MLB 2019

[Facelift]

It's pretty much official - the DH will be implemented in the National League either this year or next year.

I remember a couple of years ago saying that it was going to happen sooner rather than later.

And thank God. Nobody ever needed to watch pitchers hitting.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...ges-alter-game

[Jerjo]

50 days until opening day per Twitter. Pitchers and catchers reporting end of next week. Ah, to be young and playing ball in the sun.

[Scott Bails]

It's pretty much official - the DH will be implemented in the National League either this year or next year.

I remember a couple of years ago saying that it was going to happen sooner rather than later.

And thank God. Nobody ever needed to watch pitchers hitting.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...ges-alter-game

Eww.

[proggy_jazzer]

And thank God. Nobody ever needed to watch pitchers hitting.

Disagree. Pitchers hitting (i.e. actually having to have skills in all aspects of the game) was part of the sport from the beginning, until the powers that be decided that scoring more runs was more important for putting butts in seats. It also led indirectly to the ridiculous specialization of pitchers in the current game, what with bringing in one pitcher to face one batter and all. And in the article there's a proposal to walk that back now as well (3-batter minimum). I would prefer they get rid of the DH entirely, but I know I'm in the minority and it will never happen.

[Facelift]

Disagree. Pitchers hitting (i.e. actually having to have skills in all aspects of the game) was part of the sport from the beginning, until the powers that be decided that scoring more runs was more important for putting butts in seats. It also led indirectly to the ridiculous specialization of pitchers in the current game, what with bringing in one pitcher to face one batter and all. And in the article there's a proposal to walk that back now as well (3-batter minimum). I would prefer they get rid of the DH entirely, but I know I'm in the minority and it will never happen.

If they do the Universal DH this year, David Price becomes the unlikely answer to a new trivia question.

[moecurlythanu]

The DH is an abomination. If you don't want pitchers to hit, go to an 8 man batting order.

[Poisoned Youth]

I like it. Just because something was traditionally in the game doesn't mean it has to stay that way. The DH has been a thing for 40 years. It would be like eliminating the forward pass in football for the sake remaining "traditional".

[NogbadTheBad]

I like all these proposed rule changes, bring it on.

[MudShark22]

The only one I dislike is the universal DH. I am also firmly in the no DH camp.

[Poisoned Youth]

I'm going to call all you anti-DHers Skullheads.

[MudShark22]

Hah! Insults just show your position has no merit!

;-)

[polmico]

Pitchers and catchers in two weeks. Oh, be calm my racing heart.

Charlotte Knights tix (AAA) go on sale this Saturday. Already prepping my liver and wherever hot dogs go. I guess heart?

[proggy_jazzer]

All I know is I love the way having pitchers bat changes the flow and strategy of the game. A weak hitting pitcher (obviously many/most) is potentially an easy out, but some are better hitters than others and some are very skilled bunters. I love a good sac bunt! Also love and respect the few pitchers that can actually swing a bat effectively. I'm a life-long NLer, and love having the pitcher bat, and the day the NL adopts the DH I'll enjoy the game just a little less. YMMV

[proggy_jazzer]

I like it. Just because something was traditionally in the game doesn't mean it has to stay that way. The DH has been a thing for 40 years. It would be like eliminating the forward pass in football for the sake remaining "traditional".

I hear what you're saying, but how long has the FP been a part of american football now? Not really apples/apples, IMO. And I'm totally not into it from any sense of "tradition"; I just think it (the DH) changes the character of the game, and not for the better.

[Tangram]

All I know is I love the way having pitchers bat changes the flow and strategy of the game. A weak hitting pitcher (obviously many/most) is potentially an easy out, but some are better hitters than others and some are very skilled bunters. I love a good sac bunt! Also love and respect the few pitchers that can actually swing a bat effectively. I'm a life-long NLer, and love having the pitcher bat, and the day the NL adopts the DH I'll enjoy the game just a little less. YMMV

Lifelong AL (Yankee) fan but I am not in favor of the DH. Baseball is working very hard to remove a lot of the strategy that makes the game great. Long removed triples from the game with the tiny fields. Now with the power game being popular with all or nothing at bats, lack of stolen bases, hit and run, etc.; pitch counts, pitching changes and game time is up as is more time with nothing happening. There is nothing uglier than a leadoff hitter with 2 strikes swinging for the fences only to take the long walk to the bench.

Before I go and put on my fire proof suit, I'm not saying go back to the deadball era. I am saying make the fields bigger so there is more variety in the game. Currently, there are bigger players, better baseballs, better bats and … smaller fields. Doesn't make sense. It's an insult from baseball to say that the fans only want home runs and strikeouts. Or maybe its bad marketing. Either way with baseball now having more strikeouts in a season than hits, the game is getting ugly.


One more thought, with starting pitchers number of starts are now in the low 30's and the number of innings down, I don't see why a pitcher couldn't take BP more than just on game day. Many of them are very good athletes, and when they were young, they hit. Or at least until recently when now there are DH's on high school teams, which is a joke and does a serious disservice to a kid playing.

[Lou]

Lifelong AL (Yankee) fan but I am not in favor of the DH. Baseball is working very hard to remove a lot of the strategy that makes the game great. Long removed triples from the game with the tiny fields. Now with the power game being popular with all or nothing at bats, lack of stolen bases, hit and run, etc.; pitch counts, pitching changes and game time is up as is more time with nothing happening. There is nothing uglier than a leadoff hitter with 2 strikes swinging for the fences only to take the long walk to the bench.

Before I go and put on my fire proof suit, I'm not saying go back to the deadball era. I am saying make the fields bigger so there is more variety in the game. Currently, there are bigger players, better baseballs, better bats and … smaller fields. Doesn't make sense. It's an insult from baseball to say that the fans only want home runs and strikeouts. Or maybe its bad marketing. Either way with baseball now having more strikeouts in a season than hits, the game is getting ugly.


One more thought, with starting pitchers number of starts are now in the low 30's and the number of innings down, I don't see why a pitcher couldn't take BP more than just on game day. Many of them are very good athletes, and when they were young, they hit. Or at least until recently when now there are DH's on high school teams, which is a joke and does a serious disservice to a kid playing.

Very well said, and I agree with you completely!

[Poisoned Youth]

Hah! Insults just show your position has no merit!

Okay then. From my perspective, the DH is as obvious as bottled water. It's one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments in the sport. It's a natural progression of how the game has evolved and relieves the pitcher from being the only "3-way" player in the game.

All I know is I love the way having pitchers bat changes the flow and strategy of the game. A weak hitting pitcher (obviously many/most) is potentially an easy out, but some are better hitters than others and some are very skilled bunters.

For the last generation, pitchers are being groomed and trained to be good pitchers, not good hitters. So what you see as strategy, I see as an compensating for an unnecessary liability.

And when you're paying the better starting pitchers in the game 15-25m annually, the last thing you want is any scenario that unnecessarily damages that investment.

I hear what you're saying, but how long has the FP been a part of american football now? Not really apples/apples, IMO. And I'm totally not into it from any sense of "tradition"; I just think it (the DH) changes the character of the game, and not for the better.

Sure, not apples/apples. But I think when you consider it's been part of baseball for 45 years now, it IS tradition. There's been a lot of great baseball that's happened in that time to the joy of fans around the world. There's just no evidence that the rule has hurt or stained the game. The only thing left is the argument itself.

Lifelong AL (Yankee) fan but I am not in favor of the DH. Baseball is working very hard to remove a lot of the strategy that makes the game great.

I disagree. The strategies are there, they have just changed. Did you watch the playoffs? Can you honestly watch some of those Brewers/Dodgers games and Sox/Astros games and say they were not bubbling over with strategic decisions?

If anything, one could argue that analytics and sports science has made the game TOO strategic - almost robotic. Go with what the numbers tell you and manage accordingly. Scouts size up players and potential recruits at a very young age. Every player's makeup is analyzed and projected. Young kids blow out their elbows regularly in an effort to overthrow the baseball. We have pitchers on pitch counts. We have probabilities for every possible strategic scenario available to the manager - and the players. Pitchers who know their competition's analytics know the tendencies of hitter on every ball/strike count scenario. The game has arguably become almost completely about probabilities and predicted outcomes, then just watching to see how it all plays out.

In fact, I can't quite understand how fans of traditional baseball can bring up the DH and Interleague play as the plagues of baseball and yet seemingly ignore how technology, sports science, money, and analytics have much more drastically altered that game.

Just take one example regarding analytics - the shift.

[proggy_jazzer]

For the last generation, pitchers are being groomed and trained to be good pitchers, not good hitters. So what you see as strategy, I see as an compensating for an unnecessary liability.

And when you're paying the better starting pitchers in the game 15-25m annually, the last thing you want is any scenario that unnecessarily damages that investment.

This is certainly the owners' perspective.

Sure, not apples/apples. But I think when you consider it's been part of baseball for 45 years now, it IS tradition. There's been a lot of great baseball that's happened in that time to the joy of fans around the world. There's just no evidence that the rule has hurt or stained the game. The only thing left is the argument itself.

"Hurt/stained" vs. "changed, and not for the better". I'm saying the latter. Semantics, perhaps, and both opinions, obviously, but I think there are a lot of fans who are on the no-DH side. Owners, not so much. I wonder if players have ever been polled?

I disagree. The strategies are there, they have just changed. Did you watch the playoffs? Can you honestly watch some of those Brewers/Dodgers games and Sox/Astros games and say they were not bubbling over with strategic decisions?

If anything, one could argue that analytics and sports science has made the game TOO strategic - almost robotic. Go with what the numbers tell you and manage accordingly. Scouts size up players and potential recruits at a very young age. Every player's makeup is analyzed and projected. Young kids blow out their elbows regularly in an effort to overthrow the baseball. We have pitchers on pitch counts. We have probabilities for every possible strategic scenario available to the manager - and the players. Pitchers who know their competition's analytics know the tendencies of hitter on every ball/strike count scenario. The game has arguably become almost completely about probabilities and predicted outcomes, then just watching to see how it all plays out.

In fact, I can't quite understand how fans of traditional baseball can bring up the DH and Interleague play as the plagues of baseball and yet seemingly ignore how technology, sports science, money, and analytics have much more drastically altered that game.

Just take one example regarding analytics - the shift.

I know you know this, but strategy ≠ analytics. Analytics are a tool one can choose to use (or not) in creating a strategy, and for anyone who keeps stats, the option has always been there. Strategy is deeper than that, and involves using intuition and playing "in the moment", rather than just the odds.

BTW, and FWIW, I don't mind interleague play, although I think there's grown to be far too much of it. I also hate the shift, and changing pitchers simply to play the lefty/righty-matchup game.

I don't think I'm in the minority on all of this, but the owners will always win, because money. Unfortunately, its a problem without a solution, as long as people continue to watch, and I'm not ready to stop watching yet. Waddayagonnado?

[Poisoned Youth]

I don't think I'm in the minority on all of this, but the owners will always win, because money. Unfortunately, its a problem without a solution, as long as people continue to watch, and I'm not ready to stop watching yet. Waddayagonnado?

And to be clear, I have no strong stance on DH. It just is. While I think universal DH makes sense, I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit. For me, most of the changes in the game have been positive - or at least not negative. I think an area that I might personally draw the line would be to have a computer call balls & strikes.

[Poisoned Youth]

On another note, ultimately I'd like to see MLB address the way money is distributed among players. I think positive steps would be to pay pre-arb players the same way they do the arb years (based on performance and comps and done year-to-year) and offer a bonus for simply being called up to the major league roster. So a young player like Acuna could get adequately paid based on his performance NOW. And I think if FA contracts and extensions have more incentives, options, and player opt outs, there'd be less of a need for these albatross contracts, which only ties up salary that could go to other players.

Do you think the players would be open to a structure such as this - essentially trading off more money up front for less guaranteed money (or security) in FA?

[MudShark22]

[emoji38]

Okay then. From my perspective, the DH is as obvious as bottled water. It's one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments in the sport. It's a natural progression of how the game has evolved and relieves the pitcher from being the only "3-way" player in the game.
.

I see it as:
- for ages water was fine clean tasty and it was good.
- water (hitting) was starting to taste funny and the solution was to create separate plastic container for water to protect it (DH) rather than fix the pond or stream (the game).
- Now the waterways are littered with these containers and have done as much harm to the pond/stream ecology (stats/salaries/approach) as the original problem.

Perfect analogy? No. but the solution to pitching dominance in that era was not to throw more hitters at the problem.

And any player on the field could technically be a three way player at any point thru tactics or strategy; they are just in a state of quantum flux and not realized yet.

;-)

[ronmac]

Too much to got through here.

The problem with pitchers batting in only one league is not about when the AL pitchers bat. It's when they run the bases. They get hurt because they simply don't train for it (not that they couldn't). I'm betting every AL manager cringes when their pitcher makes it to base.

I'm for universal whatever, as long as both leagues play the same game. The NL is the only league in pro ball that clings to this. They need to let it go or convince the other leagues to drop the DH. And that ain't happening. I'm pretty sure a majority of players support using the DH.

[moecurlythanu]

Okay then. From my perspective, the DH is as obvious as bottled water. It's one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments in the sport. It's a natural progression of how the game has evolved and relieves the pitcher from being the only "3-way" player in the game.

I don't have any great interest in which direction it goes, as I don't really watch or follow Baseball anymore, although as a kid, I followed it closely. But to me, having players who only hit is "unnatural," and that is what is "obvious."

I wonder if players have ever been polled?

The players are all for it. It extends careers.

[Scott Bails]

It's an insult from baseball to say that the fans only want home runs and strikeouts. Or maybe its bad marketing. Either way with baseball now having more strikeouts in a season than hits, the game is getting ugly.

An excellent post, Tangram. But the quote above cuts to the essence of what's going on: MLB couldn't care less about their fans. They already have them. What they want (or feel they need) is people who aren't fans to pay attention to them the way they do the NFL. They're willing to do just about anything to accomplish this, including ludicrous rule changes that would affect much of what many of us love about the game.

I think an area that I might personally draw the line would be to have a computer call balls & strikes.

I would do that in a heartbeat. Anything that minimizes the impact of umpires on the game is a good thing, IMO.

On another note, ultimately I'd like to see MLB address the way money is distributed among players. I think positive steps would be to pay pre-arb players the same way they do the arb years (based on performance and comps and done year-to-year) and offer a bonus for simply being called up to the major league roster. So a young player like Acuna could get adequately paid based on his performance NOW. And I think if FA contracts and extensions have more incentives, options, and player opt outs, there'd be less of a need for these albatross contracts, which only ties up salary that could go to other players.

Do you think the players would be open to a structure such as this - essentially trading off more money up front for less guaranteed money (or security) in FA?

They definitely have a distribution problem. Most minor league teams are disgracefully underfunded, both in payroll and in other areas (facilities, travel, etc.). It's incredible that teams seemingly invest so much in their young prospects but aren't willing to give them what they need to eat and train well.

As to your suggest, Cozy, I don't think the MLBPA would go for that at all. They would read "less guaranteed money in FA" and would laugh at you.

I think the idea would be good for the game, but, as noted above, no one is really interested in that anymore.

I see it as:
- for ages water was fine clean tasty and it was good.
- water (hitting) was starting to taste funny and the solution was to create separate plastic container for water to protect it (DH) rather than fix the pond or stream (the game).
- Now the waterways are littered with these containers and have done as much harm to the pond/stream ecology (stats/salaries/approach) as the original problem.

Perfect analogy? No. but the solution to pitching dominance in that era was not to throw more hitters at the problem.

And any player on the field could technically be a three way player at any point thru tactics or strategy; they are just in a state of quantum flux and not realized yet.

;-)

Not a perfect analogy, but it's not bad.

I don't have any great interest in which direction it goes, as I don't really watch or follow Baseball anymore, although as a kid, I followed it closely. But to me, having players who only hit is "unnatural," and that is what is "obvious."

Exactly!!!

[Scott Bails]

The Phillies have acquired JT Realmuto for their #1 pitching prospect, Sixto Sanchez, and their starting catcher, Jorge Alfaro.

Can't say that I'm happy about this. Sixto was untouchable, IMO. If they can somehow get Harper and Keuchel, I would feel better about it. But I wouldn't be giving up such an electric young arm for a player that isn't automatically delivering a WS.