The designated hitter rule has been controversial for over 40 years since its introduction in the American League in 1973. Supporters argue it increases offense and protects pitchers, while critics say it removes strategy from the game. The debate pits the American League, which uses the DH, against the National League, which does not. While some see the DH as damaging baseball's integrity, others view it as a necessary adaptation that has become ingrained in the modern game. The controversy continues with no resolution in sight.

1. “Sagging Morals”
My husband and I took our granddaughter to the Pittsburgh
Zoo a couple of weeks ago. We were getting onto the elevator to
go a level down so we could leave. The elevator attendant
working that day should have been ashamed of himself. He was
in proper uniform but he was sporting his uniform pants down
under his butt cheeks and you could plainly see his underwear.
That is awful for a child to see. The young generation of today
need to respect themselves and other people by pulling up their
britches and wearing them the way they were intended to be
worn, around the waist. By wearing their pants in this fashion
they are sending out a disrespectful statement, “If y'all don't

2. like us or the way we talk or the way we act, we don't really
care.” [Williams, O.K. (2010). The Suppression of a Saggin'
Expression: Exploring the “Sagging Pants” Style Within a First
Amendment Context. Indiana Law Journal, 85(3), 1169-1196.]
Comment by ggildersleeve: Much improved.
When parents are teaching their children right from wrong
or respect, it is difficult to do so when they see other people
around them wearing saggy pants. They get the wrong
impression that it is cool and do it to fit in. Some schools are
already taking this fashion into their own hands and zip tying
the offenders pants up. Parents have also been supportive of
this. [Lee, T. (2011). Fighting the Saggy Pants Syndrome.
Essence (Time Inc.) 41(12), 88] All schools should implement
the zip tie to anyone sagging their pants, along with banning
this type of fashion into the dress code.
It is disgraceful no matter what race or gender you are to
wear your pants below your buttocks. No one wants to see
someone's underwear. It is disrespectful, rude, and uncouth not
only to the public which has to look at it but also to the young
adult who is sporting this type of fashion. The fashion
originated in the prisons as belts were not allowed due to
suicide attempts. It is even alleged that prisoner's wore their
pants in this manner to show sexual availability; our youth
should have enough pride to be above this. [Adams, E., &
Collins, T. (2010, April). Fellas, nobody wants to see your
drawers. Pull up your pants! New York Amsterdam News. p.12.]
Leaders in all communities should stand together on this
issue and some are already starting to. New York State Sen.
Eric Adams bought a billboard for his “Stop the Sag!” campaign
in 2010. The residents of Terrebonne Parish, La. Could start
getting fines for wearing their pants low enough to show their
underwear. [www.nydailynews.com] President Obama is not
even interested in seeing peoples underwear when he stated,
“Brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your
mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's
wrong with that? Come on. There are issues that we face, that

3. you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't
have some sense and respect for other people and, you know,
some people might not want to see your underwear – I'm one of
them.” [nymag.com] Comment by ggildersleeve: Good.
There should be penalties for wearing saggy pants.
Restaurants and public places need to refuse service to those
who do not have their pants pulled up properly. As the saying
goes, “No shirt, No shoes, No service.” Places of employment
need to send an employee home and write them up if they insist
on dressing in this fashion to work. All schools should ban this
type of fashion and start to zip tie the individuals pants. Law
enforcement should be able to start fining individuals caught
with their pants down. It should be considered disorderly
conduct and indecent exposure.
Taking a stand against the saggy pants fashion is
considered violating the individuals right, the right to free
speech and free expression. This is correct and I will agree with
this, but if we let this go, how much farther will people take it?
There has to be a line somewhere. Where do we draw it? When
do we draw it? There are claims that by cracking down on this
type of fashion we are singling out poor African-American
males. That is far from the truth. Sagging pants are seen in all
communities from lower class to upper class, from females to
males and among all races. Comment by ggildersleeve: Give
an example of this.
“It's not about individual rights; it's about values,” as said
by Del. Algie Howell Jr. [Balko, R. (2002). Pants Police.
Reason, 39(8), 10-11.] The young generation need to start
respecting themselves by showing that they care. They are
sending out the wrong message contrary to what they think and
believe. They stand out in a crowd and tag themselves as thugs,
when actually they could be very decent, caring and polite
individuals. This fashion shows a lack of respect for other
people by letting their rumps hang out. Really, no one wants to
see their underwear. When did the morals that was once taught
to children just fly out the window? When and why did the

4. youth of today forget how to respect their elders? It is obvious
that the youth of today stopped caring for themselves and
everyone else around them. Does that mean we should stop
caring? Does that mean we should continue to let them do as
they please? Morals and respecting others need to be a major
role in everyone's life. Comment by ggildersleeve: Excellent
conclusion.
References
Adams, E., & Collins, T. (2010, April). Fellas, nobody wants to
see your drawers. Pull up your pants!
New York Amsterdam News. p.12.
Balko, R. (2008). Pants Police. Reason, 39(8), 10-11.
Lee, T. (2011). Fighting the Saggy Pants Syndrome. Essence
(Time Inc.) 41(12), 88
Williams, O. K. (2010). The Suppression of a Saggin'

5. Expression: Exploring the “Saggy Pants” Style
Within a First Amendment Context. Indiana Law Journal,
85(3), 1169-1196.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/louisiana-town-
bans-sagging-pants-article-1.1315857
http://nymag.com/thecut/2008/11/barack_obama_is_against_sag
gy.html
This is an excellent revision and a sheer delight to read.
The tone is assertive and passionate, but you also give good
reasons not to wear saggy pants. You support this with quotes
from credible sources, including President Obama.
The paragraph that begins “Leaders in all communities” is
an excellent addition, and the conclusion does a wonderful job
of reasserting your thesis and asking questions to make the
reader think. Likewise, your introduction is much better
developed. I love how you began with a personal anecdote as a
way of easing the reader into the topic.
A few things to work on: Good effort on in-text citations,
but they should not be so long. A citation typically includes the
author’s last name, year, and page or paragraph number. Save
the rest for the References page. Use parenthesis, not brackets.
Your assertion that sagging pants can be seen in all
communities is good, but support this with examples from your
research.
Two of your sources are listed by URL only on the
References page.
Overall, an outstanding revision.
Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Meets or exceeds established assignment criteria.
A Well-defined, Controversial Issue

6. 5
Clear, arguable Thesis Statement
10
Two convincing reasons 10
Three credible sources 10
900 – 1200 words in length 5
40
Demonstrates an understanding of lesson concepts.
Counterargument addressed, conceded
or refuted
9/10
Outside sources cited and documented
8/10
17/20
Clearly presents well-reasoned ideas and concepts.
Examples, statistics, quotations, or other
supporting points
15
Organization is clear and easy to follow
10
3rd Person Voice where applicable
5
30
Use of proper mechanics, punctuation, sentence structure, and
spelling.
10
Total
97/100
Running Head: THE DESIGNATED HITTER, 40 YEARS OF
CONTROVERSY 1

7. THE DESIGNATED HITTER, 40 YEARS OF CONTROVERSY.
7
The Designated Hitter, 40 Years of Controversy
Student
The designated hitter, the DH, the extra hitter, has been an on-
going controversy for over 40 years. Not many things in the
world of Major League Baseball have been contested so
passionately, not even the 1919 Chicago White Sox who
intentionally lost the World Series, better known as the Black
Sox scandal. Professional baseball has a long and storied
history with volumes of books, stories and articles written on
the subject. In the movie Bull Durham, our hero, Crash Davis,
played by Kevin Costner, gives a lengthy rant, but in the
middle, takes a jab at the designated hitter, “…I believe there

8. ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and
the designated hitter…” (Shelton, 1988)
In 1972, attendance, poor run production (offense), and the
waning popularity of baseball over football put the owners of
teams in a situation to rethink their strategies. They needed to
come up with a way to put fans in the seats. Enter Oakland A’s
owner, Charlie Finley. Ever the visionary, he proposed to
remove the pitcher from the batting order because historically,
pitchers are not good hitters. He proposed that in the pitcher’s
place there should be a hitter that can produce results, a tenth
man. (Gasper, 2013) In December 1972, at Major League
Baseball’s winter meetings, Mr. Finley was able to convince a
majority vote of 8-4 to use a designated hitter in a “three year
experiment” in the 1973 baseball season. (Simpson, 2012;
Schlossberg, 2013) Thus was born, rule 6.10(b) (1) which
reads:
A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all
subsequent pitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the
status of the pitcher(s) in the game. A Designated Hitter for the
pitcher, if any, must be selected prior to the game and must be
included in the lineup cards presented to the Umpire-in-Chief.
If a manager lists 10 players in his team’s lineup card, but fails
to indicate one as a Designated Hitter, and an umpire or either
manager (or designee of either manager who presents his team’s
lineup card) notices the error before the Umpire-in-Chief calls
“Play” to start the game, the Umpire-in-Chief shall direct the
manager who had made the omission to designate which of the
nine players, other than the pitcher, will be the Designated
Hitter. (Major League Baseball, 2013, p.57-58)
April 6, 1973, New York Yankee, Ron Blomberg, stepped into
the batter’s box and made history as the first designated hitter.
He faced Luis Tiant, pitcher of the Boston Red Sox and drew a
bases loaded walk also earning him the distinction of the first
designated hitter with a run batted in. (Schlossberg, 2013;
Gasper, 2013) The “three year experiment” has now found a 40
year home in the American League with no end in sight.

9. In Baumann’s (2013) article, “An Emotional Diatribe against
the Designated Hitter in the National League”, he explains his
disgust for the designated hitter. It is quite emotional to him as
he is a National League fan. Baumann (2013) explains that the
American and National League as a “house divided”, citing an
excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s famous debate with Stephen A.
Douglas in 1858. He even goes onto compare the difference of
the designated hitter to reading a book (National League) and
then watching the movie (American League). Baumann (2013)
states, “… you get more details and nuance… sometimes it
drags… though sometimes having the storyline visualized…
takes the fun out of it.” Baumann (2013) boasts all the reasons
the National League and baseball in general should not have a
designated hitter, but provides a shred of validity to using one
by going into how it saves a pitcher from injuries while batting.
Baumann (2013) goes onto compare pitchers to place kickers in
football, citing they are, “specialists whose skills in one area
excuse them from being required to participate in other aspects
of the game.” Baumann (2013) finally concludes his tirade by
saying he “hates” the designated hitter and that it “…represents
everything that is wrong with baseball…”
In comparison, Jake Simpson, a sports columnist for The
Atlantic, sees the designated hitter as a must for both leagues.
Simpson, unlike Baumann, does not get caught up in rhetoric
when explaining the need for the designated hitter. He
introduces a plan for the need and then explains why it is
necessary. In his article, “Why Every Team in Baseball Should
Use the Designated Hitter”, Simpson (2012) explains that, with
the realignment of leagues, interleague play will occur
throughout the season instead of how was in the past when they
would meet for a few weeks in the middle of the summer.
Simpson (2012) asserts, “…bring the NL into the 21st century,
put the DH in both leagues and let pitchers go back to spitting
sunflower seeds on the bench when their team is up to bat.”
Simpson (2012) declares that the designated hitter in both
leagues will give aging hitters an opportunity in both leagues, a

10. chance to further their careers.
An interesting column in The Daily Illini pits two student sports
writers against one another in a point-counterpoint argument.
In the article, not in favor of the designated hitter, there is
sophomore Alex Roux. Roux (2013) calls into question that the
designated hitter provides the American League a “competitive
advantage” over the National League. Roux (2013) argues that
the designated hitter affords the American League the luxury of
claiming “high value players” like Albert Pujols from the
National League and locking them into lengthy contracts that
for all intents and purposes prohibit the player from ever going
back to the National League.
In the counterpoint argument from junior sports columnist Sam
Sherman (2013) declares that:
Baseball is one of the most unique sports that it is in between
two leagues. There is one rule that is different, however. It
provides each league its own personality, so to speak, and when
teams from different leagues do play each other, it forces
managers and players to adapt to a different style of play.
Sherman lends his view as more of a baseball enthusiast rather
than a purist like Roux. Sherman (2013) states that when
pitchers come to the plate in the National League, it is a safe
bet to assume they are either going to sacrifice bunt or strike
out. Finally, Sherman (2013) argues that the home run is
typically one of the most exciting plays in baseball.
In the last line of Bull Durham, our heroine, Annie Savoy
says, “Walt Whitman once said, ‘I see great things in baseball.
It’s our game, the American game. It will repair our losses and
be a blessing to us.’ You could look it up.” (Shelton, 1988)
Like so many other things in this great game of baseball, there
is dispute as to whether Whitman actually wrote this passage or
not, but in the end, it is our game. When those glorious boys of
summer suit up and take the field, all feels right in the world.
Like it or hate it, the designated hitter is here to stay. Home
runs are an exciting part of the game, and it is fun to see a
slugger step up to the plate and hit a fastball 450 feet over the

11. fence, off of the opposing pitcher. The fans want to see the
home run, they want offense and that is what puts fans in the
seats. Although the designated hitter is a 40 year old
controversial concept, it is still a large part of America’s past
time. No one playing the game today knows anything except
the designated hitter rule. The pitcher is a specialist in his craft
and is well suited for that position. Besides, who wants to see a
pitcher hit?
References
Baumann, M. (2012, March 14). Crashburn Alley – An
Emotional Diatribe Against the Designated Hitter in the
National League. Retrieved from
http://crashburnalley.com/2012/03/14/an-emotional-diatribe-
against-the-designated-hitter-in-the-national-league/
Campbell, D. (2013, July 19). Designated hitter debate still
alive after 40 years - Spokesman.com - July 19, 2013. Retrieved
from
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jul/19/designated-
hitter-debate-still-alive-after-40/
Did Shoeless Joe Jackson conspire to throw the 1919 World
Series? — Ask HISTORY — History Q&A. (2013, February
20). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/news/ask-
history/did-shoeless-joe-jackson-conspire-to-throw-the-1919-
world-series
Gasper, C. L. (2013, April 8). After 40 years, it’s time for the
designated hitter to bat in both the American League and
National Leagues - Sports - The Boston Globe. Retrieved from

12. http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/04/07/after-years-
time-for-designated-hitter-bat-both-american-league-and-
national-leagues/v1htSlseLHLLPZALOPpTLP/story.html
Major League Baseball (2013). Retrieved February 25, 2014,
from
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2013/official_baseball_rule
s.pdf
Roux, A. (2013, July 20). Designated hitters give competitive
advantage; rule should be eliminated to unify leagues - The
Daily Illini : Columns. Retrieved from
http://www.dailyillini.com/sports/columns/article_2bc30370-
b121-11e2-b94b-0019bb30f31a.html
Schlossberg, D. (2013, April 10). First designated hitter Ron
Blomberg proud to be father of position. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2013/04/10/ron-
blomberg-first-designated-hitter/2070687/
Shelton, R. (Director). (1988). Bull Durham [Motion picture].
USA: Orion.
Sherman, S. (2013, July 18). Designated hitters are a crucial
part of America's favorite pastime - The Daily Illini : Columns.
Retrieved from
http://www.dailyillini.com/sports/columns/article_cb2e800c-
b120-11e2-b3f2-0019bb30f31a.html
Simpson, J. (2012, June 25). Why Every Team in Baseball
Should Use Designated Hitters - Jake Simpson - The Atlantic.
Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/06/why-
every-team-in-baseball-should-use-designated-hitters/258938/