|
Post by TEM on Apr 6, 2019 8:57:17 GMT -5
Interruption: The DL should put his glove on and play the field also. Not just sit on the bench and munch on seeds. You are making my point for me. The only difference is the punter and kicker are obligated to hit the opponent to stop the ball from advancing. . It is not just kicking and punting . You're so wrong... There is no difference between a DH in baseball and a DESIGNATED kicker in football. None. And don't get me wrong, I'm not for getting rid of all DESIGNATED kickers and punters. The last thing I would want to see is a wide receiver trying to kick a 20 yard field goal. It would be just as ridiculous as watching a MLB pitcher up at the plate. I disagree . A pitcher is a baseball player he should take his swings. Is all the DH does is prolong the career of players that are: A Too old and slow to be able to field a position. B Too out of shape to field a position. C: Too F*** up from injuries to field a position. D: Are not a good enough player to field a position. The minors leagues are for players in these categories. I am not saying pitchers a great hitters . They are on the field . They should hit. Why not just have a team of DHs and screw field play . Call the game HR derby.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 9:22:29 GMT -5
You're so wrong... There is no difference between a DH in baseball and a DESIGNATED kicker in football. None. And don't get me wrong, I'm not for getting rid of all DESIGNATED kickers and punters. The last thing I would want to see is a wide receiver trying to kick a 20 yard field goal. It would be just as ridiculous as watching a MLB pitcher up at the plate. I disagree . A pitcher is a baseball player he should take his swings. Is all the DH does is prolong the career of players that are: A Too old and slow to be able to field a position. B Too out of shape to field a position. C: Too F*** up from injuries to field a position. D: Are not a good enough player to field a position. The minors leagues are for players in these categories. I am not saying pitchers a great hitters . They are on the field . They should hit. Why not just have a team of DHs and screw field play . Call the game HR derby. So you don't think Edgar Martinez should've been elected into the HOF this year? He wasn't worthy of that achievement?
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Apr 6, 2019 9:52:21 GMT -5
Well of course hitters are gonna have better batting averages than pitchers, that seems like a objective fact to me. But what's the uphill climb part? The uphill climb part is favoring an inferior product by preferring to have pitchers hit, instead of a genuine MLB hitter in place of them. An objective that you admit to being a fact. I admitted that hitters have better batting averages than pitchers. That’s all. If having an inferior hitter bat creates an inferior product then why aren’t teams simply allowed to play whomever they want in the field and bat their 9 best batters regardless whether they’re playing in the field or not? Anything less is an inferior product.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 10:20:02 GMT -5
The uphill climb part is favoring an inferior product by preferring to have pitchers hit, instead of a genuine MLB hitter in place of them. An objective that you admit to being a fact. I admitted that hitters have better batting averages than pitchers. That’s all. If having an inferior hitter bat creates an inferior product then why aren’t teams simply allowed to play whomever they want in the field and bat their 9 best batters regardless whether they’re playing in the field or not? Anything less is an inferior product. Because replacing everyday players with DH's is not necessary. Only keeping pitchers away from the plate is. Everyday players aren't as awful as pitchers are when it comes to hitting.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Apr 6, 2019 10:29:14 GMT -5
