MLB 2025 Season

The Juggler

pjl44 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.

If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.

you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.

but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.

The Fixer

RW81233 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.

If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.

Most definitely in interleague. NL teams have to call-up AAA sluggers b/c they don't have anyone for that position.

I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.

pjl44

The Juggler wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

i don't care if the focus is on what someone can't do as opposed to what someone can do. that's just the way the game is...and was for hundred years or so before the dh arrived. i enjoy the the strategy. it's real baseball.

If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.

you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.

but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.

I was saying that almost no one enjoys watching a bad pitcher have to face bad hitters. If you enjoy that, you're in a tiny club. And if you don't know Livan Hernadez or Kyle Lohse, that tells me you're not in that club either.

81

pjl44 wrote:

The 81 wrote:

And AL pitchers have to hit in inter league. I for one like watching pitchers hit.

Its called being a complete player unlike the 90%'s in the AL

There are no pitchers that can hit. None. Striking out or tapping to the shortstop three times a game doesn't make you a complete player.

Zambrano is a pretty good hitter...

Babe ruth was a pretty good hitter.

There are others in between.

I just get the dh....

The Fixer

pjl44 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

The sox and yanks are run better than the other teams in the AL East. AA has turned things around in Toronto. They are better set up for the yanks over the next 5 years.

Plenty of teams make the playoffs every year without spending a ton of money. Just last year you had cincy, SF, Atlanta, Tampa, Minnesota. I don't believe any of them were in the top 10 in payroll last year

You will have aberrations every year. It's about who competes every year and who slips through once every 5-10. The Rays have arguably the best front office in baseball. The Red Sox are certainly up there and the Yankees are above average at best.

To give you an idea what they're up against, playoff appearances the last 10 years:

Yankees - 9
Red Sox - 7
Rays - 2
Orioles - 0
Blue Jays - 0

that just proves that certain teams are run better than others. if the o's spent more money on the draft (like tampa does), instead of wasting money on guys like kevin gregg or vlad guerrero, they would have a better chance of sustaining success.

last year 3 of the top 10 payrolls in baseball made the playoffs. the cubs, mets, tigers, and mariners are always in the top 10 in payroll. how has that worked out for them?

there's zero correlation to high payroll and winning

jimed14

The Fixer wrote:

there's zero correlation to high payroll and winning

such hyperbole

The Juggler

pjl44 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

If you enjoy the current style of NL ball, that's totally your prerogative. The DH argument speaks to the future of the game on a much broader level. For the most part, fans either want to see offensive shows or pitchers who can dominate. Watching Livan Hernandez mow down a no-stick middle infielder and Kyle Lohse every three innings doesn't delight most fans. And, if nothing else, we agree it at least puts one league at a sharp disadvantage.

you lost me with the hernandez and lohse comments.

but, yeah, i'd much prefer a two and a half hour pitchers duel to an 9-5 four hour marathon. the dh is dumbed down baseball.

I was saying that almost no one enjoys watching a bad pitcher have to face bad hitters. If you enjoy that, you're in a tiny club. And if you don't know Livan Hernadez or Kyle Lohse, that tells me you're not in that club either.

of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?

pjl44

The Fixer wrote:

I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.

You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.

The Fixer

jimed14 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

there's zero correlation to high payroll and winning

such hyperbole

that's a great contribution to this debate. thanks for your input

jimed14

The Fixer wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

there's zero correlation to high payroll and winning

such hyperbole

that's a great contribution to this debate. thanks for your input

dude, read your statement again ... "zero correlation"??? ... c'mon.

The Fixer

pjl44 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.

You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.

The AL just has better teams as a whole. Been that way for a long time, hence the lopsided interleague record.

The Fixer

jimed14 wrote:

dude, read your statement again ... "zero correlation"??? ... c'mon.

[/quote]

you must have missed my 5 posts that prove my stance

pjl44

The 81 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

The 81 wrote:

And AL pitchers have to hit in inter league. I for one like watching pitchers hit.

Its called being a complete player unlike the 90%'s in the AL

There are no pitchers that can hit. None. Striking out or tapping to the shortstop three times a game doesn't make you a complete player.

Zambrano is a pretty good hitter...

Babe ruth was a pretty good hitter.

There are others in between.

I just get the dh....

Zambrano's career line is .240/.249/.392. That's terrible, but good for a pitcher. What does that say? Babe Ruth was 80 years ago. Has the game changed a bit since then? If you're not sure, you may want to check in with blacks and hispanics.

jimed14

The Fixer wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

dude, read your statement again ... "zero correlation"??? ... c'mon.

you must have missed my 5 posts that prove my stance

I agree with a lot of what you said, there's a lot that goes into running a team ... but it's not zero correlation.

(If anything, zero correlation means it's perfectly inversely correlated ... but that's a whole different discussion.)

You cannot deny that having money does get you better players and puts you in better position to win a lot more games.

Just because some teams spend a lot and fuck it up, doesn't mean spending a lot doesn't give a team an advantage. It does.

pjl44

The Juggler wrote:

of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?

Of course. But they're not pitching to other bad pitchers.

pjl44

The Fixer wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

I don't think it's that big of an advantage. since the DH was implemented in '76 the AL has the edge 20-15 in the world series.

You see it more in larger samples, like the leagues' records in interleague play. In a best-of-7 series, anything can happen. That's why baseball is the only sport where you "dominated" by winning 60% of your games. The NFL and NBA have teams who win 80% of their games regularly.

The AL just has better teams as a whole. Been that way for a long time, hence the lopsided interleague record.

Right. And they're better because of the DH.

The Juggler

pjl44 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

of course i know who they are. lohse was on the phils a couple years ago....and, um, he's got a 2.67 era with a 1.02 whip. could be an all star. your example was not a good one. there's bad pitchers in the al too. :?

Of course. But they're not pitching to other bad pitchers.

not a fan of a lil strategy, eh?

The Fixer

pjl44 wrote:

The 81 wrote:

Zambrano is a pretty good hitter...

Babe ruth was a pretty good hitter.

There are others in between.

I just get the dh....

Zambrano's career line is .240/.249/.392. That's terrible, but good for a pitcher. What does that say? Babe Ruth was 80 years ago. Has the game changed a bit since then? If you're not sure, you may want to check in with blacks and hispanics.

You're using a pretty small sample size though (what do pitchers get 70 - 80 ABs in a good year??). If zambrano played first base and didn't pitch don't you think his numbers would improve?

I hear what you're saying...most pitchers can't hit. Just saying that their stats don't tell the entire story

The Fixer

jimed14 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

dude, read your statement again ... "zero correlation"??? ... c'mon.

you must have missed my 5 posts that prove my stance

I agree with a lot of what you said, there's a lot that goes into running a team ... but it's not zero correlation.

(If anything, zero correlation means it's perfectly inversely correlated ... but that's a whole different discussion.)

You cannot deny that having money does get you better players and puts you in better position to win a lot more games.

Just because some teams spend a lot and fuck it up, doesn't mean spending a lot doesn't give a team an advantage. It does.

gotcha. I would say that it gives some teams less room for error in regards to resource allocation. I definitely wouldn't say that high payroll equates success though.

I think we're on the same page...zero correlation was probably getting a little carried away

jimed14

The Fixer wrote:

I think we're on the same page...zero correlation was probably getting a little carried away

which ... is the definition of hyperbole.