Red Sox manager does not understand how lineups work

[Sec19Row53]

Fallacies galore in this thread.

 

A team loses its DH when the DH enters the field defensively.  That is all.  Rule 5.11 a

(5) The Designated Hitter may be used on defense, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive
player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I’ll bet we see more infielders or outfielders on the mound in a given year than we do setting up behind the plate.

 

No doubt, simply because there is scarsely a call for an emergency catcher, as rarely will both of a team's catchers be injured or ejected or pinch-hit for in the same game.  Whereas, blowouts can be counted on to happen with some frequency; so the need to finish a game while preserving the bullpen is bound to come up every so often.

 

Anyway, the functioning of the DH in pro baseball in the U.S. and in every other country (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico, Venezuela) demonstrates that it is entrenched in the game.  If the National League and one of Japan's two top leagues want to be holdouts, I am fully in favour of that, in order that we may continue to have access to both varieties.  But it is nothing short of baffling that anyone could dispute the plain fact that pitching is a specialty to a degree far, far beyond playing third base or any other defensive position.

 

3 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

A team loses its DH when the DH enters the field defensively.  That is all.  Rule 5.11 a

(5) The Designated Hitter may be used on defense, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive
player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order.

 

Right.  But what happened here is the more unusual case of the pitcher going to another position.  While this is rare, that it should have so baffled a Major League manager and a Major League umpire is astonishing.

 

Also, I am kind of surprised that there has been no discussion of that wild Billy Martin / Catfish Hunter scenario noted above, in which Billy used his pitcher to pinch-hit not for the DH but for another player, in a move that is no longer permitted.

 

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

No doubt, simply because there is scarsely a call for an emergency catcher, as rarely will both of a team's catchers be injured or ejected or pinch-hit for in the same game.  Whereas, blowouts can be counted on to happen with some frequency; so the need to finish a game while preserving the bullpen is bound to come up every so often.

 

Anyway, the functioning of the DH in pro baseball in the U.S. and in every other country (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico, Venezuela) demonstrates that it is entrenched in the game.  If the National League and one of Japan's two top leagues want to be holdouts, I am fully in favour of that, in order that we may continue to have access to both varieties.  But it is nothing short of baffling that anyone could dispute the plain fact that pitching is a specialty to a degree far, far beyond playing third base or any other defensive position.

 

 

Right.  But what happened here is the more unusual case of the pitcher going to another position.  While this is rare, that it should have so baffled a Major League manager and a Major League umpire is astonishing.

 

Also, I am kind of surprised that there has been no discussion of that wild Billy Martin / Catfish Hunter scenario noted above, in which Billy used his pitcher to pinch-hit not for the DH but for another player, in a move that is no longer permitted.

 

The umpires included Angel Hernandez. qed (old differential joke)

 

Do you have a rule book reference on that? I don't feel like looking just this second.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Do you have a rule book reference on that? 

 

I assume that you are referring to the Catfish situation.

 

Rule 5.10(a)(10) states: "The game pitcher may pinch-hit or pinch-run only for the Designated Hitter."

[BBTV]

If you had a great-hitting pitcher, could you use the DH to bat in place of the SS?

 

I'd argue that pitching and catching are both specialties, with pitching being slightly more so, for the following reasons:

1. Pitchers sit in the bullpen - away from the team.  They're their own group.  Kinda like the K, P, and LS in football.

2. They have their own set of coaches and work out differnetly than the rest of the team.

3.  While a position player can get the ball over the plate, there's a reason they're only used in blowouts.  Even then, there's only maybe one or maybe two position guys per team that ever pitches in a season - it's not like anyone can do it, like anyone can fill in at 1B in a pinch.

 

Catching is a speciality for other reasons:

1. Blocking a 90mph ball in the dirt is a skill that nobody else practices.  2B and 1B all practice fielding grounders and throwing, but nobody else practices blocking.

2.  Catchers call a game, and if you don't do that, you can't do that.  Granted, a pitcher could just call his own game in the event an emergency catcher is in, but that's not ideal.

3.  Catchers often call all the signals for the infielders, which I guess anyone can do (they should know the signals, so I guess they could call them).

4.  Wearing all that equipment and mask is simply unnatural to most players.

 

I've come full-circle on the DH, much like I have on covered stadiums and the Cleveland rule.  I guess getting older changes your perspective.

