765B56474051460605340 wrote: I see Oriole games too and the DH just ruins the game. You add a big thumper to the middle of the order who just shows up to bat but doesn't have a position, eliminate the value of good hitting pitchers, eliminate the strategy of either pitching around a hitter to get to the pitcher or trying to get the #8 hitter out to have the pitcher lead off the next inning, and eliminate the strategy of whether or not to PH for an effective pitcher in a close game. The DH is also an extra tool for big spending teams to pay for that additional big bat beyond the offense they get from their position players.
Good summary, Bob. One other thing: if the NL adopts the DH, the Pirates will simply use their fourth outfielder to fill the role. No way will the team sign a big thumper for the job, like the Dodgers, Cubs, Phillies, etc, will do. It'll put the club even further back of the serious competitors.
That's what I was saying, Doc. The DH is like an option on a new car. You can go for the delux version or opt for the cheaper one. It's just another way that distances big money teams from small market teams. As it is now, AL teams have the advantage in their home interdivision games because even the small market AL teams have someone especially to DH while the NL teams pick someone off the bench.
You've got my vote if you want to run for Baseball Czar.
Possible start to season in May-
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Possible start to season in May-
755855444352450506370 wrote: Before they decide to expand, they'll have to assess how profitable teams are in the post-pandemic era. Will attendance be permanently effected by fear of being in large crowds? And if attendance wanes, will it also reduce overall interest in the game which would effect merchandise sales and TV viewership? Maybe things will get back to normal in a year or 2. But I think those questions have to be answered before expansion is considered.
In addition, owners were already finding more difficult to get public subsidies for new stadiums.
After the pandemic? Billionaires are going to have a hard time asking for millions of taxpayer money.
I understand why MLB is considering this crazy plan. But if they do it I really hope it doesn't end with an official World Series title. Everything about the year would be so different from a normal, or even shortened, season.
In addition, owners were already finding more difficult to get public subsidies for new stadiums.
After the pandemic? Billionaires are going to have a hard time asking for millions of taxpayer money.
I understand why MLB is considering this crazy plan. But if they do it I really hope it doesn't end with an official World Series title. Everything about the year would be so different from a normal, or even shortened, season.
Possible start to season in May-
I understand the sentiments about the DH. I don't like the DH but not for a lot of the reasons most have presented. It wasn't a position in the game I learned to play. That's it, pure and simple.
The fact is, many of you DH haters, you do realize that not only are you for the most part seeing NL baseball with the DH, but an even worse version of it? Hear me out on this.
How long does the average starter go in today's game? And how long has it been that way, with the specialized bullpens? It's nothing to do with strategy when pulling a pitcher, it has everything to do with it's by the book managing. What strategy? You're talking about when pitchers were going 7-9 innings routinely. I'll give you strategy there.
Now? You know a guy is going into the 6th, and if he finishes it, for most starters that's a bonus. Where the pitcher hits is irrelevant. He's being replaced, and eventually his replacement, and his replacement, and his replacement will be pinch hit for. By who?
The guys you love to complain about most. The Sean Rodriguezes, the Brian Bixlers, the (insert end of the bench player here) guys who are lucky to be substitutes in the first place. And what else have we learned through all of this? That some of the pitchers end up being used as pinch hitters.
Guys, hate to clue you in on this, but 75-85 percent of all NL games ARE using the DH, with the exception of one or two at bats. There is no magical strategy being used. When the pitcher is on deck with two outs, you know 99 percent of the time what each manager is going to do depending on what the situation is. And more times than not, this is occurring in the 6th inning.
Hardly the stuff of days of yore. It's why I am okay with the NL bringing on the DH if they do, but I'm okay if things stay the status quo.
But I'm not against the DH for those other reasons. Everyone knows the NL would have had the DH back in 1980 had the Phillies owner have been able to have been reached, and it's well documented.
It's simply that if there had been a DH when I was playing, I would have relished being in that spot, because that was all I was able to do, was hit fairly good. But there wasn't, so I like seeing guys have no business on a ML diamond other than they are specialists too. Like as a PR, a PH, a glove guy.
If the guys playing out in the field can be one trick ponies, why not a guy at bat?
The fact is, many of you DH haters, you do realize that not only are you for the most part seeing NL baseball with the DH, but an even worse version of it? Hear me out on this.
How long does the average starter go in today's game? And how long has it been that way, with the specialized bullpens? It's nothing to do with strategy when pulling a pitcher, it has everything to do with it's by the book managing. What strategy? You're talking about when pitchers were going 7-9 innings routinely. I'll give you strategy there.
Now? You know a guy is going into the 6th, and if he finishes it, for most starters that's a bonus. Where the pitcher hits is irrelevant. He's being replaced, and eventually his replacement, and his replacement, and his replacement will be pinch hit for. By who?
The guys you love to complain about most. The Sean Rodriguezes, the Brian Bixlers, the (insert end of the bench player here) guys who are lucky to be substitutes in the first place. And what else have we learned through all of this? That some of the pitchers end up being used as pinch hitters.
Guys, hate to clue you in on this, but 75-85 percent of all NL games ARE using the DH, with the exception of one or two at bats. There is no magical strategy being used. When the pitcher is on deck with two outs, you know 99 percent of the time what each manager is going to do depending on what the situation is. And more times than not, this is occurring in the 6th inning.
Hardly the stuff of days of yore. It's why I am okay with the NL bringing on the DH if they do, but I'm okay if things stay the status quo.
But I'm not against the DH for those other reasons. Everyone knows the NL would have had the DH back in 1980 had the Phillies owner have been able to have been reached, and it's well documented.
It's simply that if there had been a DH when I was playing, I would have relished being in that spot, because that was all I was able to do, was hit fairly good. But there wasn't, so I like seeing guys have no business on a ML diamond other than they are specialists too. Like as a PR, a PH, a glove guy.
If the guys playing out in the field can be one trick ponies, why not a guy at bat?
-
Bobster21
Possible start to season in May-
7A5C5B4E474B5C4A42290 wrote: I understand the sentiments about the DH. I don't like the DH but not for a lot of the reasons most have presented. It wasn't a position in the game I learned to play. That's it, pure and simple.
The fact is, many of you DH haters, you do realize that not only are you for the most part seeing NL baseball with the DH, but an even worse version of it? Hear me out on this.
How long does the average starter go in today's game? And how long has it been that way, with the specialized bullpens? It's nothing to do with strategy when pulling a pitcher, it has everything to do with it's by the book managing. What strategy? You're talking about when pitchers were going 7-9 innings routinely. I'll give you strategy there.
Now? You know a guy is going into the 6th, and if he finishes it, for most starters that's a bonus. Where the pitcher hits is irrelevant. He's being replaced, and eventually his replacement, and his replacement, and his replacement will be pinch hit for. By who?
The guys you love to complain about most. The Sean Rodriguezes, the Brian Bixlers, the (insert end of the bench player here) guys who are lucky to be substitutes in the first place. And what else have we learned through all of this? That some of the pitchers end up being used as pinch hitters.
Guys, hate to clue you in on this, but 75-85 percent of all NL games ARE using the DH, with the exception of one or two at bats. There is no magical strategy being used. When the pitcher is on deck with two outs, you know 99 percent of the time what each manager is going to do depending on what the situation is. And more times than not, this is occurring in the 6th inning.
Hardly the stuff of days of yore. It's why I am okay with the NL bringing on the DH if they do, but I'm okay if things stay the status quo.
But I'm not against the DH for those other reasons. Everyone knows the NL would have had the DH back in 1980 had the Phillies owner have been able to have been reached, and it's well documented.
It's simply that if there had been a DH when I was playing, I would have relished being in that spot, because that was all I was able to do, was hit fairly good. But there wasn't, so I like seeing guys have no business on a ML diamond other than they are specialists too. Like as a PR, a PH, a glove guy.
If the guys playing out in the field can be one trick ponies, why not a guy at bat?
It's true that pitch counts now essentially eliminate deciding whether to PH for a pitcher in the late innings or not. That strategy has been replaced by the strategy of the double switch to leave the PHer in the game and remove someone else. But there remains a big difference between pinch hitting with someone off the bench and adding a power hitting DH in the middle of the lineup from the beginning of the game. I just can't buy the idea that pinch-hitting equates to using the DH.
The fact is, many of you DH haters, you do realize that not only are you for the most part seeing NL baseball with the DH, but an even worse version of it? Hear me out on this.
How long does the average starter go in today's game? And how long has it been that way, with the specialized bullpens? It's nothing to do with strategy when pulling a pitcher, it has everything to do with it's by the book managing. What strategy? You're talking about when pitchers were going 7-9 innings routinely. I'll give you strategy there.
Now? You know a guy is going into the 6th, and if he finishes it, for most starters that's a bonus. Where the pitcher hits is irrelevant. He's being replaced, and eventually his replacement, and his replacement, and his replacement will be pinch hit for. By who?
The guys you love to complain about most. The Sean Rodriguezes, the Brian Bixlers, the (insert end of the bench player here) guys who are lucky to be substitutes in the first place. And what else have we learned through all of this? That some of the pitchers end up being used as pinch hitters.
Guys, hate to clue you in on this, but 75-85 percent of all NL games ARE using the DH, with the exception of one or two at bats. There is no magical strategy being used. When the pitcher is on deck with two outs, you know 99 percent of the time what each manager is going to do depending on what the situation is. And more times than not, this is occurring in the 6th inning.
Hardly the stuff of days of yore. It's why I am okay with the NL bringing on the DH if they do, but I'm okay if things stay the status quo.
But I'm not against the DH for those other reasons. Everyone knows the NL would have had the DH back in 1980 had the Phillies owner have been able to have been reached, and it's well documented.
It's simply that if there had been a DH when I was playing, I would have relished being in that spot, because that was all I was able to do, was hit fairly good. But there wasn't, so I like seeing guys have no business on a ML diamond other than they are specialists too. Like as a PR, a PH, a glove guy.
If the guys playing out in the field can be one trick ponies, why not a guy at bat?
It's true that pitch counts now essentially eliminate deciding whether to PH for a pitcher in the late innings or not. That strategy has been replaced by the strategy of the double switch to leave the PHer in the game and remove someone else. But there remains a big difference between pinch hitting with someone off the bench and adding a power hitting DH in the middle of the lineup from the beginning of the game. I just can't buy the idea that pinch-hitting equates to using the DH.
Possible start to season in May-
Bobster, if the pitchers aren't hitting like the anti-DH people want, then what exactly is the difference? The "good hitting pitcher" argument is irrelevant, because he's only getting 2 AB at most in a game.
There really isn't any difference, other than in one league the guy who hits instead of a pitcher can actually hit in a major league game where the guy in the other league is a platoon/bench player.
Let's face it, in the NL, most of the AB's NOT taken by pitchers in a game, are by guys who are almost as much as an automatic out as the pitcher. With the absence of the so called strategy, and I mean that oh so brilliant double switch we all know is coming and when, NL fans actually see the game rapidly degrade in many ways once the starter is removed so early.
Just my opinion.
There really isn't any difference, other than in one league the guy who hits instead of a pitcher can actually hit in a major league game where the guy in the other league is a platoon/bench player.
Let's face it, in the NL, most of the AB's NOT taken by pitchers in a game, are by guys who are almost as much as an automatic out as the pitcher. With the absence of the so called strategy, and I mean that oh so brilliant double switch we all know is coming and when, NL fans actually see the game rapidly degrade in many ways once the starter is removed so early.
Just my opinion.
Possible start to season in May-
This is a way too premature question, but should Cherington be thinking about DHing Josh Bell to increase his trade value?
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Possible start to season in May-
45636471787463757D160 wrote: Bobster, if the pitchers aren't hitting like the anti-DH people want, then what exactly is the difference? The "good hitting pitcher" argument is irrelevant, because he's only getting 2 AB at most in a game.
There really isn't any difference, other than in one league the guy who hits instead of a pitcher can actually hit in a major league game where the guy in the other league is a platoon/bench player.
Let's face it, in the NL, most of the AB's NOT taken by pitchers in a game, are by guys who are almost as much as an automatic out as the pitcher. With the absence of the so called strategy, and I mean that oh so brilliant double switch we all know is coming and when, NL fans actually see the game rapidly degrade in many ways once the starter is removed so early.
Just my opinion.
Aside from the arguments against the DH that have been listed in this thread, the main reason I oppose the DH is that having one runs counter to one of baseball's great tenets, that a regular player has to be able to both hit and play defense. If he's not good enough to play defense, then his manager has a strategic decision to make: take a chance and play him or start another guy who can't hit as well but is an improvement in the field. That's a very important strategic decision.
There really isn't any difference, other than in one league the guy who hits instead of a pitcher can actually hit in a major league game where the guy in the other league is a platoon/bench player.
Let's face it, in the NL, most of the AB's NOT taken by pitchers in a game, are by guys who are almost as much as an automatic out as the pitcher. With the absence of the so called strategy, and I mean that oh so brilliant double switch we all know is coming and when, NL fans actually see the game rapidly degrade in many ways once the starter is removed so early.
Just my opinion.
Aside from the arguments against the DH that have been listed in this thread, the main reason I oppose the DH is that having one runs counter to one of baseball's great tenets, that a regular player has to be able to both hit and play defense. If he's not good enough to play defense, then his manager has a strategic decision to make: take a chance and play him or start another guy who can't hit as well but is an improvement in the field. That's a very important strategic decision.
Possible start to season in May-
6A4C4B5E575B4C5A52390 wrote: Bobster, if the pitchers aren't hitting like the anti-DH people want, then what exactly is the difference? The "good hitting pitcher" argument is irrelevant, because he's only getting 2 AB at most in a game.
There really isn't any difference, other than in one league the guy who hits instead of a pitcher can actually hit in a major league game where the guy in the other league is a platoon/bench player.
Let's face it, in the NL, most of the AB's NOT taken by pitchers in a game, are by guys who are almost as much as an automatic out as the pitcher. With the absence of the so called strategy, and I mean that oh so brilliant double switch we all know is coming and when, NL fans actually see the game rapidly degrade in many ways once the starter is removed so early.
Just my opinion.
looking through the AL lineups for 2019 on Baseball reference,about half the teams had a dh that played most of the time.
6 of 15 last year had a player dh at least 90 times.
J.D. Martinez 107 games
Renato Nunez 110
Nelson Cruz 114
Jorge Solar 107
Miguel Carbrera 107
Yordan Alvarez 74
Khris Davis 123
Shin-Soo Choo 62
Shohei Ohtani 92
Daniel Vogelbach 81
much different than 1973 when there were:
8 of 12 teams had someone dh more than 100 times.
Orlando Cepada 142
Tommy Davis 128
Jim Ray Hart 106
Carlos May 75
Oscar Gamble 70
Gates Brown 118 (and Frank Howard 76)
Tony Oliva 142
Frank Robinson 127
Deron Johnson 107
Alex Johnson 116
In 1973 teams had an over the hill player that couldn't play in the field anymore (Davis, Cepeda, Oliva, Robinson, Johnson, Hart) while few teams do that anymore (last year Nelson Cruz, Cabrera,Khris Davis) and instead divide the spot up.
It seems like the decision on whether to leave a pitcher in or pinch hit doesn't come up much in the NL. If it is 6th inning or later he is taken out. Larger bullpens have taken much of the pinch hitting strategy away as have pinch counts. In 1973 pitching staffs were usually just 10. Now there are usually at least 12.
It will be interesting to see what the 3 batter rule does to pitching staffs.
There really isn't any difference, other than in one league the guy who hits instead of a pitcher can actually hit in a major league game where the guy in the other league is a platoon/bench player.
Let's face it, in the NL, most of the AB's NOT taken by pitchers in a game, are by guys who are almost as much as an automatic out as the pitcher. With the absence of the so called strategy, and I mean that oh so brilliant double switch we all know is coming and when, NL fans actually see the game rapidly degrade in many ways once the starter is removed so early.
Just my opinion.
looking through the AL lineups for 2019 on Baseball reference,about half the teams had a dh that played most of the time.
6 of 15 last year had a player dh at least 90 times.
J.D. Martinez 107 games
Renato Nunez 110
Nelson Cruz 114
Jorge Solar 107
Miguel Carbrera 107
Yordan Alvarez 74
Khris Davis 123
Shin-Soo Choo 62
Shohei Ohtani 92
Daniel Vogelbach 81
much different than 1973 when there were:
8 of 12 teams had someone dh more than 100 times.
Orlando Cepada 142
Tommy Davis 128
Jim Ray Hart 106
Carlos May 75
Oscar Gamble 70
Gates Brown 118 (and Frank Howard 76)
Tony Oliva 142
Frank Robinson 127
Deron Johnson 107
Alex Johnson 116
In 1973 teams had an over the hill player that couldn't play in the field anymore (Davis, Cepeda, Oliva, Robinson, Johnson, Hart) while few teams do that anymore (last year Nelson Cruz, Cabrera,Khris Davis) and instead divide the spot up.
It seems like the decision on whether to leave a pitcher in or pinch hit doesn't come up much in the NL. If it is 6th inning or later he is taken out. Larger bullpens have taken much of the pinch hitting strategy away as have pinch counts. In 1973 pitching staffs were usually just 10. Now there are usually at least 12.
It will be interesting to see what the 3 batter rule does to pitching staffs.
