• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

AL ball vs. NL Ball Which do you favor and why?

Thump

Hating the environment since 1994
  • I'm sure it's no shock that I'm an NL baseball fan and yes I've been a Reds fan my whole life.

    I came up with the idea for this thread after debating who should be the AL MVP with Sloopy45 and others. (Very good debate by the way.)

    The reason I'm a fan of NL ball is that there is much more strategy needed to manage and play in a NL game. With the pitcher batting, that changes the entire dynamic of the game. Do I pinch hit for my pitcher or keep him in b/c I need him to pitch the next half inning?

    Do I bunt this guy over even though the pitcher is in the hole?

    Do I steal third b/c the pitcher is on deck?

    Now granted, I see strategy in AL games b/c the DH usually needs to pitched around in many cases but just seems to me like AL games are more simplistic to play and mange than NL games.

    As I stated in another thread, I'd rather see a 2-1 pitchers duel than an 11-9 shootout.
     
    Last edited:
    Thump: "Now granted, I see strategy in AL games b/c the DH usually needs to pitched around in many cases but just seems to me like AL games are more simplistic to play and mange than NL games."

    I like that you started this thread. I'll give my take, which I'll preface by saying is completely biased because I'm an AL fan.

    On the rare occasion that I do check out a Mets or an NL game, it seems like the wind in taken out of the Inning in which the pitcher has to hit. Normally when I'm watching a high stakes Yankee game, I'm pinned to the TV each Inning concerned that the opposing team can put together a rally. Whenever the Inning comes with the pitcher due up, its time to take a breath of fresh air.

    I'll give you an example of what the DH can do to a pitcher & a team: the 1997 Cleveland Indians.

    In May of 1997, I watched a Yankees-Indians game where the Indians came back from a 5 run lead against us to either win or lose by a run. This was unheard of in 1993 to 1997, because the Yanks used to intimidate and OWN the Tribe, if you remember. They would fold up like an old lawn chair. A comeback like this was unheard of. And they kept playing us tough all season. I told my roomate in C-Bus that this team is more dangerous than the '95 team. He laughed at the time.

    And the reason I believed that is this: while the '95 team was more explosive at the top of the line-up, if you could limit their ABs and keep Belle, Ramirez, & Thome in the ballpark and Baerga & Lofton off the bases, you could shut the Indians down. In '97, the Indians 7-8-9 was more potent (Marquis Grissom, a great playoff player, clutch hitter, and I guy I've always had a lot of respect for, was the Tribe's 9 hitter in the Playoffs if I remember correctly). They kept getting on base, and kept turning the line-up over. Eventually, if you can't count on those 3 line-up spots for outs, the sluggers in the line-up come up 5 or 6 times a game instead of 4 - and with more chances, eventually, a guy like Jim Thome is going to hurt you. Bad.

    And that's why they eventually beat us that year. They kept turning the line-up over to where the Yanks pitchers had to face the heart of the Indians line-up too many times per game with runners on base.

    Not to mention that the DH allowed us to see the great Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz (# 1 & # 2 in all-time Yankee Killers, unfortunately) rake for a living. Without the DH, Martinez' bad knees would've forced him into early retirement, and (more than likely) the Curse of the Bambino would still be alive and well - is that particular example an argument for or against the DH? I dunno.
     
    Upvote 0
    There was a great example last night of how the NL is exciting. In the 5th/6th (i dunno its all a blur right now) The astros had men on 1st and 3rd with one out. Adam everett was at the at the plate in the 8 hole with the pitcher due up the cards were not going to give Everett anything to hit. in order to counter this Garner put on the suicide squeeze. It is one of the most exciting plays in baseball and was attempted only because the pitcher was due up.
     
    Upvote 0
    I don't really care, but if you held me down and forced me to answer, I'd go with NL ball.

    In my view, the Pitcher should have to hit. He's a player on the team like anyone else, and NL managers have more decisions to make if the P is a weak batsman (Typical)

    If I was an NL coach, my Ps would take BP daily (I don't subscribe to this P's are made of glass BS) and they'd not be a hole in my lineup each day. I don't know why there is this thinking that P's can't take BP or can't hit for some reason other than they're not made to practice hitting.
     
    Upvote 0
    Having watched a lot of NL ball since I moved to Colorado, I've come to enjoy it more. Nevermind the fact that the Rockies suck. The DH rule is weak, imo.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that the Sox are gonna mop the floor with the Astros. :p
     
    Upvote 0
    I agree with Sloopy in regards to the consistent excitement of a baseball game (inning by inning), however, I believe that it comes at the price of strategy.

    Do you leave a struggling pitcher in for the last out of an inning, knowing he is scheduled to bat in the bottom half?

    Down one, two outs, runners in scoring position, bottom of the 6th inning...do you pinch hit for your nearly flawless pitcher?

    How do overcome the advantage your opponent has when they have a starting pitcher that can also hit well?

    As a pitcher, do you dare get as agressive pitching inside and risk getting some chin music yourself when you are up?

    These are just some remedial examples of the chess match that is baseball. I think that you lose a little of that with the DH. That being said, I just wish the sport was conistent. I wish both leagues were either with or without...I wouldn't complain either way.
     
    Upvote 0
    OB: "That being said, I just wish the sport was conistent. I wish both leagues were either with or without...I wouldn't complain either way."

    I think its fine that one league has it and one league doesn't ... HOWEVER, one rule that must, must change is the no-DH rule in NL parks for Interleague Play and the World Series.

    That rule does absolutely nothing but punish the AL team. The NL team isn't penalized by having to use the DH in either park, and in a lot of cases you're taking a major piece out of the AL line-up. Its not fair at all.

    You have to use the DH in an NL park for intra-league match-ups. Period.
     
    Upvote 0
    Other than the DH I think the distinction between AL and NL ball is gone. Each league no longer has their own umps. White Sox play small ball along with several other American league teams. Teams like the Reds play the old Earl Weaver 3 run homer style. As a Reds fan I'd prefer NL ball.
     
    Upvote 0
    I hate the DH. And the fact that both leagues have different rules is an absolute joke. Just because it's been wrong since Ron Bloomberg did it doesn't make it right. It's like the AFC allows punt returns and the NFC doesn't, because it provides more offense. Let's decide if we allow punt returns in the Super Bowl based on last year's Pro Bowl.

    But baseball has been screwed up for years. They have a division with 6 teams, and another division with 4 teams. If all teams had equal talent, the ones in the 4-team division have a .341 chance of making the playoffs, and the ones in the 6-team division have a .244 chance of making the playoffs.

    .341 = 1/4 at winning the division, plus 1/11 at winning the wild card
    .244 = 1/6 at winning the division, plus 1/13 at winning the wild card

    That's the kind of situation a real commissioner should address. And I know the Astros have come out of that division for the last 2 NL Wild Cards.
     
    Upvote 0
    Back
    Top