Puddy Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I know this isn't anything new, but I really don't get it. 16 National league teams, 14 American league teams. What a disadvantage to be in the NL Central (6 teams) and an equal advantage to be in the AL West (4 teams). With only one wildcard in each league, winning the division is paramount. Having to beat out 3 teams versus 5 is ridiculous. What the hell are they thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 In 1998, it was going to be 15 and 15, but the heads did not want interleague play all the time, so the Brewers moved to the NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I know this isn't anything new, but I really don't get it. 16 National league teams, 14 American league teams. What a disadvantage to be in the NL Central (6 teams) and an equal advantage to be in the AL West (4 teams). With only one wildcard in each league, winning the division is paramount. Having to beat out 3 teams versus 5 is ridiculous. What the hell are they thinking? 1443016[/snapback] If they could sort out one set of rules to play by, perhaps they could properly re-align. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 (edited) I know this isn't anything new, but I really don't get it. 16 National league teams, 14 American league teams. What a disadvantage to be in the NL Central (6 teams) and an equal advantage to be in the AL West (4 teams). With only one wildcard in each league, winning the division is paramount. Having to beat out 3 teams versus 5 is ridiculous. What the hell are they thinking? 1443016[/snapback] Winning the division is paramount? What a concept... isn't that what it should be? Why have divisions if winning them isn't paramount? As compared to the NBA, where the Nuggets win the division, and what did they get for winning? Is the scheduling in the NFL fair? If you have to play 6 division games in a tough division, and someone else gets to play 6 games in a weak division, then you have to play 4 games against the other conference, and those could easily be tougher than than another teams 4 interconference games... and you are competing for a wild card spot against them? Sure, in a perfect world everything would be a little more balanced, but you aren't playing interleague every night, so with 30 teams and 3 divisions in each league, this is what you get. Edited April 29, 2006 by LegFuJohnson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 Winning the division is paramount? What a concept... isn't that what it should be? Why have divisions if winning them isn't paramount?1443378[/snapback] LegFu playing devils advocate as usual . The point that you obviously missed was that unlike other sports that have multiple wildard teams make the playoffs, baseball has 1. So winning the division is way more important in baseball than the other three sports. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be divisions, however it seems pretty straightforward to me that if you have 6 divisions and 30 teams, each division should have 5. Your point about the inequities of the other sports systems is fine. However, because one division in the NFL is stronger than another is a cyclical thing. Sooner or later that will even out. That's not the case with baseball. By design the teams in the NL Cental are at a competitive disadvantage. Sure, in a perfect world everything would be a little more balanced, but you aren't playing interleague every night, so with 30 teams and 3 divisions in each league, this is what you get. 1443378[/snapback] It shouldn't be what you get. 15 teams per league seems pretty easy to accomplish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 LegFu playing devils advocate as usual . The point that you obviously missed was that unlike other sports that have multiple wildard teams make the playoffs, baseball has 1. So winning the division is way more important in baseball than the other three sports. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be divisions, however it seems pretty straightforward to me that if you have 6 divisions and 30 teams, each division should have 5. Your point about the inequities of the other sports systems is fine. However, because one division in the NFL is stronger than another is a cyclical thing. Sooner or later that will even out. That's not the case with baseball. By design the teams in the NL Cental are at a competitive disadvantage. It shouldn't be what you get. 15 teams per league seems pretty easy to accomplish. 1443424[/snapback] All true, but I still think it's way past time baseball unified it's rules and opened up interleague play more, like NBA and NFL do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 (edited) I didn't think I was missing too much. I agree 100%, that in baseball winning the division is more important than the other sports. That is the way it should be. It's the reason that baseball's regular season actually matters, while basketball's and hockey's basically doesn't. There have been quite a few years recently that the Brewers, Reds, Pirates have all stunk. So St. Louis, Houston, Chicago would only have to beat out two teams for the division title, and have the added benefit of have 3 division rivals to pad their record for wildcard considerations. There have also been years that only one team in the AL West (usually Texas) was bad... so the Angels, A's, and M's would also have to beat out two other teams for the division, but only have one crappy team to beat up. That doesn't appear to be the case this year, but that is cyclical as well. But I understand your point, it isn't without merit. 15 teams in each league is doable, if you want an interleague series all the time. MLB doesn't want that. It's still a relatively new concept, and they like to make a big deal about it... maybe in the future, when they get rid of the DH, they'll open it up more. (I do suppose I play Devils' advocate a bit... not NJ Devils in this case. When 10 people all agree with something, and I do as well, I usually don't feel the need to add onto the thread, without adding something new, so if I'm posting, its often an opposing view I guess) Edited April 29, 2006 by LegFuJohnson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 (edited) 15 teams in each league is doable, if you want an interleague series all the time. MLB doesn't want that. It's still a relatively new concept, and they like to make a big deal about it... maybe in the future, when they get rid of the DH, they'll open it up more. 1443492[/snapback] I'm curious why there has to be more interleague play for them to move one team Ursa's point about unifying the rules while noble, will probably happen about the time pigs grow wings. Edited April 29, 2006 by Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 If you have 15 teams in each league, and you don't expand interleague play... then who is that 15th team going to play against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 If you have 15 teams in each league, and you don't expand interleague play... then who is that 15th team going to play against? 1443505[/snapback] Good point. Five days of the week are full programs usually and having 15 teams in each league would make a 162 game season impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 If you have 15 teams in each league, and you don't expand interleague play... then who is that 15th team going to play against? 1443505[/snapback] :doah: I"m just an accountant, how should I know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 There have been quite a few years recently that the Brewers, Reds, Pirates have all stunk. So St. Louis, Houston, Chicago would only have to beat out two teams for the division title, and have the added benefit of have 3 division rivals to pad their record for wildcard considerations. There have also been years that only one team in the AL West (usually Texas) was bad... so the Angels, A's, and M's would also have to beat out two other teams for the division, but only have one crappy team to beat up. That doesn't appear to be the case this year, but that is cyclical as well. 1443492[/snapback] But by the same token, with Cinci and Milwaukee showing signs of life (excuse me while I at you lumping the sCrubs in with the Cards and Stros), now whomever wins the NLC will have been through a friggin' season-long grind. Again, it's cyclical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 If they could sort out one set of rules to play by, perhaps they could properly re-align. 1443174[/snapback] Maybe the MLB as a whole should be playing National League baseball as the AL rules just don't cut it IMO. No DH!!! End the insanity. Play baseball not whatever it is they do in the AL. I just don't get it. Pitchers should hit end of story. Quicken the game, make them have some fear when they hit a batter. Level the playing field, enough is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Maybe the MLB as a whole should be playing National League baseball as the AL rules just don't cut it IMO. No DH!!! End the insanity. Play baseball not whatever it is they do in the AL. I just don't get it. Pitchers should hit end of story. Quicken the game, make them have some fear when they hit a batter. Level the playing field, enough is enough. 1444742[/snapback] Dunno, I'm kinda on the fence here. Do I want to see a team that has worked hard and well to load the bases with two out have all their efforts ruined by the only non-batter in the team coming up next? Does it make sense to have a guy who has just thrown 18 pitches come up next to bat? Can he focus, or is it always a cheap out? What if he gets a hit or a walk and spends the entire time standing on a base getting cold? Is there a history of more pitcher injuries in the NL? Like I said, I'm on the fence because I don't know the answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 I think having pitchers hit is nice in theory, but sucks in practice. Ursa's examples are the main reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Dunno, I'm kinda on the fence here. Do I want to see a team that has worked hard and well to load the bases with two out have all their efforts ruined by the only non-batter in the team coming up next? Does it make sense to have a guy who has just thrown 18 pitches come up next to bat? Can he focus, or is it always a cheap out? What if he gets a hit or a walk and spends the entire time standing on a base getting cold? Is there a history of more pitcher injuries in the NL? Like I said, I'm on the fence because I don't know the answers. 1444771[/snapback] I think having pitchers hit is nice in theory, but sucks in practice. Ursa's examples are the main reasons. 1445052[/snapback] I've heard all the arguments for the DH. Conversly speaking, having a guy like Dontrell Willis really helps your team. The guy hit .260 last year and brought it to the mound. In addition when a pitcher has to bat it puts some fear in him that if he hits someone, he could potentially get plunked right back. It's part of the game to have pitchers bat. It brings a whole level of strategy to the game that the AL lacks. Managing a NL team is a heck of a lot more challenging. It gets bench players involved, a lot more sacrificing. IMO those are intricate parts of the game and if you can do those things you'll win ballgames. That's baseball!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted May 1, 2006 Author Share Posted May 1, 2006 I've heard all the arguments for the DH. Conversly speaking, having a guy like Dontrell Willis really helps your team. The guy hit .260 last year and brought it to the mound. In addition when a pitcher has to bat it puts some fear in him that if he hits someone, he could potentially get plunked right back. It's part of the game to have pitchers bat. It brings a whole level of strategy to the game that the AL lacks. Managing a NL team is a heck of a lot more challenging. It gets bench players involved, a lot more sacrificing. IMO those are intricate parts of the game and if you can do those things you'll win ballgames. That's baseball!!! 1445457[/snapback] All that is true. I still hate watching pitchers bat for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 All that is true. I still hate watching pitchers bat for the most part. 1445541[/snapback] I agree with that however it's part of the game. Watching a pitcher lay down a sacrifice to move the runners over is a thing of beauty though. The #8 hitter plays a much bigger role in the NL as well. He, as well as both managers know the pitcher is behind him which affects the at-bat. It keeps the game under 3 hours for the most part as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 LegFu playing devils advocate as usual . The point that you obviously missed was that unlike other sports that have multiple wildard teams make the playoffs, baseball has 1. So winning the division is way more important in baseball than the other three sports. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be divisions, however it seems pretty straightforward to me that if you have 6 divisions and 30 teams, each division should have 5. Your point about the inequities of the other sports systems is fine. However, because one division in the NFL is stronger than another is a cyclical thing. Sooner or later that will even out. That's not the case with baseball. By design the teams in the NL Cental are at a competitive disadvantage. It shouldn't be what you get. 15 teams per league seems pretty easy to accomplish. 1443424[/snapback] I disagree that winning your division is paramount in baseball. Maybe I feel that way due to the number of wild card teams that have won the World Series since the wild card was introduced. The division winners get no real benefit over the wild card team in the playoffs. I think they should have two wild card teams in each league, have them play a three game series and then the winner goes on to play a division winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 I disagree that winning your division is paramount in baseball. Maybe I feel that way due to the number of wild card teams that have won the World Series since the wild card was introduced. The division winners get no real benefit over the wild card team in the playoffs. I think they should have two wild card teams in each league, have them play a three game series and then the winner goes on to play a division winner. 1445934[/snapback] That was basically in response to having there only be one wildcard. So winning the division is the only way to guarantee a trip to the playoffs, as opposed to other sports where you can come in 2nd or 3rd or 4th in your division and still make the playoffs. I don't disagree with what you've said, and I've heard and like the idea. One of the few ways to actually add a playoff team, yet make the regular season mean even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted May 1, 2006 Author Share Posted May 1, 2006 I disagree that winning your division is paramount in baseball. Maybe I feel that way due to the number of wild card teams that have won the World Series since the wild card was introduced. The division winners get no real benefit over the wild card team in the playoffs. I think they should have two wild card teams in each league, have them play a three game series and then the winner goes on to play a division winner. 1445934[/snapback] That was basically in response to having there only be one wildcard. So winning the division is the only way to guarantee a trip to the playoffs, as opposed to other sports where you can come in 2nd or 3rd or 4th in your division and still make the playoffs. I don't disagree with what you've said, and I've heard and like the idea. One of the few ways to actually add a playoff team, yet make the regular season mean even more. 1445960[/snapback] Yep, I was just talking about paramount to get the opportunity to play for the title, not winning it. I like the idea of expanding to two wild card teams also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 That was basically in response to having there only be one wildcard. So winning the division is the only way to guarantee a trip to the playoffs, as opposed to other sports where you can come in 2nd or 3rd or 4th in your division and still make the playoffs. I don't disagree with what you've said, and I've heard and like the idea. One of the few ways to actually add a playoff team, yet make the regular season mean even more. 1445960[/snapback] Yep, I was just talking about paramount to get the opportunity to play for the title, not winning it. I like the idea of expanding to two wild card teams also 1446018[/snapback] There's no way to fit that series in without ending the season in November. It's already insanely long anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 With a 162-game regular season, the thought is that there are enough games to decide the top teams, then only those go to the playoffs to decide the the World-Series championship team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.