Does the designated hitter rule in the National League suck?.

califano

Im not sure but id like the same to apply in the Americal league or not at all. I read it was instigated in the National league in 1973 as a way of boosting offense. Its a novelty to see a pitcher at bat but its hardly likely to boost offensive for the first 5-7 frames the pitcher bats before the DH steps in for him?.

jack presley

rounders123 wrote: »

Im not sure but id like the same to apply in the Americal league or not at all. I read it was instigated in the National league in 1973 as a way of boosting offense. Its a novelty to see a pitcher at bat but its hardly likely to boost offensive for the first 5-7 frames the pitcher bats before the DH steps in for him?.

You got your leagues the wrong way around and I think you're mixing up the designated hitter with a pinch hitter.

The DH bats every time the pitcher's spot comes up in a game so he'll bat in the early innings too whereas a PH in basically a substitute hitter. Most of the time a PH does take the place in the order of the pitcher when he's to be replaced by a relief pitcher towards the end of a game but in reality the PH can replace any player.

The DH rule was instigated by the AL to boost runs at a time of falling interest in MLB and it has helped extend the careers of players like Big Papi at the Red Sox but I hate the rule. I much prefer watching NL league games. There's more strategy involved as you need to decide whether you'll let your pitcher who's pitching well take another at-bat and be able to pitch the next inning or take him out and put in a much better hitter who has a better chance of getting a hit or driving in a run and then let the bullpen finish off the game. It makes for much more interesting games.

I can't see it happening but if this re-alignment that's been in the news recently really was going to happen, that'd result in interleague play every day so something would have to give. You couldn't have a contender from the AL visitng an NL team in the last weekend of the season and not being able to use one of their best hitters. Either they'd have to get rid of the DH (which the union would never go for it as it would put people like Ortiz out of a job) or both leagues would have to use it. I'd like to see the AL get rid of it.

brilliantboy

I would agree it's much more entertaining to see a pitcher at bat and there's always a surprise or two
(King Felix hitting a grand slam off Johan Santana being one that will live long in my memory :cool: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRKpnCdirCI )
I would think the DH's days are numbered, especially if they go ahead with realignment, it's not very popular even amongst AL fans

tumbling_dice

Surely if realignment goes ahead, we're more likely to see the DH extended to the NL. Like Jack said, it has extended the playing careers and earning potential of guys like Ortiz and Jim Thome. The Players' Union are not going to want to hear about the DH going.

I disagree about pitchers hitting. I support an NL team so I see my fair share of pitchers hitting. And it is stupid. Sure, tradition is nice, but it can also be senseless. A guy like Tim Lincecum or Roy Halladay is paid millions of dollars to pitch, not hit. Why expose them to potential injury swinging a bat or running to first? Plus, it's not a interesting spectacle, watching a sure out 9 times out of 10, particularly if the pitcher arrives with men on base and two outs.

It doesn't make any sense. DH for everyone.

Iang87

I personally dont understand why anyone would want to see a game where the pitcher hits. Its not nearly as exciting in my opinion cos most of the time its a guaranteed out and if I wanted to see a guaranteed out I'd watch JD drew at bat.

I'm a red sox fan so the DH rule works massively in their favour but for some teams who dont have a top notch DH the rule also works as getting a guy some at bats as he comes back from injury without having to worry about any potential defensive woes with the player.

In my opinion NL teams have a much bigger advantage when playin interleague play and rather than seeing the pitchers hit in both leagues i'd rather see a DH across the board

jack presley

I must be the minority then, I dread the day the NL brings in the DH.

I find it funny when AL teams complain about the risk if injury to their pitchers when they bat. Do you remember the time Chien Ming Wang pulled a hamstring or something when he batted and Hank Steinbrener went off on a major rant? It was hilarious. If an 'athlete' can't run 90 feet without doing damage to himself, there's something seriously wrong.

tumbling_dice

jack presley wrote: »

I must be the minority then, I dread the day the NL brings in the DH.

I find it funny when AL teams complain about the risk if injury to their pitchers when they bat. Do you remember the time Chien Ming Wang pulled a hamstring or something when he batted and Hank Steinbrener went off on a major rant? It was hilarious. If an 'athlete' can't run 90 feet without doing damage to himself, there's something seriously wrong.

Sure. When you put it like that, it sounds stupid. And I agree, to a certain extent, it is. But why increase the risk of injury at all? Pitchers are already fragile beings; they already do unnatural things to their elbows and shoulders. Why put them in further danger of hurting themselves, particularly when it is for very little chance of benefit. And I mean benefit to anyone - fans don't benefit by pitchers hitting .120, teams neither.

Nor do I buy this argument about strategy. I want to minimise the rubbish that managers get up to, not give them more opportunity to meddle. I hate Tony la Russa and all other managers that think they're important (read: all managers, but mostly La Russa). Just set the line-up right. Have a working knowledge of your bullpen and the willingness to use it as the situation demands. They are the only two things a manager has to do during the game. Everything else is mostly noise.