The designated hitter

Tomi

So let's just pretend that there was no steroid era and the magic HOF numbers are 3,000 hits and 500 homers.
Everyday players would be a lock putting up 3,000 hits and/or 500 homers.
Where does the designated hitter stand?
Shouldn't we put higher standards on someone who is just batting 4 or 5 times a game and never playing the field? Longevity is part of the game.
Frank Thomas played MANY more games as a DH than a first baseman. Should he have to hit more homers to be an automatic HOFer?
Edgar Martinez was a DH and for some reason people think that he belongs even with the mediocre numbers he put up (2,200 hits and 300 homers are NOT HOF numbers in an 18 year career).
Should we get rid of the position altogether or use it in both leagues?
Personally I think that you are only half a ball player if you are a full time DH and your career numbers should be much higher than a everyday players numbers to be a HOFer.

Discuss.

bking

I tend to agree. I'm really at a loss to evaluate "pure DH" numbers like Edgar's.

TomGshotput

The standard should be being a good player. The number of times a hit or homerun occur can capture that, but they do not define it. Paul Molitor and Frank Thomas were good enough; Edgar Martinez and Harold Baines were not. Even when any of the four weren't in the field, they had almost as much defensive value as Manny Ramirez or Willie Stargell

stevek

Get rid of it - I say if ya wanna see more hit production then go watch a softball game. The game of baseball, as intended, should be about strategy which involves ALL the field players batting - that's one thing that makes it such an interesting game to watch and think about during the game...not just mindlessly watching some extra hit production.

Brick

Just my opinion but I think baseball is a better game without the DH.

K

I think if you are to considder this you need to look at the pitching aspect that accompanies it.

AL pitchers vs. NL pitchers

Basically look at the lost numbers of the NL pitchers due to being pulled from a game, not because of performance drop but because of a clutch situation that required a regular hitter.

Now compare those numbers to an AL pitcher who is not affected by that.

bking

<< <i>I think if you are to considder this you need to look at the pitching aspect that accompanies it.

AL pitchers vs. NL pitchers

Basically look at the lost numbers of the NL pitchers due to being pulled from a game, not because of performance drop but because of a clutch situation that required a regular hitter.

Now compare those numbers to an AL pitcher who is not affected by that. >>



I hadn't really thought of that aspect. Yet another thing that makes counting stats hard to gauge.

VintageCardLover

folks like Frank Thomas dominated the league, his numbers were staggering.

bking

<< <i>folks like Frank Thomas dominated the league, his numbers were staggering. >>



There's no disputing that, but the problem is that he really only played the field from 90-99, and I'm being a bit generous by including 99 when he played roughly 35% of his games in the field.

The last 11 years of stats, or over half his career, were spent as basically a full-time DH. How would his stats look for those years, and how many years would he have played, if he didn't have the DH position available? That's what makes it difficult, at least for me, to look at counting stats as a HOF benchmark any more. For example, he finished with 521 HRs, but only 220 in his last 11 years. Assuming no DH, let's say he only managed to play 7 of those years and only 75% of the games that he played in those years. His HR totals drop to around 400 or so- is that still HOF worthy?

K

Didn't he get injured in the late 90's? He kinda fell off my radar around 97ish.

bking

<< <i>Didn't he get injured in the late 90's? He kinda fell off my radar around 97ish. >>



Got injured a bunch in the oughts - played under 100 games in 2001, 2004,2005, & 2008. Also, switched over to predominantly DH in 1998 due to knees, IIRC.

Brick

<< <i>I think if you are to considder this you need to look at the pitching aspect that accompanies it.

AL pitchers vs. NL pitchers

Basically look at the lost numbers of the NL pitchers due to being pulled from a game, not because of performance drop but because of a clutch situation that required a regular hitter.

Now compare those numbers to an AL pitcher who is not affected by that. >>



Good point. Another reason I believe both leagues should play by the same rules.
Another thought. Are American League pitchers more likely to retaliate by throwing at batters than the ones in the National League who will have to take their turn at the plate?

TomGshotput

<< <i>Basically look at the lost numbers of the NL pitchers due to being pulled from a game, not because of performance drop but because of a clutch situation that required a regular hitter. >>



You could also look at the lost numbers of AL pitchers due to having to face good hitters 11% more often, not because of ability

If there was no DH, Frank Thomas would have either remained at first or played a lot less, hitting a lot fewer homeruns. Or most likely split the middle between time lost and time at first. And if there were only two outfielders, Manny Ramirez would have had a much different career, too, as no team would let him play there. Whether you agree with the rule or not is meaningless when determining how good a player at the position is

bking

<< <i>

<< <i>Basically look at the lost numbers of the NL pitchers due to being pulled from a game, not because of performance drop but because of a clutch situation that required a regular hitter. >>



You could also look at the lost numbers of AL pitchers due to having to face good hitters 11% more often, not because of ability

If there was no DH, Frank Thomas would have either remained at first or played a lot less, hitting a lot fewer homeruns. Or most likely split the middle between time lost and time at first. And if there were only two outfielders, Manny Ramirez would have had a much different career, too, as no team would let him play there. Whether you agree with the rule or not is meaningless when determining how good a player at the position is >>



But you have to admit that it makes it darn hard to compare counting stats with players who DO play the field.

TomGshotput

Not really

bking

<< <i>Not really >>



Well, that's informative. I guess you win the debate.

TomGshotput

Offensive Value + Defensive Value = Total Value

As easy as comparing any two players regardless of position