ESPN’s Jayson Stark examines the rising payrolls around the game, noting that even 10 years ago, just three teams has payrolls topping $100MM. This year, Stark points out, 22 clubs have $100MM+ payrolls. Stark spoke with Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski, Giants CEO Larry Baer and sports economics expert Andy Zimbalist about the change and its impact around the league. Dombrowski notes that the extra Wild Card added to each league has made teams more willing to spend, because more teams believe they can win, and he also discussed the impact of increased payrolls on roster construction around the league. Baer commented that the additional sources of revenue — namely, TV deals, I would presume — have made it easier for teams to sign players to long-term deals, because revenue is easier to project. Not that long ago, Baer notes, revenue was tied much more heavily to ticket sales, and signing a young player to an extension was riskier, because teams could only project revenue a few years out at a time.
A few more miscellaneous notes from around the league…
- Baseball America’s Matt Eddy provides a thorough, comprehensive explanation of his belief that it’s time for the National League to adopt the DH rule. Eddy notes that pitcher productivity is at an all-time low, relative to the production of non-pitchers — even as the production of non-pitchers declines in its own right. One NL assistant GM spoke to Eddy about the advantage that AL teams have not only in interleague games in AL stadiums, but in the ability to rest their best players while still giving them four at-bats. Eddy also argues that because improving their offensive prowess doesn’t accelerate their timeline to the Majors — no pitcher will be promoted because he’s a good hitter or withheld from the Majors to work on his swing — there is neither means nor incentive to improve their hitting skills. Eddy views the DH and the pitcher as “two sides of the same, hyper-specialized coin,” noting that a DH contributes solely to the offensive element of a game, whereas a pitcher functions as the key constituent of the defense. Interestingly, a 2013 poll of 18 MLB managers revealed that 12 of those managers were in favor of adding the DH to the NL, Eddy adds.
- Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post looks at the recent suspensions of Mariners lefty David Rollins, Twins right-hander Ervin Santana, Mets closer Jenrry Mejia and Braves prospect Arodys Vizcaino for Stanozolol and investigates a possible connection. Commissioner Rob Manfred said earlier this week that the league conducts an investigation anytime that there are multiple suspensions for the same banned substance, though he has no reason to assume a connection at this point. Kilgore spoke with subject matter expert Dr. Charles Yesalis about the tests and was told, “There is no way, in my mind, this is one big coincidence.”
- Cole Hamels, Johnny Cueto, Carlos Gonzalez, Scott Kazmir and Adrian Beltre top a list of midseason trade candidates compiled by Jim Bowden of ESPN (Insider subscription required/recommended). Kazmir’s inclusion is interesting, in that Bowden expects a trade to occur whether the A’s are contending or not, as he notes that the team won’t be able to afford to re-sign Kazmir. He speculates that Kazmir will be flipped, possibly for another Major League caliber starter to step into his spot, though as I pointed out in reviewing their offseason, the A’s already have a sizable reserve of rotation options from which to draw.
How am I supposed to carry a DH when I already have 13 pitchers on the roster!?!?-unnamed NL Manager
Wonder where Jim Bowden heard that Cole Hamels could be traded?
All those managers are probably in favor of NL DH because it takes away one of the most challenging parts of their jobs
This was my thought!… They should poll GM’s or players
Watching a hitter hit is exciting. Watching a pitcher hit is beyond boring and at times makes watching the 8th hitter boring. The A’s had two automatic outs at one point in Sogard and Punto last year, and those innings rarely resulted in baserunners. At the same time, having a guy hit who can’t play defense sucks.
I say both leagues use the DH, but a player can’t be the DH for more than 1 game in a row. This will force players to be good athletes on both sides of the ball.
That I like, but the MLBPA won’t allow it.
NL is a much better game as managers have to use more of their 25 man roster – and they often have to make a decision on replacing a pitcher depending on the game situation and when he’s due to come to bat. In the AL the manager takes out the pitcher when he feels it’s the best time to. In the NL non-starting position players are very valuable to a team if they can pinch-hit and/or play a number of defensive positions well. In the NL, non-starting players timings when both batting and in the field are usually good as they’ll get some action at least 3-4 times a week. In the AL, the manager has to go out of his way to either start his bench guys or insert them into a game that is already lost or won in hopes of keeping their timing up….not the same thing.
If all a fan sees is a hitter batting instead of a pitcher, then said fan needs to learn the joy and strategy that is baseball.
I appreciate the creativity that an NL manager uses when pinch hitting for a pitcher, but far less than I appreciate watching a pitcher stay in the game an extra 1-2 innings. I have never liked when a manager pulls a pitcher for a pinch hitter “early.” Ever.
I agree with you in terms of the bench guys. The A’s play different players in different positions almost every game, so I don’t exactly see the same nine guys every game. I can see where that would get boring.
I’d love to see the DH in the NL. Because of the massive pitching staffs the “strategy” advantage NL managers have has basically disappeared anyway. I doubt any fan ever came to a baseball game to watch a double-switch, and managers can’t even do that anyway for the most part because of the lack of bench players. And there’s nothing more boring than watching a pitcher bat.
Pitchers producing offense against the fans’ expectations is about as interesting as a 3 run blast and happens more often.
True; pitchers got 579 base hits last season, while there were 451 3-run homers. I prefer the three-run homer.
But if you have the DH in either league just how many 3 run home runs are added?
Let us say a guess around 50 which is probably extremely generous.
You would lose the 579 pitcher hits [and the walks] to get those 50.
I would bet that the number of pitcher walks and hits is not too far off the number of homers divided by the designated hitter proportion [18] which you would trade for.
A big deal there is the diversity, too, because it would eliminate completely an exciting event while just increasing the commonality of another.
Could you please post the source where I can experiment with the stats you mention?
Yes I know you might have got it off certain famous sites but I do not know how to search those sites too well.
If you go to Baseball-Reference and go to the “Seasons” tab – click on “MLB ” for 2014, then click on the batting tab, a drop-down menu will have lots of options; the one you want to click on is “League Splits” and it has all kinds of fascinating information.
Are you saying watching Bartolo Colon hit is boring???
That was actually pretty fun.
Everytime he comes to the plate it’s a lot of fun!
Watching Bartolo Colon bat made me realize that, given enough chances, even I could probably, eventually, get a hit off a major-league pitcher. That’s a nice thing to imagine.
Offense is down in today’s game, and enforcing the DH rule in the NL would be a good idea because it will increase offense, allow more players into the game, and cause teams to have to cut their pitching staff down to 12 guys. It also allows pitchers not to hit, which can be terrible to watch, and it also decreases their risk of injury. All in all, it should be a rule in both leagues at this day in age.
It ruined Chien-Ming Wang career.
Genuine question: how often does a pitcher get injured while hitting or running the bases? It seems incredibly rare to me.
Also, having the pitcher’s spot in the lineup means that the manager means more to the game in the NL than the AL. Double-switches, pinch hitting, using the bench, these things add to the game, imo. AL managers just seem like they set the lineup and then go on autopilot for the rest of the game.
Two of the three most active mangers in baseball last season, as far as pinch-hitting, double-switching, relieving, etc. were in the AL. (Maddon and Francona).
That’s interesting. Where did you see that info? I’d be interested in seeing how much of that was relieving. Also, in Maddon’s case at least, it would seem to be a result of his style, no?
Baseball Prospectus’ annual has manager stats. McClendon was a very active manager, too, mostly I think because of the platoons. AL Managers engage in plenty of strategy.
“Nearly nine out of 10 pitcher plate appearances today result in an out being made—occasionally with a baserunner advancing via a sacrifice bunt—and this level of futility, in the grand scheme, does not make for compelling viewing.”
Amen. This is all that matters. I am so sick of hearing about the absurd “double switch” like it’s some sort of mark of genius that only the best and brightest minds in sports can possibly comprehend (and maybe a few chess prodigies). It’s a gimmick and a rules loophole that was cute but no more interesting to watch than a lawyer exploiting a technicality. Certainly doesn’t outweigh the fact that every AB by a pitcher is utterly pointless to watch.
