Comments on: Spreads in Pitcher Hitting and DH Hitting

By: Babita

Babita — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:07:16 +0000

Just think about I read it double. While I am significantly less skillful for this issue, We harmonise using your willpower since they generate feeling. Provides Thanks as well as goodluck for you.

By: Dan R.

Dan R. — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:30:45 +0000

Agreed.

By: MileHi_Legacy

MileHi_Legacy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:28:59 +0000

I love the AL has to put resources in a position argument. It has to be the biggest joke I have ever heard. That is an entire position the AL is able to use to see who should be making their team.

For instance my beloved Rockies are a perfect example. They have 5 solid outfielders. They would have a much better opportunity to see who they should be building their team around if they had a DH to play to utilize them!!!!!!!!! This is an argument that no one seems to point out or comprehend. Every spot on a team is valuable and being able to use a player every day to test their professional ability is an unbelievable edge the AL has. For instance, Seth Smith could have been hitting 4th all 2009 for the Rockies if they had had a DH spot to use someone with in 2008.

In NL interleague games, pitchers get on base less than 20% of the time anyways. When they do get a hit, it is basically always a single/slop hit. Yes, there are some great pitchers at hitting, but those are few and far between. Whoever the AL rests from their lineup is immediately the best pinch hitter strictly b/c he has been seeing pitches every day.

In AL interleague games, when a DH does damage, its damage is much greater than a pitcher damage. The biggest problem the NL has is that they have to insert into the lineup someone who has not been seeing the ball on a daily basis. They also have to deal with a much worse K zone as umpires tend to give calls to everyday players/prominent players who have earned respect. Just take a look at David Ortiz K zone in the 2007 WS against Ryan Spillbourghs.

The money AL teams spend on their extra hitter does indeed help the AL teams with deep pockets. It does not hurt their pockets vs NL teams. Just take a look at how expensive relievers and utility players are. That argument is an absolute joke.

By: AInquisition

AInquisition — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:38:13 +0000

“Why not just have a universal 8 man lineup?”

Because I watch pro sports to see greatness. If I want to see non professional hitters flail awkwardly at a ball, I’ll go to the local batting cages.

By: walkoffblast

walkoffblast — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:29:42 +0000

Who said all lineups are supposed to be equal? The fact that the red sox lineup is worse compared to what it usually would be seems to be an obvious disadvantage to me. In an NL park that team has full use of its resources as intended that they paid for while the AL team is at a disadvantage. Their DH is relegated to that first bat off the bench (a role the NL fills much cheaper) then you go to an AL park and you swap the disadvantage of the two positions.

By: Nats Fan

Nats Fan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:28:46 +0000

Lyons… there are more than 14 teams that bid for great hiotters that field poorly. Adam Dunn is the worst fielder than anyoin in the game and he is playiong in the NL. He fields worse than Kubel, Ortiz, Cust or any DH in the AL. Look it up it is true.

By: Lyons

Lyons — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:17:18 +0000

Walkoffblast: Yes, they must bench Ortiz or Youk, you’re right. And when they do, they have 8 hitters: just like the NL team. The Red Sox lineup in an NL park is worse compared to prior Red Sox lineups, not compared to NL lineups.

By: walkoffblast

walkoffblast — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:45:39 +0000

I think you have a few contradictory opinions. Yes, Ortiz is better than spilborgs but he is also paid a lot more and in a NL park the red sox must bench a 3.8 WAR guy in Youk to downgrade Ortiz’s value by playing him in the field. That seems pretty unlikely to be irrelevant over time to me.

By: Lyons

Lyons — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:47:02 +0000

@ Walkoffblast: You’re right, I don’t believe there is a long-term disadvantage to the AL team in an NL park, short of standard home field advantage.

@obsessivegiantscompulsive: I would go a step further. I would hypothesize that the existence of the DH in part creates greater disparity in the AL. The standard deviation in winning percentages in the AL has been, on the whole, larger than the stdev in winning percentages in the NL since the creation of the DH. I admit I haven’t done a significance test here, and it is just a hypothesis, but intuitively it makes sense…

@Xeifrank: You forget that in an AL park, the NL team is giving a lineup spot to what was previously a bench hitter. Sometimes it doesn’t matter (2008: Chris Coste/Greg Dobbs v. Willy Aybar/Cliff Floyd). Often times it does (2007: Ryan Spilborghs v. David Ortiz).

I’d reiterate the same point to each of the three of you: yes, maybe what imbalances that exist are equal, but common rules are the surest way to truly equalize imbalances.

The NBA COULD, if in their infinite wisdom they chose to, stipulate that 3 pointers only count in games hosted by Western Conference teams. Maybe that the West then has to divert resources to 3 point shooters while the East spends more money on interior defense balances itself out. Why try it though? Just keep the rules the same.

By: Xeifrank

Xeifrank — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:13:54 +0000

Isn’t the advantage an NL team has hosting an AL team greater than the advantage an AL team has hosting an NL team? The AL team either loses one of their best hitters (DH) in an NL park or has to trot out a poor fielder while possibly sitting a secondary level fielder in his place. Of course, this varies on a team by team basis.
vr, Xei