How do you feel about the designated hitter? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Big C · 07-28-2009, 12:48 AM

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.)

http://www.majorleagueblogging.com/m...-peavy-fiasco/

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.

(Waterston will understand this)

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- there are purists and old-timers like to call the National League "real baseball."

Well, if by real baseball, you mean "pitchers hitting less than .200," then that's not what I feel about baseball.

Who do you want with the bases loaded- one of your better hitters, or a weak-hitting pitcher?

That's my opinion.

What's yours?

Wreckless · 07-28-2009, 12:59 AM

I remember hearing from my Dad that back in the 1970s, the National League had a chance to get a designed hitter on all NL teams rosters, with a spot in their for em. I remember it was down to the Pirates and Phillies to choose if they got it, they left it up to Pittsburgh, and the Pirates had great teams in the '70s, so they opted not to have it. I like the designated hitter but it depends on what team you're on if you're the players, and if you're the fan, what team you like and root for. It doesn't hurt at all. I'd love to have the designated hitter in the national league. Imagine the Phillies with one more spot to hit. Great offenses would get even better, with their best bench player, or picking up a guy to fill in that DH spot.

Doodyville10019 · 07-28-2009, 10:02 PM

Imagine the Cubs with a DH spot open. Two words: Carlos Zambrano (provided he doesn't want to pitch anymore, which is highly unlikely).

07-28-2009, 12:48 AM	#1
Big C I Heart Angie Watson Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Oct 21, 2006 Posts: 3,531	How do you feel about the designated hitter? 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.) http://www.majorleagueblogging.com/m...-peavy-fiasco/ 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. (Waterston will understand this) 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- there are purists and old-timers like to call the National League "real baseball." Well, if by real baseball, you mean "pitchers hitting less than .200," then that's not what I feel about baseball. Who do you want with the bases loaded- one of your better hitters, or a weak-hitting pitcher? That's my opinion. What's yours?

07-28-2009, 10:02 PM	#3
Doodyville10019 Meet my new friend Sparkie! Forum Regular Join Date: Oct 08, 2008 Location: Competition Square, located in Doodyville Park Posts: 877	Imagine the Cubs with a DH spot open. Two words: Carlos Zambrano (provided he doesn't want to pitch anymore, which is highly unlikely).
	__________________ Hi! Hey! Hello again, here we go again!

07-28-2009, 12:59 AM	#2
Wreckless Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 04, 2007 Location: Banned Posts: 9,406	I remember hearing from my Dad that back in the 1970s, the National League had a chance to get a designed hitter on all NL teams rosters, with a spot in their for em. I remember it was down to the Pirates and Phillies to choose if they got it, they left it up to Pittsburgh, and the Pirates had great teams in the '70s, so they opted not to have it. I like the designated hitter but it depends on what team you're on if you're the players, and if you're the fan, what team you like and root for. It doesn't hurt at all. I'd love to have the designated hitter in the national league. Imagine the Phillies with one more spot to hit. Great offenses would get even better, with their best bench player, or picking up a guy to fill in that DH spot.