Why the AL is better than the NL

[*ernie]

Three main reasons:



1. Better players.

OK, that’s obvious. But I think there’s a reason for this. The success
of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a
season knowing it’s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the wild
card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a good
setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free agent
signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in roster
spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in the
playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter spot
or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.


2. Bad front offices in the “rich” NL teams.


Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets, Cubs
and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been three of
the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job with
Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers
than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL’s big spenders,
and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been
disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the “rich” AL teams -- New York,
Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart and
successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams such as
Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than their
NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
increases.


3. Competition breeds talent.


If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?
This is one issue that I’m not sure the NL can correct except with time
and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and Padres 30
games a year isn’t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and Rays.
















--
ernie k.
already...@hotmail.com

[nomisnala]

> alreadydelet...@hotmail.com

Who won the last two world series and all star games?

[Zoysgha]

All Star games are EXHIBITIONS.

If you think the last two NL WS winners were the best team, you are
probably an LA Kings fan.

[mario in victoria]

The LA Kings played GREAT hockey throughout the playoffs. They were
definitely the better team. Superbly coached for the playoffs.

Considering the lost ONE road game, I'd say they did pretty good.

mario in victoria
--
not really a hockey fan

[Zoysgha]

The point being that they got hot during the playoffs. In the NHL in
particular, the best team does not usually win the Cup. The hottest team
does.

In MLB, that is starting to happen. With the playoffs expanding next
year it will happen more often.

The Giants and Cards were hardly the best teams in MLB during the year.
In 2010, the Giants got in because the Padres blew a big lead in a bad
division. The pitching got hot and they won. You have not heard from
them since.

Last year the Cards got hot and overtook some really lousy teams to
finally take it. That division is so bad the Pirates were in first place.

The last good teams to win the WS were the Yankees, Phillies and Bosox.
Those teams were truly good and deserved it. Now it is getting to be a
one month tournament. Why bother with the regular season?

[PETER SHORTS]

i don't follow hockey, but i'm pretty sure that any team in the
american league could beat the kings any day of the week.

[*ernie]

You're telling that to a die-hard National League fan, albeit one who
can see the reality of things.





--
ernie k.
already...@hotmail.com

[Jon Rossen]

If the 'best' team really is the best team, then why don't *they* get
'hot'? Or if they are so good, then why can't playing at even a non-hot
level be enough to defeat a less talented team playing over their heads
(as you are suggesting).

>
> In MLB, that is starting to happen. With the playoffs expanding next
> year it will happen more often.

Hyperbole. The expansion is just one more freakin' wildcard team...big
deal. And the two wildcard teams have to play some really short
'series'...perhaps just one game to see who advances. It makes being the
wildcard an extreme handicap. Who wants to be in the position of having
your season end with one game? In this sense it is ironic...adding
another wildcard team actually preserves the status of being a division
winner. As it stands now (with only one wildcard team) the wildcard
team is simply the 4th seed with not much less status than say the 3rd
seed (division winner with the worst record).

>
> The Giants and Cards were hardly the best teams in MLB during the year.
> In 2010, the Giants got in because the Padres blew a big lead in a bad
> division. The pitching got hot and they won. You have not heard from
> them since.

The Padres blown big lead complaint is BS, and here's why: It only
looks like a valid excuse unless you look below the surface. During
that entire season the Padres were winning tons of games that most teams
don't. They'd constantly get out hit by other teams and then win the
game by one run. Sure, that happens to some degree but not by one team,
to that extent over a course of over two months. So, I look at their 10
game losing streak as just a larger sample size kicking in, making up
for their undeserved earlier fortunes. and they finished where they
should have finished.

As far as not having heard from the Giants since. There has only been
one season of playoffs since then and the Giants had tons of injuries
last season.

>
> Last year the Cards got hot and overtook some really lousy teams to
> finally take it. That division is so bad the Pirates were in first place.
>
> The last good teams to win the WS were the Yankees, Phillies and Bosox.
> Those teams were truly good and deserved it. Now it is getting to be a
> one month tournament. Why bother with the regular season?

From your perspective, why bother even playing at all? With your
outlook/worldview a team's quality is determined on paper, with stats,
fueled by money. Why not just have the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phils
outspend everyone and then have the baseball equivalent of a penis
measuring contest to see who wins?

Stepping back a bit, your whole method of analyzing this seems like this:

A. I have a premise.
B. I will then dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit the premise.
C. My premise will therefore be validated.

It's a bit abstracted but I think it captures your technique.

Do you only enjoy art and music created/performed by artists and
musicians who are popular and have mass acceptance?

-jon rossen

[Dano]

Silly worthless argument and a big waste of time.

This is simply cyclical.

But the "best" team? It is the one that survives the regular season and
wins the World Series. Any other opinion is merely sour grapes.

[mario in victoria]

Designated hitter or no?

mario in victoria
--
puck that up and...

[Dano]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message
news:Z44Gr.12678$5i7....@newsfe19.iad...

On 6/25/2012 8:00 AM, PETER SHORTS wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:42 am, mario in victoria <mario5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>
>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>

>>>>> OK, that�s obvious. But I think there�s a reason for this. The success

>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a

>>>>> season knowing it�s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the wild

>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a
>>>>> good
>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free agent
>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in roster
>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in
>>>>> the
>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter
>>>>> spot
>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>

>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the �rich� NL teams.

>>
>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets, Cubs
>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been three
>>>>> of
>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job with
>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers

>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL�s big

>>>>> spenders,
>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the �rich� AL teams -- New York,

>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart and
>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams such as
>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than their
>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>> increases.
>>
>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>
>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?

>>>>> This is one issue that I�m not sure the NL can correct except with

>>>>> time
>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and Padres
>>>>> 30

>>>>> games a year isn�t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and

>>>>> Rays.
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ernie k.
>>>>> alreadydelet...@hotmail.com
>>
>>>> Who won the last two world series and all star games?
>>
>>> All Star games are EXHIBITIONS.
>>
>>> If you think the last two NL WS winners were the best team, you are
>>> probably an LA Kings fan.
>>
>> The LA Kings played GREAT hockey throughout the playoffs. They were
>> definitely the better team. Superbly coached for the playoffs.
>>
>> Considering the lost ONE road game, I'd say they did pretty good.
>>
>> mario in victoria
>> --
>> not really a hockey fan
>
> i don't follow hockey, but i'm pretty sure that any team in the
> american league could beat the kings any day of the week.
>

Designated hitter or no?

===============================

On ice or not?

[mario in victoria]

On 6/25/2012 2:41 PM, Dano wrote:
> "mario in victoria" wrote in message
> news:Z44Gr.12678$5i7....@newsfe19.iad...
>
> On 6/25/2012 8:00 AM, PETER SHORTS wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 3:42 am, mario in victoria <mario5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>>
>>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>>

>>>>>> OK, that’s obvious. But I think there’s a reason for this. The

>>>>>> success
>>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
>>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a

>>>>>> season knowing it’s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the

>>>>>> wild
>>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free agent
>>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in
>>>>>> roster
>>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth
>>>>>> starter spot
>>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>>

>>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the “rich” NL teams.

>>>
>>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets,
>>>>>> Cubs
>>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been
>>>>>> three of
>>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job with
>>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers

>>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL’s big

>>>>>> spenders,
>>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the “rich” AL teams -- New York,

>>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart and
>>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams
>>>>>> such as
>>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>>> increases.
>>>
>>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>>
>>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?

>>>>>> This is one issue that I’m not sure the NL can correct except with

>>>>>> time
>>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and
>>>>>> Padres 30

>>>>>> games a year isn’t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and

>>>>>> Rays.
>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ernie k.
>>>>>> alreadydelet...@hotmail.com
>>>
>>>>> Who won the last two world series and all star games?
>>>
>>>> All Star games are EXHIBITIONS.
>>>
>>>> If you think the last two NL WS winners were the best team, you are
>>>> probably an LA Kings fan.
>>>
>>> The LA Kings played GREAT hockey throughout the playoffs. They were
>>> definitely the better team. Superbly coached for the playoffs.
>>>
>>> Considering the lost ONE road game, I'd say they did pretty good.
>>>
>>> mario in victoria
>>> --
>>> not really a hockey fan
>>
>> i don't follow hockey, but i'm pretty sure that any team in the
>> american league could beat the kings any day of the week.
>>
>
> Designated hitter or no?
>
> ===============================
>
> On ice or not?
>

Sticks or bats?

mario in victoria

[nomisnala]

But during the time of the playoffs, the giants had gelled, and were
indeed
the best team. Their pitching kicked Butt.

[Zoysgha]

On 25-Jun-12 21:10, nomisnala wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:57 am, Zoysgha <aksdjfhadk...@htie.com> wrote:
>> On 25-Jun-12 03:42, mario in victoria wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>
>>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>

>>>>>> OK, that�s obvious. But I think there�s a reason for this. The success

>>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
>>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a

>>>>>> season knowing it�s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the wild

>>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a good
>>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free agent
>>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in roster
>>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in the
>>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter
>>>>>> spot
>>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>

>>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the �rich� NL teams.

>>
>>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets, Cubs
>>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been
>>>>>> three of
>>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job with
>>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers

>>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL�s big

>>>>>> spenders,
>>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the �rich� AL teams -- New York,

>>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart and
>>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams such as
>>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than their
>>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>>> increases.
>>
>>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>
>>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?

>>>>>> This is one issue that I�m not sure the NL can correct except with time

>>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and
>>>>>> Padres 30

>>>>>> games a year isn�t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and

Like I said, they got hot at the right time.

