The case for bringing the designated hitter to the National League

The DH brings its own strategy to the game

Sixth inning. Tied game. Two outs. Runners on second and third. And the pitcher is due up. He’s throwing a good game, and he probably still has another inning or two left in him. Yet runs have been hard to come by in this game, and the team really needs to score here. What does the manager do? Does he let the pitcher bat, knowing that the team likely won’t score but that he won’t have to go to his bullpen? Or does he pull the pitcher and try to take advantage of this scoring opportunity?

Critics of the DH argue that this strategy would be lost if everyone used the DH. It is a valid point, and a lot of such opportunities would be lost. Yet having the DH creates many of its own opportunities to debate strategy that we don’t get with pitchers batting.

For example, let’s say it’s the seventh inning, and the game is close with another opportunity to drive in some runs. The pitcher might have one inning left but is starting to get tired. The fact that his turn in the batting order is coming up makes it a no-brainer that you would pinch hit for him. If the pitcher doesn’t have to bat, the manager will have to decide when to take his pitcher out solely based on whether he thinks the pitcher is still effective. That will allow for plenty of second guessing after the game.

So, while we would lose one type of strategic situation with the designated hitter, we would gain another. At worst, it would be a wash.

And after decades of differing rules and debates over it – yes, some things will be lost, but others will be gained – it makes sense to bring the designated hitter to the National League.