Alright, another question that kind of play's with my mind. You guys have to understand that I don't get to be on-line much so I have all day to think of things and then unload when I finally get online.

The topic here goes along with the "IS MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYING A FAIR GAME" thread...

Is it fair that the two leagues in Major league baseball have different rules? I'm referring to the American league pitchers not having to bat, where as the national league pitchers are forced to bat.

It can reak havoc when setting up a line-up, or deciding when to take or leave a pitcher in the game if you know that they are going to have to bat.

I know this may seem small to some people... but what the question is has not as much to do about NL pitchers batting, and more to do about the difference in rules?

Can anyone shed a little light on this Countryboy?

PS... I'll bet that an AL pitcher is more willing to throw at a guy knowing that he himself doesn't have to bat, but that's just my opinion.

Country

Well, the DH is still officially "an experiment". I personally don't like it, as the managerial strategizing is taken out of the game. Knowing when to pull the "double-switch", when to let a pitcher go one more inning, all make the game that much more interesting. I also remember reading once how the Braves pitching staff had a pool bet as to which pitcher would have the best batting stats at the end of the year.

Being a long time baseball nut and semi historian, I feel that the designated hitter and domed stadiums need to be done away with and baseball would be better for it! The players union will never give up the dh unless the American League would agree to add another player on the team roster, since it is a place for guys to go to retire that can still hit!

Two of the biggest headhunters in MLB are now pitching in the NL, Pedro Martinez (Mets) and Roger Rocket Clemens (Astros) and they still pitch inside and are not changing their style due to the fact they have to hit! I just wish they would do away with the desginated hitter rule and have pitchers hit in both leagues.

Trivia: first dh to get a hit in MLB history...Ron Bloomberg, dh, 1b for the NY Yankees. Story goes as he was a kid, his father used to throw berrries to him and he would hit them with a stick, and this is how he learned his great hand eye co-ordination! Bloomberg was not a good defensive player and he said, "I guess I should have learned to catch the berries as well as hit them"!

Charlie

the the pitchers bat damn it!

Its not so much a matter of if its fair, its just different.

There are good arguments for both sides. The "yeahs" for the DH say it enhances the offensive aspect of the game and creates roster spots for hitters. Or aging players who can still hit but are liabilities in the field.

The "nays", like my self, think that if yer playin you should hit. I also belieive its a more cereberal way of playing the game ie: double switches, pinch hitters etc. More managing going on.

I like that in interleague play you follow the league rules of the home team. AL park DH, NL park no DH. Thats about as fair as you can make it without going one way or the other. But I do think the NL has an advantage ofensively when playing AL rules. And not the other way around. The NL pitchers have at least had a bat in their hands and can bunt where as the AL pitchers might as well go to the plate with a wet noodle. Thats not in all cases, but the majority. BUT, I think the AL has the advantage from a pitching stand point because they are used to not having a week hitter in the 9 hole and are more accustomed to barring down thru out out the enitre opposing line up.

So is it fair? Hard to say. Its just different.

Until 1973, pitchers batted in the AL same as in the NL ... the AL began the experiment to see if it added interest/excitement to the game ... answer seems to be yest, at least for a sufficient number of folks to justify continuing the practice ... many of those who favor it are aging hitters and the player's union who benefit financially by it ...

Guys like Charlie, BeatDragon and myself who're baseball purists would like to see it done away with ... it adds too little and subtracts too much IONSHO ...

I am all for letting the pitchers bat as well.

My question is why they (while looking for ways to peek interest in the game) split the league with this trial of the DH and didn't try it out with both leagues???

I think ABSOLUTELY the pitchers should hit!

Country

Really the only time the fairness of the differing rules comes into play is in inter-league play and the world series. Then I would say a slight advantage goes to the team whos rules are being used.

Personally, I hate the DL. It is a different game.

Really the only time the fairness of the differing rules comes into play is in inter-league play and the world series. Then I would say a slight advantage goes to the team whos rules are being used.

Personally, I hate the DL. It is a different game.

DH ... DH...

Dang, I can't type.

And how the hell did I double post???????????///

I dont like the disabled list either Barry

Teams use the disabled list to shelve a player for a couple of weeks if he has a hang nail, it needs to be reevaluated! In the 50's and 60's and into the 70's players would play with injuries that put them on the dl today for fear of losing their jobs!

Charlie

Bingo Charlie... I'm not saying that players should play with broken legs but Cal Ripkin certainly had days where he didn't feel like playing but he loved baseball and he knew he had a job to do.

Country

Hey Tim..

I think you have it backwards.

You said, "But I do think the NL has an advantage ofensively when playing AL rules. And not the other way around. The NL pitchers have at least had a bat in their hands and can bunt where as the AL pitchers might as well go to the plate with a wet noodle."

You must mean when playing NL rules. In any case, I also would like both leagues to play the same.

Speaking of fair!!!??? Sorry for jackin the thread!!! Does anyone think that the league is lopsided with the small market teams not being able too compete with the larger market teams, in terms of on the field competition,and espc financially!!!??????? no revenue sharing,and one thing is for certain-The big market teams will win 90%+ of all future championships until the league does somthing too balance the scale!!!???? The small mkt teams are just around too fill in the schd for the contenders,the rest are just Prenteders!!! Thats why MLB is a joke has been for somtime,& WILL STAY THAT WAY until somthing is done about it!!!!! The sport has been ruined for a long time!!!!! opinions????????????????????????????????

Mike,

Well thats what I meant when I said that I meant that I said in the post where I said that I meant to say what I said but like what you said is the same as what I meant.

While I agree there is a large disparity in the amount of $$$ flow form owner to owner. I dont think they should penalize owners like Uncle George who has personal wealth up the wazoo. If they can't afford to play withthe big boys, sell your toy and buy an MLS team.

I do have an issue with owning the team and the cable company that televises it. Kinda seems like double dipping to me. Thats revenue is from the GAME not just your team. That revenue, or a at least a large portion, should go back into the league.

Babe Ruth was a pitcher first, an outfielder later.

Babe was not just a pitcher, he was a great pitcher, and would have made Hall as a pitcher had he stayed at that position!

Charlie