Possible start to season in May-
5D76645E766B7A707C5F7C717C130 wrote: JMTC, but I think this idea is absurd. I think I’d rather they cancel the season than go down this road. Of course, I’m still up in arms about the three batter minimum. But whatevs...regardless, I don’t like this idea a bit. I think it’s wrought with problems.
Got a better idea, that is besides no baseball?
To be perfectly honest with you, yes, I’d rather see no baseball. I hate the DH, and I like the divisions as currently structured. I don’t want to see a gimmick season be the impetus for implementing permanent changes.
As it relates to the pandemic, a vaccine isn’t a 100% guarantee. The flu vaccine doesn’t come close to 100% effectiveness. Eventually, they’re going to have to transition to some semblance of normalcy. The reality is, most if not all of us are eventually going to get COVID-19. We have 500,000 cases in the US. Sounds like a lot. But it’s approximately 0.1524% of the population of the entire country. Let’s say 10x that amount actually have it. You’re still barely over 1%. In other words, 98.5% of the population, even at a magnitude greater than currently confirmed, don’t have the virus. I’m reading conflicting reports, but some are saying once you’ve had it, you’re immune, some are saying just the opposite. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that once you get it, you’re immune. That doesn’t change how contagious it is, or that you can spread it asymptomatically, supposedly. So, what are the other 98.5% of people supposed to do ad infinitum?
The reality is, this thing isn’t magically going away. It’s probably going to be here permanently. So, we as a society need to figure out how to live with it. Because if you think I’m going to live the rest of my life not shaking hands, hugging my parents and loved ones, not visiting people who are important to me, not going to sporting events, you’re crazy. Now, I realize YOU'RE not personally saying any of this. I kind of used this post to get out some other thoughts I have on this whole situation.
If the objective is to “flatten the curve,” the logical question is, “Until when?” Because the number of people contracting the virus each day isn’t even keeping up with the birth rate. In other words, if the goal is to slow the spread to the point where we develop a herd immunity without overwhelming hospitals, we're actually losing ground because more babies were born today in American than there are people who contracted the virus.
Sorry...lots of random thoughts from me tonight.
Got a better idea, that is besides no baseball?
To be perfectly honest with you, yes, I’d rather see no baseball. I hate the DH, and I like the divisions as currently structured. I don’t want to see a gimmick season be the impetus for implementing permanent changes.
As it relates to the pandemic, a vaccine isn’t a 100% guarantee. The flu vaccine doesn’t come close to 100% effectiveness. Eventually, they’re going to have to transition to some semblance of normalcy. The reality is, most if not all of us are eventually going to get COVID-19. We have 500,000 cases in the US. Sounds like a lot. But it’s approximately 0.1524% of the population of the entire country. Let’s say 10x that amount actually have it. You’re still barely over 1%. In other words, 98.5% of the population, even at a magnitude greater than currently confirmed, don’t have the virus. I’m reading conflicting reports, but some are saying once you’ve had it, you’re immune, some are saying just the opposite. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that once you get it, you’re immune. That doesn’t change how contagious it is, or that you can spread it asymptomatically, supposedly. So, what are the other 98.5% of people supposed to do ad infinitum?
The reality is, this thing isn’t magically going away. It’s probably going to be here permanently. So, we as a society need to figure out how to live with it. Because if you think I’m going to live the rest of my life not shaking hands, hugging my parents and loved ones, not visiting people who are important to me, not going to sporting events, you’re crazy. Now, I realize YOU'RE not personally saying any of this. I kind of used this post to get out some other thoughts I have on this whole situation.
If the objective is to “flatten the curve,” the logical question is, “Until when?” Because the number of people contracting the virus each day isn’t even keeping up with the birth rate. In other words, if the goal is to slow the spread to the point where we develop a herd immunity without overwhelming hospitals, we're actually losing ground because more babies were born today in American than there are people who contracted the virus.
Sorry...lots of random thoughts from me tonight.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Possible start to season in May-
Nobody has died because of changes instituted by MLB. The world didn't come to an end when they made divisional changes, and it won't end the next time.
So, I don't care what decisions they make. It's still a matter of one guy at bat trying to get a hit against some pitcher and eight teammates who try to get him out.
The choice they gave me is to either wait eight months to watch baseball or to wait 18 months.
I'll chose eight months.
Batter up. Play ball!
So, I don't care what decisions they make. It's still a matter of one guy at bat trying to get a hit against some pitcher and eight teammates who try to get him out.
The choice they gave me is to either wait eight months to watch baseball or to wait 18 months.
I'll chose eight months.
Batter up. Play ball!