General Premise of this Thread
All of the points made in the initial post of this thread remain valid.
Essentially, the thrust of the thread is that the "DH/No DH" discussions we tend to have are posited on a false dichotomy--i.e., we need a national conversation about all of the other options beyond the adoption of the pure DH or the total elimination of the DH, i.e., options that we might consider that do not require the other ~50% of baseball fans to completely capitulate to the preference of the other side.
And moreover, are posited on a false assumption that businesses ever make decisions that are in their own economic disinterest--and, baseball, of course, being a business. Business won't willingly antagonize 10%, let alone ~50% of their customer base.
In case anyone doubts that, the new commish recently just reaffirmed that reality when asked to comment. He stated that he's perfectly content with the status quo where the DH is concerned.
We'll continue with this stalemate unless/until the paying customers decide it's time to end the stalemate.
So, this now-40-year-old idea... that's f-o-r-t-y, not f-o-u-r... that someway somehow the other side is going to give up and give in seems a bit idealistic, if not moronic. Not only do you not have any clear movement toward one of the polarities, but you even have some fan bases whose team plays in one league, yet seemingly prefers the other game. I'm not only talking about HOU fans who largely remain pizzed that they've been forced into playing the AL game. I'm actually referring to a 2013 non-scientific online poll on the NESN (Red Sox' cable network) site that found about 60% of the ~2000 fans indicating a preference for the traditional game.
Taking a thumb to the wind, the only movement that seems to be gaining ground is that it is incoherent for a major league revenue-producing sport to impose on half of its teams one version of a rule, and a different version for the other half. There is an increasing recognition that we as fans wouldn't put up with it if, tomorrow, the NBA were to allow designated free throw shooters, let alone do so for half of the teams to the exclusion of the other half... nor if the NFL were to allow tackles to be pass-eligible, let alone do so for half of the teams to the exclusion of the other half.
So what to do?
As strongly polarized as the abortion issue is, it is instructive that, in spite of two sides being dug-in, the reality is that neither side has things exactly as they want them to be. There is, like it or not, compromise.
What to do? Compromise.
The basis of a more-satisfying compromise is identifying the key priorities that each side holds most salient, and focusing on addressing those.
General Premise of this Concept
This concept gives weight to the assertion that the drama of the overall game benefits when
(a) managers' strategic decisions--specifically as related to pitchers' place in the batting order--are re-introduced to the half of MLB that currently does not have that at all, and preserved in perpetuity to the applause of our half, "anti-DH," of baseball fan-dom; and,
(b) better hitters come to the plate in the midst of better run-scoring opportunities... and conversely, that the game is least affected when worse hitters come to the plate (i.e., when that isn't the case)... all of which addresses the contention of the other half, "pro-DH," of baseball fan-dom.
Sooooo... both sides finding just enough common ground. Pitchers still hit. But not always. Designated hitters still hit. But not always.
The Concept... in Two Simple Points
1. DH bats for the pitcher without consequence only when there are runners in scoring position (RISP).
2. However, if the DH bats for the pitcher when there are not RISP, it will cause someone to come out of the game: either the pitcher (likely), himself, or another position player who the DH replaces in the field. In either of the last two cases, the DH role also leaves the game. That is, the team may only retain the DH as-is if the current pitcher is removed.
Expected Outcomes
At-bat with no runners on base
- Pitchers very likely to bat in earlier innings, about as likely as now to bat in later innings since DH will ordinarily be used and relief pitchers taken down--however, notably, there is a consequence to the DH's at-bat in that case that doesn't exist in the pure-DH game
At-bat with runner on first
- Pitchers likely to be asked to sacrifice in earlier innings, whereas for relief pitchers the same situation exists for the DH decision as would with no runners on base
- Batter immediately before the P/DH slot will be asked to sacrifice routinely to get the runner on 1st to scoring position so that there is no consequence to batting the DH instead of the P
At-bat with runners in scoring position
- DH will always bat for the P in that situation
Overall
- Strategic element of the game preserved for NL fans, and for AL fans, greatly enhanced
- Offensive element of the game remains mostly intact for AL fans, and for NL fans, greatly enhanced
- The game is unified as it was in the beginning, and as it is and has been for every other revenue sport in the world... the Incoherency Era of Baseball comes to an end
