Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Give Me More Of The Designated Hitter
When I think of baseball, I think of green grass, the smell of pine tar and the roar of the crowd when the home team brings another run across the plate.
But one stain has long tarnished the validity of the sport: the designated hitter.
Now, it's not the presence of the DH that bothers me, but rather the fact that it is only used in half of the league. The American League is known for being superior in most key offensive categories, and also carries a reputation for being especially difficult on pitchers. The National League, however...well, not so much.
And all that does for the sport is create a lopsided league in which one half is different in key areas and makes for sometimes absurd matchups. This was especially evident in the years before regular-season interleague play, when the only opportunity to play the other league came in the World Series. Each game was different from the last, depending solely on where the game was played.
I know some people like to think this makes MLB more charming, or something like that. But if you look at every other sport, it would be ridiculous to implement a key change to one half of the league, but leave the other half as it is. As if the NBA would approve 11-foot high rims in only the Western Conference, or if the NFL allowed teams in the NFC to use two forward passes per play instead of just one. It would just make the league look amateurish and gimmicky, like Minor League Baseball or the Arena Football League.
I also know that there has been a movement to remove the DH from baseball altogether -- as if to hearken back the "good old days" of the sport's early history.
But if we're honest with ourselves, we have to look at all the other advancements the game has made -- for the good of the game and its fans -- and seriously consider the full implementation of the DH. The original intent of the designated hitter rule was to make the game more exciting, and it has done that. Players like David Ortiz, Mike Piazza, Frank Thomas, Eddie Murray, and the immortal Dave Kingman would not have made much of an impact in the field, especially late in their careers, but have become potential Hall Of Famers because they can hit the ball better than most of us could ever dream.
What it boils down to is this -- with ticket prices escalating every year, and with the overall quality of play diminishing as young ballplayers find other sports (mostly football) to meet their competitive needs, who wants to waste time and money to see Justin Germano wave at three pitches when a perfectly decent hitter is sitting on the bench?
Using the DH in both the AL and the NL would start out a little roughly, I have to admit, because the NL teams aren't built to have a DH. But within a few years, the free agent market would move players around, and good hitters on minor league teams would find ways to break into the majors and have a chance to become game-breaking superstars. I know, this would be awful compared to sitting through another David Wells at-bat. That's history-making stuff right there.
As long as we're all being honest with ourselves, we can admit that the only reason we don't have the DH in both leagues is because we just don't want to change something for which we have warm, fuzzy, nostalgic feelings. But every phase of baseball now uses the DH, from Little League to the minor leagues, but somehow pitchers in the National League are expected to somehow become Major League hitters, while their AL counterparts are allowed to focus on their actual job, which is pitching. It would be like asking half of the workers on an assembly line to also do the financial paperwork in addition to their fabrication, but without any good reason and no extra pay. Nobody would sign up for that.
So let's end the travesty of a single-league designated hitter and put a rest to all this nonsense about the purity and integrity of the game.
Because somewhere out there, the next Dave Kingman is only one free roster spot away from making history.
-- -- --
We had some responses to last week's column about NASCAR and how it is clearly the most entertaining sport on the market.
Shockingly, there was some disagreement about the accuracy of my thesis, leading to some interesting points raised.
The best of which came from a David Baker of Escondido, who wrote the following:
"NASCAR is on the rise, we agree on that. Some of it is even interesting… ok, well, pretty much just the crashes. I can agree the NBA and NHL are on the downslide, so I won’t even defend them, but to suggest that NASCAR has usurped football as the most entertaining sport, or even baseball, America’s pastime, is completely absurd. There are four aspects of NASCAR that will perpetually deny it from being the most entertaining sport:
"1. Though there are “teams” in NASCAR, the team aspect is lost and meaningless as they don’t win and lose as a team. It is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. America loves the synergy felt through our televisions as a sprawled out shortstop shovels the ball to the second baseman that turns the double play, or as a quarterback threads a pass through two defenders to a diving wide receiver for a touchdown. It’s the connection between two players amidst chaos that we love.
"2. Fans like a visual connection with the players, which is lost under the helmet, and roof of a car. We want to passion in the quarterback’s eye, and fear in the pitcher’s expression.
"3. We, as fans, want to see physicality in our sports. You can argue all you like about how NASCAR drivers lose 10 lbs in a race, but we could care less about a chubby guy sweating in a hot can. We want to see bone crushing collisions between a receiver crossing the middle of the field, or a player lowering his shoulder into a catcher for a play at the plate.
"4. Finally, we love our team sports because of the connection to a city. That aspect brings a city together. There is nothing more amazing than an entire stadium cheering against the Raiders."
I can agree with a lot of this, but if this is all true (especially point No. 3), then we have a lot of problems in our society that probably should be addressed if we don't want to end up like the ancient Romans. Besides, the physicality of NASCAR is shown when you see a driver fighting the steering wheel when his car gets loose, or when somebody like Jimmy Spencer gets in a confrontation with somebody like a young Kurt Busch, and somebody ends up with a bloody nose.
At the end of the day, a sport is only as entertaining as the fans want to make it, and if people can find a way to overcome their misconceptions about NASCAR, I would bet that they would find it to be a wonderful experience.
-- -- --
Thanks for writing in, though, and be sure to check out the other responses on the blog page at www.valleycenter.com (click on the "RR Blogs" link) and perhaps make a comment yourself. You can also send your comments to me directly by e-mail at sports@valleycenter.com. I would love to hear your thoughts on topics we've already discussed, or suggestions for future discussion, or whatever you'd like to say.
I just hope you use the same rules of grammar for both halves of your submission. We wouldn't want to have any language "purists" banging on our door about the improper use of the Queen's English (which includes words like "humour" and "behaviour") that somehow ruins the experience of reading.
But one stain has long tarnished the validity of the sport: the designated hitter.
Now, it's not the presence of the DH that bothers me, but rather the fact that it is only used in half of the league. The American League is known for being superior in most key offensive categories, and also carries a reputation for being especially difficult on pitchers. The National League, however...well, not so much.
And all that does for the sport is create a lopsided league in which one half is different in key areas and makes for sometimes absurd matchups. This was especially evident in the years before regular-season interleague play, when the only opportunity to play the other league came in the World Series. Each game was different from the last, depending solely on where the game was played.
I know some people like to think this makes MLB more charming, or something like that. But if you look at every other sport, it would be ridiculous to implement a key change to one half of the league, but leave the other half as it is. As if the NBA would approve 11-foot high rims in only the Western Conference, or if the NFL allowed teams in the NFC to use two forward passes per play instead of just one. It would just make the league look amateurish and gimmicky, like Minor League Baseball or the Arena Football League.
I also know that there has been a movement to remove the DH from baseball altogether -- as if to hearken back the "good old days" of the sport's early history.
But if we're honest with ourselves, we have to look at all the other advancements the game has made -- for the good of the game and its fans -- and seriously consider the full implementation of the DH. The original intent of the designated hitter rule was to make the game more exciting, and it has done that. Players like David Ortiz, Mike Piazza, Frank Thomas, Eddie Murray, and the immortal Dave Kingman would not have made much of an impact in the field, especially late in their careers, but have become potential Hall Of Famers because they can hit the ball better than most of us could ever dream.
What it boils down to is this -- with ticket prices escalating every year, and with the overall quality of play diminishing as young ballplayers find other sports (mostly football) to meet their competitive needs, who wants to waste time and money to see Justin Germano wave at three pitches when a perfectly decent hitter is sitting on the bench?
Using the DH in both the AL and the NL would start out a little roughly, I have to admit, because the NL teams aren't built to have a DH. But within a few years, the free agent market would move players around, and good hitters on minor league teams would find ways to break into the majors and have a chance to become game-breaking superstars. I know, this would be awful compared to sitting through another David Wells at-bat. That's history-making stuff right there.
As long as we're all being honest with ourselves, we can admit that the only reason we don't have the DH in both leagues is because we just don't want to change something for which we have warm, fuzzy, nostalgic feelings. But every phase of baseball now uses the DH, from Little League to the minor leagues, but somehow pitchers in the National League are expected to somehow become Major League hitters, while their AL counterparts are allowed to focus on their actual job, which is pitching. It would be like asking half of the workers on an assembly line to also do the financial paperwork in addition to their fabrication, but without any good reason and no extra pay. Nobody would sign up for that.
So let's end the travesty of a single-league designated hitter and put a rest to all this nonsense about the purity and integrity of the game.
Because somewhere out there, the next Dave Kingman is only one free roster spot away from making history.
-- -- --
We had some responses to last week's column about NASCAR and how it is clearly the most entertaining sport on the market.
Shockingly, there was some disagreement about the accuracy of my thesis, leading to some interesting points raised.
The best of which came from a David Baker of Escondido, who wrote the following:
"NASCAR is on the rise, we agree on that. Some of it is even interesting… ok, well, pretty much just the crashes. I can agree the NBA and NHL are on the downslide, so I won’t even defend them, but to suggest that NASCAR has usurped football as the most entertaining sport, or even baseball, America’s pastime, is completely absurd. There are four aspects of NASCAR that will perpetually deny it from being the most entertaining sport:
"1. Though there are “teams” in NASCAR, the team aspect is lost and meaningless as they don’t win and lose as a team. It is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. America loves the synergy felt through our televisions as a sprawled out shortstop shovels the ball to the second baseman that turns the double play, or as a quarterback threads a pass through two defenders to a diving wide receiver for a touchdown. It’s the connection between two players amidst chaos that we love.
"2. Fans like a visual connection with the players, which is lost under the helmet, and roof of a car. We want to passion in the quarterback’s eye, and fear in the pitcher’s expression.
"3. We, as fans, want to see physicality in our sports. You can argue all you like about how NASCAR drivers lose 10 lbs in a race, but we could care less about a chubby guy sweating in a hot can. We want to see bone crushing collisions between a receiver crossing the middle of the field, or a player lowering his shoulder into a catcher for a play at the plate.
"4. Finally, we love our team sports because of the connection to a city. That aspect brings a city together. There is nothing more amazing than an entire stadium cheering against the Raiders."
I can agree with a lot of this, but if this is all true (especially point No. 3), then we have a lot of problems in our society that probably should be addressed if we don't want to end up like the ancient Romans. Besides, the physicality of NASCAR is shown when you see a driver fighting the steering wheel when his car gets loose, or when somebody like Jimmy Spencer gets in a confrontation with somebody like a young Kurt Busch, and somebody ends up with a bloody nose.
At the end of the day, a sport is only as entertaining as the fans want to make it, and if people can find a way to overcome their misconceptions about NASCAR, I would bet that they would find it to be a wonderful experience.
-- -- --
Thanks for writing in, though, and be sure to check out the other responses on the blog page at www.valleycenter.com (click on the "RR Blogs" link) and perhaps make a comment yourself. You can also send your comments to me directly by e-mail at sports@valleycenter.com. I would love to hear your thoughts on topics we've already discussed, or suggestions for future discussion, or whatever you'd like to say.
I just hope you use the same rules of grammar for both halves of your submission. We wouldn't want to have any language "purists" banging on our door about the improper use of the Queen's English (which includes words like "humour" and "behaviour") that somehow ruins the experience of reading.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]