The Anti-”Let the Pitcher Hit” Thread

In this thread, your ONLY comments allowed are those that do NOT favor the pitcher being part of the hitting lineup. I will delete any post otherwise.

There is really only one reason that you don’t want the pitcher to bat: the gap in talent level is too great. While a team may play a no-hit, great-field player, a team would never play a no-pitch, great-hit pitcher. A pitcher truly is a different class of player. So, I’m looking for alternatives.

The first two are a hybrid approach:
1. Let the home manager make the call. Just as in spring training, the managers decided whether to play with a DH, and just as in the World Series they alternate the DH, this rule allows the home manager to decide when to play the DH. The marketplace will decide how much DH is too much DH. Story potential for every game.

2. Make the DH as a pinch hitter for the pitcher, but the pitcher can stay in the game (the one-and-done DH). Manager has to decide how much he wants to deplete his bench. He can go to 4 pinch hitters in a game while his pitcher pitches a complete game, or he can let the pitcher bat in low-leverage situations. The marketplace will decide how much DH is too much DH, with an in-game cost. Story potential if the bench gets depleted.

These are pure: no pitcher-as-batter:
3. Rotate the guy as DH onto the field, maybe alternating with the 1B and/or LF. The one-dimensional player like Adam Dunn is always exposed.

4. Limit the number of games a player can play as DH. Similar to the rotation rule in #3, but rather than rotate in-game, he rotates between games. Say, at most 50% of games played as DH. Same “expose” rule as above.

5. Do away with the DH, and go with 8 hitters in a lineup. Wrecks havoc with the magic nine of baseball, but so be it.

6. Same as number 5, and reduce the innings down to 8: 8 batters, 8 innings. And, one less crappy reliever to see. Game time shortened by twenty minutes.

7 to n: You tell me

Related thread: “Pro pitcher-as-batter“.




Print This Post





123 Responses to “The Anti-”Let the Pitcher Hit” Thread”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Shamwow 'Stache says:

    The pitcher needs to be eliminated all together so that more managers can use terribly weak hitters like Juan Pierre or Rafael Furcal as the “second leadoff guy” by batting him 9th.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. drchstrpunk says:

    I want to see the best players on the field, watching pitchers hit is weak/boring/embarrassing. Add a 26th roster spot providing the roster flexibility to accommodate the changing game.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      You missed my paragraph #2: “So, I’m looking for alternatives.”

      Other than the current DH implementation, what can you propose.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • filihok says:

      I agree. So this should happen

      4 hitters. 9 fielders.

      Ok, you have you nine best defensive players on the field. Who cares if they can’t hit? Not me. They aren’t batting. You want the best players, you got the best players.

      Now we also want the best hitters. ALL THE TIME! So do away with the outdated idea of a ‘batting order’ The manager designates 4 hitters for the game. Who cares if they can’t field? Not me. They aren’t fielding. You want the best players you got the best players.

      Now the manager is allowed to send up any hitter at any time in the game. Pujols leads off and flies out. Hell, bat him again! This time he singles. Maybe you’d rather have Carl Crawford running. So Crawford comes into run. Now, Pujols is ‘on first’ so he can’t bat so the manager looks at his bench and calls on Joe Mauer. Mauer grounds to the right side and advances Crawford to second. Bring Pujols back up to drive him in.

      All the best players, all of the time.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • tangotiger says:

        That’s about as extreme as it gets! It’s like the shootout in hockey, but for every inning.

        If I may offer a related alternative:
        1. you have to have a guy on deck

        2. just like in the NHL shootout that goes in extra shootouts, EVERYONE needs to bat in that inning; so, it’s ok if you have say Ichiro lead off each and every inning, but when it comes time to send out the 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th hitters, you are going to the bench

        In this case, would we need to go 9 innings? Wouldn’t 7 be enough? It also saves you the trouble of all those crappy relievers.

        ***

        I’m not crazy of this idea, but, it has its merits, and I like that you have an extreme position you are staking out.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • matt w says:

        I think the defense and offense ought to both be allowed to put in whoever they want in whenever they want, but they have to submit their choices to the ump simultaneously. Except that there’s a built-in disadvantage to switching the pitcher, so we need to provide an extra disincentive for switching the planned hitter — like, you have a guy on deck and a guy in the hole, and when someone’s turn comes, he can bat or not — but if you switch him out, they’re done for the game (as hitters; could still play the field, I guess). Or maybe for a few innings as a cooldown. It could make setting up platoon matchups very exciting.

        Basically what I’m advocating is Kongai or Pokemon Netbattle as applied to baseball.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • AInquisition says:

        Under this system, it seems it would be advantageous to have a lefty and righty pitcher in the field, so you could always have the advantage split wise, while not having to deal with them having to hit.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Conballs says:

        what is this cricket?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Cptn. Choo says:

        Was that sincere? Or was it brilliant satire?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • WorldTour says:

        This has already been done…it’s called beer league softball!

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • cass says:

        This does not go far enough!

        A pitcher is too busy pitching to field his position. Plus, pitchers are not the best fielders. Instead, we should have a designated fielder to stand next to the pitcher and field balls hit toward him. Kinda like the original shortstop.

        It makes no sense to not make the pitcher hit but also to make him field. It’s not fair. Why should we have to suffer watching inferior fielding pitchers try to field their position?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. tangotiger says:

    Furcal is an example of “terribly weak”? For a SS, he’s above average. Dude, c’mon.

    But, for your general point, yes, I do like seeing the lineup cycle in a more even fashion so that the leadoff hitter has someone of decent quality to possibly get on base.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. The A Team says:

    As an economics grad and certified lover of markets, I love #1 and 2. I’ve heard #2 suggested before but #1 is new to me. I love it because it introduces a whole new level of strategy for the manager. I like #2 because it could help baseball break the streak of more and more specialized relief pitchers. Especially if the rosters are limited to 25 players.

    I’m not a big fan of rotation schemes, they remind me too much of little league and rec ball…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. JCA says:

    As a variant on #4, the rule should be that you can DH only once every 5 days, to mirror the typical pitching rotation. That would end the DH only player and reward flexible rosters. Good for older teams and catchers who can hit.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Shamwow 'Stache says:

    I know that Furcal is not among the weakest hitters in the league considering the entirety of his career, but I suspect he is trending in that direction very quickly. His injuries have taken too much of a toll on his body, and his power and speed have waned as a result, and I wold hardly be surprised at all if his ISO falls under .100 this year.

    But you’re right, there are much better examples I could have used. Like Willy Taveras. Maybe if pitchers didn’t bat then the Reds would have allocated his full year’s worth of plate appearances in the #9 spot rather than the leadoff spot. Good old Dusty Baker.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Chair says:

    Have every team play every other 6 times a year, 3 away and 3 at home, that’s a 174 game season. To add the extra 12 games, schedule double headers every other weekend. To keep hitter’s number of yearly plate appearances in order with tradition/records, have BOTH a DH and a pitchers spot in the order. Yep 10 man lineup. It is so crazy it just might work.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Derek R-C says:

      Totally off topic, but am I the only one that wishes there were more double headers? I am sick of the TV companies shunning them because they don’t come in prime time. Then we could have better postseason play that doesn’t go into NOVEMBER!!!!!!

      Alright, sorry about that.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Craig in MN says:

    Since you’re throwing out crazy ideas, here’s one: Allow the DH, but let the OPPOSING manager pick who the DH is, from among position players not otherwise in the starting lineup. It keeps the pitcher from hitting, but reduces the value of the one-dimensional DH.

    If the opposing manager picks someone who is injured or is a bad enough hitter, you can pinch hit for them right away, but burn up a bench player in the process.

    Having a deeper/better bench will be more valuable. Having one dimensional (platoon/defensive specialists) players on your bench could hurt you. It also encourages teams to have more position players/fewer pitchers, so they can pinch hit for the DH without crippling your bench.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      Hmmm, nice twist. I’ll say that the team can designate two players as “non-DH”, one of which would surely be the backup catcher. And the other would likely be the backup infielder.

      It has a good story potential when the player selected to be DH says “oh yeah, I’m so crappy a hitter, you want me?”

      It also forces teams to have more balanced players on the roster.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • MBD says:

      Call it the Red Rover Rule.

      But I’d rather see each manager send up the best hitter for the situation rather than be forced to send up the worst. Under this rule, you either get a hitter who is overmatched (much like the pitcher would be) or one of a homogenized bunch whose defining characteristic is that they don’t suck too badly at anything.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Iceman says:

      The problem with this then comes from substitution. If substitution is allowed, then the selected DH may quickly be pinch hit for with the best bench hitter (Dunn/Cust, etc). If no substitution is allowed in the DH order, what happens when there is an injury? Does the opposing manager have to choose the “next worst” hitter on the bench?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Glanzer says:

    I am split on my opinion as a fan of an American League team. I love the oddity of seeing AL pitchers bat in interleague games, but I also prefer higher scoring games to pitchers’ duels, so I like the DH the bulk of the time. I think the current system in place gives AL fans the best of both worlds. I also enjoy seldom-used loophole or irregularities in the rules, so maybe it would be interesting to give teams the option to use a DH in place of a different position other than pitcher. Teams would rarely opt for this, of course.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • EricG says:

      As a fan of an NL team, I can tell you that you only appreciate the novelty of seeing pitchers bat because you don’t have to watch a high-leverage situation turn into an instant out on a regular basis. Trust me, it gets old.

      I’d like to see a system where teams are rewarded for having deeper benches, so the idea of a once-and-done DH option is appealing. It doesn’t force long relievers into the game earlier than necessary for crucial pinch-hit situations, and it also opens up plenty of strategic possibilities to befuddle Charlie Manuel. Teams could maintain smaller bullpens as well, since they wouldn’t be sending guys in and out of the game all the time to avoid having to hit.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • James says:

        How about a variant on the one and done DH.

        In the NL if a ph comes in for a pitcher neither can play afterwards as a new pitcher must come in.

        In the AL both the DH and the pitcher can keep playing.

        My hybrid is where the manager chooses whether the pitcher or PH stays in the game.

        This would mean when the pitcher is due to bat the manager can
        a) let the pitcher bat
        b) use up a PH but the pitcher stays in the game
        c) The PH returns to the bench but a new pitcher must come in.

        Tangotiger’s rule one about the home manager choosing needs a bit of a tweak as it wold strengthen the home field advantage. Instead why not alternate during a season as to who chooses. So first game yankees-red sox game of the season the yankees choose the second game the red sox choose etc etc until the end of the season.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • tangotiger says:

        James, fantastic way to put it. Yes, a great idea that the manager gets to choose which of the two stay in the game. And I wouldn’t make it so that the PH goes back to the bench. He and the relief pitcher now share the batting slot, and when that slot comes up, the manager again chooses.

        This would make it so that you might only bring him in the starter’s 3rd time up, so that he can then pinch hit for the reliever’s spot. If you bring him in too early, it’s wasted. Though you might do it if you had men on base. Otherwise, you might bring in your 2nd best PH.

        Lots of strategy potential for sure.

        Good job…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Chair says:

    Craig- LOL when the manager picks a horrible DH for the other team only to have him go 4-4 with 2 homers.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Craig in MN says:

      That would certainly happen. Currently, sometimes the opposing manager issues the intentional walk so he can pitch to the pitcher….who gets a hit. Same thing. It would keep things interesting.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. RagDoll says:

    Chien Ming Wang ruined his career running the bases. Sure it was fluky. But it was very unnecessary. Do away with pitchers hitting.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • funketown says:

      I don’t see how this line of reasoning differentiates between the notion that pitchers shouldn’t run the bases and the notion that position players shouldn’t run the bases. Albert Pujols could tear an ACL rounding first, but we wouldn’t react to that by saying that he shouldn’t run the bases. Why should we react as such when it happens to a pitcher?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      That is a pretty good reason: if the pitcher is not well-conditioned or well-prepared to be a hitter, why make him hit? Indeed, the hitting effectiveness of pitchers born since 1954/55 has dropped precisely because when they came of age, the DH was making its way across the country.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • funketown says:

        I think that is a good reason to say that there should be no inconsistency, or that AL pitchers should not have to hit in interleague games, but I don’t feel like it addresses the question of whether or not pitchers should hit, and whether or not they should condition to hit and run the bases.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jon says:

        Why would you want a player who was ill-prepared to play baseball?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Daniel says:

      Yeah no. These guys are paid multimillion dollar contracts – they ought to be in good enough shape to run the bases without getting hurt. Heck, I’m in good enough shape to run the bases without getting hurt. Plus there is a much much much higher chance that a pitcher will get hurt because of bad mechanics on the mound than because of bad luck on the basepaths.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Bronnt says:

    7) Abolish the game of baseball. The argument ends.

    Cut off your nose to spite your face.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Chair says:

    Just think what would Babe Ruth want?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. aNdrOss says:

    I like #2. It rewards a team who does have talented hitting pitchers, allows managers greater flexibility in managing their bullpen, and restores the 11-man pitching staff.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. Bob R. says:

    There are many reasons to oppose having pitchers bat, although I suppose they all can be traced back to the gap in talent level in some way. And I assume you are not ruling out maintaining that the current DH rules remain in effect.

