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

[HalfSmokes]

do you understand that most NL fans reject the DH because it treats the pitcher different from other fielders? Can you show me a compromise that actually addresses that issue?

[_sturt_]

just because you assume a premise necessarily leads to a conclusion doesn't make it so
does not necessarily lead to

you can say it does all you want, and that's fine, but it simply doesn't.

I think you just took the words out of my mouth/keyboard.

I provided a straightforward line of reasoning that demonstrates where the standard actually lies... ie, every team has the same standardized freedom to make their own choice regarding stadium dimensions, whereas not every team has the same standardized freedom to make their own choice regarding the DH... only half of them do.

You essentially answered all of that with a simple, "no, it's not."

You can say that that's not sufficient, but then, it's not enough to just say "No, it's not." You actually have to put together a coherent counterpoint that demonstrates where the logic is specious.

then what is the catalyst, as you say,  the status quo has been fine for over 40 years and AL fans seem content to keep it and NL fans seem content without it- so what exactly would be the impetus for change? You seem to dismiss everyone who is fine with the situation without answering a question that seems to be at the base of any argument for change

I don't know that there will be any catalyst. I'm only making the observation that in the last 5 years, and especially this year, I've heard a whole lot more chatter about the incoherency of having two rules than ever before. And I reason that if that continues to be the case, there's going to be increasing likelihood of change. [/quote]

makes you seem like a condescending prick

And you wonder why I asked you not to get defensive.

Okay.

[_sturt_]

do you understand that most NL fans reject the DH because it treats the pitcher different from other fielders? Can you show me a compromise that actually addresses that issue?

First... a compromise? A compromise will give a little and take a little, by definition. Intuitively, no one will ever find a compromise if one side demands 100% their way, to the exclusion of what the other side's preferences are.

Second... NL fans reject the DH for that reason, sorta, but recognize that it's not out of any inherent love for consistency... you can hit RBs but not QBs below the knees and people don't demand that the running back not be treated different from the quarterback... that inconsistency it's never ever been the source of conflict with football fans...

Instead, what NL fans reject is the way the DH sucks the cerebral part of the game almost completely out of the AL contest. It's far too much like watching a pro bowling tournament... people get up, take their turn, and sit down.

[varoadking]

  "We need to have a 'national conversation' about... [insert issue here]." 

...which is really saying "I want to impose my will on the people, and I want as many of you that are likeminded to drown out the opposition so we can shove this down their throats."

[mitlen]

...which is really saying "I want to impose my will on the people, and I want as many of you that are likeminded to drown out the opposition so we can shove this down their throats."

 

[HalfSmokes]

I think you just took the words out of my mouth/keyboard.

I provided a straightforward line of reasoning that demonstrates where the standard actually lies... ie, every team has the same standardized freedom to make their own choice regarding stadium dimensions, whereas not every team has the same standardized freedom to make their own choice regarding the DH... only half of them do.

It's a given that there are those who are content with status quo.

To be content with status quo with this, one must also be content with the incoherence of playing one game by two different rules.

We wouldn't accept it in the NFL or the NBA. We've only accepted it in MLB because it started as an innocent experiment that supposedly would eventually either be made universal or would be set aside.

so would we accept individual stadium dimensions in the NBA and NFL, you seemed to dismiss the ideal of the 60 yard field. If we wouldn't then you're line of reasoning that "every team has the same standardized freedom to make their own choice regarding stadium dimensions" so fans accept it whereas "We wouldn't accept it in the NFL or the NBA." seems to have a flaw. Perhaps MLB fans accept it (and embrace it) because MLB fans don't feel the need for a standardized set of rules when tradition has worked fine for decades

I don't know that there will be any catalyst. I'm only making the observation that in the last 5 years, and especially this year, I've heard a whole lot more chatter about the incoherency of having two rules than ever before. And I reason that if that continues to be the case, there's going to be increasing likelihood of change.

http://articles.philly.com/1986-10-23/news/26057948_1_designated-hitter-rule-dh-umpire

yep, the argument, is just now heating up, hasn't been around for decades

[_sturt_]

=====================================================================
So, to your mind, if you label something, and then you pretend that it's enough to label it, no explanation is needed. The label stands on its own, without need for support.

That may be how it works in middle school.

I assume, though, that we're all college graduates here, and there's a higher expectation.

Unfortunately, I think you either don't really get the line of rationale, or you just don't want to, and so labeling it seems the best way to deal with the situation.

It's rational.

It's not absurd.

[_sturt_]

...which is really saying "I want to impose my will on the people, and I want as many of you that are likeminded to drown out the opposition so we can shove this down their throats."

Which is really saying, "I'll accuse you of being totally insincere if I want to accuse you of being totally insincere."

We're just not going to get anywhere if being cynical is considered the high road.

[mitlen]

I assume, though, that we're all college graduates here, and there's a higher expectation.

 

[varoadking]

Which is really saying, "I'll accuse you of being totally insincere if I want to accuse you of being totally insincere."

We're just not going to get anywhere if being cynical is considered the high road.

I acknowledge that I prefer the NL way of doing things.  I also acknowledge that the DH is likely coming to the NL, at some point, whether or not I like it.

I think your formulas are far too complex for the average fan to embrace...bat or bat not, to paraphrase Yoda.

Remember your premise...this is about the money...

[_sturt_]

so would we accept individual stadium dimensions in the NBA and NFL, you seemed to dismiss the ideal of the 60 yard field. If we wouldn't then you're line of reasoning that "every team has the same standardized freedom to make their own choice regarding stadium dimensions" so fans accept it whereas "We wouldn't accept it in the NFL or the NBA." seems to have a flaw. Perhaps MLB fans accept it (and embrace it) because MLB fans don't feel the need for a standardized set of rules when tradition has worked fine for decades

You're confusing the points, my friend. You really are. Maybe I've worded things in a way that has led to that, and if so, forgive me.

The question is not whether it is "acceptable." Clearly, for most baseball fans, the status quo is acceptable right now. I'm not arguing otherwise.

What I am arguing is (a) that I'm hearing more people discontent with the status quo, and (b) that they're discontent because half of the teams play under one rule, the other under a different rule.

What your stadium argument posits is that we ought to be okay with... "accept"... different rules since every stadium pretty much has its own dimensions.... correct?

What your stadium argument misses is that it is IMPRECISE... to be equivalent, what you'd have to have is ONE HALF of the teams HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THEIR STADIUM DIMENSIONS FOR THEMSELVES, and the other half NOT HAVING THAT, but rather being confined to a specific dimension.

(Caps used for emphasis, not for shouting, btw.)

yep, the argument, is just now heating up, hasn't been around for decades

Hopefully, you didn't refute something I didn't say on purpose, but rather, it was just a case of reading too fast and not actually picking up.

Read again. I didn't say the DH discussion itself is a new discussion. Not at all. What did I say? I said I'm hearing more people than before specifically citing the incoherence between the leagues' games as a problem. Only that.

[blue911]

Come on Biff, let's go get a white Zin

[mitlen]

Come on Biff, let's go get a white Zin

[_sturt_]

I acknowledge that I prefer the NL way of doing things.  I also acknowledge that the DH is likely coming to the NL, at some point, whether or not I like it.

I think your formulas are far too complex for the average fan to embrace...bat or bat not, to paraphrase Yoda.

Remember your premise...this is about the money...

Oh, I do remember, believe me.

So, if you're willing to relax the cynicism, it occurs to me that you might appreciate this related discussion with another baseball fan friend from another board (?)... at least, I'll take that chance...

====================================================

   xxxxxxx wrote:I liken it to the hack a (insert player's name here) strategy in the NBA. It's a strategy and hardcore basketball fans are probably into it and fans of that team are probably into it. The casual fan just sees a guy that sucks at free throws and thinks "these are the best athletes in the world?" I see hitting for pitchers the same way. Those who are true hardcore fans get into it because of the number of strategic possibilities there are. Let's face it, those possibilities are all predicated on the fact that pitcher's can't hit by in large. We ask them to bunt and we ask them to try not to hit into a double play or we may pinch hit for them in that key situation. The casual fan is watching and asking that same question, "these are the best athletes in the world?"

    As more of the revenue comes from online, more of the revenue will come from casual fans. I might turn into an Angels game to watch Mike Trout or Albert Pujols. I might turn into a Nationals game to watch Harper. I'm not a fan of either team. The overall aesthetic value of the game for the casual fan is limited when the pitcher hits. They don't get double switches or even pinch hitting at all. They want to see star players make great plays. Adding a DH allows the possibility of adding that one more star performer. So, another consideration in this whole debate are which economic forces are driving this train? Television and internet will favor the casual fan. The casual fan would favor a universal DH. If we are catering to hardcore fans then we will likely see the status quo or perhaps a compromise solution.

I get why you say that... chicks dig the long-ball.

But sexist though it may be... chicks aren't the life blood of the economics of the game.

And I submit this to that: There are two primary elements that drive us guys to embrace one game over the other.

Athletic ability is certainly one.

But strategy is certainly another.

We are drawn to football because it contains both, not one or the other. I submit, in fact, that that's a big reason why football has become the national obsession... we admire the athleticism, sure, but at least in equal measure, we are very intrigued by the strategy... by the plays called, the formations run... it's both.

To the degree that baseball's strategic element is muted, it becomes more like... sorry, but the analogy still fits to my mind... watching pro bowlers... get up, take your turn, sit down... very rote, and indisputably (imo) less interesting than the traditional game.

So, while you might feel like you're attracting casual fans, I submit that that ignores the other question... to what degree are you retaining fans' interest?

To what degree are you able to baptize fans into your team cult such that they're repeat buyers, not only of merely tickets, but of online properties and tangible team merchandise?

The AL game, I believe, is significantly less able to grab males' interest. The game is better able to capture males' interest... creating a larger base of hardcore fans as you mention... as it preserves that cerebral element.

From a business point of view, I'm inclined to say you certainly don't want to do things that drive casual fans away. But I don't think that the meager proportion of at-bats by pitchers in an NL game drives anyone away.

So, if we can agree it's not driving anyone away, then the more salient point naturally becomes, of those that are exposed to the game, what can we do to increase the number of them who are becoming hardcore?

[dracnal]

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?

*snip*

Okay, while your idea is sound and makes sense, I would not want to see it implemented for one major reason: Stats.
Baseball is all about tracking numbers in an almost holy way. Giving a guy 9 at bats in a standard 9 inning game would absolutely destroy every baseball record in a short matter of time.  56 game hitting streak? With nine chances per game, it's a hell of a lot easier.  Home run record? You get 1458 PAs if you appear once per inning per game.  Sure, you can say it'd be lower because of home games while ahead, but it's really not going to be enough games to knock it down to the 600 range most other players would get.  And a lot of players would have their own chance to hit reduced as an at bat gets taken away from them every game.

Your system makes sense and does combine offense and strategy nicely.  But the DH would have to have its own set of records completely separate from the normal hitters.

[_sturt_]

dracal, thanks. I do like that one. But I think you may have misread it (?)...

...batting once through the batting order for any given player or position in the line-up, and appearing a maximum of once per inning...

Regardless, this new one appears to have the markings of being something more sell-able b/c it's pretty simple.

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.

[Minty Fresh]

Everybody should shut the freak up and hit the freaking ball.

[HalfSmokes]

I assume, though, that we're all college graduates here, and there's a higher expectation.

Not at all. What did I say? I said I'm hearing more people than before specifically citing the incoherence between the leagues' games as a problem. Only that.

since we're assuming education and logical argument, I've been taught that propositions require some support and that personal opinions don't suffice, so what evidence do you have to support the proposition that more people than before specifically citing the incoherence between the leagues' games as a problem? Or to put in a way my professors would have, cite?

[imref]

DH is hard, lets go shopping.

[imref]

Regardless, this new one appears to have the markings of being something more sell-able b/c it's pretty simple.

simple is play the freaking game and let the pitcher bat like everyone else.

[_sturt_]

since we're assuming education and logical argument, I've been taught that propositions require some support and that personal opinions don't suffice, so what evidence do you have to support the proposition that more people than before specifically citing the incoherence between the leagues' games as a problem? Or to put in a way my professors would have, cite?

Personal opinions/observations suffice when they're stated as personal opinions/observations, and not asserted as something more than that.

I think if you'll check back, you'll find that my statements are consistent with that point.

You can deny that there's more people citing the incoherence, and you might be correct in that. But my own anecdotal experience is genuinely what I stated it to be.

Perhaps, though, you make a good point... I should start a log of each instance where I see someone saying something in that vein, so that I can, at least, verify that much.

[_sturt_]

simple is play the freaking game and let the pitcher bat like everyone else.

I get the emotions behind that. I dare say some might equal, but no one here exceeds my dislike for the DH. Some of you already know this, but for the sake of the casual reader, I left a team that had my heart for 40+ years over this. I can't stomach the DH game.

But the realist in me says that it's been 40 years, and like the person who declares that every woman should just have the baby and stop arguing... I don't see either of those perspectives making much in-roads. There's just too many people too passionate about their position on the issue.

[mitlen]

But the realist in me says that it's been 40 years, and like the person who declares that every woman should just have the baby and stop arguing... I don't see either of those perspectives making much in-roads. There's just too many people too passionate about their position on the issue.

Um, not quite.

[HalfSmokes]

Personal opinions/observations suffice when they're stated as personal opinions/observations, and not asserted as something more than that.

I think if you'll check back, you'll find that my statements are consistent with that point.

You can deny that there's more people citing the incoherence, and you might be correct in that. But my own anecdotal experience is genuinely what I stated it to be.

Perhaps, though, you make a good point... I should start a log of each instance where I see someone saying something in that vein, so that I can, at least, verify that much.

If the premise is that people don't like split rules therefore there needs to be a compromise, at least come up with some factual support for your premise

[pazzo83]

How about this.  We make it like football where there are set defensive and offensive lineups.  So in effect, you have 9 DHs, and none of the fielders bats.  Thoughts?  Thoughts?