Described by some as "the only thing in baseball more hated than Steinbrenner," the designated hitter is a focus of controversy and debate almost constantly, especially in the off-season, when baseball fans seem to run out of other things to talk about. There are a myriad articles out there on the web about the DH, for and against, presenting a wide variety of arguments.
It's clear enough that many of these arguments are obscuring the reason for the controvery in truth - finances. The Players' Union would like to keep the Designated Hitter, because it ensures ongoing jobs for players who can no longer hack it in the field (or maybe who never really could) but can still slug the spheroid out of the park. The owners would rather get rid of the DH, so that they don't have to carry the salaries of those selfsame sluggers who can't play the field.
To obfuscate this entirely, there are arguments that basically come down to 'what is right for baseball'? Traditionalists face off with people who hold that the players should hold the final word, or those who think that the fans' opinion should rule. What is right for baseball? Nobody seems quite certain, really.
The DH was originally established after a span of truly anemic hitting in the AL. Yaz won a batting title by barely breaking 300, and was, if I recall correctly, the only 300 hitter in the entire league for that year. In order to spice up the offense a little and lure some attention away from the National League's more active games, the DH was established. Since it is painfully obvious that the offense no longer needs spice, and could probably do with a little rice and a chaser of tea to moderate the bite instead, the suggestion is that the DH should be dropped and baseball should go back to 'the way it should be played.'
The designated hitter has existed longer than I have. This makes it very difficult for me to make a judgement on how baseball 'should' be played. I grew up near Washington, DC, in Orioles country - a DH team - going to Orioles farm club games - also DH games. I'm a Red Sox fan - a DH team. I follow the Yankees with the wariness any hunter gives to a particularly dangerous beast. Another DH team. The NL never much had any team I particularly felt like paying attention to - so I'm hardly an expert on differing style of play.
One of the arguments most commonly used is that the DH kills baseball strategy. NL teams know how to bunt, people say. AL strategy consists entirely of swinging for the fences. AL teams don't use the double-switch. Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.
It's really evident that, yes, the DH changes the flow of the game. I'm not really certain what sort of strategy is gained or lost, especially after watching the intricacies of switching and substitution that appeared in the late innings of lineups in some of the postseason games. Not to mention the bunts, the ability to play balls into the opposite field, the stolen base attempts, the showing bunt and then swinging away. The showing bunts to draw the infield in and then inexplicably continuing to bunt most of the way through the plate appearance. (Though I suppose you can't pull a fake if you don't follow through on it sometimes, it happened rather a lot.) My point of confusion is how playing with that strategy through the entire lineup is less strategic than having more or less an automatic bunt or strikeout at the bottom of the lineup, often preceded by a walk specifically to get to that easy out. With that part of the gameplay more or less fixed into place by the circumstances of the game, it's hard for me to see that there's more strategy involved.
On the other hand, the typical AL roster seems to be more likely to have a stash of power hitters who one would pay to stay off the field, while the NL would be more likely to be sure that there's a balance of offensive and defensive ability on the bench, so there's more versatility for substitutions. Where the AL has to consciously be careful of when to pull a pitcher, the NL will occasionally be forced to that decision and pinch-hit for the pitcher in a critical situation in late innings. In the AL, the fact that the double-switch isn't necessary means that it isn't as important to be sure the spare hitters can also catch the ball. Thus, the AL gains strategy points for having to be careful of when to pull and replace pitchers, but loses it by having one-trick ponies on the bench. On the gripping hand, though, the DH allows players who can't play the field due to injury to keep in the game or work their way back from the DL - Nomar got a few games in that way, which let the fans get a glimpse of one of their favorite players, and let him keep in on the game he so clearly loves.
The fans, though, are a real question - what do the fans want to see? One of the arguments is that the fans want to see offense. Pretty home runs, racking up scores higher than the Patriots game the same day, and the like. I don't know about the average baseball fan, but I don't go to the games to see offense. Home runs are mathematically pure and quite beautiful in their own way, but they're really not that interesting from a baseball standpoint. I'd rather see, on the offensive side, the off-the-wall double, the single that beats out the infield throw to safety, the stolen base. Those are the interesting offensive plays. It's hard to get those when the bases keep getting cleared by homers. Getting a yard ball is good for the team, sure, and I won't argue with them when they happen - but they're not why I watch. (And my favorite homer to see was Troy O'Leary's second one after the second walk of Garciaparra in the ALDS. If only because it was really hilarious.)
Maybe I'm peculiar, but I love watching the defense at a baseball game. The double play is a thrill. The snagged line drive is a reason for applause. The floating fly ball that manages to get snagged just before hitting the ground is a miracle. The problem with the DH in this respect is that it puts more balls out of the park, and fewer in the gloves of the defenders, somewhat short-circuiting the entire point of having an outfield at all. The mathematical purity of a home run is a cold beauty, clear and untouchable. The sparkling glory of a line drive is made the more impressive because there is the possibility of its interception.
The baseball purist argument is that the DH is a violation of the conception of the game, and should be removed because it does not fit the way things should be done. "Babe Ruth didn't need the designated hitter," runs the arguments, "and so neither should we." A player from the past should be able to step forward and be able to follow the game without trouble. I find this argument a little slim; the rules of baseball have undergone a lot of slow evolution over time - the acceptance of new pitches as legal, the adjustments of strike/out proportions, regulations for the size of ballparks... I'd consider the slider more of a profound innovation than the designated hitter, for all that the flow of the game shifts more around the differing player than around a different pitch. The question is not whether the designated hitter should be scrapped because it is, comparatively, new, but more whether it should be discarded as a failed experiment in gameplay.
The argument that I actually consider most telling against the designated hitter is that it allows players who are no longer capable of playing in the field to continue in the game for the sole pursuit of records that require numbers of at-bats. They continue to play to rack up the nth hit, whatever number career homer, or whatever the goal in question is, sometimes denying a place in the roster to a worthy minor leaguer who deserves a shot at the bigs. I don't think that a player whose sole reason to continue playing is to rack up another hit is as worthy of the record as someone who managed to collect a similar number of hits in a regular career, while continuing to hold a place as a position player. I also don't think that it's really that reasonable to keep a collective group of players who are past their playing prime on the roster and keep other promising players down in the minors on the basis of their batting proficiency alone. The continuity of the game is at risk when rosters develop this sort of cardiac blockage as their players age, and then have a major coronary and reset to low levels when a number of players lose capability at once, and the high minors don't have people who can play to that level due to lack of major league experience.
On the other hand, the argument against getting rid of the DH that I consider most interesting is that - there are two leagues. Having there actually be a slight play difference between the leagues makes things more interesting. Sure, it's argued that NL teams can adapt to the AL style of play more readily than AL teams can do the other (depending on where the Series game is being played at the time). But seeing the different styles and the different structures in the lineup facing off against each other is sort of neat, and it gives some reason to having the two different leagues other than having someone to play at the end of October.
After careful consideration of the arguments, and contemplation of what it means for baseball, I can actually come to a clear opinion on whether the designated hitter should stay or go. That opinion is: