DH..What do you think?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : We have different interpretations of what constitutes "a complete player ". I believe the Twins felt Papi wasn't one, which is why we have two rings. Positions of the field play largely to body type. Short stops have to be agile, so you don't find many who are sluggers. Same can be said for 2nd base and CF. DH's are DH's for a reason. They play baseball - they hit. It's the most difficult facet of the game. I agree with you that pitchers could hit better if they played on a daily basis, but then they wouldn't be pitchers. Their focus is getting hitters out. The N.L. pitchers get 3 AB every 5 games. Their hitting has little impact overall. If you think DH's aren't legit ballplayers because they don't field, then A.L. pitchers aren't either because they don't hit...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    You can't bring Papi into this because I said the rules should be changed after he retires. I'm not ready to say goodbye to Papi. :)

    No one's talking about legit baseball players. The rules are what the rules are now. My preference, in the future, would be everyone plays the field, and everyone bats. That's about as simple as I can put it. It's baseball, and everyone on the team should play baseball.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : You can't bring Papi into this because I said the rules should be changed after he retires. I'm not ready to say goodbye to Papi. :) No one's talking about legit baseball players. The rules are what the rules are now. My preference, in the future, would be everyone plays the field, and everyone bats. That's about as simple as I can put it. It's baseball, and everyone on the team should play baseball.
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]

    You said: "If you can't play baseball, except to slam HRs, then, IMO, you shouldn't be playing baseball".
     
    Doesn't this mean that such players are not "legit"?

    This comes down to interpretation, Kim. The DH is a part of baseball and has been for 37-38 years! The game has evolved. Some prefer it as it once was, but that's relative to the game they grew up with.

    Remember, the game used to be played with inferior gloves - and ground-rule doubles of today were called home-runs in Babe Ruth's era.

    Those who DH can play the field. Many aren't all that great in the field, but they played at least one position before becoming a DH. That means they are complete ballplayers who are assigned to DH by their manager.

    Vlad is now a DH. But if he had his choice, he'd rather play on the field. Most would. That's how they grew with the game. And he hits more than HRs. In fact, he's a very possible HOFer.

    If it's the rule itself you don't care for, then it either comes down to playing N.L. style ball, or the rules change and the DH becomes a 4th outfielder, which could be dangerous for everybody. IMO, after seeing the DH for so long, I'd hate to see the A.L. revert back to small ball. It'd be like watching the RedSox right now, without Papi or someone just as potent.

    162 games of that. Boooooooooooring.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : I don't think you understood my post. I realize some sluggers have no business being on the field, that's my point. If you can't play baseball, except to slam some HRs, then, IMO, you shouldn't be playing baseball. It's not about compensation. The game is baseball. Also, if pitchers were hitting on an everyday basis, they wouldn't have such low batting averages.
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]

    Kim, you ar absolutely right. Players should be able to play both offense and defense. We have position players who can mash but are weak defensively and conversely, have defensive wizards who hit around the Mendoza line, so Harness' argument is weak.
    The same 9 who take the field should be the same nine who step in the box.
    This is not softball. Shall we insert a short fielder or have a courtesy runner as well?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]I think it should be switched. When an AL team visits an NL park they should use the DH. Conversely, when an NL team visits an AL park the pitchers should bat. That would give fans of each league something different to see.
    Posted by antibody[/QUOTE]

    excellent compromise - I like it!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from eggplants. Show eggplants's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

                              I think our struggles against the NL teams this year is due to our roster inflexibility. Last year we ran a platoon of VMART,Youk, Lowell, Lars Anderson through the 1B position, We ran a Vmart - Tek platoon behind the plate. We ran DMAC, Nava, Kalish etc. in LF. When we signed A-Gon an Crawford all that ended. We lost the switch hitting V-mart to FA. We're sort of locked in now to these positions. With these (2) new additions we're a better team both sides of the ball. With CC hurt the reserve guy should have been Kalish because he's a left handed thrower. But because Kalish is hurt we had to go to Reddick who is better suited to RF. Reddick has played LF O.K. so far, but his bat is what will keep him playing and when CC comes back JR will probably move to RF for some games. Also, the NL teams we've played seem to be a lot quicker on the infield defense than the RS. That kid at SS for the Pirates was great against us this past weekend.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeNagy. Show MikeNagy's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Kim, you ar absolutely right. Players should be able to play both offense and defense. We have position players who can mash but are weak defensively and conversely, have defensive wizards who hit around the Mendoza line, so Harness' argument is weak. The same 9 who take the field should be the same nine who step in the box. This is not softball. Shall we insert a short fielder or have a courtesy runner as well?
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    Agree on the DH. It takes too much strategy out of the game. A lot of semi-fans thought the game was boring and wanted to see more runs, like when they beefed up the ball.

    The only plus is that it's a haven for older players to hang around the game longer.

    I remember seeing Sonny Siebert hit a two run home run and beat the Washington Senators 2 to 1 while pitching for the sox.

    He hit .266 with 6 home runs and 15 rbis in his 32 starts in 1971.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Agree on the DH. It takes too much strategy out of the game. A lot of semi-fans thought the game was boring and wanted to see more runs, like when they beefed up the ball. The only plus is that it's a haven for older players to hang around the game longer. I remember seeing Sonny Seibert hit a two run home run and beat the Washington Senators 2 to 1 while pitching for the sox. He hit .266 with 6 home runs and 15 rbis in his 32 starts.
    Posted by MikeNagy[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I posted on a similar thread about Drysdale's hitting, Osteen as well. Koufax wasn't a good hitter but most pitchers before the DH could hit pretty well simply because they worked at it and wanted to contribute.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Agree on the DH. It takes too much strategy out of the game. A lot of semi-fans thought the game was boring and wanted to see more runs, like when they beefed up the ball. The only plus is that it's a haven for older players to hang around the game longer. I remember seeing Sonny Siebert hit a two run home run and beat the Washington Senators 2 to 1 while pitching for the sox. He hit .266 with 6 home runs and 15 rbis in his 32 starts in 1971.
    Posted by MikeNagy[/QUOTE]

    I'm not going to belabor the strategy point again. I've posted about it already on this thread. Needless to say, I feel that argument is overblown today.

    As for allowing older players to hang around the game longer. Maybe. But it can also give younger players a chance to play earlier. 

    For example in 1975, either Rice or Cooper likely wouldn't have been on the team had their not been a DH. Or certainly, one of them wouldn't have played as much.

    Eddie Murray won the Rookie of the Year basically as a DH in 1977 because the Orioles had Lee May at 1B. Because of May, Murray might have had to wait another year before getting his chance.

    You really don't know. Sure, often times the older player will go to DH because that spot is there, and it opens a position spot for the younger guy. But w/o the DH, that younger guy might have to wait longer for his chance.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ALaGatorAL. Show ALaGatorAL's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]Having lived 40 years in Boston  much without the DH and  20 in Atlanta   I prefer  no DH. The game is faster,  there is more strategy and by far less desire to sit back and wait for the home run.
    Posted by jackyldo[/QUOTE]


     I'm against anything that would require Tito using more strategy !! Let's leave his "strategy" calls to which way he rolls up his already chewed bubblegum !!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Yeah, I posted on a similar thread about Drysdale's hitting, Osteen as well. Koufax wasn't a good hitter but most pitchers before the DH could hit pretty well simply because they worked at it and wanted to contribute.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    So most pitchers before the DH could hit pretty well simply because they worked at it and wanted to contribute? Really?

    Most pitchers before the DH ate pastrami sandwiches on the day they pitched because they needed more energy to swing the bat. See, I can throw out any old statement too and pretend it's true.

    So let's look at facts.

    In the past 10 years, NL pitchers batted about .143. In the 10 years prior to the DH, AL pitchers hit about .140 and NL pitchers hit .142. Pretty close if you ask me.

    Different eras, you say? I'm way ahead of you.

    The NL league batting average from 2001-2010 was .261. That means pitchers hit about 118 points worse than league average.

