david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/14/85)
Dear Dan, Sorry I've been tardy in answering your last letter. In any case, the pause in correspondance permitted a beneficial period of reflection. As we've been arguing (pardon me..."discussing") many of the same points on the net, I thought it would be appropriate to post this to the net where it may prove to be of general interest. >If your angle is that the DH is depriving all those free-swinging >pitchers of their deserved cuts, your going to lose this one big! You misunderstood my point. It was not that pitchers are, AS A GROUP, are great offensive threats, but rather that some pitchers, AS INDIVIDUALS, were better than some non-pitchers, and if the goal of DHing is to create more offense, then it seems that singling out poor hitting pitchers is illogical: why not go whole hog? It is the player, not the position, after all, which strolls up to the plate. It's quite possible (taking an NL example, where I'm less likely to put my foot in my mouth) that if the Phils were compelled to have a DH, they might prefer to let Carlton hit while having a DH for Jeltz (their shortstop). That being the case, if proponents of the DH would not allow that, they are contradicting their own rationale for DH existance, and if they do, then why not extend the reasoning into two separate teams -- offensive and defensive? >............................................... I rememeber when I was >young at the Stadium (there's only one :^) and asked why pitchers >couldn't hit. I was told that they didn't have time for the batting >practice once they decided they really want to be a pitcher, and >since their arm was their main commodity, they couldn't risk the >sorts of exercise that hitters regularly participate in. Why must >fans pay to watch athletes who don't practice what their doing? You were lied to. Well, maybe not lied to, but definitely presented an oversimplification. Pitchers can't hit because pitchers are not selected for their hitting skills. The more demanding a position is defensively, the fewer offensive skills are required for a player to play that position and still make a positive contribution to their team's winning chances. That's why there are no (except on weak teams) weak hitting third or first basemen or left or right fielders: those positions can be filled by indifferent fielders without great harm, and thus players in those positions are selected primarily for their offensive skills. Pitchers represent the opposite extreme: their position is so demanding defensively that they are forgiven ALL (well, almost all) their offensive shortcomings. Pitchers can't hit because it doesn't make that much difference to a team's chances if their is one weak hitter in the lineup, and so they are not selected for their hitting skills. Presuming that pitchers hit poorly because they do not have the time to practice those skills is akin to assuming that catchers do not do wind sprints because, as a group, they are slow runners. On every NL team, pitchers do take some batting practice (actually, I can only vouch for the Mets and Phils, though I'd be shocked to find out that there was a team in the NL where this wasn't the case). The reason pitchers don't hit is not for lack of practice, but rather because the pitcher's involvement in every defensive play makes it worthwhile to select a pitcher who is marginally more effective on the mound, even if his rival for the job is a solid hitter while the first is so bad his manager wears a bag over his head while he bats. >Excitement for a pitcher at the plate is working the other pitcher >for a walk - always, every time. I'd venture that NL pitchers >hit around .100 (with the majority being "ugly" singles). I'd rather >watch the player who has conditioned himself to perform. First, the generalization is false: some pitchers will try a sacrifice, or even go for their pitch (Watch Andujar - not a good hitting pitcher - and try to tell me HE works on walking. Then watch a good lead-off man - who is likely a good hitter, too - and tell me he does NOT work for the walk.). And if beauty is sufficient criteria for preventing a weak hitter from strolling up to the plate, why not designated-runners for catchers, designated-fielders for klutzy power hitters? My point is, that when a pitcher decided to let his hitting go to pot, or is allowed to hit despite his inadequacies with the ash stick, it IS a choice, and it is no less rational or any more disappointing then the shortstop who does nearly the same thing, or the power hitter indifferent to his defensive play, or the catcher who builds up his legs so much that he can't run properly. Unless the pro-DH people can demonstrate some reason why these cases are inherently different, I must conclude that the only satisfactory solutions can be free substitution (if we are to demand excellence in each task performed by a major league player) or the status quo in the NL (if we are to demand that, so long as a player is in the lineup, he shall perform all tasks which may befall him). David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david P.S. Barring gross distortion of my positions by a third party, I'll likely drop out of the DH discussion. It appears that no one who is already favorably disposed towards the DH will give me a satisfactory response to the questions: "Well, if 1 DH, why not 9 DH's? If a DH, why not a DR or a DF?" and it is therefore impossible for me to accept the DH's logic. Similarly, I haven't noticed any converts to my position. It just goes to show, there is no accounting for taste (:-)). I'm ready to move on the next discussion...