OnlyBucs

NL Pitchers:



1920: .200

1930: .214

1940: .175

1950: .171

1960: .155

1970: .146

1980: .156

1990: .138

2000: .150

2010: .143

2019: .131



So, there's been a general decline in NL pitcher's batting average for a century. Most of the decline occurred before the DH was introduced to the AL.



The actual low so far is .116 in 2018. That's when I gave up the no-DH-or-death position. It seems to me that pitchers' hits are coming at something like a background rate now, and that coaching could only add a hit or two per season for a durable starter.

5065727279407272797E72170 wrote: All you "pitchers should hit" guys- you have all those statues out there. 



Where's one of a pitcher PITCHING, let alone of one doing anything at the plate?  Why not have any of any pitcher doing anything when he's at bat?  Come on.



All you "strategy" guys- where's Danny Murtaugh's statue- stratching something?



Important...but, only so important.
It's not cherry-picking if I respond to your direct quote. You seemed to be more concerned about pitchers batting than their pitching. This was in response to the DH discussion and the issues of pitchers batting. You seem to be trying to justify the DH because pitchers don't hit well enough to have statues of them batting.



So I gave the silly example of keeping pitchers out of the HOF if their batting is so important. You accused me of endorsing that rather than seeing it as the absurd extension of your comment attaching significance to the lack of statues of pitchers batting as a rationale for the DH.



And when I responded to that, you accused me of cherry-picking. Good grief. >:(

I'm concerned how pitchers pitch. Ours can barely do that.



Maybe once they become decent at what they're paid to do, I'll worry about anything else they do.

5164737378417373787F73160 wrote: I'm concerned how pitchers pitch.  Ours can barely do that.



Maybe once they become decent at what they're paid to do, I'll worry about anything else they do.


Yes, the pitchers can’t pitch, and the hitters can’t hit. The Pirates suck. But I don’t see how that has any bearing on the present discussion. I like the NL game as it’s been played for over 100 years. They want to tinker on things like the roster size, how long you're on the DL or whatever they call it now, fine. But between those lines is sacred. You mess with that, and you mess with the game itself.



I don’t know what they were playing last year, but it wasn’t baseball. Baseball doesn’t have ghost runners. Baseball let’s the manger determine when he pulls a pitcher. NL baseball doesn’t use the DH.



I’ve never once walked away from a baseball game thinking, “Gosh, that was boring.” Why? Because I love baseball, the way it’s always been played. All I care about at the end of the day is this...do the Pirates have more runs than their opponent? I don’t care how they get them, or give them up. I don’t care how many hits there are, how well someone played (except insofar as it indicates how well he may play in the next game), or whether there was a home run hit or not. This constant need to be entertained is, IMHO, ruining baseball.



Baseball isn’t an entertainment sport. It’s, quite frankly, boring, but only if you don’t know what to look for. It’s why baseball announcers need to be the best at filling dead air. There’s more of it in baseball than any other sport (of the big four). Inserting a DH isn’t going to make it less boring. In fact, I’d argue the contrary is true. The AL game can be summed up like this...sit around and wait for a guy to hit a three run jack.



The NL game, in its purest form, has more steals, more hit and runs, moving guys over, pitching, and defense. But, chicks dig the long ball, right? It’s all about excitement. But again, baseball isn’t exciting. It was never meant to be. It’s about the intricacies of the game, the ups and downs of a long season, and hanging on each pitch in a pennant race.



What’s your best memory as a Pirates fan? For me, it’s a toss up between the 2013 WC game, and the July 11, 2015 game against the Cardinals. Ignore the WC game a moment, because that was the atmosphere, the dropped ball, the Martin homer, the 21 years of frustration being simultaneously released. Gimmicky rules tweaks or not, that would have happened.



But think back to that 2015 game. Burnett gives up the homer to Reynolds after striking him out, and Cervelli gets run. Burnett hits a homer to fire the team up (wouldn’t happen with the DH). The game goes deep into extras (wouldn’t have happened with the ghost runner rule). Cutch wins it with a walkoff jack off the lefty Nick Greenberg. Why was a lefty facing McCutchen, who killed lefties at that stage of his career? Because LaRussa was out of pitchers. Why? Because the NL game makes managers weigh risks and rewards in determining when to pull a pitcher, particularly as the game goes long.



