Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
Author Message
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #21
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
(02-12-2019 01:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  For the record, I am for the universal DH so I'm not arguing the merit of the DH itself.

So, just to be clear, are you saying you are for the universal DH being imposed on those who don't favor it?

Or, you are for the universal DH generally, so though you don't like disrespecting those who prefer the traditional game, you like HMC because (reading below) you believe it would end up that home managers would most all the time choose to use the DH anyhow?

(02-12-2019 01:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ..........Actually, I believe Brookes Owl is 100% correct and allow me to illustrate why...

...........As you said, there really isn't such a thing as a primary DH any longer. It's simply a position in the lineup rather than the definition of a type of player. Anyone can bat DH at any time essentially.

The home manager, unless he's given a proposed lineup that's not allowed to be changed ahead of the game, will have no real idea who his opposing manager will select to play DH in a given situation. Therefore he cannot with certainty compare averages or any other stat.

The only thing the home manager knows for certain is who he might choose to bat as DH in the lineup against the other team's starter. Now, he may very well have a good guess, but there's very little concrete information to go on because we're not talking about who you're going to play at Catcher...a position with very few realistic options.

Let's add to the discussion some actual numbers here, just in the interest of general knowledge, okay?

- Just to reaffirm what's already affirmed... indeed, I just went to baseball-reference and counted more than 200 (!) players who were used as DHs in 2018 in the AL.

- 53 of those were DHs for at least 10 games during the season.

- 3 teams (BAL, KCR, and MIN) featured 5 of those 53

- 5 teams featured 4 of those 53

- 5 teams featured 3 of those 53

- Only 1 team (OAK) featured 2

- Only 1 team (SEA) featured 1

So, 2/3 of the league used 3 or 4 primarily, but again, with over 200 total, it can be asserted that pretty much everyone used several players.

Now, turning back to your assertions... yes, we agree on that first assertion (of course).

To your assertion that the home manager would "have no idea" who the visiting manager might intend to bat DH for the upcoming game... I think that sidesteps the real point.. walk through this with me...

What's important in my assessment if I'm the home manager is merely which of those guys on his bench is his best batter, or perhaps, which is his best batter from the left side if I'm throwing a RHP that day... and it's just not a difficult assessment since there's generally only 5 of those bench guys, given the typical 12-man pitching staff. But even if there are 6, it's just not that complicated to look at the opposing team's best-case scenario and how that potential DH compares to my guy... that's the key issue.



(02-12-2019 01:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Given that lack of information, the manager has only 2 safe presumptions he can work with.

1. It's incredibly rare that a pitcher is more skilled at hitting than position players who are required to do it regularly. Given the reality that you must score runs to win the game, any manager will want his best hitters in the lineup if possible.....

... you must score runs to win the game therefore offering your best lineup increases your chances of scoring and ultimately winning. To choose to bat the pitcher on the off chance the opposing pitcher was slightly more pathetic is not a good strategy for scoring runs.

To that first sentence... agreed, it's incredibly rare.

Okay, but once again, pardon me but you seem to sidestep the key point...

The reality is it's not just a matter of scoring runs, it's a matter of scoring more runs than the other team.

Right? Of course that's right.

So, it can't be removed from the equation what your decision to bat your own DH means to the potential for the other team to score more runs than your team will.

It's not one. It's both. The net result is what matters.

You know this. I'm not telling you anything you don't already realize. Translated to the NBA, you can put your 5 best scorers out there, but if by putting your 5 best scorers out there you're actually increasing the statistical likelihood that the other team's 5 will score better and more than you likely will... whether because the other team's 5 are better scorers or because your 5 are such pitiful defenders or both... then, that's not smart... and that just doesn't happen.


(02-12-2019 01:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  2. Keeping your pitcher from hitting will allow him more time and energy to focus on his most important skill set. This is true in training and preparation, but it is also true in game action. How often do we see pitchers disinterested at the plate? How often do we see pitchers push themselves on the base path? It is standard practice that a pitcher will save himself once in a batting role so as not to risk injury or exhaust himself unnecessarily.

Again, we can have that conversation, but it is irrelevant if BOTH of us are sending out our pitchers... so even if we fully accept the premise you just laid out (questionable, but let's accept it)... it's that way for both teams. So, there's still clear advantage there if the home team's pitcher bats 160, and the visiting team's pitcher bats 060, while both bench's most productive DHs compare within 25 points of each other.



(02-12-2019 01:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My final point for my position is this:

Technically, managers already have a choice in whether or not they use the DH. It's true they don't have the ability to make the choice on behalf of the other manager, but they nonetheless have an ability to refrain from using the DH should they choose.

Why do they never do it? Because it is understood that a DH gives a team an advantage and no manager would ever risk batting his pitcher in a situation where the rules don't force him to.

The first part of your sentence, yes... "it is understood that a DH gives a team an advantage." Period. End of sentence.

It is an advantage to the other team if I bat my 160 hitter in the 9th slot, while they bat their 260 hitter.

Period.

So no one does that. Obviously.

For what it's worth... addressing the second part of the sentence... that's actually not accurate anyhow: "No manager would ever risk batting his pitcher in a situation where the rules don't force him to."

To the contrary... again, you know this like any of the rest of us do... the rules do not force any manager to ever bat his pitcher, if he actually were so paranoid about the "risk"... even in the NL, instead, he would just send up a PH every time.

Where is any of this wrong? What will it take for you to be persuaded? Or, are you just not persuadable?
02-15-2019 07:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #22
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
(02-13-2019 02:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  
(02-12-2019 08:19 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(02-12-2019 12:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Lucky for you I'm a nuclear power plant safety inspector.

Your analogy is poor, because it allows only for improvement in one half of the field, and no other effect. It might be more appropriate if you said "change a rule that makes half the cars go faster on straights but slower on curves, and half the cars vice versa", or something like that (I'm not a NASCAR expert).

To the contrary, my analogy DIDN'T specify improvement/advantage for one half of the field. [/quote

You just read that part into it. It wasn't there. Re-read.

I purposely ONLY said one half of the cars have a rule... which applies here... and the other half do not... which applies here.

It's EXACTLY the situation.

Yet you advocate for it to continue! If you want to be able to continue using the DH, frequently or infrequently, you are promoting a "solution" that perpetuates that perceived imbalance. It's really not that far from what I said previously: It's perfectly acceptable to have a championship that evaluates both the teams and the method of play, whether or not you can separate the contribution of each.

You lost me, or I lost you.

I said you alleged that I said something but I didn't say what you said I said... and I asked you to re-read.

You inferred that because I said that something (ie, that I didn't actually say), that the analogy doesn't work.

And now, I'm unclear, but it seems you're acknowledging... if only by virtue of the lack of a direct response... "Okay, maybe your analogy isn't flawed by that after all because, you're right, you didn't say what I said you said."

But, so, if the analogy works, then the argument made works because the two are consistent with each other.

What I get from everything after the word, "Yet" is a seeming attempt to play rhetorical whack-a-mole... you neither acknowledge, "Okay, maybe the analogy is correct after all," nor do you attempt a different angle to defeat the analogy and argument.

Instead, you turn to a different front... , that by "using the DH, frequently or infrequently, you are promoting a "solution" that perpetuates that perceived imbalance."

Productive discussion requires, before we move to your other front, we at least can agree that the analogy and the argument are consistent with each other.

I'm happy to address this new front. (Clue... if we all have the same rule, we all have the same capacity to decide for ourselves how we choose to operate within the confines of that rule.) But I'm not going full throttle into that discussion until we can agree that the analogy and the argument are, indeed, consistent with each other after all.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2019 07:26 PM by _sturt_.)
02-15-2019 07:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #23
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
OK man; you win. Best of luck.
02-16-2019 01:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #24
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
Um.

My friend, if it were just about "winning," that might be a satisfactory reply. But it's not at all about winning an argument on this side of the internet.

It's about level-headed, reasonable adults coming together, sometimes having some thoughtful disagreement if not regularly, and managing to talk it out toward a better, stronger conclusion than when they both began.

Don't do the coward act thing now, after all this, unless in fact, it's just about winning from your POV. If it's rather about coming to a better conclusion, continue to try to poke holes here... or, otherwise, do that rare thing ever seen on a sports message board that only a few of us ever do... "I didn't see it before, but now that we've talked it out, I see this as the better perspective after all."

Real men eat crow. I sure have. And it tastes good because the cause isn't to be the person who always knows best at the start, but to be the person who honestly desires to find out what is best by the end.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2019 09:11 AM by _sturt_.)
02-16-2019 07:49 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #25
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
(02-13-2019 02:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  [quote='_sturt_' pid='15902208' dateline='1550020740']
Quote:Again, I didn't invent scientific method. Argue with those who did.

I think you need to be careful using this term. I'd argue that a baseball (or any other sport) season is more trial and error method than scientific method. No one is putting forth and testing a specific hypothesis. At most, we ask the question "who is best" and then conduct a season of trial and error to see what happens. And, as I noted, I'm perfectly comfortable adding another question: What is the best approach - DH or not? Now, if you wanted to formulate a hypothesis, say, "Having a DH is better than not (or vice versa)," I'd say we've got the correct setup for that one!

That aside, I'm not sure why you insist on scientific rigor here. The baseball season, as entertainment, doesn't have to be scientifically justified.

So, if we tear away the terms that make you uncomfortable, and just start with the raw interest, "How do we best determine/discover/come to know which of 30 teams each season proved to be the best?" (... and, forgive me if some of this seems condescending b/c I'm sure you actually have realized all of this, but b/c of your protest, I'm going to walk through this just to affirm that there's no misunderstandings or disagreement on these basic things... )

You surely couldn't be blamed to start by testing the teams against each other according to

(a) a predetermined standardized measure (eg, 3 outs each per inning, for 9 innings, and whoever is winning at that point is considered superior on that day's test)...

and (b) with all teams having conformed to the standardized conditions (eg, rules of play, rules of how the roster is to be constructed, all teams conforming to a standardized formula for which other teams they will be tested against how many times, aka, schedule, etc).

And then, having used the measure for whatever predetermined number of games are to be considered standard, to institute some system for taking some number of the best teams from that initial series of tests (aka, "regular" season), and conducting an even more concentrated series of tests among just them, considering them as having qualified as being superior to others, and concurrently, the best candidates for evidencing themselves as being the most superior team.

Then, we essentially enlist the same principles of standardization in setting up that more concentrated series of tests (aka, "post" season), one which also presumes that the initial tests gave insight into which post-season teams were more likely than others to ultimately prove most superior (hence, the seeding process).

Scientific method is only "sacred" insomuch as it attempts to "prove" what is true, or at least, what is "most" true, or we might even say, "most likely to be" true.

And in the modern ages, we've come to understand that to be best concluded by introducing standardized testing procedures that take into consideration what is the core statement being tested (hypothesis), what are the conditions (antecedents), what are the treatments (independent variables), and then what is the standard of measurement, and to what degree is the thing being tested (dependent variable) affected (outcome)... which then allows us to give our best shot at removing bias and subjectivity, and instead, objectively arrive at a conclusion about the hypothesis.

(And if there's not great potential for bias and subjectivity in competitive team sports, it's hard to figure where you'd actually find it.)

So boiling it down, these principles of standardization... whether you feel comfortable with the term scientific method or not... are fundamental to rendering the best possible answer to the original question, ""How do we best determine/discover/come to know which of 30 teams each season proved to be the best?"

To the degree that you're willing to disregard standardization, you... logically (and I don't make the rules of logic, they just "are")... weaken the determination resulting from your chosen system.

That's why it can objectively be said that MLB's system is inferior to all other team sports... MLB doesn't apply an equal standard to all 30 teams.

But if one is hellbent on defending that difference in standardized conditions, then obviously there is reason to disregard scientific rigor.

If one is hellbent, instead, on wanting to see baseball get back to being equal to the other team sports, then the tipping point issue is that we have to get back to ONE standard that applies to all.




So, unify baseball, yes. Commissioner Manfred, you're right to pursue that.



And/but aren't we better off to unify baseball in a way that can also still achieve respect for those who favor one form of the game than the other?

The shallow, binary question doesn't allow us to do that. Someone wins, someone loses, and forever more.

How much better to recognize and embrace the alternative that allows everyone to, at least sometimes, get to enjoy the form of the game they favor... all 90% of us who have a preference, whether the 65% or the 25%.

Why is it wrong to want the highest integrity in the way we decide the champion? It's not. And why is it wrong to respect others' preferences? It's not.

To the contrary, THIS, Home Manager Chooses is something all of us ought to be able to embrace, once we've thought it through.

Like anyone else, I had to come to be persuaded of that, and it took many years to get here.

Before it's too late, and New York imposes their mandate from on-high in 2022 (actually, we can be sure the actual arm-twisting among NL owners is already being tried), I hope us Joe and Jane Lunchbox fans can unite behind respectfully unifying baseball, and accordingly, HMC.


For all of us who've ascended to RUB HMC... cue the Walk This Way :) ... here's a graphic, fwiw... every cause needs a graphic.

[Image: 2019-02-16_0951.png]
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2019 10:54 AM by _sturt_.)
02-16-2019 10:43 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,679
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #26
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
One thing the manager would need to think about.

Even if there is a calculated statistical advantage to not using the DH, is it worth it to have your pitchers distracted with the need to bat. Maybe the manager would prefer to have his pitchers focus on pitching and only pitching.
02-16-2019 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #27
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
But again... if you're deciding only for yourself, that's one thing. But in HMC, you're making the decision for both teams.

Can you see why a given manager of any intelligence is going to set aside those factors that are of equal advantage or disadvantage to both sides, and simplify the equation to just compare the factors that actually post an advantage to him or a disadvantage to him?

In this case, I suppose if you're managing and you're at home so you get to choose... and you think your own pitcher's psyche is so much more delicate that the opposing pitcher's, such that there is a distinct disadvantage, then, okay, that's something to consider.

How often would one manager judge such a substantial advantage/disadvantage based on how much more or how much less distracted his pitcher would be, in comparison to actual objective numbers? Well, I'll say this... probably not that often, but I'll grant you that there will be times when managers just go with their gut. It's become increasingly less common in this analytics era, of course. But it does happen.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2019 01:55 PM by _sturt_.)
02-16-2019 01:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #28
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
(02-16-2019 07:49 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Um.

My friend, if it were just about "winning," that might be a satisfactory reply. But it's not at all about winning an argument on this side of the internet.

It's about level-headed, reasonable adults coming together, sometimes having some thoughtful disagreement if not regularly, and managing to talk it out toward a better, stronger conclusion than when they both began.

Don't do the coward act thing now, after all this, unless in fact, it's just about winning from your POV. If it's rather about coming to a better conclusion, continue to try to poke holes here... or, otherwise, do that rare thing ever seen on a sports message board that only a few of us ever do... "I didn't see it before, but now that we've talked it out, I see this as the better perspective after all."

Real men eat crow. I sure have. And it tastes good because the cause isn't to be the person who always knows best at the start, but to be the person who honestly desires to find out what is best by the end.

*sigh*

That's not it. First, I don't have the energy for this. I'm not nearly as passionate about this subject and you frequently type 100 words when 10 will do. It's a lot of work slogging through. Second, and more importantly, we are just restating the same points we made in our first posts in the thread. We understand each other's arguments; we just don't agree.

My view is that you have neither supported your hypothesis that baseball needs this change, nor have you established that the HMC is the best solution if it does. Everything you've done here is arm waving. That's fine, but it's just opinion and we've clearly shared ours. You've used the terms "science" and "scientific method" but introduced no data; no analysis. If you would like to introduce something new to the discussion I'd be happy to consider it. Otherwise, I think we've exhausted the topic. (Well, we've exhausted me.)
02-18-2019 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #29
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
It is a lot of work.

And it does require some energy and passion for one's position to engage and work toward a serious discussion with productive results.

We agree.

Then again, pardon the observation... it would *not* be the same amount of work, if in this most recent part of the conversation, you had not tried to defend your point by making up something and saying I said something I didn't say. Self-evidently, we could have eliminated that entire detour.

And if, then, instead, you would have offered some actual counterpoint of substance... or at least as good, have conceded the point made... that it's just not even barely acceptable to expect half of a race car field to comply with a rule, and the other half to not, and then at the end of the race to not recognize the fallacy that the winner's victory is tarnished by the difference in standards applied to them versus the other. Moreover, you don't stop there, of course, you try to advance the specious thinking that the race is somehow able to assess well *both* the cars themselves as well as the process/condition/rule... ignoring cold hard logic.

Few if any people will read this thread thoroughly enough to see or care. But if there is one, if s/he has an average education and intellect, it will not be hard for him/her to recognize the convenience that you abandoned the conversation when you did... having decided neither counterpoint nor concession as being plausible options.

And given that level of disingenuousness, it can surprise no one that your idea of a best next something to come back and say is, in effect, "You're wrong. I can't counterpoint anything here, but you're wrong."

But merely saying "you're wrong" is hollow. My friend, in fact, you have had several points of reason and fact put in front of you... that much is published for all the world to see here. And irrefutable.

You were uncomfortable with scientific terms used, so it was even scrubbed of "science" words, and it was all broken out in merely talking about how we pursue what is best, or what is most best, or what seems best... how we pursue figuring out truth as close as mere mortals can figure it out. Yes, exhausting, but again, you weren't content to talk at the level that accepts that scientific method is, at its core, just a well-established well-proven invention that allows us humans to objectively figure out the closest thing to what is true/accurate... so, yeah... nice guy that I am, trying to just engage you where you're at... I took the time to break all that down, justifying the good reason inherent with scientific method is no less good reason inherent with how we try to assess anything as better or best. In hindsight, your real interest in removing science from the conversation seems only a rhetorical strategy. You offer no actual substance, be it a line of reason or some factiod(s), to justify that interest.

So, it appears... and actually appeared from the moment the other day when you recognized neither concession or counterpoint were viable options you were able or willing or both to choose... we truly have gotten to the end of this conversation. I wish you'd stayed engaged. You may have been persuaded. Or you may have persuaded me that there was some point that I was missing... and in either case, this would have ended as a clearly worthwhile productive discussion.

It still could be one, of course... but that's only if some other party takes the time to read through this, and do what you decided not to do.

I will welcome him/her as much as I welcomed it from you.
02-18-2019 04:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
thoughtful disagreement advocate (Dalio)
*

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For: The Herd
Location: Houston TX
Post: #30
RE: Some less emotional, more rational thoughts on resolving baseball's DH divide
Going to be looking for some baseball fans willing to be signatories to a letter that goes out to MLB aristocracy--the owners, and MLB execs, including of course Manfred. Additionally, a separate letter will be prepared to go out to MiLB commissioners and franchise owners.

In both letters, the case will be made to respectfully unify baseball through adoption of home manager's choice.

Special to the MiLB letter, we will ask them to consider adopting HMC for next season, cognizant that many changes that ever occur in baseball get tested first at a minor league level.

But more that just signatories, we also need one-paragraph biosketches of each fan with contact information that effectively legitimizes each person's credentials as a baseball fan, and would allow those receiving the letter to confirm that we are all real people, not just names harvested off of some tombstones.

If you would be open to that please see the sign-up list at the Respectfully Unify Baseball page on Facebook.
02-22-2019 10:42 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.