The DH in the National League?

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Considering I believe the only thing that has to happen (either for adding or removing) is simply the Commish to be all "Make it so" at the beginning of the season. He's a commissioner not a dictator and as such can neither make it happen unilaterally nor banish it. This is an owners + players decision. The best Manfred, or his successor, can do is try to steer the argument.

The Rulebook wrote: 6.10 Any League may elect to use Rule 6.10(, which shall be called the Designated Hitter Rule.

It's simply "let it be so"

[Frayed Knot]

Yes, any league MAY ELECT to use it.
That means that by a vote of the league's clubs (approval by the owners) and, because it is a change in the rules of the game, consent of the players, a league may agree to start (or stop) using the rule


But that's a far different scenario than Manfred sitting up on high saying: 'I decree that starting tomorrow ...'

[Ceetar]

Yes, any league MAY ELECT to use it. That means that by a vote of the league's clubs (approval by the owners) and, because it is a change in the rules of the game, consent of the players, a league may agree to start (or stop) using the rule But that's a far different scenario than Manfred sitting up on high saying: 'I decree that starting tomorrow ...'

This IS the rule to the game.

And where is that declared how that's going to be handled and who can and cannot block it?

I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial.

[Frayed Knot]

This IS the rule to the game. -- What is?

And where is that declared how that's going to be handled and who can and cannot block it? -- I have no idea what you mean by this. MLB has the power to alter rules with the consent of players and umpires depending on who is affected. In 1973 the AL decided to create the DH rule and did so via a vote by their clubs (by 2/3 majority I believe). The NL never did any such thing.

I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial. -- NONE OF THESE THINGS can be decided by just one person, whether by the league presidents, or Bud Selig, or Rob Manfred, or Manfred Mann. And I have no idea what is being referred to as "trivial"

[Guest d'Kong76]

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/american-league-adopts-designated-hitter-rule

[Lefty Specialist]

Hell, why not have 9 DH's? Have an offensive team and a defensive team. Lots of crappy-hitting shortstops and catchers, too.

Every year the NL holds off the advance of the DH is a good year.

[Frayed Knot]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Hell, why not have 9 DH's? Have an offensive team and a defensive team. Lots of crappy-hitting shortstops and catchers, too.

That's where the simplistic 'Who would you rather see ...' argument falls apart.
Sure, I'd rather see Papi hit than a BoSox pitcher. But I'd also rather see Papi hit over their .195-hitting catcher Ryan Hannigan. And I'd rather see someone else run the bases other than Papi so maybe a Designated Runner is in order. And I'd rather see Rey Ordonez field (even now) than either Flores or Murphy ... and there's no end to where that argument goes if carried to its logical conclusion.

[Edgy MD]

cooby wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Fans? While there's a lot like us who'd prefer more bench manuevering in a matter of taste, I'd guess we're badly outnumbered by dumber fans who only like offense and find the pitcher-hitting thing tedious. . Dumb? Humph! Anyway, yeah I do find pitcher hitting tedious, but mostly because they are so damn pathetic at it.

Well there's a broad array of skill levels, I think. But the lower standard means the greater the thrill when a player does succeed.

In general, though, specialization in all sports is a bad thing. Generalization is always more interesting. Because if giving a player a chance to flourish at what he does best means sometimes risking him in situations that he does not much better than the rest of us, that humanizes him. And that's real and engaging.

Protecting people from their weaknesses takes them out of the human struggle. That's why Colon is so fascinating � the grace with which he struggles against the seemingly obvious limits of his human frailty.

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: And, as I try to discuss every time this issue comes around, is there really strong evidence that the DH works better for the players' interests? I think it works well for a small cadre of high profile players [Papi, Pujols, Fielder, etc. - either permanently or in their near future] and the union tends to hear their voices louder than others and often to the exclusion of others as we saw with the steroid issue which was ignored for years for fear of offending the upper crust. The union's quite silent also on tobacco use even on the heels of Tony Gwynn's death. But in the larger sense you're right. Even if the benefit thing ins't totally false argument it's at least one with a bunch of holes. The narrative usually goes that if there were no DH then baseball would have never known the likes of Edgar Martinez & David Ortiz. Sure we would have, they'd have been 1st basement; bad ones maybe, but of course they never had incentive to even try to get better so maybe not. And if their bad fielding DID diminish their overall careers then by definition it would have been to the benefit of the guy with the lesser offense but the more complete and balanced game. The DH does not now and never did CREATE a job, it merely alters the criteria for one of them.

I was thinking more about how National League teams have to have deeper and more experienced benches and bullpens, and therefore deliver more modestly decent-paying jobs in exchange for the one high-paying job the American League teams have.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: This IS the rule to the game. -- What is? And where is that declared how that's going to be handled and who can and cannot block it? -- I have no idea what you mean by this. MLB has the power to alter rules with the consent of players and umpires depending on who is affected. In 1973 the AL decided to create the DH rule and did so via a vote by their clubs (by 2/3 majority I believe). The NL never did any such thing. I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial. -- NONE OF THESE THINGS can be decided by just one person, whether by the league presidents, or Bud Selig, or Rob Manfred, or Manfred Mann. And I have no idea what is being referred to as "trivial"

where in the rules does is say the words 'may elect' means a vote of the league's clubs and/or consent of the players? Besides that that's how they did it to add the DH rule to the rulebook?

The Merger of the NL and AL and the abolishment of the presidents makes them all one entity run by the commissioner. I mean, all these things are run by committees nowadays. It'd probably ultimately work exactly the same way instant replay rules and pace of play rules went into effect. Technically Tony Clark of the Players Association was in agreement with them, but I can't find any indication that his consent was required. They established a committee to address the pace of play, and then that committee, Clark, and Selig/Manfeld announced them. I don't think that went to a vote of NL owners.

[Edgy MD]

Can we agree that the rules aren't clear when they say "Any league may..." and it is ambiguous who speaks for an entire league, and what they can decide unilaterally and what they cannot? And can we agree to have no more posts beginning with "Where in the rules...?"

Can we? Please?

The Merger of the NL and AL and the abolishment of the presidents makes them all one entity run by the commissioner. I mean, all these things are run by committees nowadays.

Can we agree that these sorts of contradictions make my head swim?

The history of labor, the NLRB, and the MLBPA make it CLEAR that a change in working conditions of that magnitude will not be unilaterally imposed upon a union-organized shop without the consent and contractually negotiated agreement of said union. Certainly not with regard to a union commonly referred to as the most powerful in the country.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial.

In 1973, the rule change was voted on by club presidents, who approved it, 8-4.

So, no.

[Gwreck]

Madison Bumgarner, on the correct side of this issue.

"What if he got hurt pitching? Should we say we can't pitch anymore? I hate what happened to him. He works his butt off out there. But I don't think it was because he was hitting. What if he gets hurt getting out of his truck? You tell him not to drive anymore? That's the way the game has to be played. I appreciate both sides of the argument and I get it. But [ending pitcher plate appearances] isn't the way to go about [addressing] it."

"It's a beautiful game to me the way it is. That's obviously the way baseball started and I'm a traditional guy. I'm not much for change. I know people argue both sides, but for me, from what I see, it's a more challenging game. It's more challenging for managers. There's so much more that goes into it in the National League than, 'let 'em pitch until they can't get outs anymore.'"

[MFS62]

If the rosters stay at 25, why would the elimination of that rule eliminate jobs?
Those hitters would be replaced by other players. So why would the union object? Because they're the highly paid "stars"? Tough.

Get rid of it - everywhere.
Let's go back to baseball the way it ought to be.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: If the rosters stay at 25, why would the elimination of that rule eliminate jobs? Those hitters would be replaced by other players. So why would the union object? Because they're the highly paid "stars"? Tough.

That, of course, is exactly the reason they'd object.
I think that argument's a bit overblown in that the days of each team having one designated (and usually old, slow, expensive) guy to be the everyday DH are at least partially gone. Many teams rotate several guys in and out of that position either on a strict platoon or they'll DH guys who also play the field several times per week.

But then think about how much more reluctant teams will be to sign 30-ish y/o hitters to lengthy deals [ARod, Pujols, Fielder, Miggy Cabrera, Cano, etc.] knowing they have the fallback position to make them either partial or full-time DH's in the back half of those deals, and how the union sees those contracts as the kind of rising tide deals that lift all the other boats.
That's why, as Grimm said above, the only way you could possibly get rid of it would be to set a deadline maybe 10 years in advance so that every team has fair warning and it won't blow up any current contracts.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think "tough" has been a successful negotiating tactic with the MLBPA for some time.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Madison Bumgarner, on the correct side of this issue. "What if he got hurt pitching? Should we say we can't pitch anymore? I hate what happened to him. He works his butt off out there. But I don't think it was because he was hitting. What if he gets hurt getting out of his truck? You tell him not to drive anymore? That's the way the game has to be played. I appreciate both sides of the argument and I get it. But [ending pitcher plate appearances] isn't the way to go about [addressing] it." "It's a beautiful game to me the way it is. That's obviously the way baseball started and I'm a traditional guy. I'm not much for change. I know people argue both sides, but for me, from what I see, it's a more challenging game. It's more challenging for managers. There's so much more that goes into it in the National League than, 'let 'em pitch until they can't get outs anymore.'"

Sure, but if all pitchers took hitting as seriously as he did last year, this wouldn't be an issue.

17/66 with 2 walks, 2 doubles and 4 home runs. .258/.286/.470

he had the highest ISO on the team last year.

Do something well as a pitcher. You don't have to be even replacement level, but have a serious slugging percentage, lead the league in pitcher walks (Jon Niese at 6 was one behind Strasburg), even execute picture perfect bunts 99% of the time and run hard would add more value than probably 95% of pitchers these days.

They're not taking this seriously. And it's not just the pitchers, it's the entire organizations. Hell, the media doesn't help either. Occasionally you'll get a guy asking about a failed bunt by a pitcher, but rarely do see a manager asked hard questions about how a pitcher keeps failing to come through with RISP.

"Terry, Colon has stranded 13 runners over his last three starts, in which you lost by a combined 5 runs. Talk about that."

And then Terry never responds

"Long's been working with him. He's been putting in some time in the cage and made an adjustment we think well help."

No, we get jokes about maybe Colon can get 4! hits this season. Like it's a trivial piece of information and not important at all.

[Centerfield]

The fact that this is even being discussed makes me angry. Fuck the DH.

Professional sports sre crazy.

Football: "Despite insurmountable evidence to the contrary we don't think roided up guys flying headfirst into each other is dangerous at all."

Baseball: "We cannot continually put our pitchers in danger by asking them to jog to first. It is inhumane."

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial. In 1973, the rule change was voted on by club presidents, who approved it, 8-4. So, no.

Keith Olbermann told a story on his show yesterday about the NL putting adoption of the DH to a vote (around 1980).
Philly GM Bill Giles was owner Ruly Carpenter's agent at the meeting and he had instructions to vote FOR it. But when the resolution stated that adoption of the rule, even if approved, wasn't going to begin for another two seasons Giles wasn't sure what to do and was unable to reach his owner who was out on his boat fishing in the Delaware Bay that day. So Philly wound up abstaining in the vote and that one non-vote was the margin which kept the resolution from passing. The NL has never brought it to a vote since.

Makes me kind of nostalgic for the days when people were routinely unreachable. Actually a lot of things make me nostalgic for those days.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Considering our pitchers seem to have had issues being able to even lay down a bunt, I think it's a problem the team should address. Heck, I don't get why pitchers don't realize its in their best interests to be able to hit. Given that self-interest, I'm surprised they aren't focused on it. It's not like they're not already incredible athletes. They should be able to figure out how to at least bunt the runner over.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Sure, but if all pitchers took hitting as seriously as he did last year, this wouldn't be an issue.

If you've been reading attentively, you'd see that thathat's not why this is an issue.

If you're concerned that pitchers and teams don't take hitting seriously enough, by all means, advocate for a more serious approach be taken. Please put the Mets and their pitchers at the front of this advocacy.

The way I see it, if teams are generally neglecting an improvable part of their game, it's an opportunity for the Mets.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial. In 1973, the rule change was voted on by club presidents, who approved it, 8-4. So, no. Keith Olbermann told a story on his show yesterday about the NL putting adoption of the DH to a vote (around 1980). Philly GM Bill Giles was owner Ruly Carpenter's agent at the meeting and he had instructions to vote FOR it. But when the resolution stated that adoption of the rule, even if approved, wasn't going to begin for another two seasons Giles wasn't sure what to do and was unable to reach his owner who was out on his boat fishing in the Delaware Bay that day. So Philly wound up abstaining in the vote and that one non-vote was the margin which kept the resolution from passing. The NL has never brought it to a vote since. Makes me kind of nostalgic for the days when people were routinely unreachable. Actually a lot of things make me nostalgic for those days.

Olberman largely cribbed that from Wikipedia. But Wikipedia's source is a 2013 Baseball Tonight broadcast, so maybe he's the original source after all.

Anyhow, one thing missing is that Pittsburgh was instructed � like someone out of 1776 � to vote with Philly no matter which way they go, so Pittsburgh voted Nay also, and a proposal expected to easily gain a majority gained only four out of 12 votes (with Nelson Doubleday providing one of the Yay votes).

The main NL proponent of the rule change was John Clairborne, GM of the Cardinals. Five days after the failed vote, Clairborn was replaced (related to this issue? I dunno) by Whitey Herzog, and the issue hasn't been brought to the table since.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: Sure, but if all pitchers took hitting as seriously as he did last year, this wouldn't be an issue. If you've been reading attentively, you'd see that that's not why this is an issue. If you're concerned that pitchers and teams don't take hitting seriously enough, by all means, advocate for a more serious approach be taken. Please put the Mets and their pitchers at the front of this advocacy. The way I see it, if teams are generally neglecting an improvable part of their game, it's an opportunity for the Mets.

It's absolutely why this is an issue. Offense is down and it's starting to become a hot button issue. Pitchers are failing to hit at historic levels. Pitchers get hurt all the time, and plenty of times it's at the plate. Bumgarner is in the minority that sees it as part of his job. The other's don't. If this happened 20 years ago no one would be taking the complains seriously but because there is almost no value being added by pitcher's batting, it gets traction.

It's an opportunity for everyone, and yet no one is taking it. Maybe the Dodgers, who did alright last year, but that could've easily been a fluke.

I don't exactly have Sandy or Terry's ear though. Given control, sure, I'd rather the pitchers care about hitting than the DH, but given the state of the game right now, gimme the DH and stop with this farce.

[nymr83]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: This Selig Era strategy of marketing the game by marketing the player led to all the crap about the Buster Posey Rules and I have no doubt that Wainwright will be the Tendon That Killed The Pitcher Hitting Once and For All. I think it sucks but there's nobody out there who's going to stop this. What, you want snap poor Adam Wainwright's achilles?

If Jonathan Niese suffers the Wainwright injury we arent discussing the DH in the NL right now, just like if Anthony Recker had been the guy to get hurt instead of Posey.

So if Mike Trout runs into a wall and gets hurt do we decide that the Ivy needs to get chopped down at Wrigley and replaced with a 5-foot thick padding?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: It's absolutely why this is an issue

"Absolutely"? I don't think you mean to use that word.

I fear you're too caught up in your own agenda to actually read what's going on. This discussion was clearly triggered by two pitchers getting hurt.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's absolutely why this is an issue "Absolutely"? I don't think you mean to use that word. I fear you're too caught up in your own agenda to actually read what's going on. This discussion was clearly triggered by two pitchers getting hurt.

That's the trigger, not the reason.

[Edgy MD]

Absolutely.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Saying "pitchers should learn how to hit" seems a little facile to me. Not every top athlete can learn how to hit. (Didn't Michael Jordan have problems hitting in Double A?) It's just that when a first baseman or an outfielder can't hit, he doesn't get anywhere near the big leagues, even if he's good with the glove. But a pitcher who can't hit will still advance because nobody ever cut a pitcher because he couldn't hit a breaking ball.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Saying "pitchers should learn how to hit" seems a little facile to me. Not every top athlete can learn how to hit. (Didn't Michael Jordan have problems hitting in Double A?) It's just that when a first baseman or an outfielder can't hit, he doesn't get anywhere near the big leagues, even if he's good with the glove. But a pitcher who can't hit will still advance because nobody ever cut a pitcher because he couldn't hit a breaking ball.

And Rey Ordonez made the majors too.

But the lack of hitting still hurts the team.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

If you limited your pitcher (catcher, shortstop and center field) selections to those who could also hit excellently you'd have the worst pitching staff/defense in history, probably.