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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider
From: schneider@vlnvax.DEC
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The DH
Message-ID: <2204@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 17:45:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2204
Posted: Wed May 15 17:45:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 03:57:38 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 276


<>>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.

To see what the DH adds to the game see my previous discussions below.
As to this proof which has been burdening me since I was eleven, I'm not 
sure what is being requested here.  Perhaps it will suffice to reply to the 
second statement: major league baseball is a spectator sport, and the
AL's spectators' numbers were declining.  This is why the DH was instituted.
It WAS successful for this very reason.  I'm not sure if the fans would 
leave the parks if the DH was eliminated, but at this point it is irrelevant.
The burden of listing reasons for its elimination is on (a collective)
your shoulders.

<>>	(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..."

Its an interesting paradox, but one usually (when its correctly used)
reserved for "connected" trains.  To approach this statistically let's
think about the number of standard deviations the pitcher's BA is from 
rest of the league, then the shortstop's, etc., etc.  The "caboose"
paradox is irrelevant when the problem is looked upon by an unbiased eye.

<>>	(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.

My original, edited point was that the question was irrelevant.
To argue the logic of it is not to debate the future of the DH.
Your logic is flawless, but my point is that baseball is much more
than the black and white which your argument paints it, and for
that we are all grateful.

<>>	(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.?

The issue of free-substitution is irrelevant.  Let's move on to more
interesting issues.  For instance when I first began following baseball
Roy White was my favorite player.  One year he hit .270 and I calculated
that it only required one hit more about every three weeks for him to
be a .300 hitter.  One hit a game difference?  Do you see what a HUGE
variance the pitcher represents to other batters?  I'll repeat it because
I like the sound of it: Every time the pitcher bats it is a sacrifice.

<>>	(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.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that we haven't examined
the reasoning with YOUR sufficiently critical eye (:-).  What we are
really talking about here is a difference of opinion, NOT of appreciation,
purity, intelligence, sophistication, or application of any or all.

<Economic reason?!?  I haven't noticed the AL raking in the dough while
<the NL starves...please explain.

Attendence in the AL was falling relative to the NL before the institution
of the DH.  It immediately picked up following this to be on par with
that of the NL and has sinced passed the NL's attendence (mostly due
to expansion at this point).  Is this the "proof" which has been
long burdening me that you asked for earlier?

<> 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.

You should try some "salient" arguments (:-).  Alas I can think of a
decent one that has been largely ignored.  Its probably because it
has to do with the play of the game, a largely ignored issue.  I see
no reason for myself to add fuel to your fire though...

<> 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?

Rebuttal to "The fair claim": How about greater competition between the
batter and the pitcher?  With the DH we see two athletes working harder
than we would otherwise.  This is what we pay for.  How about the
chance to see Hank Aaron return to Milwaukee, Al Kaline to strut
his stuff for another year?  How about AL fans finally getting to see
players like Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart?  How about
getting the chance to see what Dave Kingman CAN do?  How about
getting to see an injured player perform in a limited role, rather
than not at all unless he pinch-hits?

Answer to "The fair question":  NO one decides what is enough offense,
or what is too little, even anti-DHers.  But for some reason or other
competition has always been a valuable commodity, and I as others do
enjoy more, not less of it.

<>>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.

Please, I am not for an "all-too-quiet net".  I have admitted that
when the DH issue is subjected to logic such as yours and then extrapolated,
this approach is flawless.  My point, and I hope this time it is taken, is
that it is irrelevant.  Thankfully competition, baseball, all of sports
and life do not operate at the extremes but rather in the grey area in-
between.  If it helps, I agree to accept all those people subject to the
anxiety of this flaw in the DH logic and spend 10 sleepless minutes
tonight.  Then perhaps we can put this argument to rest.

<>>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

<> 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

<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.

Your use of the dead-ball era is remote and incorrect.  I'll go into it
upon request.  You seem to be taking the position here that phony-turf
has not altered the game "that" much, but I think you'll find
yourself in a TINY minority.  Find out what the ballplayers themselves
have to say about it if you need convincing.  I hypothesized that
the DH preserved some careers which would have come to a premature
end by a truly drastic change.

<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)?

The statement that the DH alters the text of the game is not evidence.
The DH was not instituted to protect anyone, but for reasons of
seemingly "waning interest" (not from me).  Even if it were possible
to show that the DH changes the text and the turf the context, I'm
not sure it is at all relevant.  Isolation makes one no better or
worse than the other.

<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?"

I'm not sure what I should rebut, the specifics of your argument or its
direction.  The fundamental actions of baseball are: the pitcher
pitches the ball, the batter bats it, the fielders field it.  The
fundamentals are the same whether the batter is a DH or a pitcher.  As
for the specifics, the use of random occurences is convenient, but entirely 
unconvincing.  I could just as easily choose the opposite ones.  We have 
not compiled the necessary statistics to see what the long range effects 
have been, or at least they have not been presented.  As for changing the
composition of the rosters, again there is no evidence, only conjecture.
My guess is that the DH is more likely keeping the marginal to lessor
major leaguer in the minors, rather than the up-and-coming star.  It
may have succeeded in keeping intact the talent from the dilution that
expansion has caused.  Unfortunately, analysis of the rosters would
be fruitless because of the damage caused by free agency.

		Daniel Schneider
		{decvax}decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider