KowboyKoop 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Actually I'd say the NL has a disadvantage at the AL stadiums because AL teams are built to have very good hitters as their DH.NL teams play all their best hitter, so they're typically gaining one of their worst hitters, while AL teams are gaining one of their best.I am saying that the NL has an advantage overall. In NL stadiums, they have a bigger advantage than the advantage that AL teams have in AL stadiums. Yes, AL teams have the advantage in AL stadiums for the reasons you said mostly, but in NL stadiums...the disadvantage that the AL team has in making one of its pitchers who hasn't hit all year hit in place of their regular DH is far heavier than the advantage of an AL team having a strong DH while the NL has a little weaker DH in AL stadiums. Link to post Share on other sites
wsox8 10 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 First of all I like the wild card. It leads for more competition and baseball games, which I love. You can never have too much baseball... Also, Bud Selig is/will be smart if he decides to suspend Barry "steroid" Bonds... Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Actually I'd say the NL has a disadvantage at the AL stadiums because AL teams are built to have very good hitters as their DH.NL teams play all their best hitter, so they're typically gaining one of their worst hitters, while AL teams are gaining one of their best.I am saying that the NL has an advantage overall. In NL stadiums, they have a bigger advantage than the advantage that AL teams have in AL stadiums. Yes, AL teams have the advantage in AL stadiums for the reasons you said mostly, but in NL stadiums...the disadvantage that the AL team has in making one of its pitchers who hasn't hit all year hit in place of their regular DH is far heavier than the advantage of an AL team having a strong DH while the NL has a little weaker DH in AL stadiums.Add to that the fact that AL managers in NL stadiums have to use a manuever they never have to in the AL... the double switch. You'd be suprised how many AL managers are totally incompetent to this facet of the game. Huge advantage to the NL. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 It makes sense. The current system probably is better for more fans, the fans that only watch baseball when their team is winning. And I love playoff baseball, so it's not like I don't like those extra rounds (although the first round needs to be 7 games too). Personally, however, I follow all teams in baseball and I can get into a pennant race with two east coast teams even though I have no rooting interest in them. I think with two divisions in each league, a 2nd place team can't really complain that they deserved to win over the winner of the other 8-team division. Having an unbalanced schedule with three divisions in each league and interleague play (which I also dislike) creates too much of a disparity in strength of schedule. The Padres played the Mariners as their interleague "natural" rival while the Dodgers faced the Angels and the Giants got the A's. This gives the Padres a built-in advantage.If we're going to have a wild card, I'd rather have two wild cards in each league and two division winners in each league.Hobbes, having two divisions in each league doesn't guarantee that one division won't have a mediocre champion.For example, in 1990, the Red Sox won the AL East with a .543. Meanwhile, the White Sox stayed at home while posting a .580.In 1989, the Blue Jays posted a .549 and won the AL East, while the Royals (.568) and Angels (.562) weren't in the playoffs.In 1988, the Red Sox won (.549) and the Twins (.562) stayed home.In 1987, the Twins (.525) won the AL West, while the Blue Jays (.593), Brewers (.562), and Yankees (.549) all missed the playoffs. The Giants (.556) won the NL West, while the Mets (.568) and Expos (.562) missed out.In 1984, the Royals (.519) won the AL West, while the Blue Jays (.549), Yankees (.537), Red Sox (.531), and Orioles (.525) all missed.It goes on like this since the beginning of divisional play. Almost every year (or at least every other year), the second best team in each league misses the playoffs. That system actually diluted the quality of teams in the playoffs.Now let's take a look at three-division play...1995 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams1996 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams (Expos-Cards tie for 4th)1997 Top 4 AL teams, Top 3 NL teams1998 Top 4 AL teams (Blue Jays-Rangers tie for 4th), Top 4 NL teams1999 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2000 Top 3 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2001 Top 4 AL teams, Top 3 NL teams2002 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2003 Top 3 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2004 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2005 Top 4 AL teams, Top 3 NL teamsMostly the difference comes down to 4th place teams in the league getting bumped out of the playoffs by 5th place teams...which is much better than the previous system that had 2nd place teams getting bumped out by a 6th place teams. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 you pinned it on yourself you no talent a$s clown.by making a joke about Canada...im not serious, just being funnyand way to steal a line from Office Space, i guess you couldnt think of your own huh Link to post Share on other sites
