News item: Masahiro Tanaka isn't pitching for the Yankees tonight in a pennant race because he was injured last Friday breaking out of the batter's box, following a bunt against the Mets.

And so it goes.

Another pitcher injured while hitting.

But by all means, let's continue the farce. Because who needs Tanaka in a pennant race anyway? Same in 2008 for Chien-Ming Wang, whose career essentially ended because of a foot injury running the bases. And Adam Wainwright, who tore his Achilles' in late April while batting in Milwaukee. Max Scherzer, also injured while hitting, missed a start for the Nats earlier this year.

When do you suppose the poohbahs of baseball will have their first earnest discussion about this? Hell, I'd like to have an earnest discussion about this myself. All I seem to get is rhetoric from people stuck in 1950, vomiting clichés, practicing the art of debate perfected by Patriot fans: We're right because we say it louder.

That's baseball the way it oughta be! Pitchers have always hit! It's "real" baseball! So much more strategy! Blah, blah, blah. They're inevitably followed by the irrelevant hypothetical. You know: Tanaka could have hurt himself cutting up a kumquat, too.

True. And Superman could have been a Nazi. Except that he wasn't.

Tanaka hurt himself —  same as Wang, Wainwright and Scherzer — because they were in an unfamiliar position that's not part of the job description. By definition, pitchers pitch, hitters hit, announcers announce and managers manage.

You pay to watch Tanaka pitch, not hit.

You pay to watch David Ortiz hit, not pitch.

You pay to watch Tom Brady throw a football, not play inside linebacker.

Capeesh?

I don't get the owners' reticence either. All you need to know about sports now is this: If it makes money, it's a good idea. If it doesn't make money, it's a bad idea. So why ask players to do things at which they do not excel? How does that improve the bottom line? And isn't a double from A-Rod more exciting than a double switch from Joe Girardi?

Then there's this: Potentially imperiling a pitcher's season by making him hit can render a pennant race irrelevant in a hurry. Lest we forget what it does to the investment. The investment that's made in the pitcher's arm, not ability to keep his front shoulder closed.

Besides, what dispassionate, anti-agenda evidence exists to suggest pitchers hitting is a good idea anymore? Few hit above .200. Nothing good can happen when your ace is trying to go first to third on a single and diving into third base with his pitching hand exposed.

But then, Bob Gibson pitched 400 complete games and hit too! He walked to the ballpark! Uphill! And fended off potential muggers with his trusty Louisville Slugger! The good ol' days! Life was better! These guys are soft!

Funny thing, though, about life. Circumstances change. And the refusal to accommodate new evidence makes you too obtuse to carry on a meaningful conversation.

Maybe we can leave it here: American League rules ought to apply to American League teams in every ballpark, including Interleague play. American League pitchers are at a competitive disadvantage when they are asked to hit because they are not asked to hit regularly. They are in danger of hurting themselves. And of far more relevance to owners: You lose your horse, you lose games, you lose playoff revenues. That old thing. And does anything else now drive home a point better than a kick in the wallet?

Once again: Find me the evidence that says pitchers need to hit. All I find is blathering. Maybe everything was better in the good ol' days. Except that they're gone. Multi-million dollar investments are made in pitchers now. Long-term deals. And we're going to imperil the most important players on the team because nobody has the guts to challenge a rule that should have been changed long ago?

Enough.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro. Twitter: @BCgenius