The Designated Hitter is a rules anomaly, as much responsible for saving the sport as it soon will be for ruining it and as I rack my brain for similar situations to compare it to in other sports, none exist. What if AFC roster sizes were different than the NFC, forcing some players to play offense and defense? Or if a possession arrow was used for jump balls only in Western Conference NBA games? Just proposals of these would bring uproar to their respective sports, which is why I propose baseball change their DH policy.
The DH was enacted in 1973, with the hope of spurring some offense in an era dictated by pitching. The AL tried it as an experiment, and the National League took on the persona of the traditionalist. Thirty-seven years have passed since Ron Bloomberg became the first DH and the decline of the National League has never been more apparent.
From 1973-1980, each league won 4 World Series, the NL won 24 WS games while the AL won 23. From 1981-1989 the AL claimed 6 WS titles, winning 27 games with the NL winning 24. I understand at this point that my argument holds no credence, but it was the past two decades that are worth an examination.
From 1990-1999, the AL won another 6 WS with the National League claiming 3 (no world series in 1994). During this decade the AL had 29 wins compared to the NL's 20. From 2000-2009, the AL won 6 WS with the NL capturing 4. The AL's record in those games- 31-19. Here's how the final stats add up:
WS Won:
AL- 22
NL- 15
Records in WS Games:
AL-110-87
NL-87-110
Each decade since the DH was enacted saw the American League get progressively more dominant. Consider that since 1990, the AL has had 5 WS sweeps, compared to the NL's 1. Since 1973 the AL has had 6 sweeps, compared to the NL's 2. In the last 7 years, the AL has had more sweeps (3) than the NL has had since 1973 (2).
The discrepancy is a bi-product of deeper lineups, better hitters and more seasoned pitchers, but it has been the AL's ability to manipulate the DH that has widened the gap in recent years. Originally used for big bat, little leather stars, the focus has now shifted to using the spot as rest stop for players throughout the season. Team's can keep a player's strong bat in the lineup and give him a "half day off." They can use a player with an injury at DH while he recovers, so long as the injury is only related to his fielding, but the DH also has other advantages.
The AL can accommodate aging stars, no longer fit for the field who still can produce at the plate, but more importantly in the team's revenue. How much would the Marlins want an iconic player like Vladimir Guerrero to DH for them, if for nothing more than to put some fannies in the seats? How long can St. Louis reasonably expect to keep Albert Pujols at first base? Same thing for the Phillies and Ryan Howard. Would the Red Sox have won a championship without the DH rule? After all, the beloved Big Papi would have no position. These kind of players can be revenue boosters well into their late 30's and the National League stands to miss out on all of them and the money they bring, unless they adopt the DH.
It is for the reasons I just mentioned that the NL should add the DH, and while some argue that the AL drop the DH, that isn't a reality. After all it was offense (albeit tainted) that won back the fans following the 1994 strike and it is offense that sells tickets now.
While fun for me, watching pitchers hit has become detrimental to the game, especially given pitchers high priced, longstanding guaranteed contracts and the increased ability of getting injured while batting or running the base paths (Let's remember that Chien Ming Wang may have had his career upended by a foot injury while scoring a run for the Yankees two years ago).
Baseball's traditions are glorious, but let us not use that as an excuse to look past an evolving game. Pitchers need to pitch, hitters need to hit, and let's face it, the rules need to be the same....after all, it is tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment