Mike Lupica Wants the National League To Have the DH and I Want Mike Lupica To Go Away, So Neither of Us Will Get What We Want

I'm not a huge fan of Mike Lupica. It may be the way he sits forward in his seat and interrupts people on the "Sports Reporters," it could be just his overall smugness, or it could be because I just don't like his writing. Either way, Mike Lupica wants the National League to have the Designated Hitter and I want Mike Lupica to go away forever to a country without television or Internet. Neither of us will probably get our wish. Why does the National League have to have the DH? Unfortunately, Mike Lupica tries to answer this question. He fails, at least in my opinion.

Is this really a huge priority for baseball? Expanding the DH to the National League? Why can't we just get rid of the DH? Or would that negatively affect the Yankees in some way? How would they be able to stash aging, expensive hitters at the DH position if there isn't a DH?

There is no president of the National League any longer, no president of the American League, there is just commissioner, Bud Selig, that's it and that's all.

I already see where this is going. One set of rules. Blah, blah, blah. If you want one set of rules, don't have home plate umpires anymore and have computer determine the strike zone. Make everything uniform in every stadium so no team has an advantage in any form while playing another team. That would give every game the same set of rules and takes the subjective opinion of a ball and strike away from the umpire, as well as make certain one ball park isn't built to focus on the home team's strengths. Of course, I am sure Mike Lupica would hate these ideas. He only wants a consistent set of rules in certain cases.

These are just obvious reasons there should be one set of rules in baseball,

Not really. The rules in baseball are just one set of rules. One league uses the DH and the other league doesn't. I think it adds a little bit of intrigue during the World Series and interleague play. I may be in the minority on this opinion.

Baseball is unique in there isn't really a uniform field size as well and Mike Lupica seems to have no issue with this. Some field have more foul territory and shorter fences, while other fields have less foul territory and fences that are further back. It's just part of the game.

why it is has become completely and officially and clinically insane to have the designated hitter in one league and no designated hitter in the other.

Fine, let's get rid of the DH then. Baseball survived for 80 years without it. But we all know that isn't the conclusion Lupica is trying to achieve. He doesn't like the different sets of rules, but he also doesn't want to get rid of the DH. So it isn't really the different set of rules that bothers him, but the lack of a DH in the National League.

because the out-of-date rules about the DH now affect the integrity of the season and the schedule more than all the interleague baseball does.
It's the integrity of the game that pays! This is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. Interleague play takes up a small amount of the schedule, so for the majority of the year teams are playing against each other with both teams used to having/not having the DH. It isn't like when the Nationals to go to play the Phillies in Philadelphia there are different rules than if the game was played in Washington.

Your team is supposed to be your team.

I'm not sure what this means in the context of this argument. Every MLB team has a roster of players that aren't necessarily used in certain set ways. Some players play a different position one night or bat in a different position in the order the next night.

Only now there are all these interleague games every season. Why? Because baseball gets a spike in attendance out of them, that's why. I get it. This is about business.
Interleague games are about business. I get it. The DH in American League parks and no DH in National League parks affect the integrity of the game again, how? Let's stay focused and not just try to take up space to fill the entire column.

But this is about the business of baseball today, and I don't care what the records say about how the American League usually does against the National League in interleague baseball.
You mean the records that show the American League does well against the National League, so the fact there are different rules doesn't seem to negatively affect the American League. In fact, since the National League traditionally does worse during interleague play, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of the DH so the American League doesn't have an "advantage" during interleague play?

It no longer makes any sense to have two sets of rules for what my dear friend Bob Ryan calls the greatest game ever invented by mortal minds.

Why do writers like name dropping Bob Ryan so much? It is good to see Mike Lupica has friends though. Dan Shaughnessy consistently name drops Bob Ryan as well. Dan Shaughnessy's columns generally look like this:

"The 2004 Red Sox. Curse. 2003 Red Sox and 2003 Yankees. ALCS. Bob Ryan told me this was true. Aaron Boone. The Celtics and the Patriots. Boston sports are great. Curse of the Bambino. Bob Ryan."

I need to meet a guy named "Bob Ryan" just to name drop him in casual conversations. This would probably be the greatest length a person had ever gone to in order to start an inside joke with himself.

There are only two ways to do this,
There is actually a third way. Mike Lupica could just deal with the different rules in the American and National League. I don't like the DH, but it really doesn't bother me during interleague play.

knowing that the Major League Baseball Players Association is never going to give up DH jobs without a fight,
So the reason to change the rules about pitchers batting that have governed the National League for over 100 years should be changed because the union doesn't want it? I realize this is a valid point, that the union doesn't want to lose the DH jobs, but the fact there may be an argument over this change isn't a reason to avoid the fight if baseball really wanted to get rid of the DH.

What about what the National League wants? I guess that doesn't matter?

One solution comes from my friend Tom Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau, who says that you eliminate the DH, but expand rosters to 26 or 27 players.

"It gets rid of the DH, but brings more strategy into the game," Hirdt says.

Well, that gets rid of that problem I guess. Though I doubt Mike Lupica really has two friends. That seems a bit unrealistic.

In reality, this doesn't fix the problem because Mike Lupica wants the DH in both leagues. This really isn't about the union or different sets of rules, but is about Mike Lupica wanting the DH used throughout baseball.

The simpler solution is to give everybody the DH, have everybody play the same rules the American League has been playing for years, no harm, no foul, we move on.

"No harm, no foul, we move on."

You know, except for the fact the National League may not want the DH. Who cares what the National League wants though? It's just the National League. If the National League was so important, the Red Sox and Yankees would play in the National League. They don't, so who cares what National League teams want.

(By the way, if anyone wants to accuse me of just protecting my favorite team, you are wrong. I would love to have Chipper Jones DH every night so Martin Prado could play third base and the Braves could then acquire an everyday left fielder to replace Prado. The DH was made for guys who are the point in their career Chipper Jones is.)

There are two sets of rules for Major League Baseball. Enough. If you agree, write a letter to the baseball commissioner about this, or Michael Weiner of the Major League Baseball Players Association, or to the owner of your team, or to the general manager. This has to be the last year of this.
I really don't see the problem to be honest. I don't like the DH, but I also don't mind the different rules in each league. If you make me choose, I choose not to have the DH.

This has to be the last year where someone like Vlad Guerrero of the Orioles has to basically take a furlough from being a regular player when the Orioles play interleague ball in a National League park.
Oh sure, because Vlad Guerrero shouldn't have to be punished due to the fact he can't field a position anymore. We don't want baseball players who only have one skill set at this point in their careers to be disadvantaged in any way. I don't believe this is a bad thing that Vlad Guerrero can't play because there is no DH in the National League. Unfortunately, in the National League the players who hit have to also field their position. I don't see this as a bad thing.

"You know, I like how Ivan Rodriguez fields his position, but I don't really want him hitting. This has to be the last year Rodriguez has to bat and can't just be a permanent catcher with no hitting responsibilities."

Or David Ortiz of the Red Sox, the second-most important hitter on a team that thinks it has a chance to win the AL East and maybe the World Series this year, has a great season disrupted and not because of injury or a slump, because of the rules.
David Ortiz can still play first base when he has to. As I expected, this DH rule change is really just a covert way to make sure the Yankees and Red Sox don't have to put any of their highly paid players on the bench in a National League park. When in doubt while dealing with a Mike Lupica column, just assume it is all about the Yankees and Red Sox.

To get Ortiz back in the batting order the other night against the Phillies, Adrian Gonzalez - who IS the Red Sox's best hitter - had to go play rightfield for the second time in his career.
Let's pretend Mike Lupica gave a shit about the flip side of this rule. When the Braves are playing in an American League park, Brooks Conrad or Julio Lugo has to play third base. Why can't the DH be outlawed so the Braves can keep their absolute best players in the lineup and don't have to start an inferior player in the hitting lineup or in the field? If we are going to cater to the American League teams fielding needs, let's pretend to cater to the National League team's hitting needs.

Did the Red Sox lose two of three to the lowly San Diego Padres at home using the DH last week? You bet they did. Then they lost two of three to the Pirates in Pittsburgh and used Ortiz solely as a pinch-hitter.

I do like how Mike Lupica is basically just saying the rules should be changed so the Red Sox have the best chance to win games and get their best team on the field. Who knew Boston and New York could come together like this?

This is some great shitty reasoning being used. The Red Sox lost to crappy teams, so the rules need to be changed so this doesn't happen.

So maybe they would have lost those two of three anyway. But they should not have had to try.

Just like National League teams shouldn't have to try to find another quality bat on their bench when they are in an American League stadium. The argument American League teams don't have enough good fielders to put their best team out on the field, so they need to use the DH, is just as good as the argument a National League team doesn't have enough hitters to put their best team on the field against an American League team, so they shouldn't have to use the DH.

This is a system that has gone on for far too long and needs to be changed now, and the only way it gets changed is if everybody who loves baseball starts to make some noise about it.

But I don't like the DH. Don't assume everyone agrees with you. I'm just not a fascist asshole who believes just because I don't like something it shouldn't exist.

It is a little different for the National League teams, because most teams have a hitter coming off the bench for whom managers are always trying to get some extra at-bats.

What a fantastic generalization. Every National League team has a hitter coming off the bench that needs more at-bats. Even if this was true with every team in the National League, I don't want the DH in the National League.

It would sound a lot better if you could say, Get rid of the DH now. Again: I like Tom Hirdt's idea, but I don't believe it will ever happen.
Translation: Mike Lupica doesn't want it to happen because then the Yankees would have too many players and not enough batting spots available. Where can the aging, out-of-shape "players" go if there isn't a DH?

So the movement is to bring the DH to the National League, as much as that is going to upset Cliff Lee. It is the only thing that makes sense.

Not true. I like the idea of adding roster spots and playing without a DH.

But in our national pastime, you have a system that is as out-of-touch with the modern realities of the game as wool uniforms and those tiny gloves they used to use.
What would be next? A designated fielder for the entire game? A designated runner for the entire game? I'm being ridiculous because I see no problem with the current set up.

There is, I believe, a lot about to change in baseball over the next several months. They are surely going to add a couple of teams to the playoffs and they might cut the schedule down from 162 games, and might move a team to the American League so we have leagues of 15 and 15, and go ahead and try to figure how interleague baseball is going to work with THAT.

Oh yeah, it would just be straight madness if there were equal teams in the American and National League. Interleague play only works best when each league has a different number of teams, that's what Mike Lupica believes.

I enjoy how Mike Lupica wants the rules changed because one league has the DH and the other league does not, but he thinks putting the same number of teams in each division would cause chaos.

I will give them all of that. But they have to give me something back. They've got to give me one set of rules for all of baseball, once and for all.

Then let's add a roster spot and get rid of the DH...but Mike Lupica doesn't want that. What he really wants is to use the American League set of rules for baseball and use the DH in the National League.