DH 2021???

[Ceetar]

I liked a thing I saw floating around a few weeks ago - the DH leaves the game when you remove your starting pitcher. 1. "Saves" starters from getting "hurt" in phantom batting/running injuries 2. You added a 26th roster spot, might as well use it. 3. You're going to pinch-hit for your relievers anyway. 4. Strategery.

I don't like this for much the reason I'd prefer no-DH uniformly than all-DH.(I just think we've gone so far in baseball that even NL pitchers are basically mailing it in. Might as well remove the mailing it in aspects) freedom. I like the idea that we've got 9 players that we can use however we like. Whether that means 9 pitchers, or 1. defensive replacements, guys that only bat from the left side, Openers, LOOGYs, second RFers playing by the SS for 5-man infields. Switching the pitcher to RF and then back to P.



I like the free form of it, the uniformity, all 9 guys try to score, all 9 guys then try to prevent the other team from scoring. Sub 'em out how you see fit to maximize it.



On that note I also HATE the designation of pitchers as pitchers and hitters as hitters. Worst thing that's happened since the DH. I also dislike the automatic IBB rule because it legislates in a silly workaround. I'd rather they'd go the other way and not let the catcher out of the box period. It's a competition! why are we letting managers wave a hand and click 'skip'? Plus it hurts the flow of the game. It happens so fast and often so simply that you miss it unless you're laser focused on that moment. Sometimes the announcers miss it too. Plus the 4 pitch stretch of getting to boo the team for skipping a guy is a fun part of the fan experience.

[seawolf17]

Look, I completely agree, Ceets, but the DH is coming whether we like it or not, because... the union? Owners? Honestly, I have no idea why, but Lunch is right, it's happening, so we might as well brainstorm ideas that make it less terrible.



And no, it's not complicated, necessarily. You have a DH set for your starting pitcher. He bats in whatever spot in the order you want. But when your pitcher is scuffling and you take him out, you have two options -- slide the DH into the field and stick your reliever in that spot in the order, or your DH is out with your starter. You want two ABs of David Ortiz in the four spot, then a giant reliever-shaped hole? Cool, go for it. You want to go with no DH and have deGrom bat ninth and hit for himself so you don't lose the spot? Cool too. Whatever.

[Ceetar]

yeah, i just think that this wrinkle adds MORE nonsense.



1. It basically eliminates openers and i'm pro-opener. (use your 26 players however you want, even if that's a pitcher an inning)

2. this is why it won't happen, it'll basically eliminate full time DHs. You're not having David Ortiz only play 3 PA a game. Which means you're having him play the field, which means you're not likely having another 'good/regular' 1Bman anyway, so you're eliminating a spot. So now you're basically half-resting guys and using matchups/PH anyway, so might as well just have the pitcher bat. (or have no DH and just a PH spot?)

3. There are some shenanigans that'll happen that'll be amusing, but I don't think that's a good reason to do it. Specifically the 'pitchers getting hurt' bit, because while they may not run, if David Ortiz is due up third in the bottom of the 6th and you've got 2-out, 2 on and really want to go to a reliever, managers are going to put the starter in the outfield to preserve that AB. (I guess you could eliminate pitchers' playing the field at all, but now pitcher's are even more separate from the rest of their team. It's like they're playing a different sport)

[TransMonk]

Universal DH coming...I'm surprised it took so long.



I'd like it more if it was part of radical change to the game. Geographically realign, get rid of the NL/AL, unbalance the schedules to reduce travel by playing bulk of games in division, shorten the season to 156 games with regularly scheduled off days and double headers. I think someone here (FK?) linked to an article last year that talked about blowing up the league in order to start fresh now that everyone would be playing by the same rules, but I can't find it now.

[Ceetar]

Let's suggest something else.



You can reenter the game in future innings if you've exited. why not? you could throw your two best starters every other inning, lefty/righty. You could use your best reliever in the 6th against Trout and still use him to finish off the 9th.



You could glue a pitcher to Bryce Harper. "In this weekend series against the Mets, Bryce Harper faced Stephen Matz 14 times and struck out in 10 of them." If you used a LOOGY in this situation, You'd have to balance diminishing returns. Seeing a lefty specialist once a game, or once every other game is tough, but there's a reason those guys aren't starters. Do you use him down 1 in game 1, knowing Harper might start to get the timing down by the time you want to use him up 1 in the 9th in game 3? Think of all the opportunity to kill the manager for using/not using guys this way!



You'd have to nail down some rules. Maybe if you come in on defense you have to bat once, and if you pinch hit, you have to play an inning in the field? Or maybe a 3 inning lag time, or you can only return in the position you left. (in the batting order) so no batting David Wright third, removing him, and then bringing him in 6th in the next inning.



Phillies are bringing in a lefty to face Conforto in the 5th! Rojas subs in Cespedes.

8th inning, pinch hit Conforto for Cespedes and now the Phillies are bringing back the lefty! Gotcha!



I dunno, it seems fun.

[bmfc1]

I'm not advocating for the DH but this is Manfred's biggest argument: it increases offense and the game doesn't have enough action.

The players want it because it's paid higher than a utility player.

It makes life easier for managers because they can think less.

It avoids the DH discrepancy during interleague games and the World Series.

I'd still rather watch deGrom/Matz/Noah/Stro hit.

[Fman99]

I hate it and I don't care what you try to do to make it more palliative. HATE IT.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If they want to increase action, they should have the batters hit off a tee. That should cut down on the number of strikeouts.

[Ceetar]

=bmfc1 post_id=30636 time=1580230056 user_id=73]
I'm not advocating for the DH but this is Manfred's biggest argument: it increases offense and the game doesn't have enough action.

The players want it because it's paid higher than a utility player.

It makes life easier for managers because they can think less.

It avoids the DH discrepancy during interleague games and the World Series.

I'd still rather watch deGrom/Matz/Noah/Stro hit.

[Guest 41Forever]

=TransMonk post_id=30633 time=1580224183 user_id=71]
Universal DH coming...I'm surprised it took so long.



I'd like it more if it was part of radical change to the game. Geographically realign, get rid of the NL/AL, unbalance the schedules to reduce travel by playing bulk of games in division, shorten the season to 156 games with regularly scheduled off days and double headers. I think someone here (FK?) linked to an article last year that talked about blowing up the league in order to start fresh now that everyone would be playing by the same rules, but I can't find it now.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Guest

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Nobody wants to join my unpopular but reasonable movement to lop 2 innings off every game. It would do wonders for game length, ease strain on pitcher arms and maximize strategy by compressing things.



Side effects: No hitters and extra inning games would probably go way up (or maybe not?)



Reduce innings, not games!

[Willets Point]

=TransMonk post_id=30633 time=1580224183 user_id=71]
Universal DH coming...I'm surprised it took so long.



I'd like it more if it was part of radical change to the game. Geographically realign, get rid of the NL/AL, unbalance the schedules to reduce travel by playing bulk of games in division, shorten the season to 156 games with regularly scheduled off days and double headers. I think someone here (FK?) linked to an article last year that talked about blowing up the league in order to start fresh now that everyone would be playing by the same rules, but I can't find it now.

[Centerfield]

=41Forever post_id=30641 time=1580231889 user_id=69]
=TransMonk post_id=30633 time=1580224183 user_id=71]
Universal DH coming...I'm surprised it took so long.



I'd like it more if it was part of radical change to the game. Geographically realign, get rid of the NL/AL, unbalance the schedules to reduce travel by playing bulk of games in division, shorten the season to 156 games with regularly scheduled off days and double headers. I think someone here (FK?) linked to an article last year that talked about blowing up the league in order to start fresh now that everyone would be playing by the same rules, but I can't find it now.

[Lefty Specialist]

=Fman99 post_id=30637 time=1580230267 user_id=86]
I hate it and I don't care what you try to do to make it more palliative. HATE IT.

[Ceetar]

I'd add more than 2 teams to be honest, and would better randomize interleague play and get rid of forced Mets-Yanks every year. You play a random small subset of the other league, 6 teams maybe, varies, randomly. Maybe a weight for subway series stuff, or by request of owners or something, so they happen more often, but not every year.



