First off, I have no problem with what Keith said. Keith displayed absolute class in this matter.Originally Posted by SI Baseballman
Secondly, this has what to do with the Yankees/Yankee fans? Yankee fans have tormented Met fans for many years, so Met fans torment Colorado fans? That makes as much sense as having a bad day at work and coming home and kicking your dog...
Excellent post.
Not In Our House.
Some people find everything to complain about.
Gary was making a comparison. It's not a big deal and he wasn't trying to spite the Yanks or their fans.
Not In Our House.
Your argument boils down to sample size, and you're right that 3 games or 6 games isn't enough to judge between teams. Even 19 games can be misleading (witness the Yankees v. Tampa Bay last year). But the AL vs. NL isn't just 3 or 6 games. It's 250 games. You can't say a 154-98 record is largely luck.
And it's not just this year. I haven't actually checked, but my guess is that the AL has consistently beaten the NL in recent years.
I like the Mets. I root for them against any team except the Yanks. But they play in a weak league.
You're right. But I didn't argue that it was largely luck (or at least I didn't mean to). I was just saying that luck, matchups, and all the elements that factor into the small sample size arguement exaggerate the issue a bit. The NL IS worse than the AL in 2006. Quite a bit. But I don't think they're near 154-98 bad. Because a lot of matchups that probably should have gone in the NL's favor or at least better than they did didn't. Plus, I'd think that the sample size becomes harder to factor when you're talking about so many different teams. In a situation like this one of the top NL teams doing worse than they should ends up sabotaging the NL record quite a bit.
The Mets do play in a weak league. I'm not arguing that. My point is that the AL vs NL thing gets overblown (even if the AL IS much better than the NL at least in '06) to the point where AL fans dismiss NL teams, players, and such out of hand.
They haven't. Its just perception. Coming into this season the NL had a slight lead in the interleague numbers, 1104-1095. After this season's dominance the record is 1249-1202 AL.And it's not just this year. I haven't actually checked, but my guess is that the AL has consistently beaten the NL in recent years.
Record the last 3 seasons:
2003 AL 115, NL 137
2004 AL 126, NL 125
2005 AL 136, NL 116
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/hi...ue/records.jsp
You could theoretically argue that the NL has been getting worse the last couple of years culminating in this season, and you'd probably have a point. But they played .500 ball vs the AL in '04 and had a good showing in '05. The drop in results this season is just staggering, and while I think the NL DID take a major drop this season for many reasons (Bonds, the loss of Johnson, St Louis taking a step back, Chicago falling apart, Atlanta finally falling away, Florida's firesale) I still think the results got a bit skewed. There hasn't been any real dominance on either league's part over the last few years. The fact that the Yankees have dominated interleague play with the best record probably further skews perception in the eyes of Yankee fans.
EDIT: I said the loss of Johnson and Chicago falling apart affected the NL this season. Realistically Johnson was obviouslly lost last season and Chicago started to come apart then too. So yeah, the downfall of the NL has been building for a few years now. My bad on grouping some older losses into the '06 season.
Last edited by LuckyLopez; 08-30-06 at 10:36 PM.
Great post. You've convinced me that some of the perception of AL dominance and a weak NL is unwarranted. Overall, though, the perception has merit, especially this year (for a lot of the reasons you cite). And more importantly, I'd still say there's no NL division that's as competitive as the AL East.
Agreed. And if you think the Yankees are better battle tested than the Mets for that reason and thus have an edge I'd say you have a point. In fact I'd certainly argue the AL Central better than any of the NL divisions as well so the Tigers and ChiSox could have the same sort of edge over NL contenders. All I really had issue with is that the thing really IS overblown even if its also true (I'm pretty sure that makes sense if you think about it).
But yeah, I do think the perception has merit. The more I think about it the more I think the NL is in a sort of rebuilding mode. The NL is weaker by a large margin and while the '06 drop was rather sudden a lot of the reasons probably were building. You essentially had Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, Arizona, St Louis, and Florida all take big dropoffs in the last season or two. And you can probably toss Houston in there too with the struggles of Pettitte and Oswalt and the age/unavailablity of Clemens, Bagwell, and Biggio. In the meantime the only teams that REALLY stepped up were the Mets and Reds (Dodgers probably aren't that much higher than they have been in years past as they made the playoffs a couple of seasons ago). Over the last few years the AL has seen Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland step up, the Twins add to their success over the years by adding some great talent (Santana, Liriano, Mauer, Morneau, Nathan, etc), and NY, Boston, Oakland, and Anaheim have all remained contenders. If you consider that Texas has brought itself into contention in the division since young talent like Teixiera, Young, etc have come into their own, that Cleveland disappointed a lot of people this season and should bounce back, and that Tampa Bay's got a ton of talent coming up it just adds to it. And noone's really dropped off much over the last few years. The AL has just added contenders, which is a little odd.
