Your anti-DH argument is bad, but so is your pro-DH one

Ultimately, whether you do or do not want the DH in baseball is a personal one. It’s like pineapple on pizza — if you like it, you like it and don’t understand why people don’t. If you don’t like it, you really don’t like it. In the end, it’s a matter of taste — the rules of pizza are not handed down from on high — with no right or wrong answer. (And I will hear from people who read this that there is, in fact, a right answer on whether pineapple belongs on pizza.)

So when you read what comes next, keep that in mind: What you want is what you want. I’m unlikely to change your mind, because it’s as much a religious choice as anything. I’m not here to convince anyone whether their choice is right or wrong.

What I do want to do is address the arguments. Because man, some of them are bad.

The possibilities

It sounds like, if there is baseball in 2020, it will be with a universal DH. I guess that makes sense — there will be less margin for error with pitcher injuries, considering there will likely be no minor leagues — but it does tickle me that we’ve come to “There’s a global pandemic, so pitchers shouldn’t hit.” But that is where we are. With that in mind, after 2020, there are three things that can happen with the DH:

• Universal DH

• Universal non-DH

• Back to the way it’s been — DH in the AL, no DH in the NL

I guess technically there is a third option of reversing the DH so it is in the NL but isn’t in the AL, but that would only serve to tickle my funny bone and not accomplish anything.

Do I have a preference? Sure. I lean toward universal DH. But I’m not strident about it. Really, I just think it’s dumb that we have different rules in each leagues. I know of some people who think the difference between the leagues is neat. I know of some who hate the DH. I know of some who think the DH is the only way to go.

Here are the arguments, and why many of them don’t make sense:

It’s a johnny-come-lately gimmick!

The DH has been around since 1973. The DH qualifies for AARP. The beginning of the DH is closer in history to Ty Cobb’s career than Pete Alonso’s. The DH is older than any pro athlete in any of the four major sports except Adam Vinatieri. The DH could easily have grandchildren; in fact, the DH could easily have teenage grandchildren.

There was a time when you could say the DH was just a gimmick. Now, it’s more an endemic part of baseball than the one-inning closer or the Wild Card or interleague play.

But what about the good-hitting pitchers?!

Yeah, there aren’t any of those. Sure, we remember the exploits of guys like Zack Greinke and Madison Bumgarner, but the best you can say about even the best-hitting pitchers is that they are “a good hitter … for a pitcher.” Other than Michael Lorenzen, who is about as much an outfielder as he is a pitcher, the best career wRC+ for any active pitcher with at least 100 plate appearances is Greinke, at a whopping 60 (and Lorenzen himself is only at a very underwhelming 84). The only other active pitchers even above a 40 wRC+ are Daniel Hudson (49), Craig Stammen (47), and Bumgarner (45). There are only 26 active pitchers even above zero. I would say that a good-hitting pitcher is as rare as a six-fingered man, but heck, at least Antonio Alfonseca does exist.

Kickers have to tackle, centers have to shoot!

Yes, sometimes players in other sports have to do things that aren’t in their stereotype. But the difference is that players are selected in other sports for things tangentially related to the other jobs. Does a kicker need to be able to tackle to be a good kicker? Obviously not. But becoming a good kicker does not necessarily preclude a guy from being a good tackler, and the fact that they aren’t good at it isn’t the result of them getting good at kicking.

For pitchers? Pitching, at least on the big-league level, is a full-time job. Hitting isn’t, but it’s close enough for our purposes. There simply isn’t time for pitchers to do the work to get good at hitting and be a good enough pitcher for it to be worthwhile. The ones who do — really, just Lorenzen, and even him just barely — are the unicorns. Micah Owings could hit. Would he have been a better pitcher if he spent less time hitting? It’s unprovable, but I would argue yes.

