2 comments It Turns Out the Designated Hitter Didn't Ruin the World Series After All

Bruce Jenkins seems to have been concerned the designated hitter would ruin the World Series. I have no idea why he was afraid this would happen and apparently he believes the designated hitter ruining the World Series is a fear that many people share. But it's okay, the designated hitter is flawed, but did not ruin the World Series. That's good to know, especially since I'm not sure when exactly the designated hitter has ruined any World Series. Bruce Jenkins is just relieved the World Series went off without a hitch and the DH didn't ruin it all.

Was it really so terrible? Has it ever been that bad?

Yes, this column is really that bad. It's probably terrible. It's a column that screams, "I don't like change, except I like change when it comes to changing things in baseball the way I want them. In that case I like change. Also, I make bad arguments and am generally closed-minded."

Each autumn, we hear that the designated-hitter disparity will ruin the World Series 

I don't think it ruins the World Series, but generally the National League has a perceived advantage because the National League rules allow the National League World Series representative to play at normal strength, while the American League World Series representative plays a hitter down or has to put the DH in the field at a National League park. When playing a World Series game in an American League park, the National League doesn't have to adjust their normal lineup and can have the advantage of putting a good hitter at DH and not having the pitcher bat. See, the National League team has to adjust, but this adjustment doesn't change the team in a negative fashion, while the American League team has to adjust in a National League park, and the adjustment is a negative because a hitter who was in the lineup for the entire season has to play the field or be on the bench.

and the rules should be changed immediately, lest we all run for cover as the world is about to end.

I've not heard this either. I've heard someone say the designated hitter rule should be changed immediately, but again, that's about it. I've read columns that simply mention the National League might have an advantage in the World Series (though this didn't help the Cardinals), but I haven't read anything saying the world will end if the DH is used in American League parks, but not National League parks.

All too often, it's a noisy commotion over nothing. I'm still trying to figure out how this allegedly awkward situation has wrecked the Cardinals-Red Sox competition - or any other World Series, for that matter.

You know what I would like to read from Bruce Jenkins? I would like to read excerpts from columns written that claim the DH would ruin the World Series. At least that way I would know what Bruce Jenkins was talking about with this "noisy commotion" and his concerns about figuring out how this "allegedly awkward situation" wrecked the World Series. I've read articles from Scott Miller and Jon Morosi saying the National League had an advantage due to the use of the designated hitter. Logic tells me not having the DH is an advantage for the National League, but I have no idea how much of an advantage it would be. It's like if the AFC played a 10-on-10 game of football and the NFC played a 11-on-11 game of football. The NFC team would be at a disadvantage in the Super Bowl if AFC rules were used because a player that is usually on the field would not be on the field as much during the game. That's possibly a bad example, but hopefully you get my point.

The Red Sox were supposed to be in big trouble heading into St. Louis, having to bench either David Ortiz or Mike Napoli because the non-DH landscape would leave one of them without a position.

Is this an argument from 2004 or 2007? I remember there being a concern in both of those World Series that the Red Sox may have to bench Ortiz, but it turned into much ado about nothing. Jon Morosi stated the American League doesn't have a great advantage over the last 19 games during the last seven World Series in National League parks (prior to this year the AL was 5-14 in NL parks over the last seven World Series), but I'm not sure that means the Red Sox were in big trouble because that's not a huge sample size.

Ortiz did some grumbling, but he found his first baseman's glove, went out to play some authentic baseball and helped the Sox win two of the three games.

This is David Ortiz grumbling: 

"I'm down to do whatever my manager wants me to do," Ortiz said. Then he added, with a smile, "Just go out there and wish me good luck."

I'm just kidding, Ortiz did show his preference for the way the American League plays with the DH when interviewed before Game 3. What else would anyone expect Ortiz to do? He's a full-time DH and has played in the American League his entire career. 

Now that the DH returns for Wednesday night's Game 6 at Fenway Park, who's complaining? Seriously, can we just get over this?

Well, no one is complaining because the Cardinals got Allen Craig in the lineup and the Red Sox were able to play at normal strength. See why some people think the World Series should use the designated hitter in both leagues? The use of the designated hitter is seen by some as a benefit to the National League in an American League park and a detriment to the American League when the game is played in a National League park. I'm generally fine with the disparity of the DH in one league and not the other, but I understand the point of view that not using the DH during the World Series in a National League park is a disadvantage to the American League. 

The Cardinals can fill the DH slot with the hobbled Allen Craig - the only hitter who's been able to solve reliever Koji Uehara - at a time when they couldn't risk playing him in the field. And the Red Sox are back in their comfort zone.

Nobody is arguing the use of the DH in an American League park provides a disadvantage to either the American or National League team. So yes, nearly everyone is happy when a World Series game is played in an American League park. This is actually a decent argument for using the DH full-time during the World Series in both American League and National League parks, the fact no one on either team is unhappy when the DH is used in an American League park.

