Yesterday, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred emerged from the Owner's Meetings sounding like he thinks the NL adopting the DH as early as 2017 is as good as a done deal. Apparently there is enough serious discussion about the move that Giants Managing Partner, Larry Baer, came out and publicly stated his and the Giants opposition to the plan. His statement brought back recent memories of a flap between Nationals RHP Max Scherzer who hates having to bat and Giants LHP Madison Bumgarner who not only loves to bat, he has turned his prowess at the plate into a significant competitive advantage. I am pretty sure Bumgarner's attitude and success at the plate is not lost on Larry Baer.
So, how do I feel about the DH possibly coming to the NL? Well, I have mixed feelings. Trust me, I have been a National League fan since 1966 when I first started listening to Giants games on the radio. I did not like the A's moving into what I considered Giants territory and though Charlie Finley was a clown and a carpetbagger. I hated the DH as much or more than anybody. It just seemed so cheesy, like just about everything else Charlie Finley was involved in. To me, it does take something away from the strategy of the game, and I applaud pitchers like Bumgarner, Zack Greinke and Mike Leake who are able to use their bats to their advantage.
Over the years, though, I guess my opposition to the DH has softened. I have to admit I like the idea of an aging hitter being able to extend his career through DH'ing. I like the idea that a slugging first baseman who otherwise might not be able to find a job in MLB can now hit dingers in the majors instead of spending 10 years doing it in AAA. I have to admit that for every Madison Bumgarner or Zack Greinke, there are 20 pitchers who go up there as almost automatic outs. I am sick of getting my hopes up when the 6'th and 7'th hitters in the lineup put together great AB's just to look ahead and realize it is probably all for naught because that damn pitcher's spot is coming up.
On top of all that, MLB in general and the NL in particular have a real run-scoring problem on their hands and it looks like more than just a passing phase. Pitching velocity keeps going up. Pitchers keep finding newer and nastier pitches. Almost everything coming out of the explosion of information and technology favors pitching, from spray charts to help with defensive positioning to the electronification of the strike zone, which is generally bigger than the way most umpires have called it in the past. MLB has to find ways to increase run scoring and adding the DH to the NL is probably the fastest, easiest and least disruptive way to do it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why do you view the rate of run-scoring as a problem? One wouldn't say that hockey has a goal-scoring problem, or that the popular, passion-stirring game of soccer has a problem. Baseball as it now stands is immensely popular, as the amount of money clubs now have testifies; and teams in both leagues, including our team, draw big crowds, though half of those teams use a DH and half don't. That is to say, scoring isn't a problem in terms of boring the clientele, stunting the team coffers, or keeping players from becoming preposterously rich. In what sense(s), then, is it a problem?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, hockey and soccer are not terribly popular in the US in large part due to lack of scoring. Secondly, hockey and soccer are very different sports than baseball. There is continuous action in hockey and soccer even when no scoring takes place. In baseball, when there is no scoring, the game becomes two people throwing a ball back and forth. Historically interest in baseball has waned in low scoring eras and spiked in high scoring eras. As they say, chicks dig the longball.
DeleteThis is the best argument I've ever heard for the DH. Soccer has a huge scoring problem. If basebal has 9 inning scoreless games in their future, that'd be an issue.
DeleteI agree with the issue about scoring, but disagree about that we need to take care of this now with the DH.
DeleteFirstly, hockey and soccer are not terribly popular sports in the U.S. because not a lot of people has an interest in it. Soccer is rising, but hockey, in addition to being hard to understand all the arcane rules, has the issue that most areas of the U.S. don't have skating rinks that would help its popularity, unlike soccer. Baseball still has a pretty good base of fans, though I wonder about the next generation, with the high ticket prices, and growing popularity of basketball and football, and even soccer.
I agree that the Live Ball era shows that baseball needs to be a scoring sport in order to maintain interest. The so-called "steroids era" (which some call the silly-ball era because the odds of baseball scoring shifting from one level to a much higher level in 1-2 years is extremely unlikely given the accepted mass media story line, and thus the only likely explanation is that the MLB juiced the ball in 1993-4) showed how powerful scoring can be (and the chicks and guys do dig the longball) for attendance as well. Scoring does juice attendance and interest.
