I agree with Keith Law...DH in both leagues and expand to two more cities. The sport is healthy and far better off with 16 teams in each league vs. 15.
why does he say that--just because there's no way the players union will agree to get rid of it? the dh isn't good for the game at all. i wish they would just get rid of it all together.
unfathomable to me that one league has had such a distinct advantage over the other for over 4 decades now.
His point (which I agree with) is that it makes for better baseball. Pitchers can't hit and they become a black hole at the bottom of the order. When managers have to manage around it as it gets into later innings, you're not focusing on what someone can do, but what they can't. It isn't "strategy," but instead a forced situation.
With a couple rare exceptions, pitchers will never be league-average hitters. The entirety of their development is to make them as effective and durable as their skills will allow.
As a fan, I far prefer the AL style of play for that reason. It also allows aging stars to extend their careers, which is also good for the game.
Oh...and I agree completely on your last point. It has put the NL at a severe disadvantage; would love to see them adopt the DH.
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
actually higher payroll doesn't equate to success in baseball
It equates to playoff appearances. If nothing in the current format changes, what you would wager on post-season games played for the Yankees and Red Sox over the next decade vs. the Rays, Blue Jays, and Orioles?
The sox and yanks are run better than the other teams in the AL East. AA has turned things around in Toronto. They are better set up for the yanks over the next 5 years.
Plenty of teams make the playoffs every year without spending a ton of money. Just last year you had cincy, SF, Atlanta, Tampa, Minnesota. I don't believe any of them were in the top 10 in payroll last year
I didn't say they mashed...just that they hit a bit. Plus I like the strategy of it in late game situations it makes things fun.
They don't hit at all. Almost every pitcher puts up a line worse than the least effective position player in a given year. That even goes for "good" hitters like Carlos Zambrano.
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
Most definitely in interleague. NL teams have to call-up AAA sluggers b/c they don't have anyone for that position.
The sox and yanks are run better than the other teams in the AL East. AA has turned things around in Toronto. They are better set up for the yanks over the next 5 years.
Plenty of teams make the playoffs every year without spending a ton of money. Just last year you had cincy, SF, Atlanta, Tampa, Minnesota. I don't believe any of them were in the top 10 in payroll last year
You will have aberrations every year. It's about who competes every year and who slips through once every 5-10. The Rays have arguably the best front office in baseball. The Red Sox are certainly up there and the Yankees are above average at best.
To give you an idea what they're up against, playoff appearances the last 10 years:
Yankees - 9
Red Sox - 7
Rays - 2
Orioles - 0
Blue Jays - 0
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.
but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
Most definitely in interleague. NL teams have to call-up AAA sluggers b/c they don't have anyone for that position.
I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.
but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.
I was saying that almost no one enjoys watching a bad pitcher have to face bad hitters. If you enjoy that, you're in a tiny club. And if you don't know Livan Hernadez or Kyle Lohse, that tells me you're not in that club either.
The sox and yanks are run better than the other teams in the AL East. AA has turned things around in Toronto. They are better set up for the yanks over the next 5 years.
Plenty of teams make the playoffs every year without spending a ton of money. Just last year you had cincy, SF, Atlanta, Tampa, Minnesota. I don't believe any of them were in the top 10 in payroll last year
You will have aberrations every year. It's about who competes every year and who slips through once every 5-10. The Rays have arguably the best front office in baseball. The Red Sox are certainly up there and the Yankees are above average at best.
To give you an idea what they're up against, playoff appearances the last 10 years:
Yankees - 9
Red Sox - 7
Rays - 2
Orioles - 0
Blue Jays - 0
that just proves that certain teams are run better than others. if the o's spent more money on the draft (like tampa does), instead of wasting money on guys like kevin gregg or vlad guerrero, they would have a better chance of sustaining success.
last year 3 of the top 10 payrolls in baseball made the playoffs. the cubs, mets, tigers, and mariners are always in the top 10 in payroll. how has that worked out for them?
there's zero correlation to high payroll and winning
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.
but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.
I was saying that almost no one enjoys watching a bad pitcher have to face bad hitters. If you enjoy that, you're in a tiny club. And if you don't know Livan Hernadez or Kyle Lohse, that tells me you're not in that club either.
of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?
I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.
You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.
I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.
You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.
The AL just has better teams as a whole. Been that way for a long time, hence the lopsided interleague record.
And AL pitchers have to hit in inter league. I for one like watching pitchers hit.
Its called being a complete player unlike the 90%'s in the AL
There are no pitchers that can hit. None. Striking out or tapping to the shortstop three times a game doesn't make you a complete player.
Zambrano is a pretty good hitter...
Babe ruth was a pretty good hitter.
There are others in between.
I just get the dh....
Zambrano's career line is .240/.249/.392. That's terrible, but good for a pitcher. What does that say? Babe Ruth was 80 years ago. Has the game changed a bit since then? If you're not sure, you may want to check in with blacks and hispanics.
of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?
