04/24/24
June 26, 2012
The Atlantic calls for the NL to go DH: With the move of the Houston Astros from the National League to the American League (which puts an odd number of teams in each league), Major League Baseball will more or less be forced to spread interleague play throughout the season. Jake Simpson of The Atlantic says that this should give MLB the chance to finally give up on having each league play with different rules -- specifically, the designated hitter. The disparity is simply too much to spread over the course of a whole season, Simpson says.
This guy's a jackass. Never does it occur to him that consistency could come about by eliminating the DH in the American League, or if it does, he dismisses it with a bullshit jingoistic reason ("chicks dig the longball"). To call this article simplistic, superficial, and uninformed would be a compliment. Or did I miss something about the extension of Vlad Guerrero's career somewhere? And is Jeter really likely to be a prized DH before he hangs up his cleats?
Personally, I think the difference in the leagues is kind of fun, and the home park-based rule for interleague games is as effective as it needs to be. And I''m not saying that valid arguments for league-wide adoption of the DH can't be made. This donkey just ain't making them.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:47 PM on June 26, 2012
The DH is not going away as the union would never let it (as it would eliminate a job opportunity for a number of their members). So if there is a standardization at some point (which I hope never happens), I would guess it would be in the direction the author here proposes.
posted by holden at 07:03 PM on June 26, 2012
I treasure the years I got to watch the AL play without the DH.
posted by beaverboard at 07:40 PM on June 26, 2012
The DH is not going away as the union would never let it (as it would eliminate a job opportunity for a number of their members).
In one sentence, you provided more insight than the author.
posted by tahoemoj at 07:46 PM on June 26, 2012
If I'm an NL manager and I know a significantly larger number of my games are going to be played under AL rules, I'm going to make sure I have a player or two who can act as an effective DH when the time comes. Probably use them as much as possible as a pinch hitter at least once per game or two when they're not DHing.
If I'm an AL manager in the opposite situation, I'm going to try and make sure my pitchers get a little more batting practice in. And I'm going to make David Ortiz shag a few more grounders.
I mean, among other things in both cases obviously.
This is something that can be strategically addressed team by team without changing the rules of the game.
posted by Joey Michaels at 08:11 PM on June 26, 2012
Looking at my previous comments, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to harsh on etrigan's post. Just the author of that post!
posted by tahoemoj at 08:11 PM on June 26, 2012
I took no offense, tahoemoj. I think the guy is a jackass and lacking in insight as well, but mostly just because any expansion of the designated hitter is an affront unto the gods of baseball (which are the only ones who count).
posted by Etrigan at 08:34 PM on June 26, 2012
Also, just we want to see: more very expensive defensive liabilities getting three or four at-bats and doing nothing else.
Tahoemoj, on Jeter, I agree ... I think he has too much class to hold on as a DH.
posted by jjzucal at 11:19 PM on June 26, 2012
May this guy rot in Hell. Unfortunately, with the DH nearly four decades old, it's likely it would go this route, but I'd rather go with its removal ... make AL managers think a little more.