schneider@vlnvax.DEC (04/29/85)
Personally, I find the DH to be an inocuous part of the game as far
as tradition goes. It changes the game less then say the advent of
artificial turf and symmetrical stadiums. Also from the standpoint
of being a fan I enjoy watching Don Baylor come up four times a game
then Ron Darling slash away twice before being pinch hit for. A
poll is reasonable, but the topic is worthy of discussion too. It
seems that with the new commissioner the fans may have some say in this
decision, and that should elevate the value of this topic in the net's
eyes.
Daniel Schneider
{decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneiderdjvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDJ) (05/02/85)
> Roy writes: >> Dump th DH??? >> >> Why, because the sacrifice bunt is the most exciting play in baseball??? > A sacrifice bunt requires a choice, and its excitement is strategic. > Also, a sacrifice bunt by a pitcher is no less exciting than a > sacrifice bunt by a shortstop...would you have us ban sacrifice bunts? > If fewer sacrifice bunts is a positive good, from your point of view, > wouldn't even fewer be better? > David "The DH is an Abomination" Rubin > I have an even better idea. Why not put in a rule that pitchers can only throw straight pitches traveling at a speed of no greater than 50 mph. Boy would there be a lot of "exciting" home runs then !!! :-) Seriously, though. Football and basketball have been hurt by trying to spice up the offense. Let's not allow baseball to move in that direction. Dave Van Handel
schneider@vlnvax.DEC (05/06/85)
> >Tsk, tsk. DH-proponents ask the wrong question. The proper question >is "what does the DH add to the game?"; the burden of proof rests upon >the proponents of change. Moreover, all responses to my anti-DHism >ignore my most salient points, probably because they are not >answerable: As the DH is entering its thirteenth year, I would think those who wish to remove it from the game to be the proponents of change. Nevertheless I will attempt to respond to these so-called salient points. I am not a large fan of the DH, yet there seems to be a better reason for keeping it than removing it. As an aside, it should be noted that the reasons for keeping it are not the same ones it was instituted for. > (1) Why are we so hung up on the pitcher? What of other weak > hitters? There exists no other position which has proven itself to be altogether a liability to the team. Admittedly this ignores the rare good-hitting pitcher, but worse injustices have occurred in the game. > (2) How much free substitution is enough? Too much? This is an irrelevant point, not a salient one. I expect arguments like this in politics, not baseball. No one is proposing free substitution beyond the DH. > (3) Does the extra hit (that's the average offensive > difference between an AL game and an NL game) provide so > much of a thrill that it warrants radical surgery on the > game? Are all thrills offensive? Are no thrills > strategic? I'll repeat what I have previously posted. I enjoy seeing Don Baylor take his cuts much more than Dwight Gooden. I prefer to see a pitcher challanged than conceded to. Strategic thrills DO exist, but having a pitcher attempt to bunt rather than strike out is no sacrifice. Asking Mike Easler to bunt and SACRIFICE his chance at hitting the ball over the Green Monster is true strategy. Lastly, the use of the term "radical surgery" has unfair conotations and is ENTIRELY subjective. I contend that the plastic pinball-machines have altered the basic play of the game more so than the DH. If called upon to discuss this though, I won't find it necessary to use invective. > (4) Anti-DH'ers list all sorts of reason for opposition: > tradition, ineffectiveness of the DH, horror at free > substitution, repulsion at players permitted to remain in > a game without being called upon to display more than one > skill, distortion of careers and player evaluations, etc. > Pro-Dh'ers have only one reason: offense gives 'em a rush. > Where do you pro-DH'ers draw the line, and why? American League fans are NOT simpletons who solely appreciate the home runs and entirely miss the subtleties of the game!!!! There was a salient economic reason for instituting the DH, and it worked. Today I am, along with many others accustomed to the DH and I appreciate the benefits it offers. There exists NO strategic differences caused by the DH between the leagues that cannot be explained by the fact that pitchers are notoriously weak hitters. Face it, with a pitcher every time they are at bat it is a sacrifice, yet I see no reason if the NL fans are happy with it, to force or shame them into changing. Anti-DH, proponents of change should adopt the same attitude. Additionally, salient point number 4 above is loaded with unsubstantiated claims. I will reserve comment on them until they can be fairly addressed when they are fairly stated. >Summary: why limit the logic favoring the DH to one position? If the >logic is flawed, ban the DH; if the logic is true, expand it to more >(even nine) positions. If you don't like the idea of separate >offensive and defensive units, you are not yet at peace with the logic >of the DH. Again this argument is usually reserved for politics, not baseball. It is obvious that there are grey areas between the two extremes. Don't attempt to force your own logic down my throat because my position is not at either end of the spectrum. I hope the above argument of extremism can be considered moot. >Lowering the mound is of the same order of magnitude as switching from >a "live" ball to a "dead" ball or requiring some uniformity of fence >distances or adjusting the batter's box: rules which change the >balance of the game without changing the game itself. The DH, on the >other hand, represents radical surgery. If you pro-DH'ers are >indifferent as to whether changes are textual or contextual, why not >make us obstinate purists happier by lowering the mound again, if it's >offense you want, and banning the DH? At least then NL and AL >baseball would be the same game under similar circumstances rather >than similar games under the same circumstances. > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david Again I believe this is a wholey subjective argument being presented as fact. I will repeat my contention that artificial turf did more to change the game. The era of the slow outfielder with the big bat is over, and maybe the DH was the necessary move to preserve this sort of player. Baseball, it has been argued, is popular because the average man (no chauvinism intended) can play. You don't have to be exceptionally tall, strong or swift as in other sports. The DH does nothing to disturb this critical balance. Astro-turf certainly did. Under the DH nothing has changed with regard to the pitcher, the batter and the fielders. The two leagues still play the same game. The alleged purists should learn to appreciate it. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider On the field there are arguments; off it only discussion.
michaelf@ISM780.UUCP (05/07/85)
Well, personally I feel that it's pretty bogus to DH for
a fielder who can't hit too well. I hear in 1990 the AL is
going to allow DH's to hit for shortstops also because they
can't really hit so hot ( pardons to Baltimore, Detroit and
Milwaukee for the shortstop comment)? Suppose you have a
player who plays only every four games, why not DH for him?
Another gripe I have with the DH is that it will warp
records. A DH can play longer than someone who doesn't have
or didn't have the benefit.
Wouldn't it be great to have a Designated Free Throw
Shooter in basketball? This guy would shoot Free Throws for
your weakest shooter.schneider@vlnvax.DEC (05/09/85)
<
<>But why is it when all the National League partisans jump up and down about the
<>Designated Hitter, you never hear them complain about plastic grass, phony turf
<>and those ugly symmetrical super tv studios, sometimes called stadiums. There
<>seem to be more of these abominations in the NL than the AL. They're trying to
<>destroy the one remaining true ballpark in the league, Wrigley Field.
<
<As I said in an earlier article, while most change is deplorable,
<some is more deplorable than others. What makes the DH unique is its
<deplorability is that it changes the rules of the game, while the
<other evils you list change the environment the game is played in.
<
If you imply that the DH changes the rules of the game in the rule book
then it is NOT unique at all, and I will assume all will agree that it
is not deplorable on this basis. If you mean by "rules of the game" that
the game as changed then I contend:
1.The basic relationship between the pitcher, the batter and
the fielders has not been altered in the slightest. Thus
the fundamental game has not changed a lick!
2.Stratagies have changed, NOT simplified, changed. But not as
drastically as the aforementioned artificial turf has altered
the game.
The distinction between "rules of the game" and "environment" of the
game, is quite irrelevant in discussion of the DH. I suggest we start
tabling the varieties of stratagies offered by having the DH vs. not
having it and also the long and short run effects it has on baseball,
its players and its fans.
Daniel Schneider
{decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneiderdjvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDJ) (05/10/85)
> Another gripe I have with the DH is that it will warp > records. A DH can play longer than someone who doesn't have > or didn't have the benefit. . . . and play more innings each year he plays. More than that, having a good hitter bat in the middle of the order gives the hitter's batting around him a chance to get more runs and RBI's. The batter ahead of the DH gets better pitches to hit than he otherwise would, as does the #8 hitter. > Wouldn't it be great to have a Designated Free Throw > Shooter in basketball? This guy would shoot Free Throws for > your weakest shooter. A rule like that would have (unfairly) made George McGinnis much more valuable. Dave Van Handel
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/10/85)
>>Tsk, tsk. DH-proponents ask the wrong question. The proper question >>is "what does the DH add to the game?"; the burden of proof rests upon >>the proponents of change........................................... > As the DH is entering its thirteenth year, I would think those who wish > to remove it from the game to be the proponents of change. ........... > ............................ As an aside, it should be noted that > the reasons for keeping it are not the same ones it was instituted for. First, as the burden of proof was not satisfied thirteen years ago, we are still waiting. Second, as the reason for adopting it given thirteen years ago has been disproven by AL experience, I'd be interested to hear what the reasons for keeping it are. >> (1) Why are we so hung up on the pitcher? What of other weak >> hitters? > There exists no other position which has proven itself to be altogether > a liability to the team. Admittedly this ignores the rare good-hitting > pitcher, but worse injustices have occurred in the game. Your reasoning is defeated by the "caboose" paradox -- no matter how many cars you remove from the end of the train, there is always a last car. Now that pitchers are no longer an offensive "burden" in the AL, it can certainly be said of shortstops (with apologies to Baltimore and Detroit) that "no other position has proven itself such a liability, ignoring the rare good-hitting shortstop, but we have seen worse injustices in the game..." >> (2) How much free substitution is enough? Too much? > ................................... No one is proposing free > substitution beyond the DH. It is not my contention that it has been proposed. It is my contention that if the DH is justified, the same reasoning would justify free substitution, and if the latter is undesirable, that is a powerful indictment of the reasoning which brought us the DH. >> (3) Does the extra hit (that's the average offensive >> difference between an AL game and an NL game) provide so >> much of a thrill that it warrants radical surgery on the >> game? .......................................... > I'll repeat what I have previously posted. I enjoy seeing Don Baylor > take his cuts much more than Dwight Gooden. I prefer to see a > pitcher challanged than conceded to. .......................... > ....................... I contend that the plastic pinball-machines > have altered the basic play of the game more so than the DH. ........ Don't you also enjoy seeing Henry Cotto running rather than Butch Wynegar? Wouldn't you rather see Kiko Garcia field instead of Juan Samuel? Isn't it more exciting to watch Reggie Jackson swing instead of Dick Schofield (incidentally, I'll state now that Gooden takes better cuts than Schofield...)? Don't you believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc., etc.? >> (4) Anti-DH'ers list all sorts of reason for opposition: >> tradition, ineffectiveness of the DH, horror at free >> substitution, repulsion at players permitted to remain in >> a game without being called upon to display more than one >> skill, distortion of careers and player evaluations, etc. >> Pro-Dh'ers have only one reason: offense gives 'em a rush. >> Where do you pro-DH'ers draw the line, and why? > American League fans are NOT simpletons who solely appreciate the > home runs and entirely miss the subtleties of the game!!!! There > was a salient economic reason for instituting the DH, and it worked. I didn't say that AL fans (or, more accurately, DH fans) were simpletons (and I apologize for the admittedly purple prose). I just feel that haven't examined their reasoning on the matter with a sufficiently critical eye. Even the most intelligent, discriminating fan may fail to apply that sophistication fully. Economic reason?!? I haven't noticed the AL raking in the dough while the NL starves...please explain. > Today I am, along with many others accustomed to the DH and I > appreciate the benefits it offers. .................................... > ........................................... Face it, with a pitcher > every time they are at bat it is a sacrifice, yet I see no reason > if the NL fans are happy with it, to force or shame them into > changing. Anti-DH, proponents of change should adopt the same attitude. I do not wish to compel DH fans to be shamed into dropping the DH; I was hoping to persuade them. > Additionally, salient point number 4 above is loaded with unsubstantiated > claims. I will reserve comment on them until they can be fairly > addressed when they are fairly stated. The fair claim: the only reason produced by pro-DHers is increased offensive production (as marginal as it is). The fair question: how do pro-DHers decide what is enough offense? >>Summary: why limit the logic favoring the DH to one position? If the >>logic is flawed, ban the DH; if the logic is true, expand it to more >>(even nine) positions. If you don't like the idea of separate >>offensive and defensive units, you are not yet at peace with the logic >>of the DH. > Again this argument is usually reserved for politics, not baseball. > It is obvious that there are grey areas between the two extremes. > Don't attempt to force your own logic down my throat because my > position is not at either end of the spectrum. I hope the above > argument of extremism can be considered moot. Wish that politics was as logical as you suggest... (:-)). Seriously, if you're going to evade the point on ground that it is too logical, your argument boils down to "it's a matter of taste." And if that's to be the ultimate arbiter, then I guess I can't deny you that. Of course, it would make for an all-too-quiet net, too. There are gray areas -- but they are logically untenable. >>Lowering the mound is of the same order of magnitude as switching from >>a "live" ball to a "dead" ball or requiring some uniformity of fence >>distances or adjusting the batter's box: rules which change the >>balance of the game without changing the game itself. The DH, on the >>other hand, represents radical surgery. If you pro-DH'ers are >>indifferent as to whether changes are textual or contextual, why not >>make us obstinate purists happier by lowering the mound again, if it's >>offense you want, and banning the DH? At least then NL and AL >>baseball would be the same game under similar circumstances rather >>than similar games under the same circumstances. >> >> David Rubin >> {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david > Again I believe this is a wholey subjective argument being presented as > fact. I will repeat my contention that artificial turf did more to change > the game. The era of the slow outfielder with the big bat is over, > and maybe the DH was the necessary move to preserve this sort of > player. Baseball, it has been argued, is popular because the average > man (no chauvinism intended) can play. You don't have to be exceptionally > tall, strong or swift as in other sports. The DH does nothing to > disturb this critical balance. Astro-turf certainly did. Under the DH > nothing has changed with regard to the pitcher, the batter and the fielders. > The two leagues still play the same game. The alleged purists should > learn to appreciate it. > > Daniel Schneider > {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider The era of the slow fielder with the big bat has come and gone before (notably in the "dead" ball era, which favored much the same skills that astroturf does today; before Ruth and the "live" ball, power was unfashionable). However, your prediction of the end of the slow fielder with the big bat is, in my view, grossly premature. He just won't play center field or second base, positions that once were occasionally occupied by such players. If you feel the need to protect an "endangered" species, why not do it by altering the environment (context), since that is the offending porperty, instead of altering the rules of the game (text)? Finally, the DH has changed the game greatly with respect to the batter and the fielders (if it didn't, there'd be no reason to have it, would there?). Starters will pitch longer (Who needs to take out their starter in the seventh inning when down 2-0 if you have a DH? What effect will this have on their careers?). Hitters will play more (as a DH can bat more than once without proving a liability in the field). Make no mistake: the DH rule favors some kinds of players (generally older ones with limited skills) and thus keeps those that would replace them (younger, with more balanced abilities) out of the majors. I happen to think that isn't necessarily a good idea; for every old favorite who's preserved, a new favorite is delayed on the trip up. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david "When was the last time YOU saw a double substitution in an AL game?"
schneider@vlnvax.DEC (05/16/85)
<>>Tsk, tsk. DH-proponents ask the wrong question. The proper question
<>>is "what does the DH add to the game?"; the burden of proof rests upon
<>>the proponents of change...........................................
<> As the DH is entering its thirteenth year, I would think those who wish
<> to remove it from the game to be the proponents of change. ...........
<> ............................ As an aside, it should be noted that
<> the reasons for keeping it are not the same ones it was instituted for.
<First, as the burden of proof was not satisfied thirteen years ago, we
<are still waiting. Second, as the reason for adopting it given
<thirteen years ago has been disproven by AL experience, I'd be
<interested to hear what the reasons for keeping it are.
To see what the DH adds to the game see my previous discussions below.
As to this proof which has been burdening me since I was eleven, I'm not
sure what is being requested here. Perhaps it will suffice to reply to the
second statement: major league baseball is a spectator sport, and the
AL's spectators' numbers were declining. This is why the DH was instituted.
It WAS successful for this very reason. I'm not sure if the fans would
leave the parks if the DH was eliminated, but at this point it is irrelevant.
The burden of listing reasons for its elimination is on (a collective)
your shoulders.
<>> (1) Why are we so hung up on the pitcher? What of other weak
<>> hitters?
<> There exists no other position which has proven itself to be altogether
<> a liability to the team. Admittedly this ignores the rare good-hitting
<> pitcher, but worse injustices have occurred in the game.
<Your reasoning is defeated by the "caboose" paradox -- no matter how
<many cars you remove from the end of the train, there is always a last
<car. Now that pitchers are no longer an offensive "burden" in the AL,
<it can certainly be said of shortstops (with apologies to Baltimore and
<Detroit) that "no other position has proven itself such a liability,
<ignoring the rare good-hitting shortstop, but we have seen worse injustices
<in the game..."
Its an interesting paradox, but one usually (when its correctly used)
reserved for "connected" trains. To approach this statistically let's
think about the number of standard deviations the pitcher's BA is from
rest of the league, then the shortstop's, etc., etc. The "caboose"
paradox is irrelevant when the problem is looked upon by an unbiased eye.
<>> (2) How much free substitution is enough? Too much?
<> ................................... No one is proposing free
<> substitution beyond the DH.
<It is not my contention that it has been proposed. It is my
<contention that if the DH is justified, the same reasoning would
<justify free substitution, and if the latter is undesirable, that is a
<powerful indictment of the reasoning which brought us the DH.
My original, edited point was that the question was irrelevant.
To argue the logic of it is not to debate the future of the DH.
Your logic is flawless, but my point is that baseball is much more
than the black and white which your argument paints it, and for
that we are all grateful.
<>> (3) Does the extra hit (that's the average offensive
<>> difference between an AL game and an NL game) provide so
<>> much of a thrill that it warrants radical surgery on the
<>> game? ..........................................
<> I'll repeat what I have previously posted. I enjoy seeing Don Baylor
<> take his cuts much more than Dwight Gooden. I prefer to see a
<> pitcher challanged than conceded to. ..........................
<> ....................... I contend that the plastic pinball-machines
<> have altered the basic play of the game more so than the DH. ........
<Don't you also enjoy seeing Henry Cotto running rather than Butch
<Wynegar? Wouldn't you rather see Kiko Garcia field instead of Juan
<Samuel? Isn't it more exciting to watch Reggie Jackson swing instead
<of Dick Schofield (incidentally, I'll state now that Gooden takes
<better cuts than Schofield...)? Don't you believe what's good for the
<goose is good for the gander, etc., etc.?
The issue of free-substitution is irrelevant. Let's move on to more
interesting issues. For instance when I first began following baseball
Roy White was my favorite player. One year he hit .270 and I calculated
that it only required one hit more about every three weeks for him to
be a .300 hitter. One hit a game difference? Do you see what a HUGE
variance the pitcher represents to other batters? I'll repeat it because
I like the sound of it: Every time the pitcher bats it is a sacrifice.
<>> (4) Anti-DH'ers list all sorts of reason for opposition:
<>> tradition, ineffectiveness of the DH, horror at free
<>> substitution, repulsion at players permitted to remain in
<>> a game without being called upon to display more than one
<>> skill, distortion of careers and player evaluations, etc.
<>> Pro-Dh'ers have only one reason: offense gives 'em a rush.
<>> Where do you pro-DH'ers draw the line, and why?
<> American League fans are NOT simpletons who solely appreciate the
<> home runs and entirely miss the subtleties of the game!!!! There
<> was a salient economic reason for instituting the DH, and it worked.
<I didn't say that AL fans (or, more accurately, DH fans) were
<simpletons (and I apologize for the admittedly purple prose). I just
<feel that haven't examined their reasoning on the matter with a
<sufficiently critical eye. Even the most intelligent, discriminating
<fan may fail to apply that sophistication fully.
I believe it would be more accurate to say that we haven't examined
the reasoning with YOUR sufficiently critical eye (:-). What we are
really talking about here is a difference of opinion, NOT of appreciation,
purity, intelligence, sophistication, or application of any or all.
