This is something I've been thinking about posting for a long time.
The designated hitter has led to a long-running debate about whether it's a good idea or not.
Here's my take: it's a good thing.
I admit, it's a bit personal. I used to be a DH when I played high school baseball. I know everyone says it's good to have everyone field, but not EVERYONE can field well. I couldn't play any positions at all- drop too many balls, sometimes get distracted easily- and can do one thing well- hit the ball well. (Also, if I stay in the dugout, I could fire up my teammates. Much better than losing balls in the sun)
Also, I have felt for years and years that pitchers don't hit well, but also, they can hurt themselves (Chien-Mien Wang and Jake Peavy last year, Randy Johnson will be out for 4-6 weeks because he hurt his shoulder swinging at a pitch.)
THE PEAVY FIASCO | Major League Baseball Blog - MajorLeagueBlogging.com
This is an article that sums up my opinions- it can be dangerous for pitchers, who can hurt themselves and damage their team's chances for the season.
(Bill, if the Red Sox need a big hit to score a run, who would you want at the plate- a proven clutch-hitter in Big Papi or a hurler hitting below the Mendoza Line that couldn't hit a ball hard enough to dent a pie's crust?)
People who rave about the double switch and strategy- well, you do not play to develop good strategies and pull off double switches because it makes a game better.
In the words of Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game!"
Finally- people like to call the National League "real baseball."
Well, since 1987, the league of "real baseball" has gone 3-18-1 in All-Star Games and 6-15 in the World Series. To me, "Real baseball" means real failur in games that count.
People hype up N.L. baseball as being pure and real, the best there is- like the Dallas Cowboys, San Jose Sharks (and the AFC in Super Bowls from 1985 to 1998), they usually fall flat in the games that matter the most.
That's my opinion.
What's yours?
The designated hitter has led to a long-running debate about whether it's a good idea or not.
Here's my take: it's a good thing.
I admit, it's a bit personal. I used to be a DH when I played high school baseball. I know everyone says it's good to have everyone field, but not EVERYONE can field well. I couldn't play any positions at all- drop too many balls, sometimes get distracted easily- and can do one thing well- hit the ball well. (Also, if I stay in the dugout, I could fire up my teammates. Much better than losing balls in the sun)
Also, I have felt for years and years that pitchers don't hit well, but also, they can hurt themselves (Chien-Mien Wang and Jake Peavy last year, Randy Johnson will be out for 4-6 weeks because he hurt his shoulder swinging at a pitch.)
THE PEAVY FIASCO | Major League Baseball Blog - MajorLeagueBlogging.com
This is an article that sums up my opinions- it can be dangerous for pitchers, who can hurt themselves and damage their team's chances for the season.
(Bill, if the Red Sox need a big hit to score a run, who would you want at the plate- a proven clutch-hitter in Big Papi or a hurler hitting below the Mendoza Line that couldn't hit a ball hard enough to dent a pie's crust?)
People who rave about the double switch and strategy- well, you do not play to develop good strategies and pull off double switches because it makes a game better.
In the words of Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game!"
Finally- people like to call the National League "real baseball."
Well, since 1987, the league of "real baseball" has gone 3-18-1 in All-Star Games and 6-15 in the World Series. To me, "Real baseball" means real failur in games that count.
People hype up N.L. baseball as being pure and real, the best there is- like the Dallas Cowboys, San Jose Sharks (and the AFC in Super Bowls from 1985 to 1998), they usually fall flat in the games that matter the most.
That's my opinion.
What's yours?