The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The National League Should Adopt the DH rule

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 85359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Hitting a baseball at the Major League level is hard. Very hard. The best players in the game only successfully get on base 30% of the time.

Pitching is a very specialized thing. Pitchers really don't have time to work on batting, they need to spend all their time working on what they do best - pitching. As a result, when a pitchers is forced to bat, the outcome (86.2% of the time in 2014) is usually a foregone conclusion - it's an out.

The American League adopted the DH rule back in 1973. While traditionalist may want to cling on to this outdated charade the National League endures once every 9 batters, there can be no doubt that AL brand of baseball puts more balls into play, creating a more exciting and watchable product, something the Major Leagues need in order to market themselves to an increasingly uninterested younger demographic. The time has come - the NL needs to adopt the DH.


I disagree that the NL should adopt the DH.

First, the NL requires far more strategy that is not even considered in the AL. Some of those strategic maneuvers include, but are not limited to: Double Switches, when to take a pitcher out, which pitcher comes in from the bullpen, where is the pitcher's spot in the batting order is coming up, which pinch hitter to use

Next, the actual amount of runs scored per game is a negligible difference at best for the AL. For 2015, the difference was just 4.11 runs scored per NL team per game to 4.38 runs scored per AL team per game.

Third, the presence of a DH promotes more specialization, which makes baseball predictable and boring. In the NL, a 6th inning rally in a close game might mean sacrificing your best starter for the betterment of your offense.

Finally, the DH allows inferior athletes to remain competitive longer than they should be. Forgive me for not being wow"d by a 38 year old with bad knees taking 10 seconds to run out a grounder.
Debate Round No. 1


Strategy? Taking an effective pitcher out because his turn in the batting order has come up. So we get to reach into the bullpen to insert a middle reliever. A middle reliever is usually a pitcher not good enough to be a starter, and not good enough to be a closer. So probably pretty mediocre. Then once he gets hit enough, the manager has to pull (oooh! another stupid double switch) and we get another game delay. The TV broadcast goes to commercials, and then guess what? Joe Teenager turns the channel to find a sport that doesn't bore him to tears. What's more is, since NL teams don't have DH's, the batter who is being double switched in is more times than not some light hitting utility guy.

It's simply more fun to watch players play, than watching managers manage.

That 38 year old with the bad knees? Dude may not be breaking a speed record but he can still mash like nobody's business. Remember, chicks dig the long ball.

It's time the 2 leagues unite and both have the DH rule


Why must the leagues unite under the DH rule?

One of the few amusing intricacies of the sport is watching the teams in interleague play, the All Star game, and the World Series adjust to the home team's DH rule. Does David Ortiz and all his deficient defensive prowess man 1st base in an NL park? Which plucky utility infielder will get the defensive start for the NL team while the manager gets a regular a "rest day" at DH?

Also, let's not forget that some pitchers can actually swing the wood. Adding the DH in both leagues erases any potential for the embarrassment of allowing a pitcher a base hit, or worse, a home run.

Why mask that with uniformity?

The NL is certainly not struggling for offense, and retains their own unique identity by having all defensive players pick up the bat.

Baseball is an all encompassing sport, stop trying to demean the value of all contributors in favor of a dumbed down Home Run Derby.

You sir, are wrong. So very wrong.
Debate Round No. 2


So you don't think it's necessary for the leagues to have a unification of the basic rules?

So I guess in the NFL if the NFC played with 11 on each side, but the AFC played with 12, you would be okay with that? What if in the NBA the Eastern Conference didn't have a 3-point line but the Western Conference did - that would be alright by you?

It's a basic rule. And the better of the two options (either a DH or having a pitcher bat) is the DH rule.

Some pitchers can swing the wood? Zach Grienke is considered one of the best. HIS CAREER BATTING AVERAGE IS .217!

That. sucks.

Make the rules uniform. In a few years people will even forget that once upon a time we were forced to watch the charade of someone who is paid to pitch, very badly trying to hit.

Baseball needs to do something to shake things up and get younger fans interested in baseball. For sure watching pitchers strikeout is definitely a part of the game we can live without.


Frankly, I could argue that the NL formula is superior (as 4 of the last 6 WS champs are NL teams), and the AL should drop the DH. It's all a matter of preference.

However, consider the ramifications of both leagues utilizing the DH.

HS, College, and minor league teams would obviously follow suit and not require players to play both defensively and offensively. This would drastically lower the quality of fundamentals across the board and pigeonhole athletes into hyper-specific roles, limiting their growth.

Bottomline is, AL fanbases cannot fathom why the puny little men pick up the bat, and NL fanbases don't want to see their brand of baseball dumbed down. To which I say, fine, let both leagues keep their identity. As the old saying goes, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." And MLB baseball is definitely not broke after registering north of $9.5 billion in revenue for the 2015 season.

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
Juggle is the company that owns the site.

And yeah, you can always set the debate to requiring no RFD. We don't remove votes on those debates.
Posted by SactownBoom 8 months ago
I think it's better just to set the voting to Winner/loser and no RFD required. I don't need to know someone's detailed explanation. If they want to offer a comment there's a section for that.
Posted by U.n 8 months ago
What is Juggle? I'm guessing the software?

I'm thinking more of, if a debate ends in a 0-0 tie, could it auto-roll over to the "Judge Voting". I get that you're not the IT guy, just throwing ideas at the wall.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
It's not up to the moderators to decide what's best for any given debate or circumstance. Some people would rather get any votes than none, even if those votes are terrible. All we do as moderators is assess the votes and see if they meet the standards - if they don't, then regardless of other circumstances, they get removed. For better or worse, that's the way of things.

It'd be nice to have some kind of way to extend voting for debates with no votes, but that's something that would have to be instituted by Juggle and not something we have control over to any degree.
Posted by U.n 8 months ago
So the one person who voted had their vote removed and the debate ends in a 0-0.

Is it better to have a single vote with no RFD or absolutely no vote at all?

More importantly, I think if you're going to remove the only vote from an otherwise voteless debate, there should at least be some kind of bonus round to decide the outcome. Rather than end in a 0-0 tie.

I mean, it's one thing if the vote ended 20-20 and all these people showed up to vote and they just ended in a stalemate. But without any votes at all, why bother even debating?
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
>Reported vote: bloocoat// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by Death23 8 months ago
There's too much jargon for me to vote on this
Posted by bloocoat 9 months ago
As a Cubs fan, I loved watching Joe Maddon play small ball the whole season. His suicide squeeze with runners on the corners and 1 out against the Cardinals worked twice in the same inning. Not to mention, the Cubs have had pitchers who can hit pretty well. However, a DH in the NL would not be a bad thing (for the Cubs) because we really have no spot to put Kyle Schwarber in. With Heyward in center and Soler In right, the only logical place would to put him in left. If the NL had a DH, then Schwarber could hit DH and we could put an actual outfielder in left. I do believe that either both leagues need to have a DH, or neither leagues need to have a DH.
Posted by Default2 9 months ago
Probably voting right (is that my right or the screens right?). While I like watching more offense, having no DH does inject more intrigue into each game, especially in the late innings.
Posted by birdlandmemories 9 months ago
I wouldn't mind debating this topic taking the con side sometimes
No votes have been placed for this debate.