exactly and the reason pitchers don't hit well is because they stopped working on it after they got into the minors They have four days in between starts, you'd think they could devote a little time to hitting (or at least bunting, some of them can't even bunt).
The basic idea of the DH makes a lot of sense. Make the game more interesting by not using non-hitters (pitchers) in the lineup. Give the fans your best offensive game by using the best hitters available. But baseball is a game of history and tradition and strategy. So I've never liked the DH. But it's been around for decades and for AL fans it would be hard to scrap. So probably keep it the way it is. DH in the AL and no DH in the NL.
The mound was lowered to 10" starting with the 1969 season, the DH started in 1973. There was already more balance between hitting and pitching before the DH was passed. Who is most directly responsible for killing baseball? Charlie Finley. He pushed for the DH rule He lost a legal battle with Catfish Hunter which essentially started free agency and skyrocketing salaries and ticket prices. Thankfully his stupid orange baseball didn't go over well.
The DH is used in youth baseball, college, and minor leagues because its a way to develop a good batter that can't field. In theory the fielding will come after the bat for those types. In reality they're just grooming DH's for the AL.
I'm not a Finley fan at all due to his well deserved reputation as a bully with his players and the fact that he moved the A's at will. I do think he had some good ideas and unfortunately mainly the bad ones got adopted. If baseball had followed Finley's advice and made the majority of players free agents every year the finances would have stayed largely in check. He surmised that teams would fight over the 10% of the players who were truly outstanding and those guys would get large contracts. Everybody else would be looking for a job in an economy where there were 15 other guys who could do a similar job available each year. Players would sign contracts where they wanted to play, valuing location over a very small bump in salary. The shortages would be resolved at the bottom of the pay scale with teams picking among the barely above replacement value options and those guys never have leverage. The current free agent system is broken because only a few good players become available every year. Those guys get paid huge amounts, probably more than is warranted, because there's only a small number of them available. Everybody else is in a market in which real scarcity exists. Instead of competing with 15 guys at their position they're competing with 2 or 3 that can do the job well. So their value skyrockets and they get much larger contracts than their performance warrants.
I generally don't watch AL baseball. If the NL adopted the DH I'm not sure how much I would love and watch baseball anymore.
The problem with the DH is that it removes a key strategy decision from the game. When do you pull the defensive player with the biggest potential to affect the game in favor of offense? Under what conditions is it worth pulling an ace pitcher because the run potential of doing so is higher than the run potential of leaving them in? The way the DH rule works it even doubles down on that since you can't pinch hit for a DH and make somebody other than the pinch hitter the new DH. You can't replace the DH in the batting order with another player and alter the position of the DH in the batting order. NL baseball is more interesting to watch because it has a lot more going on behind the scenes as the wheels turn. To give you an example: your ace and an opposing ace are locked in a pitching duel as you bat in the bottom of the 6th. The first 2 batters reach base bringing your ace up to bat. Do you bunt with him, substantially reducing the odds of scoring multiple runs in the inning? Do you pinch-hit for him with a player who is resting on the day and more likely to contribute to a big inning? Do you pinch-hit for him with your regular pinch-hitter who has a better chance of contributing to a big inning? Another example: your fifth starter has been on again and off again all season and you're in the top of the 4th down 3-2 with the same situation. Do you pinch-hit to try to blow the game open and bring in the 10th man on your staff to go a few innings? Do you bunt with the guy who probably will be down 5-3 in a couple of innings when you finally yank him? It's a completely different game when the DH dumbs everything down.
DH = more offense = more exciting games. The season is 162 games + postseason long. How many times in a game when watching your team in a situation to put runs on the board cringe because the fucking pitcher is coming up to bat, knowing that he'll probably strike out and end the inning/chance to get back into the game? If you gonna cry and whine about the DH, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Have you wrote to the commissioner? Have you lobbied to get the DH repealed? If not, quit crying. You're already a Jets fan.
Captain Hook won a lot of games yanking his pitchers for pinch hitters in the 70's. The Big Red Machine did what it did at least partly because Sparky Anderson wasn't afraid to pull his pitcher for a pinch-hitter when he saw run potential sitting in front of him. He also did a ton of double-switches when he went to the bullpen when the other team was batting.
Baseball is a game of tension and strategy. DH takes a lot of that away. I've always enjoyed NL games more.
I agree with your conclusion.. But your examples are lacking.. First problem..Score I say we go the opposite way. No DH. No Designated Pitchers. Every Position player should rotate thru the mound. 9 position players, each one taking a turn on the mound.
I don't think the first example is in any way wrong. I think an ace pitcher locked in a tied game should almost always give way to a pinch-hitter, if you have a decent one available, when you're looking at the potential for a multi-run inning in the bottom of the 6th or later. If the opposing pitcher is also an ace the argument is even stronger because the offensive potential of the situation in front of you is probably going to be your best chance to score against the guy. Now add in the benefits of reducing physical stress on your ace by not making him throw the last 20 or 30 pitches of a game in which he has already likely thrown 70+. Add in the benefits of giving a young pitcher some real game experience in a tight game. If you look at all the calculators for run expectancy and win expectancy they tell you that you only get a marginal reduction in your run chance if you bunt in the situation described. Your run expectancy is 1.41 runs with 1st and 2nd and 0 outs while it is 1.35 runs with 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. However the bunt isn't a guaranteed thing with a success rate that hovers around 70%. So 30% of the time bunting actually lowers your run expectancy to 0.87 runs in the inning. Similarly, win expectancy tells you that you lose 1% win chance when you go from 1st and 2nd with 0 outs to 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. You lose an additional 5% win chance for 6% total in the 30% chance that you fail the sacrifice. All things considered it has to be better than break even to pull your ace in that situation.
and kickers should kick off and walk away while another guy runs down the field and tackles the runner if he breaks free. punters too. oh im going to line up a cover snapper and a long snapper. the long snapper will snap and the other guy will run down the field. fuck the dh
