Tendo City

Interesting article...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs20...id=3081587

(Oh yeah, and the Red Sox... sweep? )

You are the master of thread creation, ABF.

I am waring red sox right now!

Oh wait they where white ; I just got blood on them!

That links goes to ESPN's golf page so I don't know what happened to the story. I hope if baseball is still played 1000 years from now that the NL never implements the DH. I know it's never going to go away in the AL, but one of the reason's I love NL baseball is because of the lack of the DH. If a pitcher is throwing at a player on the other team he has to get up to the plate and take some of it himself. And how could you not love the double-switch?

Anyway, I couldn't find the story on the baseball page, but it does look like the Sox will sweep, which disappoints me. The Red Sox aren't the underdog fan-favorite they were 3 years ago.

Fixed article link. He isn't saying that he'd prefer the NL to use the DH, but that he thinks that they might be forced to with the new generation of DHs that the AL has... the point is that if American League teams have $15 million players who just DH playing the position and National League teams have their fourth-string outfielder in that position when playing in AL parks, how are the NL teams supposed to compete?

As for whether it's better or not... well, I've never watched much NL baseball so I can't really say. :)

It's an interesting article, and I'm glad there weren't actually rumors of the NL adding the DH and it was just an opinion piece, but I definitely disagree. Who cares if the AL wins more often in interleague play? What counts is the World Series, and I don't see the NL being at much of a disadvantage. Yes, the Rockies look outmatched this year but I don't think that's emblematic of every NL team. The Rockies aren't that deep of a team, which hurts them when they need a DH, but most NL teams have a decent bench player or two who can come in and provide instant offense. Of course no teams have someone on the level of Ortiz, but few teams in the AL even have someone of his caliber playing DH. I love the fact that the NL and AL play slightly different games and I hope it stays this way for a while.

Well, with the World Series advantage being decided in the All-Star game now... he points out that the last time the NL had home-field advantage in the World Series was 2001, when Arizona won by winning all four games at home.

Quote:Of course no teams have someone on the level of Ortiz, but few teams in the AL even have someone of his caliber playing DH.

I think he was saying that he thinks more and more teams in the AL will head in that direction.

Quote:I love the fact that the NL and AL play slightly different games and I hope it stays this way for a while.

Agreed on this point, the variety is one of the best things about baseball... every park has a different outfield shape and size, there are different rules, etc...

I was thinking about it... in the last 13 years (1995-2007, since after the strike and the last expansion), AL East teams have won 6 World Series (4 NY, 2 Boston), AL Central teams 2 World Series (1 Chicago, 1 Detroit), AL West teams 1 World Series (1 Anaheim), and NL East teams 3 World Series (2 Florida, 1 Atlanta), and NL West teams 1 World Series (1 Arizona). That's 9-4 AL... and 46% AL East. While overall that's not bad balance -- a lot of those were not expected -- there's a definite AL advantage here.

It's actually 8-5 AL. The Cardinals won last year not the Tigers. A lot of that tilt, though, is because of the Yankees dynasty. The Yankees won 4 World Series during that time which skews the results quite a bit.

Right, the Cardinals. 8-5 then, and one win for the NL Central instead of the AL Central. And yes, those four Yankees wins definitely are the deciding factor... but "six AL east wins" says to me more that the Yankees and Red Sox are really good teams... and while the Yankees haven't won since 2000, they haven't exactly stood by. They've been in several more World Series (2001 in one of the most exciting World Series ever and 2003) since then as well. They're always the team to beat... are you saying 'it's just because of the luck that the Yankees are in the AL and not the NL that the AL has won more'? Hmm... the AL has 61 wins total, the NL 42, the Yankees 26 (which is 16 more than anyone else), so perhaps there's truth to that...

I also was interested to notice that the Eastern divisions win more. It's 9-4 East to Central/West... but a lot of the oldest, richest teams are in the East (Atlanta, Boston, New York, etc) so that's not THAT surprising... though two of those are those two Florida wins which are somewhat anomalous, I think. I mean, they built two good teams, won, and immediately began to fall apart again each time, and they still have no real fanbase and no baseball-exclusive stadium... I have to wonder how long they're going to stick around in that kind of situation.

I'm not sure about the Yankees for next year, though. Joe Girardi is a good hire, but I don't know if he's going to have the personnel around him to lead the Yankees back to the playoffs. The Red Sox are going to be the odds-on favorite to win the division again, and the AL Wild Card is going to be tough with Cleveland and Detroit starting to really establish themselves. ARod leaving doesn't help matters either, and I don't think he's going to be the last big name to leave the Yanks. Their starting rotation isn't getting any younger either.

Eh, the Yankees are the Yankees. They'll do well. It does seem to be true that they aren't as good with the internally developed talent as other teams like the Sox are, but they have some, and a $200 million budget, some of which is going to be free...

Surely you don't mean the RED SOX internally developed talent? If it weren't for free agency, the Red Sox would be nothing. This is a FACT.

Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Clay Buchholz weren't internally developed talent? Seems like those three (especially Pedroia and Ellsbury) made quite a difference this season.