The NL as a whole seemed to get old (or teams lose pieces due to free agency) all at once and now needs to rebuild. NYM and Cincinatti may just be the first teams to really start doing that. But if Milwaukee, San Fran, San Diego, Arizona, Florida, Atlanta, Philly, etc can all mature in the next few years I think things should even off again. And then you may see a turn when teams like Boston, NYY, Anaheim, Oak, Chicago, etc start to get old/lose their pieces, although a number of those teams have shown the ability to reup each year either through free agency, trades, or the farm.
The main reason the AL is better by a large margin than the NL is that the other teams are having to spend more to compete with the Yankees and the Red Sox.
Its no secret the Angels, Yankees, White Sox and Red Sox make up the games highest payrolls and they are all in the same league. Add to that, the smart GM's happen to be in the same league as well with Detroit, Minnesota and Oakland. Cleveland and Toronto happen to have a down year, but they have alot of talent, but just had down years. But those GM's, especially Toronto have the resources to get better. Thats 9 of the 14 teams in the AL.
With the NL unable to develop enough good pitchers, each of these NL teams including the Mets have struggled. There are no good starting rotations in the NL if you exclude the Astros. Without that, you have this parity. And when they play these AL teams, they get killed.
Follow my season long Yankees blog at http://theworldofcarl.blogspot.com/
You've made a lot of really excellent posts, and I'll try and be brief in replying. Firstly, I'd like to address the issue above. The fact of the matter is, no pitcher in the NL has to face a DH. Pitchers are guaranteed a hole in the 9 spot, and if they have 2 outs in the inning with a runner on second, I've seen many of them walk the 8 hitter to face the pitcher.
In the AL, DHs post some of the best, if not the best, offensive numbers by position. Compare the vast chasm between David Ortiz and say, Carlos Zambrano, one of the NL's better hitting pitchers. So when you see that Chris Carpenter has a 2.96 ERA, it looks awesome on paper, but how does it stack up against an AL pitcher's number? Hard to say, isn't it? When an NL pitcher comes over to the AL and suddenly has, in place of the pitcher hitting 9th, a DH hitting 3rd or 4th, it's natural to assume that his performance will suffer accordingly. Similarly, when a pitcher goes to the NL from the AL, he is facing lineups that are in their very nature constructed more weakly than are AL lineups. Part of the argument has to do with how one argues "inferiority."
The perception develops further when teams meet head-to-head. This happens only on a few occasions. The most important is obviously baseball's biggest stage, the World Series. The AL currently has an 8-0 record over the past 2 years, and while no one expects that streak to last, the disparity between leagues becomes magnified due to the magnitude of the games themselves. The Cardinals entered the 2004 series with baseball's best record, having won 105 games. They couldn't even muster a lead against the Red Sox. Regardless of how much that has to do with the Red Sox's hot streak, the way the Sox handled the Cardinals in that series (the Cardinals NEVER had the lead, managing to tie Boston twice I think, but never pull ahead) helped fuel the impression that the NL's best can't hold a candle to the AL. The perception is furthered when one looks at the past, say, 15 years of World Series winners. An NL team slips in here or there, but the Series has overwhelmingly belonged to the AL in recent history. Off the top of my head, I'd say it's 10-3. No matter how you slice it, it's pretty lopsided.
The next most important showcasing of NL vs. AL talent comes in the All-Star Game. The AL has won eight straight, wrapping around a tie in 2002. But more importantly, if we look further than that, going back to 1988, the record is 13-3-1 in favor of the AL. Granted, many fans have a longer memory than the previous 18 years, but apart from the 3 NL wins (all consecutive, 1994-1996), the average fan will remember a poor showing from the NL and a rather dominant performance from the AL. This year, it seemed all but impossible for the NL to lose. 9th inning, 2 outs, NL leads, and they have Trevor-Freaking-Hoffman on the mound. Yet lose is precisely what they did.
Interleague play is the third most important, and even in spite of the NL having a decent showing the past few years, it's hard for fans to keep that in perspective when the NL has dramatically lost on the bigger fronts.
Another important point is earning the right to participate in the highest of baseball's head-to-head matchups. Who can forget last year's "NL Worst," where there was legitimate concern that the division's playoff contender would not even have a winning record? Compare that to the Cleveland Indians, denied a playoff appearance in spite of a damnably respectable 92 wins. This year, both leagues feature interesting pennant races. The AL Central is being played out by two teams in a heated dogfight for the wild card, and all the while slowly chipping away at the Tigers' lead in the division. With a dramatic twist, both the White Sox and the Twins could make the playoffs, and the Tigers might find themselves shut out of the playoffs altogether. The NL race is exciting for different reasons. Only the top 2 of the wild card hunt have winning records. The race is quite open because the field of competition is playing at a poor level. Even if we consider 6 games out of the WC to be out of playoff contention, 8 teams remain. This year will likely repeat last year, with a playoff team from the NL entering with a losing record, or have less than 85 wins. I'm virtually certain that at least one team will have fewer than 88 wins. Meanwhile, the Tigers, White Sox, and Twins will probably have in excess of 90 wins, and one of them will have to miss the playoffs. Be it true or not, that furthers the perception that the AL is a more competitive league.
I would argue, however, that this is merely a part of a cyclical trend. The NL won all but three All Star Games from '67 to '87, a period of dominance in that particular event that is pretty close to American League's present showing. The disparity is not so great in World Series, but that has something to do with the historical dominance of the Yankees as well.
If we turn momentarily to football, similar trends can be seen between the American and National Football Leagues. There have been stretches where one league or the other wins all the Super Bowls before switching. Currently, the AFC represents a stronger conference in football than the NFC. It's just not a good time to be part of anything 'National.'
In essence, today's fans' perceptions are influenced by what is seen - and not necessarily incorrectly - as a long-standing tradition of AL dominance. Even you concede that the differences are magnified this year. The notion itself, however, I think is based more on recent head-to-head matchups (which reveal a long-standing AL dominance) than it is based on an aberrant year of interleague play.
Studying for the USMLE Step 2 Exam, but still cheering hard for the Yankees.
The reason Kei Igawa looked so good in Japan: http://www.addictinggames.com/shockw...mbaseball.html
Double post. Sorry, browser screwed up.
Studying for the USMLE Step 2 Exam, but still cheering hard for the Yankees.
The reason Kei Igawa looked so good in Japan: http://www.addictinggames.com/shockw...mbaseball.html
Whoo. You gave me a run for my money there.I'll try and cover everything but if I miss something my apologies. I'll come back to it.
In fairness, they haven't had a decent showing in recent years. The the two leagues basically played .500 ball from '03 to '05. In fact, by my math its 378-377 in favor of the NL. Now, if you mean recent by the last three years, that's fair. But from '04 to '05 its 262-242 AL. Which is pretty fair. Its '06 that dramaticaly skews things. And I really don't mean to say that were it not for some bad luck and such the NL would have played .500 ball or won this interleague season. They were a worse division so logically they should have lost. I dare say badly. But 60 games badly? That's a bit much, in my mind.Interleague play is the third most important, and even in spite of the NL having a decent showing the past few years, it's hard for fans to keep that in perspective when the NL has dramatically lost on the bigger fronts.
Interleague just seems to go against the arguement, unless you're speaking in the most short term way possible. But as soon as you call back a decade or so through WS and All Star games it seems fair to do so with interleague (or as far back as it goes). And the reality is that the NL has held the edge in interleague right up until the recent past, even holding the extremely slight lead coming into this season.
Now WS and All Star Games are clearly different. The WS dominance is completely fair. But I do think its skewed a bit by the presence of a Yankee Dynasty. 5 of the 10 AL wins came from one team. That speaks more to the dominance (and dynasty) of the Yankees than the AL, I'd think. The AL still has the edge and all and I wouldn't mean to take away the Yankee wins (they are, after all, part of the AL) but it does seem to push the odds. In the end there's also a lot to be said about that being one series between 2 teams. If the AL team loses to the NL team this year realistically noone will say that proves the dominance of the NL. 8 good AL teams vs 2 good NL teams doesn't mean much when it comes down to 1 vs 1. And since there's no guarantee that the best of either league will be that 1 it pretty much kills a "our best vs your best" idea. We of course like to believe that the best team wins but in reality we all know matchups, seeding, timing, and luck all factor in.
All Star Games I don't even know how to factor in. A collection of stars from each league seems like a very rough way to judge each other. Especially when the selection process is as wild as it is with the MLB All Star Game. Any number of the best players in the league can be left out for fan favorites, player favorites, coaches' favorites, veterans in bad years, etc. And then they come under the control of a manager who is unfamiliar with them, who may or may not have a major intention to win, and who manages in a manner to protect the players from any true harm. If you took the best starter in the NL and the best starter in the AL and set them against the best lineups in both leagues I imagine that would yield different results than letting them throw 2 innings and then turning the ball over (presuming you even get the best starters starting or pitching). If I had more faith in the ALS's ability to judge the leagues I'd even argue that having Mariano in the 9th for the last 10 years has helped the AL quite a bit (although I don't actually know how often he's been used in that capacity).
But you're right. It all factors into perception. The AL dominanting the WS and All Star Games in the recent past help push this idea, if not start it. The DH issue pushes it. And while interleague realistically doesn't show it, surely skewed perceptions do (like looking at just the last year or two or, as I suggested earlier, the fact that the Yankees posses the best record in interleague play).
And certainly, I didn't mean to argue that the perception is pushed by this one year of interleague. All that this season's interleague record did was manage to hammer home to the point that was being said for quite a few years now. And it did it decisively. The problem comes that folks like JJazz (and my apologies, I don't mean to call you out) start to think of that as a further dominance. And yes, the ASG and WS examples exist but it then gets extended and people start to presume that the AL has dominated interleague play as well. It all gets pushed. The NL's horrible 2006 has essentially sabotaged the idea of the NL in the recent past (and probably near future). And yes, the 0-8 record in the WS the last 2 seasons doesn't help either. But I'd argue that is what it is. Two AL teams that were playing absurdly well. Boston won 8 straight and had swept their 1st round opponents. Chicago also won 8 straight and became only the second team to go 11-1 in the playoffs since the division series were added. That was dominance by the individual teams, not the league. That they came in back to back seasons, both for the AL is impressive but surely a bit of coincidence. But yes, it certainly aids the perception quite a bit.
I never meant to argue that perception was unfair. There are a lot of reasons for it and it holds up this season. But it does get exaggeration, and the hard to judge nature of the AL vs NL matchups
To briefly touch on the DH issue, I think that is a 100% fair point. Clearly the NL lineups are weaker than the AL lineups. And it gives AL pitchers an extra batter (who is often a key bat) and more well rounded lineups. NL pitchers get occasional situations to get out of spots and generally get weaker parts of the lineup that can help them last longer and yield better results. Its much easier to kill a rally in that situation, clealry.
That being said, I DO think its gets exaggerated from time to time. For one, NL does play a different style of ball and its not so much "every 9th batter" as it is "every 9th batter for a couple of go arounds and then things change." In some ways I'd argue that NL managers occasionally find themselves in situations that might even favor the situational selection of hitters. There are certainly occasions where you rather have the first bat off a NL bench hitting rather than the 9th batter in an AL lineup. But I don't mean that to be an arguement against the idea. Like the '06 interleague thing I was arguing I just think its dulls, if just slightly, the edge the AL has.
And in the end, really NL pitchers DO get dismissed out of hand quite a bit. And while its fair to say that comparing an NL pitcher's numbers vs an AL pitcher's numbers is hard to do considering the league discrepencies I think there are far too many instances when AL fans immediatelly side with the AL pitcher for no reason other than his league. Or when AL fans dismiss NL pitchers out of hand because they are NL pitchers. There's a difference between saying that NL numbers don't quite match up with AL numbers and saying NL numbers don't matter much at all. And I think the second idea exists in a lot of fans and quite often on this board.
I'm sure I missed something or misinterpreted something. But its late. I just wanted to respond as best I could because I don't think I'll get back to this until late tomorrow. But my apologies for any omissions or mistakes.
delete
Last edited by NYDCYankee; 08-31-06 at 05:15 AM.
"Long Island is New Jersey with a GED." - Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.
excellent post. Thanks for taking the time.Whoo. You gave me a run for my money there.
