the politics of stepping up to the plate

02Jul07

Here is a great study for those who like to mix sport and politics, pointed to by orgtheory.net and Political Science Blog.

I did not realise that the US national sport would make it as one of our broken things, not knowing until now about the controversy surrounding the “designated hitter” rule. The rule, which has existed since 1973 in the American League, allows pitchers to be replaced when it’s time to bat by a specialist hitter. This means good pitchers have no incentive to practice batting. According to the study, there may also be more of an incentive to throw the ball to hit the batsman, because there is no risk of retribution from the other team’s pitchers.

Some take the moral hazard* implicit in this very seriously. Democrats and the young (with no memory of the pre-1973 era) are more likely to favour the rule. Republicans will take the view that it is a sign of our moral decay. The study says:-

Perhaps no other commenter has attained a higher profile in this regard than author and syndicated columnist George Will,whose two books on the subject of baseball (Will 1991, 1999) often blend commentary on baseball and politics. In the past, Will has roundly criticized the DH rule in his columns: “(T)he rule is a middle-class entitlement program… and hence is partly to blame for the federal deficit.” “

When I played ball (cricket mostly) at school — and I now see it with my children — I considered it deeply unfair if I did not get a turn to bat. How more corrupt must a society be when it turns not batting into a competitive right? I think it’s time our US friends stepped up to the plate on this one.

*By the way, the Knackered Hack has been forbidden from using this term at home for the past three years because of overuse during policy discussions of parental discipline. It’s in such arguments I now realise there would be value in the option of a “designated husband”.

Donate and help me buy back my Fender ('About' tells you why)