    From 1963 to 1972, the AL league average was .242 and the NL league average was .250. That means AL pitchers hit 102 points below league average and NL pitcher hit about 108 points worse.

    So as a whole, pitchers in the 10 years prior to the DH hit about 105 points worse than the league average, a difference of just 13 points compared to the last 10 years in the NL. 

    So if the pitchers of that period hit today and had that same 105-point difference, they'd hit .156 over the last 10 years (league average .261) instead of .143. Wow, big difference. Gee, just think what they'd hit if they didn't want to contribute.

    Here's the year-by-year breakdown going backward:
    NL 2010-2001
    Pitches-League
    .143-.255
    .138-.259
    .140-260
    .146-.266
    .132-.265
    .150-.262
    .146-.263
    .144-.262
    .148-.259
    .145-.261
    Average
    .143-.261

    1972-1963
    AL
    .145-.239
    .145-.247
    .145-.250
    .140-.246
    .131-.230
    .138-236
    .143-240
    .127-.242
    .141-247
    .149-.247
    Average
    .140-.242

    NL
    .147-.248
    .152-.252
    .146-.258
    .139-.250
    .135-243
    .137-.249
    .155-.256
    .138-.249
    .135-254
    .133-245
    Average
    .142-.250
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ALaGatorAL. Show ALaGatorAL's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

     I totally disagree with this whole thread and Think there should be more speacialization in baseball, similar to football. I would love to see each team have two or three Dh's and 2 0r three designated fielders !! Better offense and better defense all around. The only thing that matters about the "complete" player may be the hall of fame. I'm guessing the players union would agree to that !! LOL
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxdawg08. Show soxdawg08's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    I don't know how relevant is is to today's debate, but in the initial dicussions about adoption of the DH, it was left to each league as to whether to OK it or not. The AL obviously went with it. The NL, with its more conservative, "purist" approach to tradition, nixed the idea. In past years, the NL's attitude as the so-called "Senior Circuit", was one of superiority to the AL. I'm not sure that this feeling still persists among NLers. 

    Personally, I feel the DH is good for the game.   
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    I've never liked the DH.  But I love me some Big Papi.  Soo,

    Long Live the DH.  The DH IS Dead.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Kim, you ar absolutely right. Players should be able to play both offense and defense. We have position players who can mash but are weak defensively and conversely, have defensive wizards who hit around the Mendoza line, so Harness' argument is weak. The same 9 who take the field should be the same nine who step in the box. This is not softball. Shall we insert a short fielder or have a courtesy runner as well?
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    Thanks Ike. I'd have been worried with your endorsement.

    Now, try reading Roy's well-researched post. Always good to research a point before sticking UR foot in UR mouth.

    As I said before, watching pitchers hit .140 is booooooooooooooring.
    We already have this privilege with Mac. You want more of it?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : You said: "If you can't play baseball, except to slam HRs, then, IMO, you shouldn't be playing baseball".   Doesn't this mean that such players are not " legit "? This comes down to interpretation, Kim . The DH is a part of baseball and has been for 37-38 years! The game has evolved. Some prefer it as it once was, but that's relative to the game they grew up with. Remember, the game used to be played with inferior gloves - and ground-rule doubles of today were called home-runs in Babe Ruth's era. Those who DH can play the field. Many aren't all that great in the field, but they played at least one position before becoming a DH. That means they are complete ballplayers who are assigned to DH by their manager. Vlad is now a DH. But if he had his choice, he'd rather play on the field. Most would. That's how they grew with the game. And he hits more than HRs. In fact, he's a very possible HOFer. If it's the rule itself you don't care for, then it either comes down to playing N.L. style ball, or the rules change and the DH becomes a 4th outfielder, which could be dangerous for everybody. IMO, after seeing the DH for so long, I'd hate to see the A.L. revert back to small ball. It'd be like watching the RedSox right now, without Papi or someone just as potent. 162 games of that. Boooooooooooring.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Actually, I didn't grow up with either a DH or no DH. I am a female, and really didn't have much to do with baseball growing up. Even though I went to games, I don't remember paying any attention to whether or not the pitcher was batting or not. I really didn't pay much attention to any of the small details of the game, just the big plays to be honest. So, the theory that it's what you grew up with doesn't hold. It's really just my opinion about the game, and how I thought it was played.

