Reasons why DH is bad for baseball

[Appling]

Whether you favor the Designated Hitter Rule or not, there must be some features of the DH that you feel are bad for baseball.

Here are some that may fit here:
1. The DH hitter an unfair advantage, in that he can rest during the game and focus his energies solely on the preparing to hit.
2. It takes away the strategic decision of when to pull an effective pitcher to improve our chances of getting a needed run right now.
3. Without a DH, an athletic pitcher who hits well can get the hit to win his own game

Please check all answers that you believe apply here.

[Erik Bedard]

With the DH, we never would have had Babe Ruth. It's that simple.

[four tool]

The pure otrigtinal game changed a lot even before the AL came into being, so that option shouldn't even be on the list.

Even with a DH, ruth would have gotten his ABs somewhere-as PH at least and some outfield work as others saw his hitting ability.

[Erik Bedard]

Yes, but no way would he have gotten 714 HRs.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes, but no way would he have gotten 714 HRs.
I'm not sure I follow you. It was Ruth's hitting ability that made him move to the OF. Considering how it was generally far and above the great majority of other hitters, I don't see how they would have kept his superior bat out of the lineup.
Ruth's success was inevitable once they figured it out, DH or not.

[brewcrew82]

I'm not sure I follow you. It was Ruth's hitting ability that made him move to the OF. Considering how it was generally far and above the great majority of other hitters, I don't see how they would have kept his superior bat out of the lineup.
Ruth's success was inevitable once they figured it out, DH or not.

Too true. Given the hitting prowess he showed as a young player prior to signing with the Sox, if there was no way for him to both hit and pitch (ie if the DH existed back then) dare I say he would have been groomed to play in the field or else have him DH.

[KCGHOST]

Considering the off-setting value of not watching pitchers "hit" there is no way the DH is bad for baseball. The strategy argument is pure hogwash. All you are doing is giving the manager a series of "coin flip" decisions. Whether they work or not is just the luck of the draw. Even the best hitting pitchers can't hit (amongst all active pitchers with at least 70 AB's the best is Mike Hampton with a .646 OPS).

[SamtheBravesFan]

Too true. Given the hitting prowess he showed as a young player prior to signing with the Sox, if there was no way for him to both hit and pitch (ie if the DH existed back then) dare I say he would have been groomed to play in the field or else have him DH.

If Ruth had DH'd full-time, he'd probably have something close to 800 home runs and the Red Sox wouldn't have sold him to the Yankees.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Considering the off-setting value of not watching pitchers "hit" there is no way the DH is bad for baseball. The strategy argument is pure hogwash. All you are doing is giving the manager a series of "coin flip" decisions. Whether they work or not is just the luck of the draw. Even the best hitting pitchers can't hit (amongst all active pitchers with at least 70 AB's the best is Mike Hampton with a .646 OPS).

I guess the point is that DHing takes away that coin flip and replaces it with the coin flip of the weakest batter. ;) That's all I can really say about it when you put it in those terms.

[Appling]

I sure don't enjoy watching a pitcher hit, but if there is one major disadvantage to the DH rule, it IMO is that some players may be pushed into the DH role at an early age, and never get a chance to develop or demonstrate their other baseball skills.

I wonder: would it make sense to require that every "position player" play at least half his games at some fielding position? In High School ball that should even be a requirement, so that we don't brand a DH at too young an age; but even in the major leagues, I would like to see every player spend some time in the field. This means at least two players would need to share the job of DH.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm not sure I follow you. It was Ruth's hitting ability that made him move to the OF. Considering how it was generally far and above the great majority of other hitters, I don't see how they would have kept his superior bat out of the lineup.
Ruth's success was inevitable once they figured it out, DH or not.

Yes, but who's to say they would have figured it out had there been a DH?

[Wade8813]

I disagree emphatically. I don't see any disadvantage to having a DH. Admittedly, I'm biased because Edgar Martinez was one of my favorite players - however, just the fact that I and so many others name DHs among their favorite players is a good reason to have the DH.

The strategic argument gets to me. The majority of the time, the manager just sends in a pinch hitter when they would have pulled the pitcher anyway. As SamtheBravesFan alluded, the manager can make the exact same decision by pinch hitting for their "all glove-no stick" 2nd baseman.

(Quoting myself from another thread)
I don't completely buy the bit about the DH lessening strategy. The argument seems to come down to making things harder = more strategy. If that's the case, why not have 3rd basemen only hit with one hand, and have first basemen stand on one leg, and make Right Fielders field opposite handed (lefties field right-handed, and righties field left-handed). That would certainly make things harder. You would even have to decide to have pinch hitters for those 3rd basemen, just like for pitchers. :rolleyes:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes, but who's to say they would have figured it out had there been a DH?
I think Brother Mathias would have clued them in on it. You're practically saying the discovery of Ruth's hitting ability was an accident.
Sultan, ShoelessJoe, whomever is out there who knows, how much exposure to hitting did Ruth have before the switch? Did Jack Dunn only use him as a pitcher?

[Erik Bedard]

No, Dunn used him as a hitter as well, but primarily as a pitcher. The main reason Lannin (not sure-could be incorrect) bought him was for his pitching talent, and he certainly had enough talent to have a great career as a pitcher, but with a DH, people might not have (or been slower to) discover that Ruth could hit in game situations. Or maybe the Babe would have demanded that he play outfield when he didn't pitch? Let's say that if the Baltimore Orioles used the DH, Ruth would have been primarily a pitcher for longer, and not had 714 home runs. Remember, home runs weren't as valuable in 1915 as they are today.

[wamby]

With the DH, we never would have had Babe Ruth. It's that simple.

Maybe, but after Ruth's hitting prowess was discovered they may have DHed for a weak hitting infielder.

[Mattingly]

Playing Devil's Advocate here (or whichever similar term you prefer), what do you do about good hitting people who simply stink with the glove? Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz come to mind. Had Ortiz not been the DH, I'm quite sure that Manny would've been the DH (at least if I were deciding things).

What about Alfonso Soriano. If his glove isn't up to par, would you rather him be the DH or play in LF?

I can understand why people don't like the DH, but to me, it's not a complete waste, so long as some players aren't able to field well. However, I would encourage fielding skills in young players, so that they not try to be too one-dimensional.

[four tool]

If Ruth had DH'd full-time, he'd probably have something close to 800 home runs and the Red Sox wouldn't have sold him to the Yankees.

If Ruth stayed at Fenway, he wouldn't have hit 500 HR, it was a pitcher's park in those days. Example 1919: Ruth hits 29 HR, only 9 at Fenway. Total HR hit at Fenway that year, Red Sox and opponents: 13 (that's 4 total by players not named George Herman Ruth).

[M'sfan4ever]

One of the reasons that the DH is bad for baseball is that it creates an NFL specialist mentality to the game. Catchers don't as a rule have the greatest BA's in the game either, there are exceptions of course, so why don't we DH them too? How about that guy who is in an 0-30 slump, let's DH him. There are lot's of guys scattered through the league who are hitting under .200, so let's DH them. Nine guys play defense, all nine of those guys should hit, plain and simple. Why does one guy sit on the bench when his spot in the order comes up, just because he may not be the best hitter on the team? Where does it end?

Carlos Zambrano hit his 4th homer tonight against the Mets. Are you telling me, Cubs fans don't get just a little more pumped when Carlos hits a dinger than say when Todd Walker does? I love when a pitcher comes up and has a chance to help his own cause and knocks in a run, or moves a runner over with a bunt. There are alot of poor hitting pitchers in the NL, but there are more than a few good hitting ones too. Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Chan Ho Park, Carlos Zambrano, Roger Clemens, Dontrelle Willis, to name a few. None of them are .300 hitters, but all do fairly well at the dish. There are alot of poor hitting second basemen, third basemen, shortstops, catchers and outfielders too.

The facts are that when a pitcher only gets to the dish maybe 2 or 3 times a game, every 5th day, he's not going to be a .300 hitter with 40 homeruns, but he's not expected to be, and it doesn't mean he shouldn't get the oppurtunity to hit. They also get a fraction of the time in BP, and spend a lot of that time bunting.

The DH definitely takes away from the strategy of the game, ask any manager who's managed in both leagues. It also takes away from the purity of the game. All that being said though, the great thing about baseball is if you like the DH you've got it, and if you want to see the pitchers hit you can.

[digglahhh]

Don't forget Jason Marquis.

One point that has not been brought up is that it is easy to make the argument that the DH widens the gap between big and small market teams.

Seeing as how the DH only plays half the game, but offense earns the greatest financial reward, a top tier DH winds up being basically a high priced luxury for the teams with strong revenue streams.

[Wade8813]

Nine guys play defense, all nine of those guys should hit, plain and simple. Why does one guy sit on the bench when his spot in the order comes up, just because he may not be the best hitter on the team? Where does it end? Of course, the pitcher's defense is different than the defense of anyone else in the game. His fielding is an afterthought, even with the greatest fielding pitchers of all time.

[2Chance]

The DH hitter an unfair advantage, in that he can rest during the game and focus his energies solely on the preparing to hit.
I voted for all but this one, and the reason that this didn't get a vote is because it doesn't really fit.

In many cases the #7 and 8 hitters aren't really that different in the AL and NL, and aggregate batting averages haven't improved that much in the AL. Also, the DH-types that we think of as no-glove mashers pretty much focus their energies on hitting rather than fielding anyway.

I felt squeamish about the original, pure game one, and although I don't completely agree with that, I like the idea of the same 9 men on offense and defense like the old days, when I was growing up.

Plus, pitchers have to be accountable for decking somebody this way, and nobody can call them cowardly because they don't have to face the music.

[rockin500]

Of course, the pitcher's defense is different than the defense of anyone else in the game. His fielding is an afterthought, even with the greatest fielding pitchers of all time.
his fielding certainly shouldnt be an afterthought.

[Wade8813]

his fielding certainly shouldnt be an afterthought. In 99% of the discussions about Greg Maddux, are his 15 Gold Glove awards even mentioned? (Holy cow, I didn't realize he had that many). No. Because people care about his Wins, and ERA, and WHIP, etc.

Do you think you could tell me how good at fielding ANY of the pitchers are on your favorite team? (other than Maddux - that's unfair). I bet you can tell me how good they are at pitching.

Pitchers are always selected for their pitching. Their hitting, fielding, and base-running are far less important.

[bluezebra]

Whether you favor the Designated Hitter Rule or not, there must be some features of the DH that you feel are bad for baseball.

Here are some that may fit here:
1. The DH hitter an unfair advantage, in that he can rest during the game and focus his energies solely on the preparing to hit.
2. It takes away the strategic decision of when to pull an effective pitcher to improve our chances of getting a needed run right now.
3. Without a DH, an athletic pitcher who hits well can get the hit to win his own game

Please check all answers that you believe apply here.

1..The DH (adding 'hitter' is redundant) doesn't stay loose, so sitting until his turn at bat isn't an advantage.

2..A pitcher who is doing well, but gets no hitting support, can stay in the game with the DH, and not leave with a 'no decision'.

3..Ridiculous argument. How many 'athletic', or other pitchers, have won their own games? It's a minute amount.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Of course, the pitcher's defense is different than the defense of anyone else in the game. His fielding is an afterthought, even with the greatest fielding pitchers of all time.

Different? An afterthought? Good fielding pitchers are an asset to a defense. Greg Maddux has won many games by stopping balls up the middle, that would have gone through to center field.

Bob

[bluezebra]

With the DH, we never would have had Babe Ruth. It's that simple.

What's 'simple' is that you're wrong.

1..There is NO rule that says a team MUST use a DH. Ruth could have batted when he pitched.

2..The Babe could have played the OF, or been the DH, on days when he didn't pitch.

Bob

[Wade8813]

Different? By different, I was including their actual pitching as part of defense.

An afterthought? Good fielding pitchers are an asset to a defense. Greg Maddux has won many games by stopping balls up the middle, that would have gone through to center field. Sure. But if you're drafting a team, you ALWAYS pick pitchers for their pitching.

[bluezebra]

If Ruth had DH'd full-time, he'd probably have something close to 800 home runs and the Red Sox wouldn't have sold him to the Yankees.

No way. If Ruth played his entire career at Fenway, he might have hit 600, at most. Yankee Stadium was built to enhance Ruth's power.

And his hitting went down over the last few years of his career.

As for the sale to the Yankees, it would have been a 'done deal' no matter what. He was one of the best left-handed pitchers in the game. He already showed his power while with the BoSox, leading the league in home runs and RBIs in 1918-19, and total bases in 1919. Harry Frazee, the Red Sox owner, needed cash to produce a play for his mistress. The Yankees had the money, and the Babe was on his way to "The Big Apple".

Bob

[Appling]

1..The DH (adding 'hitter' is redundant) doesn't stay loose, so sitting until his turn at bat isn't an advantage.

A recent issue of The Sporting News has a cover article on Travis Hafner, telling how he prepares for each at-bat. When his team is in the field, Hafner goes into the clubhouse to stretch or exercise, but more to review a video of his last AB -- to review how the pitcher is throwing to him (and to other left-handed hitters) but also to see what he himself may be doing right or wrong right now. I think this gives him an advantage over hitters who spend half the game fielding their position.

