Why the National League sucks...

[Stewie]

It's a foregone conclusion that pitcher's batting in the NL will come to an end shortly and bring on the DH... probably by 2017/2018 according to those in the know. The MLBPA is the driving force.

Today's SF and Washington game is a perfect example. Third inning, runners on for SF and they have hitters bunting TWICE IN A ROW! And they suck at bunting! It's the third ****ing inning! JFC! Is Ned Yost the guru of National League managerial thinking? Ridiculous!

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

I hate watching pitchers hit, for the most part, because only a handful (like 4-5 in any given year) can actually swing the bat and work on their hitting.

The rest of the time, you're dealing with someone who's up there to: 1) Not look foolish; 2) Not get hurt; 3) Occasionally drop a sac bunt.

I hate the way pitchers hitting 9th can take the bat out of the hand of the No. 8 hitter. Oh, your 7 hitter got a two-out double? Guess what? Your 8 hitter isn't going to see anything to hit, because the pitcher is "hitting" next.

MLB teams are never going to allow pitchers to focus on being good hitters again. They're already too injury prone and already such big monetary investments, the risk of a pitcher getting injured taking BP or taking healthy cuts at the plate is just another factor teams want to avoid.

I also think the strategy aspect of things is completely overblown. If your pitcher is throwing well, it's going to be AT LEAST the 6th inning before you even think about PH for him. If he's not, it's an easy choice to pull him early. In late innings of close games, it's also a much easier call than people like to claim.

The primary argument I see against the DH is that people hate watching fat guys who can't field get away with not playing defense... but almost no MLB teams are using the DH for a primary player any more. The Royals and Red Sox and Tigers were the only teams that really do that at this point (split Adam Dunn up between the White Sox and the A's, I guess, too), and the Royals are racing to get away from that.

Teams are evolving the use of the DH to be a spot to get a player a day off without taking his bat out of the lineup. In the post-steroid, post-greenies world, this strategy helps keep guys fresh during the 162 game grind. And introduces another layer of strategy, if you're concerned about that. Let's say you've got a great defensive catcher who also is a middle of the lineup hitter. We'll call him Yalvador Polina. He's dead on his feet and desperately needs a break day at DH... but the team you're facing runs like the 2014 Kansas City Royals. Your backup C is pretty good defensively and throws well, and your pitcher holds runners well... but can you really afford to sacrifice a little D today for the long-term health and success of a key offensive player?

Adding an extra offense-only player in basketball is an interesting and valid point (and has been experimented with in various formats). I think you can make two other pretty interesting and valid points in comparing the evolution of basketball to the evolution of baseball.

Imagine, if you will, that the Eastern Conference of the NBA did NOT adopt the shot clock while the Western Conference did. And that the NBA Finals were played with the home conference's rules.

Or, that the Western Conference never adopted the 3-point shot, so any games played in those gyms were played without it?

Sports evolve. It helps them stay relevant. The DH was a key evolution in baseball history that increased popularity, and its role continues to evolve today.

Just like the pitchers hitting has continued to evolve. As time has gone on, teams have allowed their pitchers to place less and less emphasis on hitting for health and training concerns. I don't see that trend reversing, ever. Pitchers are just becoming more fragile AND more expensive at the same time as they are becoming more critical.

If anything, teams are going to have pitchers focusing less on their hitting moving forward, not more.

You are the hero Chiefsplanet deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

My team's won it too, but so what? My point was you will never find a Cards (or Braves or Giants) fan who will acknowledge their run the past 20 years wouldn't have occurred in the superior league. It's not a personal knock on their delusional fans.

What's really pathetic: LA and the Cubs never did jack shit playing those crappy teams. It's really incredible.

That goes back to what i was saying with the Cardinals having good people run their organization. Dodgers and Cubs havent had anyone good running their teams in a long time, in Fact for years they have been absolutely pathetic.

Cardinals would have been fine. Cant really say one way or another if they would have been better or worse. I see what your trying to say, but teams adjust to what they have to work with. especially if they have good people running the team.

[Marcellus]

I think the biggest thing I hate about this discussion is the fact there are separate rules actually helps the rivalry between leagues. Why change that?


I also don't get why a Royal's fan is whining about the NL not having the DH. Why do you give a ****?

I think its an abomination and is not how the game was meant to be played as evidence by it not being instituted until almost 100 years in. It doesn't make the game better but I am fine with leaving it as it is for both leagues.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Most teams limit their pitcher BP to sac bunting work and minimal cuts.

They don't design training plans that correspond with generating torque and bat speed.

They don't have them taking full-effort cuts.

Basically, teams encourage them to be one-way players. Guys like Kershaw or Bumgarner, who are actually great enough athletes to be something other than a near-automatic out with the bat, are pretty rare.

I don't think those guys can hit because they're working really hard on it. I think it's more natural ability than anything else.

Dodgers have some pretty good hitting pitchers outside of Kershaw. Grienke is probably a better hitter then Kershaw, Ryu is pretty decent too and takes some really big swings. I dont think they limit them at all really. You also have to realize they have batting cages under the stadium and they tee off from there. I Guess its up to the pitcher if they want to work on their hitting or not. You Rarely rarely rarely see anyone get hurt from batting unless they are hit with a pitch. Injuries occur usually in the field.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Fruit Ninja

Dodgers have some pretty good hitting pitchers outside of Kershaw. Grienke is probably a better hitter then Kershaw, Ryu is pretty decent too and takes some really big swings. I dont think they limit them at all really. You also have to realize they have batting cages under the stadium and they tee off from there. I Guess its up to the pitcher if they want to work on their hitting or not. You Rarely rarely rarely see anyone get hurt from batting unless they are hit with a pitch. Injuries occur usually in the field.

And those guys are exceptions/extreme outliers.

Greinke and Kershaw would two of the handful of guys who can actually hit. I'd throw Bumgarner in there, and Travis Wood. Beyond that, there's not a whole lot of guys who are legitimate threats at the plate.

Most pitchers are sub .400 OPS guys with the bat. That's atrocious.

It's pretty clear teams don't focus on making sure their pitchers can hit, too. All they have them doing is making sure they can lay down a sac bunt and not get themselves hurt by the ball.

Guys that can hit a little bit are outliers with natural ability who focus on their hitting more than other guys. Greinke has always been like that.

I've spoken to a few front office guys (an NL guy or two, even) about this over the years. That's where the comments about injury risk/training risk comes from. It may be rare for a pitcher to spring a rib or strain a lat or pull an oblique with a swing of the bat, but it's a risk they can limit, so they DO limit it.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Fruit Ninja

Cardinals would have been fine. Cant really say one way or another if they would have been better or worse. I see what your trying to say, but teams adjust to what they have to work with. especially if they have good people running the team.

The Cards are 143-132 (.520 ball) in interleague play, 1997-2014. That equates to an 84-78 record vs AL teams. I don't know what the run differential data is but I'm guessing it's similar.


That includes a 43-30 (.590) against the Royals who were dreadful. That's over 1/4 of their AL matchups. They played us more often than anyone else in the AL because of the geographical goal of MLB: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ga...&submit=Submit



That means the Cardinals were......drum roll please....100-102 vs AL teams not named the Royals. That's pathetic. That's a disgrace. And that's a fraud.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Weird. You hate the NFL too since it uses "pussy ass bitches" to punt and kick FG

the NFL wouldnt be worse if we eliminated kickers

**** kickers

if they eliminated place kicking and punt formations and went to a rugby style where one of the receivers or HB's drop kicked for field gooals or punts, it might make for a more exciting , flowing game

and yes , punters and kickers are the pussy ass bitches on a football team

everyone knows that shit except you , apparently

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

The Cards are 143-132 (.520 ball) in interleague play, 1997-2014. That equates to an 84-78 record vs AL teams. I don't know what the run differential data is but I'm guessing it's similar.


That includes a 43-30 (.590) against the Royals who were dreadful. That's over 1/4 of their AL matchups. They played us more often than anyone else in the AL because of the geographical goal of MLB: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ga...&submit=Submit



That means the Cardinals were......drum roll please....100-102 vs AL teams not named the Royals. That's pathetic. That's a disgrace. And that's a fraud.

I get what you're trying to say and the point you're trying to make (And would agree the NL has been weaker in recent years). But you can't overlook the roster construction issue when comparing AL vs. NL records.

Yes, the Cardinals are barely above .500 in interleague play in the period you specified... but they're also playing just a small percentage of games with the DH, so their team and lineup is set up to play WITHOUT the DH. Most NL teams don't have a spare big bat sitting around that is a great fit worthy of starting in the DH spot normally.

And it wouldn't make much sense to carry such a bat, unless you just have crazy amounts of money to spend and can rotate players without them complaining about lack of PT.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

if they use DH in NL I won't bother with MLB any more

That's the best part of the NL. Another wrinkle in things and the NL is more exciting, IMO. Love it. Makes the WS interesting too. Don't change it. We'll have to see how Ned manages that.

[Deberg_1990]

Zach Greinke can swing the wood

[GoChargers]

The DH is what sucks. It was a gimmick meant to boost AL attendance in the '70s, it's not necessary anymore. Bring back actual strategy to the AL.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

This thread was a great read!

[chiefsfan987]

I don't mind the pitchers batting even though they suck at it. I do have a problem with double switches being legal though. Sorry, but if the whole premise is that you want everybody to have to hit, then when you take the pitcher out you should have to replace his bat with the next pitcher that you're bringing in..... not a dh. Otherwise it's just like the American League in that you're just bringing in a dh for the second half of the game. If you're going to do that towards the end of the game, you might as well just do it the whole game.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

I get what you're trying to say and the point you're trying to make (And would agree the NL has been weaker in recent years). But you can't overlook the roster construction issue when comparing AL vs. NL records.

Yes, the Cardinals are barely above .500 in interleague play in the period you specified... but they're also playing just a small percentage of games with the DH, so their team and lineup is set up to play WITHOUT the DH. Most NL teams don't have a spare big bat sitting around that is a great fit worthy of starting in the DH spot normally.

Do you have data to support that? If the AL has the advantage in home games, the NL surely would have the advantage in theirs.


The only data I have shows the Cards are 28-14 in Kauffman vs only 16-14 at Busch which is the opposite result of what you're theorizing.

And it wouldn't make much sense to carry such a bat, unless you just have crazy amounts of money to spend and can rotate players without them complaining about lack of PT.

Right, but that casts doubt into Ninja's point they would simply "re-tool" using their superior brainpower. The truth: they'd have to divert resources from their other positions to pay for a DH. Net/net it would likely be a wash.

[PHOG]

Here's some data...NL?....PFFFT World Series Royals 1 Cardinals Not So Much