So maybe MLB should follow football's path and just have one team for offense and one for defense and call it a day?

Walter Johnson hit .433 with 20rbi and 6hr in 1925, he hit more hr than he allowed for career, he led the Senators/Nats in hr for 17 straight seasons, his last appearance in the last game of 1927 was as a PH, same game as Ruth's 60th. ESPN angered me the other day in saying that hr happened at Yankee S. It was at Griffith S. Tom Zachary, the pitcher, won 2 games in 1924 WS, but has been Mike
Basciked. Zachary also appeared in his last game.

Walter Johnson was among the better hitting pitchers in history as his career .235/.274/.342 line attests. He also had some power hitting one home run for every 97 ABs. I am certain we can find other examples of such success, even years when a pitcher might have accumulated rate stats of .433/.455/.577 as Johnson did the year before he hit .194/.217/.272.

As I said, there might have been some justification in letting pitchers hit in an earlier era, although I would even question that view. Johnson completed 531 of the 666 games he started. Roger Clemens finished 118 of his 707 starts. As the game has evolved, keeping the pitchers in the offense is less and less justifiable. If a pitcher is able to hit, there is nothing in the DH rule that keeps him from pinch hitting or even remaining in the lineup. But forcing pitchers to hit, accepting one out sacrifice bunts as legitimate, violates the essence of competitive baseball.

I am not in favor of platoon baseball. I think that is carrying the point to an absurd extreme, because every other position on the field carries a legitimate expectation of success at the plate. That is the difference between them and pitchers, which is the substance of my point that pitchers are not like any other position player. Can you imagine justifying a shortstop loping to first on a ground ball so as not to get too tired to play the field, or literally keeping his bat on his shoulders and watching 3 strikes go by? Yet we accept that as a reasonable tactic when a pitcher does it.

Specialization makes sports slow and dull, and baseball is no exception. If you want to make the game more exciting, get rid of the DH. And while we're at it, reduce the size of rosters from 25 to, say, 21. But that's another conversation.

AlanB,

Most of the statistics that you cite are wrong. Here is a link to his real stats:
http://tinyurl.com/2dbuqd

There really is no excuse for those types of errors when Baseball Reference exists.

Where are you getting your numbers from AlanB?

I do prefer AL baseball to NL baseball. My reason is simple: watching pitchers "hit" is painful. The end.

Good points. My personal preference is against the dh because it seems to make AL games so long.

Why is an argument against letting pitchers hit necessarily an argument in favor of the DH? Who says we can't have 8 hitters? I agree with many of the points you make, but I don't see any reason why it means we have to allow some guy play offense only.

I'm an "old-school" NL guy and this is the first time I've thought twice about that. Thanks for a provocative and intelligent argument. Regardless of anyone's preference for or against the DH, it is SILLY to have the difference in MLB. I'd like to see it all one way or all the other.

As AlanB accurately wrote (and others failed to read) as per:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml

in 1925 Johnson batted .433, his best season batting by far (although in '27 he hit over .300). In 1926, he had one of his worst.

Football went to platoons for many reasons, mostly because the rules did not deny it and it makes for a more effective team. The type of true athlete with great stamina who could play both ways would get injured regularly if they faced the huge behemoths who play half the time (on offense or defense) or even less. Their much larger rosters reflect this.

If baseball went to total specialization, it would just be twice as many salaries where the big market teams would have an edge over the small market teams. I am primarily a NL fan, but I'm persuaded that the DH should be used all the time if for no other reason than HOF consideration. Consider: a good hitting pitcher *may* give his team an advantage in wins, but may also (by virtue of his offense) stay in games later when he was tiring, and just in general be an effective player while being a slightly less effective pitcher (because his added offense can compensate for his slightly worse defense). We don't know how often being on base weakens a pitcher; certainly announcers often comment that running bases seems to wear out the pitcher.

Consider (say) Fernando Valenzuela. He was never in great physical shape, and was occasionally used as a pitch hitter. He also was noted for swinging wildly and missing at pitches when batting with a big lead, which had to have hurt his overall batting numbers. So he knew that getting on base hurt his pitching. How much better as a pitcher would he have been if he hadn't been on base? We'll never know. The thing is, his HOF numbers can be inferred to be better if he had played in the AL the whole time. So there becomes an inherent unfairness in the two leagues in judging pitchers for the HOF. I think most HOF voters are savvy enough these days to look at which league the pitcher faced, as the DH/AL has more offense. But how many would even glance at the possibility that good hitting pitchers spend more time on base, disrupting their between inning routine, which likely hurts their ERA and WHIP?

