For those who don’t like the DH rule, How do you dispute this argument in support of the DH?

Question

I like the DH. Among my many reasons is this:

Working around a dead spot in the lineup isn’t what I consider good sports strategy. Most of the “strategy” that people love about the NL involves minimizing the impact that a bad hitter (the pitcher) has on your team.

Hypothetical example:

If the NFL made a rule that forced you to let an offensive lineman carry the ball once every 9th play, teams would find strategic ways to minimize the negative impact of that play. But would that extra “strategy” make the game better? No, of course not, that rule would be ridiculous. The “strategy” would involve nothing more than trying to get through that play unharmed so that you can do something good with the next 8 plays.

In the same way, I think baseball shouldn’t force pitchers to hit. Pitchers are not good hitters. Strategy based on working around their negative impact in the batting order does not (In my opinion) make the game better. Most of the “strategy” is in fact based around trying to get through that batting spot unharmed, so the next 8 hitters can do something good.

I’ve made my point. Now this is an open invitation to everyone in the baseball section to discuss this aspect of the DH.

How do you refute my argument that working around a dead spot in the lineup constitutes neither “more strategy” nor “better strategy than an AL game with the DH? As much as possible, please try to address this particular argument. There are no wrong answers. I’m just looking for a variety of opinions.

Answer 1

love the DH rule, the yanks position cud be different if the national league would enter the 21st century

Answer 2

What is the argument for the DH, besides inflating the offensive numbers. You can't compare baseball to football. But if you want to see baseball scores that look like football scores, then a baseball team should be able to field an offensive and a defensive unit.

Answer 3

well it can be a little weird when the world series comes to terms because the NL doesnt just have a David Ortiz to throw in the lineup when they play in AL ballpark.  But I guess it helps that they have to sit when they play in NL. Besides, there are pitchers who can HIT in the NL.  

Answer 4

I agree. I see a much bigger "strategy" of trying to figure out a way to get Big Papi out than trying to figure out how to get a guy out that couldnt hit well in slow pitch softball. If the guy you are facing can actually hit that is when strategy comes into play.  

Answer 5

Actually, the primary strategy aspect of allowing pitchers to hit is when the manager has to decide whether to pull the pitcher in a close game or keep him in, thus basically wasting the at-bat, or to pinch hit for him, so as to try to get more offense. This is a decision that can have major repercussions on the course of the game. And in the AL, managers never have to face this question. There is no weighing of options, nothing to consider when the nine spot comes up in the 8th inning of a tie game with a man on second and one out. AL managers have it easy, they have a lot less thinking to do.

Besides, the game is supposed to be played with nine men per side, not ten.

Answer 6

The DH was only supposed to be tried on an experimental scale. It's been what like 34 years now and the owners still haven't been able to judge if it is a success. To me it takes away most of the strategy of a game. I do believe it gives the AL an advantage as far as inter-league and World Series play goes. They still have the same # of pitchers but a more powerful bat in the line up or coming off the bench. You can put a mannequin in the Managers spot in an AL game. There are many times when an AL pitcher throws a complete game that they only use 10 players. If you you want the true measure of strategy from a manager look no further than Joe Torre. He has managed 3 historically winning teams in the NL and done very little as far as winning anything. But yet was considered a Managing Genius by many Yankees fans.

Answer 7

The decisions NL managers are faced with during late inning situations about whether to hit for the pitcher, double switch, or keep him in the game are decisions AL managers do not have to deal with, therein qualifying as "more strategy."

But is it "better strategy?" Is making the pitcher hit just a pointless exercize? There is really no way to prove it one way or the other, but the problem I have with the DH is that it circumvents the rule that once a player is removed from the game, he is done. This was always the key strategical limitation in baseball. I actually like the fact that the DH improves offense (theoretically; have you actually seen the average production of DH's over the last 5 years or so? Yikes!). It makes the game more exciting.

But the most intereting bit of strategy in baseball has always been "I can take this guy out for a better player right now, but once I do, he is gone." No other sport features that interesting wrinkle, and the DH irons it out. What if we had a DF for Hanley Ramirez (who can't field to save his life) or Manny Ramirez? What if we had a DR for slow players? Part of what makes baseball interesting is that most players have weaknesses and manager's are supposed to weigh the pros and cons of leaving a player in versus taking him out for the rest of the game.

Answer 8

You must be a national League guy.  The point of baseball in the national league is to get thought the whole line-up.  When you have pitchers hitting home runs these days on more occasions than in recent history, they essentially have become better hitters and the fact they can prove useful sacrifice situations they end up helping themselves in the end.  So, they are not just a dead spot in the order.  They do have a strategic place in the order. Either way strategy is useful do I pitch to the pitcher and risk hi getting lucky and getting a hit, to do I risk pitching the the DH and risk him getting a hit.

Answer 9

It's actually very very simple.  The game was created to be your 9 guys versus my 9 guys, not your 9 guys and a a hitter that never plays the field versus my 9 guys and a hitter that neve plays the field.  

Also with your little analogy there, ever heard of William "The Refridgerator" Perry.  He saw plenty of action in the backfield during the Ditka years.  My analogy of it is that it's like telling the NFC can kick an extra point but the AFC team must go for the 2 point conversion.

Answer 10

First of all, making a point about one sport by hypothesizing about another sport is ludicrous.

Baseball was designed to be played by two way players.  It was after a long period where pitchers demonstrated a lack of talent at it that the one league decided to eliminate the position.  There is no logic to this.  The proper solution would be for pitchers to improve their batting skills.  Traditionally, catchers run slowly.  Should we have designated runners for them?

The idea of working around that dead spot as you call it is critical to strategizing the game.  The manager must weigh in the balance the positive effects of maintaining the pitcher against the negative effects of pulling him out.  How can you not recognize that as strategy?  

Answer 11

You make the assumption that employing strategy is the reason that you would have the pitcher hit. Pitchers should hit because they are part of the team and in the lineup. If you want to get rid of poor hitters to "improve" the game why not add another DH to hit for the catcher, or short stop. You used the NFL as an example so why not just have two entirely different teams in baseball too. An offense and a defense to make the game more exciting. If that is ridiculous, than so is a player who only hits.