    One reason is that the DH allows for considerably more managerial strategy. And it does away with one managerial move that is anathema to anyone who loves the game, the one out sacrifice bunt. But beyond that, eliminating the pitcher from the lineup up encourages the manager to consider base stealing with his #7 & 8 hitters or using the hit and run as well as the sacrifice if so inclined. He may hit away or decide to pinch hit for a weak hitting (perhaps good fielding) player late in the game, a far more complex decision than most involving whether to pinch hit for the pitcher.

    There are other good reasons as well, not the least of which you already touched on. No matter what people like to believe, hitting is in no way part of the pitcher’s job description and has not been for a very long time, well before the DH arrived. Has any pitcher gotten into the HOF because he was a good hitter? Has it even helped? Wes Ferrell was a legitimately good hitter-and not just for a pitcher. He was also a pretty good pitcher. Yet it certainly did not get him close. On the other hand, has it ever stopped the enshrinement of even a borderline pitcher, say Lefty Gomez.

    For that matter, has any manager ever selected one pitcher to stay on his roster over another because the first was a better hitter, even if their other qualifications are close? It is nonsense. It has happened with shortstops and catchers that hitting has trumped superior defense, but never a pitcher.

    And as for good hitting pitchers, with the rarest of exceptions, check the performance of even the most famous good hitting pitchers*- Maddux, Smoltz & Glavine (and all the fuss about their annual bet), Spahn, Gibson, Drysdale et al. They are atrocious. The essence of the game is competition, and the fundamental competition is between the pitcher and the batter. When the pitcher bats, that competition is usually a farce.

    *There are exceptions besides Ferrell, but they are exceedingly rare. Newcombe had a career 705 OPS (OPS+=85), Ruffing was at .695 (81) and Lemon (a former outfielder) at .674 (82). But Drysdale, sometimes a pinch hitter, had a .523 (45), and Gibson, a great athlete, was at .545 (49) And these were the best! More common was Lefty Grove at .417 (6).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • B says:

      “One reason is that the DH allows for considerably more managerial strategy.”

      I think you’re the first person I’ve seen to make this argument. Interesting…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. short says:

    I hate seeing the pitcher hit as much as I’d hate to watch an outfielder pitch. So therefore I don’t want the DH rule to change. BUT if there were some way to convince people to unify the leagues around one rule, I’d be willing to compromise away the full DH to something like this:

    You start of each game with a DH. As soon as you pull the starting pitcher, you lose the DH and the rest of the game you have to let the pitcher hit, or use a pinch hitter. You could theoretically make an exception for injury to the starter (to discourage pitchers from pitching hurt) in which case the next guy would count as the starter for purposes of the DH rule.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Evan says:

      I like it, but I would tweak it so if you pull the pitcher, you pull the DH and have the option of picking another DH for the next pitcher. That way you can using a batter more than once if you have a guy from the pen pitching for a long stretch (in case a pitcher gets injured or gives up 7 runs in the first inning).

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. Evan says:

    I think that the DH should be available from the entire pool of bench players at any time, but won’t burn the player by using them to hit. Its similar to #2 without the fear of depleting your bench. If there’s a bases loaded situation you put in a guy with power, but if no one is on you put in a someone with speed and a good OBP. You’d get more value out of guys with platoon splits and slap hitters by being able to play a more situational game. Plus if you wanna sub someone who just batted as DH into the field you can, making the bench slightly deeper.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Chair says:

      That could be cool, would have to call it the shift hitter er somtin though.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Everett says:

      I could work with this idea. Its no longer a DH at all, but a special rule involving hitting in the pitcher’s spot. My one concern with this would be the potential for double-switching moving this spot around the lineup without the repercussion of either having to have a crappy hitter come up, or burning a pitcher and pinch-hitter again.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      Hmmm… intriguing as well. So, in addition to the idea that the pitcher stays in the game, the “one and done” means that he’s done as a DH for that game, but still available as a regular position player (meaning his next entry to the game could only be on the field first).

      Nice thought.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JoeM says:

      This sounds like going from 1 DH to 2-3 DH’s and would result in even more offensive advantage than the current system has. You could swap your DH situationally and always have a lefty/righty matchup everytime that lineup spot was at bat.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JoeM says:

        This solution also seems to allow for the possibility of the the DH being on base and simultaneously being available to substitute for the player currently at bat.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. Jimbo says:

    The fact pitchers hit poorly doesn’t strike me as a good reason to alter the basics of the game…9 players on the field, those 9 players bat. A case could then be made for weak catchers to not hit, or anyone resembling Willy Tavares. But many want it just to make the game more interesting.

    My compromise, same as on the other thread ironically, would be to allow any PITCHER to hit in the DH spot. Could be your starter, could be your worst reliever. Get slightly better offense, still might need to pinch hit for him—so there’s decisions to be made, and I’d bet it leads to more guys going from offense to bullpen at a young age. Teams might actually base their last bullpen spot on which callup has the best bat.

    One other idea I’d toss out is to require a team’s DH to have rookie (possibly sophomore) status. Instead of aging sluggers, fans would get to see young talent, there wouldn’t be any ‘career DHs’ and it keeps the talent gap somewhat in place…as I would expect most rookies in that role to be somewhere between a good hitting pitcher and a professional DH. Might even benefit competitive imbalance, since the lineup spot won’t be earning massive salary yet.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • AInquisition says:

      Seems like it would be easy to exploit.

      Example: Twins signing ‘pitcher’ Jim Thome.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jon says:

        What if ‘pitcher’ Jim Thome was only allowed as many plate appearances as a hitter as the number of batters he has faced as a pitcher up to that point in the season? A durable starting pitcher could be an everyday DH and provide tremendous value with his bat if he were a good hitter (prime example: Jason Marquis), while attempting to use someone like Thome as a pitcher/DH would be a disaster.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jimbo says:

        Certainly would need a minimum IP per month. Like 5 or something. ;-)

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. PouxBear says:

    Go back to T-ball…Every hitter hits, every inning. “Shorten” the game to 4 innings so every player gets 4 PA. Managers have to create lineups that can score top-to-bottom instead of loading the top of the lineup with the best players. Plus, how fun would it be to see players just circling the bases when the last player puts the ball in play?? Wait, this doesn’t address the DH issue does it? Um, keep the DH in there, chicks dig the long ball…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. jones says:

    Tradition is no longer a relevant argument for not changing things designed to keep up with the game’s evolution. Everything from playing non-white players to playing night games to playing with your own glove have broken tradition in one way or another.

