IST: Cubs @ Padres

[SilenceS]

Mark Grace had the most hits in the 90's

 

[Parade_Rain]

4th in wins, what, at least two hall of famers during the 90s ? Not too shabby. And lots talk of the Strike shortened White Sox. I just mention the 90's when comments like you and your brethren make concerning lightning in a bottle for the 2005 Sox. it wasn't. I've shown that.

No. You haven't.

 

[brett05]

No. You haven't.

ah joining IJPH in the trolling...pass

 

[brett05]

Mark Grace had the most hits in the 90's

not the same analogy as team wins, but I still :clap:

 

[ijustposthere]

ah joining IJPH in the trolling...pass

The Braves won 1 World Series title during their 90s run on top. They made the playoffs year after year after year. They won the division every year. They lost a few times in the WS. They lost a few times in the LCS. The Braves did not catch lightning in a bottle. The Braves made the playoffs more times in a 15 year span than the White Sox have made in their entire franchise history. The White Sox never came close to repeating their success. It's obvious to everyone in the entire baseball watching world. But you think a 90 win playoff-less season and a loss in the divisional round three years later is them being "close."

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Whatever floats your boat, cupcake.

Sure thing, Fat boy.

 

[Diehardfan]

816 wins in the 90s with zero championships and two more playoff series losses....one of them embarrassing. I don't know what you call being a top team but to me 816 wins in 10 years is 81 wins.... .500 = mediocre.

Wire to wire was indeed impressive but just furthers the case for lightning in a bottle as they've never come close to that before or after.

And who the hell gives a shit about Hall of Famers? The Cubs had 3 of them on a team that choked. Means NOTHING.

Sorry that no one cares about your team but it's been that way for a long time, you might want to get used to it because it's never going to change.

 

[fatbeard]

Sorry that no one cares about your team but it's been that way for a long time, you might want to get used to it because it's never going to change.

Now now, Reinsdorf isn't going to live forever.

 

[ijustposthere]

Love when Brett disappears after he's been thoroughly defeated.

 

[Diehardfan]

Heck in the 10s thru last night's games the Cubs and Sox have the same number of wins.

Wow...now there's a great rebuttal. Half of those years the Cubs were tanking and rebuilding....and they have, what? the same number of wins? LOL

Now that speaks volumes.

 

[beckdawg]

You actually just made my argument. It matters not how the DH position is filled it is filled with a guy costing a good chunk of salary that can't be used elsewhere like an NL team can.

Under $10 mil isn't a really a good chunk of salary. And as for it not mattering how it is filled, you're entirely missing the point I feel. The fact that you can freely give a big money contract out to a position player who is on his last legs defensively and have less worry about him murdering your team is a huge deal. For example, if Arod had to play a position daily the Yankees would have been screwed multiple years ago. That means that AL teams can be more aggressive when signing position players in the offseason because the long term risk to them is less.

AL teams by in large don't care about their bench. For them their roster is all about the 9 position players, the starting staff and the bullpen. AL teams spend most of their money on 21 players(22 if you count the back up catcher) where as NL teams have to spread it more evenly over 25. I don't really see that as a huge advantage for the NL. You seem to imply that not having to spend money on a DH means they can pay starters/every day players more. But in reality that's not how it works. They have to spend that money on a bench player that AL doesn't. For example, right now the boston red sox have 10 players with more than 150 PAs, 11 if you want to count Chris Young at 147. The cubs have 12 over 150 PAs plus La Stella at 122 who probably would be there by now if not for roster crunch issues. If your point was NL teams can spend more on a bench then fine we agree. I do however disagree that is some kind of huge advantage for them. There's pros and cons to each side and honestly it's why I'd hate to see the DH come to the NL.

Regardless, suggesting the AL is the "better league" is fairly baseless because you aren't even comparing similar things. It's akin to comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruits but that doesn't mean they are similar just like both NL and AL teams are baseball teams but are very different in construction. Assuming the record holds true, the AL will have won 16 of the 20 years interleague play as existed. That's not really news. In fact, the expectation should be that the AL will win IL play next year as well because 80% of the time they have.

 

[beckdawg]

Isn't it strange how everyone on the internet is 6'5" and 250lbs of rock-hard muscle? I had no idea Brian Urlachers were such a banality.

I'm only 6'3 225 though... and def not rock hard muscle but I do get called to help family members move their houses around a lot.... being tall and having muscle is a burden frankly :-/

 

[CSF77]

From the time Maddux left to the time Wood was a rookie the Tribune was riding the Sosa cash wagon. That era was all about profit

 

[brett05]

Under $10 mil isn't a really a good chunk of salary. And as for it not mattering how it is filled, you're entirely missing the point I feel. The fact that you can freely give a big money contract out to a position player who is on his last legs defensively and have less worry about him murdering your team is a huge deal. For example, if Arod had to play a position daily the Yankees would have been screwed multiple years ago. That means that AL teams can be more aggressive when signing position players in the offseason because the long term risk to them is less.

AL teams by in large don't care about their bench. For them their roster is all about the 9 position players, the starting staff and the bullpen. AL teams spend most of their money on 21 players(22 if you count the back up catcher) where as NL teams have to spread it more evenly over 25. I don't really see that as a huge advantage for the NL. You seem to imply that not having to spend money on a DH means they can pay starters/every day players more. But in reality that's not how it works. They have to spend that money on a bench player that AL doesn't. For example, right now the boston red sox have 10 players with more than 150 PAs, 11 if you want to count Chris Young at 147. The cubs have 12 over 150 PAs plus La Stella at 122 who probably would be there by now if not for roster crunch issues. If your point was NL teams can spend more on a bench then fine we agree. I do however disagree that is some kind of huge advantage for them. There's pros and cons to each side and honestly it's why I'd hate to see the DH come to the NL.

Regardless, suggesting the AL is the "better league" is fairly baseless because you aren't even comparing similar things. It's akin to comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruits but that doesn't mean they are similar just like both NL and AL teams are baseball teams but are very different in construction. Assuming the record holds true, the AL will have won 16 of the 20 years interleague play as existed. That's not really news. In fact, the expectation should be that the AL will win IL play next year as well because 80% of the time they have.

Beckdawg,
You end by showing why the AL is better.
You start by showing that the money the NL doesn't have to spend on a DH can be used elsewhere a luxury the AL does not have. The AL does have some less risk when signing a player if they cannot field.
Your Arod example was bad as he was always better than Jeter. But I concede with my previous statement.

The AL is always disadvantaged and that's my point.

 

[beckdawg]

The AL is always disadvantaged and that's my point.

Why? Because they spend more money on an "everyday" player rather than their bench? I mean you realize if this is such a disadvantage to them that they don't HAVE to pay a starter $10 mil a year right? You realize they can sign Darwin Barney for $1 mil and play him as a DH. They CHOOSE to pay guys that rather than spending on their bench because it makes more sense and probably wins more games. That's not some inherent disadvantage. They do it because it's seemingly proven to give teams the best results. And that is my point. NL teams spend more money on their bench rather than giving it largely to a 9th "good" position player because that style of play suits NL teams the best. Comparing the two isn't comparing similar things because each plays their season quite differently.

As for the AL being better... you can cite IL records all you want but if the AL truly was better 80% of the time like it suggest that would bare fruit in the playoffs and it just doesn't. I'm not even suggesting the NL is "better." I'd say they are mostly 50-50 nearly every year and honestly the world series tends to play to that. At the end of the day, if you don't buy that then whatever. I can literally cite as much math and reason as I want but if you don't buy something then you just don't buy it and I don't know how I'm suppose to argue against the numbers when they suggest the AL has always had an advantage in IL play.

To be blunt, I don't particularly find IL play engaging to begin with. It's always felt like a cheap money grab to me by baseball and given they implemented it not long after the mid 90's strike it sure as hell feels that way. But either way, even if you're right to suggest one league plays better than the other on a consistent basis, so what? Like what does that even mean? Ultimately you end up with one AL team playing one NL team. The other 28 teams bear no impact. So, as an obvious white sox fan it just seems like you're beating your chest with AL nationalism for no reason because your team happens to play in the AL.

My stance is who bloody cares which league is "better?" I only care which TEAM is the best because at the end of the day that's all that matters. Save this which league is better stuff for the joke that is the all-star game which I'll also mention I never watch either because it's rather pointless to me as well.

 

[ijustposthere]

Brett getting rekt from all angles.

 

[CSF77]

Why? Because they spend more money on an "everyday" player rather than their bench? I mean you realize if this is such a disadvantage to them that they don't HAVE to pay a starter $10 mil a year right? You realize they can sign Darwin Barney for $1 mil and play him as a DH. They CHOOSE to pay guys that rather than spending on their bench because it makes more sense and probably wins more games. That's not some inherent disadvantage. They do it because it's seemingly proven to give teams the best results. And that is my point. NL teams spend more money on their bench rather than giving it largely to a 9th "good" position player because that style of play suits NL teams the best. Comparing the two isn't comparing similar things because each plays their season quite differently.

As for the AL being better... you can cite IL records all you want but if the AL truly was better 80% of the time like it suggest that would bare fruit in the playoffs and it just doesn't. I'm not even suggesting the NL is "better." I'd say they are mostly 50-50 nearly every year and honestly the world series tends to play to that. At the end of the day, if you don't buy that then whatever. I can literally cite as much math and reason as I want but if you don't buy something then you just don't buy it and I don't know how I'm suppose to argue against the numbers when they suggest the AL has always had an advantage in IL play.

To be blunt, I don't particularly find IL play engaging to begin with. It's always felt like a cheap money grab to me by baseball and given they implemented it not long after the mid 90's strike it sure as hell feels that way. But either way, even if you're right to suggest one league plays better than the other on a consistent basis, so what? Like what does that even mean? Ultimately you end up with one AL team playing one NL team. The other 28 teams bear no impact. So, as an obvious white sox fan it just seems like you're beating your chest with AL nationalism for no reason because your team happens to play in the AL.

My stance is who bloody cares which league is "better?" I only care which TEAM is the best because at the end of the day that's all that matters. Save this which league is better stuff for the joke that is the all-star game which I'll also mention I never watch either because it's rather pointless to me as well.

When the Stroes moved they had to have a IL game going all of the time.

With no pitcher hitting the AL can use their bench for injury and off days. They don't need to invest more into it.

If it was me I would have 2 lead off types. 1 at CF and a 2nd at SS and plug them 1 and 9. My 8 hitter is my catcher and if he can hit it is just bonus. Rest are all OPS weighted players.

I'd play to run up the scoreboard and crush the other team's will to win.

 

[Omeletpants]

I'm 6'4" and cute as a button

 

[beckdawg]

When the Stroes moved they had to have a IL game going all of the time.

They did this after IL started not prior to. Granted it makes more sense having 15 teams in each league but I think the longer term plan is moving to 32 teams with 4 divisions a la the NFL. Also, technically you wouldn't have to have an IL game but it would require either a long season with more off days or the proposed shortened season.

 

[CSF77]

They did this after IL started not prior to. Granted it makes more sense having 15 teams in each league but I think the longer term plan is moving to 32 teams with 4 divisions a la the NFL. Also, technically you wouldn't have to have an IL game but it would require either a long season with more off days or the proposed shortened season.

I wouldn't be against it. The main problem is extending the play offs into November. Given some states they could see some ice over games.

I just don't see them going past Oct.