What features of the DH rule are GOOD for baseball?

[Appling]

Even if you hate the DH rule, there must be some features of that rule that are GOOD for the game. Please check off each feature of the DH that you think is good for the game.

Here are some thoughts:
1. With the DH rule, more runs will be scored. High scoring = more excitement.
2. The DH provides a way to extend the career of aging stars who can no longer field their position.
3. Allows hitters who are poor fielders (David Ortiz? Travis Hafner?) to make meaningful contributions to the pennant race.
4. No boring "dead spot" in the game when a poor-hitting pitcher takes his turn at bat.
5. None of the above is a good feature of the DH rule.

[Erik Bedard]

Number two, and only number two. Unless said player is Barry Bonds.

[Outta Here]

The 1st one.

Most people, maybe not those on this forum, want to see HRs & big hitters, not small ball & sac bunts, so that is an advantage of the DH. It's an attraction to the game.

[brewcrew82]

None of the above. The reason I like the DH is that it makes the strategy different between the AL and the NL. If we aren't going to be able to get rid if interleague play then we should keep the leagues slightly different so that the road team (whether from the AL or NL) has to adapt when the interleague part of the schedule comes around.

[four tool]

The reasons listed and the strategy options. I like the idea of players with different abilities being able to use their strenghts to play. I've never been convinced that a non pitcher needs to be good at both hitting and defense to make the bigs.

[Erik Bedard]

They need to be good at one or the other, preferably hitting.

[KCGHOST]

All of the above.

1) The Al has outscored the NL since the DH debuted.
2) Edgar Martinez works for me!
3) Ortiz/Hafner sounds like a deal to me.
4) Pitchers hit a collective .500 OPS year after year.

It also gives a young position player away to get into games and gain experience at the plate and in the field.

[four tool]

All of the above.

1) The Al has outscored the NL since the DH debuted.
2) Edgar Martinez works for me!
3) Ortiz/Hafner sounds like a deal to me.
4) Pitchers hit a collective .500 OPS year after year.

It also gives a young position player away to get into games and gain experience at the plate and in the field.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rockin500]

i went with none of the above. just not a fan of the DH.

[SoxSon]

i went with none of the above. just not a fan of the DH.

I think that many NL fans who are not fans of the DH would convert after a single season with their team using one. I could be wrong, obviously, but I don't think so.

One thing I like about the DH rule is it gives managers a chance to give a guy some at-bats without worrying about the field. Not just older players, but also younger guys and guys just off the DL. It's not used this way too much (DH's tend to be consistent), but it's certainly conceivable.

[Wade8813]

I think that many NL fans who are not fans of the DH would convert after a single season with their team using one. I could be wrong, obviously, but I don't think so. Some would, but many wouldn't. Too many predetermined biases. Also, some teams would be like the A's from a few years ago, who had a DH batting 9th with like a .140 batting average and almost no homers.

[Imapotato]

I'd rather have a utility guy or extra OF/PH on the roster, then a slow aging slugger

And with the DH, they usually carry an extra pitcher...who stinks more often then not...which is another reason for the deficit between the AL and NL runs

and nothing is sweeter then seeing Arroyo key off on Rusch 2x or Willis help his own cause with his bat

Baseball is hitting and fielding

[TonyK]

I never liked watching pathetic pitchers come up to bat and not even attempt to get a hit. Some of them looked like they hadn't done any batting practice in five years.

[four tool]

There's a thread about what's wrong with the DH, trying posting there if you don't like the DH.

As for hitting and fielding, Ted williams and Bill Mazeroski come to mind as only good at one or the other.

[Mariano_Rivera]

There's a thread about what's wrong with the DH, trying posting there if you don't like the DH.

As for hitting and fielding, Ted williams and Bill Mazeroski come to mind as only good at one or the other.
Don`t forget Ozzie Smith:o

[Solair Wright]

Paul Molitor made good advantage to the DH rule and never stopped churning hits and shined even when a team did poorly. George Brett, in his final years, was a good DH when he delievered +3,000 hits on the Royals. I voted for poll options two and three.

[SoxSon]

Some would, but many wouldn't. Too many predetermined biases.

Understood, but I think that those "predetermined biases" would fade for many in the NL after watching for a season.

[wu-tang clan]

There's a thread about what's wrong with the DH, trying posting there if you don't like the DH.

As for hitting and fielding, Ted williams and Bill Mazeroski come to mind as only good at one or the other.

hey, maybe when Ted Williams comes back, he could be a DH! I mean, since he's so old, he probably couldn't field. I could be wrong though...

[Wade8813]

Understood, but I think that those "predetermined biases" would fade for many in the NL after watching for a season. Not when those are strongly held predetermined biases that they've had for decades. Some would, but I think the majority wouldn't.

In fact, I think the only ones likely to change their mind are the ones that never cared much in the first place, or have a star player as DH.