    The DH may have been an overreaction to low offensive numbers of the time, but it’s been part of the game for 37 years and has since changed the landscape of the game. Pitchers largely no longer care about their hitting, and teams don’t care much other than making sure they know how to bunt. That’s it; their primary concern is that their pitchers know how to make an out on purpose. With the DH being used throughout the minors, it’s ridiculous to expect pitchers to be able to relearn hitting years after college. Where they used different bats.

    Purists say that nine players should bat and field, and that the DH kills strategy. Teams routinely employ players primarily as pinch runners or defensive replacements who don’t often hit, not to mention half a dozen or more relievers who will never pick up a bat. Working around the pitcher’s spot in the batting order doesn’t entail a great deal of strategy. We sometimes make it out to be this incredibly cerebral facet of the game, but oftentimes the fans and broadcasters see these moves coming, and they are only noticed or questioned in the rare occasion they go against the grain.

    So my solution to the pitcher-hitting conundrum? Change baseball’s in-game structure so that players can be rotated in and out of the game. Change the lineup card to a dry-erase board. Make a rule prohibiting mid-inning switches for position players in the field, as well as changes during an at-bat. To avoid hitter abuse–say, having a good hitter going in and out of a game and getting an at-bat every inning–players who are taken out of a game may not reenter until after his team has made nine outs since his removal. Shorten the process a bit by having managers deploy relievers from the bench rather than from the mound, and limit relievers to 5-6 warm-up pitches.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. Craig Tyle says:

    Variation on #2:

    Each team can have one of its pitchers be pinch-hit for once without coming out of the game. Interesting strategy — for example, early in a game it may make sense to let the pitcher bat with no one on and two out, or in a bunt situation. But you don’t want to wait too long to use your freebie, as it is of little value late in the game because short relievers would be likely to come out of the game anyway. A possible variation would be to give each team another “free pinch-hit” if the game goes into extra innings.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Bronnt says:

      I like this. You probably end up with guys who are on the roster mostly for this purpose, but they’re not Jim Thome-type sluggers who command big contracts since they’re very marginally used. This guy becomes a specialist akin to middle relief and is compensated like one.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  22. Jim(RI) says:

    Another advantage is that players can extend their careers at DH. Even as a shell of himself, I’d still rather watch Ken Griffey Jr. hit rather than some pitcher.

    As for forcing DH’s into the field…you really want to watch Adam Dunn in the field? Why??

    Question: What are you trying to accomplish by abolishing the DH?
    Purity?- Just have an 8 spot batting order

    I would actually be cool with just abolishing the substitution rules all together.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Hizouse says:

      An argument the union would love. But I love watching Sheff waggle his bat and Vlad golfing pitches in the dirt, and if the DH means I can see more of that, that’s a plus.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  23. Jim(RI) says:

    Doh.(Why did it submit?) To finish the above:

    I would be ok with putting some other sort of limit on subs rather than just “can’t come back after leaving”. You need some limits to prevent to many delays(maybe a limit on number and have a min amount of play in between), but generally…more usage of good players is a good thing.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  24. Aaron says:

    Use the DH to showcase minor league talent. The rule could say that each DH must play for seven straight games before being sent back to the minors and can’t be called up for the rest of the season as a DH. Teams would use the opportunity to showcase and try out their top prospects and fans would get a chance to see the future of their teams.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  25. Will London says:

    I’m not even sure I like this idea but here goes:

    - Don’t make the pitcher hit.
    - Make everyone play the field.
    - Keep the 9 man lineup.

    How? Do like the softball teams do, put another dude in the field. Jack Cust and Adam Dunn might be hideous fielders, but put them in the OF with two guys with average or plus range and they’d make out okay.

    I think this would change the game far more than most of us would like, but imagine the shifts you could use on extreme pull hitters.

    Meh, I hate this idea.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  26. Neil says:

    This is a variation on some other proposals, drawing on an uncommon softball rule…

    I’ve seen softball rules that use a “designated player” – a player that can be pinch-hit, pinch-run, or removed defensively, but is always available to be reinserted. He need not even be replaced immediately – if your designated player is, say, your RF and you want to pull him for a stronger defensive player for two innings where he doesn’t bat, you can still reinsert him when his spot in the order comes up again. But the defensive replacement is now out of the game.

    So adjust this rule for the pitcher. The starting pitcher is the ‘designated player’, meaning that he can be subbed out for pinch-hitter but return to the mound the next inning. Or that he can be pulled for one batter in order to use, say, a lefty-specialist and then returned to the game. The riskiness, of course, is in getting replacement-happy and burning through your bench.

    As an addition level of difficulty/creativity, the ‘designated player’ title can be reassigned when the starter is finally removed – it can be given to a reliever or to a position player, but it can’t be reassigned again until the second designated player is similarly removed from the game. (No switching DP status from player A to player B and then back to A.)

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  27. CircleChange11 says:

    Pretty simple actually …

    [1] Pitchers shouldn’t bat for the same reasons Jose Canseco and Mark Grace shouldn’t pitch … while entertaining it’s often horrible and something they rarely have time to practice.

    [2] Pitching, like everything else, is becoming even more specialized. Pitchers are engaged in full week routines, based on throwing, recovery, meetings, stat studies, and bullpen sessions …. batting practice just isn’t in the schedule (to the degree it would take to become reasonably proficient at it).

    [3] When I pitched, I hated to hit. I wanted to come off the mound, take a seat, talk to my catcher/coach, and look at the pitching chart for how hitters were getting out, and what trends I might be (A) using well or (B) falling into. When I played RF, I liked to hit (although the coach would occasionally DH for me. What can i say, some guys can hit, some guys can throw. I was the latter.). Pitchers are involved in every defensive pitch, and to a much greater degree than everyone else.

    [4] Have you seen Randy Johnson with a bat? Actually for 98% of pitchers, batting is a minimally involved action where the primary focus is to not do anything that might lead to an injury. Sure, once in a while Chris Carpenter will get 50% of his RBIs in one game. BFD.

    [5] Having another batter in the lineup allows another player of better quality, perhaps even allowing a prospect to develop in the field, rather than have the pitcher contribute a half-hearted, under-skilled at bat. Pitcher’s batting is NOT baseball.

    [6] I am not generally a fan of the DH, but given modern trends and the extreme lack of emphasis that pitchers have for batting, at this point (also considering interleague and WS play), the DH makes more sense than ever.

    [7] The aspect of managing in the NL, when to pull the pitcher, when to pinch-hit, when to do a double switch, are often (IMHO) vastly over-rated. Most of the X’s and O’s part of the game are obvious and require very little insight, and could be performed by many folks who may or may not even have playing experience. It’s not rocket surgery. The key influences of a manager are in platoons, bullpen usage, matchups, and managing personalities. The “strategy” aspect is not as in-depth as one might think (for numerous reasons).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Owen says:

      Rocket surgeon! Now there’s a profession!

      Just thought of a random idea. The manager can use position players however he wants, but he is limited to the ones that come up between the first player to repeat an at-bat. He gets 9 guys in the field (no more), but can choose to go for less to also have a tighter lineup. Never mind, this is ridiculous. Scroll down for my smarter idea. Then let me into grad school.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  28. Paul B says:

    Here’s an extreme idea, maybe this was already mentioned…

    Go completely the way of football, have lots of divisions and lots of rounds of playoffs…. oh, wait,,,

    No, what I meant was, make it so you can put anyone on your roster onto the field any time you want. Run your best fielders out there when you are on the field. Select the hitter from the bench to go to the on deck circle anytime. Pull someone out of the game and put them back in later.

    OK, that’s pretty goofy, but it does sort of feel like it is the way we are going, sometimes.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  29. Brett says:

    If you bat in an inning you have to play the field in the next inning. This would have interesting ramifications not only for the DH spot but also for pinch hitters.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      I like this idea as a variant of #3, 4 (rotating players). The only way out is if you have all 9 players hit. You won’t even be able to put the 1B or LF and DH too close to each other either. Interesting…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  30. OB says:

    2. Adam Everett and Brad Ausmus still bat. As was elucidated earlier, the pitcher is not a seperate entity, but, rather, the defensive player who should garner the greatest positional adjustment.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  31. Owen says:

    Anyone can bat as long as the team has sent up at least 8 batters since his last at bat. Managers have to announce their 3 batters at the start of the inning, but after that they can go batter to batter. That way the best hitters would always see maximum action, but managers would mix and match with the lesser guys. Maybe make it only 7 batters before it turns over.

    You can take the field as long as you have or will come to bat at least once in the game. I just pulled this idea out of my a**, but maybe it’s brilliant. You can get your all defense team out there as long as you sneak in at least one plate appearance. Do you do it first inning to get it out of the way? Do you wait for a moment when you are passed the first three batters but no longer threatening. Would Tony LaRussa ever sleep again? The possibilities are endless.

    And maybe something about the pitcher that starts the inning has to face the first three batters.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  32. Scott says:

    Actually, I have advocated a variation on option number 2 for quite some time. My idea was to allow the starting pitcher to re-enter the game one time after being substituted for. This would mean that you could hit for the pitcher the first time through the lineup, the pitcher could hit the next time (where a bunt is in order or there are two out and nobody on, etc) and the third time his spot comes up, the manager would have to make a decision as to whether to hit for him again (thus losing him for the rest of the game).

    Depending on where you put the pitchers’ spot, this would get you to the fifth or sixth inning (which is the spot a good number of today’s pitchers have trouble going past anyway).

    There are options at the start of the game as well as a team could ‘designate’ a player to hit each time the pitchers’ spot comes up and that same player could then hit in that spot every time it comes around except for the one time the pitcher hits. This would be a good compromise on the present rule as it would still allow for guys who are not great defenders to be full time DHs, but it would negate their impact by one AB per game and likely also put them lower in the order.

    If a player is so designated, he can’t appear in that game in any other role. If no player is designated before the game, a different player would have to be used each time the pitcher is hit for.

    It seems clear that some form of the DH is inevitable in the NL at some point. I think this idea would keep a lot of the strategy (and maybe even add a bit more) while still assuaging some of the concerns of the MLBPA. I would not mind seeing this as a uniform rule used in both leagues.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  33. jpdtrmpt72 says:

    its funny, the same arguments have all been used on both threads

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  34. Jacob Jackson says:

    My favorite argument for preserving the DH (and even expanding it) has yet to be mentioned:

    The disparity in talent/performance between the NL and AL must be addressed.

    I believe that the existence of the DH deserves some of the credit for the AL’s dominance over the NL.

    Over the last ~5 years the AL, collectively, is basically a 97-win win team when it faces the NL in interleague play. AL teams play almost .600 ball against NL teams. Not coincidentally, AL teams have higher payrolls than NL teams, on average. And perhaps they should – they are paying for one extra starting position. And AL teams know that the most inferior pitchers don’t survive in the AL, which has the ripple effect of shuttling most of the worst starting pitching in MLB to the NL.

    If the NL added a DH, I think it would gradually reduce some of the edge that the AL currently has on the NL, in terms of overall talent. And that’s a good thing.

    Instead of taking a low-paying job as an AL bench bat, Jim Thome would be a starting NL DH, making slightly better money. Instead of having five bad-fielding, good-hitting outfielders still shivering out in the cold, we’d have Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye, etc. beefing up NL lineups as DHs to the tune of an .800 OPS or better. That’s good for the game. And it’s good for the Player’s Union, which is desirous to keep its aging vets (some of the most powerful members of the Union, typically) employed. It also would take a few of the worst defenders in the game, like Adam Dunn, Carlos Lee, and Brad Hawpe, off the field, improving the defense of their respective teams.

    Also, let’s look at some of the best NL offensive players who are nearing free agency. When Ryan Howard and Prince Fielder reach free agency, AL teams will have a greater incentive to offer them the most lucrative, long-term deals than NL teams will, because AL teams have a clear spot to hide a great-hitting, poor fielding defender. Thus, the talent drain from the NL continues.

    That’s my argument for expanding the DH to all 30 teams. Increases parity and equity. I suppose one could argue in the other thread that abolishing the DH would offer the same virtues, but you’re far more likely to get the Player’s Union to agree to something that CREATES jobs for its most-tenured members than you are to see them do something that ELIMINATES jobs.

    While I’m on my soapbox:
    *DH in the NL
    *Astros or Brewers move to the AL West
    *1-2 interleague series are playing at all times

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Doug Lampert says:

      Same rules in both leagues is good. I could live with pretty much any of the alternatives to DH that Tango lists or with continuing the current DH system for that one rule. (I like number 5, the 8 man batting order best; but number 2, the pinch hitter DH is also fine with me.)

      But balancing the leagues and divisions is a no-brainer. It awes me that supposedly intelligent baseball fans will claim you can’t schedule games with 15 teams in a league and intraleague. Obviously you can, you just need 1 or 3 intraleague games any day that you have a full 15 game schedule.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  35. Chicks Dig the Long Ball says:

    The pitcher shouldn’t be allowed to bat because I hate bunting.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  36. When teams train pitchers to hit, then pitchers should hit. Until then, pitchers should not hit. Wasting runs by bunting is not strategy.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  37. Bronnt says:

    Almost all fans of NL teams are anti-DH. Almost all fans of AL teams are pro-DH. I’m curious as to how many AL fans would like to do away with the DH, and how many NL fans would like to add it.