• I used to hate it, and think that the NL way was the best way.  Double switches, bunting, small ball, etc.
• Now, I hate that pitchers that are throwing shutouts have to get pulled after 6 innings if it's a 0-0 game and the team has the chance to pinch hit with the bases loaded.  I'd much rather see my pitcher go as far as he can.
• I kinda hate seeing the 8-hole hitter walked just so the pitcher can strike out.  Ther's obviously some strategy there, and the pitcher could get a fluke hit or walk, but it's just a fluke.
• I'm not paying $50 for a lousy seat to a major league game to watch hitters that aren't major league hitters.  Give me more action.  Give me a lineup with 9 major league hitters.  Give me managers that don't have to think.  Give me the mothering DH.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

10 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If you had a great-hitting pitcher, could you use the DH to bat in place of the SS?

 

No, the DH must hit for the pitcher.

 

Women's softball has a DP (designated player) who can bat in place of any player. But the rule is very complex, and I do not pretend to understand it. (I hope that someone who does understand softball's DP rule will take this opportunity to jump in and explain it.)

 

 

14 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I'd argue that pitching and catching are both specialties, with pitching being slightly more so

 

You're on the right track with this. Catching is definitely a kind of a specialty. I was a catcher as a kid, and I have the utmost respect for people who abuse their bodies by playing that position.

 

Catchers are also unquestionably the smartest people on the field; it is not a coincidence that that position is disproportionately represented amongst managers. As Joe Garagiola used to say: "The catcher is the only guy facing the other way. He must know something."

 

But the difference between catching and pitching is much more than slight. This we can see from the fact that catchers are expected to carry their weight as hitters just as is anyone else, while pitchers are permitted to abandon that side of the game completely. (This is true even when pitchers are batting. Literally anything you get from a pitcher at the plate is a bonus.)

 

 

22 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I kinda hate seeing the 8-hole hitter walked just so the pitcher can strike out.  Ther's obviously some strategy there, and the pitcher could get a fluke hit or walk, but it's just a fluke.

 

Precisely. 

 

28 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Give me managers that don't have to think.  Give me the mothering DH.

 

Hold on, there. The manager using the DH has to do plenty of thinking. He still has men on his bench  whom he can use as pinch-hitters; and he has to decide when to deploy them.

 

Should he hit for his shortstop with a man in scoring position? Or should he seek a platoon advantage by sending the right-handed-hitting first baseman up in place of the left-handed-hitting first baseman? There's no hiding behind "The Book" in the American League.

[crashcarson15]

I am a fan of an American League club. I have always enjoyed watching National League baseball.

 

I think it's neat that we have both versions of the game.

[BBTV]

49 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Hold on, there. The manager using the DH has to do plenty of thinking. He still has men on his bench  whom he can use as pinch-hitters; and he has to decide when to deploy them.

 

Should he hit for his shortstop with a man in scoring position? Or should he seek a platoon advantage by sending the right-handed-hitting first baseman up in place of the left-handed-hitting first baseman? There's no hiding behind "The Book" in the American League.

 

That's still way less thinking than an NL manager needs to do.  He's making the decision whether to take a cruising pitcher out of the game and risk his bullpen so he can pinch hit and take a shot at a run.  He's managing the lineup by making double switches.  He's managing his bench, since as bullpen pitchers and specialists come in and out, he needs to be careful how he uses pinch hitters so he doesn't run out of players.

 

How often does an AL manager get to the last guy on his bench?  HOw often does an AL manager have to worry how many innings a reliever pitched the night before (since he can comfortably leave his starters in longer and therefore need fewer relievers)?

 

23 minutes ago, crashcarson15 said:

I am a fan of an American League club. I have always enjoyed watching National League baseball.

 

I think it's neat that we have both versions of the game.

 

Except that rosters are constructed differently, and then we get to the WS or interleague play and teams are at a disadvantage (I'd suggest that NL teams are at a bigger disadvantage because they generally have no natural DH for myriad reasons.)

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

That's still way less thinking than an NL manager needs to do.

 

I suppose I'll have to agree with that. But it's not no thinking, which is what you said earlier.

 

 

9 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Except that rosters are constructed differently, and then we get to the WS or interleague play and teams are at a disadvantage (I'd suggest that NL teams are at a bigger disadvantage because they generally have no natural DH for myriad reasons.)

 

You could solve that first problem by getting rid of interleague play.

 

And I believe that teams can make roster moves between the League Championship Series and the World Series. Also, it would help if the World Series format returned to what it was from 1976 through 1986, when the DH was used or not used in all games in alternating years.

