Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: the DH Message-ID: <613@fisher.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-May-85 09:04:01 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.613 Posted: Fri May 10 09:04:01 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 02:41:07 EDT References: <2035@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics Lines: 175 >>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........................................... > 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. ........... > ............................ As an aside, it should be noted that > the reasons for keeping it are not the same ones it was instituted for. First, as the burden of proof was not satisfied thirteen years ago, we are still waiting. Second, as the reason for adopting it given thirteen years ago has been disproven by AL experience, I'd be interested to hear what the reasons for keeping it are. >> (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. Your reasoning is defeated by the "caboose" paradox -- no matter how many cars you remove from the end of the train, there is always a last car. Now that pitchers are no longer an offensive "burden" in the AL, it can certainly be said of shortstops (with apologies to Baltimore and Detroit) that "no other position has proven itself such a liability, ignoring the rare good-hitting shortstop, but we have seen worse injustices in the game..." >> (2) How much free substitution is enough? Too much? > ................................... No one is proposing free > substitution beyond the DH. It is not my contention that it has been proposed. It is my contention that if the DH is justified, the same reasoning would justify free substitution, and if the latter is undesirable, that is a powerful indictment of the reasoning which brought us 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? .......................................... > 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. .......................... > ....................... I contend that the plastic pinball-machines > have altered the basic play of the game more so than the DH. ........ Don't you also enjoy seeing Henry Cotto running rather than Butch Wynegar? Wouldn't you rather see Kiko Garcia field instead of Juan Samuel? Isn't it more exciting to watch Reggie Jackson swing instead of Dick Schofield (incidentally, I'll state now that Gooden takes better cuts than Schofield...)? Don't you believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc., etc.? >> (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. I didn't say that AL fans (or, more accurately, DH fans) were simpletons (and I apologize for the admittedly purple prose). I just feel that haven't examined their reasoning on the matter with a sufficiently critical eye. Even the most intelligent, discriminating fan may fail to apply that sophistication fully. Economic reason?!? I haven't noticed the AL raking in the dough while the NL starves...please explain. > Today I am, along with many others accustomed to the DH and I > appreciate the benefits it offers. .................................... > ........................................... 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. I do not wish to compel DH fans to be shamed into dropping the DH; I was hoping to persuade them. > 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. The fair claim: the only reason produced by pro-DHers is increased offensive production (as marginal as it is). The fair question: how do pro-DHers decide what is enough offense? >>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. Wish that politics was as logical as you suggest... (:-)). Seriously, if you're going to evade the point on ground that it is too logical, your argument boils down to "it's a matter of taste." And if that's to be the ultimate arbiter, then I guess I can't deny you that. Of course, it would make for an all-too-quiet net, too. There are gray areas -- but they are logically untenable. >>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 The era of the slow fielder with the big bat has come and gone before (notably in the "dead" ball era, which favored much the same skills that astroturf does today; before Ruth and the "live" ball, power was unfashionable). However, your prediction of the end of the slow fielder with the big bat is, in my view, grossly premature. He just won't play center field or second base, positions that once were occasionally occupied by such players. If you feel the need to protect an "endangered" species, why not do it by altering the environment (context), since that is the offending porperty, instead of altering the rules of the game (text)? Finally, the DH has changed the game greatly with respect to the batter and the fielders (if it didn't, there'd be no reason to have it, would there?). Starters will pitch longer (Who needs to take out their starter in the seventh inning when down 2-0 if you have a DH? What effect will this have on their careers?). Hitters will play more (as a DH can bat more than once without proving a liability in the field). Make no mistake: the DH rule favors some kinds of players (generally older ones with limited skills) and thus keeps those that would replace them (younger, with more balanced abilities) out of the majors. I happen to think that isn't necessarily a good idea; for every old favorite who's preserved, a new favorite is delayed on the trip up. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david "When was the last time YOU saw a double substitution in an AL game?"