A Brief History of the Designated Hitter
Why the Leagues Won’t Agree on the Controversial Rule
“Probably not since the Roman Catholic Church switched from Latin to English Masses has any break with tradition caused more vigorous argument in this country.”
— William Legget[1]
Although it was originally adopted in 1973 by the American League (AL), the Designated Hitter Rule is still considered one of the most, if not the most, controversial and contested rules in baseball history. But what are the reasons for such fervent admiration and hate towards the Designated Hitter Rule?
To tackle this question, it may be beneficial to look at it in the context of the rule’s history — from the earliest available reporting of the rule in 1906, through its adoption by the American League in 1973, to when there was a strong movement to abolish the rule in the late 1990s.
Some History
The earliest found news report concerning the suggestion of having a player substitute for a pitcher in the batting order comes from the February 3, 1906 issue of the magazine Sporting Life.
The report in the magazine is actually a republishing of an original newspaper article from the now-defunct Philadelphia North American entitled “Why the Pitcher Ought to Bat.” The report said the rule suggestion is “often made” and has only recently “come up again.”[2]
While it is unclear when the rule for a hitter to replace the pitcher in the batting line up was first suggested, it is obvious that it was not a profoundly new idea at the time of this report.
Connie Mack, the manager of the Philadelphia Athletics at the time, is credited for bringing up the suggestion once again in 1906, arguing that because pitchers are valued for their pitching abilities over their batting abilities, most pitchers are typically poor batters.
He further states that that their turn to bat is a “farce” and having a better hitter replace the pitcher at the plate would help the game. However, he did not specify in what way the rule change would help the game or why the game needed to be helped in the first place.
Expectedly, his suggestion did not receive much support. The writer, probably not alone in his opinions, claimed that the rule was “wrong theoretically” because having every member of the team play offense and defense was a “cardinal principal of base ball [sic],” not to mention that there were noteworthy pitchers who were proficient batters at the time.[3]
Although Connie Mack’s suggestion was shot down in the early 1900s, the idea stuck around and was at once again suggested and almost adopted in the late 1920s, coincidentally, by the National League (NL).
In fact, it was the league’s president at the time, John A. Heydler, who was advocating to introduce a 10th-man experiment. Despite never being adopted, Heydler came very close to having National League clubs agree to try out the rule during spring training of 1929.[4]
It was not until the 1960s that the Designated Hitter Rule would come up again for the consideration of major league clubs, but this time, the suggestion was meant to solve problems facing the American League rather than trying to enhance the game.
For the American League, the 1960s was a difficult time in terms of interest and revenue. The pitching in the league was so dominant by 1968 that Red Sox star Carl “Yaz” Yastrzemki was the American League hitting leader with a batting average of .301 and Detroit pitcher Denny McLain won a whopping 31 games.
Although the National League was facing a similar issue with pitching, for example, Cardinals’ pitcher Bob Gibson had a record-breaking earned run average (ERA) of 1.12 in 1968, they were still doing considerably better than the American League in terms of offensive production and profits generated by their fan bases.[5]
The National League’s success over the American League can be attributed to a plethora of reasons. Bill Veeck, former owner of the Cleveland Indians and the first American League owner to sign black payers not long after Jackie Robinson’s historic introduction in Brooklyn, wrote a piece in 1964 addressing the events leading up to the American League’s turmoil in the 1960s.
According to Veeck, it was a series of poor business decisions by American League executives and a history of racism in the league that led up to their troubles in the 60s.
Specifically, Veeck cited the reluctance of league executives to expand westward to take control of the then-untapped team markets on the west coast, something that the National League would beat them to by moving the Dodgers and Giants to California in 1958.
Additionally, AL executives were hesitant to trust their club owners’ abilities to make good business decisions. Lastly, Veeck cited the American League’s unwillingness to sign black talent as one of the main reasons for their troubles.[6]
While there are arguments to be made about how the AL’s reluctance to sign black ballplayers restricted the number of talented players to pick from or that their unwelcome nature deterred talented black prospects, Veeck oddly seemed to frame the issue as one of revenge or karma for racist practices.[7]
After 1968’s “year of the pitcher” season, major league baseball implemented new rules to help generate more offense.
These rules included lowering the pitcher’s mound by five inches, making the upper limit of the strike zone lower by moving it from the batter’s shoulder’s to their armpits, and the American League began experimenting with the Designated Hitter Rule at exhibition games.
Most notably, the Triple-A International League, implemented the Designated Hitter Rule for the 1969 season. The following statistics that resulted from the International League’s use of the Designated Hitter are interesting to note: [8][9]
- A 17-point increase in batting average from the previous season, the designated hitters batted 120 points higher collectively than the pitchers they replaced in the the batting order
- The number of shutouts fell from 103 to 67
- The number of complete games pitched rose from 311 to 362
- There was an increase of 16 home runs
- Sacrifice hits (bunts) decreased by 50
- Intentional walks dropped by 51
- Run production rose 7%, and total runs scored in the league rose from 4,662 to 5,000.
Polls showed that the fans “overwhelmingly liked it” according to league president George Sisler.[10]
However, despite the obvious success of the Designated Hitter Rule’s trial in the International League, the league ultimately gave way to pressure from baseball purists and did not continue using designated hitters after the 1969 season.[11]
It is somewhat difficult to grasp how the surprising immediate effects the Designated Hitter Rule had on the International League’s overall offensive production could be met with purist criticism that might resemble the same attitude conveyed in the previously-mentioned article from 1906.
Although, the Designated Hitter Rule’s trial in the International League ended in 1970, its success in the Triple-A league would be indicative of what would happen in upcoming years as the American League continued to suffer and looked for a solution.
While the aforementioned major league rule changes implemented between 1968 and 1969 were able to help the National League’s offensive production, they only brought temporary relief to the American League, who began to struggle with attendance and offensive production once again in the early 1970s.[12]
At the end of the 1972 season, the twelve teams in the National League had outscored the twelve American League teams by 825 runs.
Moreover, while the National League only had three teams with less than one million attendees, the American League only had three teams with more than one million attendees.
In an effort to bolster offensive production and fan interest, American League owners surprised much of the baseball world when they voted 8–4 in favor of instituting the Designated Hitter Rule, originally called the Designated Pinch-Hitter Rule, for three-years as an experiment.[13]
However, the swiftness of the American League’s adoption of the rule and their subsequent public announcement of the decision revealed that the owners may not have completely thought the decision through.
Questions from the press and public poured in as people wanted to to the specifics of the new rule and its implementation, only to have the American League reexamine parts of the rule they had just adopted.[14]
In response to the American League’s decision, National League president Chub Feeney said, “We like the rules the way they are,” and wished the American League luck. Truthfully, however, the National League owners were reportedly almost evenly split on the proposal.[15]
It would not be until the start of spring training in 1973 that the American League would be able to address critics and skeptics with physical evidence to back-up their decision.
The first exhibition game of the 1973 spring training was a matchup between the American League’s Minnesota Twins and the National League’s Pittsburgh Pirates.
When the Twins turned-in their batting order to the umpire with Larry Hisle listed as a tenth player, instead of the usual nine-man lineup, Pirates management began to argue against complying.
However, they eventually subsided when Twins’ management explained that the designated hitter experiment was part of the game’s advertisement when tickets were being sold.
The game went on as scheduled with Larry Hisle, who had a modest career batting average of .236 at the time, managing to hit a 3 RBI home run and a grand slam in the game.
Despite his successful trial as the first “guinea pig” in the designated hitter experiment, Larry Hisle had mixed feelings about watching his teammates play defense while he sat in the dugout, stating:
“I don’t think I’d like the job full time since I enjoy defense almost as much as hitting.”[16]
However, he nonetheless claimed that designated hitter was “a wonderful rule.”
Over on the Pirates’ side, after losing a blowout 12–4 game, Manager Bill Virdon understandably proclaimed that having ten men play against nine was “not fair.”
Still, as evidenced by the title of a March 1973 article in Time magazine, some people believed, albeit prematurely, that this first game proved that the Designated Hitter Rule was a success for the American League.[17]
And if the basis of the designated hitter rule’s success hinged on increasing the American League’s dwindling attendance and low offensive production, then these early claims of the rule’s success would be completely legitimized by the end of the 1973 season.
On April 6, 1973, in their season opener against the rival Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees would supply the player credited as the first designated hitter to bat in major league baseball, Ron Blomberg.
Though it should be noted that Blomberg was technically the first designated hitter to bat in a regular season game.
Although not in the way most would have expected, Blomberg’s first at bat did produce offense for his team when he drew a walk with the bases loaded.[18] Ironically, the only Red Sox player to not record a hit in their 15–5 blowout over the Yankees was their own designated hitter, Orlando Cepeda.[19]
Unlike the designated hitter’s anticlimactic first trial in the regular season, the Designated Hitter Rule ended up having a dramatic and immediate impact on the American League that created parity between the two leagues:
- Between 1972 and 1973, team batting averages and average runs per season jumped from .239 to .259 and from 535 runs to 700 runs, respectively [20]
- In the first four seasons after the rule’s adoption, stolen bases increased by 29%, pitchers threw 33% more complete games, intentional walks were decreased by 20%, and Eight American League teams were able to draw over one million fans in the 1973 season [21]
Following the Designated Hitter Rule’s successful three-year trial, the American League voted to make the Designated Hitter Rule permanent in 1976.
“If anybody thinks ultimately the National League will go to the d.h., they’re living in a fairy land. That’s not going to happen.’’
— Commissioner Allan H. “Bud” Selig
Although many fans began to wonder if the National League would follow suit, it became very clear that the National League, whose personnel and fans have derided the American League since they adopted the rule in 1973, would not.
In the 1976 summer meetings, American League executives proposed trying out the designated hitter in that year’s world series. Previously, the designated hitter was not allowed to be used in the World Series or All-Star Game, but the American League was hoping that the successful result of their experiment would change that.
Initially, the National League completely resisted the use of designated hitters in the World Series. In order to reach a decision, Commissioner Bowie Kuhn exercised his executive powers to allow Designated Hitter Rule in the World Series on even-numbered years until both leagues were able to reach an agreement.
The decision was understandably met with critical gibes by those who oppose the designated hitter rule. It was not until 1986 that the leagues reached an agreement, permitting the designated hitter every year in American League parks only.[22]
This agreement, however, would also spark strong criticism. As time continued, the attitudes surrounding the Designated Hitter Rule became more polarized between the leagues and their fan bases, and the arguments about which league should capitulate to unify the game’s rules intensified.
The closest baseball came to unifying the rules was in the late 1990s, when league owners proposed phasing out the Designated Hitter Rule over three years in exchange for adding a 26th spot to team rosters.
Getting rid of the designated hitter was seen as the only realistic solution to unify the rules since it was more likely for the American League to give it up than for the National League to adopt it, or as Commissioner Selig put it, “If anybody thinks ultimately the National League will go to the d.h., they’re living in a fairy land. That’s not going to happen.’’
The players’ union ultimately rejected the offer by league owners. Afterwards, Commissioner Selig took focus off of trying unifying the rules and claimed there was no reason to make a decision on it at that time.[23]
Some Arguments
Throughout its controversial history, conversations surrounding the designated hitter have been riddled with arguments claiming the rule is either progressive or the worst thing to happen to the sport of baseball.
In general, proponents and opponents to the Designated Hitter Rule fall along league lines, with the American League and their fan bases mostly adoring the rule and the National League and their fan bases repulsed by it.
During the mid-1980s then-Commissioner Peter Ueberroth announced publicly that he would conduct a survey to determine fan approval of the Designated Hitter Rule.
The poll, unsurprisingly, showed that American League fans preferred the Designated Hitter Rule nearly 2 to 1, while National League fans similarly opposed it.[24]
Many fans and writers shared how ridiculous they thought the survey was in the first place, and the decision to create a survey became one of the blunders associated with his time as commissioner. Preceding that official poll, The Associated Press ran their own polls on the subject.
While one poll had a similar outcome showing fans to be nearly split on the issue with 59% against the rule, the other poll had such a disproportionate number of National League viewer respondents (70% of those polled) that the results should have arguably never been published or taken seriously.[25][26]
Aside from the more obvious observation that league fan bases mostly dictate whether a fan is in favor or against the Designated Hitter Rule, a study found that attitudes surrounding the rule are also connected to sociopolitical ideologies.
The study found that those who identified as conservative or more traditional mostly opposed the Designated Hitter Rule.
Moreover, it found that social and political progressives, such as democrats, consistently tend to favor the Designated Hitter Rule more than others “to a degree that is both statistically and substantively meaningful.” [27]
These finding are, to an extent, not too surprising when reading arguments surrounding the Designated Hitter Rule. In fact, conservative versus progressivist sentiments were sometimes easily observed in the writings of journalists opposed to, or in support of, the Designated Hitter Rule.
“I would rather see the advanced strategy and occasional batting prowess of pitchers in the National League than watch the relatively staid pace of American League games.”
— George Vecsey
Throughout the 1980s and 90s, there were two particular writers for The New York Times who were especially opposed to the Designated Hitter Rule, George Vecsey and Dave Anderson.
In regards to George Vecsey, who wrote the more aggressive pieces, his arguments for abolishing the designated hitter typically had two main points:
- 1 — The rule is unfair to the American League champions in the World Series because the current rules do not to “take full advantage of their designated hitter” at National League ballparks. [28]
- 2 — No other professional sport has its leagues playing with different rules, and therefore baseball’s rules should be unified. [29]
The second argument happens to be one his colleague Dave Anderson also focused on.[30]
While the argument that the current rules negatively affect American League teams at National League parks during the World Series is a somewhat sound one, remedying the problem by abolishing the rule altogether seems like an extreme solution.
And with sometimes vague and unexplained arguments such as “the designated-hitter rule is not pure baseball, and the sport would be wise to scuttle it,” one would rightfully assume that many of Vecsey’s pieces contained more anti-designated hitter propaganda than fully coherent arguments based in impartial judgement.
Another argument of his that comes up often is the notion that there is a loss of managerial strategy because of the Designated Hitter Rule. Though, one could rightfully argue that having a designated hitter doesn’t actually cause a loss of managerial strategy, but instead, changes the strategies managers must consider.
A more reasonable argument from Vecsey for abolishing the DH Rule, although only brought up once, involves a concern for players’ safety.
A correlation was found between the considerably higher number of batters hit by pitches in the American League since the Designated Hitter Rule’s adoption when compared to the National League. [31]
“…the National League should get with it and get off this business of seniority and superiority…Name a sport that hasn’t adopted rule changes for more offense or doesn’t use offensive and defensive specialists.”
— Reggie Jackson
Two newspaper writers to argue in favor of the Designated Hitter Rule in the 1980s and 1990s were Thomas Boswell and Ross Newhan of the Los Angeles Times.
Boswell, in particular, argued that the best reason to keep the rule is because the designated hitter position takes away the need for fan favorite ballplayers to play defense, which ultimately allows them to play in the league longer than previously possible.[32]
A second argument in favor of the Designated Hitter Rule, raised by Hall of Fame ballplayer and then-Yankees executive Reggie Jackson, is possibly a direct response to George Vecsey’s criticism that baseball should abolish the Designated Hitter Rule to not be the only professional sport playing with two different sets of rules.
In a 1996 article by Newhan, Reggie Jackson argued, “…the National League should get with it and get off this business of seniority and superiority. Football went to a two-point conversation and basketball to a three-point field goal. Name a sport that hasn’t adopted rule changes for more offense or doesn’t use offensive and defensive specialists.”[33]
Interestingly, Jackson’s tone in his criticism of the National League’s stance on the Designated Hitter Rule and the comparison to other professional sports in his argument almost directly mirror that of George Vescey.
So What Now?
While there may likely never be an end to the often-times bitter arguments surrounding the Designated Hitter Rule, a couple things have become fairly certain after looking at the rule’s history and effects on the game:
Firstly, the American League has benefitted from the Designated Hitter Rule and possibly owes its continued existence to it. For this reason, and because most AL fans enjoy the rule change, the DH will probably never be abolished.
Secondly, the National League has never had a financial or offensive need to consider adopting the Designated Hitter Rule.
As a result, the NL and most of its fanbase has seemingly become proud of not using the rule — so much so that adopting it now could potentially lose a lot of National League fans in the short-term and, as a result, cost the league a lot of money.[34]
Because of these two facts, it has become increasingly clear that the desire of many American baseball fans to have unified rules across the two leagues will likely not be satisfied anytime in the foreseeable future.
(But honestly, I think that’s okay.)
Sources
[1] William Leggett. “THE LIGHTS GO ON AGAIN.” Sports Illustrated, April 09, 1973. http://www.si.com/vault/1973/04/09/619190/the-lights-go-on-again
[2] ”Why the Pitcher Ought to Bat.” Sporting Life, February 03, 1906. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1906/VOL_46_NO_21/SL4621004.pdf
[3] Leggett. “THE LIGHTS GO ON AGAIN.” 1973.
[4] Steve Wulf. “Distinguished History.” Sports Illustrated, April 05, 1993. http://www.si.com/vault/1993/04/05/128328/distinguished-history-who-was-the-first-designated-hitter-ron-blombergs-name-may-be-a-bit-of-trivia-but-the-impact-of-the-dh-since-73-has-not-been-trivial
[5] Ibid.
[6] Bill Veeck and Edward Linn. “They’ve Wrecked the American League.” The Saturday Evening Post, July 11, 1964. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.navigator.southwestern.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5c3dfe6f-a8ba-4f3d-8d9d-ed1907fdf85a%40sessionmgr4005&vid=1&hid=4104
[7] Ibid.
[8] William Leggett. “THE 10th MAN COMETH.” Sports Illustrated, February 05, 1973. http://www.si.com/vault/1973/02/05/617630/the-10th-man-cometh
[9] Wulf. “Distinguished History.” 1993.
[10] Duro. “Baseball’s 10th Man — Pioneer or Pigeon.” The Saturday Evening Post, July 1, 1973. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.navigator.southwestern.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2c598e5f-1a74-419a-b209-8a35cbbce613%40sessionmgr114&vid=5&hid=107
[11] Wulf. “Distinguished History.” 1993.
[12] Dustin E. Buehler and Steve P. Calandrillo. “Baseball’s Moral Hazard: Law, Economics, and the Designated Hitter Rule.” Boston University Law Review 90 (2010), http://www.syst.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/BUEHLERandCALANDRILLO.pdf
[13] Wulf. “Distinguished History.” 1993.
[14] Leggett. “The 10TH MAN COMETH.” 1973
[15] Wulf. “Distinguished History.” 1993.
[16] Duro. “Baseball’s 10th Man — Pioneer or Pigeon.” 1973.
[17] “Designated Success.” Time, March 19, 1973. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.navigator.southwestern.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?sid=c75f0611-0a17-4743-83bd-26c78211bc0a%40sessionmgr4003&vid=0&hid=4104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl&preview=false#db=a9h&AN=53813168
[18] Buehler and Calandrillo. “Baseball’s Moral Hazard: Law, Economics, and the Designated Hitter Rule.” 2010.
[19] Wulf. “Distinguished History.” 1993.
[20] Thomas Boswell, “Great DH Debate: Best Argument for Keeping It, Is the Hitters,” Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1986, http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-10/sports/sp-2278_1_great-dh-debate/2
[21] Buehler and Calandrillo. “Baseball’s Moral Hazard: Law, Economics, and the Designated Hitter Rule.” 2010.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Murray Chass. “BASEBALL: NOTEBOOK; The D.H. Is 25 Years Old, but Now the Question Is Whether It Will Get to 30,” The New York Times, April 5, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/05/sports/baseball-notebook-dh-25-years-old-but-now-question-whether-it-will-get-30.html?pagewanted=all
[24] Thomas Boswell, “Great DH Debate: Best Argument for Keeping It, Is the Hitters,” Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1986, http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-10/sports/sp-2278_1_great-dh-debate/2
[25] “D.H. Defeated In Fans’ Poll By The Associated Press,” The New York Times, April 21, 1985, http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/21/sports/dh-defeated-in-fans-poll-by-the-associated-press-baseball-fans-responding-by.html
[26] The Associated Press, “D.H. Opposed In N.B.C. Poll,” The New York Times, July 17, 1985, http://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/17/sports/dh-opposed-in-nbc-poll.html
[27] Zorn, Christopher, and Jeff Gill. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Designated Hitter Rule.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2 (May 2007): 189–203, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff_Gill/publication/251193796_The_Etiology_of_Public_Support_for_the_Designated_Hitter_Rule/links/55df77dd08ae2fac4718fbe4.pdf (accessed February 26, 2016).
[28] George Vecsey, “THE WORLD SERIES ’86: SPORTS OF THE TIMES; The Designated Hitter Rule Is Unfair to Don Baylor,” The New York Times, October 19, 1986, http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/sports/world-series-86-sports-times-designated-hitter-rule-unfair-don-baylor.html
[29] George Vecsey, “Sports of The Times; Stupid Rule Still Mars World Series,” The New York Times, October 17, 1993, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/17/sports/sports-of-the-times-stupid-rule-still-mars-world-series.html
[30] Dave Anderson, “Sports of The Times; Memo to Giamatti: Make It One Game, Not Two,” The New York Times, April 2, 1989, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/02/sports/sports-of-the-times-memo-to-giamatti-make-it-one-game-not-two.html
[31] John Charles Bradbury and Douglas J. Drinen. “Crime and Punishment in Major League Baseball: The Case of the Designated Hitter and Hit Batters.” Economic Inquiry 45, no. 1 (January 1 2007): 131–144.
[32] Thomas Boswell, “Great DH Debate: Best Argument for Keeping It, Is the Hitters,” Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1986, http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-10/sports/sp-2278_1_great-dh-debate/2
[33] Ross Newhan, “Going to Bat for Designated Hitter : American League Feature at Risk, but Players Will Lobby to Keep It,” Los Angeles Times, February 26, 1996, http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-26/sports/sp-40269_1_american-league
[34] Buehler and Calandrillo. “Baseball’s Moral Hazard: Law, Economics, and the Designated Hitter Rule.” 2010.