Travel isn't as bad as it was, but we're learning more and more how much lack of sleep, and weird schedules can mess with you, performance wise, so it's still important. travel time from Seattle park to Seattle airport to JFK to your home is still a long travel day.



I'd add at least 1 team near Seattle, but maybe 3. Vancouver, Portland, etc.



And on the same travel vein, since Mexico City gets mentioned a lot, 2 teams, maybe more, there. Same division so they get a lot of lesser travel days to make up for how far they have to travel otherwise.

[Guest 41Forever]

=Centerfield post_id=30644 time=1580233912 user_id=65]
=41Forever post_id=30641 time=1580231889 user_id=69]
=TransMonk post_id=30633 time=1580224183 user_id=71]
Universal DH coming...I'm surprised it took so long.



I'd like it more if it was part of radical change to the game. Geographically realign, get rid of the NL/AL, unbalance the schedules to reduce travel by playing bulk of games in division, shorten the season to 156 games with regularly scheduled off days and double headers. I think someone here (FK?) linked to an article last year that talked about blowing up the league in order to start fresh now that everyone would be playing by the same rules, but I can't find it now.

[TransMonk]

One of the best parts of baseball is that we can have such passionate debates about it! I respect your opinions, but disagree.

Agreed...and that's OK.

I don't think baseball needs to be blown up. You can always improve things here or there, but I think the sport is thriving.

"Blown up" was maybe the wrong term...I mostly meant changing some of the nagging things that could be improved.

I think the NL/AL distinctions are historic. And while the differences between the leagues are certainly diminished from the days when there were separate league offices, I think it's important to respect that history. I still think the Astros are in the NL half the time.

Yabbut, if the DH is added to the NL, then there is no more need to have the distinction. It becomes historical, which is fine with me. As an NL purist, I think it would make the transition more palatable. When I tell my grandkids about the "good old days", I can talk about the differences and nuance that made the NL special. Once the DH becomes universal, that is gone. I think MLB would have a better time selling abolishing the differences in the leagues than adding the DH to the NL.

I think MLB is more likely to add two teams to deal with the forced inter-league games rather than realign. And I like the inter-league games. More opportunities to see the Mets.

I'm sure they will, too. But I don't like adding more teams. I'd contract if anything. I feel the talent pool is diluted and better competition would be forced by fewer teams.

I don't know if there is a huge need to reduce travel -- it's not like they are flying economy on Southwest -- and I like seeing more teams, rather than the sames ones over and over.

Poll the players and owners and see what they say. It is an expense and it also creates wear and tear on players. Realigning so that the Mets play the Yankees 18-24 times per year rather than the Marlins or Braves saves thousands of air miles and reduces road trips. Players would be fresher and, theoretically, would perform better and last longer.



And I'm not saying they would never play other teams. Ideally, I would advocate for 8 four team divisions where teams play their division rivals 24 times and then one series against every other team in the league (alternating home/away each year). That would be 156 games and the schedule would be set. You would know that the Mets are coming to Detroit every other year rather than the random scheduling that happens now.



*On edit - I guess my premise here does mean there would be expansion of two teams.

I don't see a benefit in shortening the season. It's been 162 going on 60 years. And if they are going to have more doubleheaders, it would be of the day/night variety and those suck.

Again, ask the players. Travel and scheduling in baseball is worse than ever. I have a feeling that players are going to negotiate mandatory off days after road trips and playing no more than something like 10 days in a row. Reducing the number of games while keeping the April through October timeframe allows schedule makers to put in more off days. Doubleheaders would help with that as well...and I would hope that they would be true twin-bills and I'm talking like no more than two or three a season. More off days means that players again would be fresher and last longer.

[Edgy MD]

=bmfc1 post_id=30636 time=1580230056 user_id=73]I'm not advocating for the DH but this is Manfred's biggest argument: it increases offense and the game doesn't have enough action.

