Fixing Baseball: Eliminate the DH
This week, we're going to look at some of the problems in the great game of baseball. Bonus, we're going to fix 'em.
In an interview on WEEI just after his retirement, no less a personage than Tony La Russa called for "one set of rules" between leagues. He didn't specify which league should change, and he probably longed more than once to send a slugger to the plate rather than a pitcher.
But he's gone, so who cares which option he wants? Eliminating the designated hitter accomplishes several things at once:
1. It speeds up the game.
2. It encourages more well-rounded players. More dynamic players should lead to better action.
3. Players will have to think more about conditioning and longevity. When there is no longer a slot for the portly guy who can hit the long ball but can't do anything else, the players have to be more on their game (and less on fried chicken) in their early 30s. They'll also have more reason to avoid the temptation of steroids, which can lead to funky injuries.
4. It's fun to watch pitchers hit. Usually, they stink. But Roger Clemens had seven RBIs one year as a pitcher; Josh Beckett knocked one out a couple of years ago; Kerry Wood once hit a three-run homer in the seventh game of the World Series (though his team lost); and as a kid, I can remember a few games where Steve Carlton pitched a shutout and hit a home run to win 1-0. (No wonder the guy was cranky; he must have looked around the locker room and thought, "What do you guys do again?")
I wouldn't simply throw a switch on the guys who are DHs now. They could grandpapi in David Ortiz and other players in by announcing the DH is gone in five years -- or maybe three years.
The DH was great while it lasted, but I think it's run its course. Let us know what you think.
In an interview on WEEI just after his retirement, no less a personage than Tony La Russa called for "one set of rules" between leagues. He didn't specify which league should change, and he probably longed more than once to send a slugger to the plate rather than a pitcher.
But he's gone, so who cares which option he wants? Eliminating the designated hitter accomplishes several things at once:
1. It speeds up the game.
2. It encourages more well-rounded players. More dynamic players should lead to better action.
3. Players will have to think more about conditioning and longevity. When there is no longer a slot for the portly guy who can hit the long ball but can't do anything else, the players have to be more on their game (and less on fried chicken) in their early 30s. They'll also have more reason to avoid the temptation of steroids, which can lead to funky injuries.
4. It's fun to watch pitchers hit. Usually, they stink. But Roger Clemens had seven RBIs one year as a pitcher; Josh Beckett knocked one out a couple of years ago; Kerry Wood once hit a three-run homer in the seventh game of the World Series (though his team lost); and as a kid, I can remember a few games where Steve Carlton pitched a shutout and hit a home run to win 1-0. (No wonder the guy was cranky; he must have looked around the locker room and thought, "What do you guys do again?")
I wouldn't simply throw a switch on the guys who are DHs now. They could grandpapi in David Ortiz and other players in by announcing the DH is gone in five years -- or maybe three years.
The DH was great while it lasted, but I think it's run its course. Let us know what you think.