THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

This rule would’ve destroyed Edgar Martinez’s shot at the Hall of Fame!

This would reduce the value to a team of a designated hitter already signed to a long-term contract (e.g., David Ortiz). It’s hard enough to be a GM trying to predict a player’s ability, injuries, etc. Now they would be penalized for failing to guess a rule change!

It might work if it were implemented with enough lead time, though, say five years in the future.

And at least it would (probably) solve the All-Star Game DH problem. They could change it for the ASG right away.

All you need is a 2yr lead time.  Name me all the DH signed past 2010.  One year of Hafner in 2011?

I agree wholeheartedly about the need to delay implementation on the rule.  I like the idea of decreased specialization, too.  A team like Rays doesn’t really care too much who DHs since they don’t have a plurality of big hit/no glove guys.  So sometimes, a guy would just get a day off from the field.  Other teams really need that bopper in the lineup, and hurt from the field.  I love the way it could affect the way teams are structured.

Plus, it gives fans another tangible thing to complain about in regards to managers.  Right now, it’s just bullpen usage, and lineup creation.  The option of taking one of your hitters out of the game is a real, tangible thing to grasp.  Really, I love the rule.

If this rule were in place, I think you’d slowly see NL GMs designing rosters differently, wanting to have a guy who would be effective in the role; as more NL teams had a pseudo-DH, more NL managers would choose to use the DH rule at home.  I think your rule would eventually (5 years/10 years?) result in an unwritten rule that the manager always selects the DH rule, with the possible strategic exceptions of when the pitcher is an exceptional hitter (for a pitcher) or when a team’s regular DH is injured and no suitable replacement is available.

In short, we’d end up with a DH 95-99% of the time, which would at least have the benefit of being (mostly) consistent.  But you’d still allow the rare strategery NL fans love to take place.

So...I like it.  We need consistency between the leagues and this would essentially be a subtle, long-term way of getting there, without killing anyone’s career.

Why not leave it to the visiting manager’s discretion, instead of the home manager? Wouldn’t that help reduce the HFA, making the games closer (assuming optimal implementation)?

David Smith’s idea (#6) is pretty interesting. Only problem is that Andrew (#5) is probably right in that the DH would still be used upwards of 99% of the time, rendering the reduction of HFA miniscule. Andrew also renders the “perfect DH rule” into a de facto DH pretty much always, not merely 1/2 of the time or so. Assuming he’s correct, as I believe he is.

I ask DH proponents: Would you like to see a designated free-throw shooter in basketball? Why not have baseball expand rosters and adopt the football model by fielding 9 players on defense with 9 different players in the offensive lineup?

Tim, c’mon. 

Note: don’t talk about why you think an all or nothing DH is better and forget all other solutions.  I can point you to a thousand other discussion forums for you to make your opinion known.  In this thread, I’m soliciting opinions on this particular proposal.

We’ve heard it a thousand times already, and I asked that we not talk about it here.

David, when I go to games, I want the home team to have a better than even odds of winning.  So, anything that increased the HFA is good.  To a point of course.  I don’t want the odds lopsided.  I think a situation where most teams have a 50% - 70% chance of winning at home is the “sweet spot”.

***

As for “99%” of the time the DH will be in force: I don’t see how that’s possible.  If you have teams with a Ben Sheets or a Randy Johnson on the mound, you want as the opposing manager at home, to see those guys bat.  And if you have a good hitting pitcher, you want to have him at bat as well.  If the opposing pitcher is Roy Halladay and your pitcher is the #5 pitcher who will only go 5 innings anyway and you expect to use a few pinch hitters, you want no DH in that game.

I gotta figure that at least 25% of the DH, there would be no DH in force.

"25% of the DH” = “25% of the time”

Opting for a DH 95% of the time?  99% Really?  Just because all teams plan for having to DH doesn’t mean that all DHs are going to be comparable.  Just on general principle, anytime a team faces an opponent with a better DH, they should probably bat their pitchers instead.  Right?  Or am I missing something?  Seattle wouldn’t have used DHs at all this year, if they were at all paying attention. 

There are going to be teams with bad DHs or injuries.  Or there are going to be strategic reasons to avoid it.  If both teams have decent lefty DHs, but one team is starting a lefty pitcher, that changes the strategy a lot.  Smart small market teams might still skimp on DHs, and use the home field advantage to try to neutralize some of their opponents money advantage.

I could easily see DH usage going up to maybe 80%, because most managers would have a gut feeling that “their guys” would come through most of the time.  But I can’t imagine that going up to 90% or more.  There would have to be an efficiency there that someone would take advantage of.

Personally, I think it would be fascinating.  And probably infuriating, as many managers would make poor decisions.  But the roster management and day-to-day decision making would be truly intriguing.

Just because all teams plan for having to DH doesn’t mean that all DHs are going to be comparable.  Just on general principle, anytime a team faces an opponent with a better DH, they should probably bat their pitchers instead.  Right?  Or am I missing something?  Seattle wouldn’t have used DHs at all this year, if they were at all paying attention.

The other thing to figure is pitchers hitting. If you have a good-hitting pitcher (say, Carlos Zambrano), than even if you also have a better DH than the other team, you might decide against using the DH, figuring that Carlos can very well outhit the other team’s pitcher.

I remember thinking several years ago that each team, regardless of league, should be able to decide at the beginning of the season—say, March 1—whether it wanted its home games to be DH or no DH. But this suggestion might be better.

Tango, you say in #9 how those pitchers (Randy, Sheets) would necessitate the opposing home team to declare a no-DH game. But what if, for example, you had a very good RH hitter who could be placed at DH (Manny?), and your pitcher was no good at hitting either?  You’d declare, despite facing Randy and his lack of hitting, a DH’d game, right, especially if the visiting team’s DH would be an average DH (Connor Jackson, for example)? 

My wondering, along with thinking that things would trend toward a DH a majority of the time once rosters started to evolve, is if lineup maneuvering might happen.  Say you have a good-hitting pitcher on the lineup card and the home team declares a DH’d game.  Do you pull him before he even throws a pitch, knowing that your next game is a home game against a team with a crappy hitting pitcher and a good DH?  Or, if your 5-starter is in and it’s a no-DH game, do you pull him when he comes up to bat? 

Also, when does the home team declare their preference?  After lineups are turned in?  If so, couldn’t you fake your starting pitcher some of the time?

As a DH-hater (baseball is a game played with nine players, etc), I like this idea because it would, I think, eliminate the dead-end DH argument.

I’ll be the spoilsport and say I don’t like it--it puts the manager in the position of having to do something that makes the game worse for the fans (benching a good hitter on the other team) in order to win:  I think baseball already has enough situations where grabbing an advantage makes the game duller (ibb, loogy, etc).....

I don’t the 95-99% of the time is far off at all. If a home team manager lets his pitcher hit, and that pitcher gets hurt, there would be hell to pay. As a manager I’d never take that risk simply because my pitcher is a good hitter (and presumably the other team’s pitcher is not). So much can happen either swinging the bat (Pettitte in ‘04), getting hit by a pitch, or running the bases (CM Wang in Houston) that I don’t believe the risk of having a pitcher hit is worth the reward.

"I don’t the 95-99%” should say “I don’t think the 95-...”

If you want to figure out the percents, first predict what the average and replacement level DH would be, after the rule change. Then, find the value between the two (factoring in contracts plus added pitcher injury risk, which I doubt would change value by too much). You’d probably get your exact, long-term percents right there, and I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be 95-99%.

Blair/14: I didn’t mean you would 100% noDH in a Sheets game (for reasons you cite), but it certainly would be at least half the time.

What some of you are missing in what I originally said about 95-99% is that I think that’s how the theoretical managerial decision would evolve.  Sure, it might make sense statistically to use the rule only 80% of the time, but in what universe do you live where baseball managers make decisions along those lines?

I think dan’s exactly right as far as managerial second-guessing goes.  I would hate to have my pitcher hit, even with a known statistical advantage, merely because his chances of injury (especially in a world where he seldom hits) would increase.  Add to this the group-think that would eventually emerge, forcing any manager who chooses not to use the DH rule to justify his decision, and you’ve got a recipe for a very high rate of usage.