Early pitchers (talking 19th century) were guys out there whose main job was to get the ball started, little more than the plunger in a pinball machine. It was a skill, especially as people realized that getting strikeouts would matter, but it wasn’t exactly a time sink. These days? Read about Trevor Bauer for five minutes and tell me he’d have massive time around his baseball prep to learn how to hit a splitter, especially considering he’s had all of 88 plate appearances in the last decade. Being good at one thing, for all intents and purposes, rules you out of being good at the other thing.

Nobody likes watching pitchers hit!

So we accept that pitchers aren’t going to be good hitters. Does that mean every lineup slot has to be good? Well, no. It’s not true that nobody likes watching pitchers hit, though I would concede that it is truer than the anti-DH people would proclaim. Most of the time, a pitcher coming up to plate is a reason to go to the bathroom or get a drink. But there are people who like watching players do things they aren’t good at. 99% of the time, the kicker trying to make a tackle just Sebastian Janikowskis himself right off the field. But we don’t remember those times as much as we remember the 1 out of 100 times when a kicker pulls off a nice tackle. Same when a center has to throw up a desperation three-pointer or an O-lineman finds himself as a ball-carrier.

And it’s the same with a pitcher. Bartolo Colon had a -53 career wRC+, but he drew one career walk, had four career doubles, and we all remember that homer. Randy Johnson had a home run, too (interestingly, they were both real old when they homered — Johnson was 39, Bartolo 43). Do those occasional crazy moments make up for their combined 890 outs at the plate? Not for me, no. But for some people, yes, and saying that there is no place for that isn’t true for them.

It kills the strategy!

What strategy is that, exactly? Deciding when to take out the starter? Picking a pinch hitter? Deciding when to double-switch? What strategy is there? If it’s the first inning, you aren’t pinch-hitting for the pitcher. If it’s the eighth inning and the game is even remotely close, you are. The “question” of whether to use a pinch hitter is only a question between, like, the fourth and sixth innings, in a close, low-scoring game, with a quality pitcher. If there’s any question at all, and it’s your fourth/fifth starter, you’re replacing him. So basically we have 15-20 pitchers around the league who are good enough starters to risk the lack of offense to let them hit for themselves.

And the double-switch? Outside of extreme scenarios, the double-switch is as easy as picking the guy who batted last or second-to-last the inning before. It ain’t 5-D chess out here.

As for picking who to pinch-hit with, the massive pitching staffs of modern baseball mean that you don’t have a lot to decide there. The manager isn’t generally going to pinch hit with his backup catcher. The backup utility infielder isn’t a good hitter. Your pinch hitter is going to be your backup outfielder, maybe a corner infielder if you have an interesting roster. From there, it’s just a matter of lefty-on-righty or righty-on-lefty.

What I’m saying is, what people think is strategy about replacing a pitcher in 2020 is really just forced maneuvers based on some players being bad at what they should do. Trust me when I tell you that Joe Maddon will not be using markedly more or less of his brain with the Angels than he did with the Cubs.

That’s how baseball’s always been!

Well, (a) no it hasn’t, we have almost 50 years of the DH, and (b) who cares? If your argument in favor of X things is that we’ve always done X things, that isn’t in and of itself an argument. That’s just physics, just inertia. What if we’ve been doing it wrong? In other words, my favorite guiding principle: If we didn’t already do it this way, would we do it this way? If we were drawing baseball up from scratch today, knowing what we know about the skills necessary for the various positions and jobs, there is no chance pitchers would hit. It just wouldn’t happen, and if you argue to the contrary I will disagree. It would not be a thing.

Circling back to the top, if you want a DH, great! If you don’t want one, also great! If you want the leagues to remain separate … well, I don’t think that’s great, I think it’s silly, but whatever. But you should know that any way you lean, it’s personal preference, because there isn’t a right answer. That’s why arguing over the subject is silly. You can wave your “Madison Bumgarner” banner, I can counter with by “45 wRC+” flag, and we can just stand in a field with flags, because neither of us is changing.

Like I said, I’m not trying to change your mind. But I am trying to show you that your argument is probably silly.