If pitchers with a .170 OBP are pointless to watch what are regular hitters with .370?
I think you have a big entertainment value in the occasional surprise of pitcher offensive success.
So you make a bad rule, the bad rule leads to pitchers not caring about hitting, and the solution is a continued expansion.
I think there are a lot of advantages to the DH in how it can rest and develop players, BUT you could have the same advantages by expanding roster size and perhaps instituting a ‘compromise’ system.
I could go for a system in which a manager can twice per game use a pinch-hitter or pinch-runner while not requiring roster consumption, to ‘simulate’ the designated hitter while maintaining strategy.
I do not give a bleep for tradition, but designated hitters annihilate the game’s entertainment value because baseball’s primary advantage in the sports industry is following the strategy despite the fact it can NEVER have the quick and visceral chain other sports can and competing against a competitor’s unassailable strength instead of bolstering inherent advantages is a sure economic suicide.
They could just leave it up to the home team on a year to year basis. I do not think the Rockies would be very pleased with a DH in their home stadium or they could love it, who knows.
99% of the argument for the DH is the “strategy” of having to pull your pitcher. This system would be the worst of both worlds by removing that strategy AND losing the ability to keep hitters like Ortiz, Cruz, and Martinez at the plate more.
I might just not watch any more if the NL had a DH.
It can be a fun switch / bench opportunity in interleague but virtually my entire interest in the game involves analyzing and a static starting roster is… nothing.
Here we go with the DH argument again. I personally find American League baseball to be boring. It’s like watching a big budget action movie where you sitting through a pointless storyline waiting for the big explosion. I think baseball is fine as it is. In several of the big markets we have both NL and AL teams and fans can gravitate toward the style of baseball they prefer. This is another step toward baseball moving away from putting the best baseball players on the field. First we have hitters that don’t field in the AL, now they want to have pitchers that don’t hit in the NL. Instead how about teaching pitchers to at least lay a bunt down, make contact, look halfway decent at the plate.
I would note that the average AL team outscored the average NL team by all of a quarter of a run per game, a number that has stayed constant for virtually the entire DH era. There is also a wider range of stolen bases and attempts among AL teams as opposed to their NL counterparts, not to mention more variation in terms of pinch-hitters (and less reliance on them as well.) I’m not sure how AL baseball is “like watching a big budget action movie”. You can make a compelling argument that there is more strategy and more variety in terms of offense in the American League.
More strategy? Hah! You must not be familiar with NL games.
On the contrary; I’m a lifelong Pirate fan. And I’ve seen enough automatic bunting situations and situations where you automatically pinch-hit for your pitcher to know that there is less strategy in the NL. Strategy implies choice; much of the so-called “strategy” revolving around letting pitchers hit involves no realistic choices at all.
I don’t know how you can argue that having a pitcher or AAAA utility player coming to the plate in a key situation is having the best players on the field over victor martinez or David Ortiz. The strategy made sense before the advent of specialized bullpens, but is completely paint by numbers now except for the rare time you have a starter with a great performance in a close game late. Having to sit him for a pinch hitter is asinine. And anyone that’s watched the tigers the last few years can tell you having a DH does NOT eliminate the drama of a manager knowing when to pull a pitcher and who to replace him with.
I think the A’s would just QO Kazmir and let him walk, could not see them getting much for him on a rental with his lack of playoff success.
Do you think he’d decline a QO? It is gonna be around 16MM next year, and I don’t know if he is worth that. If I were him, I’d take that deal.
That would make it win/win for the A’s if he accepted it only 3 million raise from what he is making now. I’d think he would pull a Cuddyer type deal though before taking it. He will be 32 has to be a multi-year deal somewhere waiting for him. I’m still shocked my self the Mets gave up the #12? pick forget what it was to sign Cuddyer.
No No No to the DH. It takes all the late inning strategy out of the game.
I would like to see a NL team figure out a way to make their pitchers productive hitters. It’s not like they will be .300 hitters but it should not be too hard to improve .050 points from the .100 average
You’re probably right, but to do that would mean getting pitchers more reps at the plate, which means fewer at bats for other prospects because you’re not using the DH in the minors. Rightly or wrongly, doing the things that would make ptichers more effective at the plate is in direct opposition to the developmental philosophies the all MLB teams have.
Just have them take a few swings or face live pitching more often. Doesn’t have to be in games. Pitchers rarely do anything hitting-wise until they hit AA. Sure there is the risk of injury but if they are going to hit in the Majors they better start learning in rookie ball
Also, I have seen pitchers take BP at major league games. It’s a joke, it’s like a HR derby to them, they make zero attempt to work on their swing and coaches do not make any corrections, etc. Is a widely disregarded element in baseball and I feel there is a lot of untapped opportunity
It’s far more important for them to focus on pitching than hitting. Even the most durable pitchers bat, what, 85 times a year?
I agree.. but pitchers as a whole take close to 300 plate appearances for a team, costing them runs
True, but I don’t actually think you can take a pitcher and teach him how to hit, even at a mediocre level. I think hitting today’s pitching is an intensive skill that would need many hours a day of focus. Pitchers just don’t have that much time to do so. Pitching is just way better than it has ever been and a guy who han’t batted since high school is never going to be able to catch up to an Aroldis Chapman fastball.
I agree with you but you are missing my point. Pitchers do not need to be good hitters, teams should teach their pitchers to be better than average, which means to hit .140-.160. You don’t need to be super skilled to hit that, but you would be better off than 80% of the pitchers in the game (hitting).
I just don’t think there’s enough hours in the day to teach a pitcher to hit while also teaching them to pitch. Pitchers have never been able to hit, from the beginning of baseball. It’s a non-selected skill, and those tend to dry up pretty quickly.
You might be right in that regard. But pitchers throw every 4 days, lift, stretch, etc. I’m sure they can find time to practice hitting, it might be hard to have enough instructors, but teams could hire an extra assistant coach per affiliate. I am just thinking outside the box here, since it is a very disregarded element in baseball
It has always been that way, though. Pitchers don’t really have 4 days off; they recover the day after the start, they have a light throw day the next day, a more vigorous throw day the next and then just non-throwing activity on the 4th day. Teams don’t want to risk hurting their pitchers by overworking them in the batter’s box on those days. Pitching is really hard, and pitchers haven’t ever been good hitters. And the very few at-bats a pitcher takes in a season (less than 100) probably wouldn’t compel a team to hire a bunch of extra assistants; the marginal value probably wouldn’t exceed the cost.
Steven Jay Gould explained this very well many years ago. Hitting, for a pitcher, is a non-selected skill. There’s literally no way to teach a pitcher to hit major league pitching while also developing them as major-leage pitchers. Their pitching development takes precedence.
You don’t have to teach them to be good hitters, just a better than average hitters for a pitcher, which should not be that complicated considering nobody is doing anything about it. Look at this this way, you can’t train to beat marathon runners, but you can train to beat your friends (those that do not workout) in a 5K easily
Pitchers train basically every hour of every day to pitch; not much time left to train to hit; and frankly, with such few at-bats in the course of a season, no reason to.
I see some people saying the DH is needed to increase offense in the game…. Balderdash. The DH exists in the AL yet offense of numbers continue to decline. If you want to increase offense it’s very simple. Teach players from an early age to make contact. It is not rocket science. The whole “chicks dig the long ball era” changed the entire approach at the plate and it has continued. Baseball has way too many power hitting strikeout Kings. If you have power you do not have to swing for the fences every time. People tend to believe that the only way to win is to have as many power hitters as possible. Give me this a team with contact hitters and the power will emerge from some of those guys…. That has always been the way. And by the way…. Lowering the pitcher’s mound, again, is not the solution either. Teach hitting…not power….hitting.
I am not sure the answer is contact, but using multiple fields.
The shift could force an increase in offense in the long run by getting us out of the pull.
What I mean by contact hitters is hitters…. Guys that know how to make contact with the baseball and place it in play. Not guys that swing so hard they almost come out of their shoes, but guys that know how to use a bat. It’s so rare anymore that you see a batter shorten up his swing with two strikes just so he can put the ball in play. Sadly a lot of times “directional hitting” only seems to occur when they want to move a runner along and even then so many players are really bad at it. Teach the art of hitting… Not the art of “the only way to get on base or score is to crush the ball”.
There is a point to what you say, and I think that the continued emphasis on shifts will lead to a resurgence of the Matty Alou, Wade Boggs-type hitter. That said, having the DH actually makes the sequential type of offense approach more likely, more rewarding. That type of offense needs three or four positive offensive outcomes (and I include a “productive out” as a positive outcome) in succession. Having a black hole built into your lineup makes the type of offense less likely to be successful, and, strategically speaking, acts to encourage team to rely on the long ball.
Polarizing suggestion but an 8-man lineup could be used in all interleague games whether at an AL or NL park. Forces the AL team to play any DH-types in the field that game or go without them. Might be more significant now that interleague play takes place throughout the season.
I love it when a pitcher crushes a homerun ala K Wood game 7 ’03 NLCS, but its time to have the DH in the NL. Make things nice and tidy between the leagues.
I do not like the DH, and I do not want to double down on a bad rule. However, here is a compromise proposal. The DH should be designated to hit for a particular pitcher, NOT for the generic pitcher’s spot. When the game starts, the DH is designed to hit for Joe Starter and continues to hit for him as long as Joe Starter is in the game. Once Joe Starter leaves the game for Ron Reliever, the DH leaves the game, too. The manager either writes Ron Reliever into that spot in the batting order, or else designates another hitter to hit for Ron Reliever until he leaves the game. When Donny Setup enters the game, you repeat the process. To put it another way, the DH is like a PH who stays in the lineup as long as the pitcher he is hitting for continues to pitch. This allows you to have hitters hit for pitchers (which I think is stupid, but fine), but also preserves some of the opportunity-cost decision of changing pitchers and using bench players.
Unfortunately, you’ve just added even more relievers into the game, which just slows down the game and decreases offense. And teams don’t have nearly enough bench players to do this anyway. Maybe a 30-man active roster would make this workable.
Hmm, I guess I didn’t explain the idea clearly. It should require neither more relievers nor more bench players. It’s basically a hybrid between the AL DH model and the NL PH model. As long as the starter is pitching, it operates like the AL DH. Once a reliever enters, it operates like the NL PH, the main exception being that a multi-inning reliever can be pitch hit for multiple times by the same PH. Note that you don’t have to designate a pitch hitter for a relief pitcher, and may well choose not to if it’s a LOOGY or other specialist.
Okay. Sounds incredibly complicated; So basically the DH would still be part of the game, he would just be called a pinch-hitter. I guess that’s okay. It just seems a heck of a lot easier and way better for fans to just have the DH in both leagues.
Well, easier, yes. But not better, if you hate the DH, as many of us NL fans do. (And I don’t think it’s that complicated. You designate a DH to a specific pitcher, rather than to a generic spot in the batting order. But if you like the DH as it is, I can see why you wouldn’t like this.)
I just hate watching pitchers bat, and the double-switch is basically on its way out because teams don’t have enough bench depth with 13-man pitching staffs. I’d rather see paint dry than watch a pitcher bat. But what I’d really love to see is expanded rosters with a limit on pitchers.
I don’t like the DH, either. Wasn’t it was originally created in the 1970’s to increase offense? Supposedly the goal was met but the DH was maintained because, in my opinion, the player’s union made it a political issue. Now people are saying that offense is down again. That fact isn’t an argument in favor of keeping the DH. Why not just have a designated hitter for every light-hitting shortstop or catcher, too? Why not have designated fielders for every position player who’s a butcher with the glove? I’m sure the owners and players could find a workable solution to the abolition of the DH if they cared and if they really tried. But I guess the players union would still make an issue of the idea that a few 35 year old all bat/no glove players could no longer make $10-15,000,000 a year to sit on the bench half the game.