Talk:Designated hitter/Archive 1

POV pro-DH
When reading this page, I felt the POV was way too heavily towards the pro-DH position. This is probably because I think the DH is the worst idea in the history of the game. In any case, I have re-edited the article to include more on why NL fans prefer the more traditional, pre-1973 style of play. Vidor 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Injecting anti-DH POV is not a valid counter to the alleged pro-DH POV. You can rewrite sections to be more neutral, but it is not a valid use of Wikipedia to rewrite the article into an abolish-the-designated-hitter website.  Also, I removed the "akin to football" line because it's simply not a valid comparison.  In football, there are completely different teams for offense and defense, whereas the Designated Hitter rule makes the role of only ONE player purely defensive; as I wrote, this is more like a goalie in hockey or soccer. Iceberg3k 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I did no such thing as "rewrite the article into an abolish-the-designated-hitter" website. And the "akin to football" line is ENTIRELY valid, because the DH is indeed an offensive specialist, and his presence makes the pitcher into a defensive specialist, which is like football.  The fact that the American League has a specialist at one position and football is entirely specialized in no way makes the analogy invalid.  Your comparison to a goalie, on the other hand, is invalid, as the goalie in hockey or soccer is on the field for the entire time, unlike a DH (or an American League pitcher), who plays only half the game, just like football.  Nor is the "pro-DH POV" "alleged"; the article as I found it had about half a paragraph of arguments against the DH and much, much more material on why it's a super idea.


 * I would further argue that having a section dedicated to "controversy" necessitates having different POV, and that if we are to have such a section, that it must be balanced between pro and con instead of being strongly pro-DH. I would rather the "controversy" section be deleted entirely, and the article be limited to the DH rule and its history, than have a pro-DH article, as it is in its current form. Vidor 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality should be practiced when writing any wiki article, but I don't see a problem with a controversy section at all. I think in fact it SHOULD be included, as many people are against the idea of the DH. Maybe a pro vs con list where pro could be people like Molitor et al extending careers or recuperating during injury still being able to contribute vs not being in the true spirit of the game, etc. Arnabdas 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear that explaining conflicting views and debates surrounding a topic is NOT a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, so long as these debates are treated fairly. As the policy states: "The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints . . . Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." Edelmand 11:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Molitor
Removed:


 * Only one designated hitter has been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, when Molitor was elected in 2004.

This doesn't make sense. Like almost all DH's, Molitor came up as a position player, played 3rd base for a number of years before injuries moved him over to the DH spot. A number of other HoF players finished their careers as DH's, including the aforementioned Aaron and Yastrzemski. Ellsworth 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This could only be said if Molitor was a DH for (1) most of his years and (2) his best years.  Niether is true.  However, Edgar Martinez may be the first to earn this dubious distinction.  --Locarno 22:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

HoF DH's
The article should include a list of HoF players who finished their careers as DHs - this innovative position did extend a few careers by a year or two, allowing Aaron to finish his career in Milwaukee (where once played for the NL Braves), playing his final season for the (then) AL Brewers. (See also Reggie Jackson in Oakland)  Yadin twelve 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Yadin twelve 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (sorry, my posting yesterday was cutoff)

Molitor played more games as a DH than at any other postion.

