Unofficial Compromise DH Rule Testing Lab thread (Nats fans edition)

[_sturt_]

Again... I respect that there is some number out there who take a hardline, no DH or universal DH position.

There is no compromise even attainable under those preconditions... can we agree on that much?

So... why do you want to be part of a discussion that assumes premises that don't interest you to begin with?

Allow those of us, please, who do see some room for discussion to do just that... to discuss... okay?

[HalfSmokes]

Again... I respect that there is some number out there who take a hardline, no DH or universal DH position.

There is no compromise even attainable under those preconditions... can we agree on that much?

So... why do you want to be part of a discussion that assumes premises that don't interest you to begin with? A

Allow those of us, please, who do see some room for discussion to do just that... to discuss... okay?

I'm just wondering, why is 'pitchers should bat' a hard line (other than that you obviously disagree)?

[_sturt_]

I'm not trying to insult you, Half... I'm honestly and truly not.

By "hardline," I merely mean to suggest a black and white position... there is no room for gray... in other words, by the very fact that you demand that the pitcher bat in the same way he does currently, the demand makes compromise with the opposite side's position logically impossible.

And btw, fwiw... I personally do want to see pitchers bat. If I were baseball czar, the DH would be abolished. I left the Astros over that issue... I can't stand to watch the strategy-less version of the game that their new owner embraced when he took Selig's $65 million bribe.

[UMDNats]

i have become a fan of the DH in the last few years watching more AL baseball. gives guys a half day off, don't have pitchers killing rallies, feels like a full lineup.

on the other hand i enjoy the NL style and obviously it involves a little more strategy in terms of in-game management.

i would not be upset though if they instituted the DH into both leagues.

[nobleisthyname]

I still like the idea of a designated pinch hitter the best. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say I prefer it over the current NL rules but it would certainly be much better than the AL rules.

One step closer to Blernsball.

[_sturt_]

I'm okay with probably most of the ideas I've ever heard proposed.

What I don't like about the Trebelhorn DPH is that he puts an arbitrary limit on the number of times the DPH can be used.

Larry Dierker, ex-Astros manager and a writer for MLB.com, essentially has endorsed the DPH with no arbitrary limit, but with the caveat that the player for whom the DPH is batting would have to come out of the game...

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120320&content_id=27435474&c_id=mlb

The designated-hitter rule was used for the first time nearly 39 years ago. The debate over it has raged just as long.

Should the National League adopt it? Should the American League abandon it? Strong, passionate arguments have been made for both sides. So far, though, the issue has never come close to being resolved.

Beginning in 2013, though, there will be another factor to be considered. Once the Astros move to the AL, leaving 15 teams in each league, Interleague Play will no longer be confined to midseason blocks. Out of mathematical necessity, there will have to be at least one Interleague series from the beginning of the schedule until the end.

That changes the discussion somewhat. And it raises the question of whether this should be the impetus to unify the rules once and for all, one way or the other.

Larry Dierker is a former Major League pitcher, manager and broadcaster. He's also an author who currently works in community relations for the Astros. Dierker "absolutely" believes that both leagues should play under the same rules and even offers a creative alternative to the either/or approach.

Dierker's vision is that all teams would carry a designated hitter, who could hit for any player at any time. The twist is that players he bats for would have to come out of the game.

"A hybrid rule where you could hit for the pitcher, but that player had to come out of the game and couldn't come back in, would create nine innings of what the National League is like from the sixth inning on," Dierker explained.

"The first time the pitcher came up, you could have the bases loaded and no one out, and he might be your fourth starter or something. Yet you know you might have to pitch the rest of the game with your bullpen if you do. Or it could happen in the fourth or fifth or sixth, and you'd have tough decisions to make throughout the game, so the strategic implications would make it even tougher on a manager than it is in the National League.

"I would promote that. But even if not, I'd rather have a DH in both leagues or no DH in both leagues. I think it should be unification. But I think there is a better rule than the DH rule."

I prefer a different caveat than what either Trebelhorn or Dierker have proposed, and it is this:

The DPH can bat only once for any given player in the game.

That would likely mean batting for the pitcher the first time through the line-up, but from then on, the DPH would most probably be brought to bat on occasions where there were men on base, and his bat was thought to offer a better alternative to the player otherwise coming to bat.