<Economic reason?!? I haven't noticed the AL raking in the dough while
<the NL starves...please explain.
Attendence in the AL was falling relative to the NL before the institution
of the DH. It immediately picked up following this to be on par with
that of the NL and has sinced passed the NL's attendence (mostly due
to expansion at this point). Is this the "proof" which has been
long burdening me that you asked for earlier?
<> Today I am, along with many others accustomed to the DH and I
<> appreciate the benefits it offers. ....................................
<> ........................................... Face it, with a pitcher
<> every time they are at bat it is a sacrifice, yet I see no reason
<> if the NL fans are happy with it, to force or shame them into
<> changing. Anti-DH, proponents of change should adopt the same attitude.
<I do not wish to compel DH fans to be shamed into dropping the DH; I
<was hoping to persuade them.
You should try some "salient" arguments (:-). Alas I can think of a
decent one that has been largely ignored. Its probably because it
has to do with the play of the game, a largely ignored issue. I see
no reason for myself to add fuel to your fire though...
<> Additionally, salient point number 4 above is loaded with unsubstantiated
<> claims. I will reserve comment on them until they can be fairly
<> addressed when they are fairly stated.
<The fair claim: the only reason produced by pro-DHers is increased
<offensive production (as marginal as it is). The fair question: how
<do pro-DHers decide what is enough offense?
Rebuttal to "The fair claim": How about greater competition between the
batter and the pitcher? With the DH we see two athletes working harder
than we would otherwise. This is what we pay for. How about the
chance to see Hank Aaron return to Milwaukee, Al Kaline to strut
his stuff for another year? How about AL fans finally getting to see
players like Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart? How about
getting the chance to see what Dave Kingman CAN do? How about
getting to see an injured player perform in a limited role, rather
than not at all unless he pinch-hits?
Answer to "The fair question": NO one decides what is enough offense,
or what is too little, even anti-DHers. But for some reason or other
competition has always been a valuable commodity, and I as others do
enjoy more, not less of it.
<>>Summary: why limit the logic favoring the DH to one position? If the
<>>logic is flawed, ban the DH; if the logic is true, expand it to more
<>>(even nine) positions. If you don't like the idea of separate
<>>offensive and defensive units, you are not yet at peace with the logic
<>>of the DH.
<> Again this argument is usually reserved for politics, not baseball.
<> It is obvious that there are grey areas between the two extremes.
<> Don't attempt to force your own logic down my throat because my
<> position is not at either end of the spectrum. I hope the above
<> argument of extremism can be considered moot.
<Wish that politics was as logical as you suggest... (:-)).
<
<Seriously, if you're going to evade the point on ground that it is too
<logical, your argument boils down to "it's a matter of taste." And if
<that's to be the ultimate arbiter, then I guess I can't deny you that.
<Of course, it would make for an all-too-quiet net, too. There are
<gray areas -- but they are logically untenable.
Please, I am not for an "all-too-quiet net". I have admitted that
when the DH issue is subjected to logic such as yours and then extrapolated,
this approach is flawless. My point, and I hope this time it is taken, is
that it is irrelevant. Thankfully competition, baseball, all of sports
and life do not operate at the extremes but rather in the grey area in-
between. If it helps, I agree to accept all those people subject to the
anxiety of this flaw in the DH logic and spend 10 sleepless minutes
tonight. Then perhaps we can put this argument to rest.
<>>Lowering the mound is of the same order of magnitude as switching from
<>>a "live" ball to a "dead" ball or requiring some uniformity of fence
<>>distances or adjusting the batter's box: rules which change the
<>>balance of the game without changing the game itself. The DH, on the
<>>other hand, represents radical surgery. If you pro-DH'ers are
<>>indifferent as to whether changes are textual or contextual, why not
<>>make us obstinate purists happier by lowering the mound again, if it's
<>>offense you want, and banning the DH? At least then NL and AL
<>>baseball would be the same game under similar circumstances rather
<>>than similar games under the same circumstances.