When does an AL team lose their DH?
Could some kindly editor please detail the conditions under which an AL team loses their DH? I'm thoroughly confused on this issue, and came to this page looking for an explanation (as I'm sure did plenty of others who watched tonight's Angels/Yankees game!) I know it's some sort of player substitution, but what is the rule exactly, and for what reasons is this most likely to take place, since it's so rare? &mdash; Adam Conover &dagger; 04:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple concept: If the player in the DH role changes to a fielding position, the team forfeits the DH for the rest of the game and the pitcher must bat in the newly-opened spot. Yesterday, Crosby came out of the game, Bernie Williams switched from DH to CF, and the pitcher would then bat in Crosby's spot in the order.  As it played out, old man Sierra came in to pinch-hit for the pitcher, so the move didn't really affect anything.  Anyway, this was explained in the first paragraph, but I've changed it into the second paragraph to make it clear. --Locarno 15:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * From the article "On September 5, 1976, New York Yankees starting pitcher Catfish Hunter pinch-hit for second baseman Sandy Alomar in top of the 6th inning and stayed in the lineup as the pitcher for the Yankees in the bottom half of the inning. Cesar Tovar, the one-time designated hitter in the game, then took over at second base. [7] (Note: There is now a section of the rule that states that the game pitcher may only pinch-hit for the designated hitter; therefore, this move would have been allowed then, but now it would be prohibited.)"
 * Interesting. Had the Yankees been on defense, their manager could have said "Tovar, our dh, is coming in to play second base.  Alomar is coming out."  The ump would have said "Okay, but then your pitcher, Hunter, has to bat in Alomar's slot."  But during their offensive turn they aren't allowed to do essentially the same thing: that is, say that "Tovar is now at second, Alomar is out of here and therefore Hunter has to take Alomar's turn at bat." WHPratt (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Article construction
I am working on improving this article, taking into consideration the concerns expressed here (though not the opinions). Em-jay-es 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ortiz
Is the section about whether Ortiz should be the MVP still necessary? I know it was a big deal last fall, but since he didn't end up getting the award, maybe this section deserves to be shortened to one or two sentences and/or moved to the separate article about "list of notable DH's" Dakern74 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Minors
While I was venting about Ortiz just above, an anonymous editor has removed an entire paragraph I had written earlier today explaining how the DH rule is applied in the minor leagues. Is this not relevant to the article? Or if something I had in there was factually inaccurate, I'd appreciate a response. Dakern74 03:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hit By Pitch?
"However, sabermetrics have not borne this out; inside pitching and intentional hit batsmen have actually decreased in both leagues since 1973."

Well I just checked and HBP has RISEN by about 100% from the late 60's/early 70's. I'm not sure what an "intentional" HBP is, but unless a piece of research is referenced here I'm going to delete this. John DiFool2 16 June 2006

--->Just wondering, where did you "check" this? Do you have a link? Also, is this for just the AL? Or all of MLB?

Any decent reference source, such as www.baseball-reference.com, will indicate the rise in HBP over the past 30 years or so. John DiFool2 16 July 2006

Evidence??
"Naturally, the result of the first season of the DH was that the American League posted a higher batting average than the National League, something which has remained consistent to this day."

Is there any actuall evidence to support this? Because as far as I know, neither league consistently posts a higher average than the other. Its often flips back and forth between leagues. If its true, it needs to be backed up.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.72.134.29 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * No, it's true. Since '73 the AL has always had a higher league BA than the NL. Before then it did fluctuate, though the NL had a higher BA from 1964-72. Baseball Reference has pages showing the American League's and National League's season-by-season stats, although I haven't found a page that directly puts the two leagues' BAs side-by-side for convenience. I suppose I could put a graph showing the leagues' averages through the years, but I don't know if that would constitute original research or not.--Highway99 08:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Although it doesnt seem quite as definitive as the orginal statement makes it seem. Alot of years the two leagues are almost identical.

Also, for what its worth, the AL also has two less teams than the NL. So that could also have an impact on that specific stat. I guess my point is that the fact that the AL has a slightly higher average isnt a direct cause of the DH like the article implies. It could be due to a number of factors.

An average wouldn't be affected by the number of teams in the league. Home runs, hits, rbis, yes, but an average is compiled per at bat, so it would still match up, whether there were 20 teams or 200. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.96.233 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I had to guess, the reason the BA went up is because pitches, who generally have low BAs, no longer bring down the average in the Junior Circuit. -- Rab bethan  20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

History Of the DH
The authors of this article have it slightly wrong on the history of the DH. The rule was first implemented in a semi-pro league in Lakewood, Ohio circa 1966 or 1967 for purposes of adding some excitement and offense to the game as pitchers were previously dominating the game with a 17" mound. This same league experimented with a wild card hitter and wild card runner.  I won't bore everyone with the rule details, but the three were closely watched and monitored by the American League and the Cleveland Indians in particular.  The commissioner of that league who is credited with the DH's introduction was Roger E. Schwenkel.  Charlie Finley came later and while it is true he was a proponent of the DH, he really was a johnny come lately.  I know this first hand because I played in that league and later at Southern Cal.

68.92.218.182 05:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)shemp 01/16, 2007

"On April 6, 1973, Ron Blomberg of the New York Yankees became the first designated hitter in Major League Baseball history . . . " A writer for Sports Illustrated pointed out that as the Red Sox turned in their lineup card first, Orlando Cepeda (rather than Blomberg who admittedly got to hit earlier) was truly the first DH to be designated. However, as Cepeda was at one time an all-around player whereas Blomberg was born to be a DH, it's perhaps just as well to leave out this fact. WHPratt (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Official Rule
The author states that only the pitcher may be DHd for. I believe this to be untrue, but I can't find any sort of source to prove it. Can anyone find anything?
 * The definitive source is MLB's Official Baseball Rules, which states in Rule 6.10(b):"A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) in the game."Nowhere does it state a DH may bat for a position player.--Highway99 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mauer moving from DH to Catcher not only instance this century
User Locarno's example shows where there has been more than one instance of a team losing its DH this century. The Yankees have done this a few times in fact. The reason was to use the defensive talents of the DH player at the time in the field, since he was the best defender at the position. In doing so, the pitcher (for the Yankees Mariano Rivera) was placed in the batting order. However, Yankees mgr Joe Torre had Rivera in a double switch and placed him at the back of the lineup.

The reasoning was that though the team loses the offensive power of the DH if the pitcher is forced to bat, by the time the pitcher got up to bat the team would have had to automatically score several runs before his place in the batting order came up...only adding to their lead.

I think this circumstance should be noted as a possibly strategic move. Arnabdas 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement as now revised in the article ["During the 21st century, only one American League team has lost the right to use the DH during a normal American League game (not counting interleague play) and was forced to send the starting pitcher to have at least one plate appearance"] is still incorrect. I can't give an all-inclusive list, but I recall at least one other instance in the 1990s involving a game between the Cleveland Indians and Toronto Blue Jays.  See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/07/22/archive/main55491.shtml.  Unless someone has the energy to research this comprehensively, I would suggest that the sentence quoted above be revised to lead into the following sentence as follows: "The most recent instance of a starting pitcher batting in an American League game due to the loss of the right to use a designated hitter occurred in the second game...."


 * One other item to address in the same paragraph is the promised batting order at the end of the paragraph which does not appear in the article.Mds001 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The instance with the Indians should definitley be mentioned, especially being part of Manny Ramirez's lore. And the statement is indeed incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.43.38 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remember that we are dealing eith the "21st Century" in that statement. THe 1990s are in the "20th Century". If someone has an example from 2000 and on, then that would be relevant to the statement, - BillCJ (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Name change
Should we change the name of this article to "Designated Hitter rule" and have "Designated Hitter" redirect here? This article is sounding more and more like a discussion on the rule and ongoing debate than on the player position.--75.92.214.41 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging designated hitter statistics
I think that MLB designated hitter statistics should be merged into this section, as it gives the first DH for each team and many other famous DH firsts. If I can receive some semblance of consensus on this, I will move it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradenkeith (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms
The "Criticisms" section has been tagged since at least July 2008. That's more than enough time for this section to have been fixed if anyone cared to do so. Given that it has not been fixed, I doubt it will be missed. If I'm wrong, and someone restores it, please be sure to fix the problems, including weasel phrases such as "some critics say blah blah blah". WP doesn't allow that kind of crap, so we have to state who actually believes or says such things, and provide reliable sources to prove when and where they said it.

There were 3 citations in the article, but they were oly tagentally related, and would not have made any sense without the rest of the section. Perhaps these citations could be used elsewhere in the article. Alternatively, we might be able to put them together with some sourced statements to provide a brief section that shows not everyone likes the DH, and why. - BillCJ (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What, if I may ask, was wrong with the criticisms section? Even if it wasn't well-written, I think it's just plain crazy to have an article on the DH that doesn't give a list of arguments for and against it.  Fix it, get it better citations or whatever, but don't completely remove it. toll_booth (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There Needs to be a Criticism Section
How can a page on DH (especially one already at this length) not have a criticism section. The DH rule, since it being put into play and continuing to this day, has always created a line of division between its proponents and opponents. Also, what is the importance of the "Quotes" section? It seems frivolous. Not to mention, the quotes given all seem to be in support of the rule. There are countless more notable quotes that are against it, but why are they not posted here? TheFinalSay (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this Baseball Bugs. Another user bringing up my valid point SF Gyros (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticism section was removed because it was almost enirely Original research, and I've removed it again for that reason. If you want to re-add it, please make sure you have Reliable Sources for every claim and statement made in the section. "critics say", "advocates say", and such have no place here. All such comments must be attributable to someone. This is WP Policy - it's NOT optional! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may, what would constitute a reliable source? A google search for "designated hitter debate" (with quotes) returned quite a few articles. Couldn't we just revert the edit, pull in some of these sources, and edit the section as needed? toll_booth (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable Sources covers what is and what isn't reliable. In short, anything published by a reputable magazine, newspaper, or sports oraginzation would suffice (print or online). It would probably be best to work on the section on a user page, and once the source are added, re-add the section to the article. I can help you set something up on your user page if you need help with that, and I can help with formmatting the references if needed. Again, I have no problem with the section, as long as it has proper sources. - BillCJ (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that blogs and self-published material are not permitted, and opinon pieces must be presented as such. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is silly, BillCJ. The section, no matter what you may personally think, is NOT original research and is perfectly in line with the tone, format, of the rest of the article. If you have a problem with it, please do something to fix it yourself rather than simply squashing the delete button. This isn't the place to let your personal affection towards designated hitters affect the quality of the page. Not listing a criticism section on the Designated Hitter wikipedia page is absurd - this issue has been so hotly debated for decades, it's like having a George W. Bush page without a criticism section. Until you or somebody else writes up a better section, then this stays. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFinalSay (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "silly" - it's WP policy. It's about having proper sources for a section that was here for a long time without having sources. Also per policy, sourcing is the responsibility of the one adding the material, not the one deletiong it. You want to put it back, fine, but at least try to find some reliable sources, as Tollbooth is trying to do. It has absolutely nothing to do with my personal opinion on the DH, which you do not know. - BillCJ (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is about assertions of fact. Blogs are in fact an acceptable source to showing that an opinion is being asserted, so long as the blogger asserting that opinion is notable enough in his/her own right for us to care about their opinion. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Other DH oddities
The reason that the rule was drafted to permit the DH to enter the game on defense was that otherwise a manager would be extremely reluctant to use his other catcher as a DH for fear of getting caught without a catcher. WHPratt (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Designated hitter → Designated hitter rule — I made the above suggestion (having forgotten at the time to log in) that the article should be called Designated hitter rule because the article is leaning towards a discussion on the rule rather than the position itself. Nobody responded and it's been more than a year, plus I've become more familiar with Wikipedia, so I'm listing at WP:RM to open it to a broader group of people. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - The current title is best, as it is more simple, and the article does cover the position. You might consider splitting off the rules portion of this article, but I really don't think that's necessary either. Better would be to trim the rules portion, as much of it is speculative or hypothetical, and especially if it's unsourced. - BillCJ (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How one-sided can you be?
There is no apparent effort to find quotes from ANYONE who is against the DH. If Wikipedia wants to continue to be thought of as a site where people can come to for information then this needs to be addressed. There are MANY sources for quotes against the DH, but whoever compiled this article is clearly an American League fan. By the way, the biggest argument many opponents of the DH have is in Rule 1.01

"Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under the direction of a Manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires." By it's nature, rule 6.10 violates the very definition of the game itself, by making American League ball a game between two teams of 10 players each. 3 Outfielders + 4 Infielders + 1 Catcher + 1 Pitcher = 1 Team of 9 players. 3 OF + 4 IF + 1 C + 1 P + 1 DH = 1 team of 10. Common sense people. This isn't baseball. (207.191.177.48 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * NL defense: 3 Outfielders + 4 Infielders + 1 Catcher + 1 Pitcher = 1 Team of 9 players.
 * NL offense: 3 Outfielders + 4 Infielders + 1 Catcher + 1 DH = 1 Team of 9 players.
 * Football offense: 7 linemen + 4 backs = 1 team of 11 players.
 * Football defense: 11 linemen and backs = 1 team of 11 players.
 * Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget Football regarding logic: You can have three tight ends on a line, which is geometrically impossible. ;) WHPratt (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is wikipedia's purpose to present the facts, not to push debates on the DH. In fact, it's a game of 9 players; just as football is a game of 11 players, even though you don't see Brett Favre playing middle linebacker or strong safety. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

-Yes, I agree, the DH is actually and illegal substitution. The pitcher should not be able to return to play, just as any other defensive player. If the pitcher isn't considered a defensive player, then what kind of game are we talking about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.17.71 (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's in the rules, it's not illegal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Football also has very loose substitution regulations, and on a baseball lineup card there are nine slots...unless the league in question uses the DH, in which case there are 10...that's not baseball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.70.124 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Plugging used to be allowed in baseball, the mound was higher, etc., all according to the existing rules. So what we have today is not baseball anyway, so are we even playing baseball at all, even in the NL? Please, get real! Rules change, move on. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they used to allow "courtesy runners," a concept that permitted a player to leave the game and return to it. Rules do change. WHPratt (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Baseball is whatever the rules makers say it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add some anti-DH quotes here. This section is severely biased toward the pro-DH viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.87.88 (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not wikipedia's place to tell baseball how it should write its rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The quotes are also not all supportive of the DH. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ:
 * PRO#1:"The average fan comes to the park to see action, home runs. He doesn't come to see a one-, two-, three- or four-hit game. I can't think of anything more boring than to see a pitcher come up, when the average pitcher can't hit my grandmother. Let's have a permanent pinch-hitter for the pitcher." - A's Owner Charlie O. Finley


 * PRO#2 (Read the quote, just because he says he's not an advocate, doesn't mean this quote doesn't advocate the DH) "I'm not an advocate of the Designated Hitter Rule; I'm only an advocate of seeing the truth and telling the truth. What the truth comes down to here is a question of in what does strategy reside? Does strategy exist in the act of bunting? If so the Designated Hitter Rule has reduced strategy. But if strategy exists in the decision about when a bunt should be used, then the DH rule has increased the differences of opinion which exist about that question, and thus increased strategy...[the research shows] that there is more of a difference of opinion, not less, in the American League." - Bill James in The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (1986)


 * PRO#3: "Everyone in the world disagrees with me, including some managers, but I think managing in the American League is much more difficult for that very reason (having the designated hitter). In the National League, my situation is dictated for me. If I'm behind in the game, I've got to pinch hit. I've got to take my pitcher out. In the American League, you have to zero in. You have to know exactly when to take them out of there. In the National League, that's done for you." - Jim Leyland [44]


 * PRO#4"I've got my pitchers running the bases, and one of them gets hurt. He's going to be out. I don't like that, and it's about time they address it. That was a rule from the 1800s." - Hank Steinbrenner [45]


 * PRO#5 "There's not enough showmanship in baseball. It is show business, isn't it? I don't think baseball is dead by any means. But it needs things. In the theatre we're always thinking of the audience. But in baseball they're unmindful of the audience.... I like the idea of having a pinch hitter for the pitcher, one of the things they were trying this spring." - Broadway producer David Merrick in the New York Times on 27 July 1969 [46]


 * PRO#6"The best case for the DH is this: It represents that rarest of things, the triumph of evidence over ideology. The anti-DH ideology is that there should be no specialization in baseball, no division of labor: Everyone should play "the whole game." That theory is obliterated by this fact: Specialization is a fact with or without the DH. Most pitchers only go through the motions at bat." - George F. Will in his book, Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball


 * PRO#7 (Not obviously pro, but considering Kuhn helped introduce and implement the DH, he's clearly PRO DH)"The DH debate we stirred up in 1969 was altogether healthy. I think the public was beginning to believe that we were finally awake. Executives like Lee MacPhail of the Yankees believed in the DH and were beginning to make some progress in the American League. Certainly, if change in any area was coming, the more venturesome American League would be the place for me to seek allies. They had precipitated expansion in 1961 and 1969, forcing the reluctant National Leaguers to follow suit both times." - Former Commissioner Bowie Kuhn on the DH experiment in 1969


 * PRO#8"Our job is to pitch, to get hitters out, not to hit. I love to hit and swing the bat; I think all players do. But it tires you out to run the bases. In the late innings, if I'm pitching a good game, I don't want to hit and have to run." - Pitcher Jackie Brown, who pitched four years in the American League before going to Montreal, claiming that the DH rule made him a better pitcher


 * So please inform me how there is any balance here and not all the quotes are pro DH? Also, one of the biggest detractors of the DH is Tony La Russa. It's a travesty his opinion isn't listed here (I'd do it but I couldn't find a reputable quotation). While the DH, for better or for worse is here to stay, its an OPINION on whether it adds to the game or not, depending on your leanings toward historical preservation, increased offense, etc. While a couple of quotes may be (barely) classified as neutral, its indisputable there is not an ANTI DH comments on this page. So unless this can be cleaned up and balanced, I see no purpose in keeping this quotation section. It makes no sense and serves no purpose, other than to advance a PRO DH viewpoint. The best point I can make, is that this is redudant in any case since its addressed in the HISTORY and CRITICISM sections. Unless this comment is addressed with some point that I'm failing to grasp soon, I'm going to remove it once again in the near future. Thanks.
 * It is not wikipedia's place to tell baseball how it should make its rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. I get the feeling you're not even reading what I'm writing. First you say, its not all pro-DH. Then I disprove it. Then you make up some other red herring about "It is not wikipedia's place to tell baseball how it should make its rules." For the sake of clarity and balance, this quotations section should be removed. It's redundant and is clearly inserted to support the DH, which is an opinion. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was here to present the facts and not push an agenda. This section should be removed. There are various other readers who have agreed with this idea. SF Gyros (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Clarity and balance"? You're talking as if this were about Barack Obama. It's about baseball, fer cryin' out loud. How about if you take this issue to WP:Baseball and see what they have to say. They might like a break from the debate over whether the Expos and Nats should still have separate pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering you said not all the quotes were Pro-DH, and they clearly were, I don't think you have the most credibility. This is a valid point that multiple people are bringing up. You have offered absolutely no decent points about why this section should stay. It's redundant and is there to add bias to this article. And you continue to sit on your hands. Once again, you offer another red herring about the Nats and Expos. Please address my concerns instead of dismissing them out of hand. Thank you. SF Gyros (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Leyland said the DH made his job tougher. Regardless, take it to the project page so you can get a broader range of opinions on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And La Russa said that the DH makes managing easier since there are fewer headaches arising from working around a pitcher in the lineup. Regardless, you still haven't address my concerns. I get the impression you are biased for the DH and therefore want to keep the section. La Russa said, "There's no doubt in my mind that the game of baseball in all its beauty and entirety is the National League game.'I would kick the D.H. out so quick it would make your head spin.' (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E3DF173FF931A15753C1A9609C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) 'You might need to go to the project page to get a broader range of opinions. SF Gyros (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently LaRussa gets a kick out of seeing pitchers strike out. Although I have to say that the bunt laid down by one of the Phillies' pitchers tonight was a beauty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure that Terry Francona get's a kick out of seeing Big Papi try to play first base in an NL ballpark. This conversation right here is a perfect illustration of my point. The section is biased and should be removed. Let's keep up Wikipedia's quality here! SF Gyros (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, like when he picked off that Cardinals pitcher in 2004. There are a few exceptions to the pitcher being worthless as a batter (or a runner, in that case). But I recall Bob Buhl going 0-for-70 during the 1962 season. That was not what I call entertainment. But if you can find other quotes opposing the DH, go ahead and put them in, and I'm sure the American League will see them and decide to drop the DH. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you were trying to be an honest editor and evaluate my legitimate criticism trying to improve this page and Wikipedia, but instead you go off on tangents (like trying to influence the AL) SF Gyros (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When you talk about "balance", in a baseball article, as opposed to some hot political topic, it's hard to take it very seriously. And if you don't take it to the project page, then I will. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Lots of people disagree about the DH. Since there isn't a clear consensus, why have a list full of quotes from people liking the DH when there are just as many people who don't want it in baseball. This isn't some crazy idea (also not the most important granted, but for sake of argument). What's this project page thing you're talking about? SF Gyros (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So go find some anti-DH quotes already. And I already told you: WP:Baseball. Go to its talk page and make your case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. SF Gyros (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Other DH oddities
Josh Beckett hit home runs in the same NL ballpark (Philadelphia), where there is no DH allowed, during Interleague games in 2006 and 2009, not in any AL ballgames. Leave it off of that paragraph in that section because it is not true that he hit home runs in ballgames between two American League teams. --Bjrbbhaw81 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the horror that is the "Criticism" section
I've been (trying) to clean up the Criticism section, as it looked truly horrific when I first saw it. The problem is that I have very limited experience in baseball, so I simply don't know much about this area. We need someone to find support and clean up more then simply English in this section. I'll see what I can do for it, but I simply don't know much about this subject, so some help would be useful.Altairantares (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge
The article MLB designated hitter statistics is an obvious content fork of this article. That article is mostly a list of trivia that could be rolled into this article in a few short paragraphs of prose. This article is not nearly long enough to require a split, and as much information as possible on the DH should be available in one place without breaking it up unnecessarily. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)