Plus the DH offers managers lots of other flexibility opportunities. Consider the Dodgers and Angels, two teams that right now have four players (at least) who deserve consideration for starting in the outfield. Scioscia gets to rotate his players (including mostly older players) through the DH to help them stay fresh. Torre has to give guys days off entirely. Consider a player like Mike Piazza. Arguably the best hitting catcher of all time but weak in most defensive categories (except, surprisingly, catcher's ERA) at least with the Dodgers he was forced to stay behind the plate and to catch a ton because they needed his bat and they had Karros at first (and they needed his bat as well). If the NL had the DH, I bet Piazza would have played more games, caught fewer games, and put up bigger numbers.

So I am at last persuaded; go DH.

I'm ok with 8 hitters too, Eric M. That would be ok by me (not with the MLBPA though!!).

Very interesting points about the strategy of the game being affected by the DH. However, the same points you made about pitchers can be applied to catchers as well. Should we DH for them as well?

I don't think they apply to catchers at all. At one time, catching was seen as essentially a defensive position and poor hitters were accepted there, but there have always been great hitting catchers, and wherever catchers hit just about all the strategic options remain open to managers. Stealing may be rarer, but I doubt you will ever see a catcher sacrifice bunt with one out, and the hit and run is still operative.

As for slowing down the game, I don't see that at all. It's really not a question of being satisfied with 8 hitters. It is the problem of having a 9th hitter who is essentially ersatz.

I can appreciate fans liking what they are used to, feeling more comfortable with a style they grew up with. But I think once the argument moves from simple preference to arguments about benefits and disadvantages, or to theoretical arguments about purity or complete players or any similar issues, the anti-DH position becomes purely sentimental and lacks force.

As for lengthening the game, there are all sorts of reasonable solutions to avoiding slowdowns. Bill James has written extensively, and of course convincingly, about some possibilities. The DH is not the problem. By increasing scoring, it might lengthen games, but that is because it adds to the action which is not the problem. The problems with slow games are the things that interrupt play, not things that increase action.

s.park, you raise a very important point. What makes the pitcher so special? Why not have a team of hitters and a team of fielders?

"The fact remains that the pitcher's function is so specialized and unique, requires such concentration on particular skills, that it is not reasonable to expect them to divide their attention by focusing on batting to the extent they can become adept at it."

I just don't buy this argumen. Certainly, pitchers CHOOSE to spend their preparation specializing thier skills and the market rewards them to, but there is no reason why they have to. Some non-pitchers could choose to learn how to pitch successfully as well. I'm not saying at all that's it's easy and of course MLB and it's minor league system actively discourages such activity, but I dont buy the argument that skills are SO special for a pitcher relative to a catcher and other positions that they can't bat for themselves.

Incidentally, I had intended to edit the third paragraph to read that only Walters got serious consideration for the HOF. "the only one receiving any support being Walters who topped out at 23.7%. The next year he plummeted to 5.9%. The greatest of all hitting pitchers, Ferrell, got votes in 4 elections with a high of 3.6%. The greater irony is that Ferrell actually has a case for enshrinement purely as a pitcher, yet his hitting prowess still did not add enough weight to put him anywhere near election."

Note how little weight is given to hitting. Arguably a HOFer based purely on his record as a pitcher, the fact that he was also the greatest hitter of any pitcher in baseball history (at least arguably so) could not get him above 3.6% of the vote. Could that happen to a player at any other position? Would Bobby Grich, a fine fielding second baseman, or Lou Whitaker or Willie Randolph be outside the HOF if any were considered the greatest hitting second baseman of all time, or even close?

We admire good hitting pitchers the way we admire horses who "count" or dogs who "talk". It's not how well they do it but the fact that they imitate it; we do not really care about it except as an oddity. Why insist they do it when we never evaluate them, even for a moment, on the basis of that ability? Why insist they do it when we then justify them not even trying if the situation calls for it?

I'm in agreement with the sentiments that:

1) while there may be some arguement that pitchers don't need to hit, this doesn't equate with support of the DH. I think an arguement for an an 8 hitter lineup is more "honest" (to use the authors terminology) than an arguement for a DH.

2) the logical extension of this arguement is that there should be offensive and defensive teams like in football. While I don't have a coherent arguement against this right now, I simply hate the idea of it.

I'd like to add that pitching i actually a subset of defense. For example, if the first baseman and pitcher wanted to switch places on the diamond there is nothing preventing that. Pitching is a defensive position, that's all. It may require different skills, but SS and 1st base require different skills, but that is accepted as part and parcel. We weight defensive positional value differently according to skill set requirements (like SS and 1B) and have according offensive expectations. So why is it so counter to have similar scaled offensive expectation out of the most important defensive position, pitcher?

Dammit, I keep mis-typing argument.

Agh, almost did it again.

Right on, Kyle! If you take the argument to its logical conclusion, you end up with a team roster of 50 or so players. If a DH for the pitcher, why not for the shortstop? You will soon have your offense and then your defense, with special teams (baserunners?) not far behind.

I disagree with your argument for the DH. You boil it down to several points

1) pitchers are terrible hitters and shouldn't need to bat
2) hitting pitchers doesn't affect strategy as much as people think
3) the modern game doesn't need pitcher at bats
4) the HOF doesn't consider pitcher's hitting ability

My counter arguments are

1) not allowing pitchers to bat do them great disservice. No other positions except *cough* DH is limited so

2) in all cases of pinch hitting a manager needs to consider the loss of the defensive value of the player being pinch hit for, except for the DH. Knowing when to pinch hit for a pitcher is a big decision. Not allowing pitchers to hit takes such nail-biting decisions as to whether to pinch hit for a pitcher in a 1 run game in the eighth or ninth, when the pitcher is obviously tiring but close to pitching a complete game.

3) Baseball values tradition. If as someone mentioned, we take this idea to an extreme we could have a defensive team that doesn't bat and an offensive lineup that doesn't hit. Would that really be baseball? Overspecialization can be take away from game, ie field goal kickers in football, or LOOGYs.

4) I don't think HOF considerations should be considered when thinking about altering a game. If anything the HOF considerations should be altered in response to changes in the game not the reverse.

I'm not worried about the slippery slope to 50-man teams.

That would be the result if one takes this all the way (to it's "logical conclusion"), but there is no need to do so. It's highly unlikely to happen, given that even small changes in baseball take forever and result in much angst.

The DH generates more offense, but is that necessarily a good thing?

NL teams play 10% more 1-run games than AL teams. AL games are several minutes longer on average than NL games, even with the pitching changes. Closer games lead to better pennant races. The NL has had 6 one-game play-offs since the last one on the AL.

Without the DH, games are closer, shorter, and lead to better pennant races. And don't get me started about the competitive imbalance of having the DH in one league and not the other.

Keep it or don't, but end this half-way business. If it's good, put it in the NL. If not, get it out of the AL.

Until then, I will spew baseball out of my mouth.

I'd love to see an exhibition game some time in which each team was made up of 1 pitcher, 8 designated fielders, 1 designated hitter, and 3 designated base runners. That'd be fun. How about we make that the all-star game this year?

Any argument taken to its logical conclusion becomes absurd. That is often the problem with ideologues; they carry arguments to their logical conclusion and thus to irrational extremes. There is no slippery slope with the DH nor any reason to apply the logic of it to any other position.

I do not argue that the DH has the benefit of increasing offense. Actually, I prefer low scoring games. My argument regarding offense is that the competition should always be honest competition and the ersatz hitter in the #9 slot (or #8 occasionally) violates that object. In addition, the pitcher's slot eliminates much of the excitement of the game for that AB, eliminating options that would otherwise exist.

I am not at all concerned with HOF considerations per se. I only raise that point to demonstrate that our concern for pitchers hitting is purely theoretical, and in my view sentimental, in light of the fact that in every situation where we evaluate pitchers his hitting is entirely disregarded. Such is the case for no other position. Even those few players elected to the Hall specifically and primarily for their defense have some offensive accomplishment as part of the argument, or at least as an obvious motivation for the vote. There is not one pitcher for whom that can be said.

That is also my point about choices managers make. I think it unimaginable that a manager would choose a pitcher to make the roster because he is a better hitter than his competition no matter how close they are in their pitching qualifications. The only consideration will always be their pitching. That is not the case for any other position, no matter how high on the defensive spectrum. Never mind the obvious choice between Jeter and Everett as the shortstop. Suppose a team were choosing between Jeter and Orlando Cabrera. I think it possible that a manager might select Jeter. Hitting matters in every case except at pitching.

Every change brings some losses. I agree that there is a loss in taking away the decision to pinch hit for the pitcher. But it is simply not a common enough dilemma to matter as much as many claim. Most of the time, as with the sacrifice bunt, the decision is routine. Far more important, and debatable in most cases, is the decision about whether a pitcher is tiring or whether a platoon match-up is advisable, decisions based on whether the pitcher can do his job.

I value tradition also, when the tradition does not interfere with the integrity of the game. While I don't want to be overwrought about it, I do think that pitchers in the lineup violates the spirit of honest competition. I do not like the idea of an 8 man lineup because I haven't given it much thought, and my first reaction is that I like the symmetry of 9 in baseball. I haven't thought about how it would affect roster construction, so I can't begin to respond to it. But slow as it is to change, baseball has continually done so, and tradition is often an excuse to avoid worthwhile changes rather than an argument for keeping something useful.

Bob,
First of all let me congratulate you on the basis that any time you can work the word ersatz into a discussion, its a good one.
Though I pretty much agree with your article and its position, I like the contrast between the NL and the AL. I suppose thats a traditionalists(well one in his mid 40's) position.
What I don't like is interleague play(another argument for another day perhaps)

i really like what ben in KY said.

my uncle was always raving that they should apply BOTH to either league, as in 10 man lineups. the pitcher hits, AND you have a DH, same 27 outs.

as for myself, i tend to favor a set of rules that allows for the kind of drama where you have a pitchers duel on your hands, lets say 0-0 with few hits or walks into the 6th inning, maybe 7th, and one of the teams gets a couple men on base and two outs with the pitcher coming up. do you pinch hit for him (with no guarantee that the PHer will succeed) and take your chances with the pens ability to hold the lead assuming you score? or do you take your chances with the pitcher hitting and hope something good happens and you dont regret it next inning by
having left him in the game if he gives up runs?

Bob,

You bring many good points, but I still believe that the designated hitter takes far more away from the "spirit of honest competition" than a pitcher batting will, because of several reasons:

A) The Historical Aspect

Baseball, more than any other sport, is steeped in history, in tradition. Baseball can create feelings of nostalgia like few other things. At the risk of sounding like some rather...fanatical baseball enthusiasts (Baseball is a metaphor for life!), baseball lives, breaths, and is its own history, if that makes any sense to you.

Baseball also holds a special place in America's history, like no other. It is the National Pastime. It isn't supposed to change. It is supposed to be a link to the past. Something every generation for the past one hundred and some odd years has had in common. That is why it is so very resistant to change. Changing baseball is like changing America.

B) The Very Nature of the Designated Hitter

Ah, yes. A reason that isn't touchy-feely. A reason with some real substance. Well, here we go.

I, for one, don't believe there should be any specialists in baseball. Say what you will about pitchers being specialists, but pitchers (well, at least until the designated hitter was introduced) still took their turn at bat. They weren't specialists. The designated hitter doesn't have to field, pitch, or, indeed, do anything other than bat. This is far from "fair."

Pitchers' primary responsibility is pitching, but they have secondary responsibilities as well, such as hitting, bunting, and fielding their positions. Designated hitters have no such secondary responsibilities. Even the worst hitters among pitchers get hits; the worst fielders still field their positions. The designated hitter does nothing of the sort. They simply get by on one ability. The designated hitter rule allows many players who aren't good enough to make it as a complete ballplayer to have a Major League job just like everyone that is good enough to be a "ballplayer." I don't find that troublesome. (Although some don't apparently, because many people use this as an argument in favor of the designated hitter.)

So, to conclude this point, pitchers, while "fundamentally different from every other position," they are still much closer to, say, a shortstop than a designated hitter is.

C) Offense

Offense in baseball is already at an amazingly high level, and using the designated hitter in the National League would only be throwing gasoline on the fire.

D) "Fair Competition"

I enjoyed the article, but, after reading it, I still don't understand why having a pitcher bat is taking away from the "fair competition" of the game. Pitchers don't go up to the plate, take three hacks, and go back to the dugout nearly as often as you make it seem like they do, nor do they act like the pansies on the basepaths that you make them seem like. I guess I don't see how having pitchers bat takes away from the "fair competition" of the game more than having a player--if you can call them that--who can't field or hit bat in the pitcher's stead (while taking away from baseball's history, no less) does.

Anyways, I'm going to stop my rambling now. I wrote this fairly early in the morning, so if it is stupid, incoherent, or redundant, I apologize.

Oh, I forgot one thing: You make a point about the designated hitter allowing for more managerial strategy (A point I think is wrong, but I lack the time and resources to do the amount of extensive research it would take to refute), and, later in the article, you make a point about the designated hitter allowing for more flexibility, and you use the Angels and Dodgers as an example. I don't see how you can use both points in the same article, as there are more strategical decisions being made with the Dodgers due to the lack of the designated hitter, but you use that as a point for the designated hitter by saying that the Angels have more "flexibility," without mentioning that, in the process of creating said flexibility, it eliminates strategy. It has to be strategy or flexibility. It can't be both.

one factor for the authong having the opinion he does (towards the "honest competition" in pitchers hitting)is perhaps a perception that pitchers just dont take their at-bats seriously. i certainly don't agree. have you ever seen carlos zambrano at the plate? he's dead serious and means business, and runs the bases with abandon (which kills me, being a cubs fan). not to say that there are many like him or that more should be like him, just pointing out that slapping a label on all pitchers of "all strikes and no balls" (if you know what i mean) is being too general and also appears to try to manipulate the reader's objectivity.

BRAVO - BRAVO. Pull a Martin Luther and thumbtack this to Cooperstown's front door.

"Real Fans Love The DH"...heh, heh...that equates to the Medicine Man's sales pitch. Very good.

Unfortunately, Real Fans Should No Better.

Rule 1.01 (Remember, there are rules that govern the game):
"Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each...". Wow, the very first sentence of the very first rule. So much for all arguments in favor of the DH.

Unless you're kidding yourself, the DH exists only because the MLBPA and sports agents the world over want it to exist. The DH adds no special nuance or flavor to the game, unless an extra 10 million dollar contract can be considered a special purpose.

Funny how the game managed for so long without it.

The point you don't consider with Ruth that he wasn't prevented from pitching because he couldn't- he was one of the best pitchers in the league, arguably the best lefty, so even if he was average in split duty he'd still have been a weapon. The issue is that baseball is steeped in too much tradition, then and now. For most managers hitter and pitchers are seperate.

Absolutely right! I've always cried from the rooftops that the DH rocks! Ask the Redsox!

David, you said, "but you use that as a point for the designated hitter by saying that the Angels have more "flexibility," without mentioning that, in the process of creating said flexibility, it eliminates strategy. It has to be strategy or flexibility. It can't be both."

This is not true. It MUST be both. If you don't have flexibility, you don't have choice. If you don't have choice, you don't have strategy. You MUST have flexibility in order to have strategy. If everyone in the park knows that the manager is going to pinch hit for the pitcher because he's down by a run and he's got men on second and third with one out, that's not strategy.

Great article. Those arguing against the DH seem to not have read it because your points have been addressed.

CUBBY, it's been pointed out that some pitchers can hit. The point is, it doesn't matter. Zambrano doesn't get paid to hit, and it's not a factor in evaluating his contribution to the team. It's a sideshow act. And there are so few Zambrano's that they should be irrelevant when evaluating the rule. Whether a pitcher can hit or not has no bearing on whether he is a valuable asset to his team. It's all about his arm. That does not hold for any other position.

Regarding moving to an 8 man lineup, I don't like that for the simple reason of the major impact it would have on the number of at bats players would get. This would throw out the entire offensive record book. No thanks. The symmetry of 9 is also valid, but I don't think players should be racking up 700 ABs a season all of a sudden.

I think Bill James wrote about this in one of his Abstracts. He basically said you could argue that the DH increases strategy instead of decreasing it. The proof would be in the variability in which managers follow specific strategies (such as pinch hitting and sacrifice bunts) in either league. In the AL, the rate of such moves is lower, but the variability is higher.

Bob - great and gutsy post.

I'd love to see some of the TV and media traditionalists try to take this tack. I've always thought the "strategic" element in the anti argument was far overrated, and watching pitchers bat in most every case is just painful, or worse, predictable as you indicated. That SportsCenter shows nearly evry significant pitcher offensive contribution just highlights how rare it is. Plus the pitcher can still hit if desired - the DH is optional after all.

The argument of the 9 player rule above is salient - but taken literally wouldn't that also ban pinch hitting, relief pithing, etc? If the US Constitution allows for amendments, perhaps the same can be accepted in baseball.

Indeed, managers like Buck Showalter have argued that the DH makes the American League HARDER to manage in. His reasoning: if it's the 7th inning of a tie game and the pitcher is up, you pinch hit- no question. There's no easy decisions like that in the AL, you have to actually know whether a pitcher is tired and consider possible matchups in the following innings.

Watching pitchers hit is embarrassing. They are paid to pitch and should focus on only that. To a previous poster who suggested they could focus on hitting if they want to- may you never be in charge of a baseball team. When a star pitcher strains a bicep or an oblique during batting practice, you might be singing a different tune.

The point about 8 hitter vs. 9 hitter lineups revolves around the question of whether you would rather tolerate the number of plate appearances being altered or having a specialist in the lineup with no defensive responsibility.
Moving from the 154 game season to the current 162 game season already has changed the framework of opportunities without harming the game. Personally, I would rather have 8 players getting more plate appearances than 1 DH who doesn't have to play defense. I think the DH has compromised the spirit/integrity of the game much more than giving the other position players more plate appearances.

Fair competition? Is it fair that a fatass like David Ortiz can sit on the bench and hit four times a game without having to be athletic or skilled enough to play the field? I hate the DH and think that if you are not skilled enough to play the field then you should not have a job. It would force teams to make more intelligent roster decisions and would force players to be more complete. Eliminate the DH altogether!

Good writing, but embarrassingly bad logic.

Thank God I'm not a "real fan".

"I think the DH has compromised the spirit/integrity of the game much more than giving the other position players more plate appearances."

As the original article noted, I think people hold this view with no evidence to back it up. You have to go back to when baseball's rules were written to see why there was no DH. Back then, the pitcher was just like any other position. In fact, all he was meant to do was toss the ball up to the batter in order to get down to the real business of baseball: hitting and defense.

The pitcher didn't spend time honing his craft, he pitched pretty much every game, and he pitched the howle game, which meant he spent a lot of time with a bat in his hand, just like every other player.

That's not the game we have today. The point of the article is that the game has changed so much that keeping the rules in place as they are hurts the game's integrity by allowing NL pitchers to get a free pass 1 out of every 9 at bats.

I mean, if baseball didn't exist, and you were making the rules from scratch, would you say "we will have 8 people who play every day and bat every day, but pitchers are specialists. They will only play every fifth day. But to keep integrity, we will force these men to hit like everyone else, even though we don't care what they do and in fact prefer they take it easy so they don't get hurt. After all, their job is to pitch."

No, you wouldn't. You'd say, "this guy has no business hitting."

I think the 8 man lineup idea has merit, but it will never happen, so it's a red herring. The choices are: no DH or DH. If you think pitchers carrying a bat is bad for baseball, you can't vote for 8, you have to vote for DH.

Bob -- GREAT summary of the case for the DH. The argument against it these days seems to be predicated on a kind of demented nostalgia. Those saying the game is more "interesting" by letting the pitcher hit need to explain why letting a player clearly incapable of hitting the ball take his three hacks (and occaisionally but rarely get a hit) makes the game more interesting.

"This is not true. It MUST be both. If you don't have flexibility, you don't have choice. If you don't have choice, you don't have strategy. You MUST have flexibility in order to have strategy."

That's the thing--the Dodgers do have a choice. They have to choose who to start in their outfield, and who to sit. That's a much harder decision than deciding who to start in the outfield and who to start as the designated hitter, like the Angels will have to do. The former involves more strategy. That was my point.

"If everyone in the park knows that the manager is going to pinch hit for the pitcher because he's down by a run and he's got men on second and third with one out, that's not strategy."

It depends on who the pitcher is and how well he is pitching. I would say that this "everyone knows when the manager is going to do pinch hit because it's so obvious and involves no strategy" situation happens far less than you seem to think.