By the way, that argument about "a different set of rules" never carried much water. 

I'm not a DH fan, but one league playing with the DH and one league playing without the DH is absolutely a different set of rules. I don't see how a rational human being can disagree. One league has a hitter who always hits in place of the pitcher and another league makes the pitcher bat. I can't see how anyone can't see these are different sets of rules. 

"Different" would be two outs in an inning, or a three-ball walk. Lineups get pitifully skewered when someone isn't allowed to hit, but it's not as if people are suddenly running the bases backward.

Ah yes, to be old and willfully ignorant. People aren't suddenly running the bases backwards, but pitchers are suddenly taking a turn at-bat in a National League park and don't bat in an American League park. That's a different set of rules. I don't really care if Bruce Jenkins thinks this isn't a different set of rules, because 99% of the population would agree the use of the DH in one league and not the other is the very definition of a different set of rules. 

National League teams should be perfectly capable of adjusting to a DH world, and there's no better example than the Giants.

Nobody is worried about the National League, because National League teams have the option of playing a better fielding player in the field, while allowing a great hitter to stay in the lineup. For my favorite team that would mean getting Evan Gattis out of left field and putting a better defensive outfielder out there while not losing Gattis's bat in the lineup. That's a nice thing to have. 

Supposedly at a disadvantage in American League parks, where the opposing teams appeared to be stacked with more good hitters, the Giants won the 2010 World Series in Texas and followed up with last year's masterpiece in Detroit.

I don't know if I have seen anyone argue a National League team has a disadvantage in an American League park. Even if the National League doesn't have a hitter who could DH and be productive, it's not really a disadvantage because most likely the National League team's 9th best hitter is a better hitter than the pitcher. So there's no disadvantage in an American League park as long as the National League's 9th best hitter is a better hitter than the pitcher. 

I'm among the many fans who have this crazy notion about baseball: If you play the game, you bring your glove and your bat, and you use them both. That's it - end of debate.

Right, but remember you said the DH isn't really a different set of rules, so no need to get upset. I mean, right?

It's nine against nine, weaknesses exposed, strengths magnified.

Even with the DH, baseball is really nine against nine. I'm not a fan of the DH, but I can't argue the game is still nine against nine. 

There are no "specialists."

No specialists except for closers, defensive specialists, pinch runners, and left/right-handed pitchers brought in to specifically pitch against a right/left-handed batter. Other than that, no specialists. 

If you're nauseated by the sight of a weak-hitting pitcher, go watch an international ballet; you'll feel much better.

I don't think I even begin to understand this comment. Moving on...

Along those lines, I can't understand the argument that "the union would never eliminate those high-paying DH jobs," when the union could initiate the argument for 27-man rosters (instead of 25),

Right, but the point is to not increase the roster size because this would inevitably increase the cost of labor for teams as well when they have to pay two extra players. The two additional roster spots without the DH would inevitably go to players who aren't as expensive or are (gasp!) specialists. After all, if a team could carry two more players, what's the harm in carrying a guy specifically for pinch-running or another LOOGY? And guess what? These players probably aren't going to be making a lot of money. So yes, the union wouldn't want to lose a high-paying DH job for guys who play 150 games a year in favor of two bench spots for specialists making less money. 

adding two more jobs per team and restoring bench depth in the age of crowded pitching staffs.

If Bruce Jenkins thinks adding two more roster spots per team is going to go to restoring bench depth and decrease the crowded pitching staffs then he is painfully naive. If anything, getting rid of the DH and increasing the roster size by two players will do more to crowd the pitching staff since teams could have another roster spot to carry a specialist reliever. For someone who has written about sports for a while, Bruce Jenkins sure doesn't seem to think very well about sports. 

Still, these arguments toss me into the trash bin of irrelevance.

I think you are headed that way no matter your opinion of the DH. 

The game's only path to salvation is to sustain traditional rules in the National League, so everyone's tastes are satisfied.

Everyone's tastes would be satisfied, except for fans of the American League way of playing baseball with the DH. But other than the approximate 50% of people who prefer the American League way of playing baseball and the unknown percentage of baseball fans who don't like the DH, but don't mind the DH being used in National League parks during the World Series, everyone would be satisfied. 

Verducci wrote that after the wild, fantastically complex Game 3 in St. Louis on Saturday night: "So convoluted went the plot, with all of its games within the game ... that after nine innings of madness and 35 players - including 12 pitchers, five different third basemen and five pinch-hitters - one truth came shining through: N.L. rules."

One person agrees with Bruce! This means he must be right!

There's a case worth resting.

I can't figure out why, assuming Bruce Jenkins considers the use of the DH in American League parks but not National League parks as not a different set of rules, that Bruce is getting worked up over the use of the DH in the World Series. It sounds like Bruce does think it's a different set of rules in one league compared to the other, but he denies he thinks this because he knows it will hurt his argument that the American League representative in the World Series is negatively impacted by the lack of the DH in the National League park.