    I’m an NL fan who just happens to be of two minds. On one hand, I really like the National League game, the way it plays out in regards to batting order and substitutions.

    But on the other hand, it doesn’t seem consistent that there’s one man on the field doing something the 9 others aren’t, and yet he still is responsible for doing everything else they’re doing. He has to at least marginally field his position as well as bat, but it’s not like the RF has to come in and pitch at some point.

    I just wish I had one clear opinion on this.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      Had the DH been one rule, then all of us born in the last 40 years would have been used to the DH, and so, would not want to see the pitcher bat.

      Had the DH never been introduced, someone would bring it up,and so, some sort of DH rule would exist.

      So, I think there’s a natural process where the existence of the DH, in some form, would have to have existed.

      The reason for the fighting is the “all or nothing” approach, which is why you always have a stalemate. Once you unify the rules, then it becomes a more reasonable discussion.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  38. Ryan says:

    Easy solution: eliminate the pitcher and replace him with a batting tee. Have nine fielders each of whom hits.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  39. AKMA says:

    I’ve been arguing in favor of #1 for years. #2 makes a plausible, but more innovative (hence, less likely to be passed) alternative.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  40. From http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2010/01/quick-dh-rant.html

    I was listening to 670 THE SCORE earlier today, and heard a strange comment by Mully and Hanley. Mully and Hanley tried to say “hey look, we love Jim Thome and appreciate all that he’s done for Chicago, but he was only a 1 WAR player last season” (in actuality, Thome was a +1.5 WAR player in 3-4 months (he did not play in NL-interleague games) of ABs for the White Sox as a DH, and a -0.2 WAR player off the bench for the Dodgers in extremely limited ABs). Bless their hearts for trying to use Fangraphs and sabermetrics to support their arguments, but it’s important to use the statistics right for them to be valuable and effective.

    True, Thome is aging, worth “only” about +2 WAR pr 600 PAs and is also limited by both age and health to a DH-only role. +2 WAR is still valuable, but let’s just say it’s not enough for the Sox. What Mully and Hanley didn’t account for, however, is that DH’s generally have limited value in general because they provide one-side of the game contribution and get a -17.5 run reduction (-1.7 WAR) from their batting line. In other words, any DH is inherently less valuable and going to have limited value in comparison to “other baseball players” who play the field.

    If you are signing a player in general who will play the field, you want a guy who will maximize his total contribution. In the average player, this contribution is a combination of position, offense and defense. Becauase there are more imputs for the non-DH, a non-DH who does not have Adam Dunn-like fielding abilities will inherently have a higher WAR; especially if they play a premium position like SS. The higher the WAR, the better the player. Teams want +5 WAR guys over the +3 WAR guys and the +2 WAR guys over the +1 WAR guys.

    However, the perspective of evaluation must change slightly when you look to sign a DH-only player. A DH-only player only contributes offense. His WAR will be negatively impacted by the fact that he is a DH, no matter how good his bat is. If player A and player B are both equally good at offense, but player A is an average defensive LF (-7.5 run adjustment, +0 fielding runs) and player B is a DH (-17.5 run adjustment), WAR would not be the best method to evaluate which player to sign if you are looking to sign either A or B to a DH-only role. Player A looks better because his WAR is likely to be a full integer higher than B, but that does not mean A will be more valuable than B in the DH-only role. What teams should be looking at when evaluating prospective DH-only role players is not “who had the better WAR,” but who had the better Batting Runs Above Replacement (BRAR) line.

    Quick tangent, on that note: Rotating mediocre offensive players, whose total value comes from all-around play, through the DH role is a terrible idea. The DH exists to maximize offense. Omar Visquel, who posted +1.3 WAR in limited action (62 games) last season, will not translate into winning an additional games if you play him at DH.

    You want a guy like Thome because all he can give you is batting and he does it quite well. As I mentioned before, it is one thing if you are someone to play OF or 1B or whatever. If this be the case, then by all means, please use WAR to compare and contrast players. Here, you want the healthiest, most all-around contributing player. However, this is a DH-only situation for Jim Thome and any team looking to sign him is looking for a DH-only player to play only DH. In this situation, you need to look not at WAR, but BRAR, and note that a DH-only player is bound to have a more limited WAR than comparably good hitting non-DH-only players.

    Of all DH’s who received 250+ PA’s last year, only three (Adam Lind, Jason Kubel and Hideki Matsui) had WARs higher than Thome (who posted a +1.5 WAR mark as a DH for the Sox). Of those three, only Lind was worth +3 or more WAR (+3.7, to be exact). Additionally, all three of Lind, Kubel and Matsui received somewhere between 100 and 200 more PA’s than Thome did in 2009.

    Thus, we cannot evaluate a DH from last season, who we are prospectively signing as DH for this season, and say “oh he’s only an X WAR guy.” Obviously the guy whose slightly good at defense and offense combined and plays a valuable position will be worth more in the field, but as a DH, it’s about one thing and one thing only. What’s your batting line? And Thome’s is still good.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jon says:

      Agreed. People really need to understand WAR before using it to support their arguments. Wins Above Replacement is adjusted for position, so your talking about a replacement level player for that position. And a replacement level DH can smack the ball but good. A +1.5 WAR DH is most definitely going to be one of your strongest offensive players.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  41. Mitch says:

    All DH, all the time, but limit the number of pitchers that can be used in a given game. Or, if Tony LaRussa complains too much, the number of new pitchers entering the game. He can still go lefty righty lefty, but the lefty has to play left field in between.

    This will 1) help shorten games as within inning pitching changes are limited, 2) create more opportunities for strategy (do I bring my first reliever, or try to squeeze the starter for one more? becomes an even bigger decision) and 3) might help managers get away from the one-inning closer usage pattern. Plus, there could even be more double switches (which NL advocates love). Relievers shag balls in the outfield every day; I think we can prepare them to play a batter or two in the field with relative ease.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      It’s outside scope, but one argument that we’ve had on my blog is that every time you make a mid-inning relief replacement, the batter gets an extra ball in the count.

      So, the first mid-inning relief replacement: no change.
      The second one: batter starts 1-0
      The third one: batter starts 2-0 (turns average hitter into Pujols)
      The fourth+: the batter starts 3-0

      No injury provisions.

      So, it becomes quite clear that you are going to really try to limit the mid-inning relief replacement to one per game. Going to 2 would be an extreme position. And you’d never want to go to 3 or more.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        Thumbs Up … and this comes from a former pitcher.

        We could also eliminate the “warm-up” pitches on the mound when a new reliever comes in.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • James says:

        Quite a radical rule

        Would the same effect be achieved if you made it that a relief pitcher has to face two batters rather than one. This would reduce loogy usage.

