Boston had an unfair DH advantage

[orca1963]

An abomination is watching Sheets hit.

 

Nope, that would be baseball.

[jeffy]

AL bench players should love the DH. You remove the DH and you suddenly have bench player competing with players who are starting now for bench spots.

Huh? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/ohwell.gif

The roster is still 25 either way, the difference is the bench players in the NL get more opportunities to get into games.

[Postseason2006]

I suppose the DH never happens in the World Series. Sheesh. Those AL teams that have lost the World Series should protest for having their pitchers hit.

 

Anyhow, face it, Doug Melvin had the schedule right in front of his nose, plenty of time in advance to decide what to do. He should've had Iribarren up for ric"K" along with with Nelson. Deficiencies in management lead to deficiencies in the clubhouse. Like Braun said, we don't expect to win and that starts at the top.

[Nader Raider Tim]

I hate the DH, so no way do I want to see the NL add that. I just really like the additional strategy that having the pitcher hit brings to a game. So my suggestion would be that when an NL team goes to an AL park the DH gets dropped. When a AL team goes to a NL park the DH is added. That way either side dosen't have homefield advantage and a DH/no DH advantage. Plus then fans get to see something different.

[mls4]

From mlb.com:

 

"Playing as visitors in NL parks under house rules, AL pitchers -- you know, the guys not trusted with using a bat most of the season -- went 10-for 47. NL pitchers went 2-for-37.

...

AL designated hitters also took their inexperienced NL counterparts to school, going 17-for-62 to their 12-for-63."

 

Funny, the AL pitchers ended up with a bigger advantage than the AL DHs.

 

A step further, here's the OPS breakdown:

AL DH .948

NL DH .508

 

AL P .498

NL P .179

 

Big differences, and the end result is that the AL wins 3 games more than the NL.

[RobertR]

The advantage Boston had was simply compounded by poor roster management. A couple of years back, the Brewers called up Prince Fielder to DH in interleague games. This year they could have called up LaPorta, Gamel, Nelson, or Branyan and chose not to. Heck, the way Hall is "hitting" they probably should call up Branyan and have him platoon with Hall. Instead, their big move before the series was to call up Mike Defilice. Is the shine off Tony Gwynn Jr. yet with his .566 OPS? How about Gabe Kapler who's done very little in the last month after a hot start? Neither one of those hitting lines is really unexpected, either.

 

The lack of the DH didn't cause the Brewers to commit four errors in a game. Nor did it cause them to give up 11 runs in a game. Nor did it cause them to have unrealistic expectations about some people on the roster.

 

Robert

[TooLiveBrew]

Nope, that would be baseball.

 

Well the way baseball was originally created, the players didn't wear gloves -- is that taking away from the integrity of the game? I'd prefer the DH too -- we'd have been able to keep Overbay & Fielder.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Add the DH to the NL, then nobody has an unfair advantage and we don't have to watch Ben Sheets hit. Pitchers don't have the time to properly train to be hitters and there is no reason to send them out there other than people clinging to the notion "this is how it is supposed to be".

It's not about pitchers hitting, it's about hitters having to play in the field. The moment the NL adopts the DH is the moment I stop watching MLB.

[TooLiveBrew]

Honest question -- You would rather watch Fielder struggle along defensively & Ben Sheets batting than seeing Overbay at first, & both Prince + Lyle in the lineup? The opinion that a guy 'has' to be good defensively is one I don't share, since all 8 defensive positions are played anyway... it's not like AL teams get to automatically use a GG'er in place of their DH. So to me, the question does come down to preferring to see a P or a batter at the plate. If the argument is that there should be no DH bc a guy has to be able to field a position, it inherently means P's need to bat.

 

I think a guy like Ortiz would still be getting everyday PT, since a hitter like him is too important to not have in the lineup. The product on the field is a better one with the DH -- less butchers in the field, & less 'butchers' (P) at the plate. It's not that Ortiz 'can't' play 1B (he'd probably be about as good as Prince), it's that the Red Sox have a better gloveman in Youkilis, and they can put an overall better team on the field (offensively & defensively) utilizing the DH. I understand the 'purist' stance, I just don't necessarily agree with it. What I want to see as a fan is that 'best' team on the field. If that meant Overbay at 1B & Prince DH'ing, that'd be fine for my personal tastes.

