Designated Hitter "Proposal"

[Dollarbill13]

I know the DH debate has taken place ad nauseum but I had this idea of a "compromise" that I think might actually appeal to both sides. DH proponents' main argument is typically that they'd much rather see a professional hitter at the plate than a pitcher flailing away and batting .100. Fans of the NL style of play typically argue for the additional strategy that is involved in the game. My idea is that both leagues could use the DH but the player in the DH position is tied to the pitcher. Meaning if you remove the pitcher, you also have to remove the DH. Then you could take another player off the bench and insert him into the DH position for as long as the reliever stays in the game.

 

I think it would require some roster changes - maybe by expanding the rosters by a spot or two but I think it would create an interesting dynamic of in-game managing while still allowing for the DH. I think the players union would be in favor of it because, while it would cut the normal DH's plate appearances by 1-2 per game, it would open up 15 new "regular DH" positions in the National League. I don't know whether the owners would be in favor.

 

Thoughts?

[dlk9s]

Interesting idea.

 

The big problem is that it would totally screw a team that gets a bad performance from its starting pitcher.

[pitchleague]

not a bad concept in theory. It would need some tweaking.

 

Slightly off topic, I thought about this idea after Kottaras entered the game defensively, since we didn't have another catcher: what if MLB allowed each roster to be 26 guys--25 players and then the bullpen catcher can be the 26th guy. The rule would establish that the bullpen catcher could only enter the game from, for example, the 14th inning on. Yeah, he would be terrible (likely) as a hitter if he had to bat in the 16th inning or something, but at least you could put a guy behind the plate in the extreme extra innings that won't be a complete sieve.

[monty57]

I doubt the player's union, owners or fans would be fine with the David Ortiz's of the world getting pulled before they get a PA and having a vastly inferior hitter batting clean-up because a pitcher had a bad outing. They also wouldn't like pitchers risking injury by throwing 150+ pitches because the DH was batting 3rd the next inning. They wouldn't like burning through two bench players to do a LOOGY matchup. It would be a nightmare to implement this rule, and fans would revolt as they continually watched pitchers giving up 10 run innings simply to "save the DH." It's good to do some brainstorming "let's throw all ideas out there," but this one's never going to happen.

 

I grew up watching the Brewers play with a DH, and since then I've watched the Brewers in the NL without a DH. I'm fine with either style, and I certainly wasn't bemoaning the fact that the pitchers weren't hitting during the Brewers' recent interleague games. I think the move to season-long interleague play will probably mean an eventual move to a DH in both leagues. If/when that happens, there will be some complaining, and then the world will go on as normal and 99% of the people who complained will continue to watch baseball.

[jerichoholicninja]

I have always been a supporter of the DH in one league but not in the other. It makes the game more interesting during interleague play as teams try to adjust to new rules.

[HiAndTight]

not a bad concept in theory. It would need some tweaking.

 

Slightly off topic, I thought about this idea after Kottaras entered the game defensively, since we didn't have another catcher: what if MLB allowed each roster to be 26 guys--25 players and then the bullpen catcher can be the 26th guy. The rule would establish that the bullpen catcher could only enter the game from, for example, the 14th inning on. Yeah, he would be terrible (likely) as a hitter if he had to bat in the 16th inning or something, but at least you could put a guy behind the plate in the extreme extra innings that won't be a complete sieve.

 

 

I think they could make a rule almost like they had in the NFL. Where teams were allowed to carry 3 QB's, but if you had injuries to the first two, the third one comes in, the starter can no longer re-enter the game.

 

Now obviously it's different with substitutions because you can't re-enter a game anyway, and I don't know if it'd gain any traction whatsoever, but or if it's even logical to basically waste a catcher in that type of scenario where he'd seldom play.

[HiAndTight]

I have always been a supporter of the DH in one league but not in the other. It makes the game more interesting during interleague play as teams try to adjust to new rules.

 

 

 

I'm not being sarcastic here, but did you mean to put this in blue? I only ask because I've always been baffled by it. You have two leagues who compete vs each other and they have different rules? Nothing seems more illogical to me.

 

 

It DOES make it interesting during interleague and the world series and makes for some interesting decisions on where players play(ie, David Ortiz at 1st base), but I think it puts NL teams at a disadvantage. The slight added ability to hit for NL pitchers is MORE than mitigated by the fact that the player who hits DH for the AL team is likely significantly better than the best bench player for the NL team.

[Thurston Fluff]

The slight added ability to hit for NL pitchers is MORE than mitigated by the fact that the player who hits DH for the AL team is likely significantly better than the best bench player for the NL team.

 

That right there is my biggest problem with having it in one league and not the other. It makes it unfair to the NL in interleague play

and the World Series. I think having a having to pay for an additional starting caliber player makes it harder on small market AL teams so I like the pitcher hitting but that's just me. If they changed it to DH in both leagues I would be ok with it. I'd rather they go with pitchers hitting in both. They could add a player to the roster to make the players happy but that is unlikely to happen.

[bani1717]

I doubt the player's union, owners or fans would be fine with the David Ortiz's of the world getting pulled before they get a PA and having a vastly inferior hitter batting clean-up because a pitcher had a bad outing. They also wouldn't like pitchers risking injury by throwing 150+ pitches because the DH was batting 3rd the next inning. They wouldn't like burning through two bench players to do a LOOGY matchup. It would be a nightmare to implement this rule, and fans would revolt as they continually watched pitchers giving up 10 run innings simply to "save the DH." It's good to do some brainstorming "let's throw all ideas out there," but this one's never going to happen.

