Player’s View: Designated Hitter or no Designated Hitter?
The designated hitter rule has been in place in the American League since 1973. Some like it. Others would prefer that pitchers swing the bat. They do in the National League, and that’s part of the debate. Does it make sense for the league to play with different rules, or should there be uniformity?
I asked five pitchers, five position players, and five coaches/managers – many of whom have experience in both leagues – for their opinion of the DH rule. Here is what they had to say.
——
Steve Buechele, Rangers bench coach: “I think the DH is good for baseball. The pitcher hitting is the purest form of the game, but having a DH adds to the excitement. Some of the DHs out there are players people pay a lot to watch.
“We’ve done it for so long now, and I’m OK with that, but I wouldn’t mind seeing both leagues go with it at some point. It’s not a priority for me, but I’d like to see it be consistent.”
Clay Buchholz, Red Sox pitcher: “I think it will eventually happen in both leagues. A lot of money is paid for starting pitchers, and many of us aren’t comfortable hitting. Everybody is a competitor, so when you hit a ground ball, you want to run it out. Guys get injuries running the bases.
“I’d be in favor of having the DH in both leagues. It would make baseball better. I think there should be uniformity, but only if the DH was in both leagues.”
Tyler Clippard, A’s pitcher: “I’m OK with it. It’s been like this for awhile and I think it works. It gives guys another position to play, and maybe get another five years. If there was no DH, they may not be able to keep playing.
“The way the game is played in each league is different, and I like that. I think it’s good for the fans and the players. It gives you a different feel when you play inter-league games.”
Allen Craig, Red Sox outfielder: “Oh, man, that’s a tough question. I’ve played in both leagues, and I see the benefits of both. It’s hard to say, so put me down as neutral on this one.
“I’m OK with the way it is now. It’s been this way for a long time.”
Logan Forsythe, Rays infielder: “Depending on how you look at it, it could be good or bad. From a fan perspective, I think most people would rather have the DH. I like it both ways and don’t see it changing. I guess I’m neutral.
“I don’t think either league is affected by how it is now. There might be a little give and take, but I don’t think it puts either league at a disadvantage. It’s something they’re going to keep talking about, and I’m neutral on this one as well.”
Fredi Gonzalez, Braves manager: “I don’t like it. If we had to go one way or the other, I’d go with the National League game. I don’t think that’s going to happen, because of the union and that whole dynamic.
“I think we should play by one rule. If I had a vote, it would be the National League rule, but I don’t have a vote and I think I’d get outvoted anyway. I think it would end up being the DH in both leagues.”
Tim Hudson, Giants pitcher: “A pitcher that can handle the bat can be an advantage. Most of the advantage comes from the managers who know how to manage in the National League. I think Bochy is a prime example of somebody who is able to stay one step ahead of managers who aren’t used that kind of game. I feel like it’s a purer style of baseball. A monkey could manage an American League team. If you have a good team, put the lineup out there and take the pitcher out when he’s not getting outs.”
“I’m okay with the DH in one league. I definitely don’t think it should be in both leagues. If there is the same rule for both leagues, it should be the National League rule. It’s more of a baseball game.”
Tim Lincecum, Giants pitcher: “I like it the way it is. Real baseball. I like hitting, even if my batting average doesn’t show it. I know I’m not a great hitter, but it’s fun and I enjoy going up there. It keeps me in the game more.
“It kind of evens itself out in in inter-league play. (American League pitchers) go deeper into the games because they don’t have to worry about coming out because of the double switch. We get it easier because we get to face other pitchers.”
Mike Maddux, Rangers pitching coach: “I like the pitcher hitting. That’s pure baseball. The DH was a way to get more offense in the game. Every change they’ve made in this game has been to get more offense. Lowering the mound, adding the DH, trying to shrink the strike zone, new ballparks have no foul room. Being a traditionalist, I like all-around pitchers who can help themselves at the plate. I like the strategy of it.
“I think neither league should have a DH. It’s a better game without it.”
Bo Porter, Braves third base coach: “I like the National League style of play, where everyone has to hit. It’s a topic that’s always going to come up when pitchers get hurt hitting or running the bases, but more pitchers have gotten hurt pitching. You’re at risk any time you’re playing a competitive sport.
“If we were to go one way, I’d go the National League way. The pitcher is a part of the game, and double-switching is a part of the game – the strategic aspect that comes with the National League game. As for uniformity, that’s not for me to decide. That’s for the higher-ups to decide.”
Sean Rodriguez, Pirates infielder: “The pitcher is on the field, so he should hit. There’s your nine and our nine. That’s how it should be. I don’t think there should be a designated hitter. The name itself is weird. You’re just saying to one guy: ‘Grab a bat and go hit.’
“I get that a lot of people have made their careers on this, but I think it would be cool if there was one rule for both leagues. If there was, I would rather the pitcher hit. I know most guys don’t want it, because they want more offense.“
Mike Scioscia, Angels manager: “I grew up in the National League where we never had the DH and thought we didn’t need a DH. But as I’ve managed, I’ve warmed to the idea. It doesn’t just add the offense you get from another hitter in your lineup, it also gives you more little-ball opportunities with the bottom of your lineup. In the National League, it’s tough to move a runner up with the pitcher’s spot coming up. With regular hitters all the way through the lineup, you might move runners up with your eight-hitter and try to score a run with an out. In the National League, that strategy just doesn’t play.
“I would like it to be uniform, but I don’t think we’re ever going to get rid of the DH. It’s working with it different in the two leagues, but I would love for it to someday just be baseball, the same baseball in both leagues.”
Tim Stauffer, Twins pitcher: “I’m a little biased, as I played in the National League for a long time, and I like how there’s more strategy. You have to pay a little more attention to that spot in the order — the pitch count, bunting, pitching around certain guys. I like the old-school style of having the pitcher hit.
“I don’t think the leagues need to be the same. There’s a lot of inter-league play now, and I’m sure people on both sides don’t care for it being different. But I like that it’s different and you have to make some adjustments.”
Shane Victorino, Red Sox outfielder: “It is what it is. There are unfortunate situations. Adam Wainwright got hurt and was lost for the season. It could happen to anybody, but because it’s a pitcher and it’s Adam Wainwright – same thing with the Buster Posey catcher rule. People made a big thing of one situation. I obviously don’t ever want to see anyone get hurt, but the play at the plate changed so much, because one play was amplified. Him getting hurt sparked, ‘We have to change the game.’
“There’s been so much change in the game already. Do I want to see another change? Absolutely not. I think we should leave the game the way it is.”
Neil Walker, Pirates infielder: “An offensive player, you like to see as many hitters as you can in a lineup. At the same time, having the pitcher hit is tradition. I’m kind of caught in between. I think eventually there will probably be one rule, but because of the traditions of baseball, nobody wants to be a part of that type of change. I don’t think any player would be too upset to see the DH everywhere. Pitchers don’t particularly want to hit. In big situations, pitchers want to get it done just as much as we do, but 98% of them aren’t as able as other hitters. It changes the game.
“I guess having one rule would make more sense.”
——
Yes DH: Buechele, Buchholz, Clippard, Scioscia, Walker
No DH: Gonzalez, Hudson, Lincecum, Maddux, Porter, Rodriguez, Stauffer
Neutral: Craig, Forsythe, Victorino
Yes Uniformity: Buchele, Buchholz, Gonzalez, Maddux, Rodriguez, Scioscia, Walker
No Uniformity: Clippard, Craig, Hudson, Stauffer, Victorino
Neutral: Forsythe, Porter, Lincecum
——
Thanks to colleague Eno Sarris for procuring the responses from Hudson, Lincecum, Rodriquez and Walker.
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
Mike Scioscia talking about small ball is the most predictable response of all time.
Mike Scioscia, essentially: “I prefer to have better hitters in my lineup so I can give away more outs.”
Small ball has a new king…..Me #Yosted
These questions illustrate the unfortunate problem: People want the same rules and you will never, ever have NL rules in both league. Hence, eventually, despite probably more people supporting NL rules in general, they’ll cave to get uniformity (and that’s a sad day for the “thinking man’s game”)
Aesthetically, I like the no-DH rules. And if pitchers were even remotely competent, if they could bat .200 as a group, then I would be all for it. But they’ve just become too terrible.
Before the rule was instituted in the 70’s, pitchers batted about .150. Now they’re batting .124. The “strategy” involved is basically the same as watching 4 NBA players try to avoid passing to the chubby 15-year-old kid who is also on their team.
Except that chubby 15 year old kid is lights out on defense…
While I’d prefer to have the DH eliminated in both leagues, I think it makes the leagues a little more separate. I think that’s kind of interesting. It actually makes it two different games and while I get sick of interleague play, I think that it adds another element to the World Series because both teams have to make adjustments.
So I like the strategy that you see in the NL because of no DH, but watching pitchers hit is sad. Here is my proposed compromise:
Both leagues move to the DH. However, your team loses the DH position as soon as your starting pitcher is removed and now pitchers have to hit.
You’d get some of the strategy back while eliminating the early inning flailing from most pitchers. You’d also create an interesting dilemma for what spot in the batting order should you place your DH?
The main concern with that idea (in my mind at least) is if you think watching starting pitchers try to hit is sad why would you want to make the relievers hit? Managers pinch hit for them for a reason (in addition to the fact most relievers go only 1 inning) thus, the pinch hitters are essentially DHs, rendering the loss of the DH after the starter is pulled irrelevant. I hope that makes sense and doesn’t have too many grammatical errors…
That would be the intent, similar to what happens in the NL. Relievers would almost never hit, but the managers would need to plan their substitutions accordingly.
I can’t believe how much I like this idea as a longtime DH hater.
I think it’s interesting that many responses indicated they thought most people preferred the DH, and yet there were more people in favor of NL rules than not. IMO there’s a false perception out there that the fans definitely prefer the DH, and that “some of the DHs out there are players people pay a lot to watch”.
Great points.
About the DHs out there that people pay a lot to watch, we are talking solely about David Ortiz at this point, right?
Who else? Billy Butler? Kendrys Morales? I really don’t see that argument.
Nelson Cruz and David Ortiz essentially
A-Rod!
Victor Martinez
People pay good money to watch A-rod and boo him mercilessly. Do we really want to take that away?
My experience is that people who are pro-DH are much more vehement in their position than people who are anti-DH. People who are anti-DH acknowledge that it’s their personal preference, while people who are pro-DH think it’s objectively stupid to have pitchers hit. I know that’s an overgeneralization, but I think it’s true enough to create the false perception of a pro-DH consensus you’re talking about.
It’s true for me. I am pro-DH and I’m shocked that we are even debating this. I’ve never once thought it would be wonderful to watch a pitcher hit. And while I appreciate the skill that some pitchers have in that arena it doesn’t offset the nearly always automatic out that comes from pitchers flailing at pitches that they will never make contact with.
It’s not that it’s wonderful to watch pitchers hit. It’s that “pitchers are (generally) bad hitters” is a terrible argument for the DH. Catchers are (generally) bad runners–designated runner? Centers in basketball are (generally) bad free throw shooters–designated free throw shooter? It’s just so arbitrary. Throw in the fact that bunting and pitch hitting decisions often *are* exciting and there’s basically no argument for the DH. The reality is that guys like David Ortiz–who is so physically inept that he cannot even play first base on a daily basis–are hitters but not baseball players.
Allen Craig doesn’t want the DH because he’d be the first ever 1st baseman to be DH’d for.
Tim Hudson’s ankle disagrees with his mouth. His ankle doesn’t like touching the bases.
I like the strategy that comes with the pitcher hitting, but I hate having to watch a pitcher who can barely lift a bat trying to hit. These are guys that only play ~30 games a year, they don’t get the regular AB’s that they would need to develop as hitters.
So my idea? Have the NL adopt a DH, but have him tied to the pitcher. You make a pitching change? You have to swap out the DH as well. DH needs to be replaced or has to go into the field? (I personally think it’s dumb to limit your DH to just hitting if injury requires that he takes the field) Your pitcher comes out of the game. So instead of having the current issue where you have to ask yourself “does getting a possible offensive upgrade for one at bat warrant taking out my SP?” You have to ask “Does pulling my SP warrant the offensive downgrade of changing my DH?”
I don’t see why the AL’s version of the DH needs to be the only way of adopting a DH if it ever comes to the NL, and no team should have to worry about playing their C at DH if he’s a legit offensive threat because of a possible injury to the backup.
Probable Future Consequence (Unintended or not) of having same rules with 15 teams and continued daily interleague play in each league: radical realignment into a Western and Eastern conference a la the NBA.
My take: I don’t want that. Keeping the leagues distinct adds some controversy and keeps that resulting attention on baseball.
As for slimming down interleague play (because it’s the every-day-of-the-season-NL/AL meetings that are prompting this cry for same rules in both leagues) I’d go with 16 teams in each league. That way NL can play NL and AL the AL on most days. Interleague could be in short window in the season, say the run-up to the All-Star game.
Where to put 2 new teams? Lots of possibilities: Vancouver, Portland, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, San Antonio, New York, Montreal, or San Juan or …. Havana! The union and the owners could ID the most likely spots and go for it. Most of these places have a bigger population and more business support than say Cincinnati or Cleveland. And hey, as to Montreal, their mayor is ready and the Expos drew better most of their seasons than the Tampa Bay Rays do now.
Wouldn’t the purest form of the game also include having the manager on the 25 man roster? I’m surprised Jeff Loria hasn’t brought back the player/manager to cut payroll.
The Dreaded Hitter is the worst rule change in the history of baseball. Why does everyone say “most fans like the DH?” SHOW ME THE STATS! Has a survey ever been done? Maybe fans in the AL cities like the “Big Boppers” like “Big Poopi” and others who cannot field their position, any position, but not NL fans. I do not look at it like a “NL vs AL” type of thing…There is only one true BASEBALL league, and it does not have a DH! I have a friend who refuses to watch any game with a DH. The AL has been ruined because with a DH a team does not need as many position players so we fans get to see yet another “Loogy” trot in from the bullpen. Hey, if you have 13 pitchers out there they will be utilized. It is BORING. The game has devolved to the point where the majority of what happens in MLB are plays in which NOTHING HAPPENS. Add up the % of walks and strikeouts and pop-ups and over half of the “plays” are not “plays.” Have I mentioned how BORING this has become? The game was better for the fans a hundred years ago when balls were actually put into play. The same can be said for 1950’s baseball when batters, like Dick Groat, used thick handled bats that did not break, sending lethal weapons into the stands which maim, and kill, FANS!
The NL is obviously at a great disadvantage when playing an AL team because of the DH rule, yet now we fans are subjected to interleague play, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever in the history of MLB. It is simply yet another “gimmick.” Many think of interleague play as some weird type of exhibition games.
Why did the AL implement the DH? After rules, which lowered scoring, were changed in ’63-’68, they were changed again to boost runs scored. This worked in the NL, as the average per game went from 3.43 in ’68 to 4.05 in ’69, then 4.52 in 1970. In 1971 & ’72 it was 3.91. Meanwhile, the run average in the AL in ’68 was 3.41. It went to 4.09 in 1969, then 4.17 in 1970, and then 3.87 in 1971, before plummeting to 3.47 in 1972. Why did this occur? Why did the AL lose a half-run per game compared to the NL? Because the AL did not take advantage of the Negro players! The NL signed the players with darker skin pigmentation and was by far the stronger league! Therefore the AL pooh-bahs needed to come up with a “gimmick” in order to keep pace with the NL! Too bad MLB did not listen to Nancy Raygun, who infamously said, “Just say no.”
MLB is continually coming up with “gimmicks.” Last year ridiculous rule changes were implemented, most of which did not last through the season. Now MLB is trying to “speed up the game” so we fans can sit around for two minutes, watching the players scratching their butts while the “Wizard of Oz” in New York determines the outcome of the play. Am I the only one who has noticed how BORING this has become? Lost is the manager aruging the call. Anyone who has watched Bobby Cox, Earl Weaver, and Billy Martin, to name just a few, argue a call will tell stories about it for DECADES, because it is definitely not boring. MLB continues to try and fix something that is not broken.
Since most fans are young, they do not know how good was MLB “back in the day.” The players may be bigger and stronger, especially the “enhanced” ones, than they were back then, but they are not as accomplished, and the game is not as interesting.
I assume this comment was mad with your tounge firmly in your cheek because it’s hilarious. Summary for those who don’t want to read it: don’t change things because they always done like that. Baseball was better back in the day when drugs were rampant, blacks had their own league and kids didn’t have video games.
“This is our history and who we are” is a *completely* valid argument for keeping things as they are in terms of the DH. The DH is (moral) value netural. Bringing up segregation is the category mistake. These are not the same thing at all. No one’s making the argument that we should bring back segregation because that’s what’s always been done. Believing that “We should do A because of B” does not necessitate believing “We should do everything that B implies.” Small-minded fallacy.
I’d suggest narrowing down your thoughts to maybe the 3-4 best ones you think you have, and then omitting the other 22.
Get off of my lawn!
Tim Hudsons monkey comment is hilarious. Wrong, but hilarious.
I would like to see Tony LaRussa and Tim Hudson have a shouting match about that comment. That would be fun.
The thing is, he’s right. The ever-worshipped Bud Showalter would struggle in the NL. He’s not a great manager not because he does dumb things but he barely has to do anything.
those LOOGY should learn to hit so they can be a DH/PH as well.
I’m a fan of the pirates and have been watching NL ball all my life in Pittsburgh and Miami and my feelings on this are mixed. I don’t think the NL “strategy” is really strategy at all. Double switches are easy calls. I think if pitchers were competent hitters then I would be a fan of the pitcher hitting. When a legitimate strategy is to have a hitter (the pitcher) strike out on purpose so that he doesn’t have to run the bases and get tired, I feel the DH should be implemented. Because of the way baseball players are handled, I would prefer the DH in both leagues.
SOME double switches are easy calls. Some are very difficult calls. How likely is that spot to come up in the lineup again? How good is the bat you’re taking out of the lineup compared to the bat your adding? How good are your other pinch hitting options? Is it an upgrade or downgrade to your defense? How likely are you to want more than an inning out of the reliever? There are a lot of factors to consider, and a lot of scenarios where the decision will not be obvious.
Since there’s a lot of talk about what the fans want, it’s worth acknowledging that National League fans do not want the DH. They really do not want the DH.
These are the numbers Joe Posnanski got when he polled a few thousand of his readers.
Self-described American League fans with an opinion on the subject:
Add the DH in the NL: 59%.
Let the pitchers hit: 41%
Self-described National League fans with an opinion on the subject:
Add the DH in the NL: 21.8%
Let the pitchers hit: 78.2%
http://joeposnanski.com/the-dh-pete-rose-and-other-stuff/
I do think Posnanski makes a good point about this so I’ll just quote a couple of his grafs:
Um, yeah. They ARE passionate. That’s a rout. That’s more than a rout — that’s a higher percentage than Yogi Berra got for the Hall of Fame his first time around. That’s a higher percentage than I have received on almost any question since I began these silly little polls. There was little doubt in my mind before but now there’s no doubt in my mind:
NATIONAL LEAGUE FANS BY LANDSLIDE DO NOT WANT THE DESIGNATED HITTER.
And National League fans, when it comes to this subject, should be the only fans that matter. American League fans, like myself, can yap on and on about how much better the game is when you’re not watching pitchers bunt and strike out, but that’s irrelevant. NL fans don’t want the DH. They have never wanted it. If it comes down to be a safety issue — which is to say that if it simply proves too dangerous for pitchers to hit — then baseball will have to do something,. But adding the DH will be over the strong objection of National League baseball fans, who very much like their game the way it is now.
I don’t get the whole NL game has more strategy debate. The strategy is basically automatic, there really isn’t that much to it except for the novelty. I hate watching NL games when the pitcher is due up in the first 3 innings because it’s almost an automatic out. Once every 15 times the pitcher slot is up he’ll do something exciting. Thats 6-8 times per game.
There is more strategy. You have to decide whether to leave the pitcher in to hit or take him out; you also have to decide whether to let the pitcher try to get out of an inning if he is up in the next inning or possibly burn a pitcher for one out. You have to consider double switches. You have to worry more about burning too many substitutes.
Argue that pitchers hitting is like watching white people dance, but arguing there is not more strategy is asinine.
You forgot the third option. Leave the pitcher in to hit then take him out. Happened last night
I find it funny that Buchholz mentioned baserunning injuries, because he suffered a pretty embarrassing one a few years back (think it happened in SF if I recall correctly).
I just don’t get much enjoyment out of rally-killing pitcher plate appearances, and for a sport that’s trying to increase run scoring and make the games more exciting, this is a low hanging fruit.
“Most of the advantage comes from the managers who know how to manage in the National League.”
Can we retire this stupid trope? Any marginally interested fan knows how to pull off a double switch. Has any manager gotten halfway through the move and not been able to figure it out? Have they ever had a pitcher hit, then pulled him for a reliever at the beginning of the next inning (aside from injuries)? Choosing when to pinch hit for a pitcher is less difficult than choosing which reliever to use. It’s not exactly rocket science.
Hell, who can forget Mike Hargrove filling out his lineup card wrong in Cleveland, and making the pitcher bat. So, statistically speaking, filling out a lineup card in the AL has a higher error rate!
Joe Maddon did this a few years back also and had to let Andy Sonnanstine hit because he filled out the lineup card wrong. I believe Longoria was supposed to DH in that particular game. Funny thing is Sonnanstine actually doubled in one of his AB’s.