Break up the National League

Three in a row, and an 8-0 shut out to boot!!

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Three in a row, and an 8-0 shut out to boot!!

And the sad thing is that now people are going to think the NL is better when, in fact, the AL is much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleague_play#Wins_by_league

The AL dominance in interleague play is so consistent that the question is not whether the NL deserves home field advantage, but whether it really deserves a spot in the world series at all.

Originally posted by sh76
And the sad thing is that now people are going to think the NL is better when, in fact, the AL is much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleague_play#Wins_by_league

The AL dominance in interleague play is so consistent that the question is not whether the NL deserves home field advantage, but whether it really deserves a spot in the world series at all.

Funny thing you mentioned that.

Which league has won the World Series in the most recent years you are referring to?

I also do not agree which league is "best".
The use of the DH makes the AL more offensive minded.
There are more hitters to sustain rallies.
Hitters like Jim Thome who cannot play defense, but can still hit bombs, survive in the AL.
It also allows AL starters to go deeper into games than the NL game does.

The NL game is much more strategically played because the pitchers have to hit.

I do not think either league is superior, they are just different.
But when they meet in the World Series, those differences become magnified.
The AL cries about it's pitchers having to hit, about losing their starters to a pinch hitter.

If both leagues employed the same rules, I think you would see more of a balance
on your numbers.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Funny thing you mentioned that.

Which league has won the World Series in the most recent years you are referring to?

I also do not agree which league is "best".
The use of the DH makes the AL more offensive minded.
There are more hitters to sustain rallies.
Hitters like Jim Thome who cannot play defense, but can still hit bombs, survive in the ...[text shortened]... h leagues employed the same rules, I think you would see more of a balance
on your numbers.

When comparing leagues I'd put more weight in interleague games (real games) than a single game (All Star game) or one series (World Series). The AL beat the NL so bad it currently only has three teams below .500.

Originally posted by quackquack
When comparing leagues I'd put more weight in interleague games (real games) than a single game (All Star game) or one series (World Series). The AL beat the NL so bad it currently only has three teams below .500.

The last time I checked, the winner was determined to be the one that won the World
Series...or did they change that?

There were no additions for beating some teams, and no subtractions for losing to others.

It is the aggregate of all games until you make the playoffs, and then sudden death.

*shrugs*

Originally posted by shortcircuit
The last time I checked, the winner was determined to be the one that won the World
Series...or did they change that?

There were no additions for beating some teams, and no subtractions for losing to others.

It is the aggregate of all games until you make the playoffs, and then sudden death.

*shrugs*

If you want to see which league is better you have all the teams in the league play each other many times. Interleague play does that. One seven game series in a tournament does not do that. The World Series at most shows whether the "best" team (although the best team rarely gets to the World Series) of a particular league is playing better than the "best" team of another league. It gives absolutely no information about how many good teams are in one league vs. how many good teams are in another.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Funny thing you mentioned that.

Which league has won the World Series in the most recent years you are referring to?

I also do not agree which league is "best".
The use of the DH makes the AL more offensive minded.
There are more hitters to sustain rallies.
Hitters like Jim Thome who cannot play defense, but can still hit bombs, survive in the h leagues employed the same rules, I think you would see more of a balance
on your numbers.

The leagues are slightly different, but the AL is clearly better.

I think a good argument can be made that the NL has a slight advantage in interleague play since its pitchers are used to hitting and typically hit much better than AL pitchers; whereas most NL teams keep at least one player who specializes as a pinch hitter and so who is a natural fit as DH.

Regardless, even assuming no league has an inherent advantage in interleague play, the AL has dominated interleague play in the last 8 years, having been +10 in every year and much better than that in many of those years.

The world series is a very small sample size. It counts, but no more so than any other 7 interleague games. Last year the Rangers were one strike away from winning the WS on two separate occasions. Are you telling me that the Cardinals managing a bunch of miracle comebacks says something significant about the relative strengths of the leagues? Come on.

Your idea that the AL has dominated in recent years because the leagues are different but not better makes no sense at all. By that logic, the Red Sox can claim that they've lost 5 of 6 to the Yankees and are 9.5 games out because they're a "different" team than the Yankees.

Until 2004, the NL had no trouble playing with the AL in interleague play. In fact, they had the slight advantage over-all through 2004. But for whatever reason, the tide turned and the AL has dominated interleague play since.

You can alibi for the reasons all you like, but the group that wins significantly more over than kind of sample size is better and that's really all there is to it.

Originally posted by quackquack
If you want to see which league is better you have all the teams in the league play each other many times. Interleague play does that. One seven game series in a tournament does not do that. The World Series at most shows whether the "best" team (although the best team rarely gets to the World Series) of a particular league is playing better than the ...[text shortened]... ormation about how many good teams are in one league vs. how many good teams are in another.

I agree but would like to add that I agree that the "best" team usually does not win the WS. Of course, that doesn't really matter because fans want their team to win, not be the best, so ultimately it makes no difference who was best - only who wins.

But simple statistics indicate that even if a team is 100 points better than all of its playoff opponents in winning %, it has less than a 40% chance of winning three straight rounds.

I don't think there is any possibility that the Phillies were NOT the best NL team last year. Not only was their record 6 games better than any other NL team, but more significantly, their run differential was more than 100 runs better than any other NL team. But they went out in the first round. That sort of thing happens in baseball all the time, especially because there is so much luck involved in the sport.

That's why you need a bigger sample size than a 7 game series to truly determine the best teams.

Originally posted by sh76
I agree but would like to add that I agree that the "best" team usually does not win the WS. Of course, that doesn't really matter because fans want their team to win, not be the best, so ultimately it makes no difference who was best - only who wins.

But simple statistics indicate that even if a team is 100 points better than all of its playoff opponents in ...[text shortened]... s why you need a bigger sample size than a 7 game series to truly determine the best teams.

I certainly agree that the best team does not normally win. I think it is trulyunfortunate. And, ss a sports fan, I believe I am hurt by the continual desire to increase the size of playoffs.

Originally posted by sh76
I agree but would like to add that I agree that the "best" team usually does not win the WS. Of course, that doesn't really matter because fans want their team to win, not be the best, so ultimately it makes no difference who was best - only who wins.

But simple statistics indicate that even if a team is 100 points better than all of its playoff opponents in ...[text shortened]... s why you need a bigger sample size than a 7 game series to truly determine the best teams.

Why do you need a bigger sample size than 7 games for your determination?
In interleague play, teams are generally matched with a 3 game home and home,
which is only six games.

As far as any sport, collegiate or professional, with a progression type playoff,
you will usually encounter luck, good and bad, along the way.

The team who adapts best, gets luckiest, plays better, whatever you want to call it,
is the declared winner. No magic to it.

The regular season is nothing more than a grind to endure to achieve the playoffs.
Once the playoffs begin, all teams have a clean slate, and it doesn't matter who did
what to whom during the regular season. So, where is your beef?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Why do you need a bigger sample size than 7 games for your determination?
In interleague play, teams are generally matched with a 3 game home and home,
which is only six games.

As far as any sport, collegiate or professional, with a progression type playoff,
you will usually encounter luck, good and bad, along the way.

The team who adapts best, ...[text shortened]... and it doesn't matter who did
what to whom during the regular season. So, where is your beef?

You simply get a better comparison of the relative strength of teams by looking at ALL the series of ALL the teams through out the year than ONE series at the end of the year.

Originally posted by quackquack
You simply get a better comparison of the relative strength of teams by looking at ALL the series of ALL the teams through out the year than ONE series at the end of the year.

David vs Goliath.

The result is what you chase, not the relative strength.

The 1969 Mets were anemic, but they beat the much stronger Oriole squad.

The Oakland A's were monsters in 1990 and they were swept 4 games by the Reds.

The result is what you chase, not the relative strength.

I agree that the World Series does not give you the relative strengths of the leagues.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
David vs Goliath.

The result is what you chase, not the relative strength.

The 1969 Mets were anemic, but they beat the much stronger Oriole squad.

The Oakland A's were monsters in 1990 and they were swept 4 games by the Reds.

Thanks for conceding our essential point.

Originally posted by sh76
Thanks for conceding our essential point.

Thanks for conceding mine.

League strength is of no relevance when the only prize is the World Series victory by
one team. It is merely fodder for the discussion.