"The argument of the 9 player rule above is salient - but taken literally wouldn't that also ban pinch hitting, relief pithing, etc?"

No, it wouldn't. A pinch hitter or relief pitcher replaces someone comes in when someone else comes out, thus making it two teams of nine players again. The designated hitter hits in the pitcher's stead, thus making it a team of ten players.

"His reasoning: if it's the 7th inning of a tie game and the pitcher is up, you pinch hit- no question."

No question? Huh? It all depends on who the pitcher is, how well he is pitching, how many (if any) runners are on, who the runners are, and how many (if any) outs there are.

"by allowing NL pitchers to get a free pass 1 out of every 9 at bats."

How is it not fair if both pitchers in the game get the same "free pass"? How is it any more fair than allowing a designated hitter to get a "free pass" by not making him field or pitch?

And, again, I say that pitchers aren't the hackers that most of you who are arguing in favor of the designated hitter are making them out to be. They are not good hitters, but they are far from the cartoon you all are drawing.

On Tango's blog someone suggested that teams be allowed to pinch-hit and then remove the pinch-hitter from the game, leaving the original player in. I think this would be an excellent idea.

For instance, I was following the Astros-Cubs game online today, and the Astros got to the 9-hole (Chris Sampson) in the second inning with the bases loaded and two out (score 0-0). You're not going to remove the pitcher for a pinch-hitter in that situation, but if you could use a pinch-hitter without removing the pitcher, it would make for a very interesting decision.

"You're not going to remove the pitcher for a pinch-hitter in that situation, but if you could use a pinch-hitter without removing the pitcher, it would make for a very interesting decision."

You do that by playing the game in the AL. The example you chose is a perfect example of why pitchers hitting is dumb. Bases loaded in the second with two outs and no one in the park is even excited about the next guy coming up to bat because it's the pitcher. How lame is that? Nice rally killer. Nice free pass for Rich Hill to get out of a jam. Weak sauce.

David: "That's the thing--the Dodgers do have a choice. They have to choose who to start in their outfield, and who to sit. That's a much harder decision than deciding who to start in the outfield and who to start as the designated hitter, like the Angels will have to do. The former involves more strategy. That was my point."

How does that even make sense? The Dodgers have to choose who to start in the outfield. The Angels do too. They also have to choose who should DH. How is making three choices harder than making four? You're not making any sense. Many AL teams without an Ortiz are constantly using different DHs in order to rotate rest throughout their roster. Those that do have an Ortiz are left with the same decision the Dodgers have: who to start and who to sit. It's not rocket science, and as a fan, I don't sit in the stands marveling at the skills managers use in setting their lineups. That's before the game even starts. I don't pay for that. And if anything, the AL guys have more decisions to make, as the NL guys know they're stuck with one bagel in the 9 spot.

"How does that even make sense? The Dodgers have to choose who to start in the outfield. The Angels do too. They also have to choose who should DH. How is making three choices harder than making four?"

Ever heard of the phrase "quality over quantity"? It applies here. Making the decision is harder for the Dodgers, because they have four people who merit time in the starting lineup, but only three slots. The Angels have four slots, making it easier. That's why I say it is harder for the Dodgers.

"Many AL teams without an Ortiz are constantly using different DHs in order to rotate rest throughout their roster. Those that do have an Ortiz are left with the same decision the Dodgers have: who to start and who to sit."

Ok? We were talking about two specific examples, not every American League team "without an Ortiz."

"It's not rocket science, and as a fan, I don't sit in the stands marveling at the skills managers use in setting their lineups. That's before the game even starts. I don't pay for that."

I'm not saying it is an overly-complicated process. It wasn't a major point in my argument, or indeed a point at all. It was an afterthought. I was merely pointing out something I perceived as a flaw in the article.

"And if anything, the AL guys have more decisions to make, as the NL guys know they're stuck with one bagel in the 9 spot."

Um, ok...

I much prefer watching the league without a DH. I think the roster management decisions are more difficult for the manager, and that adds to the intrigue of strategy. In many cases, the most interesting impact arise in extra inning games in the NL. I also like the fact that a pitcher's skill on the sac bunt is highly valued in the NL. This triggers more small ball, which is exciting. A play I love is the pitcher feigning a bunt and pulling the bat back to punch a ball through the infield. And AL fans don't get to see it...except for perhaps an interleague game.

Having stated my preferences, I also like the fact that the two leagues are different with respect to the DH. I think the difference adds spice to the interleague matchups and World Series. It creates challenges for both teams, which adds interest and something to talk about. Should David Ortiz play first base when the Red Sox play without a DH? For NL teams without a DH on the roster, which bench player should be the DH, or should one of the regulars DH and a bemch player start in the field?

You do that by playing the game in the AL. The example you chose is a perfect example of why pitchers hitting is dumb. Bases loaded in the second with two outs and no one in the park is even excited about the next guy coming up to bat because it's the pitcher. How lame is that? Nice rally killer. Nice free pass for Rich Hill to get out of a jam. Weak sauce.

Maybe -- to me the DH feels like a bad rule imported from softball, even after 30-plus years. I can think of a half-dozen rules changes I'd rather see.

It's great the way it is. If you like the DH, then you have the AL, if you are a traditional guy, then you have the NL. Also, with interleague play every starting pitcher gets to hit sometimes, so they get some chance to show they are the next Babe Ruth.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for a DH game, and sometimes not.

The 8 man lineup would not be baseball. Lots of thees (and multiples of 3) all over baseball. So 3x3 hitters is just right.

Baseball was designed as a game of 9 on 9. In each player there are basically only two attributes that matter, how many runs can he help create on offense and how many runs can he help prevent on defense. Due to the nature of the game, certain positions are more integral to the defense and so contribute more to the prevention of runs than others. When ot comes to pitchers, their ability to prevent runs so outweighs their ability to create runs that teams don't care about how well they hit. If some team in the NL decided to test the idea, and hired A-Rod, Pujols, Howard, and Ortiz as their pitchers, they could.

What I'm basically saying is that it is a choice that every team is free to make, as they do with other positions (is Braun's glove too bad for 3rd? is Soriano more valuable at 2nd or OF?). Creating the DH eliminates that choice, and for one position says that you don't have to choose, you can have both offense and defense by using two people.

Now, every team has made the same choice, but why does that mean we should change the rules? Every team has made the decision that offense outweighs defense at 1st. Does that mean we should create a designated fielder to handle 1st while the slugger just hits?

You have to carry arguments out to their logical conclusions, because otherwise your argument isn't logical, it is merely a rationalization for your prefered outcome. I'll admit, I'm a traditionalist, I hate the DH because I think baseball should be 9 on 9. But I'm willing to be convinced. If anyone can come up with a logical argument. And sorry Bob, but you didn't. You made a wonderful argument for why everyone makes the same choice to ignore offense in a pitcher, but not one for changing the rules.

B Agate, nice post, but I would just say that the rules have already been changed.

John Mccann's got it right that you can choose whichever one you like. I always argue for the DH so hard because people who prefer NL rules act like it's superior. It's not. It's just different rules. The DH has been in place for over 30 years now, so it's not some newfangled fad we can debate whether it should be kept or not. It's here to stay.

I'm an AL fan obviously. I would say to NL fans that not having the DH puts you at a real disadvantage in interleague competition. The AL has been whoopin' up on the NL for quite some time, and I think the DH is a contributing factor. If I were an NL fan, I might root for implementing DH just for competitive reasons. If you accept that there's no way the AL is reversing the rule, you might just have to opt to implement it as well in order to field more competitive teams in the World Series.

After all, a Dodgers fan would probably accept the DH and a ring as opposed to no DH and no ring, right?

The AL has been whoopin' up on the NL for quite some time, and I think the DH is a contributing factor.

Then it's been a pretty tiny factor. In 11 years of interleague play, the AL has won 51.3 percent of the games -- 1,387 wins, 1,317 losses. Two teams account for 51 of those 70 victories. (Hint: They've combined to win six World Series since interleague play began.)

The AL has been the stronger league for a few years but not because of the DH.

I don't expect the AL to reverse the rule but I don't think it makes the game better.

I think you've proven that NL-style is less good than the DH.

I don't think you've proven the DH is the best thing going.

My idea would be to just have 8-player lineups, 9-player defenses. You remove the free-riding DH, permit the pitcher (or, I suppose, the manager's best run-preventer) to focus on run prevention, yet still remove the chore on the fan of watching a pitcher hit.