Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you guy enjoy the idea of there being an automatic out in the lineup? I don't like the fact that one league plays under a totally different set of rules. Either have the DH in both leagues or don't. The logic otherwise is just misguided.
That would be like the Eastern Conference having the 3-point line and the Western Conference not.
I've discussed the reasons why I like the pitcher hitting.
.
I'm more of a fan of position players pitching. My favorite such moment was in 1987. The Giants had built a huge lead over the Expos, 13 to 4 or something like that, so it was decided to let infielder Vance Law come in and throw a frame to save the staff. He gave up two hits and a run, but of the three batters he retired, two of them were whiffed, one of them center fielder Dave Henderson.
When asked about the strikeout after the game, Hendu said "What can I tell you, Vance Law owns me."
Pitchers ARE position players.
At least in the NL where one player plays the position of pitcher and occupies a spot in the lineup.
Of course. However baseball has a long tradition of distinguishing the non pitchers in the lineup from the pitcher by referencing the former as "position players" and this common reference is meant to exclude pitchers.
I cannot imagine that you were not already aware of this.
Of course. However baseball has a long tradition of distinguishing the non pitchers in the lineup from the pitcher by referencing the former as "position players" and this common reference is meant to exclude pitchers.
I cannot imagine that you were not already aware of this.
Of course I'm aware of it, but like many baseball cliches, upon further review that old line of thinking doesn't hold up.
So, as with things like "clutch", I'm not so subtly trying to eradicate that type of thinking.
I prefer the NL format. Either you're in the lineup or you're not. Not, you're in on offense but not on defense, or vice versa. Yeah it can be frustrating with pitchers not being able to hit as well, but it does add an element of strategy, and it makes it that much more entertaining when they do produce on offense. As a Diamondbacks fan, I remember Ian Kennedy coming through with a huge RBI triple in a game last year. And his pinch-hit sac bunt in the bottom of the 16th to set up a walkoff RBI by Cliff Pennington earlier this season was great too.
Of course I'm aware of it, but like many baseball cliches, upon further review that old line of thinking doesn't hold up.
So, as with things like "clutch", I'm not so subtly trying to eradicate that type of thinking.
If you wish to reorder people's linguistic traditions, then you need to provide an alternative for the phrases you seek to vanquish. If we cannot reference non pitchers as "position players", then what may we call them?
Calling them "non pitchers" is not satisfactory for that is defining a group not by what they are but what they are not, and they are most of the players on a team.
If you wish to reorder people's linguistic traditions, then you need to provide an alternative for the phrases you seek to vanquish. If we cannot reference non pitchers as "position players", then what may we call them?
Calling them "non pitchers" is not satisfactory for that is defining a group not by what they are but what they are not, and they are most of the players on a team.
I've discussed the reasons why I like the pitcher hitting.
Doesn't really bother me.
Nice to know someone has discovered a shooting star..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.