Now that interleague play has apparently become an integral part of the
baseball season, it is time for Bud Selig to make up his mind about the
Designated Hitter rule. We've had 27 years to decide whether the game is
better with or without this invention, and there's ample evidence--both pro
and con. So, what's it going to be? The decision is long over due. It
doesn't even matter what choice is made--flip a coin if you must. But make a
decision, dammit, and let's be done with it.
The fact that the two leagues have now been playing under different rules
for nearly three decades is unconscionable. The move this year to combine
the umpires from both leagues, and have them call games indiscriminately
throughout the majors, was a good idea. But, are we going to stop there? All
this does is eliminate the discrepancies in the two strike zones. Compared
to playing under two completely different philosophies, that problem was
insignificant.
It continues to be a shame that the two league champions get to the World
Series and are forced to play half of the games under foreign rules. How
fair is it for an American League pitcher to suddenly step up to the plate
and wave anemically at a couple of pitches, while at least his National
League counterpart has been doing it every fifth day? How fair is it to
"allow" the National League to use a position they don't even have
on their roster? Sure they may carry an extra pinch hitter or two, but that
hardly compares to the behemoths the American League teams have stockpiled.
Is this any way to play for the World Championship?
First of all, the player's union will certainly not give up the DH
without a fight. They prefer that the owners overpay some old fat bastard
who can can still manage to knock one out, but who can no longer hold his
own in the field. Without a DH, teams would be better served signing a young
utility player with a good glove and the ability to lay down a bunt. But,
these guys come a dime a dozen, and the union would lose, what's
essentially, a lucrative social security program for it's over-the-hill
hitters.
Way back in 1973, the American League felt the offense needed a little
boost to generate more fan interest. That's hardly the case now--football
scores are far more common than pitcher's duels. I'm not contending that all
these runs are being produced by Designated Hitters. Clearly, that's not the
case. The National League is almost as big of a pinball machine as the
American. But altering the traditional rules of the game hardly seems
necessary now. So let's eliminate a needless position and get back to a
truer game, with all the extra strategy and emphasis on fundamentals.
Or not.
If it is deemed that the DH has been an improvement, it's about time the
National League move into the modern era. Who really wants to see a pitcher
come up, just as a rally finally gets started, only to watch him get the bat
knocked out of his hands? With the possible exception of Babe Ruth, all
pitchers are far more valuable to their teams on the mound than in the
batter's box. So, lets finally end the charade and set it right.
Or not.
I grew up and follow an American League team, so I suppose I like the
designated hitter. But not enough to tolerate two sets of rules. Like I
said, it doesn't really matter which way the decision goes--only half of the
people are going to be satisfied either way. So forget about pleasing the
fans for once, and do what's right for the game. Bite the bullet and
eliminate the ludicrous situation that has been allowed to go on far too
long. The only wrong decision will be another no decision.
|
