Don't you think it's time for the National League to adopt the designated hitter

1. 78

   billd01603posted 10 years ago

   Don't you think it's time for the National League to adopt the designated hitter?

   replyreport
2. 53

   mfb711posted 10 years ago

   Sure it is, and it was time for the NL to do this a long time ago. Since 1973, when the DH came into existence and only the AL adopted it, the two leagues have been playing by two different sets of rules -- really, two different ways to play the game.
   
   The AL plays a 10-man game, the NL plays with 9 at a time because the pitcher still bats. For me, the most persuasive reason that the DH rule should be used in the NL is that there are few things more boring and pre-determined than watching a pitcher try to hit. With very few exceptions, pitchers are an automatic out. Their typical contribution is to try to sacrifice-bunt a runner on first to second base. Drama? Uncertainty? It's like watching dry paint!
   
   The DH admits this reality and uses the pitcher's spot in the batting order to try to create more runs, more offense. That's been OK with me for 40 years.
   
   I believe that when the current commissioner retires after 2014, we might see the rules change, extending the DH rule to the National League.

   replyreport
3. 95

   lions44posted 10 years ago

   Absolutely not.  I'm a bit of a traditionalist and I just like having the differences between the two leagues.  Having grown up in NY, I got to see both leagues night after night (full disclosure, I'm a Yankee fan).  The National League game was always more interesting: the double switch, bunting to move runners over, and more stolen bases.  I know mfb disagrees strongly.
   The way they treat pitchers today it's pretty obvious that most owners would like to have the DH to protect their investments. But I'd rather see the rosters expanded to carry 30 players (carry 3 more pitchers) and treat them like everyday players.   Baseball is struggling with ratings and I know something has to be done. So the DH in the NL is inevitable.  I'll go down swinging though....(bad pun, I know). Great question!

   replyreport
   1. 53

      mfb711posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In answer to Lions, I'm not so committed to my own point of view that I'm unable to see a different way of thinking. I believe that either both leagues should have the DH or neither league should have it.  Two different styles of baseball? Not for me

      replyreport
4. 88

   William15posted 10 years ago

   I'm an AL-man, but I appreciate the strategy involved in the NL without the DH. I like that interesting wrinkle in the World Series and I think it honestly changes things. There used to be such a unique identity to each league. I really think the MLB should preserve that.

   replyreport
5. 59

   Patrick Howesposted 9 years ago

   I dislike the designated hitter, the strategy of the NL style of ball is unmatched in the AL. I understand that it keeps more players employed, such as older players not being able to play the field as often, but it's not the way the game should be played. Fans will miss out watching some of the really good hitting pitchers if the DH is spread throughout both leagues. I'm in favor of taking out the designated hitter entirely. The DH was started only to be an experiment and I think that experiment has run it's course.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      lions44posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thx Mr. Howes.  As much as I'd like to see it go away, with the falling power #s in MLB, they will get desperate and adopt it in the NL.

      replyreport