Baseball Thread Rated X -- Mature Audiences Only

Apples and lugnuts.

We are talking about the brand of baseball. The mechanism.

NL is superior.

 

I'm VERY worried about what I'm reading here.

Jesus H. Christ. I love this site.

 

There's no doubt that the AL is the stronger league. However, any team with a winning record can take 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 from another team with a winning record.

The playoffs really are a crap shoot.

 

Pube --
I stipulated that many people favor NL-style ball, myself included on some days.

That said, I'm not sure what CR is arguing right now.

FH -- So stipulated.

I would, however, bet a large amount of money straight up on any AL playoff team over any NL playoff team this year, and I can't think of another year where that has happened since the wild card. I was merely trying to point out that gap.

 

Zeke, go to sportsinteraction.com, go to the baseball tab, cluck "futures" and put some money on an AL team. I dare you.

 

Nobody else was talking about that.

The brand of baseball is different -- but not as much as it used to be. Between 1973 and, say, 1997 or so, the brand of ball was totally different. The styles were different, the parks were different, the leagues were different. The strategies are still somewhat different. But more and more NL managers are playing for the long ball, and more and more AL managers (Torre, Scioscia, Guillen, especially) are adept at a "traditionally NL" style of small ball that it doesn't make much difference which league you play in -- other than for the DH, of course.

Free agency has negated a lot of the changes, as more players play in both leagues. The new ballparks (post-Camden era) are negating a lot of the differences. Interleague play, not so much, but it's still familiarizing NL fans with "AL ball" and AL fans with "NL ball."

Those who hold on to the traditional definitions of "brand of ball" -- and I include myself in this, too -- are just holding on to an idea, largely. And while you can still find the differences if you look for them, they are very subtle and often unnoticeable to a majority of fans, I think. ...

Back to the real argument -- let's not discuss apples and lugnuts -- the AL is better because its teams, and its players, are better. Case closed.

 

It REALLY depends on the criteria, and the given year. Here's a breakdown of several aspects of the game for each league. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but it's an interesting approach.

http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/avn.htm

 

Why isn't there any talk about Nomar for MVP?

 

How about Loney replacing Nomar at first today: 3-for-3, 7 RBIs, a triple short of the cycle and it's only top of the sixth.

 

Hold on now. The AL is obviously far superior overall, but to say the Yanks, Twins, Tigers and A's would all definitely beat the Mets is stretching it. The Yankees are the best team in baseball and should win the whole thing. Santana would make the Twins clear favorites over the Mets. But the Tigers? After the way they've played the last couple of months? And the A's are essentially the Astros -- a team with a nice staff but very offensively challenged. The AL is a better league, but the gap at the top is not all that wide.

 

I want you to make that your bottom sig. I really do.

 

On second thought, Little should keep resting Garciapara. Loney just hit his second homer of the game (third of the season). 4-for-4 with 9 RBIs.