|
Post by philliesphan on Mar 11, 2007 0:31:01 GMT -5
There is a lot of contorversy between AL and the NL because of the Designated Hitter. When the pitcher bats it certainly puts a lot more strategy in the game, which is what baseball is a all about, but come on, who wants to see a pitcher bat 3 times a game? It 's often a momentum killer when your team is in the middle of a rally, and the pitcher steps up to bat, but is pitching too well to take out of the ball game. Strong Points can be made on both sides, and I expect this to be a very active debate.
Debate away!
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Mar 11, 2007 10:33:52 GMT -5
Side I am taking: The NL is better because there is no designated hitter.
The designated hitter was created in 1973 especially for the American League because of the offensive troubles it was having. MLB hoped to see more excitement in the lagging and upopular American League, and hoped to boost MLB's popularity decline due to the rising popularity of the National Football League. Well, they succeeded in one of those two points. The DH did put more offense into the game, but it didn't help the popularity of baseball. Baseball just continued to decline as a result of the NFL.
Many people wanted to see baseball become "faster". But in reality, all that happened was that a invaluable part of the game was wisked away. No more pinch hitters or pitchers "helping there own cause". Nope, the DH was a pretty bad decision for baseball. That is why the AL is now known as "the sissy league".
|
|
|
Post by jdbsa05 on Mar 11, 2007 13:57:50 GMT -5
I'm going with the AL, because designated hitters are better.
Your pitcher is out there against a good offense, and you have a very bad defense. Let's face it: your pitcher is going to get very tired. Its a good idea to have a person jump in for the pitcher in the event that happens.
In the event that doesn't happen, think about this: if your pitcher is out there in the sun for how many hours in the game, he's going to get dehydrated, and tired, even though he doesn't play for that terrible defense I was talking about earlier. You will not want him to get really tired by playing for the offense too. So you bring in the DH.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 12, 2007 17:38:01 GMT -5
The DH rule is stupid, idiotic, and stupid.
It's also really stupid.
Pitchers are athletes too, and last I checked, they were BASEBALL PLAYERS. So why shouldn't they participate in the entire game?
I'd like to bring up that the DH rule actually hurts young AL pitchers. Most AL pitchers will have to pitch in the NL during one season or another and when they get there, they're going to have no idea how to hit the ball. In college, pitchers are the best athletes, and they tend to lose that in the ML.
It's also not fair. If the NL doesn't have it, then neither should the AL.
OOYL, your argument is stupid.
NL pitchers do it, so why can't AL pitchers?
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Mar 12, 2007 19:03:08 GMT -5
The DH rule is stupid, idiotic, and stupid. It's also really stupid. Pitchers are athletes too, and last I checked, they were BASEBALL PLAYERS. So why shouldn't they participate in the entire game? I'd like to bring up that the DH rule actually hurts young AL pitchers. Most AL pitchers will have to pitch in the NL during one season or another and when they get there, they're going to have no idea how to hit the ball. In college, pitchers are the best athletes, and they tend to lose that in the ML. It's also not fair. If the NL doesn't have it, then neither should the AL. OOYL, your argument is stupid. NL pitchers do it, so why can't AL pitchers? To borrow your word, That argument is stupid. Everyone knows there are better pitchers in the AL because they have to pitch to players who only hit--->the DH position. The better pitchers usually get drafted/start out in the AL. In fact, many pitchers are quote "relieved" when they get to the NL because it is an easier league. And to jdbsa: Batting for pitchers is a joke. And it should be. It doesn't take any energy. The only purpose is that it gives the game strategy.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 12, 2007 19:36:39 GMT -5
Exactly. The AL has an unfair advantage. So what would be the harm in doing away with the DH?
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Mar 14, 2007 17:44:12 GMT -5
Nothing. I might switch sides for the sake of argument though since there is no opposition.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 14, 2007 17:54:19 GMT -5
Who cares. Argue your point.
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Mar 14, 2007 18:40:17 GMT -5
But don't forget, the DH is one of the few things that makes baseball "faster'' and more offensive. Gone were the days where you could have the leisure time to sit down and enjoy a nice cup of iced tea on a hot summer day lounging with the play-by-play (oh yeah you like that). People are bored with the slowness of the game in today's fast-paced world. How would baseball ever compete with faster games like bball and football without adapting?
So, in the 70's, thats what the game did. A wise decision. One that brought baseball into the slam-dunk, homerun, ESPN era of modern sports.
FLIP-FLOP!
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 16, 2007 16:27:29 GMT -5
Train pitchers to hit, and the offense will be just fine.
If offense is important, then no one would care about people taking steroids as long as they hit home runs.
And baseball doesn't need to compete with football, basketball, or hockey. It is its own sport.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Mar 18, 2007 17:21:33 GMT -5
I'm a fan of pitchers batting. It gives more strategy to a normally manager-lucky game (as in..who am I going to pitch and in what sequence for the playoffs? You could get lucky with a pitcher in the playoffs, for example, Kenny Rogers. Most of the roster decisions are made before the season starts, so the manager has a boring job there. With the pitcher, it gives more of an opportunity for bunts. More so in baseball than any other sport managerial duties are luck.)
Even though I support pitchers batting, I'm not sure I support it for the AL. Where would teams be without someone like David Ortiz? We all have players we love, and I want to see them play as long as possible (as in...Frank Thomas and Mike Piazza.) Another reason I don't support it is because I'm an NL guy, and the batting pitcher and eventual pinch hitter late in games has become somewhat sacred to the NL. Also, if you're watching your team and just think "uhh, the pitcher is batting. An out.", how great is it when guys like Dontrelle Willis or Carlos Zambrano jack one? Guys like these are the faces of the franchise, and it gets even better when we see these guys begging to pinch-hit or hit higher in the order. Now, we may not ever have a pitcher worthy of that, but it gives some excitement to an otherwise long baseball season.
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Mar 19, 2007 19:01:53 GMT -5
And baseball doesn't need to compete with football, basketball, or hockey. It is its own sport. Major flaw in your argument. We've spent hours discussing how basketball has taken away African-Americans from the sport. Also, baseball was on top till football came along and stole the show. Now-a-days the majority of football fans regard themselves as 1. being football fans, and 2. being baseball fans. So, in conclusion, other sports certainly play a major role in the popularity of baseball. Oh wait aren't we talking about the DH ?
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Mar 19, 2007 20:21:25 GMT -5
I didn't say they don't play a role. But you don't need to compare baseball to make it better.
And I just think that a pitcher drafted to an AL team is going to be a detriment to his team once he moves to the NL later in his career.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Mar 20, 2007 15:28:54 GMT -5
I'm gonna give the win to GEO, because he and OOYL were the only ones who participated the most, and OOYL switched sides, which really didn't show me he really showed his true opinion.
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Mar 20, 2007 16:50:16 GMT -5
I switched sides because there was no opposition! Don't end this one yet.....
|
|