How to lose the DH in a game
Some readers have been confused a Hargrove post-game comment that if they hadn’t scored the winning run, he’d have lost the DH if they’d pinch-hit for Betancourt.
This is not the result of pinch-running for Everett with Bloomquist. Bloomquist then becomes the new DH. No harm done. This is in the rules (it’s rule 6.10):
A runner may be substituted for the Designated Hitter and the runner assumes the role of Designated Hitter.
The you do lose the DH if the DH moves to the field.
Once a Designated Hitter assumes a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game.
Side wacky note: Once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game.
Presumably — and I’m not sure what Hargrove’s strategy would have been, but he wasn’t required to do anything — would to have move Bloomquist to short, and as Bloomquist had pinch-run for the DH, forfeit the DH.
However, some people who’ve emailed seem to believe Hargrove’s comment was “if the game had gone on, I’d have lost the DH”. That’s not the case, if that’s what he said — something else would have had to have happened.
Comments
44 Responses to “How to lose the DH in a game”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think Hargrove said that he did not pinch-hit for Betancourt because than he would have had to put Bloomquist at short thereby forfeiting the DH. That statement is burried somewhere in the game thread.
It’s not often a team loses the DH during a game. Boston did it a few times last year (when they were using Mirabelli as DH), but it could be that Grover just hasn’t come across the rule very often.
I seem to remember Hargrove loosing the DH when he managed in Cleveland.
And google is my friend:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_32_223/ai_55450229
I would hope he understands the rule after that.
There’s the relevant comment.
http://ussmariner.com/2006/04/24/game-21-white-sox-at-mariners/#comment-99523
Side wacky note: Once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game.
Does this imply that if Soriano pinch hits for Betancourt then Everett at that point is the implied short stop? Very odd.
I think he just wanted to get the pitcher an at-bat. Because, you know, Hargrove likes to use his whole bench regularly.
Didn’t either Mike Morgan or Mike Moore have to take an at bat in the Kingdome way back when due to the M’s losing the DH. I remember reading the boxscore as a kid and thinking that it was wierd.
Even though the M’s would have had Willie DHing had the game gone on, which is really the same as losing the DH, Grover did use Willie correctly by putting him in a situation where he could succeed and help the team.
If Hargrove had hit for Betancourt, he would have needed Willie to play short (assuming they didn’t score). Since Willie became the DH when he ran for Everett, the DH takes the field and is lost. the Pitcher has to bat in Betancourt’s spot.
This is more evidence that the twelve man bullpen is insane, of course. Bloomquist is the only reserve that Hargrove is willing to use at 2b, 3b, Short and Center. Thus he can only pinch hit/run for exactly ONE of those guys in any one game. Arrgh!
Side wacky note: Once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game.
Actually this rule makes completed sense. If a pitcher hits for Betancourt and then goes out to pitch you would have a DH position in the lineup as well as a P position in the lineup. The DH position would have to become the SS position and the DH position would be lost.
#5
Assuming no double switch right away, Soriano goes in at short for Betancourt. Once the next half inning comes around, when you move Soriano to the mound, you need to use the DH spot to fill in the opening at short (either Everett, god forbid, or someone else) so you have lost the DH.
yeah, what #9 said.
Even though the M’s would have had Willie DHing had the game gone on, which is really the same as losing the DH
I’d have to check, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Willie’s the better hitter against lefties.
Brian Holman in the 8th inning of his almost-perfect game in Oakland?
Hm, I know recall in the bye-bye Edgar Game back in 04, they put him at 3rd for one pitch and thereby lost the DH. Did not matter as the pitcher didn’t come to bat and the game was pretty much over with at that time anyways. If I recall correctly, Dan Wilson told the batter not to swing at that one pitch, Edgar was afraid that he’d have to field a ball at 3rd which he didn’t feel up to any more.
Here’s the Boxscore and Play-by-play: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B10020SEA2004.htm
I’m actually not sure why WFB couldn’t have come in to pitch. He does everything else so remarkably well, this would only add to his versitility.
The Angels do it a lot, especially last year when Figgins DH’d a lot.
We actually did it once last year, IIRC, when Morse made his first appearance in left field. I’ll check.
#15 – “Grit” is appreciated in bench players; “Guts” is appreciated in your bullpen.
I’m afraid WFB simply is described with the wrong adjective for a pitcher.
Yeah, we did. Here
I remember that Earl Weaver used to use a starting pitcher who was on an off-day as the starting DH. When the DH spot came up in the lineup he would then lift the “pitcher” and PH with a player from the bench who was appropriate for the hitting situation he was faced with. MLB quickly put a rule in to prevent teams from doing this.
There’s no rule to prevent that, now. There’s no reason why our starting lineup couldn’t list Jamie Moyer as DH, but then we PH for him the first time he comes up and make that new guy the DH.
21 – That’s not correct. From the above rule 6.10. I clearly remember this went in because of Earl Weaver:
A Designated Hitter for the pitcher must be selected prior to the game and must be included in the lineup cards presented to the Umpire in Chief. The designated hitter named in the starting lineup must come to bat at least one time, unless the opposing club changes pitchers. It is not mandatory that a club designate a hitter for the pitcher, but failure to do so prior to the game precludes the use of a Designated Hitter for that game.
It’s not so bad to lose your DH, the national league somehow manages…
You’re right.
I don’t like that rule. It seems contrived.
I also don’t like that the DH has to bat for the pitcher. Why can’t the DH bat for any position player of my choosing?
Weaver had Steve Stone as DH in the starting lineup.
It’s not so bad to lose your DH, the national league somehow manages…
Except that both teams play that way. There’s certainly a relative advantage if one team has a DH and one doesn’t. But in my mind you have to play to win. If they wind up with the pitcher in the 8th spot it doesn’t come into play until the 13th or 14th anyway. And by that time the Mariners’ problem is that they have Woods or Livingston (in his major league debut) pitching not that you have to pinch hit for the pitcher. Thankfully for us, it worked out OK.
25 – Thank you. I was trying to figure that out. For some reason I thought it was Storm Davis.
I think it was silly to be too concerned about losing the DH last night, though YB has been hitting well enough lately that letting him swing did not bother me a lot in itself. However, let’s look at where they would have stood had they PH for YB with RP:
First, the game might have ended in that half inning anyway. Next, the game might have ended before the pitcher’s spot came up, which probably wouldn’t have been for 2-3 innings. Last, if the P spot HAD come up to hit, MH could have PH with Lawton or (gasp)Jojhima (be still the hearts of those who can’t stand to burn their second catcher). And they’d still have the other bench guy to PH, unless they used him elsewhere, which wasn’t very likely. You just don’t plan for 18 inning games.
I think the Conventional Wisdom on late/extra-inning substitutes is out of whack. Managers seem to readily pinch run for a big bopper with mediocre speed, risking the possibility that he might miss an AB. But they are much more wary of losing the DH spot, or giving up their backup catcher.
I’d love to see the historical probablility that the DH spot would have batted once more, and also twice more, in this specific type of situation. Statheads?
28 – Agreed. There were plenty of times where Lou would pinch run for Edgar or Olerud leaving us with Ugeto or Bloomquist up to bat later in the middle of the lineup later in the game when we really needed a big bat. It was extremely frustrating.
I also was not upset to see YuBet hitting (though I wih Petagine would get many more ABs). We are still a young, progressing team. Though its nice to win as many as possible, I think there is something to be said for showing faith in our young players even if it costs us a game or two this season (conversely, there is nothign to be said for showing faith in your Carl Everetts). Though “clutch” isn’t something to be learned, and probably not repeated, I don’t like seeing YuBet getting in every single tight situation. Show some confidence, let him feel what it is like to bat with such pressure, and see what he can do – at least some of the time. (With Bigotsaurus, we know what he can do, and it ain’t pretty, game winning home run against Texas notwithstanding)
Wow, terribly typing. Sorry. “getting PULLED in every single…” And I with the learned and repeated stuff, I intended to compare it to letting Reed bat against lefties.
I’d think Hargrove probably understands the rule about how you lose the DH….it’s not that complicated. The more interesting question is whether that was really a concern in his choice to bat Yubet rather than Petagine. It all worked out well, but losing the DH probably shouldn’t have been in Hargrove’s mind. Since the pitcher would’ve taken Yubet’s line-up spot when Willie moved to short, the pitcher wouldn’t have come to bat in the 12th. Hargrove would’ve been able to stay with Mateo in the 12 and the 13th (if he was so lucky). When the pitcher did come around to hit, likely in the 13th, he still had Lawton (LH hitter) and Johjima (RH hitter) available to pitch hit, and he still had Livingston and Woods available in the pen. In other words, losing of the DH shouldn’t have been a concern because Hargrove had lots of flexibility to avoid the pitcher hitting unless the game went another 4 or 5 innings.
The real issue Hargrove faced was whether to let Yubet, a right hand hitter, bat against McCarthy, a strong right hand pitcher, or counter with Petagine, a left hand hitter, and see how the Sox responded. If the Sox did not change pitchers, presumably you’d prefer to have Petagine bat against McCarthy over Yubet. If the Sox did change pitchers, it appears they had Matt Thornton (remember him?) and Boone Logan available as left-handers. I don’t know Logan, but he appears to be a rookie. Now, I’d say statistically, one would rather have Petagine hitting against any of the three options: McCarthy, Thornton or Logan, rather than Yubet against McCarthy. Thus, assuming you felt that you needed to end the game right there, I would’ve brought in Petagine. However, I think Hargrove made the right move for the wrong reason.
When Yubet came up, there were two outs. Thus, with either Petagine or Yubet you might have gotten the hit you wanted, but there was a 2/3rds chance that neither Petagine or Yubet would get a hit, and you’d move on to the 12th. For that reason, I would’ve been inclined to stick with Yubet, primarily because I’d rather have his glove at SS for an extra inning game rather than Willie. I also could’ve convinced myself I really wasn’t giving up too much batting Yubet over Petagine because Yubet does usually put the ball in play, has been hitting well, and a single was all that was needed.
In summary, I think Hargrove made the right decision, but what he said afterwards about the DH makes me wonder about his thought process, and whether any sophisticated or even very relevant analysis went into his decision.
Here’s the entire equation (which Hargrove solved correctly):
(YuBet hitting + YuBet fielding + PH for Willie 5 spots down the order) > (Petagine hitting + Willie fielding + no sub for Willie 5 spots down the order)
Actually, that’s an inequality, not an equation, but you get the picture.
Brian Holman had to bat during his near no-hitter in 1990..I remember that. Lefebrve moved the DH to the field, Alvin Davis i think.
I disagree with the no harm done part. The reason is right there in the preceeding sentence of your explanation.
Sorry, my previous comment was supposed to cite this, before I put in my two cents:
This is not the result of pinch-running for Everett with Bloomquist. Bloomquist then becomes the new DH. No harm done.
what [Hargrove] said afterwards about the DH makes me wonder about his thought process, and whether any sophisticated or even very relevant analysis went into his decision.
Uh, you realize we’re talking about Mike Hargrove here?
Yeah, really.
Hargrove: I’m thinking of pinch-hitting for Yuni.
Bench coach: Don’t, you’ll lose the DH.
Hargrove: I guess I let him hit then.
Lopez: Hey, but if you have to move Bloomquist to short, that’s not so bad, because that spot in the order won’t be up for another couple innings, and it’s likely the game’s over by that point.
Moyer: That’s true. Plus you’ve still got other pinch-hitting options if it does come down the pitcher’s spot again in an important situation.
(pause)
Hargrove: Errrrrrr.
(pause)
Hargrove: Hey, he got a hit.
LOL, Derek.
But it may not be far from the actial conversation.
Someone needs to ask Moyer if that conversation took place, because it wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Moyer won’t tell us until after Hargrove is fired, of course, but that shouldn’t be too long.
#2: I watched a lot of Red Sox games last year. Retrosheet lists only 5 games where Mirabelli was the DH in 2005, and I don’t remember Boston ever losing the DH. Certainly Francona was willing to take that risk against starting pitchers that Ortiz didn’t hit well, and I remember a game against the Tigers where Mirabelli paid off the bet by hitting a grand slam.
After that game, Francona said it wasn’t a good idea to focus on the bad things that might happen (pitcher has to bat if Varitek gets hurt) and ignore the good.
A bigger risk Francona would take was PH-ing Ortiz for Mirabelli after the starter was gone. If Varitek got hurt after that, then his only other catcher would not be available to take over.
Mirabelli put up a .364/.462/.636 as DH in 2005, so it looks to me like Francona picked his spots pretty well. Francona has his flaws, but he strikes me as one of the sharper managers in the AL.
#2, #41: Oops, I guess I repressed a game. This 15-2 blowout was a game where Francona rested Varitek when the Red Sox were down by 14 runs going into the 8th inning. The DH came into the game to catch at that point.
I stand corrected, and I wish I was better at navigating retrosheet.
I actually thought it happened more than once, so I stand corrected.
Mirabelli has a pretty big platoon split. DHing him against lefties made a lot of sense. But Ortix PH for him when a righty came in because Mirabelli just isn’t that good a hitter against righties.
Which is why I put him on my HACKING MASS team as soon as he got a starting job (I figured Kendall would either improve or get benched).
Funny, that actually did come up in nearly-perfect game by Brian Holman way back in the day. Holman had to bat late in the game because of some double-switchery involving the DH. From what I understood, though, he only had to bat once, and could then be replaced in the batting order by the new player.