WWTBAM Bored

Fantastic.

I swear this has happened before. I will look it up.

This is all I found:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20050801.html

However, I swear I had a book as a kid where there was a story about a switch-pitcher who faced a switch-hitter once before, and the umps' solution then was to make them declare after every pitch, alternating between batter and pitcher each time who got to declare first.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:NYC Switch Pitcher Confounds Batters, Umpires

I recall that there was a collegiate/professional tennis player who would switch serving arms. I'm not sure of the advantages but I know it's been done.

Jeemie wrote:I swear this has happened before. I will look it up.

This is all I found:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20050801.html

However, I swear I had a book as a kid where there was a story about a switch-pitcher who faced a switch-hitter once before, and the umps' solution then was to make them declare after every pitch, alternating between batter and pitcher each time who got to declare first.

I covered this in a TMOTTBG question before. The pitcher must declare which arm he is going to throw with before facing a certain batter. I can't remember if this was implemented before Expos pitcher Greg Harris pitched an inning in 1995 using both arms in a game against the Reds, but a "switch pitcher" is actually nothing new to baseball... just rare...

Fun factoid... Mets lefthanded closer Billy Wagner only switched to throwing with his left arm after he broke his right arm as a kid. I wonder how well he can still throw with his right arm.....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:The pitcher must declare which arm he is going to throw with before facing a certain batter.
lb13

That is a stupid rule. Even more stupid than the designated hitter rule.

This would be similar to the pitcher delcaring what pitch he is going to throw. Its none of the batter's business. He just needs to step in, cowboy up, and take what the pitcher throws.

I see no basis for this rule that betters the game.

BackInTex wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:The pitcher must declare which arm he is going to throw with before facing a certain batter.
lb13

That is a stupid rule. Even more stupid than the designated hitter rule.

This would be similar to the pitcher delcaring what pitch he is going to throw. Its none of the batter's business. He just needs to step in, cowboy up, and take what the pitcher throws.

I see no basis for this rule that betters the game.

Since the pitcher controls the tempo of the game, it's only right that the pitcher should be the one to declare his intentions first in switch-arm vs. switch hitter situation. It's one of the few baseball rules that actyually makes sense, even if it never comes into play....

And the "stupidity" of the DH rule is a matter of opinion. I never thought I would ever support anything ever uttered by a Steinbrenner before....

lb13

BackInTex wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:The pitcher must declare which arm he is going to throw with before facing a certain batter.
lb13

That is a stupid rule. Even more stupid than the designated hitter rule.

This would be similar to the pitcher delcaring what pitch he is going to throw. Its none of the batter's business. He just needs to step in, cowboy up, and take what the pitcher throws.

I see no basis for this rule that betters the game.

If there is a switch-pitcher, you need a rule or no one is ever going to actually bat in a situation like this. Since it's tough enough to hit as it is (which is why all hitters fail 60-80% of the time), it makes sense to have the pitcher declare first in a situation like this.

littlebeast13 wrote:
Since the pitcher controls the tempo of the game, it's only right that the pitcher should be the one to declare his intentions first in switch-arm vs. switch hitter situation. It's one of the few baseball rules that actyually makes sense, even if it never comes into play....

And the "stupidity" of the DH rule is a matter of opinion. I never thought I would ever support anything ever uttered by a Steinbrenner before....

lb13

Why should someone have to declare his intention. A batter doesn't have to declare he is going to 'take the first pitch' or 'bunt' or whatever. What does setting the tempo have to do with declaring your intentions? The pitcher doesn't declare he is going to throw to first, or do a pitchout or anything. That is why they have 'signals' to keep the other team from knowing their intentions.

As far as the DH making sense.. if it does, then lets just have 9 DHs and 9 defensive guys. Or if the reason is because pitchers just don't play everyday, then why not let the other bench players have DHs? Why limit to 1?

BackInTex wrote:Why should someone have to declare his intention. A batter doesn't have to declare he is going to 'take the first pitch' or 'bunt' or whatever. What does setting the tempo have to do with declaring your intentions? The pitcher doesn't declare he is going to throw to first, or do a pitchout or anything. That is why they have 'signals' to keep the other team from knowing their intentions.

I enjoy games that last longer than 3 hours, but only if they have plenty of action. I don't want to see a human rain delay situation, and that's exactly what you would get if one or the other wasn't required to declare their intention. The batter can't do anything until the pitcher first pitches the ball, therefore, it makes sense to have the pitcher declare. The batter would have every right, in my mind, to call timeout ad infinitum and have it granted if he could move to the other side of the plate to gain an advantage. As SSS said, is the overall MLB batting average of around .260 not low enough for you to think that the pitchers have the built in advantage more often than not? You seem to think like many other tired old timers who unfortnately end up in Major League broadcast booths that pitchers are to be pitied nowadays. Baloney....

BackInTex wrote:As far as the DH making sense.. if it does, then lets just have 9 DHs and 9 defensive guys. Or if the reason is because pitchers just don't play everyday, then why not let the other bench players have DHs? Why limit to 1?

Because there's only one guy on the field who does not make their living with the bat. There is only one guy on the field who managers and general managers hate to see swinging a bat or running the bases for fear of injury. If managers would let pitchers hit and play offense like any other player, I'd have no problem with NL style play. But they don't, and won't, and never will.... no matter how many times they strike out trying to bunt a useless runner over so the next guy can make the third out....

I do not go to ballgames to watch millionaires lay down sacrifice bunts. I'd fully support outlawing them in non-squeeze situations, and it may even help a few teams since the overwhelming majority of sac bunt attempts do more harm than good....

lb13

The pitcher does have to "declare his intentions" to a certain extent. Before he can legally throw a pitch to home plate, he has to be touching the pitcher's mound, and once he is, he is limited in what he can do (he can't bluff throws to home or first base or it will be a balk). Once the pitcher is on the mound, the batter can still request time to move in and out of the batter's box, and, presumably, he could switch from batting one way to batting another.

There actually have been instances in which switch hitters who are, say, naturally right handed, have batted left handed against a right handed pitcher until they have two strikes and then bat right handed for better bat control.

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:As far as the DH making sense.. if it does, then lets just have 9 DHs and 9 defensive guys. Or if the reason is because pitchers just don't play everyday, then why not let the other bench players have DHs? Why limit to 1?

Because there's only one guy on the field who does not make their living with the bat.
lb13

You have not been paying attention to the Astros the past few years.

BackInTex wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:As far as the DH making sense.. if it does, then lets just have 9 DHs and 9 defensive guys. Or if the reason is because pitchers just don't play everyday, then why not let the other bench players have DHs? Why limit to 1?

Because there's only one guy on the field who does not make their living with the bat.
lb13

You have not been paying attention to the Astros the past few years.

I don't know what you mean. I saw the Astros score 18 runs in a game last year. Towles drove in 8 of the runs....

I might've finally got to see a 20 run game if there'd been a DH....

lb13

I wish the National League would adopt the DH. It does not make sense for half of MLB to play by one set of rules and for the other half to play by different rules. The DH rule has been good for the game, and it needs to be the rule for both major leagues.

The only argument against the DH is tradition, and we have to remember tradition is not always a good thing.

elwoodblues wrote:I wish the National League would adopt the DH. It does not make sense for half of MLB to play by one set of rules and for the other half to play by different rules. The DH rule has been good for the game, and it needs to be the rule for both major leagues.

The only argument against the DH is tradition, and we have to remember tradition is not always a good thing.

Please explain how the DH rule has been good for the game. It has certainly changed the game, but "better" is a value judgment I'm not willing to concede.

The three-point shot in basketball has certainly changed the game, but has it made it better?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think the DH takes away much of what makes the game attractive to me. It also makes games appreciably longer. I'm sure it produces more runs per game, so if that is the definition of "better," I might have to agree with you. But that's not my definition.

You say the only argument against the DH is tradition. How about longer games, higher ticket prices, more errors per game, and more injuries? I see all these things as bad, I'm afraid.

I like the Yankees.
Yes I know I'm off topic.
But still...I like the Yankees.

mrkelley23 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:I wish the National League would adopt the DH. It does not make sense for half of MLB to play by one set of rules and for the other half to play by different rules. The DH rule has been good for the game, and it needs to be the rule for both major leagues.

The only argument against the DH is tradition, and we have to remember tradition is not always a good thing.

Please explain how the DH rule has been good for the game. It has certainly changed the game, but "better" is a value judgment I'm not willing to concede.

The three-point shot in basketball has certainly changed the game, but has it made it better?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think the DH takes away much of what makes the game attractive to me. It also makes games appreciably longer. I'm sure it produces more runs per game, so if that is the definition of "better," I might have to agree with you. But that's not my definition.

You say the only argument against the DH is tradition. How about longer games, higher ticket prices, more errors per game, and more injuries? I see all these things as bad, I'm afraid.

I know there are some fans who appreciate a good pitching duel every now and then, and I am one of them. But the majority of fans want hitting, and I don't think they mind a longer game if there is plenty of offense. The rule has also helped to extend the careers of some players who were fan favorites.

I am pretty sure ticket prices would be higher now regardless of the rules, and I don't understand how the DH has caused more errors and more injuries. If anything, the DH has provided a place to put players who can hit but are poor fielders. And in the NL we still see pitchers getting injured running the bases.

I had been watching Pat Venditte's switch-throwing exploits for Creighton for several years. As noted in the stories written about this game, there was some question whether MLB had a rule for this situation. (As noted, Greg Harris did it very, very rarely, while Venditte always has been a switch-thrower.)

The Missouri Valley Conference specifically wrote the "pitcher must declare first" into its rules after Venditte signed with Creighton.

Appa23 wrote:I had been watching Pat Venditte's switch-throwing exploits for Creighton for several years. As noted in the stories written about this game, there was some question whether MLB had a rule for this situation. (As noted, Greg Harris did it very, very rarely, while Venditte always has been a switch-thrower.)

The Missouri Valley Conference specifically wrote the "pitcher must declare first" into its rules after Venditte signed with Creighton.

If the pitcher declares, and then the batter is replaced by a pinch hitter, must the pitcher stick by his declaration, or is he allowed to change his declaration against the new batter? If the latter, he could burn through several pinch hitters.

elwoodblues wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:I wish the National League would adopt the DH. It does not make sense for half of MLB to play by one set of rules and for the other half to play by different rules. The DH rule has been good for the game, and it needs to be the rule for both major leagues.

The only argument against the DH is tradition, and we have to remember tradition is not always a good thing.

Please explain how the DH rule has been good for the game. It has certainly changed the game, but "better" is a value judgment I'm not willing to concede.

The three-point shot in basketball has certainly changed the game, but has it made it better?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think the DH takes away much of what makes the game attractive to me. It also makes games appreciably longer. I'm sure it produces more runs per game, so if that is the definition of "better," I might have to agree with you. But that's not my definition.

You say the only argument against the DH is tradition. How about longer games, higher ticket prices, more errors per game, and more injuries? I see all these things as bad, I'm afraid.

I know there are some fans who appreciate a good pitching duel every now and then, and I am one of them. But the majority of fans want hitting, and I don't think they mind a longer game if there is plenty of offense. The rule has also helped to extend the careers of some players who were fan favorites.

I am pretty sure ticket prices would be higher now regardless of the rules, and I don't understand how the DH has caused more errors and more injuries. If anything, the DH has provided a place to put players who can hit but are poor fielders. And in the NL we still see pitchers getting injured running the bases.

It would be hard to script a better rebuttal to these DH arguments than what Felix Hernandez did last night. If the DH had been in effect, we never would have had a chance to see his grand slam, but he still would have been injured while covering the plate on a defensive play.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4e_ ... gD91G4D080

TheConfessor wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: Please explain how the DH rule has been good for the game. It has certainly changed the game, but "better" is a value judgment I'm not willing to concede.

The three-point shot in basketball has certainly changed the game, but has it made it better?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think the DH takes away much of what makes the game attractive to me. It also makes games appreciably longer. I'm sure it produces more runs per game, so if that is the definition of "better," I might have to agree with you. But that's not my definition.

You say the only argument against the DH is tradition. How about longer games, higher ticket prices, more errors per game, and more injuries? I see all these things as bad, I'm afraid.

I know there are some fans who appreciate a good pitching duel every now and then, and I am one of them. But the majority of fans want hitting, and I don't think they mind a longer game if there is plenty of offense. The rule has also helped to extend the careers of some players who were fan favorites.

I am pretty sure ticket prices would be higher now regardless of the rules, and I don't understand how the DH has caused more errors and more injuries. If anything, the DH has provided a place to put players who can hit but are poor fielders. And in the NL we still see pitchers getting injured running the bases.

It would be hard to script a better rebuttal to these DH arguments than what Felix Hernandez did last night. If the DH had been in effect, we never would have had a chance to see his grand slam, but he still would have been injured while covering the plate on a defensive play.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4e_ ... gD91G4D080

Nor would we have gotten to see that amazing, breathtaking sacrifice bunt he laid down in the 5th inning..... in the very next at bat he took after hitting the grand slam! Thanks to prevailing managerial attitudes towards pitchers hitting, I will likely always be supporting the DH....

lb13