National League vs American League ...

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:38 am

Naples39 wrote:That comparison seems a little ridiculous to me. The rules of the game are simple, everyone who plays in the field hits, period. Furthermore, the rotation of batting order is fixed, not some arbitrary designation as your sample suggests. Baseball has never been a game of free substitution (and likely never will be), so comparing it to any other american sport in that regard is totally offbase.

I'm having fun with analogies, but they're really tangential to my main point. The main point is this- the game was not invented with the idea that one position on the field would yield batters that are radically inferior to every other position. All the so-called strategy that surrounds dealing with a near guaranteed out in the nine hole is stuff that has built up around an interpretation of the pitcher wildly at variance with the original concept of the game. Babe Ruth being both a tremendous pitcher and tremendous hitter was not supposed to be a terribly unlikely event. The pitcher isn't supposed to have less power or hit for less average than anyone else. But because of the extreme specialization of the game, that's exactly what has happened. There are two responses to the issue. The AL admitted that something in the game had gone horribly awry and made an admittedly clumsy attempt to address it. The NL in contrast pretended that there was never a problem and that even if there was a problem it actually made the game better. But it doesn't. There is nothing interesting about incompetence.

The AL batting orders are closer to the spirit of the game, honestly.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:04 am

You start on shaky ground using Babe Ruth to illustrate your point. Ruth is the greatest player of all time and an exceptional case in every baseball sense. Pitchers of his era didn't hit like Ruth, hitters of his era didn't either.

The truth of the matter is that going back to the 19th century, most pitchers weren't very good with the bat. There were exceptions of course, Claude Hendrix, Joe Page, Don Newcombe, Warren Spahn, Fernando Valenzuela to name a few. He11, you can even add Rick Ankiel to the list.

Pitching and hitting a baseball at a professional level are two totally distinct and very unusual skills. It's always been rare for someone to do both well. Nothing went horribly awry, baseball has always been a game of specialized skills. The DH reflects this reality.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:42 am

seanmac31 wrote:I'm having fun with analogies, but they're really tangential to my main point. The main point is this- the game was not invented with the idea that one position on the field would yield batters that are radically inferior to every other position. All the so-called strategy that surrounds dealing with a near guaranteed out in the nine hole is stuff that has built up around an interpretation of the pitcher wildly at variance with the original concept of the game. Babe Ruth being both a tremendous pitcher and tremendous hitter was not supposed to be a terribly unlikely event. The pitcher isn't supposed to have less power or hit for less average than anyone else. But because of the extreme specialization of the game, that's exactly what has happened. There are two responses to the issue. The AL admitted that something in the game had gone horribly awry and made an admittedly clumsy attempt to address it. The NL in contrast pretended that there was never a problem and that even if there was a problem it actually made the game better. But it doesn't. There is nothing interesting about incompetence.

The AL batting orders are closer to the spirit of the game, honestly.

I think that sounds like a reasonable argument, but I wonder how accurate that is. Since you piqued my curiosity I took a look at some stats.

In 1880, 8 pitchers won 20 games--their batting averages for that season;
246 (This guy won 45 games this season!!!)
231
228
287
227
220
261
212

In 1901, of 9 pitchers who won 20 games, their respective batting averages, were;
170
172
170
230
216
097
215 (Christy Mathewson)
281 (Al Orth)
187

And the last guys to win 20 games in the National league, from 2002 to 2006 with their batting during their 20 win season;
135 (Randy Johnson)
174
257 (Russ Ortiz)
141
261 (Dontrelle Willis)
065 (Chris Carpenter-his 2nd season in the NL)
178

So given my quick and dirty, and undoubtedly flawed snapshot analysis, it seems pitcher's batting averages declined quite rapidly as the game came of age. Those 1880 numbers are certainly below league wide norms, but not shockingly low. By 1901 however, the best pitchers in the game were clearly dreadful hitters, and their numbers are not starkly different to the 21st century bunch.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:11 pm

So the pitchers has EVERY responsibility (and more) than any other position player...yet he doesn't have to hit? What the hell kind of logic is that? I don't care if they have gotten worse over the years when it comes to hitting, that's not the point. They have to field their position, they have to backup bases, they have to throw the ball...EVERYTHING. But not hitting. Yeah...makes a lot of sense. Just because pitchers decide they are going to practice pitching more than hitting doesn't excuse them. Plus, it makes pitchers that hit (Willis, Hampton, L. Hernandez) all the more valuable to a lineup.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:59 pm

Naples39 wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:I'm having fun with analogies, but they're really tangential to my main point. The main point is this- the game was not invented with the idea that one position on the field would yield batters that are radically inferior to every other position. All the so-called strategy that surrounds dealing with a near guaranteed out in the nine hole is stuff that has built up around an interpretation of the pitcher wildly at variance with the original concept of the game. Babe Ruth being both a tremendous pitcher and tremendous hitter was not supposed to be a terribly unlikely event. The pitcher isn't supposed to have less power or hit for less average than anyone else. But because of the extreme specialization of the game, that's exactly what has happened. There are two responses to the issue. The AL admitted that something in the game had gone horribly awry and made an admittedly clumsy attempt to address it. The NL in contrast pretended that there was never a problem and that even if there was a problem it actually made the game better. But it doesn't. There is nothing interesting about incompetence.

The AL batting orders are closer to the spirit of the game, honestly.
I think that sounds like a reasonable argument, but I wonder how accurate that is. Since you piqued my curiosity I took a look at some stats.

In 1880, 8 pitchers won 20 games--their batting averages for that season;
246 (This guy won 45 games this season!!!)
231
228
287
227
220
261
212

In 1901, of 9 pitchers who won 20 games, their respective batting averages, were;
170
172
170
230
216
097
215 (Christy Mathewson)
281 (Al Orth)
187

And the last guys to win 20 games in the National league, from 2002 to 2006 with their batting during their 20 win season;
135 (Randy Johnson)
174
257 (Russ Ortiz)
141
261 (Dontrelle Willis)
065 (Chris Carpenter-his 2nd season in the NL)
178

So given my quick and dirty, and undoubtedly flawed snapshot analysis, it seems pitcher's batting averages declined quite rapidly as the game came of age. Those 1880 numbers are certainly below league wide norms, but not shockingly low. By 1901 however, the best pitchers in the game were clearly dreadful hitters, and their numbers are not starkly different to the 21st century bunch.

That's how you go about examining an argument- good job. I'm surprised myself that their numbers declined quite so quickly. It is a very small sample, but it may be suggestive.

In any event, I'll stick by my main point that the game wasn't designed with the notion that one batter be really, really bad and that it would make for better strategy.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:37 pm

Growing up near Washington D.C., where we didn't have a team, I followed the Orioles as a youngster. I tended to think of the NL as the 'astroturf' league, since it seemed most teams in that league had round, antiseptic, multi-use stadiums with that horrid surface. I didn't like NL ball, and was used to AL ball which I enjoyed a lot.

Once I moved to NYC, I became a Mets fan. Nowadays, I much prefer NL ball, because of the DH. I hate the DH. I think it is absurd, intrusive, and essentially ruins the game because it has such a drastic effect on the shape of the lineup and the overall flow of the game. I realize that sounds extreme, and I am overstating it for effect. I can enjoy AL ball, but I just can't seem to grasp any reasoning that would excuse the permanence of this bizarre, poorly though-out experiment designed to increase offense. There is no logic to it- why not allow DHs for every field position? What about 2nd basemen, who are historically weak hitters? Or catchers, who are nearly as equally specialized and weak-hitting as pitchers?

I also happen to think they should raise the mound back to what it was for the first 100 years or so of baseball, so that's sort of where I am coming from. Maybe if the average baseball game took 2hrs to complete like it did until the 70s, I could have an easier time accepting the DH, but as it is, I tend to see AL games as bloated, overly long, and, frankly, boring. NL games require the manager to make many more decisions within a game than AL games, and there is almost nothing better to me in the game than when a pitcher 'helps himself' with a base hit of some kind.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:52 pm

seanmac31 wrote:In any event, I'll stick by my main point that the game wasn't designed with the notion that one batter be really, really bad and that it would make for better strategy.

There's nothing to indicate the originators of the game had your ideas in mind 140 years ago. If they had, it would have been very easy to institute a system where each player takes a turn pitching, like rotating service in volleyball.

They chose not to do this and went with specialization, which makes sense because the forbearers of baseball, cricket and rounders, both assign the role of bowler to a small set of players.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm

Zeppo wrote: I realize that sounds extreme, and I am overstating it for effect. I can enjoy AL ball, but I just can't seem to grasp any reasoning that would excuse the permanence of this bizarre, poorly though-out experiment designed to increase offense. There is no logic to it- why not allow DHs for every field position? What about 2nd basemen, who are historically weak hitters? Or catchers, who are nearly as equally specialized and weak-hitting as pitchers?

Objection: slippery slope

I also happen to think they should raise the mound back to what it was for the first 100 years or so of baseball, so that's sort of where I am coming from. Maybe if the average baseball game took 2hrs to complete like it did until the 70s, I could have an easier time accepting the DH, but as it is, I tend to see AL games as bloated, overly long, and, frankly, boring. NL games require the manager to make many more decisions within a game than AL games, and there is almost nothing better to me in the game than when a pitcher 'helps himself' with a base hit of some kind.

Removing a few television commercials would do more to speed up the game than an additional two inches of mound height.

I'm OK with the strategy argument to a point but I think "many more decisions within a game" goes beyond that point. AL ball still has lineup decisions, sacrifices, hit & runs, stolen bases, defensive substitutions, pinch hitters, etc. NL ball adds some obvious decisions to move the runner over and the double switch. I think we're talking about a couple of hundred decisions out of tens of thousands over the course of a season.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:17 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:
Zeppo wrote: I realize that sounds extreme, and I am overstating it for effect. I can enjoy AL ball, but I just can't seem to grasp any reasoning that would excuse the permanence of this bizarre, poorly though-out experiment designed to increase offense. There is no logic to it- why not allow DHs for every field position? What about 2nd basemen, who are historically weak hitters? Or catchers, who are nearly as equally specialized and weak-hitting as pitchers?
Objection: slippery slope

Exactly, and I'm glad you agree. Any argument to be made in favor of the DH does indeed lead to a slippery slope.

Television commercials in baseball are not jammed in; pitchers are allowed a certain number of warmup pitches between innings, or when they enter the game in the middle of an inning, and that is when the commercials are shown. It isn't like football or basketball, where there are specific time outs added solely for commercial breaks.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:32 pm

I still think one 30 sec TV spot could be taken out between innings, but you're right, the commercials don't intrude like in other US stick and ball sports.

The biggest causes of 3+ hour games are batters frequently stepping out and pitchers taking too long between pitches. These really can't be blamed on the DH or mound height.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:07 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:I still think one 30 sec TV spot could be taken out between innings, but you're right, the commercials don't intrude like in other US stick and ball sports.

The biggest causes of 3+ hour games are batters frequently stepping out and pitchers taking too long between pitches. These really can't be blamed on the DH or mound height.

Right, and I'm not blaming long games solely on the DH, but I'm pretty sure the average NL game is shorter than the average AL game, and so I think it follows that the DH does add time to the games. Plus, it stands to reason that adding that extra, quality hitter to the lineup would add time to the game overall.

But my main point is that lowering the mound and adding the DH rule were both intended as experiments to add offense to the game. I believe that the time when jury-rigging the rules in order to add offense to the game has long since passed, and thus I would argue that it's time to end those experiments. Other things like shortening the fences, the huge influx of foreign players, the magically shrinking strike zone, better strength and conditioning of the hitters and so on have added to offense to such a degree that we don't need to have these aberrative rule changes anymore. It's an experiment that should be ended, but like the '3 year experiment' that was interleague play, once it's in you can't get it out, so I thank the the curmudgeons of the NL who refused to try it way back when for standing firm.

I prefer NL ball, because of the DH.

I also think they should ban aluminum bats in college.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:35 pm

The early analogy comparing pitchers who don't hit to kickers might actually work better if you compared kickers to the DH who just comes to bat 4 times a game and doesn't field a position. It is a place to stick players who are too slow or old or not very good at fielding.

I grew up with the American league, but I don't like the DH so it is a wash.

However, in video games I like the DH simply because video games like MLB 2k still haven't figured how to program a game that doesn't have a pitcher hit and then replace them at the start of the next inning. And double switches seem rather complicated for game programmers as well.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:12 am

Zeppo wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote:I also think they should ban aluminum bats in college.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the trees

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:21 am

macsomjrr wrote:
Zeppo wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote:I also think they should ban aluminum bats in college.

How about banning them in little league also. I'm taking my son to his first little league this year and all I see is kids using metal bats. It's sort of heartbreaking. Kids are missing out hearing that special crack of the wooden bat. That strange PING sound is disturbing.

One coach told me that the metal bats in little league help the kids gain confidence when hitting the ball since it goes farther. Huh? Who cares about that, whatever happened to F-U-N in our sports anymore, especially youth sports. Seems like parents want their little leaguer's to already start hitting homeruns.

I tried to get my kid to use a wooden bat in his first little league games. He didnt and used metal but I can't blame him. All the other kids were using metal so he didn't want to feel left out.

I still to this day don't understand the big deal with metal bats.

K_Mosley · Post by **K_Mosley** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:55 am

One reason youth leagues use aluminum bats is cost. Wooden bats will break (we used to have to hold the bats with the trademark facing a certain way, to minimize the chance of breaking the bat), while aluminum bats will last virtually a lifetime.

I don't like it either, but most youth leagues don't have a big budget, or they rely on league fees to buy equipment, and raising the fees would eliminate some families' ability to participate.

Kevin

johnvon314 · Post by **johnvon314** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:04 am

Isn't there a strange rule for the DH where the pitcher would be forced to hit for himself if a certain type of double switch is done?

John

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:13 am

johnvon314 wrote:Isn't there a strangle rule for the DH where the pitcher would be forced to hit for himself it a certain type of double switch is done?

Apparently the possibility of losing the DH keeps Ron Gardenhire awake at night, because he kept Corky Miller on the roster for a couple months two years ago since Joe Mauer is often put at DH on his rest days.

Basically, the DH can be substituted for a player in the field (in the Twins case, Mauer would take over for an injured catcher) but the DH is then lost and the pitcher has to hit in the place of the player who gets replaced. I can't think of a time where I've seen this happen.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:54 pm

macsomjrr wrote:
Zeppo wrote:I also think they should ban aluminum bats in college.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the trees

Well, I didn't say I think they should mandate wood bats, just that they should ban aluminum. Also, I don't know much about the mining of aluminum, but I wonder how many trees are destroyed in that process with road building and such. Do they strip mine for aluminum? I have no clue about the health of the ashe population, but these days a lot of major leaguers use Canadian maple and other woods from these boutique, small-batch bat makers.

These days there are plenty of new possibilities for artificial bats that might be closer in performance to that of wood bats, and it seems to me it would just take some money into R&D to develop that next great thing. Also, I do think there is a movement afoot at some levels to try to mandate performance limits on aluminum bats to keep them closer to wood, driven primarily by safety concerns.

Cost is indeed the main attraction of aluminum, since it just doesn't break. But there just has to be some kind of newer material that would behave more like wood and still have the durability of aluminum.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:47 pm

How about we have a paradigm shift to plastic bats and wiffle balls. Talk about a knuckle curve then!

lexbur · Post by **lexbur** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:37 am

Dave wrote: Basically, the DH can be substituted for a player in the field (in the Twins case, Mauer would take over for an injured catcher) but the DH is then lost and the pitcher has to hit in the place of the player who gets replaced. I can't think of a time where I've seen this happen.

I remember this happening in a Tribe game. Manny Ramirez was penciled in as the DH, but, Manny being Manny, didn't check the lineup card and trotted out to right field in the top of the first inning. From that point on the Tribe lost their DH and the pitcher had to bat. It was bizarre. Here's a link to the boxscore:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-sco ... 9907220CLE

snaz16 · Post by **snaz16** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:28 pm

lexbur wrote:
Dave wrote: Basically, the DH can be substituted for a player in the field (in the Twins case, Mauer would take over for an injured catcher) but the DH is then lost and the pitcher has to hit in the place of the player who gets replaced. I can't think of a time where I've seen this happen.
I remember this happening in a Tribe game. Manny Ramirez was penciled in as the DH, but, Manny being Manny, didn't check the lineup card and trotted out to right field in the top of the first inning. From that point on the Tribe lost their DH and the pitcher had to bat. It was bizarre. Here's a link to the boxscore:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-sco ... 9907220CLE

Well, in Manny's defense, Alex Ramirez was penciled in right that day,and Manny,who played that position regularly back then probably didn't notice the A. on the lineup card. Hargrove or one of the coaches should have caught that.