Is it tee-ball or just a training tool for designated hitters?________________________
The recent injury to St. Louis Cardinals starting pitcher Chris Carpenter has moved a Chicago Tribune blogger to suggest that the National League adopt the designated hitter rule, as he figures that baseball teams might avoid paying money to injured pitchers by using the DH rule, since Carpenter’s injury was caused by swinging a bat. But before I analyze the asininity of this viewpoint, let’s take a look at the designated hitter rule.
••••
The 1970s are known for a few questionable things: polyester clothing, disco, and the designated hitter rule.
Yes, it might come as a surprise to people who were born after the 1970s, but baseball was able to flourish and become the national pastime long before any leisure suit-wearing players’ union head had even thought of inventing a position on a baseball team that was designed to remove strategy from a sport that was built on...well...strategy.
For those unaware of the designated hitter rule, the concept is simple but ridiculous: a substitute player is used in a baseball team’s line-up in place of the pitcher in an effort to score more runs. The concept was first used in the minor International League in 1969 and was liked by Major League Baseball’s commissioner at the time, Bowie Kuhn. He pushed the idea to both the National League and the American League, but only the American League was willing to incorporate the idea in 1973.
For the last 36 years, the feeble-minded among baseball fans have routinely supported the idea and hoped that the National League would adopt the rule—or even have it forced upon them (kind of like a crack addict hoping that the rest of the world smokes crack, too, to make himself feel better).
Arguments in favor of the rule have been either silly or even illogical: fans like hits and pitchers can’t hit well; the DH rule gives more guys jobs; the DH rule extends careers; the DH rule makes baseball showier; the DH rule is a nice way to save money. Let’s take a look at these:
Fans do like hits. There can’t be much debate about that. Hits create runs; runs win games. But the truth of the matter is that not all fans want to see nothing but doubles, triples, and home-runs when those doubles, triples, and home-runs have come by way of artificial means (the DH rule). The sport of baseball was able to work well without the DH rule for roughly 100 years with pitchers batting for themselves.
When you remove the pitcher and add a substitute batter (a full-time pinch hitter), you also remove any reason to consider bunting strategies and pitcher-versus-batter match-ups that are currently present in National League games.
For instance, if a pitcher’s spot comes up late in a game for Team A, Team B’s manager must consider who Team A has available if Team A chooses to pinch hit and later replace with a new relief pitcher. Team B’s manager must also consider what might happen if Team A’s pitcher won’t be pinch-hit for and ultimately bats for himself. Will he bunt? Will he hit? It would depend upon the situation.
With the DH rule, that strategy is irrelevant; the DH just goes to bat to hit the ball. Then the next guy comes to bat.
The next two arguments—that it gives more guys jobs and that it extends careers—have been pushed by the players’ union off-and-on since the DH rule was adopted. There are only two problems with these arguments:
First, it can’t possibly give more guys jobs because both American League teams and National League teams are limited to 25 men on their rosters. That means 25 men on American League teams with a designated hitter and 25 men on National League teams without a DH. If both have 25 men, how can 25 on an AL team be “more”? I admit that math was always my weakest subject, but I’m not that weak.
The second argument—that it “extends” careers—is only half correct. Yes, many DH positions have been filled by older guys who can’t field a ball anymore, but this argument does not take into consideration two things: (1.) today’s DH position isn’t dedicated to one guy the way that it used to be, but is being used more and more as a spot to give some players days off from playing the field; and (2.) a player—DH or otherwise—will last only as long as they’re productive. If they can’t hit, they’ll find themselves out of a job whether they’re 25-years-old or 40-years-old.
Finally, the superficial aspect to the DH and the money-saving aspect of the rule can basically go hand-in-hand, because neither are concerned with quality of play or strategy. For example, in 1969, Broadway producer David Merrick said: “There’s not enough showmanship in baseball. It is show business, isn’t it?” Merrick lamented that “in baseball they’re unmindful of the audience” but that in the theater they’re “always thinking of the audience.” (I’ll take a baseball game over a play any day, thank you.)
As for saving money on pitchers who have been hurt batting or running, which is why our Chicago Tribune blogger argued for an MLB-wide DH rule, this would no doubt be true. Hank Steinbrenner, the senior vice-president of the New York Yankees and heir-to-the-throne to the Yankee empire by way of his father, George, once said that the National League needs to “grow up and join the twenty-first century” by adopting the DH rule. (Remember what I said earlier about crack addicts who might complain when others aren’t smoking crack, too?)
My only complaint about this argument is this: If you have a high-paid designated hitter hurt himself while swinging a bat, is that injury more acceptable than a pitcher doing the same thing? What if the pitcher injures himself while pitching instead of hitting? Is that injury more acceptable?
••••
That brings us back to our Chicago Tribune blogger, who wants the National League to adopt the DH rule to keep high-paid pitchers from getting hurt while batting. Well, if we do that, why stop there?
Why not make designated fielders, too? That way, we can field nine guys whose job it is to never swing a bat, thus preventing any batting injuries whatsoever. It’ll let us add nine more players to the 25-man rosters. We might be able to “extend” a few more careers!
But wait. What about batting-related injuries to all those designated hitters? In that case, maybe we can remove batting from the game, too. That’ll save us from batting-related injuries. But wait—what will do if we have fielding-related injuries? And what about pitching-related injuries? Shouldn’t we just end all of it?!
You can see where I’m going with these absurdities.
Much to the chagrin of Hank Steinbrenner, the Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rogers and crack smokers everywhere, not everyone is interested in doing ridiculous things. Some of us enjoy the strategy that comes with pitchers who have to bat for themselves. Some of us get bored with the football mentality that comes with American League baseball.
While I’m no fan of Mark McGwire after watching his pathetic responses during the Congressional hearings on steroid use, I’ll always remember his remarks in which he compared the National League and American League:
It’s amazing how many one-two-three innings you see over here [in the National League]. Those innings never seem to happen in the American League. There is also so much more standing around in the American League. Here you always feel into the game. It’s just a better way to play the game.
References
Davids, L. Robert. Great Hitting Pitchers. Cooperstown: Society for American Baseball Research, 1979. <screenshot>
“Foot Injury Expected to Sideline Wang Until at Least September.” Associated Press / ESPN. 17 June 2008. <screenshot>
“Mark McGwire.” BaseballLibrary.com. 2006. <screenshot>
Rogers, Phil. “Chris Carpenter Shouldn’t Bat, Joe Mauer Could Be Back Soon and Other Mid-Week Thoughts.” Chicago Tribune. 15 Apr. 2009. <screenshot>
Ω
No comments:
Post a Comment