From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: Managing in the AL
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.224433.2454@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.202005.15065@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = Jim McMaster writes:
>>
>>>Regardless of whether the DH makes AL managing "easier" or not, I like
>>>the rule, because it leads to more offense.  There is not a guaranteed
>>>out in the number nine spot.
>>
>>This whole statement is incorrect.
>
>Huh?  The DH doesn't lead to more offense?  I'm sorry, Steve, but you
>simply aren't living in this world!
>
>>I know I've heard that the average
>>DH batting average is ~.250.  Could one of the Stat Heads help me out?
>
>This year, the average DH is hitting .256/.333/.399.  Of course this
>average is over a small sample set...
>
>>If you think the 9th spot is an "automatic out", you haven't seen Doc
>>Gooden, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine or Swift of SF at bat (among others).  
>
>Gooden is an extraordinarily good hitter for a pitcher.  His career
>batting average through 1990 was .183 (with decent power, actually,
>for a limp-bat shortstop).  Maddux?  A career .182 hitter with less
>power.  Glavine's average is .146, still not bad for a pitcher.  Swift
>wasn't in the NL until this year.
>
>The best hitting pitchers hit almost .200, with occasional power.
>They still don't walk much.  The *average* DH hits .256 with
>better-than-average walks and power.
>
>>These guys can hit and bunt.
>
>Not very well, they can't.  Some of them are capable bunters.  VERY
>VERY FEW pitchers hit over .200 for their careers.  Don Robinson is an
>exception.  He hit .232 through 1990!  (How many position players can
>you think of who have hit that low over a significant length career?
>And how many of those walked as infrequently as your average pitcher?)
>
>>Pitchers hitting, IMO, adds strategy not 
>>present when some (usually) aging one-dimensional player is the 10th man 
>>in the lineup.
>
>If you say so.  But the DH *does* increase offense, and I don't
>understand how you can deny it.
>
I certainly don't want to deny that the DL adds to the offense
of the game of baseball.  I also don't want to deny that the 24-second
clock has made basketball a more high-scoring sport.  Nor do I want
to claim that high-point-scoring junkies haven't influenced such
atrocities as the "in the grasp" rule in football, or the "no
zone defense" rule in basketball.  I just *hate* that some folks
can't get enjoyment out of the game of baseball without insisting that
every batting position must be a threat to knock a home run.
 It is for me very interesting for both managers to work 
around a weak 8-9 line-up.  "Should this guy bunt with a pitcher on
deck?  Why not-- he could get on base with two outs and get the 
pitcher's spot taken care of so that the lead-off man can do so 
next inning, etc."
  I really was annoyed with a "baseball writer" who said that he
was BORED by the last few All-Star games since they were so low-
scoring.  What CRAP!!!  The game of baseball is a grand mix of
offense and defense!!  A three-hit shutout is as exciting to see as 
a 14-to-nothing romp!
  Baseball is not built around it's offense and it shouldn't be.  I
don't want to begin to see 14-10 games regularly--this sort of thing
truly bores me:  a pitcher is the dominating force of a team and if that
force is dimished then the art of pitching will diminish also.

RStimets


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball