Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

OC Register: Hoornstra: Baseball’s designated hitter rule could benefit from compromise


Recommended Posts

Think the designated hitter is coming to the National League?

“The suggestion, often made, that the pitcher be denied a chance to bat, and a substitute player sent up to hit every time, has been brought to life again, and will come up for consideration when the American and National League Committees on rules get together.” Those words were printed in 1906. Even 114 years ago, the chatter around the DH rule was an old one.

The National League has mandated pitchers hit for themselves in every non-interleague game since 1973. That might change a year from now, according to a report that surfaced this week. It’s hard to take any such report too seriously until the universal DH becomes part of the league’s official rules. The momentum behind the rule change is obvious: it would achieve one of Commissioner Rob Manfred’s explicit goals of lowering the average game time.

It would also tick off some very interested parties.

“I would not, not force the DH on the National League,” Angels manager Joe Maddon told me in spring training last year, the last time the universal DH suggestion was brought to life.

“The National League game is much more thought-provoking,” Maddon said. “If you want more offense, don’t worry about getting one more guy in the lineup. Worry about teaching a different method of hitting a little bit.”

“My desire is we don’t sanitize things in the game too much,” Brewers manager Craig Counsell told me around the same time. “I think strategic parts of the game are what makes it a great game.”

Like Counsell and Maddon, I prefer a game with more strategy, not less. It helps if the fruits of these strategies are readily obvious to fans. Moves and countermoves translate better than launch angles and spin rates.

There’s nothing wrong with a faster-paced game. Far from it, in fact. MLB’s pace-of-play initiatives (automatic intentional walks, limiting mound visits, futile attempts at reducing the time between pitches) have had little effect to this point. This year, relief pitchers must face a minimum of three batters, unless the inning ends first, and that might nudge the average time of game downward.

The average game time reached 3 hours, 10 minutes last season, a record. It’s doubtful a universal DH rule would make much of a difference. Last season, the average AL game was less than two minutes shorter than the average NL game.

Yet the National League game was better in 2019. It gave us more baseball. It gave us more strategy from the dugout. It also gave us more strategy from the batter’s box. Hitters set new single-season records for home runs and strikeouts in 2019. American League teams combined to hit 180 more homers than their NL counterparts. Despite having the benefit of the DH, American Leaguers struck out more in 2019, not less.

So, no, I’m not eager to see the NL game disappear. Maybe the question of whether or not to allow the DH in both leagues is a false dichotomy. Could the two leagues forge a compromise? If so, what might that look like?

Here are three options.

Option 1.

Let the home manager decide whether the DH is in effect on a game-by-game basis.

This is my favorite idea, at least in theory. It restores some autonomy to the manager’s seat. It introduces an extra layer of pregame strategy. It gives the home team an advantage beyond batting last in every inning and hearing the roar of the crowd.

The biggest implication: pitchers who fail to hit, and hitters who can’t play a position, would be more easily exploited, while a two-way talent would have an even more decisive advantage.

Shohei Ohtani could hit on the days he starts for the Angels, and force the other team’s pitchers to bat for themselves at home. On the road, opposing managers might take the Angels’ DH away – but at the cost of forcing their own pitchers to hit. Would Nelson Cruz have to learn a position if he wants to start a game outside of Minnesota? That would be Rocco Baldelli’s problem.

Option 2.

Allow the DH to stay in the game as long as the starting pitcher remains in the game.

If you miss a good starting pitchers’ duel, this option is for you. Say it’s the top of the fifth inning, the pitcher is struggling, and the home team’s DH is due up in the bottom of the inning. Now the manager has an extra decision to make: remove his starter for a fresh reliever and lose his DH, or let the starter try to work out of trouble?

If you dislike “openers” – relievers who start the game, and only pitch one or two innings – this plan is not for you. Effectively, this option exchanges one layer of strategy for another. It also reduces the impact a DH can potentially have on each game. Cruz, arguably the Twins’ best hitter, would rarely bat in a late-game situation when he’s in the starting lineup. Teams would be incentivized to stash better hitters on the bench, perhaps at the expense of their starting DH.