I admitted that hitters have better batting averages than pitchers. That’s all. If having an inferior hitter bat creates an inferior product then why aren’t teams simply allowed to play whomever they want in the field and bat their 9 best batters regardless whether they’re playing in the field or not? Anything less is an inferior product. Because replacing everyday players with DH's is not necessary. Only keeping pitchers away from the plate is. Everyday players aren't as awful as pitchers are when it comes to hitting. Replacing pitchers with better hitters isn’t necessary either, it’s just a choice the American League made. What difference does it make who is being replaced by a better hitter? Your argument is that anything less than a better hitter is an inferior product. So put the best 9 hitters up every game regardless of whether they play the field or not. In fact, they needn’t even know how to play baseball so long as they can hit.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 6, 2019 11:16:21 GMT -5
I disagree . A pitcher is a baseball player he should take his swings. Is all the DH does is prolong the career of players that are: A Too old and slow to be able to field a position. B Too out of shape to field a position. C: Too F*** up from injuries to field a position. D: Are not a good enough player to field a position. The minors leagues are for players in these categories. I am not saying pitchers a great hitters . They are on the field . They should hit. Why not just have a team of DHs and screw field play . Call the game HR derby. So you don't think Edgar Martinez should've been elected into the HOF this year? He wasn't worthy of that achievement? Do not put words in my mouth . It brings out my condescending side. I said I would not to be with you. I am holding that agreement. What I am saying and not beating around the bush about it. I have said it in multiple posts . If you take the field you should bat. I will add. If you bat and do not take the field .You are a pinch hitter period.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 11:51:47 GMT -5
Because replacing everyday players with DH's is not necessary. Only keeping pitchers away from the plate is. Everyday players aren't as awful as pitchers are when it comes to hitting. Replacing pitchers with better hitters isn’t necessary either, it’s just a choice the American League made. What difference does it make who is being replaced by a better hitter? Your argument is that anything less than a better hitter is an inferior product. So put the best 9 hitters up every game regardless of whether they play the field or not. In fact, they needn’t even know how to play baseball so long as they can hit. Replacing a pitcher with a DH does make a difference (for the better) and is necessary. I know what your answer is going to be, but I'll ask anyway. Isn't it frustrating when you see the Mets start a two out rally, then have it practically squashed because the pitcher is due up? Or if the opponent pitches around the 8th batter just to get the pitcher up there? I hate that when I watch the Yanks in an inter-league game!
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 11:54:00 GMT -5
So you don't think Edgar Martinez should've been elected into the HOF this year? He wasn't worthy of that achievement? Do not put words in my mouth . It brings out my condescending side. I said I would not to be with you. I am holding that agreement. What I am saying and not beating around the bush about it. I have said it in multiple posts . If you take the field you should bat. I will add. If you bat and do not take the field .You are a pinch hitter period. Huh? I wasn't words in your mouth. It was a legitimate question. Do you think Edgar Martinez who got in the HOF with his bat only belongs there?
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 12:01:07 GMT -5
So you don't think Edgar Martinez should've been elected into the HOF this year? He wasn't worthy of that achievement? Do not put words in my mouth . It brings out my condescending side. I said I would not to be with you. I am holding that agreement. What I am saying and not beating around the bush about it. I have said it in multiple posts . If you take the field you should bat. I will add. If you bat and do not take the field .You are a pinch hitter period. And do you think football would have more strategy if you got rid of kickers and punters? That's the argument I also hear from anti-DHers. It's 4th and 4 and it's a chip shot 25 yard field goal. A no brainer to bring in your designated kicker for the chip shot 25 yarder. But now you don't have a designated kicker! Instead, you have to use your wide receiver, or quarterback, or RB, or God forbid an offensive lineman. What do you do now?? Take a chance that your running back can kick that not so much of chip shot anymore 25 yarder, or go for it on 4th and 4? Oooh, the strategy!
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Apr 6, 2019 12:12:51 GMT -5
Replacing pitchers with better hitters isn’t necessary either, it’s just a choice the American League made. What difference does it make who is being replaced by a better hitter? Your argument is that anything less than a better hitter is an inferior product. So put the best 9 hitters up every game regardless of whether they play the field or not. In fact, they needn’t even know how to play baseball so long as they can hit. Replacing a pitcher with a DH does make a difference (for the better) and is necessary. I know what your answer is going to be, but I'll ask anyway. Isn't it frustrating when you see the Mets start a two out rally, then have it practically squashed because the pitcher is due up? Or if the opponent pitches around the 8th batter just to get the pitcher up there? I hate that when I watch the Yanks in an inter-league game! I agree it makes a difference, but it is clearly not necessary. It's simply a choice the american league made and that's fine. But that doesn't mean everybody needs to follow their whim. No, it's not frustrating to me because it's what I know and I'm used to it. Plus it's the rules of the game and the rules are the same for each team so it doesn't frustrate me just as I don;t get frustrated when a QB doesn't make the tackle after throwing a pick. I think the NDFL should allow a good tackler to come on the field after an INT to replace the QB and to help make the tackle. QBs are crappy at tackling.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 12:26:54 GMT -5
Replacing a pitcher with a DH does make a difference (for the better) and is necessary. I know what your answer is going to be, but I'll ask anyway. Isn't it frustrating when you see the Mets start a two out rally, then have it practically squashed because the pitcher is due up? Or if the opponent pitches around the 8th batter just to get the pitcher up there? I hate that when I watch the Yanks in an inter-league game! I agree it makes a difference, but it is clearly not necessary. It's simply a choice the american league made and that's fine. But that doesn't mean everybody needs to follow their whim. No, it's not frustrating to me because it's what I know and I'm used to it. Plus it's the rules of the game and the rules are the same for each team so it doesn't frustrate me just as I don;t get frustrated when a QB doesn't make the tackle after throwing a pick. I think the NDFL should allow a good tackler to come on the field after an INT to replace the QB and to help make the tackle. QBs are crappy at tackling. I knew your answer would be no... You brought up an interesting point. You're "used to it". I don't know how old you are, but I was a young kid in 1973 when the DH was brought into the American League, and I did not like it. I was used to seeing pitchers hit. But after watching Yankees & Mets games, and other games in both the AL & NL over the years, the DH grew on me and I became a fan of it because I was no longer seeing four to five incredibly horrible at bats during the game. (I say 4 to 5 and not 8 to 10 because you're happy when the opponent's pitcher is up at the plate). I think if the NL adopted the DH, a majority of its fans would eventually adapt and prefer it.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Apr 6, 2019 12:32:32 GMT -5
I agree it makes a difference, but it is clearly not necessary. It's simply a choice the american league made and that's fine. But that doesn't mean everybody needs to follow their whim. No, it's not frustrating to me because it's what I know and I'm used to it. Plus it's the rules of the game and the rules are the same for each team so it doesn't frustrate me just as I don;t get frustrated when a QB doesn't make the tackle after throwing a pick. I think the NDFL should allow a good tackler to come on the field after an INT to replace the QB and to help make the tackle. QBs are crappy at tackling. I knew your answer would be no... You brought up an interesting point. You're "used to it". I don't know how old you are, but I was a young kid in 1973 when the DH was brought into the American League, and I did not like it. I was used to seeing pitchers hit. But after watching Yankees & Mets games, and other games in both the AL & NL over the years, the DH grew on me and I became a fan of it because I was no longer seeing four to five incredibly horrible at bats during the game. (I say 4 to 5 and not 8 to 10 because you're happy when the opponent's pitcher is up at the plate). I think if the NL adopted the DH, a majority of its fans would eventually adapt and prefer it. I was ten years old in 1973. I agree that fans of a sport will adapt but I would not go so far as to say preference would change. I submit that if MLB did away with the DH, AL fans would adapt. I don't think they'd ever prefer it the traditional way but they'd get used to it. Just like I'd get used to it if MLB decided to make the DH the rule across both leagues. Hell, I grew to accept the ridiculous circus of NHL regular season overtime, if I like the sport enough, I'll adapt just as I think most people would.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 6, 2019 12:35:17 GMT -5
I knew your answer would be no... You brought up an interesting point. You're "used to it". I don't know how old you are, but I was a young kid in 1973 when the DH was brought into the American League, and I did not like it. I was used to seeing pitchers hit. But after watching Yankees & Mets games, and other games in both the AL & NL over the years, the DH grew on me and I became a fan of it because I was no longer seeing four to five incredibly horrible at bats during the game. (I say 4 to 5 and not 8 to 10 because you're happy when the opponent's pitcher is up at the plate). I think if the NL adopted the DH, a majority of its fans would eventually adapt and prefer it. I was ten years old in 1973. I agree that fans of a sport will adapt but I would not go so far as to say preference would change. I submit that if MLB did away with the DH, AL fans would adapt. I don't think they'd ever prefer it the traditional way but they'd get used to it. Just like I'd get used to it if MLB decided to make the DH the rule across both leagues. Hell, I grew to accept the ridiculous circus of NHL regular season overtime, if I like the sport enough, I'll adapt just as I think most people would. I'll agree with you on the shootouts in overtime games in the NHL, lol.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 6:50:40 GMT -5
Do not put words in my mouth . It brings out my condescending side. I said I would not to be with you. I am holding that agreement. What I am saying and not beating around the bush about it. I have said it in multiple posts . If you take the field you should bat. I will add. If you bat and do not take the field .You are a pinch hitter period. And do you think football would have more strategy if you got rid of kickers and punters? That's the argument I also hear from anti-DHers. It's 4th and 4 and it's a chip shot 25 yard field goal. A no brainer to bring in your designated kicker for the chip shot 25 yarder. But now you don't have a designated kicker! Instead, you have to use your wide receiver, or quarterback, or RB, or God forbid an offensive lineman. What do you do now?? Take a chance that your running back can kick that not so much of chip shot anymore 25 yarder, or go for it on 4th and 4? Oooh, the strategy! I am a traditionalist with sports. Why would I want to change even more a watered down version of the game.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 7:07:39 GMT -5
Do not put words in my mouth . It brings out my condescending side. I said I would not to be with you. I am holding that agreement. What I am saying and not beating around the bush about it. I have said it in multiple posts . If you take the field you should bat. I will add. If you bat and do not take the field .You are a pinch hitter period. Huh? I wasn't words in your mouth. It was a legitimate question. Do you think Edgar Martinez who got in the HOF with his bat only belongs there? I believe ones bat gets them into the hall. What would baseball be without good fielders, base stealers..... Using Martinez as an example . I will ask you the same Question . Hank Aron never was a DH . Was a life long National Leaguer . He did not need to sit on the bench and watch his teammates field. He was on the field . His numbers held up not because his career was lengthened by just hitting. His numbers held up because he was a great ball player. I can rattle off National leaguers in the hall that never DH that hold some of MLB hitting records. So who is more the deserving player in the hall . The entire player, Arron, Mays, Stargell …….. or the player that could not field a position for his entire career?
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 7, 2019 8:42:49 GMT -5
Huh? I wasn't words in your mouth. It was a legitimate question. Do you think Edgar Martinez who got in the HOF with his bat only belongs there? I believe ones bat gets them into the hall. What would baseball be without good fielders, base stealers..... Using Martinez as an example . I will ask you the same Question . Hank Aron never was a DH . Was a life long National Leaguer . He did not need to sit on the bench and watch his teammates field. He was on the field . His numbers held up not because his career was lengthened by just hitting. His numbers held up because he was a great ball player. I can rattle off National leaguers in the hall that never DH that hold some of MLB hitting records. So who is more the deserving player in the hall . The entire player, Arron, Mays, Stargell …….. or the player that could not field a position for his entire career? Depends on who the "entire player" is. Aaron, Mays: Yes... They belong in the HOF more than Edgar Martinez & Big Papi does. Not because they never DH'd, but because they were better players period. Bill Mazoroski: No.... Edgar & Papi deserve to be in the HOF more, than this "very good fielder" who just happened to hit a World Series Game 7 winning home run.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 7, 2019 8:44:06 GMT -5
And do you think football would have more strategy if you got rid of kickers and punters? That's the argument I also hear from anti-DHers. It's 4th and 4 and it's a chip shot 25 yard field goal. A no brainer to bring in your designated kicker for the chip shot 25 yarder. But now you don't have a designated kicker! Instead, you have to use your wide receiver, or quarterback, or RB, or God forbid an offensive lineman. What do you do now?? Take a chance that your running back can kick that not so much of chip shot anymore 25 yarder, or go for it on 4th and 4? Oooh, the strategy! I am a traditionalist with sports. Why would I want to change even more a watered down version of the game. Because pitchers up at the plate waters down the hitting.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 8:45:38 GMT -5
I believe ones bat gets them into the hall. What would baseball be without good fielders, base stealers..... Using Martinez as an example . I will ask you the same Question . Hank Aron never was a DH . Was a life long National Leaguer . He did not need to sit on the bench and watch his teammates field. He was on the field . His numbers held up not because his career was lengthened by just hitting. His numbers held up because he was a great ball player. I can rattle off National leaguers in the hall that never DH that hold some of MLB hitting records. So who is more the deserving player in the hall . The entire player, Aron, Mays, Stargell …….. or the player that could not field a position for his entire career? Depends on who the "entire player" is. Aaron, Mays: Yes... They belong in the HOF more than Edgar Martinez & Big Papi does. Not because they never DH'd, but because they were better players period.Bill Mazoroski: No.... Edgar & Papi deserve to be in the HOF more, than this "very good fielder" who just happened to hit a World Series Game 7 winning home run. You just made my point.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 8:50:46 GMT -5
I am a traditionalist with sports. Why would I want to change even more a watered down version of the game. Because pitchers up at the plate waters down the hitting. I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 7, 2019 8:52:46 GMT -5
Depends on who the "entire player" is. Aaron, Mays: Yes... They belong in the HOF more than Edgar Martinez & Big Papi does. Not because they never DH'd, but because they were better players period.Bill Mazoroski: No.... Edgar & Papi deserve to be in the HOF more, than this "very good fielder" who just happened to hit a World Series Game 7 winning home run. You just made my point. Sorry to disagree with your misinterpretation of what I said, but I made my own point not yours... Mays & Aaron were better players than Edgar & Papi not because they never DH'd, but because they were better hitters. Notice how I omitted Stargel's name? I did that because David Ortiz was a better player than Willie Stargel. His 1st baseman's glove does not put him above Big Papi.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 8:56:50 GMT -5
You just made my point. Sorry to disagree with your misinterpretation of what I said, but I made my own point not yours... Mays & Aaron were better players than Edgar & Papi not because they never DH'd, but because they were better hitters. Notice how I omitted Stargel's name? I did that because David Ortiz was a better player than Willie Stargel. His 1st baseman's glove does not put him above Big Papi. And Yet Stargel's numbers were HOF worthy without the need to sit some AL bench and become a DH.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Apr 7, 2019 9:01:49 GMT -5
Because pitchers up at the plate waters down the hitting. I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested. You know what would be cool? Teams designate how many designated hitters they want to use each game. Got a light hitting shortstop? Use a DH for him. Same for the weak hitting left and right fielders. After all it’s all about making the game better!
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 7, 2019 9:06:35 GMT -5
Because pitchers up at the plate waters down the hitting. I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested. Wrong again, and I've got a legendary former major league manager to prove you're wrong....... I went to a sports charity function at Adelphi University last December, and one of the guest speakers there was, Jim Leyland. The great manager who managed teams in both the AL and NL... Leyland said during his speech that it was "harder to manage in the American League than the National League", and he gave this example: (I'm paraphrasing): "If I'm managing a game in the American League and I'm down 3-0 in the 6th inning, I'm wondering if I should try to get another inning out of my pitcher, or should I take him out now? In the National League, there's no decision to make, because the decision is made for you. You're down by three runs, it's the 6th inning and your pitcher is due up. It's simple. You pinch hit for him". The element of strategy in double switches is so overrated and so less exciting than seeing a DH hit a double. Double switch < Double from a DH
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 7, 2019 9:08:40 GMT -5
Sorry to disagree with your misinterpretation of what I said, but I made my own point not yours... Mays & Aaron were better players than Edgar & Papi not because they never DH'd, but because they were better hitters. Notice how I omitted Stargel's name? I did that because David Ortiz was a better player than Willie Stargel. His 1st baseman's glove does not put him above Big Papi. And Yet Stargel's numbers were HOF worthy without the need to sit some AL bench and become a DH. Stargel's career numbers could've been even better if he had the opportunity to be a DH in the later years of his career.... What a shame he didn't have that opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Apr 7, 2019 9:13:09 GMT -5
I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested. You know what would be cool? Teams designate how many designated hitters they want to use each game. Got a light hitting shortstop? Use a DH for him. Same for the weak hitting left and right fielders. After all it’s all about making the game better! You know what would be really cool? Having the DH be used universally in inter-league games, and in the World Series. Even when the American League is the visiting team. And of course, we'll give the National League team the option to still have their pitcher's hit, so they don't have to be forced to use a DH. That would be cool by me.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Apr 7, 2019 9:26:34 GMT -5
Because pitchers up at the plate waters down the hitting. I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested. I don’t think you can compare former players to DHs’. Since a DH only has to be half a player, their hitting numbers obviously should be better than a full player by a significant factor......it’s a completely different thing. It’s a specialist function and the number of them that make the HOF should be like the number of punters and kickers in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 9:30:45 GMT -5
I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested. You know what would be cool? Teams designate how many designated hitters they want to use each game. Got a light hitting shortstop? Use a DH for him. Same for the weak hitting left and right fielders. After all it’s all about making the game better! How about getting rid of the pitcher all together and mount a jugs on the mound . Just program the jugs on how to pitch to each hitter.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 9:32:30 GMT -5
And Yet Stargel's numbers were HOF worthy without the need to sit some AL bench and become a DH. Stargel's career numbers could've been even better if he had the opportunity to be a DH in the later years of his career.... What a shame he didn't have that opportunity. And yet they did not need to be. Explain that?
|
|
tcseacliff
Special Teams
...A closd mouth, gathers no feet!"
Posts: 193
|
Post by tcseacliff on Apr 7, 2019 9:34:46 GMT -5
You may prefer pitchers up at the plate over major league hitters, but when you look at the overall batting average between pitchers and designated hitters, it's an uphill climb for NL purists. Well of course hitters are gonna have better batting averages than pitchers, that seems like a objective fact to me. But what's the uphill climb part? then we can have batters fill in as pitchers designated pitchers??LOL! getting nutz!!
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2019 9:37:14 GMT -5
I see it differently . The way I see it: The pitcher batting adds an element of strategy into the game. One of the only ones left that a human manager can resolve. DH is a perfect fit for a computerized manager. It is binary Yes/No . The reason the universal DH is even being suggested. Wrong again, and I've got a legendary former major league manager to prove you're wrong....... I went to a sports charity function at Adelphi University last December, and one of the guest speakers there was, Jim Leyland. The great manager who managed teams in both the AL and NL... Leyland said during his speech that it was "harder to manage in the American League than the National League", and he gave this example: (I'm paraphrasing): "If I'm managing a game in the American League and I'm down 3-0 in the 6th inning, I'm wondering if I should try to get another inning out of my pitcher, or should I take him out now? In the National League, there's no decision to make, because the decision is made for you. You're down by three runs, it's the 6th inning and your pitcher is due up. It's simple. You pinch hit for him". The element of strategy in double switches is so overrated and so less exciting than seeing a DH hit a double. Double switch < Double from a DH It is the difference in a close game of going with a starting pitcher that pitching a good game. Or going with a pinch hitter to produce the need runs. That is never done in the AL . So how exactly am I wrong?
|
|