably not nearly strong enough to warrant merit.
-
JollyRoger
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:31 pm
DH To National League
406661747D71667078130 wrote: It's been a foregone conclusion for a long time. Like night games were going to ruin the game. And domes. And astroturf. Larger gloves. Steroids. Spider tack. Expansion. Lowering the mound. Replay. Corked bats. Analytics. First ballot entry into HOF. Pay per view playoffs. Expanded playoffs. Every WS game played at night. Tobacco ban. Persons of color. Women broadcasters. Women coaches. The shift. Long games. Mascots. Every game televised (blackout restrictions apply). Longer season. Divisional baseball. Brewers to the NL. Astros to the AL. Free agency. The "area" play. The Posey rule. The "unwritten rules". Bat tosses. Challenges. Three batter minimum. Runner on second in extras. Higher ticket prices. Higher concession prices. In game entertainment. Wifi. The Red Sox and Yankees "always" on Sunday night baseball. Batting gloves. Batting helmets. And so many more.
So many jumping off points where people say "The game is ruined". Yet there's MLB still rocking the changes and few have jumped off, at least if one can believe the continuing increase of revenues.
No game is the same. It was always better the way we learned to like a game. I don't believe people leave but I do think their interest level wanes. I do believe people quit spending on it but yet they still follow there team.
And others learn to accept the changes, still enjoy being consumed by the game and still have that certain air of knowing the young fans today will be saying the same things when they get older.
As David Bowie once sang, "I watch the ripples change their size, but they never leave the stream Of warm impermanence. So the days float through my eyes, but still days seem the same. And these children that you spit on, as they try to change their worlds. They're immune to your consultations, they're quite aware of what they're going through."
I just hope if you find a jumping off point you think back to what you enjoyed and not focus on the issue where you said, "Enough." If you can't carry with the game, carry the joy you did have and share that instead.
Anytime someone can weave in some David Bowie lyrics to their post makes it a winner in my books.
Cha cha cha changes!
So many jumping off points where people say "The game is ruined". Yet there's MLB still rocking the changes and few have jumped off, at least if one can believe the continuing increase of revenues.
No game is the same. It was always better the way we learned to like a game. I don't believe people leave but I do think their interest level wanes. I do believe people quit spending on it but yet they still follow there team.
And others learn to accept the changes, still enjoy being consumed by the game and still have that certain air of knowing the young fans today will be saying the same things when they get older.
As David Bowie once sang, "I watch the ripples change their size, but they never leave the stream Of warm impermanence. So the days float through my eyes, but still days seem the same. And these children that you spit on, as they try to change their worlds. They're immune to your consultations, they're quite aware of what they're going through."
I just hope if you find a jumping off point you think back to what you enjoyed and not focus on the issue where you said, "Enough." If you can't carry with the game, carry the joy you did have and share that instead.
Anytime someone can weave in some David Bowie lyrics to their post makes it a winner in my books.
Cha cha cha changes!