Of course. But they're not pitching to other bad pitchers.
I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.
You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.
The AL just has better teams as a whole. Been that way for a long time, hence the lopsided interleague record.
of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?
Of course. But they're not pitching to other bad pitchers.
Zambrano's career line is .240/.249/.392. That's terrible, but good for a pitcher. What does that say? Babe Ruth was 80 years ago. Has the game changed a bit since then? If you're not sure, you may want to check in with blacks and hispanics.
You're using a pretty small sample size though (what do pitchers get 70 - 80 ABs in a good year??). If zambrano played first base and didn't pitch don't you think his numbers would improve?
I hear what you're saying...most pitchers can't hit. Just saying that their stats don't tell the entire story
dude, read your statement again ... "zero correlation"??? ... c'mon.
you must have missed my 5 posts that prove my stance
I agree with a lot of what you said, there's a lot that goes into running a team ... but it's not zero correlation.
(If anything, zero correlation means it's perfectly inversely correlated ... but that's a whole different discussion.)
You cannot deny that having money does get you better players and puts you in better position to win a lot more games.
Just because some teams spend a lot and fuck it up, doesn't mean spending a lot doesn't give a team an advantage. It does.
gotcha. I would say that it gives some teams less room for error in regards to resource allocation. I definitely wouldn't say that high payroll equates success though.
I think we're on the same page...zero correlation was probably getting a little carried away
Comments
i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.
Im i life long Detroit Tiger fan. Im partial to the DH, but i dont mind pitchers hitting either. Just dont get why people get so defensive either way.
This difference in the leagues is a good thing IMO.
If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.
The sox and yanks are run better than the other teams in the AL East. AA has turned things around in Toronto. They are better set up for the yanks over the next 5 years.
Plenty of teams make the playoffs every year without spending a ton of money. Just last year you had cincy, SF, Atlanta, Tampa, Minnesota. I don't believe any of them were in the top 10 in payroll last year
They don't hit at all. Almost every pitcher puts up a line worse than the least effective position player in a given year. That even goes for "good" hitters like Carlos Zambrano.
Its called being a complete player unlike the 90%'s in the AL
You will have aberrations every year. It's about who competes every year and who slips through once every 5-10. The Rays have arguably the best front office in baseball. The Red Sox are certainly up there and the Yankees are above average at best.
To give you an idea what they're up against, playoff appearances the last 10 years:
Yankees - 9
Red Sox - 7
Rays - 2
Orioles - 0
Blue Jays - 0
There are no pitchers that can hit. None. Striking out or tapping to the shortstop three times a game doesn't make you a complete player.
you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.
but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.
I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.
I was saying that almost no one enjoys watching a bad pitcher have to face bad hitters. If you enjoy that, you're in a tiny club. And if you don't know Livan Hernadez or Kyle Lohse, that tells me you're not in that club either.
Babe ruth was a pretty good hitter.
There are others in between.
I just get the dh....
that just proves that certain teams are run better than others. if the o's spent more money on the draft (like tampa does), instead of wasting money on guys like kevin gregg or vlad guerrero, they would have a better chance of sustaining success.
last year 3 of the top 10 payrolls in baseball made the playoffs. the cubs, mets, tigers, and mariners are always in the top 10 in payroll. how has that worked out for them?
there's zero correlation to high payroll and winning
such hyperbole
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?
You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.
that's a great contribution to this debate. thanks for your input
dude, read your statement again ... "zero correlation"??? ... c'mon.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
The AL just has better teams as a whole. Been that way for a long time, hence the lopsided interleague record.
you must have missed my 5 posts that prove my stance
Zambrano's career line is .240/.249/.392. That's terrible, but good for a pitcher. What does that say? Babe Ruth was 80 years ago. Has the game changed a bit since then? If you're not sure, you may want to check in with blacks and hispanics.
I agree with a lot of what you said, there's a lot that goes into running a team ... but it's not zero correlation.
(If anything, zero correlation means it's perfectly inversely correlated ... but that's a whole different discussion.)
You cannot deny that having money does get you better players and puts you in better position to win a lot more games.
Just because some teams spend a lot and fuck it up, doesn't mean spending a lot doesn't give a team an advantage. It does.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Of course. But they're not pitching to other bad pitchers.
Right. And they're better because of the DH.
not a fan of a lil strategy, eh?
You're using a pretty small sample size though (what do pitchers get 70 - 80 ABs in a good year??). If zambrano played first base and didn't pitch don't you think his numbers would improve?
I hear what you're saying...most pitchers can't hit. Just saying that their stats don't tell the entire story
gotcha. I would say that it gives some teams less room for error in regards to resource allocation. I definitely wouldn't say that high payroll equates success though.
I think we're on the same page...zero correlation was probably getting a little carried away
which ... is the definition of hyperbole.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez