EG>  AJ> Paul Molitor has said many times that without the DH he wouldn't be
EG>  AJ> playing baseball anymore.
EG> 
EG> So, Paul Molitor doesn't think he could do it but he probably
EG> could. I'm sure his biggest concerns would be injury and not how he
EG> would measure up to the rest of the players in the NL. 
Sure he's concerned about injury.  And given his history, he'd be out
of baseball.  And he wouldn't be the only player who is currently a DH
but couldn't survive in the NL.  It doesn't matter why he wouldn't be
playing, the point is he wouldn't be playing.
EG>  AJ> In the NL, you put your best 9 on the field.  In the AL, you put 
our
EG>  AJ> best 10.  How can that not be an advantage?
EG> 
EG> Baloney. The NL puts players at first, right and left field that
EG> would be DH material in the AL. 
You sure seem to think a lot of the defensive ability of the DH.  It's
amazing not a single manager in the AL agrees with you.  Not one of
them thinks a DH worthy of starting in a defensive position.  I wonder
who's right?
EG>  AJ>   If the DH were a better defensive player than one of the starters,
EG>  AJ> wouldn't he be on the field?
EG> 
EG> If there was NO DH in the AL, you bet your butt he would be. He'd
EG> be playing first, right or left field just like other Bozos in the
EG> NL. 
No, he'd be out of baseball.  If he could play a defensive position,
he'd be there already.  And if he were capable fo playing in the NL,
he'd be there.
EG>  AJ> don't think so.  If you move the DH to 1st, in most cases you weaken
EG>  AJ> the defensive strength of the team.
EG> 
EG> Puhleeze. The NL has been doing it for years.
EG> 
Given that the NL is defensively stronger than the AL, that's weird
reasoning.
EG> For you. NL pitchers accounted for 55.6% of all sacrifice hits. NO
EG> OTHER POSITION IN BASEBALL accounted for that high of a percentage
EG> of ANY offensive stat.
So?  That still doesn't tell me how often pitchers actually hit rather
than bunt.  It does happen. Sure they bunt a lot.  Sure NL managers
order them to bunt.  Sure they don't have as many at bats as other
players and so are not as likely to be as good.  But pitchers can hit. 
There's no rule against it.  And occasionally some are pretty good - do
I really have to mention Ruth?  At least in the NL there is proof the
managers are watching the game.  Most AL managers seem to go to sleep
once the game starts.
EG> NL pundits try to bring up the
EG> double-switch but that's merely a ploy to hide the pitcher away
EG> from the opposing team and is a bare-faced admission that NL
EG> managers don't believe in their pitcher's ability to get a hit when
EG> it counts. That's not strategy, it's punting on 4th down and goes
EG> under the category of rote. 
How often have you seen an AL manager bring in a lefthanded pitcher to
face a lefty hitter?  That, too, is like punting on 4th down.  NL
managers play the percentages, the same as AL managers.  But that
pitcher will have an at bat a few times during the game and he never
will in the AL.  Obviously, the NL thinks more of the batting prowess
of its pitchers than the AL does.
---
---------------