Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!stevev
From: stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re:  DH
Message-ID: <366@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 13:45:18 EST
Article-I.D.: tekchips.366
Posted: Wed Nov 13 13:45:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 05:24:43 EST
References: <1367@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 70

> > Having the DH may marginally increase the challenge to a pitcher, but
> > it significantly DECREASES the challenge to a manager.  One of the beauties
> > of baseball is the tradeoffs that a Manager must in balancing players
> > strengths against their weaknesses.  Do I put in a poor fielder at
> > the expense of weakening my defense?  Do I make a defensive substitution
> > in the late innings?  Do I pinch-run for a slow player in a close game or
> > do I leave his bat in the lineup in case the game goes into extra innings?
> 
> Funny how all of the strategy questions you mentioned have little to do with
> the DH...

The mentioning of strategy questions having little to do with the DH was
INTENTIONAL.  The point that I was making was that having to make such
strategic decisions is "in the spirit of baseball".  Eliminating the DH
is consistent with this.  Having the DH is not.  If a player is a "complete"
player, (e.g., good hitting pitcher, switch hitter, good fielder, whatever),
it makes his manager's job that much easier.  If a player is not a complete
player, his manager must "manage around his weaknesses".  That's part of
baseball.

> The only diminished strategy is whether or not to pinch-hit for
> the pitcher late in the game.

Not quite.  If a team is in the field, and their pitcher is due to bat the
next inning, it may affect a manager's decision whether to replace the
pitcher--or whom to replace him with.  There's also the so-called
"two-for-one" swap, and likely other maneuvers (some not yet thought of,
now doubt).

> For that trade off, you end up with a game whose
> early innings aren't full of rallies that can't excite you, because you know 
> the pitcher is due up,

I thought that Ken Holzman's (sp?) batting heroics were one of the highlights
of the the 1974(?) World Series.

But I know what you mean about boring games without early-inning rallies.
One saw a game once where the pitcher had a no-hitter going into the
ninth inning.  It was so boring that nearly all the fans left the
ballpark. :-)

Interestingly enough, the game of cricket has a fair amount of similarity
to baseball; a "hit" is the norm, while an "out" is the exception (they
show the "outs" on the evening news).  The thing that makes hits and
runs more exciting in baseball than outs is that the outs happen more
frequently.

>  and you get more realistic strikeout totals for pitchers
> (instead of the near automatic 2 to 4 strikeouts that NL pitchers get per game).

What is "realistic"? how a pitcher would do against an "average" hitter?
I consider pitchers to be hitters, so an "average" lineup would have
the a pitcher coming to bat every nine times or so.  DH's are generally
quite a bit better than an "average" hitter.

Let a pitcher be a complete player.  The manager must balance a
pitcher's contribution to the team *pitching* against his contribution
to the team (or lack thereof) *hitting* (and fielding).

> Most teams have other weaknesses in the lineup. The manager should still be
> pinch-hitting and maneuvering for those...

While this is certainly true (being a SF fan, I should know), my experience
is that those involving pitchers batting have a more profound effect on the
outcome of the game than the sum-total of the others mentioned above.

		Steve Vegdahl
		Computer Research Lab.
		Tektronix, Inc.
		Beaverton, Oregon