[orca1963]

Nope, that would be baseball.

 

Well the way baseball was originally created, the players didn't wear gloves -- is that taking away from the integrity of the game? I'd prefer the DH too -- we'd have been able to keep Overbay & Fielder.

 

Apples to oranges. I don't have a problem with the evolution of the game--the closer, platoon players, etc. But everyone on the field should bat and field, whether they have a glove or not. That is baseball. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

[TooLiveBrew]

I personally don't agree that it's apples to oranges (the CP/platoon examples are great imo... specialized roles...), but I also don't think we'll accomplish much by carrying on. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[danzig6767]

Honest question -- You would rather watch Fielder struggle along defensively & Ben Sheets batting than seeing Overbay at first, & both Prince + Lyle in the lineup? The opinion that a guy 'has' to be good defensively is one I don't share, since all 8 defensive positions are played anyway... it's not like AL teams get to automatically use a GG'er in place of their DH. So to me, the question does come down to preferring to see a P or a batter at the plate. If the argument is that there should be no DH bc a guy has to be able to field a position, it inherently means P's need to bat.

 

I think a guy like Ortiz would still be getting everyday PT, since a hitter like him is too important to not have in the lineup. The product on the field is a better one with the DH -- less butchers in the field, & less 'butchers' (P) at the plate. It's not that Ortiz 'can't' play 1B (he'd probably be about as good as Prince), it's that the Red Sox have a better gloveman in Youkilis, and they can put an overall better team on the field (offensively & defensively) utilizing the DH. I understand the 'purist' stance, I just don't necessarily agree with it. What I want to see as a fan is that 'best' team on the field. If that meant Overbay at 1B & Prince DH'ing, that'd be fine for my personal tastes.

I we are going to selectively remove guys from having to bat or field a position because they aren't that good at it so that the game is "prettier" to watch, why stop with using the current DH system so bad fielders don't have to pick up a glove and pitchers not have to hit?

MLB is full of terrible hitting catchers and nearly all backup catchers are extra bad hitters. So let's not make them bat either and add a second DH. Who would rather see poor hitting catchers bat when we could instead insert a better hitter in their place with a second DH? Just go ahead and specialize the game completely so only good defensive players are on the field and only good hitters have to bat.

 

[olliegjw]

Good point, Danzig. When are we going to get to the point where there are 9 different guys on defense and offense, just like football. If a guy is good enough to hit 95+ mph fastballs, then he should be good enough to play one of the 9 positions available in the field. You have the pros/cons of good hitting/bad defense, etc. I say good riddance to the DH.

[TooLiveBrew]

why stop with using the current DH system so bad fielders don't have to pick up a glove and pitchers not have to hit?

Because all the position players have enough time to fully prepare to hit... P don't. Is a major disconnect btw. our stances that you feel the DH is in place more to get a bad glove off the field... whereas I see it as a way to get a bad bat out of the lineup? Honest question.

MLB is full of terrible hitting catchers and nearly all backup catchers are extra bad hitters. So let's not make them bat either and add a second DH. Who would rather see poor hitting catchers bat when we could instead insert a better hitter in their place with a second DH? Just go ahead and specialize the game completely so only good defensive players are on the field and only good hitters have to bat.

I think the hyperbole involved in your post illustrates why it'd be a bad idea to arbitrarily let any position get a DH (not to mention that the quantity of great-hitting DH is not nearly as big as some people believe). I'm not in favor of that at all. All position players get enough time/reps in to hit to the best of their ability, even C/backup C's.

To me the question is like the 'courtesy runner' in little-league for the catcher. It wasn't created to get a faster runner out in place of a slow one, but to give the C more time to get his gear on for the next half-inning. The fact that it makes the most sense to use a fast(er) runner is independent from the goal of the rule.

[olliegjw]

why stop with using the current DH system so bad fielders don't have to pick up a glove and pitchers not have to hit?

Because all the position players have enough time to fully prepare to hit... P don't. Is a major disconnect btw. our stances that you feel the DH is in place more to get a bad glove off the field... whereas I see it as a way to get a bad bat out of the lineup? Honest question.

