|
Post by schellis on Apr 18, 2015 7:58:47 GMT -5
There are 15 position players in the AL that get a lot bigger check thanks to being a DH than they would being a bench player that can't play the field. Pitchers will still make their money regardless of whether they hit or not. Adding DH to the NL adds potentially 15 more highly paid position players with a multitude of options for the Players Union to integrate hitter only players into the league at a higher pay scale. Take Victor Martinez for example...that is one damn good hitter, but he has gotten older and his fielding has gone down hill. If not for the DH in the AL, he would basically be without a job. Sure someone might try to use him in the field throughout a season, but he would be on the IR most the year from nagging injuries. He is already plagued a bit, but making him play the field would only increase those odds. The DH makes sense both from a game planning perspective for managers, it makes the players more money in general because there would be 15 more highly paid positions in the league, and it possibly extends the careers of stars that can no longer give enough to a team in the field, but their bat has hardly fallen off. So it allows guys who don't possess the skill set to be a major league ballplayer to not only remain on a roster, but to be highly paid as well. Yeah, just can't imagine why I think the DH sucks. Maybe it's just because it does. How is it any different from a pitcher being a complete zero with the bat? Pitchers use to be able to hit a little. Baseball needs one set of rules, especially with interleague play every day. I don't believe it would add 15 jobs, but what it would do would allow remove a definite long term contract perk for AL teams, quasi days off for hitters and a step off the defensive spectrum between field and bench. It would also allow NL teams to regular rest their older players without removing their bats from the lineup. The downside is that it would remove double switches, and likely most pinch hitting, along with the joy of getting to see players like Adam Dunn in the field or Bartolo Colon attempt to hit.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Apr 18, 2015 8:39:08 GMT -5
So it allows guys who don't possess the skill set to be a major league ballplayer to not only remain on a roster, but to be highly paid as well. In addition to the offense/defense standard and definition of the game, I prefer the inside game and anything that increases the likelihood of keeping the ball in the park. If the league structures still existed, and this was a matter of persuading some number of AL owners to drop the DH rule, I'd rather see it eliminated...
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 18, 2015 9:18:12 GMT -5
I'm still unclear how exactly having the NL adopt the DH adds jobs. I'm still unclear as to how it creates jobs or increases salaries. If it does neither, then why should the union be pushing for it? There are 15 position players in the AL that get a lot bigger check thanks to being a DH than they would being a bench player that can't play the field. Pitchers will still make their money regardless of whether they hit or not. Adding DH to the NL adds potentially 15 more highly paid position players with a multitude of options for the Players Union to integrate hitter only players into the league at a higher pay scale. Take Victor Martinez for example...that is one damn good hitter, but he has gotten older and his fielding has gone down hill. If not for the DH in the AL, he would basically be without a job. Sure someone might try to use him in the field throughout a season, but he would be on the IR most the year from nagging injuries. He is already plagued a bit, but making him play the field would only increase those odds. The DH makes sense both from a game planning perspective for managers, it makes the players more money in general because there would be 15 more highly paid positions in the league, and it possibly extends the careers of stars that can no longer give enough to a team in the field, but their bat has hardly fallen off. It's not adding a spot to the 25 man roster. So, it's replacing an existing job. That's not job creation. As for salary increase, does it increase the total expenditure of owners on player payroll? Or, does it just reallocate it from the existing outlay? I suspect that, for a hitter of V-Mart's ability, a team would have found a spot for him to play if the DH did not exist. It's not like the pool of available talent is increasing or the number of spots on the active roster is increasing, so I find it unpersuasive that the total payroll expenditure would be increasing. So, is it actual job creation and salary increases, or just job and salary reallocation?
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Apr 18, 2015 9:52:07 GMT -5
I think the salary gains will be minimal. In the end I think it would just give poor fielders more potential jobs.
Take someone like Kendry Morales who was pretty much limited to AL only teams, and I doubt that teams would have made space for him if there was no DH. With 15 more slots available someone like him might get a offer that is a better or at least have more then a couple of options.
I think it is clear who would find a job in a non-DH world when AL teams play in NL parks.
If the Reds had the DH right now it is likely that Mesoraco would be in the lineup instead of being on the bench, and personally I rather see Mesoraco hit then watch Cueto, Bailey, Marquis, and Disco (Leake can hit)
I just believe that baseball needs one set of rules. NO other major sport does this. You don't see the AFC allowing 12 man offenses so someone is always open to increase offense in football while the NFC follows tradition, you don't see the Eastern conference play with a five inch bigger hoop then the Western to make their teams look better.
I think baseball should allow the DH in both leagues, but make it the home teams call if they want to use it.
Redsox coming to Cincinnati and Leake is on the mound. Reds go with pitcher hit. One of the Reds best bats can't take the field but can still hit, going against a strong pitcher and need all the offense you can get, go DH.
THis would also give the Reds four spots to play Votto, Winker, Waldrop, and Bruce.
|
|
devils
Ted Kluszewski
Posts: 769
|
Post by devils on Apr 18, 2015 9:56:45 GMT -5
Nope. I will give you 1 reason it should never happen. There are times when a pitcher has thrown at a batter, if your a pitcher and your going to do that, you damn well need to step in and face the music.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Apr 18, 2015 10:06:08 GMT -5
It's not adding a spot to the 25 man roster. So, it's replacing an existing job. That's not job creation. As for salary increase, does it increase the total expenditure of owners on player payroll? Or, does it just reallocate it from the existing outlay? Job creation is the wrong term, but it does add a player to starting lineups. In union terms, to take the academic equivalent, it's like replacing an adjunct position with a tenured one. It doesn't create the job, it makes the existing job better...
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 18, 2015 10:11:09 GMT -5
It's not adding a spot to the 25 man roster. So, it's replacing an existing job. That's not job creation. As for salary increase, does it increase the total expenditure of owners on player payroll? Or, does it just reallocate it from the existing outlay? Job creation is the wrong term, but it does add a player to starting lineups. In union terms, to take the academic equivalent, it's like replacing an adjunct position with a tenured one. It doesn't create the job, it makes the existing job better... Hmmmm. That's an interesting angle, I'll have to think on that one.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Apr 18, 2015 10:15:59 GMT -5
I just believe that baseball needs one set of rules. NO other major sport does this. You don't see the AFC allowing 12 man offenses so someone is always open to increase offense in football while the NFC follows tradition, you don't see the Eastern conference play with a five inch bigger hoop then the Western to make their teams look better. Baseball has the more interesting and important history, none of the others can touch it. Baseball owners created the Commissioner's Office, then spent the rest of the twentieth century trying to control the damn thing. That's drama, but it does basically explain the rules differences...
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Apr 18, 2015 13:51:31 GMT -5
Nope. I will give you 1 reason it should never happen. There are times when a pitcher has thrown at a batter, if your a pitcher and your going to do that, you damn well need to step in and face the music. That happens all the time when pitchers throw at star players like McCutchen. In retaliation they wait for the pitcher to bat and throw at him. Never do they throw at the other teams start player. If I'm a pitcher I assure you I'm not going to be throwing at the one guy in the lineup that is a near sure out, I'm throwing at the guy that will do the most damage.
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Apr 18, 2015 14:44:06 GMT -5
Yeah, lets add a more expensive guy to our batting lineup who can't get on base. It's genius.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Apr 18, 2015 21:27:45 GMT -5
I'm still unclear how exactly having the NL adopt the DH adds jobs. I'm still unclear as to how it creates jobs or increases salaries. If it does neither, then why should the union be pushing for it? It's easy, instead of having guys like Votto, Dunn, etc. retiring early because they played 150+ games in the field every day they prolong their careers because they can be used as dh's. You'll have the same likes of Nelson Cruz, VMart, Ortiz, etc. in the national league making millions instead of Chris Dominguez like players making league minimum. Joey Votto dh, Buster Posey dh, etc...gives more bench guys more playing time equates to more money.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Apr 18, 2015 21:29:45 GMT -5
There are 15 position players in the AL that get a lot bigger check thanks to being a DH than they would being a bench player that can't play the field. Pitchers will still make their money regardless of whether they hit or not. Adding DH to the NL adds potentially 15 more highly paid position players with a multitude of options for the Players Union to integrate hitter only players into the league at a higher pay scale. Take Victor Martinez for example...that is one damn good hitter, but he has gotten older and his fielding has gone down hill. If not for the DH in the AL, he would basically be without a job. Sure someone might try to use him in the field throughout a season, but he would be on the IR most the year from nagging injuries. He is already plagued a bit, but making him play the field would only increase those odds. The DH makes sense both from a game planning perspective for managers, it makes the players more money in general because there would be 15 more highly paid positions in the league, and it possibly extends the careers of stars that can no longer give enough to a team in the field, but their bat has hardly fallen off. It's not adding a spot to the 25 man roster. So, it's replacing an existing job. That's not job creation. As for salary increase, does it increase the total expenditure of owners on player payroll? Or, does it just reallocate it from the existing outlay? I suspect that, for a hitter of V-Mart's ability, a team would have found a spot for him to play if the DH did not exist. It's not like the pool of available talent is increasing or the number of spots on the active roster is increasing, so I find it unpersuasive that the total payroll expenditure would be increasing. So, is it actual job creation and salary increases, or just job and salary reallocation? Neither it's salary increases and job reallocation. Google search it - there are numerous articles on how the DH increases player salaries.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on May 7, 2015 18:54:15 GMT -5
|
|