The DH rule

[sahyder1]

Today marks the 38th anniversary of the creation of the DH rule in baseball. What do you think of it? Like it? Hate it?

Personally I've always been more of a fan of the National League style of baseball. I just think there is a lot more strategy involved with double switches and utilization of your bench. I know the MLBPA will never agree to it but I'd love it if the AL dropped the DH as well.

[Ananas]

I don't see the point of pitchers hitting. Just a couple more opportunities a game to lose your pitcher to injury, and having a hole at the bottom of the lineup hardly improves the game. It does make a tactical impact that perhaps adds a twinge of excitement but from a gameplay standpoint I just think it makes the game worse - by making a player in your lineup do something they're completely shit at. Plus all kinds of great players would have had their career dramatically shortened where it not for the DH spot (Paul Molitor, Dave Winfield, Edgar Martinez, Jim Thome, Frank Thomas).

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I am ambivalent towards it.

[Toe]

I prefer the DH when watching baseball. In video games, I like playing in the NL more because of the tactics involved.

[Meacon Keaton]

I'm for it. As someone else mentioned, guys like Molitor, Baines, and Edgar Martinez would not have been active as long as they were were it not for the DH rule. I don't expect the National League to adopt it, and I wouldn't want them to. I like that the two leagues have a big difference like that between each other, and it's interesting to see how teams adjust during interleague play.

[Trey]

I prefer watching the NL to the AL because I'm just not a fan of the DH but that's because if you're going to swing the bat I think you should have to play the field.

[GhostMachine]

I have no problem with the DH when its used to extend the career of a player who is aging or too busted up from injuries to field anymore but can still hit. But I have a problem with it when its given to a player who isn't worth shit as a fielder in the first place yet can hit.

But I'm an NL guy (Reds fan), and prefer my baseball without it. I just don't have a problem with the DH being around as long as its kept to the AL. They decide to add it to the NL, and I'll be pissed.

[DMN in the House]

Hate the DH. If you're gonna play, field your position.

[sahyder1]

I'm for it. As someone else mentioned, guys like Molitor, Baines, and Edgar Martinez would not have been active as long as they were were it not for the DH rule. I don't expect the National League to adopt it, and I wouldn't want them to. I like that the two leagues have a big difference like that between each other, and it's interesting to see how teams adjust during interleague play.

I'm sorry but that's one hell of a stupid reason. If guys aren't good enough to play they aren't good enough to play. Any special circumstances created is flat out dumb. If you're a good enough bat teams will play you. If you're a good enough talent...learn to play the field.

[Guest mr. potato head]

I like it except when it's used for Mike McCoy.

[Ananas]

I'm for it. As someone else mentioned, guys like Molitor, Baines, and Edgar Martinez would not have been active as long as they were were it not for the DH rule. I don't expect the National League to adopt it, and I wouldn't want them to. I like that the two leagues have a big difference like that between each other, and it's interesting to see how teams adjust during interleague play.

I'm sorry but that's one hell of a stupid reason. If guys aren't good enough to play they aren't good enough to play. Any special circumstances created is flat out dumb. If you're a good enough bat teams will play you. If you're a good enough talent...learn to play the field.

It's a perfectly valid reason from a fan's perspective. Unless instead of Edgar Martinez putting up a career line of .312/.418/.515 you'd have rather watched Randy Johnson take atrocious hacks and maybe shorten his Hall of Fame career while doing something he's completely unqualified for. Great entertainment value there with a breather in the 9 spot until the late innings.

[Meacon Keaton]

I'm for it. As someone else mentioned, guys like Molitor, Baines, and Edgar Martinez would not have been active as long as they were were it not for the DH rule. I don't expect the National League to adopt it, and I wouldn't want them to. I like that the two leagues have a big difference like that between each other, and it's interesting to see how teams adjust during interleague play.

I'm sorry but that's one hell of a stupid reason. If guys aren't good enough to play they aren't good enough to play. Any special circumstances created is flat out dumb. If you're a good enough bat teams will play you. If you're a good enough talent...learn to play the field.

Apparently that isn't the case, as that's exactly why those three played as long as they did. It's the DH rule. It's a special circumstance. A rule that allows players that are good enough at bat, that don't have to play the field. Or were you telling me that my reasoning for being for it was stupid?

[sahyder1]

Edgar Martinez is the perfect argument against the DH rule. This guy is looked at as a potential HOFer (yes, I'm aware he dipped in voting this year compared to last year) when his career numbers don't warrant it at all. I'm sure David Ortiz has played less and his numbers are already better. Heck, Joe Carter had a better career. Should he be in the Hall of Fame? I don't count Molitor in the DH argument as much because he actually played more games in the field then he did at DH.

Martinez's career numbers are comparable to Moises Alou and John Olerud. Martinez played a long stretch of his career in the same lineup as A-Rod and Griffey.

[Meacon Keaton]

I'm failing to see what your point is, now.

For starters, when did I mention anyone being worthy of the Hall of Fame? Especially Edgar Martinez? He's viewed as a potential Hall of Famer, but not be me, and I sure as hell didn't bring that up, so excuse my confusion.

And if you want to compare him to David Ortiz (for what reason, I don't know), that's fine. You want a home-run hitter? Ortiz is your man. But if you want someone with a career .312 average (as opposed to Ortiz's .281) or someone who had a career on base percentage over .400, you'd have Martinez. Again, I don't see what that had to do with anything, but by "numbers are already better", I'm assuming you were just talking homeruns and runs batted in.

And what difference does it make if he was in the same line-up as Griffey, A-Rod, and Buhner? How does that make any kind of argument against the DH rule? Or are you still having this phantom argument about whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame or not?

[Ananas]

Edgar Martinez is the perfect argument against the DH rule. This guy is looked at as a potential HOFer (yes, I'm aware he dipped in voting this year compared to last year) when his career numbers don't warrant it at all. I'm sure David Ortiz has played less and his numbers are already better. Heck, Joe Carter had a better career. Should he be in the Hall of Fame? I don't count Molitor in the DH argument as much because he actually played more games in the field then he did at DH.

Martinez's career numbers are comparable to Moises Alou and John Olerud. Martinez played a long stretch of his career in the same lineup as A-Rod and Griffey.

By what measure did Joe Carter have a better career than Edgar Martinez? Home runs and RBI's? By that argument Joe Carter had a better career than Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Roberto Alomar and Robin Yount. Unless you're counting the fact that Joe Carter played a position, which isn't really a valid argument given that he played a position poorly. From a value standpoint, the fact that Edgar Martinez put up zero defensive value is better than the negative value Carter did. And if you think David Ortiz is really a better hitter than Edgar Martinez was I'm not sure we can even continue this conversation. They're not even close.

[sahyder1]

ok, Joe Carter was a bad example. His OPS was a lot lower then I thought it was. My point with DHs and Edgar Martinez in particular is that the baseball world overrates them. Edgar Martinez was a cleanup guy with some ridiculous offensive talent around him. If you don't think that helps a hitter....you don't know baseball. For a cleanup guy Martinez's numbers weren't that great. Especially in the time frame he played in. You didn't say he was a Hall of Famer but you did say he was a great player. The baseball world thinks of him as a potential hitter purely because of him being a DH. If you look at his profile on Baseball Reference and take a look at guys he's most comparable to. How many of those guys get the same respect? I don't put Molitor and the other guys in the same boat as him. Those guys actually played the field.

Fact is Edgar Martinez should have been a bench guy at best and not someone who got 8,000 at bats in the majors. I'm sorry but this isn't the little leagues where everyone gets to play. This is what I was talking about strategy. If a team wants to play someone like him...no problem go put him at first base or something. Decide is the bat good enough that you go and put a weaker defensive lineup to get the extra pop in the lineup.

If Randy Johnson had to hit chances are his pitching numbers would be a lot better too facing a NL style lineup. Pitchers in the NL manage to bat without getting hurt.....pitchers in the American League manage to get hurt without batting. Again, dumb reasoning.

[naiwf]

I don't like the DH. I also don't like LaRussa style managers who make double switches and use every arm in the bullpen to get through a couple of innings either. At the end of the day though, I prefer the NL style of game. My biggest gripe with the DH is that it takes the one dimensional player to the extreme, but then again I hate kickers and punters too because they seem to have an inordinate level of impact on a game that they don't play at least 90% of the time.

[Meacon Keaton]

Dude, I've defended you in certain situations when people say your arguing skills are shit, but this is getting sad. Let's break this down.

You didn't say he was a Hall of Famer but you did say he was a great player.

No, I didn't. I said his career wouldn't have lasted as long had it not been for the DH spot. Go back. Look over what I said, find where I said he was a great player, post it here, and I'll be more than happy to say you were right. But you're not.

Edgar Martinez was a cleanup guy with some ridiculous offensive talent around him. If you don't think that helps a hitter....you don't know baseball.

For starters, where, just WHERE did I say that he wasn't helped by having impressive offensive talent around him? I said I failed to see how that backed up your argument against the DH. Nowhere did I say that he wasn't helped out by that. Obviously that whole line-up was helped by each other. I do know baseball. I've played it my whole life and continue to coach it.

Fact is Edgar Martinez should have been a bench guy at best and not someone who got 8,000 at bats in the majors. I'm sorry but this isn't the little leagues where everyone gets to play.

It's been said that had Edgar been on a National League team, he would have played the field because his bat was too good to sit on the bench. The designated hitter has been around for over three decades. It's a part of the game, whether you like that fact (which clearly you don't) or not. But that's irrelevant, because it is part of the game.

This is what I was talking about strategy. If a team wants to play someone like him...no problem go put him at first base or something. Decide is the bat good enough that you go and put a weaker defensive lineup to get the extra pop in the lineup.

BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO BECAUSE THE DESIGNATED HITTER IS A PART OF THE GAME. See, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Had there been no DH, yes, the Mariners would have had to make that kind of decision. But there is a DH, and they didn't have to.

The bottom line is you are still arguing that Edgar Martinez should not be a Hall of Famer based on him being a designated hitter when nobody said it in the first place. You're arguing a completely different thing than what anyone else has said.

[sahyder1]

No.....I am not arguing his HOF credentials. I'm saying him getting a chance to play at DH inflated his stats. He was a bench player but ended up getting a 18 year career. Beatnik said that Edgar Martinez was a great player.

All I'm saying is that he's the perfect example for why there shouldn't be a DH. A manager can play a guy who most teams would probably keep on the bench because they don't need to factor in his defense.

[Meacon Keaton]

But Edgar Martinez was a good enough bat, that had there been no DH, he would have played the field. It's not like Edgar Martinez would have been stocking shelves at Walmart were in not for the Designated Hitter rule. The guy hit over .320 seven times in his career, including one year where he hit .352 or .356 (can't remember off the top of my head).

As for being a DH inflating stats, I can't argue. Hell, were it not for the DH spot, Paul Molitor wouldn't even been in Cooperstown, because over a third of his hits were as a DH. But that's exactly why I'm for it. It gives guys that aren't as swift in the field as they once were to still be productive for their franchise. And isn't that what it's all about?

Are you this opposed to relief pitchers and closers? I mean, they pitch, and field, but they don't hit. It's the same, but opposite.