Granted 95-99 is picked out of thin air, but I suspect a manager wouldn’t opt out except under very rare circumstances.  Something along the lines of Livan Hernandez vs Ben Sheets with Vidro vs Ortiz as potential DHs.

In any case, whether we say 80 or 95 or 99, the DH rule would certainly become an opt out issue, increasing consistency of the game and adding a strategic consideration (even if very seldom used).  And I can’t help but think those are both good things.

You’re right that using the DH would be the default position most of the time.  And managers screw up a lot, and want to avoid having to explain their decisions a lot.  But managers aren’t blind.  They have to know (sometimes) that they don’t want to face David Ortiz just so they get to use some completely average hitter on their bench. 

I think the prospect of pitcher injuries becomes the biggest fear for any team.  But DHs get injured when they play too, and teams don’t sit them consistantly to avoid getting them hurt.  I’d wager that DHs get hurt more often hitting/running than pitchers do.  At some point the players have to play the game and take the risk of getting hurt.

Actually this just becomes another interesting point to argue on a day-to-day decision basis.  The home team is starting an athletic but not very good pitcher, but the opposing team is starting an injury prone good pitcher.  Are both teams competing for the play offs against each other...even better.  We don’t want to wish harm on anyone, but maybe the opponent will lose their good starter for a few turns through rotation.  Maybe we’ll loose our poor starter for a few weeks too...but we can take the risk. 

The biggest point against it, I think is how teams that are out of the race make the decision.  They are going to be very careful about injuring their young pitchers long term, and avoiding antagonizing some other manager by forcing them to not use the DH.  It’s the kind of rule where that could really influence playoff races because teams that are out of contention might rather play it very safe rather than play to win every game.  Most September baseball already seems suspicious to me, and this wouldn’t help.

I’d say Tango is right about it ending up at 75%-25%.  But in September, that would go to 90%-10%.

I would think that if 75% of the teams have one-dimensional players like Ortiz or Hafner or Frank Thomas, and the other 25% of the teams have a DH who is also a passable fielder, then I can see the 25% of the teams forcing the issue and removing the DH.  Especially if that means that you also get to knock out Kotchman out of the starting lineup.

I agree that there is an “injury” consideration to the decison-making process.  And it is possible that the rule will evolve to the point that 20 or 30 years down the line that it will be used seldomly.  It could also evolve to the point where teams are putting themselves so much at risk at carrying 1-D players that teams will keep things at 50%.

I think 80% is probably what will happen 10 years down the road, but, I’m pulling things out of the same place everyone else is.

Agreed with most everyone here that it would be a good strategy at the manager’s disposal.

Now that I’ve brought up how it would play out down the stretch drive....any thoughts on how it plays out in the playoffs?  Managers love to tinker more in the playoffs, there’s less concern over loosing your pitcher to injury if your season might be over in 2 days.  But would managers be more concerned about the complication of managing their bullpens?  Or would most playoff teams have good (and therefore fairly comparable) DH options, so any decision is likely to have minor influence?

Really, the same things apply.  If Ortiz is the opposing DH, how can you possibly want him as the opposing DH?  You’d have to have a really bad hitting pitcher who you expect to go 8 innings and your DH option must be quite good as well.

So, it really really depends on the personnel.

"What some of you are missing in what I originally said about 95-99% is that I think that’s how the theoretical managerial decision would evolve.  Sure, it might make sense statistically to use the rule only 80% of the time, but in what universe do you live where baseball managers make decisions along those lines? “

Wouldn’t it be determined by roster construction, and not management, in the long run?

I don’t know, I guess I kind of view game theory like economics. Long term it works itself out, though it can get skewed by noise, bad information, whatever.

And there is noise to skew it towards no DH, in addition to the game time optimization Tango presented. I would think small budget teams would favor no DH. And I would think teams without much lineup depth, hit by injuries may favor no DH. I would think teams with tinkering managers would use no DH days to get more bench players at bats. etc. etc.

And I’m sure more teams would use the DH, but I’m still not so sure it would be quite so skewed.

Great point on the small-budget thing.  A team that scrimps and saves simply won’t be able to afford a good alternative for DH who can’t field. 

Btw, I’d favor a 2-hr lead time.  If the home manager fails to make the decision, the visitor’s manager gets to make it within 30 minutes (afterwards, defaults to DH in force).  Another great story potential!  This is like the Olympian boxer who didn’t know what time his bout was and lost on forfeit.(*) Well, not that bad.  More like that episode on Seinfeld.

(*) How is that possible?  I worry when I miss a dentist appointment.  If all you do is train for 4 years, aren’t you going to make it your personal business to know the time of the competition, then double-check it, and then triple-check it?  Are you going to let your coach be the only one to do this?

I disagree

The DH would end up being used 50% of the time not 90-95% because in every game using it can only give one team an advantage.

If my Dh is better than yoursand there are no differences between pitchers and pinch hitters then I will use him if I am at home and you won’t use a DH if i am playing in your park.

It would clearly strengthen the HFA.

To see my point Imagine ranking all DHs from 1 to 30 in ability and then decide what strategy each team will adopt against every opponent. It works out as 50%

To avoid offending either of the DH religions perhaps each team should be forced to use the DH a minimum of 20 times a season and a maximum of 61 times a season.

And opting against the DH is tantamount to telling your DH that he sucks compared to the opponents’. How many managers are really going to do that?

If you’re facing Boston and Ortiz, that’s one thing. But if the Angels are facing the Orioles, does anyone think Scioscia is going to tell Garret Anderson, “Aubrey Huff is way better than you so I’m going to opt for pitchers hitting this series”?

Heck, I bet Joe Girardi would choose to stick with Giambi as his DH rather than force Ortiz to the bench quite a bit. You know that stuff would happen.

And opting against the DH is tantamount to telling your DH that he sucks compared to the opponents’.

Not necessarily.  You could put say your DH at 1B.  What you are saying that the combination of the DH, 1B, P is stronger than your opponent’s.  It does not single out any one player.

I don’t think that a 30-yr old man is going to act like a 12-yr old baby when the situation is first explained before the first game, and he’ll understand it for the rest of his career.

How about 30 years ago?  “Oh, boo hoo, I’m a big baby.  The manager has taken me off 1B and put me at DH cause he thinks I can’t catch a ball.  I’m going to tell mommy.” I think players are more adult than this.

What about moving Heilman to the bullpen when he’d rather be starting?  This is all part of roster management, and I don’t see this issue any more of one than any other.

I actually think the DH would be used less than 50% of the time, mainly due to the low budget teams almost never wanting it.  It would be similar how large budget teams can afford the $6 million/yr. setup guy and the small budget guys basically put no money into the bullpen.  A DH player would become a luxury for the top 5 - 10 payrolls in the league.

John, You are probably right that small teams wouldn’t hire someone who can bat but not field just to use him as a DH. But when two such small teams play each other they have to choose between adding one of their bench players into the lineup or letting the pitcher bat. So if you are the home manager you would compare the OPS (or any other metric you want to use) of your bench player vs their bench player and then compare the ops of your pitcher and their pitcher and then choose the use the DH depending which gave you the biggest edge or smallest disadvantage. It should average out as 50% over a season in a league.

RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL: Each team submits a designated hitter with lineup card, however DH does NOT have position in lineup. Rather DH is “designated” to hit in place of pitcher on no more than three occasions in nine-inning game and one occasion in extra innings WITHOUT having to remove pitcher and at the manager’s discretion. Manager may choose to expend opportunities in early innings at cost of losing such an option in late innings; preserves double switch, pitchers must still hit some of the time, uniformity to both leagues, added offense in “National” league, added strategic dimension to game in both leagues…

If you make it “no more than 3”, you may as well designate the hitter for the starting pitcher, and not for all pitchers.  That forces a designated hitter for each reliever (which really means a pinch hitter for almost all relief appearances).