<>>
<>> David Rubin
<> Again I believe this is a wholey subjective argument being presented as
<> fact. I will repeat my contention that artificial turf did more to change
<> the game. The era of the slow outfielder with the big bat is over,
<> and maybe the DH was the necessary move to preserve this sort of
<> player. Baseball, it has been argued, is popular because the average
<> man (no chauvinism intended) can play. You don't have to be exceptionally
<> tall, strong or swift as in other sports. The DH does nothing to
<> disturb this critical balance. Astro-turf certainly did. Under the DH
<> nothing has changed with regard to the pitcher, the batter and the fielders.
<> The two leagues still play the same game. The alleged purists should
<> learn to appreciate it.
<>
<> Daniel Schneider
<The era of the slow fielder with the big bat has come and gone before
<(notably in the "dead" ball era, which favored much the same skills
<that astroturf does today; before Ruth and the "live" ball, power was
<unfashionable). However, your prediction of the end of the slow fielder
<with the big bat is, in my view, grossly premature. He just won't play
<center field or second base, positions that once were occasionally
<occupied by such players.
Your use of the dead-ball era is remote and incorrect. I'll go into it
upon request. You seem to be taking the position here that phony-turf
has not altered the game "that" much, but I think you'll find
yourself in a TINY minority. Find out what the ballplayers themselves
have to say about it if you need convincing. I hypothesized that
the DH preserved some careers which would have come to a premature
end by a truly drastic change.
<If you feel the need to protect an "endangered" species, why not do it
<by altering the environment (context), since that is the offending
<porperty, instead of altering the rules of the game (text)?
The statement that the DH alters the text of the game is not evidence.
The DH was not instituted to protect anyone, but for reasons of
seemingly "waning interest" (not from me). Even if it were possible
to show that the DH changes the text and the turf the context, I'm
not sure it is at all relevant. Isolation makes one no better or
worse than the other.
<Finally, the DH has changed the game greatly with respect to the
<batter and the fielders (if it didn't, there'd be no reason to have
<it, would there?). Starters will pitch longer (Who needs to take out
<their starter in the seventh inning when down 2-0 if you have a DH?
<What effect will this have on their careers?). Hitters will play more
<(as a DH can bat more than once without proving a liability in the
<field). Make no mistake: the DH rule favors some kinds of players
<(generally older ones with limited skills) and thus keeps those that
<would replace them (younger, with more balanced abilities) out of the
<majors. I happen to think that isn't necessarily a good idea; for
<every old favorite who's preserved, a new favorite is delayed on the
<trip up.
<
< David Rubin
< {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
<
<"When was the last time YOU saw a double substitution in an AL game?"
I'm not sure what I should rebut, the specifics of your argument or its
direction. The fundamental actions of baseball are: the pitcher
pitches the ball, the batter bats it, the fielders field it. The
fundamentals are the same whether the batter is a DH or a pitcher. As
for the specifics, the use of random occurences is convenient, but entirely
unconvincing. I could just as easily choose the opposite ones. We have
not compiled the necessary statistics to see what the long range effects
have been, or at least they have not been presented. As for changing the
composition of the rosters, again there is no evidence, only conjecture.
My guess is that the DH is more likely keeping the marginal to lessor
major leaguer in the minors, rather than the up-and-coming star. It
may have succeeded in keeping intact the talent from the dilution that
expansion has caused. Unfortunately, analysis of the rosters would
be fruitless because of the damage caused by free agency.
Daniel Schneider
{decvax}decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneiderdavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/20/85)
[Sigh. Against my better judgment, I'm going to make just a FEW more remarks on the subject. Much has been edited out for brevity's sake, and this does NOT aspire to be a point-by-point refutation, as earlier postings have.] > .................................. Perhaps it will suffice to reply to the > second statement: major league baseball is a spectator sport, and the > AL's spectators' numbers were declining. This is why the DH was instituted. > It WAS successful for this very reason. I'm not sure if the fans would > leave the parks if the DH was eliminated, but at this point it is irrelevant. While I realize that economics are the ultimate arbiter of what major league baseball does and does not do, I have two immediate reactions: one serious and one semi-serious. (1) AL fluctuations in attendence vis a vis the NL, especially in the late '60s and early '70s, were subject to other substantial influences, such as the fact that the AL was far slower in assimilating black talent, and for a substantial period was drawing talent from a smaller pool. Another thing to consider: the only teams to win pennants during the period 1969-1974 (the period immediately preceding the adoption of the DH) were Baltimore and Oakland, both small markets. During the same period, pennants were won in the NL by New York, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles; the senior circuit was more competitive. Add to this the best cumulative record for the Cubs since WWII, and one begins to wonder if the relative differences weren't simply due to the NL's superior appeal in the larger markets during this period. (2) Gad! How crude! Popular taste a basis for adjusting the game?!? What next - cheer leaders?!? > Its an interesting paradox, but one usually (when its correctly used) > reserved for "connected" trains. To approach this statistically let's > think about the number of standard deviations the pitcher's BA is from > rest of the league, then the shortstop's, etc., etc. The "caboose" > paradox is irrelevant when the problem is looked upon by an unbiased eye. First, standard deviations are an inappropriate measure of "connectedness" for such a distinctly non-normal population (it is both heavy-tailed and skewed). Second, I am now deriving average positional contribution by team to offensive production for the 1984 NL (where we can still get pitcher batting records) so we can discuss the facts rather than our suppositions. For us to do this, we need some portmanteau measure of production; I am using both James's Runs Created and Palmer's Linear Weights, though if the two don't differ substantially, I will post only the former to keep the discussion simpler and because the former is more widely known. One thing is for certain: we better not average across teams, or we will be unduly influenced by the Pittsburgh and San Diego rotations, Ozzie Smith, or Arghenius Salazar. > The issue of free-substitution is irrelevant. Let's move on to more > interesting issues. For instance when I first began following baseball > Roy White was my favorite player. One year he hit .270 and I calculated > that it only required one hit more about every three weeks for him to > be a .300 hitter. One hit a game difference? Do you see what a HUGE > variance the pitcher represents to other batters? I'll repeat it because > I like the sound of it: Every time the pitcher bats it is a sacrifice. It's pretty neat ledgerdomain to answer a question regarding whether a change in the game is significant by concentrating that change in one player (and thus multiplying it nine-fold). Of course, a typical DH hits significantly better than a typical pitcher. That does not necessarily imply that the extra contribution, ONCE IT IS CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A NINE MAN LINEUP, is significant. Another way of putting this is that if Roy White were to have batted .300 instead of .270, he would have substantially improved himself, but that by itself would NOT substantially improve the Yankees. > Rebuttal to "The fair claim": How about greater competition between the > batter and the pitcher? With the DH we see two athletes working harder > than we would otherwise. This is what we pay for. How about the > chance to see Hank Aaron return to Milwaukee, Al Kaline to strut > his stuff for another year? How about AL fans finally getting to see > players like Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart? How about > getting the chance to see what Dave Kingman CAN do? How about > getting to see an injured player perform in a limited role, rather > than not at all unless he pinch-hits? This all applies to having a DH bat for ANY weak hitter, or having a DF (to improve competition between batter and fielder) or a DR (to improve the competition between catcher and runner). 'Nuff said. > Your use of the dead-ball era is remote and incorrect. I'll go into it > upon request. You seem to be taking the position here that phony-turf > has not altered the game "that" much, but I think you'll find > yourself in a TINY minority. Find out what the ballplayers themselves > have to say about it if you need convincing. I hypothesized that > the DH preserved some careers which would have come to a premature > end by a truly drastic change. If you wish to go into it, fine. It's my contention that today's game bears a far closer resemblence to that of 1970 (after the mound lowering and before Astroturf became widespread) than the game of 1930 does with that of 1915. But we probably should split it off from the DH into its own discussion: "(Turf vs. Grass) vs. (Live Ball vs. Dead Ball)". Remote? Perhaps. Incorect? Make my day. > I'm not sure what I should rebut, the specifics of your argument or its > direction. The fundamental actions of baseball are: the pitcher > pitches the ball, the batter bats it, the fielders field it. The > fundamentals are the same whether the batter is a DH or a pitcher. Again, you could argue similarly for more DH's, the DR, and the DF. The only "fundamental" affected by any of them is the fundamental PRINCIPLE that only nine men can play the game at one time: the ones listed on the lineup card, to which a player cannot be reinstated once removed. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david