Do you view the DH as a position?

Topnotchsy · Aug 9, 2011

Another post got me thinking about this.

It was pointed out there (though I do not know the exact source of the statement) that for the Hall of Fame you need, "to be one of the best players at your position." The argument was made (and it is an argument I have seen from a few people) that Edgar Martinez is the greatest DH of all-time and is therefore worthy of the Hall of Fame.

I was wondering whether you considered DH a position that warrants being considered by its own standards. My understanding of the Hall's criteria (mentioned above) is that because different positions have different demands, it makes sense to compare players to those at their own positions. In theory, if 2nd basemen are always weak hitters, there are likely certain demands (from the defensive side) of the position that limit offensive prowess. Because of this, 2nd basemen should be compared to 2nd basemen, and should not be penalized for having worse offensive stats than say a 1st baseman. (I think the most obvious place where we see this approach used is regarding catchers and their HOF worthiness.)

Based on this, I think it is ridiculous to consider a player's Hall of Fame candidacy by comparing him to other DH's, since the DH position does not bring additional challenges, it simply indicates the player was incapable of playing the field at a high enough level of competency to warrant his playing a position. In my mind, for a player to warrant the Hall at DH, he would have to be compared to all hitters and be shown to be one of the best at the "position" of hitting.

(Note, I am not considering Edgar Martinez's Hall worthiness or any other players at the moment, just considering how I would analyze whether he is worthy.)

Thoughts?

Huffamaniac · Aug 9, 2011

DH can be a challenge and not anyone can be one. It is tougher than many think to not be playing the field sitting on the bench and having 4 at bats per game. It is tough to get into the flow of the game when most of the game, you are not playing.

To answer your question, yes I feel the DH is a position.

alexs64 · Aug 9, 2011

Very good subject, I think they should be measured against the position they play. In this case they "Play" DH according to the official scorecard (please correct me if I am wrong). Therefore, they need to be measured playing the position they play. I think you are right when you say the reason they play the DH is because they aren't good enough to be out in the field at a given position for whatever reason. I think this is also the case for First Base, this used to be a skilled/athletic position and since the 80's and larger player coming into the league, they put them at first for 1 of 2 reasons; 1. Someone was already the DH or 2. They played in the N.L. Now there might be a few first basemen that are still athletic and can play more than one position, but if you look, there are not many.

Good subject.

All The Hype · Aug 9, 2011

Topnotchsy said:
My understanding of the Hall's criteria (mentioned above) is that because different positions have different demands, it makes sense to compare players to those at their own positions. In theory, if 2nd basemen are always weak hitters, there are likely certain demands (from the defensive side) of the position that limit offensive prowess. Because of this, 2nd basemen should be compared to 2nd basemen, and should not be penalized for having worse offensive stats than say a 1st baseman. (I think the most obvious place where we see this approach used is regarding catchers and their HOF worthiness.)

I agree with your above quote, and this is what I have to say about it:

The DH spot is a player who does NOTHING but hit. While Middle Infielders and Catchers have to hold their own in the field, a DH has nothing to do but hit. Therefore, ANY player could DH. Not any player could catch or play middle infield.

Because of this, I believe DHs should not be compared to other DHs, but they should be compared to the best hitters in the game at any position. Since there is no extra skill needed to play DH, these players should be judged solely on their hitting statistics in comparison to the all time greats, and the greats of their generation.

Edgar Martinez is pretty unquestionably the best DH ever, but his offensive numbers don't make him one of the best hitters ever. Not even one of the best hitters of his generation really. He was a very good player, but not a HOFer, and he doesn't get a pass just for being the best DH of all time. To this point, there is no DH-only player that should be in the HOF, because none of these HITTER only players has put up HITTING numbers worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Topnotchsy · Aug 9, 2011

alexs64 said:
Very good subject, I think they should be measured against the position they play. In this case they "Play" DH according to the official scorecard (please correct me if I am wrong). Therefore, they need to be measured playing the position they play. I think you are right when you say the reason they play the DH is because they aren't good enough to be out in the field at a given position for whatever reason. I think this is also the case for First Base, this used to be a skilled/athletic position and since the 80's and larger player coming into the league, they put them at first for 1 of 2 reasons; 1. Someone was already the DH or 2. They played in the N.L. Now there might be a few first basemen that are still athletic and can play more than one position, but if you look, there are not many.[b/]

Good subject.