[BBTV]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I suppose I'll have to agree with that. But it's not no thinking, which is what you I said earlier.

 

 

You could solve that first problem by getting rid of interleague play.

 

And I believe that teens can make roster moves between the League Championship Series and the World Series. Also, it would help if the World Series format returned to what it was from 1976 through 1986, when the DH was used or not used in all games in alternating years.

 

AL teams have the opportunity to sign old power hitters that can still hit home runs but can't play the field.  NL teams can't do that.  Making a roster move before the series doesn't help you if you don't have a true major-league quality hitter just laying around somewhere.

 

Seems silly to play under one set of rules all year long, then at the very end, you play by a different set.  That's NHL-level insanity.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

AL teams have the opportunity to sign old power hitters that can still hit home runs but can't play the field.  NL teams can't do that. 

 

National League teams can indeed sign players don't generally play the field. From 1978 to 1980, Manny Mota appeared for the Dodgers only as a pinch-hitter, except for one game in the outfield. (The 1978 World Series had a DH; yet Lasorda inexplicably decided not to use Mota in that role. Indeed, Lasorda seemed spectacularly ill-equipped to use the DH, even batting his DH 9th in one World Series game.)

 

The Mets have employed players who functioned mostly as pinch-hitters: Ed Kranepool in the 1970's, and Rusty Staub in the 1980s.

 

Also, plenty of National League teams have guys who probably should be DHs. In the 1980 World Series, Greg Luzinski got the first taste of the DH role that he would later fill on a full-time basis for the White Sox.

 

Jack Clark "played" first base for the Cardinals, and helped lead them to the 1985 World Series. But if that Series had had a DH in all games, he almost certainly would have been it for the Cardinals.

 

 

9 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Making a roster move before the series doesn't help you if you don't have a true major-league quality hitter just laying around somewhere.

 

A National League team could carry one extra pitcher on its roster up until the World Series. And then, knowing that they won't need to pinch-hit for the pitcher if all Series games that year had a DH, they could drop that extra pitcher in favour of an extra outfielder who can serve as DH.

 

Likewise, in years in which the World Series had no DH, the American League champions would have the opportunity to modify their roster before the Series, perhaps by carrying an additional pitcher.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Seems silly to play under one set of rules all year long, then at the very end, you play by a different set.  That's NHL-level insanity.

 

Don't look now, but I think you just cancelled the World Series. (If we assume that the leagues will always differ on the use of the DH.)

 

I still say that the World Series had it right with the use of the DH in alternating years. And we should note that, in the eleven Series played under that format, the team playing with the unfamiliar style won seven of them. So teams clearly adapted.

[Sport]

 

12 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

That's still way less thinking than an NL manager needs to do.  He's making the decision whether to take a cruising pitcher out of the game and risk his bullpen so he can pinch hit and take a shot at a run.  He's managing the lineup by making double switches.  He's managing his bench, since as bullpen pitchers and specialists come in and out, he needs to be careful how he uses pinch hitters so he doesn't run out of players.

 

How often does an AL manager get to the last guy on his bench?  HOw often does an AL manager have to worry how many innings a reliever pitched the night before (since he can comfortably leave his starters in longer and therefore need fewer relievers)?

 

 

Jim Leyland said it was harder to manage in the AL because in the NL all the decisions are mostly made for you. Take that for what it's worth. 

 

12 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Except that rosters are constructed differently, and then we get to the WS or interleague play and teams are at a disadvantage (I'd suggest that NL teams are at a bigger disadvantage because they generally have no natural DH for myriad reasons.)

 

This is why I'd like the NL to adopt the DH. The DH being in only one league sets the market differently for that league and roster management is different which puts the NL at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to attracting FA offensive talent. 

 

Now how much does that actually affect competitive balance relative to other factors like the Yankees being in the AL? Who knows, but I'd prefer we try to level the playing field. 

[Sec19Row53]

56 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

 

Jim Leyland said it was harder to manage in the AL because in the NL all the decisions are mostly made for you. Take that for what it's worth. 

 

 

This is why I'd like the NL to adopt the DH. The DH being in only one league sets the market differently for that league and roster management is different which puts the NL at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to attracting FA offensive talent. 

 

Now how much does that actually affect competitive balance relative to other factors like the Yankees being in the AL? Who knows, but I'd prefer we try to level the playing field. 

Well, he said something like that, but not that it was harder to manage in the AL. I was curious about the quote, so I found this (maybe there's more) https://www.mlive.com/tigers/2011/05/detroit_tigers_manager_jim_ley_12.html:

 

PITTSBURGH – After managing extensively in both the American League and National League, Detroit Tigers manager Jim Leyland has become an outspoken advocate of standardizing the rules and either using or eliminating the designated hitter in both leagues.

“I don't care which,” he said.

Leyland, in a pregame talk in his office, said it is “more fun to manage in the National League, and there's more to do,” but said he considers it more difficult to manage in the American League.

“The reason I've said that all along is that, in the National League, if you get to the fourth or fifth inning down by three or four runs, you pinch-hit for your pitcher,” Leyland said. “So the decision's kind of made for you.

“In the American League, you have to be precise as to when you take him out. He might have given up three (runs) in the first (inning) and really settled down and really is pitching a good game. You get to the sixth inning and maybe he gets in a little trouble – has he lost it, has he not? I think pitching is the most of managing. So I think it's a little more difficult than people understand.”

In the NL, the lineup and pitching machinations, and moving the pitcher's spot in the batting order to avoid having him at the plate in late innings of close games, is the difficult part.

“There's more to do in the National League, no question,” Leyland said. “There's more responsibility as far as double-switching and stuff like that.”

[The_Admiral]

The designated hitter was introduced to address flagging scoring and attendance in the American League.

 

 

Now go back to normal.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

23 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Now go back to normal.

 

We are in the 47th season of the DH. To get an idea of how long that is, look back 47 seasons before the introduction of the DH. That's 1926. Walter Johnson and Ty Cobb were still playing in the Majors, and Casey Stengel was a player-manager at Toledo; Babe Ruth had not yet had his 60-home run season, and the Yankees had won one World Series.

 

In other words: one cannot speak of "going back to normal", because this is normal.

 

Which (circling all the way back to the thread's original topic) means that Major League managers and umpires should have mastered this straightforward and uncomplicated rule by now.

 

(The DH is certainly less complicated than softball's DP. And I will again put out the request that anyone who really understands the DP rule just jump on in and tell us about it.)

[BBTV]

13 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

National League teams can indeed sign players don't generally play the field. From 1978 to 1980, Manny Mota appeared for the Dodgers only as a pinch-hitter, except for one game in the outfield. (The 1978 World Series had a DH; yet Lasorda inexplicably decided not to use Mota in that role. Indeed, Lasorda seemed spectacularly ill-equipped to use the DH, even batting his DH 9th in one World Series game.)

 

The Mets have employed players who functioned mostly as pinch-hitters: Ed Kranepool in the 1970's, and Rusty Staub in the 1980s.

 

Also, plenty of National League teams have guys who probably should be DHs. In the 1980 World Series, Greg Luzinski got the first taste of the DH role that he would later fill on a full-time basis for the White Sox.

 

Jack Clark "played" first base for the Cardinals, and helped lead them to the 1985 World Series. But if that Series had had a DH in all games, he almost certainly would have been it for the Cardinals.

 

 

 

A National League team could carry one extra pitcher on its roster up until the World Series. And then, knowing that they won't need to pinch-hit for the pitcher if all Series games that year had a DH, they could drop that extra pitcher in favour of an extra outfielder who can serve as DH.

 

Likewise, in years in which the World Series had no DH, the American League champions would have the opportunity to modify their roster before the Series, perhaps by carrying an additional pitcher.

 

 

 

 

Don't look now, but I think you just cancelled the World Series. (If we assume that the leagues will always differ on the use of the DH.)

 

I still say that the World Series had it right with the use of the DH in alternating years. And we should note that, in the eleven Series played under that format, the team playing with the unfamiliar style won seven of them. So teams clearly adapted.

 

If you equate signing a guy just to be a pinch hitter - a guy that’s only in that situation because he’s not good enough to play regularly - to signing a David Ortiz-type player who is a total defensive liability but can hit dingers, then I’m not sure this discussion can continue. 

 

We’re talking about signing Matt Stairs vs a David Ortiz or late Frank Thomas type player. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

12 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If you equate signing a guy just to be a pinch hitter - a guy that’s only in that situation because he’s not good enough to play regularly - to signing a David Ortiz-type player who is a total defensive liability but can hit dingers, then I’m not sure this discussion can continue. 

