@DD 2024 posted:If half the MLB requires pitchers to hit, and most of them are an automatic out, wouldn't it be a significant competitive advantage for a team with a pitcher who can actually hit? And, if so, why not encourage pitchers to try?
I don't get it.
Let's leave aside the bean ball aspect, perpetually-right-around-the-corner universal DH rule, and the Syndergaards, Madbums, Greinkes of the world, who are outliers.
Pitchers in these days usually only get about 2 plate appearances per game because they rarely make it past the 6th inning. It is not nothing but two plate appearances in the 9 spot just doesn't make a huge difference.
Just as an example: Zack greinke who is an excellent hitting pitcher (. 600 ops) was worth - 3 batting runs per year. Jon Lester who is a very bad hitting pitcher (. 300 OPS) was worth -9 runs in the NL on average.
That is a 6 run difference over a season which is about 0.6 Wins.
That is not nothing but 0.6 wins over 30 starts is really not a lot and you probably would want to invest more into something else to gain those 6 runs.
Obviously teams would prefer a greinke but even getting a. 600 ops is incredibly hard in the majors and most pitchers would need a ton of work to get there and really most wouldn't get there no matter what (greinke hit over 400 with like 20 Homers in high school).
So realistically we are talking here a pitcher practicing hitting 10 hours a week to even get his ops from 300 to 450 and that is just not worth the effort as pitching is hard enough.