 

I feel like none of those situations would ever happen even if the DH was tied to the pitcher, because you'd put a more expendable player at DH and put your best hitters in the actual lineup. I think the David Ortiz's of the world would be out of a job (or would be making substantially less money due to the defensive liability) before teams regularly put their best hitter as the DH under the hypothetical siuation.

[Mike2k33]

 

I feel like none of those situations would ever happen even if the DH was tied to the pitcher, because you'd put a more expendable player at DH and put your best hitters in the actual lineup. I think the David Ortiz's of the world would be out of a job (or would be making substantially less money due to the defensive liability) before teams regularly put their best hitter as the DH under the hypothetical siuation.

 

 

Which is exactly why the players union would never, ever go for this. The DH is coveted by the union because it's generally a high paying job in today's game.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Not even sure I'd be for this thought, but it's a different twist that keeps offense-only players on MLB rosters...sort of like having a dH in both leagues while still having pitchers hit.

 

With today's game focusing more and more emphasis on defense, what about eliminating the dh and instead creating a designated fielder/specialist for both leagues? Pitchers would have to hit, as purists of the game have always wanted. But, teams could carry a defensive specialist to play anywhere on the field but not have to hit - like having a dh for a position player. This would be a great way for teams to give regular position players (especially offensive-minded catchers) needed days off in the field while still getting them at bats, eliminating the dreaded "Sunday forfeit lineups", and teams could keep a dh-type player on their roster that would get regular playing time. Plus, the gametimes and inning stress on pitchers would decrease because they'd have the pitcher's spot to pitch to, although pitching changes and pinch hitters would remain part of the in-game strategy. You may be able to incorporate rules with the designated fielder to have to hit based on a pitching or lineup change, also.

 

I think the main goal in any DH discussion is that both leagues need to play by the same set of rules - not doing so creates roster disparities that I think aren't good for the game.

[jerichoholicninja]

I have always been a supporter of the DH in one league but not in the other. It makes the game more interesting during interleague play as teams try to adjust to new rules.

 

 

 

I'm not being sarcastic here, but did you mean to put this in blue? I only ask because I've always been baffled by it. You have two leagues who compete vs each other and they have different rules? Nothing seems more illogical to me.

 

No. That's 100% true.

 

Like you said, you have two leagues that compete against each other and they have different rules. It isn't anymore but they used to be two completely different somewhat independent leagues. Which I personally wish they would go back to. It's sort of like if an NFL team would play a CFL league team. The game is the same but each league has slightly different rules and if that were ever to happen it would make sense for them to go by the home team's league rules.

 

I guess if you want a league where everything is "equal" and "fair" you would go with the same rules for both leagues. I for one really don't watch for the result of the game, season, playoffs, etc., I just want to be entertained. To me that means watching David Ortiz try to play first base or some AL pitcher who hasn't touched a bat since high school try and hit Stephen Strasburg.

[TooLiveBrew]

The different rules are a reminder of when the AL & NL were separate entities, I guess. But remember that the DH rule was added well after the two had merged... decades later, generations later.

 

I just wish the DH would be implemented MLB-wide.

[monty57]

I think the main goal in any DH discussion is that both leagues need to play by the same set of rules - not doing so creates roster disparities that I think aren't good for the game.

 

I agree with this, and I think if one is to win out it will be that both leagues adopt the DH, because the union wouldn't go for getting rid of it. In addition to the in-season disadvantages mentioned above, the NL is at a disadvantage in the off-season, as most NL teams aren't willing to offer deals like those tendered to Fielder and Pujols, as they don't have the option of moving them to DH when they can no longer play the field.

 

Pitchers would have to hit, as purists of the game have always wanted.

 

I ask this as a serious question: Is it "purists" or simply "people who are used to watching NL baseball?" The DH was adopted in the AL in 1973. Are there fans of AL teams who are still clamoring to get rid of the DH, or is it just that after watching baseball played a certain way for years and years, it seems like that should be the way it's played?

 

As Brewer fans, we have a unique view of this, because we remember cheering for a team with a DH that moved to become a team without a DH. I always thought baseball was better with a DH... until the Brewers moved to the NL, at which point I thought it was fun to watch the Brewers playing in the NL. Really, I just like watching the Brewers, and don't care if they have a DH or not, as long as they stay in Milwaukee.

 

Personlly, I think the Commisioner's Office is trying to wean the fans into getting used to a DH, at which point it will be implemented in both leagues. Maybe the Astros will be a good proxy. If a bunch of Astros fans stop watching baseball or begin cheering for an NL team, then we'll know that fans really care about watching pitchers hit more than they care about cheering for a particular team. If Astros fans remain Astros fans even though they will be using a DH, then I think it's safe to assume that other teams' fans would do the same.

[pebadger]

I never thought this would be the case having grown up watching AL baseball, but since the Brewers moved to the NL I've swung so far to the side of disliking the DH rule that I would be mildly upset if MLB imposes the rule on both leagues. I think it's coming, there's nothing I can do about it and I' sure I'll adapt, but it will only be grudgingly.