DH or have the pitchers hit?

Question

Which one would be better for the MLB if you could only choose one.

Answer 1

Definitely need to have pitchers hit. Not only is it traditional baseball, but it adds another strategic dimension and it's also probably better for pitchers in the long run. They have to stay in better shape to be able to run the bases and they are also more likely to get taken out of a game sooner and not burn up their arms.

Answer 2

this does not ensue. DHs are great hitters, they concentration on hitting, and hitting on my own. hence, a glass does not be used as a DH except it have been by using actuality that the DH gets injured and the group is out of bench gamers. although, it somewhat is extremely unlikely. in spite of the reality that, pitchers do bat in the national League by using fact there is not any DH in the NL, purely in the AL. If a glass is a huge hitter, it fairly is lots extra probably by using fact they are in the NL, as many AL communities have great DHs like David Ortiz, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Frank Thomas, and so on. yet another concern is in inter-league play. If the sport is at an AL stadium, DHs are used (AL regulations prepare to AL ballparks) and NL communities prefer to take great thing approximately having an "extra desirable hitter" in the lineup and not difficulty concerning the pitcher batting. If the sport is at a NL stadium, DHs are no longer used (NL regulations prepare to NL ballparks) and hence the pitcher bats as a glass, no longer as a DH.

Answer 3

Let's put it this way. If we have DH, then no DH and no DH rule pitcher should ever win an MVP. David Ortiz should never be on the short list for MVP. DH and pitchers under the rule are only one dimensional. they are then less valuable because a guy who is slow and is a liability in the field doesn't have to play the field, he can just hit a home run from cleanup and sit his fat *** back down. I personally am for the pitchers hitting. Like everyone has said managers have to use more strategy than just saying this guy can power a home run lets use him. No thank you.

Answer 4

Having Pitchers hit might lower their stamina when they're on the mound. DH's have a way better chance of hitting the ball and helping the team. So I'm going to say the DH is better

Answer 5

Have the pitchers hit. Forces managers to make more decisions that if DH is in place. In a DH situation the only reason to remove a pitcher is if he is no longer effective. Without DH a manager may have to decide to remove an effective pitcher in a potential run scoring situation.

Answer 6

Have the pitchers hit. DH is a disgrace. It's also 100% unfair that only the AL gets a DH!

Answer 7

Have pitchers hit. It makes the game more strategic, which is part of the fun. That's the way it always was, and see how effective it was? Now, baseball is less popular, at the same time that the DH came around.

Answer 8

As far as the fans and the pocketbooks of MLB team owners and sponsors, DH is better. It provides more "exciting" at-bats. After all, today's fans don't really enjoy pitching; they want to see monster home runs and big hits. Whether or not today's fans have it "right" or not is open to argument but as far as Major League Baseball is concerned, having a DH provides more excitement for the fans.

Answer 9

DH is much better. Baseball is boring enough, we don't need pitchers that can't hit coming to bat at critical situations. Fans have become used to pitchers becoming specialized, one-dimensional players, so why then are they so resistant to hitters doing the same?

Answer 10

Going back to no DH. Having the pitchers hit is how it was and should be. It also makes the game more strategic and emphasizes the team aspect of the game. When the Braves were in their prime part of the reason they excelled was the level of ability of the pitching staff to move a runner over and create scoring opportunities.