I consider myself a traditionalist in most areas of baseball but I'm also a realist and pitchers hitting just makes no sense these days. Even good hitters struggle to hit when they don't get to do it on a regular basis, asking a pitcher to hit at the major league level just makes no sense and making the two leagues different is really bad for baseball. The adoption of the Designated Hitter by Minor League Baseball, NCAA, and NFHS didn't happen until after the American League invented it. But what if MLB got rid of the DH? Minor League Baseball would follow suit, and I would expect that the same thing would happen in the lower leagues. One reason why pitchers can't hit is not only lack of opportunities in the majors, starters hitting 1 game out of 5; specialist relievers almost never hitting. But there's also the fact that many haven't hit since their entry into professional or college baseball. Take a pitcher who was drafted by an American League team, played in that system, and then was traded to a National League team: he may not have picked up a bat since his senior year in high school. Uniformity could be achieved either way---DH or no DH---throughout organized baseball; certainly so in the majors and affiliated minor leagues. Unfortunately, the reality with owners and the MLBPA is that killing the DH in the majors is very unlikely. Nate82's original post is much more likely to be true. My preference is for pitchers to bat. But I also support either full interleague play or none and wouldn't have a fit if MLB went to an Eastern Conference/Western Conference set up. So I don't know if that makes me a traditionalist or not.