    As for the idea that it's boring without the DH, what would you consider to be more exciting...hitting a homerun to tie the game, or having a player walk, steal second, and then a shot up the middle to tie the game?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Actually, I didn't grow up with either a DH or no DH. I am a female, and really didn't have much to do with baseball growing up. Even though I went to games, I don't remember paying any attention to whether or not the pitcher was batting or not. I really didn't pay much attention to any of the small details of the game, just the big plays to be honest. So, the theory that it's what you grew up with doesn't hold. It's really just my opinion about the game, and how I thought it was played. As for the idea that it's boring without the DH, what would you consider to be more exciting...hitting a homerun to tie the game, or having a player walk, steal second, and then a shot up the middle to tie the game?
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]

    Personally, I'll take either, so long as Boston is on the right side of it!
    I do believe players walk, steal 2nd, and score in the A.L.rather frequently. See CRAWBURY.

    Question: Would you enjoy seeing weaker line-ups, the #8 hitter constantly being pitched around...to get to .140 hitting pitchers - 162 times a year?


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : Personally, I'll take either, so long as Boston is on the right side of it! I do believe players walk, steal 2nd, and score in the A.L. rather frequently. See CRAWBURY. Question: Would you enjoy seeing weaker line-ups, the #8 hitter constantly being pitched around...to get to .140 hitting pitchers - 162 times a year?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Like I said to you in another post, I don't believe pitchers would be that bad at the plate if they had to bat. They could even be better than some of the players that don't pitch. How would you know in the AL?

    FTR I enjoy the small moments of the game. The simple things that make all the difference in the end. Like the example in my post -- that's just more exciting to me. Even if a DH gets up and hits a homerun, isn't that what he's kind of expected to do? Is it really as exciting as something unexpected happening?  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: DH..What do you think?

    In Response to Re: DH..What do you think?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DH..What do you think? : So most pitchers before the DH could hit pretty well simply because they worked at it and wanted to contribute? Really? Most pitchers before the DH ate pastrami sandwiches on the day they pitched because they needed more energy to swing the bat. See, I can throw out any old statement too and pretend it's true. So let's look at facts. In the past 10 years, NL pitchers batted about .143. In the 10 years prior to the DH, AL pitchers hit about .140 and NL pitchers hit .142. Pretty close if you ask me. Different eras, you say? I'm way ahead of you. The NL league batting average from 2001-2010 was .261. That means pitchers hit about 118 points worse than league average. From 1963 to 1972, the AL league average was .242 and the NL league average was .250. That means AL pitchers hit 102 points below league average and NL pitcher hit about 108 points worse. So as a whole, pitchers in the 10 years prior to the DH hit about 105 points worse than the league average, a difference of just 13 points compared to the last 10 years in the NL.  So if the pitchers of that period hit today and had that same 105-point difference, they'd hit .156 over the last 10 years (league average .261) instead of .143. Wow, big difference. Gee, just think what they'd hit if they didn't want to contribute. Here's the year-by-year breakdown going backward: NL 2010-2001 Pitches-League .143-.255 .138-.259 .140-260 .146-.266 .132-.265 .150-.262 .146-.263 .144-.262 .148-.259 .145-.261 Average .143-.261 1972-1963 AL .145-.239 .145-.247 .145-.250 .140-.246 .131-.230 .138-236 .143-240 .127-.242 .141-247 .149-.247 Average .140-.242 NL .147-.248 .152-.252 .146-.258 .139-.250 .135-243 .137-.249 .155-.256 .138-.249 .135-254 .133-245 Average .142-.250
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    Kim: This is Roy's post from page two. As you can see, NL pitchers hit .140 on the average. A.L. pitchers aren't likely to do any better.

    I do agree with you that the unexpected unlocks the mystery to each contest.
    I've always said, baseball is great THEATRE. 
    And the A. L. has plenty of it. 
    Think 2004...
     

Share