For the pro-DH crowd, this actually would not only preserve the DH's effect on offense, it would enhance it. For the anti-DH crowd, this not only would preserve the manager's effect on strategy, it would actually enhance it. So win-win.

[_sturt_]

Okay... wedge hitter idea is on the table... here's another... the Ascending DH...

The starting point premises of this concept are that

(1) Just as is currently held, the DH is not hinged to the pitcher, but rather is a permanent fixture in the game. The DH position is a constant within any game.

(2) The DH begins the game batting in some slot in the order, maybe most plausibly #9, substituting for whatever player is otherwise scheduled to bat in that slot... ordinarily, the starting pitcher... but thereafter, he ascends in the batting order, effectively batting every eighth spot... so, substituting for the 9th slot batter, then the next time through the order, substituting for the 8th, then the next time, the 7th, and so on.

(3) The manager may choose, at any point that he believes it is advantageous to do so, to allow the normally-scheduled batter to bat rather than the DH, but in so doing, the consequence is that he forces the current DH to either (a) move into the field, specifically in place of the last batter for whom he substituted, or (b) be removed from the game.

(To further explain... assume for instance, the DH is due to substitute for the 6th slot batter, but the manager prefers to bat the current 6th slot batter instead of the DH. Then, the manager can either move the DH into the field and bat him in the same slot he last batted in (7th)--and thus, removing that formerly 7th slot batter from the game... or he can remove the DH from the game. Regardless, one of the two will be out of the game. And, notably, the next time around the order, i.e., in the 5th slot, the manager will have the option of either batting that scheduled 5th slot batter or a new DH.)

(4) Any new DH must come from the bench.

Dare I say, pun intended, though maybe at the idea's peril... hehe... this potentially could be considered as the offense-emphasis "on steroids" and the strategy-emphasis "on steroids." I believe all would agree that, under these conditions, both interests are not only served, but are enhanced.

Why AL fans would like it
1. The DH is enhanced because he has an even greater impact on the game than he currently does, by virtue of his coming to the plate every eighth time.

2. The pitcher's longevity in the game remains independent of the DH's.

Why AL fans wouldn't like it
1. Pitcher still gets to bat almost always once every game, i.e., the second time through the order; thereafter, of course, it's likely that between double-switches and pinch hitters, the occurrence of a pitcher in the batters box will be somewhat rare.

Why NL fans would like it
1. The strategy is enhanced because managers have to be even more cerebral than ever before--weighing every move in light of the DH's next due slot in the order. The fact that the DH appears every eighth slot following his initial plate appearance adds another layer of complexity. The criticism of the NL game that what is called "strategy" is actually fairly rote moves would seem to go by the way side--there would seem to be significantly fewer "no-brainer" decisions.

2. The concept preserves the intrigue in the NL game that occurs from fatiguing pitchers being stretched in order to accommodate the manager's desire to set-up the next inning's slate of batters.

Why NL fans wouldn't like it
The DH would become once-and-for-all a permanent fixture of the game, ending any hope of its elimination.

Okay... have at it... troubleshoot this one at-will... I'm listening.

[varoadking]

Okay... wedge hitter idea is on the table... here's another... the Ascending DH...

The starting point premises of this concept are that

(1) Just as is currently held, the DH is not hinged to the pitcher, but rather is a permanent fixture in the game. The DH position is a constant within any game.

(2) The DH begins the game batting in some slot in the order, maybe most plausibly #9, substituting for whatever player is otherwise scheduled to bat in that slot... ordinarily, the starting pitcher... but thereafter, he ascends in the batting order, effectively batting every eighth spot... so, substituting for the 9th slot batter, then the next time through the order, substituting for the 8th, then the next time, the 7th, and so on.

(3) The manager may choose, at any point that he believes it is advantageous to do so, to allow the normally-scheduled batter to bat rather than the DH, but in so doing, the consequence is that he forces the current DH to either (a) move into the field, specifically in place of the last batter for whom he substituted, or (b) be removed from the game.

(To further explain... assume for instance, the DH is due to substitute for the 6th slot batter, but the manager prefers to bat the current 6th slot batter instead of the DH. Then, the manager can either move the DH into the field and bat him in the same slot he last batted in (7th)--and thus, removing that formerly 7th slot batter from the game... or he can remove the DH from the game. Regardless, one of the two will be out of the game. And, notably, the next time around the order, i.e., in the 5th slot, the manager will have the option of either batting that scheduled 5th slot batter or a new DH.)

(4) Any new DH must come from the bench.

Dare I say, pun intended, though maybe at the idea's peril... hehe... this potentially could be considered as the offense-emphasis "on steroids" and the strategy-emphasis "on steroids." I believe all would agree that, under these conditions, both interests are not only served, but are enhanced.

Why AL fans would like it
1. The DH is enhanced because he has an even greater impact on the game than he currently does, by virtue of his coming to the plate every eighth time.

2. The pitcher's longevity in the game remains independent of the DH's.

Why AL fans wouldn't like it
1. Pitcher still gets to bat almost always once every game, i.e., the second time through the order; thereafter, of course, it's likely that between double-switches and pinch hitters, the occurrence of a pitcher in the batters box will be somewhat rare.

Why NL fans would like it
1. The strategy is enhanced because managers have to be even more cerebral than ever before--weighing every move in light of the DH's next due slot in the order. The fact that the DH appears every eighth slot following his initial plate appearance adds another layer of complexity. The criticism of the NL game that what is called "strategy" is actually fairly rote moves would seem to go by the way side--there would seem to be significantly fewer "no-brainer" decisions.

2. The concept preserves the intrigue in the NL game that occurs from fatiguing pitchers being stretched in order to accommodate the manager's desire to set-up the next inning's slate of batters.

Why NL fans wouldn't like it
The DH would become once-and-for-all a permanent fixture of the game, ending any hope of its elimination.

Okay... have at it... troubleshoot this one at-will... I'm listening.

Two sentences...max...

[_sturt_]

Two sentences max? What does that mean? You want ideas presented in only two sentences in this thread? For what reason do you say that?

[Terpfan76]

Two sentences max? What does that mean? You want ideas presented in only two sentences in this thread? For what reason do you say that?

It's a wnff meme bud.

[_sturt_]

Not to upset anyone, but I'm down with that, sorry. That's tweeting, not discussing. I prefer discussions that are characterized by developed thoughts. Feel free to avoid my threads.

[Vega]

Not to upset anyone, but I'm down with that, sorry. That's tweeting, not discussing. I prefer discussions that are characterized by developed thoughts. Feel free to avoid my threads.

It's a joke, dude. We tell that to a guy here named Coladar who has a tendency to post giant dissertations about everything.

[Terpfan76]

It's a joke, dude. We tell that to a guy here named Coladar who has a tendency to post giant dissertations about everything.

What the tomato said! It's not being mean, it's just an inside joke. You'll catch on

[_sturt_]

Thanks.

I did go look, though, and just a scan of Varoadking's history seems to pretty much subscribe to that.

[_sturt_]

Calling this one the SIR plan... i.e., "Substitution Induces Reassignment."

If/when the starting pitcher comes out of the game, assuming the manager wants to preserve the right to maintain the DH position/role in the game, either the current DH person or the DH position/role must be re-assigned. Failure to do one or the other means that both the DH player and position/role are eliminated from the rest of the game.

If the manager chooses to reassign the person, that means reassigning the current person occupying the DH role to a position in the field immediately... e.g., the current DH person comes out of the dugout and becomes the left fielder and the left fielder comes back to the dugout and is reassigned to being the DH.

(Thus, the DH position/role continues to be tied to the P position just as before.)

If the manager chooses to reassign the position/role, that means reassigning the current person occupying the DH role to continue in that role, but to begin batting for another position... e.g., the DH starts batting for someone else... ostensibly, maybe the weak-hitting C... instead of the P.

(As a consequence, in that case, the P pops into the line-up where the C's batting slot was; the DH continues to bat in the order just as he had previously).

To summarize and putting this into a context perhaps better understood... when Strasburg comes out of the game after 1 out in the 7th inning, assuming Williams wanted to preserve the DH, he would have to consider either bringing McLouth in from LF to take the DH slot and put current DH Harper out there, or reassigning Harper to bat for Jose Lobaton, and slipping the P slot into where the C had been batting.

Then, extending this beyond the starting pitcher's removal and to later into the game...

Say that McLouth had traded places with Harper, and an inning later, Blevins is relieved by Clippard. Harper cannot re-enter as the DH--once you've been a DH you cannot return to that role. So Willaims again must decide... do I put McLouth in CF and bring Span back to the dugout to be the DH... or do I reassign the DH to bat for the C now?

Or alternatively, say that Williams had had DH Harper bat in place of the C position when he took Strasburg out, but that the next inning someone slid hard into Lobaton and he had to be removed for injury... the connection between C and DH has been severed, and thus... substitution induces reassignment.... so Williams again has a decision to make: he can now bring McLouth in from LF to take the DH slot and put current DH Harper in left... or he can reassign the DH so that he now bats for yet another position--i.e., one that is not the P or the C.

Or... there's always the alternative to just dispense with having the DH position/role for the rest of the game.

Okay... how bout your reactions to this one?

[_sturt_]

By the way... if some of the previous ideas seemed too reminiscent of rules you might make up for a sandlot game, I get that, but this one, in particular, shouldn't... ie, remind you of sandlot.

Once you read it and let it seep in, it doesn't actually inject anything very different from what you've been used to.

Under what's been called the "bodyguard" idea, the DH is removed when the starting pitcher comes out.

This posits, instead, that the manager has a couple of other options to allow the DH and/or the player who had been playing in the DH role to remain in the game...

One of which, importantly, addresses the contention of some that they want to see virtually all players enter the game at some point as fielders...

And the other, importantly, addresses the contention of some others that they want to see something so that, at least some part of the time, a pitcher gets in the batting order.

With regard to the former, the manager may choose to keep the DH role tied to the P position, and just have the current DH trade places with another fielder... ie, reassigned to a different position.

With regard to the latter, the manager may choose to have the current DH player remain in that same DH role, but that the DH role be reassigned so that the role is reassigned to bat for a different position.

Please don't let the extra paragraphs used to illustrate the rule modification discourage you.

Re-capping, here is the essence of it... when the player to whom the DH is connected (normally the starting pitcher at first) comes out of the game, the manager has these choices:

a) Remove the DH entirely from the game

b) Have the current DH trade with a fielder so that the DH continues to bat instead of the P (i.e., "reassign the player")

c) Have the current DH remain in that role, but he must begin to bat for someone other than the P (i.e., "reassign the position/role")

[varoadking]

Thanks.

I did go look, though, and just a scan of Varoadking's history seems to pretty much subscribe to that.

Yeah...sorry, dood...I should have tempered my response.  No harm meant... 

[_sturt_]

All good.

[JMW IV]

yeah Coladar can (and will) write 3 paragraphs about the color of a yellow crayon.

so it's been made into a forum injoke.

also, other injokes you might wanna be aware of:

SunShine Squad vs Legion of Doom
Mispelling Bill Ladson's name
"Game."
Hagersburg
Sportsfan882's other name - "Assclown"
The Vindicator
The Real *insert player name* When Healthy

[_sturt_]

Thanks for the heads-up, though I'm sure I'll need some additional coaching from time to time from the forum intelligencia. 

[Terpfan76]

yeah Coladar can (and will) write 3 paragraphs about the color of a yellow crayon.

so it's been made into a forum injoke.

also, other injokes you might wanna be aware of:

SunShine Squad vs Legion of Doom
Mispelling Bill Ladson's name
"Game."
Hagersburg
Sportsfan882's other name - "Assclown"
The Vindicator
The Real *insert player name* When Healthy

And why the color being yellow is a full on conspiracy involving N. Korea and other such nefarious regimes.

[_sturt_]

Came up in another discussion on another board, and something I feel needs to be explicitly said in this one...

katoy, the argument can be statistically made... and I for one have made it... that the World Series has become compromised as a legitimate championship because of the fact that you have two franchises meet that have been playing the game under two different versions of the game... so, we don't end up with, in scientific terms, a test/measurement that tells us which team is superior, but rather, a test/measurement that tells us which version of the game better puts a team in position to succeed (ie, score more runs than their opponents more often).

It is absurd that we... civilized, educated people... do this.

It is the equivalent of the NFL declaring that tackles will be pass-eligible in games in AFC stadiums, watching teams mold their rosters and condition their players and modify their plays accordingly, then expecting the Super Bowl to tell you which of an AFC or an NFC team is "better"... to the contrary, all that a Super Bowl would tell you under those conditions is which version of the game is "superior," ie, more likely to yield a team that is more likely to be able to score more points than their opponents more often.

It is the equivalent in a science lab of taking two families of rats, exposing them to two different environments, and then having a test of some kind to see which family of rats is superior. It doesn't take a career researcher to recognize the fallacy in that. To have a test that legitimately tells you which is superior, validity demands that you expose both families to the same environment.

My educated guess is that the AL's advantage is less about the advantage of the DH itself, but more on the overall condition of a pitching staff.

To wit, consider how many times over the course of 162+ regular and post-season games that an NL manager asks a little more of his otherwise-tiring pitcher in order to set up the batting order for how he wants it in the next inning. NL pitchers, it can be asserted, are decidedly more likely to be stretched than their AL counterparts. I believe AL teams often have better hitters to select from for the DH role, but the more substantial advantage in World Series play has to do with pitching staffs' overall endurance/exhaustion.

We need to unify the game.

[imref]

I listened to Phil Wood's show on the way home from the game, he argued that last night's game showed why the DH should go away.  A few of the points he made:
- Wainwright has 6 HRs and 23 doubles in his career, why take that advantage away if you can find a good hitting pitcher
- last year the AL batted about 2 points higher than the NL, so the idea of having the DH to add more offense isn't being played out in the stats
- NL pitchers on average get about 2ABs per game because of pinch hitting so the difference in total offense from 2 pitcher ABs isn't all that much.

I'm squarely in the anti-DH camp, but it was nice to have some data points to back up the "get rid of the DH" argument.

[_sturt_]

Some distance, unfortunately, between those factoids and the conclusions reached.

1. Key words: "if you can find a good hitting pitcher." It happens. It doesn't happen often. That's the very reason Wainwright... with 6 HRs and 23 doubles in his career... sticks out. If that's among the best hitting pitchers, what does that actually say about pitchers in general? Not much. No one would ever get thrilled about any fielder whose career stats include those numbers.

2. One batter in a sea of about 12-13 guys who bat with some degree of regularity is naturally not going to have that great of an effect on the overall BA. And like you said, pitchers in the NL routinely disappear from the line-up after two ABs anyhow... pinch hitters are typical once you get past the 5th inning. So, we shouldn't expect to see that much of a difference.

No one could be more squarely in the anti-DH camp than I... maybe as much as I am, but I'm among the relatively few who actually had to make a choice between the team I loved for 40 years and the game I've loved for a little more than that. I chose the game. But there's no denying, where the DH is concerned, this is the state of play...

[_sturt_]

Each team individually chooses for themselves every game... between:

(a) Pitcher-dedicated DH, batting exclusively for the P (as currently restricted to do)

or

(b) Floating DH, batting once through the batting order for any given player or position in the line-up, and appearing a maximum of once per inning... thus, only once for any pitcher... and... only once for the current SS, even if he later plays 3B.

How would you feel about this one?


================
EDIT
================

Have to remark that, given about 24 hours of thinking it through, I'm kinda stoked about this concept... so much so, I've taken a moment this morning to create a graphic:



Simplicity? Can be mostly explained in one line or two... check.

Familiarity? Because it essentially casts the DH role in its same current one or provides the option for a manager to use the DH more like a pinch hitter, though importantly, retaining the DH's quality that he doesn't force the removal of the player he's substituting for... check.

Appeal to the pro-offense lobby? For reasons just indicated... check.

Appeal to the pro-strategy lobby? For reasons also just indicated... check.

Someone jump in here with some smelling salts for me... what's wrong with this picture?... Assuming you had a choice of (a) having the DH imposed on NL ball (as many if not most of us believe will occur sooner than we'd like), or (b) going to this, what I'm calling for now the "Two Choice model," why wouldn't you?