Should the NL Be Required to Adopt the DH?

Should DH be universal?

  • No, yay for double switches and automatic outs

  • Yes, it's stupid to have 2 sets of rules

  • Only in the World Series


Results are only viewable after voting.

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
One of the stupidest things in sports is having two sets of rules for separate leagues particularly when a championship is on the line Baseball has had nearly half a century to figure this out. Once interleague play was introduced it should have been settled but here we are. I'm strongly in favor of DH in both leagues, but I would settle for at least having it in NL parks for the World Series . What says SoSH?
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I think the two leagues should be the same, especially as there really are no longer two leagues. Once upon a time (and not all that long ago), there were two separate leagues with each having its own president; today, it really exists in name only.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to a fan of any team in either league who thinks the rule of the other league makes sense. I’m sure all the Sox and Yanks fans here will agree with the OP, but I have a lot of Mets and Cards fans who will argue to their dying breath that pitchers batting is “real baseball”
It’s also dumb that all the minor leagues and all colleges play with a DH. At what age level, do pitchers stop batting?
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,247
Seacoast NH
I think 2 is really the best option. With interleague games basically all the time now instead of just a midsummer distraction it’s time to do it. Only in the World Series would drastically favor the AL who builds their roster with that rule in mind.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Growing up in the 1980s as an AL fan, I actually wished we would adopt the NL rules. But that was back when some pitchers could actually reach base 20% of the time. Now that pitchers don’t pick up the bat after high school unless and until they get thrown into an NL game, it’s stupid to have them bat. DH all the way.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
If the NL wants to keep it as it is with pitchers batting, then fine, knock yourself out.

When teams from each league play each other in the regular season and the post season, the NL uses their rules, the AL uses theirs.

Why should the Red Sox or any AL team have to have their pitchers bat when the games are played in a NL park, we've seen three Red Sox pitchers injure themselves as a result.

It's moronic.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,749
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Growing up in the 1980s as an AL fan, I actually wished we would adopt the NL rules. But that was back when some pitchers could actually reach base 20% of the time. Now that pitchers don’t pick up the bat after high school unless and until they get thrown into an NL game, it’s stupid to have them bat. DH all the way.
Agreed. Hitting and pitching are way too specialized to reasonably expect a player to be able to perform both duties at even a major league replacement level. Having pitchers hit also means playing bad fielders for their bats and taking out good pitchers earlier so pinch hitters can come up in big spots, just so a pitcher who, at the very best of cases, hits like a subpar 9th hole AL hitter can flail helplessly and take a seat. It's bad, it dillutes the product and it's just completely out of touch with the physical and mental demands of being a major league baseball player in 2018.

There's a reason why a guy like Ohtani is such a phenomenon, we now have some pretty compelling empirical evidence that focusing on pitching means you have a very slim chance of ever becoming an adequate hitter. The same can't be said for fielding, considering we have a lot of players who are at least league average with the bat and on the field, so I hope no one resorts to the "let's just have separate offensive and defensive teams, then!" strawman.
 

Orel Miraculous

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2006
1,710
Mostly Airports and Hotels
I'm perfectly fine having both sets of rules. I think it makes for a better fan experience.

When it comes to watching non-Red Sox games, I actually prefer watching the National League. This isn't because of double switches or sac bunts, but because the game has a natural ebb and flow that makes for a more tense viewing experience. When you watch an NL game, you really have to track where each team is in the lineup. You begin to notice that certain earlier innings can take on massive importance, such that they end up feeling like the 8th or 9th innings. Say the Cardinals are losing to the Cubs 2-0 in the fifth inning, with their 3, 4, and 5 hitters due up. That fifth inning becomes massively important, because you know that with the pitcher's spot coming up soon, they're not going to have as good of a chance to score in the 6th. If they can't tie the game or take the lead in the 5th, they're going to have to take out a starter who's actually been pitching pretty well, and they're not really going to have another decent chance to score again until the 7th or 8th.

You don't really get that rhythm in an AL game. Sure, any inning that starts with your 3, 4, and 5 hitters is going to feel like a great opportunity to score, but the sense of urgency isn't quite there because you don't have an automatic out coming up in the 9 spot, and what you do offensively that inning isn't going to have as much of an impact on what you'll need to do with your pitching. In an AL game, it feels like 6 runs can go on the board at any given time. Whereas NL games have the rhythm of a roller coaster, AL games just move along like a steady train.

Having said that, there are also things I prefer about the AL game. I think it sucks, for instance, when an NL starting pitcher gets taken out of a 1-1 game in the 7th in favor of a pinch-hitter.

I'm glad I have both options as a fan.

As for the World Series, I just don't see why anyone gets so worked up about it. It's a minor difference that both teams have to adjust to in the same way, and that both teams did already adjust to during the regular season. There's zero evidence that it does anything to make the Series unfair or illegitimate in any way, and, again, it provides for something more interesting to keep an eye on as a viewing fan.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
It’s dumb to have both and the DH isn’t going anywhere (the PA would never allow it), so grow up NL. I can appreciate those that like the different styles for mental exercise, but I have no idea how one enjoys watching basically a guaranteed out once through the lineup or having their team basically neutered if their #8 hitter comes up with two outs in a scoring situation. Both sides are at a disadvantage for inter-league play or the WS. I know it’s an extreme example and not exactly analogous, but what if the NFC eliminated the forward pass?
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,070
Concord, NH
I like the DH, but don't really care that much if the NL wants to watch a pitcher be terrible at the plate. What I don't like is taking the DH away from the AL teams. If the NL wants to keep batting their pitchers fine. Do what you want. But why should an AL team, built with AL rules in mind, have to play by NL rules for a small handful of games every year? Including the biggest baseball stage of them all?

I get that there would be a competitive disadvantage if an NL team bats their pitcher and an AL team doesn't. But giving the NL team temporary DH rights only boosts them. Making an AL team handicap themselves is ridiculous and can lead to injuries from pitchers who have otherwise no business being at the plate.

It's dumb.
 

lapa

New Member
Apr 20, 2018
544
I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to a fan of any team in either league who thinks the rule of the other league makes sense. I’m sure all the Sox and Yanks fans here will agree with the OP, but I have a lot of Mets and Cards fans who will argue to their dying breath that pitchers batting is “real baseball”
It’s also dumb that all the minor leagues and all colleges play with a DH. At what age level, do pitchers stop batting?
I’m a Red Sox fan but can’t decide whether I prefer the DH or not. On balance I think I prefer the NL rules for a whole number of reasons but I can see why others might prefer the DH rule
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
I'm perfectly fine having both sets of rules. I think it makes for a better fan experience.

When it comes to watching non-Red Sox games, I actually prefer watching the National League. This isn't because of double switches or sac bunts, but because the game has a natural ebb and flow that makes for a more tense viewing experience. When you watch an NL game, you really have to track where each team is in the lineup. You begin to notice that certain earlier innings can take on massive importance, such that they end up feeling like the 8th or 9th innings. Say the Cardinals are losing to the Cubs 2-0 in the fifth inning, with their 3, 4, and 5 hitters due up. That fifth inning becomes massively important, because you know that with the pitcher's spot coming up soon, they're not going to have as good of a chance to score in the 6th. If they can't tie the game or take the lead in the 5th, they're going to have to take out a starter who's actually been pitching pretty well, and they're not really going to have another decent chance to score again until the 7th or 8th.

You don't really get that rhythm in an AL game. Sure, any inning that starts with your 3, 4, and 5 hitters is going to feel like a great opportunity to score, but the sense of urgency isn't quite there because you don't have an automatic out coming up in the 9 spot, and what you do offensively that inning isn't going to have as much of an impact on what you'll need to do with your pitching. In an AL game, it feels like 6 runs can go on the board at any given time. Whereas NL games have the rhythm of a roller coaster, AL games just move along like a steady train.

Having said that, there are also things I prefer about the AL game. I think it sucks, for instance, when an NL starting pitcher gets taken out of a 1-1 game in the 7th in favor of a pinch-hitter.

I'm glad I have both options as a fan.

As for the World Series, I just don't see why anyone gets so worked up about it. It's a minor difference that both teams have to adjust to in the same way, and that both teams did already adjust to during the regular season. There's zero evidence that it does anything to make the Series unfair or illegitimate in any way, and, again, it provides for something more interesting to keep an eye on as a viewing fan.
Less innings with a chance to score, and taking good pitchers out because of it, doesn’t seem like the thing MLB should be holding onto going forward.
 

lapa

New Member
Apr 20, 2018
544
Growing up in the 1980s as an AL fan, I actually wished we would adopt the NL rules. But that was back when some pitchers could actually reach base 20% of the time. Now that pitchers don’t pick up the bat after high school unless and until they get thrown into an NL game, it’s stupid to have them bat. DH all the way.
But to me that’s just fun when the odd pitcher hit happens. Plus double switch etc. plus strategy if nibbling round the 7 and 8 hitters. On balance the DH just feels wrong since it’s a fine line between avoiding a shit hitting pitcher well what about shit hitting catchers then ...
Just for me the NL reals seem purer from a game point of view so I’d be more up for canning the DH despite being an AL fan
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
I’d hate the DH rule if it weren’t for one thing: David Ortiz.