“Oh, but it’s too long!” If that game was “too long” for you, then you’re not a baseball fan. Sorry, not sorry. “A DH could have done what Burnett did.” Yeah, he could have, and it would have been just another homer. It wouldn’t have gotten the team fired up like his did. (And the next day, Liriano hit a two run double after the Cards IBBd the 8 hole hitter to get to him, also wouldn’t have happened with a DH.) “I’d rather see the Cards best reliever face Cutch instead of Nick Greenberg.” Perhaps, but this is where the chess match that is NL baseball is interesting.



I was an MLB.tv subscriber for eight years. I didn’t renew last year. I hated the rules changes that much (and the Pirates would have had 40 of 60 games blacked out in Iowa). I’ll say it again...want to lure young fans? End blackouts. Make games affordable. Don’t charge $12.50 for a hot dog and $18.99 for a beer. And give all fans hope that their team can win the World Series one day.

464E4D7A6C496E610F0 wrote: I'm concerned how pitchers pitch.  Ours can barely do that.



Maybe once they become decent at what they're paid to do, I'll worry about anything else they do.


Yes, the pitchers can’t pitch, and the hitters can’t hit. The Pirates suck. But I don’t see how that has any bearing on the present discussion. I like the NL game as it’s been played for over 100 years. They want to tinker on things like the roster size, how long you're on the DL or whatever they call it now, fine. But between those lines is sacred. You mess with that, and you mess with the game itself.



I don’t know what they were playing last year, but it wasn’t baseball. Baseball doesn’t have ghost runners. Baseball let’s the manger determine when he pulls a pitcher. NL baseball doesn’t use the DH.



I’ve never once walked away from a baseball game thinking, “Gosh, that was boring.” Why? Because I love baseball, the way it’s always been played. All I care about at the end of the day is this...do the Pirates have more runs than their opponent? I don’t care how they get them, or give them up. I don’t care how many hits there are, how well someone played (except insofar as it indicates how well he may play in the next game), or whether there was a home run hit or not. This constant need to be entertained is, IMHO, ruining baseball.



Baseball isn’t an entertainment sport. It’s, quite frankly, boring, but only if you don’t know what to look for. It’s why baseball announcers need to be the best at filling dead air. There’s more of it in baseball than any other sport (of the big four). Inserting a DH isn’t going to make it less boring. In fact, I’d argue the contrary is true. The AL game can be summed up like this...sit around and wait for a guy to hit a three run jack.



The NL game, in its purest form, has more steals, more hit and runs, moving guys over, pitching, and defense. But, chicks dig the long ball, right? It’s all about excitement. But again, baseball isn’t exciting. It was never meant to be. It’s about the intricacies of the game, the ups and downs of a long season, and hanging on each pitch in a pennant race.



What’s your best memory as a Pirates fan? For me, it’s a toss up between the 2013 WC game, and the July 11, 2015 game against the Cardinals. Ignore the WC game a moment, because that was the atmosphere, the dropped ball, the Martin homer, the 21 years of frustration being simultaneously released. Gimmicky rules tweaks or not, that would have happened.



But think back to that 2015 game. Burnett gives up the homer to Reynolds after striking him out, and Cervelli gets run. Burnett hits a homer to fire the team up (wouldn’t happen with the DH). The game goes deep into extras (wouldn’t have happened with the ghost runner rule). Cutch wins it with a walkoff jack off the lefty Nick Greenberg. Why was a lefty facing McCutchen, who killed lefties at that stage of his career? Because LaRussa was out of pitchers. Why? Because the NL game makes managers weigh risks and rewards in determining when to pull a pitcher, particularly as the game goes long.



“Oh, but it’s too long!” If that game was “too long” for you, then you’re not a baseball fan. Sorry, not sorry. “A DH could have done what Burnett did.” Yeah, he could have, and it would have been just another homer. It wouldn’t have gotten the team fired up like his did. (And the next day, Liriano hit a two run double after the Cards IBBd the 8 hole hitter to get to him, also wouldn’t have happened with a DH.) “I’d rather see the Cards best reliever face Cutch instead of Nick Greenberg.” Perhaps, but this is where the chess match that is NL baseball is interesting.



I was an MLB.tv subscriber for eight years. I didn’t renew last year. I hated the rules changes that much (and the Pirates would have had 40 of 60 games blacked out in Iowa). I’ll say it again...want to lure young fans? End blackouts. Make games affordable. Don’t charge $12.50 for a hot dog and $18.99 for a beer. And give all fans hope that their team can win the World Series one day.


Another terrific post with well-made points. I don't think I'd be much of a fan by now if the Pirates were an AL team. The AL game just isn't as interesting, nor does it promote anticipation while watching, which is a big part of the game for me.

Exactly how much can anyone....anticipate....about .131 "hitters?"



I anticipate an out.



So do NL managers, which is exactly the reason that they are willing to walk the .240-hitting 8th man to get to them.



Some anticipation.

As much as I cringe when Bell has to catch or throw a ball, I still like the NL game (and former AL game too) where if you like someone's bat enough, you find a place for them on the field and hope the offense more than makes up for the defense. It's the idea that if you bat, you play the field and vice versa, warts and all. Dick Stuart, Dick Allen, Frank Howard, Jose Canseco, Bobby Bonilla, Lonnie Smith, Pedro Guerrero are a few players who had to be hidden somewhere on the field because their hitting was needed. It's messy but part of the game (or should be). It also effects who plays next to them in the field, as a player with no range needs someone close by with plenty of it. And it effects whether you leave that bat in the lineup late in the game and risk a defensive liability. Remember how Pedro Alvarez had to be lifted late in games and wasn't even put in the 2015 WC game until the bottom of the 3rd in order to keep him off the field until his spot in the batting order came up.



Or, you can have a DH and forget all that and just put the guy in the dugout except for when he bats. No need to make a manager think. Nice and tidy but doesn't really make logical sense in the overall scheme of the game. The DH removes some of the thinking out of the game. For fans who enjoy the nuances of the game instead of just watching sluggers slug, that's not a good thing.

Ster,



I don't think that final line's an accurate description.  It's certainly not the case for me.  I hear that a lot, though.



It's not that I enjoy "watching sluggers slug"  I enjoy watching the best pitchers face the best hitters- or, even good vs. good. It's better competition than seeng run of the mill pitching vs. even less impressive (.131, on average) at bat as a bottom-rung job responsibility.



When I saved money while I wasn't making any just do go see Nolan Ryan pitch, I wanted to see him pitch.  I didn't want to see him bunt (another about as predictable aspect of NL "management strategy" as predictable gets.)  I didn't want to see him yanked unless he was having a bad day.  I like watching the best players play.  I didn't want to see some bench dud going in there to replace one of the best pitchers of all time.  I'm a fan who enjoys seeing stars shine.



It goes well beyond just "sluggers slugging."

Some people like the DH, some don't like the DH, some don't care if there is a DH in the game they are watching or not.



Each has their reasons. I love reading them. I think some of them are fallacies, rooted in the theoretical and hypothetical instead of the actual and analytical. There's a lot of research not being done to back up beliefs, so to speak.



But the one that always gets me is "traditionalist". I've always bristled at the usage of that word.



Listen, if you are a lover of the no DH, National League brand of baseball based upon what you feel occurs during a game, great. Same with those that love the DH.



But please, quit using "I'm a traditionalist" as a defense for your position.



No one is a "traditionalist". You can't even define what makes one a traditionalist. If a pro and anti DH baseball fan both love day games played on the grass, "like they used to" are they both traditionalists?



Some old dead guy dug up and revived from 1919 might wonder what kind of baseball fan are you, watching all these guys playing with a ball as hard as a rock. That just makes everyone slug for the fences and takes strategy out of the game.



Let's go even further back, when that baseball fan from the 1868 wonders how that 1919 dude could even stand to watch a game that now employs "professionals". Wasn't this just a game? After all, once you bring money into the game, it's just going to lead to corruption.



You can all argue strategy till you're blue in the face. Your own personal reasons and examples are relevant, if only because you so dearly believe them, even if some of them are incorrect.



But stop playing the "traditionalist" card. If you were such a traditionalist, you would have quit watching baseball completely in 1973 (Me, the former militant anti-DH fan). Or 1919 . Or 1869 (Doc Hamp).



https://sabr.org/journal/article/the-hi ... tter-rule/

Hell, Doc's still recovering from when they reduced the number of balls needed to walk a guy to only eight.