leebs12 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 yo i thought it was fitting for a douche bag like yourself Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes 1 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Hobbes, having two divisions in each league doesn't guarantee that one division won't have a mediocre champion.For example, in 1990, the Red Sox won the AL East with a .543. Meanwhile, the White Sox stayed at home while posting a .580.In 1989, the Blue Jays posted a .549 and won the AL East, while the Royals (.568) and Angels (.562) weren't in the playoffs.In 1988, the Red Sox won (.549) and the Twins (.562) stayed home.In 1987, the Twins (.525) won the AL West, while the Blue Jays (.593), Brewers (.562), and Yankees (.549) all missed the playoffs. The Giants (.556) won the NL West, while the Mets (.568) and Expos (.562) missed out.In 1984, the Royals (.519) won the AL West, while the Blue Jays (.549), Yankees (.537), Red Sox (.531), and Orioles (.525) all missed.It goes on like this since the beginning of divisional play. Almost every year (or at least every other year), the second best team in each league misses the playoffs. That system actually diluted the quality of teams in the playoffs.Now let's take a look at three-division play...1995 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams1996 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams (Expos-Cards tie for 4th)1997 Top 4 AL teams, Top 3 NL teams1998 Top 4 AL teams (Blue Jays-Rangers tie for 4th), Top 4 NL teams1999 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2000 Top 3 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2001 Top 4 AL teams, Top 3 NL teams2002 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2003 Top 3 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2004 Top 4 AL teams, Top 4 NL teams2005 Top 4 AL teams, Top 3 NL teamsMostly the difference comes down to 4th place teams in the league getting bumped out of the playoffs by 5th place teams...which is much better than the previous system that had 2nd place teams getting bumped out by a 6th place teams.That's a good rebuttal. Would it be easy to post what the final standings were in those years cited? I'd be interested to see if there were some good pennant races in the divisions that had good teams miss the playoffs. That was my first point about the wild card; I miss the best teams in the league having to fight it out to make the playoffs rather than have a backdoor in. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 That's a good rebuttal. Would it be easy to post what the final standings were in those years cited? I'd be interested to see if there were some good pennant races in the divisions that had good teams miss the playoffs. That was my first point about the wild card; I miss the best teams in the league having to fight it out to make the playoffs rather than have a backdoor in. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/alltime/season?year=1984The Tigers ran away with the AL East, while the AL West slugged it out in mediocrity.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/alltime/season?year=1987The Blue Jays finished behind the Tigers by two games in the AL East. The Expos finished behind the Cardinals by 3 games NL East.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/alltime/season?year=1988The Athletics ran away with the AL West, while the AL East was relatively tight.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/alltime/season?year=1989The Athletics ran away with the AL West, while the Blue Jays edged out the Orioles by two games.I prefer the best teams fighting it out in the playoffs as opposed to having to "fight" to get there. That said, I still think there's just as much fight to get to the playoffs...it just happens to be the 3rd-5th place teams that are racing. I want to see the top 2 NL teams and the top 2 AL teams make it. The new system almost guarantees that'll happen. Link to post Share on other sites
Thriceknurd 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 You two guys don't like the Wild Card!?!?! WHAAAAAAAAAA....going from 4 teams in the playoffs to 8 is awesome? Without the Wild Card....baseball is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY less exciting.......oh man...Wild Card is the best thing that has happened to baseball since the DH!!! okay, sw on that Dh part of course..but come on..the Wild Card owns!! Also...if you "don't see the point of allowing a second place team the chance to win the World Series," then why don't those "division winners" who are somehow so much better or whatever quit allowing a Wild Card to win every other year. I mean, Boston was a WC and the Marlins were WC winners both times....and those three World Series were arguably some of the best ones in recent memory!! It ain't like the NBA where an overabundance of teams gets it...it is still only 8 of 30....not 16 of 31 or 32 like in the NBA. Wild Card = BrilliantI'm with you on this one koop. I'm all for the wild card. Don't forget to mention the Angels vs. Giants World Series in 2002, both wild card teams! Absolutely great series as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes 1 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 For what it's worth, I don't like the idea of the wild card, but I always love the playoffs. So maybe I'm a hypocrite. :shrug: Link to post Share on other sites
Thriceknurd 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 2002 World SeriesI don't think you'll find any Angels fans complaining about the Wild Card anytime soon. Link to post Share on other sites
aadams_22 3 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 2002 World SeriesI don't think you'll find any Angels fans complaining about the Wild Card anytime soon.The never should have been there in the first place. The fact that they won the World Series that year is completely irrelevant, because that goes on the any given day rule. Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The never should have been there in the first place. The fact that they won the World Series that year is completely irrelevant, because that goes on the any given day rule.LOL!!! Worst quote ever. The fact that the Angels played under the guidelines of MLB and won the World Series doesn't matter.....lol. Boy, you sure are a bitter old man, aren't you??? Lol....oh man...that made my day. WHAT A DONK!! You may know a lot about the history of baseball, and good for you, but that is just flat out atrocious.The Angels won a 7-game series to win the title...if you are gonna say that them winning is just a matter of "any given day" or whatever, then you would have to say that EXACT same thing for every world champion in baseball...EVER. As they all won 7 or 5 or 9 game series to win their titles.....lol. Link to post Share on other sites
Thriceknurd 0 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 LOL!!! Worst quote ever. The fact that the Angels played under the guidelines of MLB and won the World Series doesn't matter.....lol. Boy, you sure are a bitter old man, aren't you??? Lol....oh man...that made my day. WHAT A DONK!! You may know a lot about the history of baseball, and good for you, but that is just flat out atrocious.The Angels won a 7-game series to win the title...if you are gonna say that them winning is just a matter of "any given day" or whatever, then you would have to say that EXACT same thing for every world champion in baseball...EVER. As they all won 7 or 5 or 9 game series to win their titles.....lol.I'm becoming fond of you koop, good rebuttal. Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes 1 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 2002 World Serieshttp://www.rallymonkey.com/pics/400/400-20021027.jpgI don't think you'll find any Angels fans complaining about the Wild Card anytime soon.Which is worse: the rally monkey or thunderstix? Link to post Share on other sites
aadams_22 3 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 LOL!!! Worst quote ever. The fact that the Angels played under the guidelines of MLB and won the World Series doesn't matter.....lol. Boy, you sure are a bitter old man, aren't you??? Lol....oh man...that made my day. WHAT A DONK!! You may know a lot about the history of baseball, and good for you, but that is just flat out atrocious.The Angels won a 7-game series to win the title...if you are gonna say that them winning is just a matter of "any given day" or whatever, then you would have to say that EXACT same thing for every world champion in baseball...EVER. As they all won 7 or 5 or 9 game series to win their titles.....lol.I've been good about not calling you Harvard in the past few months, but that bullshit answer brought that back out. First off I'm 26, second there wasn't a damn thing I said that wasn't true...and third if you think the Wild Card is a good idea I highly suggest you read "Fair Ball" by Bob Costas and "You're Missing a Great Game" by Whitey Herzog and then come back with a educated rebuttal about the Wild Card. Letting a second place team compete for the World Series is reprehensible. Besides...ANY team can win a 7 game series against ANY team, so yes the any given day rule does in fact apply.Case in point...look at the Oakland A's since Billy Beane took over. They worked the system and found a way to win long term during the season, but they can't seem to put it together in the postseason. I can assure you it wasn't because of lack of talent, because they had enough talent to win it all. The fact of the matter is that so many things have to go right, along with some luck, in order to win a 7 game series. The Angels won because things just fell their way against a much more talented team. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob Saget 0 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I've been good about not calling you Harvard in the past few months, but that bullshit answer brought that back out. First off I'm 26, second there wasn't a damn thing I said that wasn't true...and third if you think the Wild Card is a good idea I highly suggest you read "Fair Ball" by Bob Costas and "You're Missing a Great Game" by Whitey Herzog and then come back with a educated rebuttal about the Wild Card. Letting a second place team compete for the World Series is reprehensible. Besides...ANY team can win a 7 game series against ANY team, so yes the any given day rule does in fact apply.Case in point...look at the Oakland A's since Billy Beane took over. They worked the system and found a way to win long term during the season, but they can't seem to put it together in the postseason. I can assure you it wasn't because of lack of talent, because they had enough talent to win it all. The fact of the matter is that so many things have to go right, along with some luck, in order to win a 7 game series. The Angels won because things just fell their way against a much more talented team.I don't deny that there is a bit of a "random" element to a seven game series. But YOU are the one who said that the Angels winning the 2002 World Series was "irrelevant." That is flat out atrocious. This has NOTHING to do with letting Wild Card teams in the playoffs. If you don't like that, that's fine, but it wasn't the Angels who made that rule and they did everything in their power to win the championship, and they did. Noone else did. All those first place teams had their chance to win the World Series and they didn't. Anaheim beat them fair and square, and thus, they are World Champions, and calling that "irrelevant" is just stupid. If you are saying that the Angels aren't World Champions b/c they just got "lucky," then you HAVE to say that about EVERY SINGLE WORLD CHAMPION THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE BEST REGULAR SEASON RECORD. You can't say that..so don't say it here. I could care less about the Oakland A's regular season success and how that translates into the playoffs. Having the best regular season record against all the teams in the league doesn't mean you are world champion. Winning the tournament that MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL sets up is how you determine the World Champion. No matter HOW much you think you know or have read, it is THEIR league..they set up the rules, and THEY set up the playoff system, so when one team wins that championship under those rules, they are World Champion. Get over it. Things in sports change, learn to deal with it. Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes 1 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 <Bob Saget channeling KowboyKoop.> Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Bob Saget = KowboyKoopOh man...I'd like to talk a little bit about a great year in baseball. 1983. Wade Boggs hit .361 that year to win the batting title..and Mike Schmidt hit 40 home runs to lead the league. (According to Keith Crime, he is guilty of steroid use however, as I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was clean...so go figure). Oh, and who can forget those Baltimore Orioles. What a team! Defeated the Chicago White Sox 3-1 in the LCS and then pounded the Phillies 4-1 in the World Series. Oh what an achievement!! The Baltimore fans definitely enjoyed.....oh, wait, what's that? Oh, sorry folks. Just found out that the Orioles won 98 games that season, while the Chicago White Sox won 99. Sorry guys, I guess the Orioles World Championship is now irrelevant. The White Sox were the only team that mattered that season. The Orioles were the biggest luckbox's ever and do not deserve to be remembered for anything other than being an irrelevant team. Tough break Baltimore. Your team is no-good now. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Letting a second place team compete for the World Series is reprehensible.You're missing the point. Letting the 1984 Royals into the playoffs was reprehensible. They had the 6th best record in the AL and the 9th best record in the whole league, and yet they got one of four playoff spots. The wild card fixes this problem. Link to post Share on other sites
Thriceknurd 0 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 You're missing the point. Letting the 1984 Royals into the playoffs was reprehensible. They had the 6th best record in the AL and the 9th best record in the whole league, and yet they got one of four playoff spots. The wild card fixes this problem.The Royals used to make the playoffs??? Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 The Royals used to make the playoffs??? THE GLORY DAYS ARE ON THEIR WAY BACK!!! IT'LL BE 1985 ALL OVER AGAIN!!!In five years or so..... Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 THE GLORY DAYS ARE ON THEIR WAY BACK!!! IT'LL BE 1985 ALL OVER AGAIN!!!In five years or so.....you had to say 1985... Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 1985 = best year ever. FACT Link to post Share on other sites
aadams_22 3 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 The Royals used to make the playoffs??? Yeah, Kansas City used to have a Major League franchise. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now