Baseball argument since 1973...The Designated Hitter!?

Question

I used to be a big fan of the DH, but, after having gone to three different National League games over the past couple of years, I have changed my mind on the matter. Baseball just seems to be more exciting when the pitcher has to hit! I know both sides have been arguing the issue for the pass 33 years, but do you think the National League should adopt the DH, or the American League should scrap it (Please, no answers saying let it stay like it is! I believe most true baseball fans want to see it the same in both leagues, one way or another). Ten points to the one who can give the best support to their answer, whether I personally agree with it or not!

Answer 1

Leave it alone. The DH extends the careers of players who can still hit well. If there were no DH, certain players like Frank Thomas, Rafael Palmeiro, possibly Jason Giambi and lets not forget Edgar Martinez who were unable to play their position in the field or just played it poorly (they are sluggers that can win games with the long ball and other clutch hits) would not play much of a role in the game. Guys like Barry Bonds and Mike Piazza in the NL will have shorter careers if not traded to or acquired by AL teams. The DH provides consistency in the offense whereas in the NL, the above mentioned sluggers would only be available for 1 AB per game. Say a guy like Albert Pujols couldn't field anymore but still hits....it would be a waste if he had to end his career with so much talent still available.

Answer 2

I think that the DH rule should be brought to the National League. With the DH position, more eligible hitters would be able to hit on a regular basis. Also, the pitcher is paid by the team to pitch. If they bat, they'll get tired and won't pitch as well. Besides, the pitcher never gives a good contribution with the bat. The DH rule also rests some batters who are very good at hitting but have a lower endurance. So, my vote is for the National League to adopt the DH system.

Answer 3

The National League is true baseball ,the pitcher should have to hit for himself and it makes for a more interesting cat and mouse game between the managers - a manager in the NL has to be 2 innings ahead, looking at who to match up against who and potential double switches, etc - BUT I am not opposed to the DH because it is exciting to see 9 guys who can swing the bat - I like American League baseball because it is offense oriented - American League pitchers that are strike out pitchers would have better numbers in the NL because they would strike the pitcher out at least once per game - both styles are fun to watch

Answer 4

I have personally hated this DH ruling since it's inception. My reasoning is.... batting is part of the ball game, just as pitching is. So what if a pitcher doesn't hit well... some have hit very well. Why would it be any different for a pitcher not to bat than a catcher? Better yet.. let's just have 9 dh's so the defensive team can rest and concentrate on their fielding skills.

I do not like the idea of bringing in someone to bat who is not on the field... it is "PART OF THE GAME".

Another thought.. if you are going to have a DH, then it needs to be in both the AL & NL.

Answer 5

I love the DH. I hate to see pitchers hit. What you like lots of strikeouts?
And please spare me with that bs stragegy crap.

Its more exciting to see Jim Thome or Big Papi bat as a DH then see a national league pitcher fan 3x a game. If the National Leaguers like not having a DH, fine. But keep it in the American league. Its nice to have the two leagues a little different anyway.

Answer 6

Yes I think that the DH takes away from baseball. It is not all about just hitting.

Pitchers should hit. There are many who can swing a bat. Before they started pitching they played in different positions and they also swung a bat!

I think it should be uniform. They need to adopt a policy one way or another. I for one think we should play the game the way it was intended!

Answer 7

I think that the AL should drop the DH because it is more interesting having the pitcher hit. Not only does it add strategy on how to effectively use the pitcher's at-bat but it also prevents a team from stacking a line-up with all-stars...at least one hitter will be bad. Also, it helps put more emphasis on short game because if all pitchers had to hit, then they would have to learn how to bunt in order to effectively aid their team on the offensive side.

Answer 8

I say SCRAP IT. Those who claim it is "tradition" no it really isn't. They weren't doing it from the start as people would want you to believe. It was put in for the sake of the pitchers. Well the NL showed that Pitchers can HIT. Besides the NL uses it to a degree as well. Gets in the later innings and they are going to pull the pitchers so they use a batter as the pitcher so to speak. Also adds to the strategy and makes a pitcher pull his weight.

Answer 9

i believe the dh has led to a project with pitching. The human arm grew to become into in no way meant to throw a baseball overhand at ninety+ mph. Having 9 expert hitters to stand, instead of 8 and a glass, is a significant reason there is taken under consideration one of those dearth of pitching at present. The pitcher's hands are wearing out lots swifter than they used to. Which makes me ask your self how every physique can evaluate the hitting of at present with those of the previous while batters confronted greater healthy hands and umpires that did not cut back the strike zones to desire the hitters. i'm afraid that the dh, like steroids, has produced a project with the believability of baseball stats and with out the sanctity of those statistics, baseball is now not baseball.

Answer 10

The National League ought to adopt the DH to bring the league in parity with the American League.

The AFC and NFC do not have separate rules because they were unified under one league back in 1969.

The NBA plays under the same set of rules.