The Most Divisive Issue Of Our Times

I've never cared for the designated hitter. I hate these big fat guys can be completely, hopelessly incompetent at fielding any position, and it doesn't matter. They can just sit on their butts except for the 3-4 times a game they get to bat. They're ballplayers, being able to play a position marginally well ought to be part of the job.

I understand that some people don't like watching pitchers hit, because they are mostly awful at it. But I appreciate at least the pitchers are trying to hit (though you couldn't tell by watching some of them), and it makes it all the more fun when one of them actually succeeds. Heck, even watching them fail horribly can be entertaining, in a "Greatest Sports Bloopers" way. It amused me how Randy Johnson was such a dominating pitcher, but looked awkward as hell batting, although my biggest laugh was that time Mike Mussina tripped rounding 3rd base.

I'm not going to argue one is inherently better than the other. That never gets anywhere. I saw a poll on Joe Posnanski's site where people who prefer the NL hate the DH, and people who prefer the AL think it's good. That seems about right. I don't see anyone being swayed by my feelings, and if the DH hasn't won me over by now, it's not going to. I know it's odd to have different sets of rules for the leagues, but just call it one of those quirks of baseball.

There's that whole scenario where the pitcher is coming up with men in scoring position, and there's a decision: Let him bat so he can stay in the game? Or take him out and roll the dice that a) the pinch-hitter comes through, and b) the bullpen does its job? And it isn't always the same answer. I've seen a manager pinch-hit for his pitcher in the second inning, because he was sure it was going to be a high-scoring game, so best to seize the opportunity. Other times they leave the guy in in the 8th, because he's cruising, or because the bullpen got worn out the night before. It doesn't happen every game, but that helps. It's an occasional little bit of drama or suspense. With a DH, the pitcher already has someone hitting for him, so it's a moot point.

Beyond that, I think it forces the manager to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the players a little more. The Cardinals have been playing Brandon Moss in left field recently. They've mostly been winning this year by not allowing runs, but this is not their best available defensive outfield - that's probably Tommie Pham/Peter Bourjos/Jason Heyward at the moment. But Moss is likely the best power hitter of the bunch (in theory). It's a case of sacrificing some of that outfield defense to get his bat in there and try to bolster what's been an erratic offense. With a DH, Moss could just hit, and they could have that all-defense outfield (though given Matheny's apparent distaste for Bourjos, it's more likely he'd go Piscotty/Pham/Heyward, but whatever). It's more efficient, but it seems less fun*.  Eat your cake and have it, too.

I look at it like a mosaic, where you can create multiple different pictures, depending on how you arrange the pieces. Most players are going to have holes in their game - they can't all be Mike Trout - so why not try and find entertainment in the imperfections? It's neat when a player excels in some area they normally don't. The slick-fielding banjo hitter puts one in the bleachers (narrowly). The lumbering slugger saves a run with a circus catch in the outfield (that anyone else on the team would have made easily, but still).

And watching teams go in vastly different directions when constructing teams, but still winning*. The team with marginal starting pitching but a lights out rotation. The team of guys who make a lot of contact, but have limited power, or the lineups of guys that strike out a ton, but can hit the ball a mile (and may or may not walk much). Teams with their best hitters in the positions in the middle of the field, but their best fielders in the corners. Some of these work better than others, but watching the different approaches is interesting. Obviously American League teams still have to weigh these things when building a roster, but they do have that option to stash at least one good bat/crap glove guy in the spot where he never has to field. It simplifies things a little.

There have been rumbles for years that the NL will implement the DH sooner or later, and that's probably true. Especially if offense continues to sag, or more accurately, if revenues sag because people want more offense than they're getting. I already lived through one high offense era in the late '90s/early 2000s, so I'm in no particular hurry for an encore. Maybe they'll be willing to hold off on bringing the DH to the NL until after I'm dead.

* This is something I like in the NBA, too, how you see teams build around very different approaches, based on the strengths of their best players, and how the roster fits together. Superhero teams, too, for that matter. The ones that aren't overwhelmingly powerful, but win by leveraging the abilities of the team.