Pages

February 11, 2022

The Universal DH Is Here

MLB and the Players Union have apparently agreed on the use of a Designated Hitter for both leagues, beginning in 2022.

And with that, I am pushed another step further away from a sport I have loved watching, reading about, researching and writing about for more than 45 years.

(But now that a real hitter will bat instead of pitchers who simply take three strikes and sit down, won't games drag on for even longer now?)

Not that anyone is asking, but my choice would be for no DH anywhere. I assume I'm in the minority on that point. Yes, yes, pitchers are more or less automatic outs (they batted .110/.150/.142 in 2021) and the idea of having another hitter bat for the pitcher (or having lineups of only eight men) is not new; it was bandied about as far back as 1891. I don't fucking care.

The necessity of having a pitcher throw four intentional balls should be part of the game for many reasons, one of which is the rare occurrence of when one of those soft tosses pitches sails to the backstop or gets smacked for a hit to the opposite field. Pitchers not named Shohei Ohtani collected 92 extra-base hits last season. Besides, the rules (both old and current versions) state that a game features two teams of nine players. A DH makes that 10 players per side.

Craig Calcaterra notes (in addition to logging Rob Manfred's numerous bald-faced lies in the past day or so) that the "Both sides wanted a DH" explanation being touted by writers like Buster Olney

is misleading to the point of abject disingenuousness. It was a case of the owners wanting to take the single most valuable bargaining chip away from the players [a multi-billion dollar concession of expanded playoffs] — one that they were clearly planning to use as a means of getting substantive concessions from the owners on other, far more important matters — in exchange for something that, while possibly desirable, was relatively worthless.

That's a statement of fact many people are making in reply to Olney's tweet. And Olney must know this, of course, because he is not a moron. So you have to ask yourself (as you have to do when seasoned journalists who have covered national politics for decades make disingenuous statements about either political party), why is he choosing to misinterpret the facts in that particular way? What is the reason? Because if the writer knows better, there must be a reason.

Manfred said the possibility of missing regular-season games (because of his decision to lock out the players) would be "a disastrous outcome". How many writers will point out that it was MLB's choice to lockout the players. It did not have to. MLB could have held the exact same bargaining sessions with the Players Union without instituting a lockout — and without putting the scheduled start of spring training and the regular season in jeopardy. All of the blame for any postponed games will rest on Manfred's weak shoulders.

In yet another Manfred-Trump comparison, one would think someone who lies constantly would eventually get good at it. But it turns out, when it comes to those two asshats, that is not the case.

5 comments:

  1. Say it louder.

    https://youtu.be/dW0vtST5BB0

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with you in the old school. David Ortiz to the contrary notwithstanding...no DH, no automatic BB. No seven inning double-headers. And no extra-inning runner at second, god no.

    But I'm no Luddite! Joe West et al. have brought me around completely on the need for a robot ump behind the plate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Honestly, not seeing pitchers in the nine spot is fine by me. I understand that there are many like yourself, Allan, that prefer to see Chris Sale take his hacks, and managers still have the choice to allow their pitchers to swing some lumber (see: Shohei Ohtani), but I'm all in favor of the universal DH.

    Meanwhile, yes, Manfred and the owners are tone deaf. Believing that the players, who are not on strike but have been LOCKED OUT, are the ones being difficult is laughable at best.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For my money, the best element of the Old School NL Rules is the Strategy - the Manager plays a much greater role in the Game & circumstances & fate often dictates what to do next !

    But we see Managers "gamble" on Pitchers batting or Pinch Hitters & that can often change the momentum of a Game.

    Not everyone wants to see "better hitting" ..... some like Better Pitching & more interesting decisions & drama.

    Re Extra Innings - I have long thought a Logical Conclusion is to play 10-11-12 & that's it.

    If it's a Tie, then it's a Tie

    Most other Sports have Draws

    It would only apply in the Regular Season & prevent 14-16-18 innings BullPen Busters that often end up penalising Both Teams - Logic says most Clubs would only have 2-3-4 Ties in a Season anyway & they would be, quite literally, a "tiebreaker" !!!!!!

    Look at this way - how many Fans ( like us lot ) saw every Pitch of the 7.20 Epic in 2018 & THAT was Game 3 of the World Series !!!

    In the PostSeason it is fair enough - but in the Regular Season most of the Crowd have long gone home by the end - at least having an "end point" might change that ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. ... and now MLB has announced that spring training is officially delayed. No kidding. I guess the owners really want to see baseball return to the state in which it was at the start of the 1995 season. Morons...

    Re Extra Innings - I have long thought a Logical Conclusion is to play 10-11-12 & that's it.

    If it's a Tie, then it's a Tie


    I'm actually okay with this idea, in part because the number of games that go past 12 innings is rare (I believe Allan did an analysis to show this when MLB decided to start doing the "runner at second" extra-inning bullshit). Ties happened frequently in the early part of the 20th century, often because it would get dark before the game could be completed. Of course, this was when games would average two hours versus three-plus.

    ReplyDelete