Regarding my "DH hitter", I noticed my redundancy ("Designated Hitter hitter") on the top of your quote, just before I read your response. I sometimes type faster than I think!

[M'sfan4ever]

1..The DH (adding 'hitter' is redundant) doesn't stay loose, so sitting until his turn at bat isn't an advantage.

2..A pitcher who is doing well, but gets no hitting support, can stay in the game with the DH, and not leave with a 'no decision'.

3..Ridiculous argument. How many 'athletic', or other pitchers, have won their own games? It's a minute amount.

Bob

Funny, only a few hours after you wrote this:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20060726&content_id=1576665&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Wade8813]

Funny, only a few hours after you wrote this:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/g...=.jsp&c_id=mlb Ironic, but it doesn't mean it happens very often.

[RedSoxVT92]

Its peculiar how "The pure, original game had no DH" is getting the most support. IMO that is probably the worst argument against the DH. In the pure original game pitchers threw underhanded, fielders played without gloves, batters could ask were they wanted the pitch, no one threw curveballs only fastballs, etc. Baseball evolves overtime and things change.

[SamtheBravesFan]

No way. If Ruth played his entire career at Fenway, he might have hit 600, at most. Yankee Stadium was built to enhance Ruth's power.

And his hitting went down over the last few years of his career.

As for the sale to the Yankees, it would have been a 'done deal' no matter what. He was one of the best left-handed pitchers in the game. He already showed his power while with the BoSox, leading the league in home runs and RBIs in 1918-19, and total bases in 1919. Harry Frazee, the Red Sox owner, needed cash to produce a play for his mistress. The Yankees had the money, and the Babe was on his way to "The Big Apple".

Bob

Ah yes, forgot about that one. Well, 600 is still a very nice number.

[SamtheBravesFan]

No way. If Ruth played his entire career at Fenway, he might have hit 600, at most. Yankee Stadium was built to enhance Ruth's power.

And his hitting went down over the last few years of his career.

As for the sale to the Yankees, it would have been a 'done deal' no matter what. He was one of the best left-handed pitchers in the game. He already showed his power while with the BoSox, leading the league in home runs and RBIs in 1918-19, and total bases in 1919. Harry Frazee, the Red Sox owner, needed cash to produce a play for his mistress. The Yankees had the money, and the Babe was on his way to "The Big Apple".

Bob

Ah yes, forgot about that. Well, 600 is still a very nice number.

[Erik Bedard]

What's 'simple' is that you're wrong.

1..There is NO rule that says a team MUST use a DH. Ruth could have batted when he pitched.

2..The Babe could have played the OF, or been the DH, on days when he didn't pitch.

Bob

Seriously? I didn't know that.

He could have, but who's to say they would let him? IIRC, Ruth was sold not only because Frazee needed the money, but also because he wanted to play OF and Ed Barrow wouldn't let him.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Seriously? I didn't know that.

He could have, but who's to say they would let him? IIRC, Ruth was sold not only because Frazee needed the money, but also because he wanted to play OF and Ed Barrow wouldn't let him.
You do realize you're speculating more by saying he wouldn't have been a hitter than anyone saying he would have.
Again, Ruth's hitting was not a happy accident. They knew full well what he could do, he knew full well what he could do, and to say they would not have taken advantage of that is completely illogical. Talent like that does not stay hidden when it's in an environment conductive to its growth.

[Erik Bedard]

You do realize you're speculating more by saying he wouldn't have been a hitter than anyone saying he would have.
Again, Ruth's hitting was not a happy accident. They knew full well what he could do, he knew full well what he could do, and to say they would not have taken advantage of that is completely illogical. Talent like that does not stay hidden when it's in an environment conductive to its growth.

I was trying to say that he would not be the best player ever (in most people's opinions), or had 714 homers, etc. I know what I'm saying is all speculation, but I'm still convinced Ruth would not be widely considered the best player ever with the DH.

[bluezebra]

Maybe, but after Ruth's hitting prowess was discovered they may have DHed for a weak hitting infielder.

In pro rules, the DH may bat only for the pitcher.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Funny, only a few hours after you wrote this:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20060726&content_id=1576665&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

That's nice. But in how many games have pitchers contributed offensively? Over 90% can't even lay down a decent sacrifice bunt. By the way, that's another way Maddux helps his team.

Bob