Not the Same Game

Sometimes, managers make decisions during a game that leave me scratching my head. I often forget about the whole right-handed/left-handed batter vs. left-handed/right-handed pitcher stuff. I just don't think about it. I do know that statistically, batters do better against a pitcher who uses the arm opposite of themselves. I've read that it's because the batter can see the ball better when it is not coming at him from the same side that is facing the pitcher.

So it's always a bit of a surprise when a manager substitutes for a hot-hitting batter when the opposing team changes pitchers. The Diamondbacks' manager, Kirk Gibson, did just this in a game against the Dodgers a few nights ago. It worked; the pinch hitter got a hit, we tied the game (or took the lead, I can't remember which), and when the defense came back out onto the field, all the players took their new positions, and the Skipper's brilliant foresight was revealed.

(I wish I could remember the exact details, but it all just vanished from my brain. My inability to keep all that in my brain only makes me admire the Skipper's mind even more.)  But what I do remember is that moment when I suddenly could see what Gibby had in his mind from the beginning: It was brilliant. He could see it in his mind from the dugout, during the game.  I couldn't see it until after it was done.

And here it is: If the Designated Hitter rule were used in the National League, none of that would have even been necessary. The DH would have just come up to bat, either gotten a hit or not, and the game would have continued. No shifting people around. So substitutions. No brilliant adjustments need be made by the Skipper. Ho-hum.

And this is the main reason I am opposed to the DH:  When the manager has to make substitutions, he has to know all his players, all the positions they can (or can't) play, which side of the plate they bat better in, whether they are better against right- or left-handed pitchers,  and if we do need them, can they play a position they may not be used to? He also has to know all the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing team's players, too. None of those considerations are necessary when all you have to do is send up your best hitter.

Besides, I think it's cheating. Here's why (and this involves another childhood story, so bear with me): When I was in junior high and high school,  in Houston, mixed intramural sports were huge, especially volleyball. One of the teams figured out that they could do this: At the start of a new "side," the front row of the serving team rotated players to the right. The player at net-right, though, would move back to the server position. The player at back-left, instead of moving up to the net, would "rotate out" (meaning leave the game), while the big, strong, tall guys (way better at the net than the skinny little girls) would "rotate in," at net-left. Their best players were substituting themselves in to play the net, crushing their spikes into the faces of the opposing team, which was playing by the rules. In other words, they had figured out a way to make sure that their best players always played the net. In other words, they were cheating.

Finally, one of the Phys Ed teachers caught on, and put a stop to it. The guys put up a fuss, but it was only a half-hearted fuss, because they knew damn  good and well that what they were doing was wrong. When you play volleyball, you play with 6 players. All 6 players play every position, from the beginning of the game to the end.

But, somehow, the Powers That Be in Major League Baseball have decided that substituting your best hitter in the place of your weakest  hitter is not, actually, breaking the rules. Apparently, in the American League, one set of 9 players can play defense, and a different set of 9 players can play offense. And that's just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But mainly, by removing the strategy from the game, the owners think they will get more people to ball park to spend their money, because people have shown that they will come out to the park to watch Casey at the Bat. And make no mistake about it: When the National League does finally give in, eventually, and adopt the Designated Hitter, it will be a decision that will be made purely for economic reasons. As the conventional wisdom has it, defense may win championships, but offense sells tickets.  And baseball is All About Making Money. It is a veritable Money Making Machine. The more fans come out to the park and spend their money, the happier the owners are.

So I suppose you could say that the point about the DH's being cheating is somewhat debatable (even though I don't think so). But this I know for sure, from watching (or trying to watch) American League games on TV: When you remove the need for any kind of strategy, what you remove is the mind.

And without the mind, what's the point of the game? Just to see who can muscle the ball out of the park more often? That is a game I have no interest in.