It’s imperfect, but another example of a possible compromise.

Option 3.

Mandate that starting pitchers bat for themselves, then allow managers to insert a DH once the starter is removed from the game.

This is the opposite of Option 2, and it would likely elicit the opposite effect. Openers would be encouraged. The value in having a deep bench would evaporate. Double switches would die. Potentially, we’d see better hitters taking late-game at-bats, but essentially this is what we already see in the National League. Relief pitchers rarely bat as it is, so this change would merely allow the same pinch-hitter to bat for multiple relief pitchers in the same game.

If MLB insists that messing with 47 years of tradition would better the game, so be it. But the DH doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. There’s a broad middle ground to be found, if the league wants to look for it.

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need a compromise? Pitchers batting is stupid. The strategy element is heavily overstated. Here’s what it is: Should we have a good batter or a a crap batter. 

The note for compromise is more idiotic than leaving it the same, which is a brain dead idea. 

Here’s a better plan: Kill the pitcher hitting. Go full DH, never look back, then think to yourself, “What took us so long?”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

Why do we need a compromise? Pitchers batting is stupid. The strategy element is heavily overstated. Here’s what it is: Should we have a good batter or a a crap batter. 

The note for compromise is more idiotic than leaving it the same, which is a brain dead idea. 

Here’s a better plan: Kill the pitcher hitting. Go full DH, never look back, then think to yourself, “What took us so long?”.

If you want the best hitters hitting, then are you OK with entirely different players playing offense and defense like football?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 2 is the most common one ive read in various places, it seems to be popular, but I for one am still wondering why this is so sacred to NL fans.
Where is the joy in watching someone try to hit, and i say try as most are just flat terrible at it. 
What ever will rosters do without the vaunted pinch hitting specialist?!?!?  (oh wait he can just be the DH)
And dont get me started on the pure excitement of the... double switch! (done in "no one expects the Spanish inquisition" style voice)
We are now seeing guys that are largely DHs making he hall of fame, if anything the NL is cheating itself out of what could be generational players, limiting themselves on trades and acquisitions but not having that spot to offer, and any number of logical reasons aside from purity, that tell us its time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

If you want the best hitters hitting, then are you OK with entirely different players playing offense and defense like football?

one different player on offense and one different player on defense? SIGN ME UP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

Why do we need a compromise? Pitchers batting is stupid. The strategy element is heavily overstated. Here’s what it is: Should we have a good batter or a a crap batter. 

The note for compromise is more idiotic than leaving it the same, which is a brain dead idea. 

Here’s a better plan: Kill the pitcher hitting. Go full DH, never look back, then think to yourself, “What took us so long?”.

You know that the NL is dragging their feet because the AL implemented it first.

Edited by Slegnaac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

Why do we need a compromise? Pitchers batting is stupid. The strategy element is heavily overstated. Here’s what it is: Should we have a good batter or a a crap batter. 

The note for compromise is more idiotic than leaving it the same, which is a brain dead idea. 

Here’s a better plan: Kill the pitcher hitting. Go full DH, never look back, then think to yourself, “What took us so long?”.

I'm not sure why you are so against the strategic component of the game. I totally get why people don't like pitchers batting but there is another element of the game that is watered down by the DH. In the NL your bench and your roster construction really matters, whereas in the AL you really just load up on relief pitchers. I'd prefer them to increase the strategic aspect if they are going to make any changes. The fact remains that there are two styles of play and each has their fans, going with one over the other isn't necessarily a wise choice - I mean if you had to chose between a compromise solution and N rules league wide, which would you prefer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ScottT said:

I dont like this compromise talk. Thought itd just happen. Why is MLB insisting on complicating things lately?  Three batter minimum, roster designations and a weird Ohtani exemption.... any of these would be the silliest of the latest changes.

I honestly don't know that they are. I think it's mostly writers making the suggestion. I can't imagine either players or the league actually want a hybrid. For one thing, the AL doesn't want to go back to that. And if you saw how quick the Astros chilled to the DH and losing the pitcher hitting, that's how quick everyone else will be good with it as well. Writers are just offering fan service - unless I'm mistaken, no one in any official capacity has suggested such a scenario is being seriously considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pancake Bear said:

Why do we need a compromise? Pitchers batting is stupid. The strategy element is heavily overstated. Here’s what it is: Should we have a good batter or a a crap batter. 

The note for compromise is more idiotic than leaving it the same, which is a brain dead idea. 

Here’s a better plan: Kill the pitcher hitting. Go full DH, never look back, then think to yourself, “What took us so long?”.

I, and this article (https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/31349/flu-like-symptoms-the-strategic-argument-against-the-dh/) agree that the strategic element has become overstated over time, due largely to the proliferation of short relief stints; it is not however non-existent. I actually prefer that the NL remain w/o the DH.  My perception is that the majority of serious fans of NL teams prefer it that way and there should be a more compelling argument to standardize the DH than game-time, which is negligible and can be addressed in other ways.  If the NL prefers the status quo, how does that affect the AL?  Interleague and playoffs. I think there may be room to tweak the rules in these scenarios but having different characteristics for the two leagues isn't something that needs to be fixed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Junkballer said:

but having different characteristics for the two leagues isn't something that needs to be fixed

So if today they instituted a new rule and said it only applies to one league, you’d be OK with that? 
 

How about the 3-batter rule? What if that only went into one league? Or what if one league had an electronic strike zone and the other league didn’t?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

So if today they instituted a new rule and said it only applies to one league, you’d be OK with that? 
 

How about the 3-batter rule? What if that only went into one league? Or what if one league had an electronic strike zone and the other league didn’t?

Jeff thanks for your great contributions to this site.

I think you are well aware that this subject has a history with fans (47 years worth) that are integrated with the way they view the role of the manager and complexity (or non-) of pitching/substitutions strategy, and those roots run deep for some.   As a fan of an AL team, I like the DH.  When discussing the value of the lack of DH in the NL with say a Dodger fan, (I know, gross right?) I can appreciate the passion they bring to the argument.  To that mind, they like that the decisions are not as easy for the manager and introduce an unknown potential penalty in exchange for giving yourself an advantage.  I understand their passion for it and who's to say that some of us wouldn't feel the same if the Angels were expansioned into the NL in '61?  I like that the two leagues have this differing aspect.  It speaks to their history that they were once truly independent leagues. But to answer your question, incorporating new league-specific rule changes would have to be looked at carefully, but on a case by case basis, yes I'd be okay with some.  Probably not with any rule that affects how balls and strikes are called though because that isn't something a player can easily adjust to going from one series to the next.  Some might argue the same thing for AL pitchers having to hit all of a sudden in interleague and that is valid but that argument is just not as compelling to me.  Rules like the 3-batter can be implemented in interleague without giving any significant advantage either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

Jeff thanks for your great contributions to this site.

I think you are well aware that this subject has a history with fans (47 years worth) that are integrated with the way they view the role of the manager and complexity (or non-) of pitching/substitutions strategy, and those roots run deep for some.   As a fan of an AL team, I like the DH.  When discussing the value of the lack of DH in the NL with say a Dodger fan, (I know, gross right?) I can appreciate the passion they bring to the argument.  To that mind, they like that the decisions are not as easy for the manager and introduce an unknown potential penalty in exchange for giving yourself an advantage.  I understand their passion for it and who's to say that some of us wouldn't feel the same if the Angels were expansioned into the NL in '61?  I like that the two leagues have this differing aspect.  It speaks to their history that they were once truly independent leagues. But to answer your question, incorporating new league-specific rule changes would have to be looked at carefully, but on a case by case basis, yes I'd be okay with some.  Probably not with any rule that affects how balls and strikes are called though because that isn't something a player can easily adjust to going from one series to the next.  Some might argue the same thing for AL pitchers having to hit all of a sudden in interleague and that is valid but that argument is just not as compelling to me.  Rules like the 3-batter can be implemented in interleague without giving any significant advantage either way.

I can appreciate an argument that the DH is better and I can appreciate an argument that no DH is better. 
 

I have trouble with the argument that having different rules in different leagues is better. I understand it’s been that way for a long time, but that doesn’t mean it’s logical today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...