        To compensate the defence once a batter is brought in he must bat. THis would eliminate the following charade e.g. rhp to face rhb but offence brings in LHB, defence brings in LHP, offence brings in RHB.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • okin15 says:

        Or maybe you just give the next batter up a free ball. That means that lessens the potential to injure a pitcher because of a rule incentive.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  42. Louis Rizzo says:

    I say just dh all the time instead of pitcher bat. Why do we need an alternative? I dont like the idea of the home manager making the call because say one game you make the pitcher batting call because you have micah owings pitching and the next you have DHs because the other team has Carlos Zambrano pitching. Its too unfair to away teams. As far as being able to pinch hit without taking the pitcher out… you would have to do that for every position as well… so say you have a great fielding outfielder who sucks at hitting. You pinch hit someone like adam dunn for him and the outfielder isnt taken out… granted this can only happen once but then managers will start supplying the bench more than the bullpen and relievers will be used for longer periods of time. As for the others Im not a big fan of them the game of baseball has 9 innings, 9 batters. Who wants the games shortened? I say keep it as is but use DH permanently unless the manager decides not to use a DH. Pitchers are drafted, signed, and traded for so they can pitch well. Not because they have an unusual hitting talent. If that was the case then Micah Owings would be a 10 million dollar commodity.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  43. JaywinJake says:

    Leave it as it is.

    It’s frustrating that in the other thread we’re invited to defend “pitcher-as-hitter” but in this one we’re invited to suggest alternatives to the DH (presuming that there’s something wrong with it that needs to be fixed?)

    Pitchers stopped hitting long before the rules acknowledged the fact. The DH was a good response. I believe there’s only one league in the world that hasn’t recognized that.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      The other thread explores the reason that the NL rules is good.

      If I were to make this thread the reason that the AL rules is good, it’s going to be a very short thread. What can you say, in positive terms about the AL rules? I love to see 9 hitters. That’s the thread, right? Instead, it’s going to be a bash about why the NL rules are no good. You can literally find one thousand threads on the web if you want to post about extended the AL rules to all of MLB.

      So, I’m offering something extra: alternatives to the current way the DH is implemented. If you can find me more than a dozen threads like this one on the web, I’ll be surprised.

      Really, why get frustrated for having a thread that is fairly unique, just because it’s not an exact parallel to another thread?

      Enjoy the thread for what it is, if you can.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  44. Trey Hillman's Chin says:

    I would love to see an alternate universe of baseball where the DH rule is taken to its logical conclusion: no set line-ups, just bat whoever you want whenever you want; and substitute pitchers, fielders, and runners at will.

    I have often thought that someone should set up an independent league to try it out. They could play once-a-week and employ retired star hitters and pitchers backed up by a bunch of speedy defensive specialists who are otherwise not good enough to get an MLB contract. Just think, you could have Bonds/Clemens vs. McGwire/Johnson, and the stars would be out there during the whole game.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  45. Jimbo says:

    I’m just too hung up on the natural protection hitters get if the pitcher himself has to grab a bat and stand in the box. Maybe it doesn’t make any difference.

    After reading the great arguments on this thread, I’m persuaded. To still have *some* deterrent, how about pitchers need to bat in at least 10% of their scheduled plate appearances? Meaning a pitcher finishes the 6th and is due up 3rd…that’s a scheduled at bat. If he’s due up 4th and you tell the ump between innings you’re going with DH in his spot…not a scheduled at bat.

    First scheduled at bat for any pitcher in the season, he’d have to bat. Next 9 times his position comes up, team can DH for him. Would provide strategy in how much managers front-load a pitcher’s at bats, or where they see they can sneak one in.

    Just can’t support something where a pitcher could put guys at risk and never face that himself!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  46. Kris says:

    One reason I like the DH is because the manager does not have to pull a starter just because he’s coming to bat. Say a guy is cruising through 6 or 7 innings, but he comes up to bat with runners on, and the score is close. Sometimes a manager pulls the starter because he needs someone who can actually hit. This is a disservice to the SP, IMO, who might have had another inning or two or a CG in him had he not been a victim of circumstance. I’m surprised no one has mentioned this.

    Generally speaking, hitting is not part of a pitcher’s job description, so why do we force them to do it? It doesn’t add strategy, it reduces the competitive nature of the game (pitchers have one or maybe two “free” outs in the lineup), and it isn’t at all fun to watch.

    I wonder if AL fans grumbled when the DH was introduced. If so, AL fans don’t grumble now, so logically shouldn’t we assume that the DH provides better baseball? Two years after the DH were adopted in the NL, there wouldn’t be many holdouts left who were still vehemently against it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CircleChange11 says:

      I’m surprised no one has mentioned this.

      Some did mention it in the description of “baseball strategy”, as if many managers ever really diverge from the “in the lead, he hits … trailing, use a PH” rule of thumb.

      IMO, the claim of “playing real baseball” is the only thing us NL fans have to throw at the AL fans. I’m sure that really “cuts them deep” as they continue to win the majority of IL games, the majority of the WS, and almost all of the AS games. At this point the claim of “real baseball” toward AL fans is analogous to the 160-pound string bean telling the 250-pound muscleman that “veins showing in your arms is gross”. Yeah, good one Twiggy.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  47. “As a RF, Dunn’s cumulative batting and fielding production gets a -7.5 positional adjustment (UZR measures all defense equally, then accounts for differences in fielding difficulty between positions thru positional adjustments). As a DH, Dunn would get a flat -17.5 positional adjustment and a zero fielding rating. In other words, as a DH, Dunn just get -17.5 runs subtracted from his batting line. As a RF (or LF, for that matter), Dunn gets -7.5 subtracted from his batting line in addition to his lackluster fielding. Thus Dunn, like anyone with a consistent -10 or worse fielding glove at RF/LF, belongs in a DH role.”

    Taken from http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-adam-dunn-underrated.html

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CircleChange11 says:

      Well, and that would be the other point … that the NL already does have “DH Players”, we’re just forced to watch them lumber and butcher in the field. Well, I guess there was that one diving play Howard made, that decent catch Dunn made that one time, and that one double down the line that carpenter had. But, still …

      Combine horrible defense with even worse pitcher hitting, and I find it hard to use the term “that’s baseball” in the same context as others may (i.e., it’s “baseball” that pitcher’s bat and all players in the lineup play the field).