Scoring is not that low right now in the NL, however. In 2015 it was 4.11 runs scored per game. Last two seasons, roughly 4.00 runs scored. And from 1963 to 1992, the NL's runs scored per game bounced up and down around a mean of 4.0-4.2 runs scored per game. If anything, this has been the mean over the past 50+ years, except for that recent era. So offense is not low in the recent historical context, for the most part.
In the long distance past, scoring was in the mid-3's and that seems to be the point where the MLB took matters into their own hands. Babe Ruth showed the value of homers, so the Live Ball era was commenced to great enthusiasm by fans. Later, it was at 3.43 in the NL and 3.41 in the AL in 1968 when the leagues went and lowered the mound to help hitters. And 3.47 in the AL in 1972, which got the DH instituted. So historically, it was when scoring was in the mid-3's that the majors deemed teams to be scoring too little.
I believe that if scoring is the issue, instead of changing the game, just juice up the ball, or better, have automated strike zone calls so that batters and pitchers aren't dealing with zones that move around during the game, as the umpires (for whatever reason) cannot call a steady zone. I see so many hitters strike out because suddenly the umpire is calling strikes when it was a ball earlier (or just plainly a ball), just getting rid of that uncertainty would help hitters a lot, I think. They won't get twitchy fingers and swing in anticipation of the umpire screwing up the call again. And especially younger players who tend to get squeezed by umpires in an arcane hazing ritual that continues today. I would rather institute that first, than the DH, and juiced balls rather than the DH.
As I have said now for at least the 22'nd time, run scoring is only one of several reasons why the NL might add the DH.
DeleteAnd trust me, if they ever go to electronic ball and strike calling, they will have to change the official strike zone to make it smaller because the official strike zone is waaaay bigger than most umpires call it.
DeleteTo me, the argument that adding the DH to the National League will generate a large increase in scoring is misleading.
ReplyDeleteLooking at last year's end-of-season standings, The sum of runs scores and runs allowed divided by games played was 8.68 for AL clubs and 8.32 for NL clubs. Of course, this doesn't account for inter-league play, where AL clubs may increase the total runs per game of the NL cohort, but is the gap in scoring between leagues really so significant that a change as drastic as adding the DH to the NL is the answer?
Why not lower the mound or impose another solution that is less intrusive and/or less contentious?
Just my two cents.
I did not say it would be a large increase in scoring. The evidence is overwhelming it would produce some increase. The fact that half of MLB teams already use the DH and the fact there is inter league play with it and the fact some of those teams have changed leagues means it is most likely the least disruptive and least contentious option out there.
DeleteMy mistake. I did not mean to imply that you were making that argument. It just seems to be a common refrain when the possibility of a DH in the NL is discussed.
DeleteI would hope that MLB, if seeking higher scoring games, will consider other options. The DH/non-DH difference between the leagues is, in my opinion, considerable. If, instead, they are simply looking to change the type of scoring from smaller ball to dinger-centric, then adoption of the DH would seem straightforward.
The DH replaces strategy with the drug rush of scoring runs.
ReplyDeleteYou know what also would help with run scoring? Change the baseball. And the bats. And the field. And make everything about baseball focus on making it easier to score runs.
I'd like to see the breaking ball outlawed. Jeez, think of how many more runs could be scored if only off-speed pitches were eliminated.
So here's my proposal:
Make the baseballs out of superball rubber
Use titanium bats
bring the fences in
eliminate the breaking ball
Yeow, there's your runs, boys! Enjoy your game.
The game as we know did not exactly come to an end when the AL adopted the DH 40 years ago, nor did strategy. All this "strategy" you talk about is really just a scramble to cove up a bad hitter in your lineup and therefore not inherent to the game itself.
DeleteHere's a crazy thought: How about letting the home team decide whether or not to have a DH on a game to game basis? That could prove to be a tactical advantage in bandbox parks, if one has a good hitting pitcher, the handedness of the starting pitcher or the DH, or if one's best DH is markedly inferior to the opponent's DH. Might be a logistical nightmare for statheads and the betting types, but I think it might be fun and interesting in terms of competition.
ReplyDeleteFun idea, but the DH would end up getting used in the vast majority of games anyway.
DeleteTrue, but there may be situations in which the opponent has a very good hitter as their DH and your team's DH is a relatively weak hitter (the Giants have been in that situation in interleague play). Add in a good hitting pitcher like MadBum and you have less to lose in terms of offense by going without the DH. It would add another strategic nuance to the game and may lead some teams to keep a two way capable player on the roster (such as a Brooks Keishnick or Micah Owings) An extra win here and there might be the difference between making the postseason or not.
DeleteThose situations would be so rare, it's just not worth the trouble.
DeleteI'm still iron-hard on the DH. In fact, I'd like to see it abolished in the AL. And that's because I don't think scoring is an issue. Baseball's biggest decline in the past 30 years was during the height of the PEDs era (1998 through 2003) when scoring was up. However, since 2006 popularity has been (with ups and downs) increasing. Meanwhile the NFL has peaked and has had no significant popularity growth since 2006 though it's, like baseball, varied over the time.
ReplyDeleteAs for soccer and hockey supporting your argument, I don't think they do... Hockey was a regional sport in the US until the 1980s. It had no broad fan base because nobody outside the NE and MW saw it except the odd game on a weekend, afternoon broadcast. However, hockey has, in the past 30 years, tripled its core audience and is now running in the 21+ million attendance range every year which makes NHL hockey #3 in fan attendance of all professional sports leagues -- world wide. Not just 3rd in the US, but 3rd world wide.
(FWIW, US baseball is #1 in fan attendance. Japanese baseball is #2. NBA is #4 (barely behind hockey). NFL is #5 (4 million behind hockey & basketball). And the Premier League (soccer) is #6.* And as a team, the Giants have the #3 attendance of any team in any league in any sport in the world behind the Dodgers & Cardinals who are #1 and #2 respectively.)
As for soccer... It was in a worse position than hockey. It had no real base, except among the hispanic crowd, until, maybe, the 1980s and even that would be hard argue as the NASL had folded in the early '80s. And, like hockey in the US, the fan base has expanded, over time, as more and more population has been exposed to the game. Now 6% of Americans say soccer is their #1 favorite sport (same as hockey & basketball) though it lags behind the two in actual attendance. Not too shabby for something most people didn't even hear about until the 1980s.
* To be fair, that's by league. If you added up the Top-5 European Leagues as one league, they'd be second behind US baseball with about twice the attendance of Nippon League.
MLB was saved by the spike in offense after a devastating strike in the late 90's, which happened to be about the same time many players used medications in an effort to enhance performance.
DeleteI'm still a strong anti-DH guy. I think there is something fundamentally wrong about a player in baseball not playing both sides: offense and defense - 9 players in the field, 9 players take turns at the plate. I don't know why the game is more exciting with unathletic DHs and pitchers.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't play the field, I don't mind the player going away. I don't need to watch Mike Sweeney, or Aubrey Huff play into their late thirties after they turn into chalk outlines out in the field. The big name DHs (Big Papi, Big Hurt, Edgar Martinez) were good enough bats they would have "found" a position; Gar was actually a decent 3b. Instead the DH spot tends to be a revolving spot for some has-been. Only a handful of DHs put up a good line last year, and the only exciting ones were Ortiz and Sano, IMO. Morales was under-appreciated, and everyone was tired of AROD at the beginning of the year before his mini-redemption. Then you get Fielder and Martinez (or AROD) types of the elder player on a big contract that get shuffled around. So the positive is it creates payroll and roster flexibility for big boppers. The negative is this is a pricey flexibility that benefits the big spenders. I think I'd rather see Sano squeezed into the field than provide AROD another DH year. After all, Barry, Mays, McCovey, Hank Aaron played into their 40s. (Hank his last two season as DH, but played RF at 40.)
And pitching seems to be getting too specialized, leading to more repetitive use arm injuries and players going 105% for 9, 5, or 2/3rds innings, clocking in at 100mph and out of baseball with TJ #2 at age 29. All DH would just encourage more "pitcher bodies". I really rate the Grienkes and Bumgarners that take batting seriously. I think it's a disservice that someone like Price, that seems to want to hit, has played his entire career in the AL with the DH. (Fair play to him that he hasn't jumped to the NL, as he's followed the money and looked for winning teams. After all, I can acknowledge that a pitcher's success is measured on the mound, not at the plate.)
To me the analogy to another sport is basketball where the big men can't shoot free throws. Aside from some basic rule changes to discourage intentional fouling away from the basket to force them to the line (hack-a-shaq), the other thing is they should get better at shooting. As long as it's a weakness, they have to find a way to balance it with their strengths and play calling. They don't get to just bring in a designated free throw taker.
1 PH BB from Bum is worth far more to me than a part-time player's .265/345/415 15 HR "professional hitter" season. For every time I groaned when Timmy came to bat to kill a rally, I cheered when he struck out the opposing pitcher with a runner on third. And less frequently -- although it feels like every game -- I wanted to throw the remote through the TV after a Giants pitcher walked an opposing pitcher who then came around to score. That's just emotion, opinion, and subjective enjoyment of the game, but it's how I've lived and died baseball my entire life as a fan. The switch to a DH would be a cruel twist.
Again, the DH has been part of the game for 40 years now and the game has somehow survived. In fact, a lot of sabermetric guys would tell you it has made the AL better and would produce reams of stats to back up the assertion.
DeleteI'm still old school - no DH. Nine players in the lineup are the same 9 on the field, and when you substitute the out player is done for the game. If the pitcher is a weak hitter, well, you decide when to pinch hit for him. It's a big part of game strategy.
ReplyDeleteI don't compare baseball to any other game, because there really is no fair comparison. For a true fan, it's not how many runs are scored, but how and when the runs are scored. A 1-0 game can be a truly great game. Baseball truly is different.
I understand marketing, and trying to attract new fans. But I really believe that can best be done by personalities and pacing the game better, rather than changing the purity of the game. Heck, the easiest way to increase scoring would be to shorten the base path to 89 ft., but I don't think anyone would propose that.
So, no to the DH! (Of course, I was saying that back in '72 when it was originally proposed.)
1. There are more reasons to bring the NL on board with the DH besides the increase in run scoring, but that is a desirable effect. I think the commish is also interested in uniformity in the game and the MLBPA is interested in adding a high pay roster spot. I'm guessing the owners will offer adding the DH to the NL as a payoff to the MLBPA to get something else that maybe the MLBPA otherwise would not agree too.
Delete2. The fact that half of MLB teams are currently using the DH and even NL teams use it some of the time means that it is far easier to implement than something like shortening the basepaths which could lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. Everybody already knows what impact, positively and negatively, the DH has. A rational analysis tells us there ate actually more positives than negatives.
I don't want the DH in the NL.
ReplyDeleteBesides there is little to suppourt it increases runs scored. Want more offense then try something simpler. Any pitcher in the game before the 9th inning must face at least 3 batters ( or more if you wanted) before being replaced unless injured in that cas most be DLed immediately. Quicker games with less pitching chances - something the Pro DH crowd promises but never delivered) and hitters get more of a chance to get to a pitcher.
- Daveinexile
Sorry Dave, but the evidence is overwhelming that the DH increases run scoring, not by massive amounts but by a significant amount. It is also far easier to implement with less chance for unintended consequences than any other rule change. The DH has been around for over 40 years. It has stood the test of time. It is the the simplest, least disruptive way to increase run scoring. In fact, it will reduce disruption by eliminating teams having to add and subtract the DH during interleague play.
DeleteThe commissioner walked back some of his comments about the NL adopting the DH, but he also did not take it off the table for discussion, and he did acknowledge that it could be discussed in bargaining the new CBA.
ReplyDelete