 

Well, "not good enought to play regularly" has to be combined with "excellent in the role of pinch-hitting".  Amongst the examples I cited, Manny Mota hit over .300 playing exclusively as a pinch-hitter in 1978; Rusty Staub hit a robust .280 for the period of 1983 through 1985, during which he played mostly as a pinch-hitter with only the occasional appearance in the field; and Ed Kranepool in 1974 set a Major League record that still stands by hitting .486 as a pinch-hitter, making 40% of his appearances that year in that role.  Indeed, Kranepool hit .300 overall in 1974, and followed it up with a .323 mark the next season; that year he played in more than 100 games, about 20% of them as a pinch-hitter, hitting .400 in that role. So at least this particular player was good enough to play regularly, but was also used as a pinch-hitter on account of his knack for it.  As to the others, even if "not good enough to play regularly" is a fair description in the context of the 162-game season, it does not really apply in a short series.  

 

The idea that a good pinch-hitter would be useful as a DH is a natural one, as the DH was conceived of as a four-times-a-game pinch hitter; when it was tried on an experimental basis in spring training of 1969, it was even called the "designated pinch-hitter".  And, even though Tommy Lasorda did not use Manny Mota at DH in the 1978 World Series, he did use Lee Lacy, a reserve outfielder who had actually been the team's best pinch-hitter.

 

Also, let us acknowledge that most good teams in the National League teams have an older player whom they would love to use as a DH.  Any one of the "Wheeze Kids" of the 1983 Phillies — 42-year-old Pete Rose, 41-year-old Tony Perez, 39-year-old Joe Morgan — would have been suited to that role if that year's Series had had the DH.  And please don't tell me that 39-year-old Willie Stargell of the 1979 Pirates would not have been at DH in every game of the World Series that year if that had been possible (notwhithstanding the fact that he won the MVP award both in the Series and in the NLCS, and that he split the season MVP award, all while playing first base).

So, to me, the idea that a team that doesn't play with a DH all year is disadvantaged by using one in the World Series does not hold up to scrutiny.  

You might be tempted to make the reciprocal claim: that a team that has relied on the DH all year is disadvantaged in the World Series by not being able to use one.  Much was made in 1983 of the issue of Orioles being unable to use DH Ken Singleton in the World Series, in which Singleton wound up coming to the plate only twice, both times as a pinch-hitter. This surely was an annoyance to the Orioles; yet they won the Series.  The 1985 Royals had to play the World Series without the services of their DH Hal McRae; yet they, too, won the Series (as did most teams playing under an unfamiliar format).  After the Series reverted to using the DH only in games at the National League park, there was the celebrated case of Paul Molitor of the Blue Jays in 1993. The 36-year-old Molitor had played the vast majority of his games as DH for years.  But in the World Series games at Philadelphia, he was put into the lineup at third base, where he had last played regularly four years before.  One suspects that, if that Series had been played under the 1976-1986 rules and had no DH, Molitor would have been just fine playing third base for the entire Series.

We thus cannot conclude that playing the World Series with and without the DH in alternating years has a systematic disadvantaging effect on anyone.  What that practice did was to highlight how cool it is to have both sets of rules.

[BBTV]

We disagree. 

[JackieMoon]

I've been a Reds fan my whole life, so all I've basically known is no DH.

I think though it either needs to be in both or none at all. 

In my biased NL opinion, if the Pitcher is going to get paid high dollars like everyone else, surely he can swing a bat.

 

 

[BBTV]

6 hours ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

I've been a Reds fan my whole life, so all I've basically known is no DH.

I think though it either needs to be in both or none at all. 

In my biased NL opinion, if the Pitcher is going to get paid high dollars like everyone else, surely he can swing a bat.

 

 

 

Id rather a pitcher not pull a hammy, or get hit on his hand or otherwise do anything that prevents him from pitching.  

 

There’s nothing worse than when you have lousy pitchers getting shelled because good ones are on the DL. I know that hitting-related injuries are rare, but it’s not worth it. 

 

Pitchers might get a couple of ABs per week - there’s no reason for them to practice hitting much, when their whole thing is pitching, which is (as mentioned) a skill nobody else on the team requires. 

 

Ive done a 180 and am pro DH. I don’t want my pitcher having to come out of a game he’s dominating just because it’s 1-0 and we need to pinch hit and hope for an RBI. 

 

Pitchers are NOT like everyone else, and it’s kinda dangerous to put them in against guys throwing 100MPH when I’m some cases they haven’t had an AB in a game since high school.