      It may be baseball, but it’s bad, non-entertaining, shame to watch at the ML level defense/batting. Seriously, there’s nothing “baseball” about watching a pitcher swing poorly or even worse, take 3 strikes so they can go sit down, rest, and not get hurt. Some pitcher’s body posture at the plate just SCREAMS “silent agreement” with the pitcher that says “I’m not going to attempt a hard swing, so don’t throw anything hard and in, mmmmkay?” Taking the first 2 pitches right down the middle seems to communicate the “just get it over quick and uneventful, and then I’ll go sit down quietly”.

      As with any DH rule, a team could use their pitcher as the DH, calling it “hitting for himself”. Unlike amatuer baseball (at certain levels) a DH at the MLB level would not be allowed to hit for another non-pitcher player … although, I guess, there wouldn;t need to be any such rule, if a team wanted their pitcher to bat, and DH for their SS or C.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • I despise the DH-rule for non-logical cosmetic reasons, but even I acknowledge the following:

        1) It preserves the health of injury-prone players
        2) It preserves the health of pitchers (see Jake Peavy, 2009)
        3) It preserves team-wins (see Adam Dunn’s fielding, 2009)
        4) It reaffirms economic theory of “division of labor” (see David Ricardo and comparative advantage theory)

        But as another fangraphs user stated, theres nothing that beats the pain of seeing the pitcher hit a walk-off homer in the 9th.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        What manager lets their pitcher bat in the 9th when they represent the winning run?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  48. Eric says:

    I’ll keep this as short as I possibly can: the pitcher is basically an automatic out. While I agree the oddity of a pitcher that can actually hit is cool, and the fact King Felix hit a grand slam off of Johan Santana was probably the coolest thing I’ve ever seen on T.V., I just don’t see the point of it. Pitchers used to always hit, now half the MLB uses a DH, so the natural progression would be for both leagues to use the DH. This would also do a little to balance out the talent gap between the leagues.

    I understand tradition, and all of that good stuff, but the DH was an improvement on the game in my opinion. I guess it takes away some of the strategy as far aw double switches go, but honestly way more often than not a pitcher is either an out or a sac bunt. Who wants to see that?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  49. Also, on an unrelated note, I finally got around to buying “The Book.” Thanks for giving us literary awesomeness T.T.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  50. mouse24 says:

    Let the pitcher hit, but give his team 4 outs in the inning that he hits.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  51. okin15 says:

    A twist on #2: when the pinch hitter comes in, either he OR the pitcher is done after the at bat, so you either have a DH for an inning or two, or you get to keep your pitcher in.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  52. philkid3 says:

    Hopefully this post is not deleted.

    I think very simply, watching someone who can’t hit every 9th PA is pretty boring. I want to see a pitcher-hitter match-up that can end in success at a reasonable rate for either side, and that’s just not true with the pitcher hitting.

    But, I also like tradition and I like the strategy and I like forcing everyone to play both offense and defense for balance.

    So, frankly, I think the absolute best solution is to have a league where pitchers don’t hit and a league where they do. Then, you can see games of both varieties.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  53. daviduxresll says:

    Do most people obtain the Mon after Easter off from work in large businesses? Is a normal paid vacationfor jobs givingpaid vacations?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  54. DJ says:

    Let’s just go to the Eddie Feigner extreme…

    Great pitcher, One per team… that’s it.

    Three Fielders, c, 1b, ss-lcf…

    Why just Three Fielders?

    Eddie needed 4 batters, as the bases were loaded all the time. Otherwise he wouldn’t need Three Fielders.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  55. frank says:

    There should be one simple change that can be made today… Managers should be allowed to double switch the DH just like any other position so he can use the DH in the field late in the game without having to sacrifice the DH spot

    Example – ARod is DH’ing, Kevin Russo is playing 3B… late in the game the manager wants to pinchit for Russo, but this requires ARod to go to 3rd base, the guy pinchitting for Russo should be allowed to become the DH if ARod becomes the 3rd baseman. (currently the DH spot is forfeited once the DH moves to the field)

    To me this is effectively no different than pinch hitting for a CF with a corner outfielder and then moving the current LF in the lineup over to center.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  56. Hi People, i would just like to make an say hello to everyone at http://www.fangraphs.com

    Your forum is fantastic! Usually when I visit forums, I just come across crap, but this time I was really surprised, finding a helpful forum containing fantastic information.

    Thanks guys and keep the good effort up.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  57. luroriaccot says:

    Houston, TX – The Houston Texans signed Andre Johnson to a two-year contract gauge on Thursday, a deal that, according to the Houston List, makes him the highest paid far-reaching receiver in the NFL.

    Johnson, 29, led the NFL in receiving yards the pattern two seasons and had five years and $35 million surviving on his existing contract.

    The Relate reported the extension to be worth $38.5 million, including $13 million guaranteed. On normal, Johnson will nowadays make $10.5 million per year over the next seven seasons, not including fulfilment incentives.

    “I in any case said I wanted to play for in unison cooperate, and to be skilful to play representing the Houston Texans for my in one piece career is a tremendous honor,” Johnson said. “I everlastingly said I wanted to be mainly of something special, and I knew that coming to a altered classification, things were going to be a slight raucous in the beginning, and with it I feel like things are engaging that turn for the benefit of us.”

    The University of Miami-Florida yield has dog-tired his thorough seven-year race in Houston after the Texans selected him with the third all-embracing pick in the 2003 NFL Draft.

    Johnson has recorded back-to-back 1,500-yard receiving seasons, including a 101-catch, 1,569-yard operations mould year. He also scored nine touchdowns in 2009 to up his fly unconditional to 42 TDs in 102 games.

    “For the matrix two years, cipher has played to the honest that this girlish cover shackles has as long that I’ve been round, other than the same other guy,” said head cram Gary Kubiak. “What he’s been doing has been special, and there’s a plight more to come. So, that’s wealthy to be exciting.”

    He has caught 587 passes for 7,948 yards as a remainder the passage of his rush, moral two of the numerous consortium records he owns.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  58. This is certainly one of the better posts I have located on this topic. I would like to know if you have you though about the other side of the subject of natural health? Personally, I think a decent argument could be made either way, but let me know if you know of more sites or articles on the Web to verify what you are discussing.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  59. Cashkaret says:

    ???????????
    ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ucoz.
    ????? ???????? ??? ???? ? ??????????? ????????? ? ?? ?? 100% ??????????
    ???????? ?????? ????????. ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????????. ??????? ???? ????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????????.

    ???????????

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  60. reemocw1979 says:

    Hey
    Initial post, a little shy, but here goes!
    I do not know if any person saw the post on the Vogue blog magazine this week, asking the question “why do fashion insiders dress up so inadequately” It made me chuckle for the reason that it’s true, in the event you take a take a look at some of the men and women that work in the fashion business, in spite of the fact that they are working within the industry of trendsetting, they dress up pretty badly….Got anything to add?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *