Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider From: schneider@vlnvax.DEC Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: the DH Message-ID: <2035@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-May-85 15:43:16 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.2035 Posted: Mon May 6 15:43:16 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 00:52:06 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 110 > >Tsk, tsk. DH-proponents ask the wrong question. The proper question >is "what does the DH add to the game?"; the burden of proof rests upon >the proponents of change. Moreover, all responses to my anti-DHism >ignore my most salient points, probably because they are not >answerable: As the DH is entering its thirteenth year, I would think those who wish to remove it from the game to be the proponents of change. Nevertheless I will attempt to respond to these so-called salient points. I am not a large fan of the DH, yet there seems to be a better reason for keeping it than removing it. As an aside, it should be noted that the reasons for keeping it are not the same ones it was instituted for. > (1) Why are we so hung up on the pitcher? What of other weak > hitters? There exists no other position which has proven itself to be altogether a liability to the team. Admittedly this ignores the rare good-hitting pitcher, but worse injustices have occurred in the game. > (2) How much free substitution is enough? Too much? This is an irrelevant point, not a salient one. I expect arguments like this in politics, not baseball. No one is proposing free substitution beyond the DH. > (3) Does the extra hit (that's the average offensive > difference between an AL game and an NL game) provide so > much of a thrill that it warrants radical surgery on the > game? Are all thrills offensive? Are no thrills > strategic? I'll repeat what I have previously posted. I enjoy seeing Don Baylor take his cuts much more than Dwight Gooden. I prefer to see a pitcher challanged than conceded to. Strategic thrills DO exist, but having a pitcher attempt to bunt rather than strike out is no sacrifice. Asking Mike Easler to bunt and SACRIFICE his chance at hitting the ball over the Green Monster is true strategy. Lastly, the use of the term "radical surgery" has unfair conotations and is ENTIRELY subjective. I contend that the plastic pinball-machines have altered the basic play of the game more so than the DH. If called upon to discuss this though, I won't find it necessary to use invective. > (4) Anti-DH'ers list all sorts of reason for opposition: > tradition, ineffectiveness of the DH, horror at free > substitution, repulsion at players permitted to remain in > a game without being called upon to display more than one > skill, distortion of careers and player evaluations, etc. > Pro-Dh'ers have only one reason: offense gives 'em a rush. > Where do you pro-DH'ers draw the line, and why? American League fans are NOT simpletons who solely appreciate the home runs and entirely miss the subtleties of the game!!!! There was a salient economic reason for instituting the DH, and it worked. Today I am, along with many others accustomed to the DH and I appreciate the benefits it offers. There exists NO strategic differences caused by the DH between the leagues that cannot be explained by the fact that pitchers are notoriously weak hitters. Face it, with a pitcher every time they are at bat it is a sacrifice, yet I see no reason if the NL fans are happy with it, to force or shame them into changing. Anti-DH, proponents of change should adopt the same attitude. Additionally, salient point number 4 above is loaded with unsubstantiated claims. I will reserve comment on them until they can be fairly addressed when they are fairly stated. >Summary: why limit the logic favoring the DH to one position? If the >logic is flawed, ban the DH; if the logic is true, expand it to more >(even nine) positions. If you don't like the idea of separate >offensive and defensive units, you are not yet at peace with the logic >of the DH. Again this argument is usually reserved for politics, not baseball. It is obvious that there are grey areas between the two extremes. Don't attempt to force your own logic down my throat because my position is not at either end of the spectrum. I hope the above argument of extremism can be considered moot. >Lowering the mound is of the same order of magnitude as switching from >a "live" ball to a "dead" ball or requiring some uniformity of fence >distances or adjusting the batter's box: rules which change the >balance of the game without changing the game itself. The DH, on the >other hand, represents radical surgery. If you pro-DH'ers are >indifferent as to whether changes are textual or contextual, why not >make us obstinate purists happier by lowering the mound again, if it's >offense you want, and banning the DH? At least then NL and AL >baseball would be the same game under similar circumstances rather >than similar games under the same circumstances. > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david Again I believe this is a wholey subjective argument being presented as fact. I will repeat my contention that artificial turf did more to change the game. The era of the slow outfielder with the big bat is over, and maybe the DH was the necessary move to preserve this sort of player. Baseball, it has been argued, is popular because the average man (no chauvinism intended) can play. You don't have to be exceptionally tall, strong or swift as in other sports. The DH does nothing to disturb this critical balance. Astro-turf certainly did. Under the DH nothing has changed with regard to the pitcher, the batter and the fielders. The two leagues still play the same game. The alleged purists should learn to appreciate it. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider On the field there are arguments; off it only discussion.