In fairness, they haven't had a decent showing in recent years. The the two leagues basically played .500 ball from '03 to '05. In fact, by my math its 378-377 in favor of the NL. Now, if you mean recent by the last three years, that's fair. But from '04 to '05 its 262-242 AL. Which is pretty fair. Its '06 that dramaticaly skews things. And I really don't mean to say that were it not for some bad luck and such the NL would have played .500 ball or won this interleague season. They were a worse division so logically they should have lost. I dare say badly. But 60 games badly? That's a bit much, in my mind.
Interleague just seems to go against the arguement, unless you're speaking in the most short term way possible. But as soon as you call back a decade or so through WS and All Star games it seems fair to do so with interleague (or as far back as it goes). And the reality is that the NL has held the edge in interleague right up until the recent past, even holding the extremely slight lead coming into this season.
Now WS and All Star Games are clearly different. The WS dominance is completely fair. But I do think its skewed a bit by the presence of a Yankee Dynasty. 5 of the 10 AL wins came from one team. That speaks more to the dominance (and dynasty) of the Yankees than the AL, I'd think. The AL still has the edge and all and I wouldn't mean to take away the Yankee wins (they are, after all, part of the AL) but it does seem to push the odds. In the end there's also a lot to be said about that being one series between 2 teams. If the AL team loses to the NL team this year realistically noone will say that proves the dominance of the NL. 8 good AL teams vs 2 good NL teams doesn't mean much when it comes down to 1 vs 1. And since there's no guarantee that the best of either league will be that 1 it pretty much kills a "our best vs your best" idea. We of course like to believe that the best team wins but in reality we all know matchups, seeding, timing, and luck all factor in.
All Star Games I don't even know how to factor in. A collection of stars from each league seems like a very rough way to judge each other. Especially when the selection process is as wild as it is with the MLB All Star Game. Any number of the best players in the league can be left out for fan favorites, player favorites, coaches' favorites, veterans in bad years, etc. And then they come under the control of a manager who is unfamiliar with them, who may or may not have a major intention to win, and who manages in a manner to protect the players from any true harm. If you took the best starter in the NL and the best starter in the AL and set them against the best lineups in both leagues I imagine that would yield different results than letting them throw 2 innings and then turning the ball over (presuming you even get the best starters starting or pitching). If I had more faith in the ALS's ability to judge the leagues I'd even argue that having Mariano in the 9th for the last 10 years has helped the AL quite a bit (although I don't actually know how often he's been used in that capacity).
But you're right. It all factors into perception. The AL dominanting the WS and All Star Games in the recent past help push this idea, if not start it. The DH issue pushes it. And while interleague realistically doesn't show it, surely skewed perceptions do (like looking at just the last year or two or, as I suggested earlier, the fact that the Yankees posses the best record in interleague play).
And certainly, I didn't mean to argue that the perception is pushed by this one year of interleague. All that this season's interleague record did was manage to hammer home to the point that was being said for quite a few years now. And it did it decisively. The problem comes that folks like JJazz (and my apologies, I don't mean to call you out) start to think of that as a further dominance. And yes, the ASG and WS examples exist but it then gets extended and people start to presume that the AL has dominated interleague play as well. It all gets pushed. The NL's horrible 2006 has essentially sabotaged the idea of the NL in the recent past (and probably near future). And yes, the 0-8 record in the WS the last 2 seasons doesn't help either. But I'd argue that is what it is. Two AL teams that were playing absurdly well. Boston won 8 straight and had swept their 1st round opponents. Chicago also won 8 straight and became only the second team to go 11-1 in the playoffs since the division series were added. That was dominance by the individual teams, not the league. That they came in back to back seasons, both for the AL is impressive but surely a bit of coincidence. But yes, it certainly aids the perception quite a bit.
I never meant to argue that perception was unfair. There are a lot of reasons for it and it holds up this season. But it does get exaggeration, and the hard to judge nature of the AL vs NL matchups
To briefly touch on the DH issue, I think that is a 100% fair point. Clearly the NL lineups are weaker than the AL lineups. And it gives AL pitchers an extra batter (who is often a key bat) and more well rounded lineups. NL pitchers get occasional situations to get out of spots and generally get weaker parts of the lineup that can help them last longer and yield better results. Its much easier to kill a rally in that situation, clealry.
That being said, I DO think its gets exaggerated from time to time. For one, NL does play a different style of ball and its not so much "every 9th batter" as it is "every 9th batter for a couple of go arounds and then things change." In some ways I'd argue that NL managers occasionally find themselves in situations that might even favor the situational selection of hitters. There are certainly occasions where you rather have the first bat off a NL bench hitting rather than the 9th batter in an AL lineup. But I don't mean that to be an arguement against the idea. Like the '06 interleague thing I was arguing I just think its dulls, if just slightly, the edge the AL has.
And in the end, really NL pitchers DO get dismissed out of hand quite a bit. And while its fair to say that comparing an NL pitcher's numbers vs an AL pitcher's numbers is hard to do considering the league discrepencies I think there are far too many instances when AL fans immediatelly side with the AL pitcher for no reason other than his league. Or when AL fans dismiss NL pitchers out of hand because they are NL pitchers. There's a difference between saying that NL numbers don't quite match up with AL numbers and saying NL numbers don't matter much at all. And I think the second idea exists in a lot of fans and quite often on this board.
I'm sure I missed something or misinterpreted something. But its late. I just wanted to respond as best I could because I don't think I'll get back to this until late tomorrow. But my apologies for any omissions or mistakes.
Hey, sorry I don't have the time to flesh out a full reply at the moment, but I'll say this: it all depends on what you consider "blowing out of proportion." That there is a disparity between the NL and AL is undeniable. There are far more quality teams in the AL than there are in the NL. From their respective most recent Power Rankings of the top 10 teams:Whoo. You gave me a run for my money there.
FOXSports: AL 8, NL 2
ESPN: AL 7, NL 3
Consensus teams from the AL are the Tigers, Yankees, White Sox, Twins, Athletics, Red Sox, and the Angels. The teams from the NL getting nods are the Mets, Dodgers, and in ESPN's case, the Cardinals. I think the assessments are fair. Those are the best teams from the respective leagues. Even if we assume all those teams are on equal footing - and it's a stretch to say that the Cardinals are on equal footing with the White Sox, considering that the White Sox outscored them by close to 40 runs when they played a 3 game series - there's a dramatic disparity between the number of teams coming from each league. If you add in a talent differential, which I believe exists, I think the gap gets bigger. In both the Power Rankings, the Mets are the only team that sniffs the top; the other NL teams scrape by close to the bottom. How much should be made of that difference? How much is 'overblown?' I think that's a subjective qualification. I'll try and respond to your other points later.
Studying for the USMLE Step 2 Exam, but still cheering hard for the Yankees.
The reason Kei Igawa looked so good in Japan: http://www.addictinggames.com/shockw...mbaseball.html
I'll tell you one thing.. one of the reasons the NL looks so bad is the way in which the Mets are demolishing it.
Not In Our House.
Circular argument. One could argue that the Mets look good because the NL sucks.
Studying for the USMLE Step 2 Exam, but still cheering hard for the Yankees.
The reason Kei Igawa looked so good in Japan: http://www.addictinggames.com/shockw...mbaseball.html
I dare any Mets fan to say they have a pitcher better than Chris Carpenter right now. Right now it is cery nice to see carp finishing the season on top of his game.
Last season it seemd like he kind of faded at the end
In his last four starts he's 3-0 with a 1.06 ERA, allowing only four runs on 16 hits in 34 innings, with 26 strikeouts and one walk!
I dare any Cardinals fan to say anybody decent sits behind Carpenter. Unless you can throw Carpenter out there every night, I don't think that rotation is enough to even get you out of the first round (although I wouldn't mind facing you guys in the NLCS over, say, the Dodgers).
Not In Our House.
100% agreed. The greater depth of the AL is without question. The NL is about as shallow as it possibly could be with only a few teams who realistically stand a chance of competing. What I think is overblown is the perception of the ability of those two or three teams at the top. They quite often get dismissed for being in the NL. The top of the NL is absurdly shallow. But that doesn't mean that it can't compete with the top of the AL on an individual basis. And quite often the studs or stars of the NL are dismissed as having their numbers be the product of the league. Sometimes that's certainly true, but a lot of people seem to think that the NL/AL difference plays itself out like Bronson Arroyo for everyone.
I don't know about the player talent gap in the leagues. I've never put a ton of thought to it. Plus is seems to be as unstable a notion as can be since free agency allows for players to jump back and forth. Although, as knicksfan said, the fact that the AL spends more weighs the odds that mature talent will sign with the AL.
I also think the gap in terms of depthness and talent at the top was overblown leading into this season, but that's neither here nor there. 2006 has changed the arguement.
News flash-check our record against the dodgers this year. they don't scare me and neither do the Mets.
In an effort to stop the pissing match between the both of you, what happened to Beltran tonight? I didn't see the play, and heard he hurt his knee.
The same Mets that made you look silly last week?
Not In Our House.
Why not? I watched the latest Mets-Cards series, and I thought it was a disaster. As an NL fan of the Cards, I'm very scared of the Mets.
EDIT: Apart from which, I don't believe the Cards have played the post-trading deadline Dodgers yet, have they? They played LA when LA was just fumbling around.
Studying for the USMLE Step 2 Exam, but still cheering hard for the Yankees.
The reason Kei Igawa looked so good in Japan: http://www.addictinggames.com/shockw...mbaseball.html
I really hope the Mets face the Cards in the NLCS. Either way then somebody here would end up having to eat some crow.
Mets up 4-2, two on for Berkman who hits a deep fly ball to left center, Beltran showed amazing range and made an amazing leaping grab but I guess his leg got caught on teh fence and he tweaked his knee. Says he's fine but x-rays will be done tomorrow.
Not In Our House.
What position do you play?
Nothing to say
The NY Mets currently have the best record in all of baseball.
I gotta admit- that was one hell of a grab.
Beltran said after the game that he wasn’t in any pain at all, though he couldn’t bend the knee. “My left knee went into it (the fence) and hit the patella tendon so when I came down that’s why I was limping,” he said. “I couldn’t put pressure on the knee. So I went down and I couldn’t stretch it out by myself or bend it.” Assuming the X-rays come back negative, Beltran should be considered day-to-day.
See, congratulating a Met wasn't that hard.
Not In Our House.
X-rays have come back negative, according to BBTN.
Not In Our House.
X-rays are worthless, but ESPNews: day to day (bruised knee)
Nothing to say
The usage of 'we' and 'our' colloquially by fans to refer to sports teams is commonplace. If you have something of substance to say, by all means do so if it will contribute to the discussion. Quibbling over semantics doesn't accomplish anything.
EDIT: Typo.
Studying for the USMLE Step 2 Exam, but still cheering hard for the Yankees.
The reason Kei Igawa looked so good in Japan: http://www.addictinggames.com/shockw...mbaseball.html
The only concern a Met fan should have is Houston making the playoffs. If you saw Oswalt today, you know what I'm talking about. He had a perfect game through six and a no-hitter through seven. They didn't come CLOSE to hitting him.
Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens are the guys the Mets want to avoid in the playoffs. Root HARD against the Astros if you're a Met fan.
Yes, but Wright, Beltran and LoDuca were out of the lineup, that won't be the case in the postseason.
just like last year with clemens. He's a old man that's breaking down
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2573236
PHILADELPHIA -- Roger Clemens left Monday's start against Philadelphia because of a strained right groin after allowing only one hit in five innings
What point are you making?
Not In Our House.
He's still better than anybody on your staff.. with the exception of Carpenter, of course.
Just my opinion but he will not last 5 innings in any playoff game.
Slam me all you want, but he's not the roger we all know anymore
with the way oswalt was throwing, it wouldnt have mattered.
Hey CFP, we agree!
Not In Our House.
haha yes we do.
Owsalt would have beat any team in baseball yesterday, he was beyond awesome.
You would have needed Ruth, Gehrig and Ted Williams hitting in the order to touch Oswalt that Sunday...
It would not have mattered at all.
If I were the Mets, I'd be rooting like hell for the Reds to win the Wild Card
does anyone else find it funny in a way that there is a Cardinal and a Met fan debating each other on a Yankee forum?
NEW link for NYYFANS companion site for politics and more: www.editorialme.com.
I find it hilarious, but I think its great that other team's fans come to this forum. We need like at least one fan from every MLB team on here.
So how good are CFP's Dodgers?
They're down 2-0 in the first with their ace on the mound.
I'm scared.
Not In Our House.
One 3 game series doesnt show a lot, let alone one game, let alone 1 inning(which is all that has been completed of this 3 game series so far).
they've only played 1 inning
talk to me after the series
I'd really like to watch this game.
But I don't want to hear Gary Cohen having a sploogefest all night in the booth with his buddies. Holy christ, he is an awful announcer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