 

 

By that thinking, Ortiz, et al, should have time to fully prepare to play the field. Also, pitchers have plenty of time to learn how to hit. They only pitch one in five days. They have four days to work on hitting.

[TooLiveBrew]

No they don't -- each of the 4 off-days is used to help get their body & mind back into starting shape. There's some time here & there for hitting, but not anywhere near the amount that position players have.

 

I can't begrudge you the point on Ortiz, but I think the views taken on this issue are contrarian to a degree (yet ironically complimentary) -- I like the DH bc it takes a poor bat out of the lineup (& it's not mandatory, either... so YoGa, for example, could still hit), not because it gets a poor glove off the field.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

Boston had an unfair payroll advantage, but that's about all.

 

Their managerial advantage was clear, but that's on Doug and Mark for keeping Ned around despite so many failures.

 

At least their GM is not worried about spending a call-up, out of fear that a parade of MLB teams will be fist-fighting over claiming The Great Russell Branyan off waivers. Doug assembled a team full of righty bats, and when a temporary fix in Branyan is made available as a lefty solution, he doesn't pull the trigger.

 

If we even go 3-4 against Washington and Pittsburgh, Ned better be gone. What does Yost have to do to get whacked? Shoot someone? This is embarrassing already...

[danzig6767]

why stop with using the current DH system so bad fielders don't have to pick up a glove and pitchers not have to hit?

Because all the position players have enough time to fully prepare to hit... P don't. Is a major disconnect btw. our stances that you feel the DH is in place more to get a bad glove off the field... whereas I see it as a way to get a bad bat out of the lineup? Honest question.

I can see that your major reason for liking the DH is to not have the pitcher hit, i only phrased it that way because you also brought up Prince. The DH debate seems almost like the abortion debate in politics, there rarely is much middle ground in views. Baseball fans for the most part either like the DH rule a lot or can't stand it, very few are indifferent about it.

I have no idea how old you are, but i'm in my 30's so i grew up watching the Brewers play in the AL. During that time, i had no real strong opinion about the DH, i just loved baseball and certainly wasn't against the DH. Once we moved to the NL, i was older and now i watch the game differently and more in depth compared to my younger days where i mainly just like seeing home runs, exciting plays, and hopefully the Brewers winning.

I like that in a close game around the 5th-6th-7th innings, a manager might have to decide whether to remove a starting pitcher who is throwing well. I like that it can be important whether or not a pitcher gets a needed bunt down to advance base runners or the great surprise/frustration that comes from a pitcher driving in a few runs with a hit. I enjoy watching a good hitting pitcher like Gallardo or Owings get to bat. I like that if a guy can hit really well like say Ortiz/Hafner/Cust, an NL team would also have to deal with the downside of their terrible defense.

When the Brewers moved to the NL, i wasn't sure whether i'd like the switch. Now after all the years, i find myself being more and more happy we moved and not missing AL baseball one bit outside of playing certain teams like Boston or the Yankees. I can understand why some prefer the AL, they like seeing lots of runs scored in the 9-6 game mode instead of 4-2, along with disliking how feeble some pitchers are at the plate. I simply don't share that view. I prefer that if you're in the game, you hit and you put on a glove, unless a point in the game arises that the manager decides the team is best served to remove the weakness of not being able to hit or field well.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

I have no idea how old you are, but i'm in my 30's so i grew up watching the Brewers play in the AL. During that time, i had no real strong opinion about the DH, i just loved baseball and certainly wasn't against the DH. Once we moved to the NL, i was older and now i watch the game differently and more in depth compared to my younger days where i mainly just like seeing home runs, exciting plays, and hopefully the Brewers winning.

 

I'm mid-20s, and still very much remember the DH @ County Stadium. It's not that I miss it, per se, as I enjoy many of the (NL) strategical elements that you mentioned. I just don't want to see pitchers bat. I think it's unnecessary & antiquated -- and honestly it doesn't have anything to do with my desire to see 9-7 ballgames as opposed to 3-2 games. I just want to see people that are trained to hit at the highest level doing so, bc imo that's the best quality & most competitive game being put on the field.

 

The interesting wrinkle to me is the few SP that can hit. I love how that changes the competitive balance.

 

 

I enjoy watching a good hitting pitcher like Gallardo or Owings get to bat.

 

And they still can on any AL club. I think there should be a way to 'reward' teams for batting the P, but I have no idea what that reward should be.

[danzig6767]

I just don't want to see pitchers bat. I think it's unnecessary & antiquated -- and honestly it doesn't have anything to do with my desire to see 9-7 ballgames as opposed to 3-2 games. I just want to see people that are trained to hit at the highest level doing so, bc imo that's the best quality & most competitive game being put on the field.

 

The interesting wrinkle to me is the few SP that can hit. I love how that changes the competitive balance.

I guess one place where we differ is that i like the fact that most pitchers aren't good hitters, thus when they do get a big hit that drives in a run or two, it's a big deal good or bad depending if it's a Brewer pitcher getting that hit. That frustrating feeling to see the pitcher come up to bat with runners on, then the great rush when they surprise by getting a hit or that swear filled reaction when a pitcher from the other team gets a big hit.

Granted, those situations are rare compared to the pitcher just striking out in feeble fashion, but that's also why i don't mind pitchers batting. The fact it's fairly rare for a pitcher to get a big hit makes it extra entertaining for me when they actually do.

 

FWIW, i'm not one of those hardliners that go overboard and say they'd stop watching if the Brewers went back to the AL or the NL adopted the DH, just that if i had the final call, i'd get rid of the DH entirely.

 

[truecrew]

Milwaukee is just as talented as Boston, but our players don't play like them. Braun, Kendell, Kapler & Hart are the only ones playing average or above. We made too many errors and cant afford to do that against any team we play and for sure not against the world champions. Bush and C.V. had no chance against that lineup. So the DH part was the least of our problems.

[jeffy]

Baseball fans for the most part either like the DH rule a lot or can't stand it, very few are indifferent about it.

 

No...baseball fans despise the DH, HR fans like it. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

 

[LouisEly]

1) Having TGJ as the DH had nothing to do with giving up 11 runs that game. Why he wasn't playing OF and having Hart or Cameron as the DH is a head scratcher (as is starting Hall over Dillon the day after Hall racks up three errors), but as someone once said, TGJ is not the problem. The Brewers scored seven runs that game, so with an average pitching performance they should have won that game.

 

B) Boston did have an unfair advantage in the DH department, but it had nothing to do with using a full time DH on the roster; it had everything to do with the schedule. By having the Brewers play only one interleague series it might not have been best to call up a guy like Branyan or Nelson for just three games. Now if MLB had scheduled back-to-back interleague road series where they needed a DH for six consecutive games, then that might make more sense to make a roster move. Remember, if someone is sent down they cannot be recalled for (I think) ten days (correct me if I'm wrong), so if they play back to back road series that could encompass seven days if there's an off day in between, then they could have made a roster move and whomever they sent down could be recalled three days after the second series. So with the off day, they could have sent down a starter like CV or Parra (skip their turn with the off day) and called up Nelson or Branyan, then be able to reverse the transaction 3 days after the second series but before the starter's next turn in the rotation is.

[1992casey]

One might argue that the Brewers could use a better bat on the bench anyway, DH or no DH. They wouldn't necesssarily be calling up a player for only one series. It's still a good point, though, and it certainly could be applicable in a number of cases.

 

Boston is a talented team that happens to be well covered with the Youkilis-Lowell-Ortiz-Casey combination at 3B/1B/DH. While it'd be unreasonable to expect the Brewers to have an extra Youkilis-Lowell-Ortiz guy sitting around, it certainly would have been reasonable to send out the equivalent of a Sean Casey instead of what they did.

[jeffy]

One might argue that the Brewers could use a better bat on the bench anyway, DH or no DH. They wouldn't necesssarily be calling up a player for only one series.

 

Yes...would the team really have suffered by bringing Branyon up and planning to keep him up until at least June 23. I mean is TGJ on the bench really a key component to the team?

 

 

LouisEly wrote:

---

1) Having TGJ as the DH had nothing to do with giving up 11 runs that game. Why he wasn't playing OF and having Hart or Cameron as the DH is a head scratcher

 

 

Actually, I'd say why not Braun for DH. He is the weakest defender in the outfield. Similarly Prince and Weeks are the weakest links in the infield, so one of them could have been DHing, while a better defensive player took the field at 1st or 2nd base.