[Frayed Knot]

The long-time 'Pro' DH argument has always been: 'Well who would you rather see hit, [inept pitcher] or ['Name' slugger]?

But that argument carried out to its logical conclusion can be fitted to just about any situation.

-- 'Who would you rather see play SS?' ... and use that to have a rule where your glove man fields but another hits for him. Rey Ordonez: Designated Fielder. He coulda had a 20 year career!!

-- 'You wanna see Wilson Ramos run or Sam Haggerty?' ... and have a situation where SH never bats but trots out to replace the Buffalo each time he reaches base.







The fault with the DH, as it does with many things, lies with the Yanquis.

[Edgy MD]

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in the Yankees' stars." – Julius Caeser, Act I, Scene 2

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: The long-time 'Pro' DH argument has always been: 'Well who would you rather see hit, [inept pitcher] or ['Name' slugger]? But that argument carried out to its logical conclusion can be fitted to just about any situation. -- 'Who would you rather see play SS?' ... and use that to have a rule where your glove man fields but another hits for him. Rey Ordonez: Designated Fielder. He coulda had a 20 year career!! -- 'You wanna see Wilson Ramos run or Sam Haggerty?' ... and have a situation where SH never bats but trots out to replace the Buffalo each time he reaches base. The fault with the DH, as it does with many things, lies with the Yanquis.

Exactly right. Extract that logic out further. Who would you rather see hit? 8 guys not as good as Mike Trout or Mike Trout? We should let Trout take every AB and use pinch runners. Sam Haggerty. Billy Hamilton. A well-trained cheetah.

[smg58]

A poorly trained cheetah would be much more entertaining. Especially if the Yankees are on the field.

[Frayed Knot]

btw, the reason I blamed this all on the Yanquis was that I don't think it was a coincidence that the AL turned to this rule in desperation following the decade when the Yanx attained also-ran status.



After dominating the AL from the early/mid '20s thru the early/mid '60s, the AL found itself much more single-team dependent as compared to the NL. So when the yanx went into a tailspin starting

in 1965, that league lost their main drawing card. Attendance plummeted (much more so than NL) as the AL found itself with the weaker franchises in all three of the biggest markets: Mets out-drew

MFY from '64 on; Cubs over White Sox (though neither drew real well at that point); Dodgers way over Angels, plus were sputtering in cities like Baltimore and Washington (would leave D.C. in '61

and again in '72), KC/Oakland (at least while they were acting as a de facto farm system for the Yanx, and Cleveland (there's a reason they were chosen for that movie).



Add to that that the NL was simply the better league at that point talent wise, just look at the pitching especially [Koufax, Seaver, Carlton, Gibson, Jenkins, Marichal compared to the likes of Palmer,

Tiant, Kaat, ???]. But the AL was also the lower scoring league despite not having to face those arms and it was the combination of the low attendance and low scoring which prompted the change.

It was a temporary "solution" to a temporary problem (the AL hadn't always been worse and scoring had already picked up due to rule changes in '69) that never should have been allowed to happen.

As Red Smith once wrote about some decision Bowie Kuhn made (or failed to make, I forget which): 'If Bowie Kuhn were alive today this never would have happened'. In fairness I'm not sure Bowie

could have stopped it if he wanted to as the leagues had much more independent autonomy at that time but I seem to recall he at least passively backed it, possibly because he was afraid of losing

AL owner support for a possible future term extension.



So while the other AL teams first just basically rolled over for four decades and allowed the MFY to beat the shit out of them -- often thanks to the players they sold/gave away/dealt to them for not

much in return -- they then realized that they couldn't live without a money-making bully to push them around and so advocated for this "experimental" rule to fix a problem of their own making.

And now nearly half a century later the rule still exists and is now about to be foisted on the rest of us as a bargaining chip in labor negotiations even as none of the reasons for it doing so remain.

Would be nice if at least SOME of the NL clubs raise their voice against it but, instead, the worst rule change in the history of the sport is going to pass without vocal opposition because it's going

to be as part of a larger package making it inseparable from the whole.



So Fuck you AL! And (as always) Fuck You Yanquis!!