This may be true, but because of it, those who play first base are in essence being compared with all hitters because the hitters at 1st base are generally the best in the game (because if a player can hit but cannot field much they put him at first base.) To make the Hall at first base you need to be really, really good.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the NL does not even have a DH, so to be the best DH at any time you have to be a better hitter than those players who could not play any position, and happened to be on an American League team. We are really limiting ourselves there. (And when you consider "all-time greats at a position, you have to remember that the DH has only been around since 1973. To me it's almost like discussing the greatest hitter of all time on an expansion team.)

hive17 · Aug 9, 2011

ALL_THE_HYPE said:
The DH spot is a player who does NOTHING but hit. While Middle Infielders and Catchers have to hold their own in the field, a DH has nothing to do but hit. Therefore, ANY player could DH. Not any player could catch or play middle infield.

Because of this, I believe DHs should not be compared to other DHs, but they should be compared to the best hitters in the game at any position. Since there is no extra skill needed to play DH, these players should be judged solely on their hitting statistics in comparison to the all time greats, and the greats of their generation.

Edgar Martinez is pretty unquestionably the best DH ever, but his offensive numbers don't make him one of the best hitters ever. Not even one of the best hitters of his generation really. He was a very good player, but not a HOFer, and he doesn't get a pass just for being the best DH of all time. To this point, there is no DH-only player that should be in the HOF, because none of these HITTER only players has put up HITTING numbers worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Sums up 100% the way I feel.

TBTwinsFan · Aug 9, 2011

No. It's not a position. There are 9 positions in baseball, not ten. It's a spot in the batting order, taking the place of the pitcher.

It's for big guys who only have 1 thing left in a career, their bat. It was explained to me once that DH is for people who can hit (hard... not a grounder that gets past the 3rd basemen), but can't field or run as well as a position player.

RL24 · Aug 9, 2011

Comparing DH's to DH's and 2nd basemen to 2nd basemen... I think that everything isn't this black and white. Think of starting pitchers. Should a great hitting pitcher like Zambrano get into the hall based on his hitting? I mean, look at him and compare him to other starting pitchers. I dunno. The DH is a position, they put it down under the "position" category all over the place, including baseball cards. Very few people have only been a DH their whole career though, right? I thought it was mostly for the elderly once they are unable to play in the field. Or just 1/2 a night off for your regular fielders.

I'm not sure that a full time 100% DH should be allowed in the hall, unless he really has the very best offensive numbers out of all position players. I have often wondered why the DH on a team is worse at offense than most of the position players on the team.

Huffamaniac said:
DH can be a challenge and not anyone can be one. It is tougher than many think to not be playing the field sitting on the bench and having 4 at bats per game. It is tough to get into the flow of the game when most of the game, you are not playing.

I was pondering on this recently while hearing about the woes of Adam Dunn. Apparantly it's harder than it seems to not go out there and field. Who knew?

alexs64 said:
Now there might be a few first basemen that are still athletic and can play more than one position, but if you look, there are not many.

I have pondered on this as well. I've watched some 1st basemen make some incredible plays, and thought "I thought he played first because he sucked at defense?" And then there are times when, for example, the Indians will put Carlos Santana at first base. At first I think "Oh good, he should be safe over there." Then a little later I think "Oh crap, we need a FIRST BASEMAN to play first!!!" Because really, it's not as easy as they make it look.

uniquebaseballcards · Aug 9, 2011

A DH is a hitting position, not a fielding position, so they need to be judged among themselves. A DH has no fielding position obviously.

As a result, a DH HOF candidate's hitting prowess really needs to far exceed that of HOF fielding position players already in the hall.

bowmanchromeandorr · Aug 9, 2011

Card Magnet · Aug 9, 2011

Let's say Joe Smith is a pitcher in the AL his whole career. Now let's say John Doe is a designated hitter in the AL.

Joe Smith is inducted to the HOF based on his pitching, though he never stepped up to the plate. Why should John Doe be held out just because he never stepped into the infield?

To me, it works both ways; if you serve your purpose well, whatever it may be, you should not have it held against you that you didn't fulfill the purpose of another player on your team.

aminors · Aug 9, 2011

I view missionary as a position, but not DH.

scotty21690 · Aug 9, 2011

Card Magnet said:
Let's say Joe Smith is a pitcher in the AL his whole career. Now let's say John Doe is a designated hitter in the AL.

Joe Smith is inducted to the HOF based on his pitching, though he never stepped up to the plate. Why should John Doe be held out just because he never stepped into the infield?

To me, it works both ways; if you serve your purpose well, whatever it may be, you should not have it held against you that you didn't fulfill the purpose of another player on your team.

Not to mention starting pitchers pitch once every 5 games, while DH's play 150+ games/season.

There have been many players elected into the HOF even though they played average/below average defense. To me, being a great hitter and a poor fielder is nearly the same as being just a great hitter.

uniquebaseballcards · Aug 9, 2011

scotty21690 said:
Card Magnet said:

Let's say Joe Smith is a pitcher in the AL his whole career. Now let's say John Doe is a designated hitter in the AL.

Joe Smith is inducted to the HOF based on his pitching, though he never stepped up to the plate. Why should John Doe be held out just because he never stepped into the infield?

To me, it works both ways; if you serve your purpose well, whatever it may be, you should not have it held against you that you didn't fulfill the purpose of another player on your team.

Click to expand...

Not to mention starting pitchers pitch once every 5 games, while DH's play 150+ games/season.

There have been many players elected into the HOF even though they played average/below average defense. To me, being a great hitter and a poor fielder is nearly the same as being just a great hitter.

A pitcher: 1) pitches, 2) fields; and sometimes 3) hits.
A position player: 1) fields and 2) hits
A DH: 1) hits

Furthermore, a pitcher will touch the ball more than any position player on his team while in the game, thereby impacting the game greater than any other player. On the other hand a DH never touches the ball at all (unless the pitcher hits him with it LOL), although his bat may.

I don't see how someone could compare DHs and pitchers.

Sly · Aug 9, 2011

uniquebaseballcards said:
scotty21690 said:

Card Magnet said:

Let's say Joe Smith is a pitcher in the AL his whole career. Now let's say John Doe is a designated hitter in the AL.

Joe Smith is inducted to the HOF based on his pitching, though he never stepped up to the plate. Why should John Doe be held out just because he never stepped into the infield?

To me, it works both ways; if you serve your purpose well, whatever it may be, you should not have it held against you that you didn't fulfill the purpose of another player on your team.

Click to expand...

Not to mention starting pitchers pitch once every 5 games, while DH's play 150+ games/season.

There have been many players elected into the HOF even though they played average/below average defense. To me, being a great hitter and a poor fielder is nearly the same as being just a great hitter.

Click to expand...

A pitcher: 1) pitches, 2) fields; and sometimes 3) hits.
A position player: 1) fields and 2) hits
A DH: 1) hits

Furthermore, a pitcher will touch the ball more than any position player on his team while in the game, thereby impacting the game greater than any other player. On the other hand a DH never touches the ball at all (unless the pitcher hits him with it LOL), although his bat may.

I don't see how someone could compare DHs and pitchers.

Please find me one DH who has never fielded.

Sorry, a DH: 1) hits and sometimes 2) fields

Edgar Martinez - 28.8% games in the field
David Ortiz - 14.6%
Frank Thomas - 41.8% (anyone like to tell me Frank Thomas isn't a HOFer because he played more than half his career at DH?)

If a pitcher isn't valued on his hitting (or his fielding, and no, not a single pitcher gets valued as a HOFer based on his fielding) to be a HOFer, why does everyone else have to be valued on his hitting AND fielding? And don't tell me Ozzie Smith is in the HOF because he was a great fielder and hitter...

And let me ask this, would a great hitting first baseman get into the HOF even if he was a horrible fielder? I mean, the fielding aspect wouldn't be taken into account in those cases, so what does it matter what he did in the field? Is a great hitting, but terrible fielding first baseman more valuable to a team than a great hitting DH??

Let me also add, you don't see how one can compare a DH and a pitcher? Okay, but are you saying you can compare a 2nd Baseman and a pitcher? I'm going to guess no. So how can you compare a DH and a 2nd baseman or a 2nd baseman and a 1st baseman? You can't ... different positions call for different roles, and last I checked, a line-up card features a DH, therefore a DH is a position.

BrewerSuperCollector · Aug 9, 2011

If Edgar gets in to the Hall for being a DH, then Lenny Harris needs to be in also for having the most career pich hits. Anyone can be a pich hitter, but not everyone can be good as a pich hitter.

thefatguy · Aug 9, 2011

Who's more valuable, a DH or a closer?
At least a DH plays every day.

That said, BIG HURT and EDGAR to the HOF!!

scotty21690 · Aug 9, 2011

Sly said:
uniquebaseballcards said:

scotty21690 said:

Card Magnet said:

Let's say Joe Smith is a pitcher in the AL his whole career. Now let's say John Doe is a designated hitter in the AL.

Joe Smith is inducted to the HOF based on his pitching, though he never stepped up to the plate. Why should John Doe be held out just because he never stepped into the infield?

To me, it works both ways; if you serve your purpose well, whatever it may be, you should not have it held against you that you didn't fulfill the purpose of another player on your team.

Click to expand...

Not to mention starting pitchers pitch once every 5 games, while DH's play 150+ games/season.

There have been many players elected into the HOF even though they played average/below average defense. To me, being a great hitter and a poor fielder is nearly the same as being just a great hitter.

Click to expand...

A pitcher: 1) pitches, 2) fields; and sometimes 3) hits.
A position player: 1) fields and 2) hits
A DH: 1) hits

Furthermore, a pitcher will touch the ball more than any position player on his team while in the game, thereby impacting the game greater than any other player. On the other hand a DH never touches the ball at all (unless the pitcher hits him with it LOL), although his bat may.

I don't see how someone could compare DHs and pitchers.

Click to expand...

Please find me one DH who has never fielded.

Sorry, a DH: 1) hits and sometimes 2) fields

Edgar Martinez - 28.8% games in the field
David Ortiz - 14.6%
Frank Thomas - 41.8% (anyone like to tell me Frank Thomas isn't a HOFer because he played more than half his career at DH?)

If a pitcher isn't valued on his hitting (or his fielding, and no, not a single pitcher gets valued as a HOFer based on his fielding) to be a HOFer, why does everyone else have to be valued on his hitting AND fielding? And don't tell me Ozzie Smith is in the HOF because he was a great fielder and hitter...

And let me ask this, would a great hitting first baseman get into the HOF even if he was a horrible fielder? I mean, the fielding aspect wouldn't be taken into account in those cases, so what does it matter what he did in the field? Is a great hitting, but terrible fielding first baseman more valuable to a team than a great hitting DH??

Let me also add, you don't see how one can compare a DH and a pitcher? Okay, but are you saying you can compare a 2nd Baseman and a pitcher? I'm going to guess no. So how can you compare a DH and a 2nd baseman or a 2nd baseman and a 1st baseman? You can't ... different positions call for different roles, and last I checked, a line-up card features a DH, therefore a DH is a position.

Thanks, Sly.

uniquebaseballcards · Aug 9, 2011

Sly said:
Please find me one DH who has never fielded.

Sorry, a DH: 1) hits and sometimes 2) fields

Edgar Martinez - 28.8% games in the field
David Ortiz - 14.6%
Frank Thomas - 41.8% (anyone like to tell me Frank Thomas isn't a HOFer because he played more than half his career at DH?)

If a pitcher isn't valued on his hitting (or his fielding, and no, not a single pitcher gets valued as a HOFer based on his fielding) to be a HOFer, why does everyone else have to be valued on his hitting AND fielding? And don't tell me Ozzie Smith is in the HOF because he was a great fielder and hitter...

And let me ask this, would a great hitting first baseman get into the HOF even if he was a horrible fielder? I mean, the fielding aspect wouldn't be taken into account in those cases, so what does it matter what he did in the field? Is a great hitting, but terrible fielding first baseman more valuable to a team than a great hitting DH??

Let me also add, you don't see how one can compare a DH and a pitcher? Okay, but are you saying you can compare a 2nd Baseman and a pitcher? I'm going to guess no. So how can you compare a DH and a 2nd baseman or a 2nd baseman and a 1st baseman? You can't ... different positions call for different roles, and last I checked, a line-up card features a DH, therefore a DH is a position.

Yes DH a position, just not a fielding position. All other positions are fielding positions, thus the reason for this discussion.

Thomas - the only player of the three you mention whose numbers are HOF-worthy and thus the only player in your example really worth discussing - never led the league in a statistical category in a year when he DHed more than played 1B. He produced enough in the 15 years and almost 1000 games at 1B to warrant first ballot HOF. In his two MVP seasons he played DH about 6% of the time. (BTW Hurt played well over 400 more games in the field then Edgar, and *four times* as many as Ortiz...who has only played a paltry 156 complete games in the field ::facepalm:: )

But do players get extra "HOF points" for playing the field? Sure they do. Should they get points for NOT playing the field - absolutely not. But how much credit do you want to give players who play the field? The answer should be proportionate to how much they produced while playing in the field... as opposed to sitting on their ass doing nothing to help the team. Just being on the field counts as he contributes to the game even when the ball is not hit to him, somebody not on the field is not playing baseball.

Don't get me wrong, I think DH is good exactly the way it is - in the AL but not the NL. A DH needs unbelievable numbers for admission to the HOF to compensate simply for not being on the field.

thefatguy · Aug 9, 2011

Along with Hall of Famers Mel Ott, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams, Thomas is one of just four players in baseball history to have a .300 average with 500 home runs, 1,500 RBI, 1,000 runs scored and 1,500 walks in his career

Put that on his plaque

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Do you view the DH as a position?

Featured Contributor, The best players in history?

Active member

Active member

Active member

Featured Contributor, The best players in history?

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in