It seems like I am hearing more and more talk about the designated hitter rule possibly coming to the National League. Personally, I hate the DH rule. It removes at least 1/3rd, probably more like 1/2, of the tactics and strategy from a baseball game.

 

But as I got to thinking about the DH, a thought came to mind. If it is such a good idea, why is it just used for the pitcher? Maybe baseball could take a lesson from football and develop an offensive team and and a defensive team. How many bad hitting catchers do we have to keep watching? Shortstops and 2B that never hit a HR? If people want offense, then let's just have an offense and a defense. I am sure the players union would be all for it because of the extra jobs.

 

So if the DH is so great, why not go for it and have an offense and defense?

It seems like I am hearing more and more talk about the designated hitter rule possibly coming to the National League. Personally, I hate the DH rule. It removes at least 1/3rd, probably more like 1/2, of the tactics and strategy from a baseball game.

 

But as I got to thinking about the DH, a thought came to mind. If it is such a good idea, why is it just used for the pitcher? Maybe baseball could take a lesson from football and develop an offensive team and and a defensive team. How many bad hitting catchers do we have to keep watching? Shortstops and 2B that never hit a HR? If people want offense, then let's just have an offense and a defense. I am sure the players union would be all for it because of the extra jobs.

 

So if the DH is so great, why not go for it and have an offense and defense?

 

I like baseball the way it is. And I think an offensive/defensive team for baseball is an awful idea.

I agree something needs to happen with the DH because of the new schedule. But I think they should tool with it a bit. Like if the player the DH is hitting for is subbed out, the DH then goes away. This keeps the strategy and still adds a job. But I'd rather it disappear completely before they ad it to both leagues.

It seems like I am hearing more and more talk about the designated hitter rule possibly coming to the National League. Personally, I hate the DH rule. It removes at least 1/3rd, probably more like 1/2, of the tactics and strategy from a baseball game.

 

But as I got to thinking about the DH, a thought came to mind. If it is such a good idea, why is it just used for the pitcher? Maybe baseball could take a lesson from football and develop an offensive team and and a defensive team. How many bad hitting catchers do we have to keep watching? Shortstops and 2B that never hit a HR? If people want offense, then let's just have an offense and a defense. I am sure the players union would be all for it because of the extra jobs.

 

So if the DH is so great, why not go for it and have an offense and defense?

 

 

If it's offense you want then just change it from MLB to MLSB. Major League Softball.

No DH in the NL league.

 

For the inter league games they should use the DH in national parks and no DH in AL parks.

If it's offense you want then just change it from MLB to MLSB. Major League Softball.

 

Agreed. I hear Panda-Monium has a pretty stout team this season...

Honestly, I'm fine either way. The only thing I'm adamant about is that both leagues need to have the same rule. Especially considering how many inter-league games we now have.

As for this idea, may be the worst idea I've ever heard regarding baseball. Sorry VOR. :lol2:

I would miss the strategy that the NL league uses. The double switch, do I pitch hit for the pitcher, etc.

I agree something needs to happen with the DH because of the new schedule. But I think they should tool with it a bit. Like if the player the DH is hitting for is subbed out, the DH then goes away. This keeps the strategy and still adds a job. But I'd rather it disappear completely before they ad it to both leagues.

I like that idea but there aren't enough bench players to switch out DH every time you change a pitcher.

I like that idea but there aren't enough bench players to switch out DH every time you change a pitcher.

 

Then expand the roster to 26.

Also what I'm saying is that the DH is forfeited when you switch out the pitcher he's batting for. Whenever his spot comes up in the lineup it would be the pitcher batting not another dh

I am glad most on here agree with me.

 

Seriously, I hate this idea too. For me, I threw it out there because it is just an extension of how bad I think the DH is already. I just wondered if anyone who likes the DH would like to take it to the next level. I guess first we have to find someone who likes the DH.

 

As to the interleague play, if you can't get rid of the DH, then keep doing it the same way - home field determines the rules you play by.

I think if you look around AL fans love the DH and NL fans hate it. So it's pretty much 50/50. Another idea would to make the playoffs have the same set of rules.

As to the interleague play, if you can't get rid of the DH, then keep doing it the same way - home field determines the rules you play by.

 

See, I'd agree with Sweet16 on this one...if the main attraction to interleague play is for the home team fans to be able to come out and see a team that they don't normally get to see in person...then you should actually reverse it. You play by the visiting team's rules.

 

I mean, if you've got a David Ortiz, Jim Thome or Edgar Martinez (sorry, had to go back a few years for that one) coming to town...don't you want to see them hit? And if the AL team has to make switches even before they step out on the field...then it's technically NOT the same team.

 

Besides, then when they're in the AL parks...THOSE fans actually get to see something different from THEIR team...their own pitchers hitting.