Now that he’s retired, I’m 100% in favor of getting rid of the DH.

I know there’s 0% chance of that happening and I’m fine with that too.

Baseball’s a quirky game. It’s kind of interesting to watch NL and AL teams adjust to the other league’s rules.
 

Orel Miraculous

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2006
1,710
Mostly Airports and Hotels
But giving the NL team temporary DH rights only boosts them.
No, it apparently doesn't. Here's Posnanski:

The National League, though, offers the shocker. At home, with pitchers hitting, they average 4.15 runs per game, which is pretty close to what American League teams score at home. But on the road, using the DH, National League teams have scored only 3.4 runs per game, meaning they score seven-tenths of a run LESS per game with the DH than they do with pitcher’s hitting.

I’m trying to wrap my head around that one. Obviously, teams play better at home, so it doesn’t really surprise me that the National League teams would score more at home, DH or not. And National League teams don’t use the DH and so generally don’t have players on the bench who can step into the DH role and be great hitters.

But I’m still stunned that NL teams would score that many fewer runs replacing the pitcher with a hitter. Since 1986, with the DH, the National League has been held to two or fewer runs 26 times. Without the DH, they’ve scored two or less only 16 times.

And, conversely, NL teams have scored nine or more runs eight times at home with the pitcher hitting. On the road, with the DH, they’ve scored nine or more just four times.

What this probably says is that the DH is not that big a factor one way or another … certainly not as big a factor as home field advantage.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
I'm curious if the purists prefer the NBA had no 24 second clock. The games changed over time whether you want to believe it or not.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml
I’m not an anti-DH purist, just like the added strategery of NL games. See last night’s Dodgers-Brewers game, for example.

But I am probably a weirdo re basketball. I liked the game better before the shot clock. Three-point shots are a good addition, though. I also miss jump balls to start quarters, if not after every basket. That 1937 rule change was a good one, IMO. But my biggest pet peeve about modern basketball is the practical elimination of the traveling rule. Drives me nuts and makes me no fun to watch basketball with.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
722
The floor of Punter's Pub
I'm perfectly fine having both sets of rules. I think it makes for a better fan experience.

When it comes to watching non-Red Sox games, I actually prefer watching the National League. This isn't because of double switches or sac bunts, but because the game has a natural ebb and flow that makes for a more tense viewing experience. When you watch an NL game, you really have to track where each team is in the lineup. You begin to notice that certain earlier innings can take on massive importance, such that they end up feeling like the 8th or 9th innings. Say the Cardinals are losing to the Cubs 2-0 in the fifth inning, with their 3, 4, and 5 hitters due up. That fifth inning becomes massively important, because you know that with the pitcher's spot coming up soon, they're not going to have as good of a chance to score in the 6th. If they can't tie the game or take the lead in the 5th, they're going to have to take out a starter who's actually been pitching pretty well, and they're not really going to have another decent chance to score again until the 7th or 8th.

You don't really get that rhythm in an AL game. Sure, any inning that starts with your 3, 4, and 5 hitters is going to feel like a great opportunity to score, but the sense of urgency isn't quite there because you don't have an automatic out coming up in the 9 spot, and what you do offensively that inning isn't going to have as much of an impact on what you'll need to do with your pitching. In an AL game, it feels like 6 runs can go on the board at any given time. Whereas NL games have the rhythm of a roller coaster, AL games just move along like a steady train.

Having said that, there are also things I prefer about the AL game. I think it sucks, for instance, when an NL starting pitcher gets taken out of a 1-1 game in the 7th in favor of a pinch-hitter.

I'm glad I have both options as a fan.

As for the World Series, I just don't see why anyone gets so worked up about it. It's a minor difference that both teams have to adjust to in the same way, and that both teams did already adjust to during the regular season. There's zero evidence that it does anything to make the Series unfair or illegitimate in any way, and, again, it provides for something more interesting to keep an eye on as a viewing fan.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels like this. The 2 different rules don't bother me because I prefer the leagues to have some differences. My fear is that not too far in the future, we'll see an American and National "Conferences" and the Red Sox will be in a division with the MFY, Mets, Jays, and Phillies and baseball tradition will go out the window and it's baseball's strong traditions that make it unique from other sports.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Well... That's fascinating. And entirely counter-intuitive. I will need to let that one gestate a bit.
That is weird. Are they having pitchers sacrifice more often but letting a shitty “real” batter in the 9 spot swing away? I doubt that accounts for all of the run difference, but it could be one factor of many.
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
724
I am voting for DH all the way, and going one step further. Since the point of the DH is to save noodle bat pitchers who spend all their effort preparing for their demanding positions, let's do it for catchers too ...

... but only for the Sox. I would love to see a regular DH come up to bat for Vazquez or Leon. :)
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
I'm waiting for the day when teams will have separate lineups for offense and defense.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Another proposal--no DH or pitchers hitting.

N put together a model that roughly shows how scoring would be affected if just the eight position players hit. Our findings, based on what we'll term average runs created per plate appearance (RC/PA):

All NL players who batted in the first through eighth spots last season (average .127 RC/PA) would have created an additional 638 runs had they absorbed all of the 9,179 plate appearances by NL ninth-place hitters. That comes out to 42.5 additional runs per NL club over the course of a season.

The methodology for the AL was slightly different; here, we replaced the 10,737 plate appearances by AL DHs and pitchers with PAs by position players (.122 average RC/PA). The position players would have created 29 fewer runs for the entire season, or just under 2.0 runs per club.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
I am decidedly for dumping pitchers batting.

On a related note tho, can we scale back interleague play to once every four years or something? The idea that we play teams in other divisions as much as we play the Mets or whatever and then play the O’s 19 times a year sucks.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
This would work out well for the Sox, since our batting lineup is a little top-heavy. Anything that would get Mookie/Beni/JD up to bat sooner would be fine by me.
Then we lose JBJ and need JDM playing defense 145+ times a season.

Or, you know Mookie plays 2B :)
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
No, it apparently doesn't. Here's Posnanski:
Here’s a SABR paper about how more runs are scored in the first inning than any other inning, by a significant amount, about 20%. And that this “first-inning effect” is more pronounced for home teams than for visitors, because of the way pitchers warm up, or rather how visiting pitchers cool down during first innings.

https://www.retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/HomeTeamScoringAdvantageRelatedToTime.pdf

Maybe that helps explain why NL teams at home with pitchers batting score more runs per game than NL teams on the road using a DH. The number nine batter rarely bats in the first inning so there’s no “penalty” for having a pitcher in the lineup during the first inning.

In late innings, pinch-hitter match ups might cancel out the DH added value. For example, the ability to PH Pearce for a pitcher with runners on base in late innings against a left-handed reliever might increase run-value. If I could remember anything from b-school about real-options valuation I could explain it better.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I get that there would be a competitive disadvantage if an NL team bats their pitcher and an AL team doesn't. But giving the NL team temporary DH rights only boosts them. Making an AL team handicap themselves is ridiculous and can lead to injuries from pitchers who have otherwise no business being at the plate.

It's dumb.
Even if it did boost the NL team, the AL team still has the advantage. An AL team is going to allocate resources for a DH/9th bat, NL teams aren't. The AL team specifically signed a guy to get 500+ PA a year, that guy is probably going to be better than anything an NL team has sitting on the bench.

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across but I don't know to word it. Basically AL teams have 9 starters in their lineup and NL teams have 8.

edit: Of course it's possible the few million dollars an NL team saves by not having to sign a DH allows them to use those funds for upgrades elsewhere.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,070
Concord, NH
I think you got your point across just fine. That's a solid point.

But that still leads to the same conclusion. Either both teams need to be playing under the same rules, or there will be an artificial competitive advantage.

Now, we already don't have balanced schedules, so I guess a perfectly even playing field is not necessarily an actual goal.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yeah, I'm all for the DH and I'm amazed it's not a thing yet. The Union and players should be all for it. It's 15 extra starting jobs.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
It's awful watching a pitcher hit. There is a minimum level of offense required for even the best defensive player but none for a pitcher.

I don't believe the problem is because pitchers don't focus on hitting, but that hitting is the most difficult task in sports and the ability to throw 95+mph is an unrelated skill.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It's awful watching a pitcher hit.
Mostly true, but when they actually come thru with a hit, it's amazing. Rick Porcello hitting .429/.429/.714 in 7 PA was enjoyable. The rest of the pitchers at .083/.154/.083 in 13 PA, not so much. Of course that's only 20 PA . Watching 600 PA of pitchers hitting might make it less enjoyable when they come thru.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
I'm perfectly fine having both sets of rules. I think it makes for a better fan experience.

When it comes to watching non-Red Sox games, I actually prefer watching the National League. This isn't because of double switches or sac bunts, but because the game has a natural ebb and flow that makes for a more tense viewing experience. When you watch an NL game, you really have to track where each team is in the lineup. You begin to notice that certain earlier innings can take on massive importance, such that they end up feeling like the 8th or 9th innings. Say the Cardinals are losing to the Cubs 2-0 in the fifth inning, with their 3, 4, and 5 hitters due up. That fifth inning becomes massively important, because you know that with the pitcher's spot coming up soon, they're not going to have as good of a chance to score in the 6th. If they can't tie the game or take the lead in the 5th, they're going to have to take out a starter who's actually been pitching pretty well, and they're not really going to have another decent chance to score again until the 7th or 8th.

You don't really get that rhythm in an AL game. Sure, any inning that starts with your 3, 4, and 5 hitters is going to feel like a great opportunity to score, but the sense of urgency isn't quite there because you don't have an automatic out coming up in the 9 spot, and what you do offensively that inning isn't going to have as much of an impact on what you'll need to do with your pitching. In an AL game, it feels like 6 runs can go on the board at any given time. Whereas NL games have the rhythm of a roller coaster, AL games just move along like a steady train.

Having said that, there are also things I prefer about the AL game. I think it sucks, for instance, when an NL starting pitcher gets taken out of a 1-1 game in the 7th in favor of a pinch-hitter.

I'm glad I have both options as a fan.

As for the World Series, I just don't see why anyone gets so worked up about it. It's a minor difference that both teams have to adjust to in the same way, and that both teams did already adjust to during the regular season. There's zero evidence that it does anything to make the Series unfair or illegitimate in any way, and, again, it provides for something more interesting to keep an eye on as a viewing fan.
I was composing this in my head and then you went ahead and wrote it. Thanks! And well said.

I may be in the minority, but I love baseball and think the League works pretty well right now. Sure, there are some minor fixes that could be made (in the CBA, pitch clocks, maybe even robot umps) but I just don’t feel the need for wholesale changes.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Let’s be clear. The NL rule has nothing to do with tradition or strategy. It’s about money and greed.

Having 9 bona fide hitters in a lineup adds money to payroll. Pitchers don’t get paid less because they don’t bat. The NL doesn’t want to pay for having a DH on the roster.

So, how do you feel about that?
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
What are the aggregate batting stats (slash lines) for all NL pitchers, all AL pitchers, and combined?
While I can't answer your question for leagues, about 20 years ago I looked at Red Sox pitchers' batting, cumulatively by season. At the time I was able to split out numbers for Babe Ruth (and possibly a few others) for the plate appearances only as pitcher. The club has had some good hitting pitchers over the years, for example: 1915 .251/.323/.367/.690. But overall, their pitcher batting stats may surprise you.

Cumulative by year -- 1948 is the first year that the cumulative AVG dropped below .190 (it fluctuated between .190/.189 until 1958 when it began its descent to .182 where it was through 2000)
Year----AVG----OPS
1901 .191 .475
1902 .189 .463
1903 .206 .507
1904 .198 .493
1905 .195 .486
1906 .194 .484
1907 .193 .477
1908 .192 .468
1909 .189 .458
1910 .190 .465
1911 .190 .468
1912 .192 .478
1913 .190 .475
1914 .186 .465
1915 .190 .480
1916 .191 .483
1917 .193 .488
1918 .195 .496
1919 .193 .491
1920 .195 .493
1921 .197 .498
1922 .194 .492
1923 .194 .489
1924 .193 .485
1925 .193 .484
1926 .192 .483
1927 .192 .482
1928 .193 .484
1929 .194 .486
1930 .194 .485
1931 .193 .483
1932 .191 .478
1933 .191 .479
1934 .191 .479
1935 .192 .483
1936 .193 .485
1937 .194 .487
1938 .194 .487
1939 .193 .484
1940 .193 .484
1941 .192 .483
1942 .192 .482
1943 .191 .480
1944 .190 .478
1945 .191 .480
1946 .190 .479
1947 .190 .478
1948 .189 .477
 

jackno

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
78
RI
Besides the National League and the Central League in Japan, do any other leagues have pitchers bat?
I can't find any.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
People rave over Bumgarner's hitting prowess and he is often sited as reason not to switch to the DH. He has tremendous power and has been used as a pinch hitter. However, his lifetime slash is 183/228/313.