Interleague play...?

Question

...we're closing in on it and I'm excited. Which brings up the question that we have been answering since the DH was brought to MLB: DH or no DH, AL or NL, which is proven to be a better system and why?

Answer 1

I am a Brewer's fan, so the first 10 odd years of my fandom, I was watching AL games and the last 10, NL. From my Cub fan friends, I used to hear about how how the NL was more interesting or pure because the managers needed to strategize more, the games were tighter, pitchers, who needed to bat, didn't tend to hit batters, etc. The implication was that somehow the NL was the game for the purist thinking man. At the time I thought that the arguments were hokey, and admit that after 10 years of NL ball, I think those reasons are still hokey.

I don't watch the games for the manager, just like I don't watch the game to root for the owner or the general manager.

Pitchers are changed so frequently today that the headhunting role can fall to relievers in the NL, who barely ever have to bat.

It is annoying to have to pay attention to all those bench players in the NL who are contantly coming up to pinch hit, although they are not considered good enough to start.

I hate box scores of NL games with all those Ps who never bat and pinch "hitters" who are batting .215 getting in the game in late innings because .215 is in improvement over a pitcher's .086. A player batting .215 is not a pinch hitter. Unless he's wearing a mask or has incredible range at short, he's barely a major leaguer at all.

I believe it is wonderful that players like Paul Molitor, Henry Rodriguez, Frank Thomas, Dave Parker, & Mike Piazza could play a few more years as professional batters.

I think that much that passes in the minds of NL fans as "strategy" that require "descisions" by a managers is way overblown. A bunt by a hare like Juan Pierre is exciting. A bunt by a well known tortise like Jason Giambi is a big surprise. A bunt by a pitcher because there is a runner on first and less than 2 outs is boring because it happens practically every time the pitcher is up with a baserunner.

Answer 2

NL's system of no-DH ball is better, and this is why:

even though I understand the idea of having a DH in the American League (since it's proven offense goes up and pitchers only bring an offense down), pitchers play in the field just like everyone else, they should also learn to hit like everyone else...Carlos Zambrano and Mike Hampton have already proven it can work (and until 1973, it's the way things used to be)

the fun part about the National League is that you have to have a good manager AND a good team to win the game. A double-switch here, a pinch hitter there...the late, close games become a chess match between the managers, and it gets more of the players involved (plus, if your pitcher comes in to hit for the DH then he has to sit out the rest of the game and it gets even more confusing than if you'd start playing with the double-switches and the pinch-hitters)

The N-L is a thinking man's game...the A-L is a hitting man's game...I'll take the N-L's brand over the A-L any day of the week

Answer 3

Well I like the entire system of having DH in AL and no DH in NL. Because it really depends on the type of fans. If you are a fan that likes the long ball and a lot of runs scored, then having a DH in the AL is good because pitchers batting usually end the season with about .095 batting average and then there is not much scoring.
On the other hand, if you like real grind it out baseball and managers playing small ball, then the NL is a fine system. A sacrifice bunt for the pitcher or bringing in a pinch hitter at the pitcher's spot in the order (thus ending the pitcher's night on the mound) is what you're looking for.
The system provides a nice change and also gives both types of fans what they want.

Sidenote: Also provides some laughs when you get to see AL pitchers try and bat at NL stadiums like I got to see Mark Buerhle strike out twice miserably at Wrigley. (Even though I am a Sox fan, it was embarassing)

Answer 4

Crayboy, since I take it that you are either from Chicago itself or at least somewhere close in Illinois, you grew up with a choice to either watch a NL hometeam, or an AL hometeam. You chose the White Sox.

Most of us away from NY, Chicago and California had one team to watch at home. If you lived in Baltimore you had the Orioles, if you lived in Detroit, you had the Tigers, if you lived in Atlanta, you had the Braves, etc. Most baseball fans are bigger fans of whatever league their team in as opposed to the rules of the league itself.

If the Orioles where a NL ballclub, I'd be a fan of a team that plays in the NL.

I think though if you want to figure out which is a better system. Look at the results, of how teams have faired have faired having to play in NL ballparks. Take a look at the world series over since 1980, the AL has won 15 times to the NL's 11.

Results don't lie. Which is a better system? I think it's more like which teams are having better success within their system and which adapt well to the other style of play when the time counts the most.

Answer 5

well both are great in theyre own ways
NL has tougher coaching decisions and the great 'double switch' , and also bench players are way more important
AL has a better starting 9 offense because the pitcher with a .056 avg comes up to the plate

Answer 6

I think that the NL is better becasue I feel that if you play on the field you should hit from the plate.

Answer 7

Hamburgers or cheeseburgers, which is proven to be better and why?