[Zoysgha]

On 25-Jun-12 12:21, Jon Rossen wrote:
> On 6/25/2012 2:57 AM, Zoysgha wrote:
>> On 25-Jun-12 03:42, mario in victoria wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> OK, that�s obvious. But I think there�s a reason for this. The

>>>>>> success
>>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
>>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a

>>>>>> season knowing it�s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the

>>>>>> wild
>>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free agent
>>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in
>>>>>> roster
>>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter
>>>>>> spot
>>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the �rich� NL teams.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets,
>>>>>> Cubs
>>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been
>>>>>> three of
>>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job with
>>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers

>>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL�s big

>>>>>> spenders,
>>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the �rich� AL teams -- New York,

>>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart and
>>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams
>>>>>> such as
>>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>>> increases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?

>>>>>> This is one issue that I�m not sure the NL can correct except with

>>>>>> time
>>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and
>>>>>> Padres 30

>>>>>> games a year isn�t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and

What a shame you missed the entire point of the post with your MSNBC
analysis.

[Jon Rossen]

On 6/25/2012 7:03 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
> On 25-Jun-12 12:21, Jon Rossen wrote:
>> On 6/25/2012 2:57 AM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>> On 25-Jun-12 03:42, mario in victoria wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> OK, that’s obvious. But I think there’s a reason for this. The

>>>>>>> success
>>>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
>>>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a

>>>>>>> season knowing it’s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the

>>>>>>> wild
>>>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free
>>>>>>> agent
>>>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in
>>>>>>> roster
>>>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter
>>>>>>> spot
>>>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the “rich” NL teams.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets,
>>>>>>> Cubs
>>>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been
>>>>>>> three of
>>>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers

>>>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL’s big

>>>>>>> spenders,
>>>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the “rich” AL teams -- New York,

>>>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams
>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>>>> increases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?

>>>>>>> This is one issue that I’m not sure the NL can correct except with

>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and
>>>>>>> Padres 30

>>>>>>> games a year isn’t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and

Sorry, I guess I was just responding to your Fox news like lack of
analysis in your posting which was repeated here in your rebuttal.

I'm wondering if you really just disagree with my analysis, or are
bothered by the fact that there simply was any analysis to begin with.
Seeing as you brought up MSNBC in a snide, pejorative fashion, I figured
I won't have to go all that far out on a limb and assume that you are
one of those Fox news sycophants that are allergic to analysis.


-jon rossen

[mario in victoria]

On 6/25/2012 7:03 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
> On 25-Jun-12 12:21, Jon Rossen wrote:
>> On 6/25/2012 2:57 AM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>> On 25-Jun-12 03:42, mario in victoria wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> OK, that’s obvious. But I think there’s a reason for this. The

>>>>>>> success
>>>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to
>>>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a

>>>>>>> season knowing it’s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the

>>>>>>> wild
>>>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free
>>>>>>> agent
>>>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in
>>>>>>> roster
>>>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter
>>>>>>> spot
>>>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the “rich” NL teams.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets,
>>>>>>> Cubs
>>>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been
>>>>>>> three of
>>>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers

>>>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL’s big

>>>>>>> spenders,
>>>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the “rich” AL teams -- New York,

>>>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams
>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>>>> increases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct?

>>>>>>> This is one issue that I’m not sure the NL can correct except with

>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and
>>>>>>> Padres 30

>>>>>>> games a year isn’t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and

Actually, I think he nailed it.
You have said nothing to support your assertions. You simply made a
blanket statement which is completely subjective.

mario in victoria
--
yawn

[Phil]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message

news:6hdGr.40392$hJ3....@newsfe14.iad...

you here that timmy your better than your record ------------- giants had a
lot of luck & beat a better team no repeat nope wait another 50 years
shou ld of spent some $$$ to fill in for the beard ya think?




--
Phil

[Dano]

"Phil" wrote in message news:jsd0d...@news1.newsguy.com...

============================================

I for one think you sound like an illiterate buffoon.

[mario in victoria]

On 6/26/2012 11:52 AM, Phil wrote:
> "mario in victoria" wrote in message
> news:6hdGr.40392$hJ3....@newsfe14.iad...
>
> On 6/25/2012 7:03 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>> On 25-Jun-12 12:21, Jon Rossen wrote:

<snip>

>>>
>>> From your perspective, why bother even playing at all? With your
>>> outlook/worldview a team's quality is determined on paper, with stats,
>>> fueled by money. Why not just have the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phils
>>> outspend everyone and then have the baseball equivalent of a penis
>>> measuring contest to see who wins?
>>>
>>> Stepping back a bit, your whole method of analyzing this seems like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> A. I have a premise.
>>> B. I will then dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit the premise.
>>> C. My premise will therefore be validated.
>>>
>>> It's a bit abstracted but I think it captures your technique.
>>>
>>> Do you only enjoy art and music created/performed by artists and
>>> musicians who are popular and have mass acceptance?
>>>
>>> -jon rossen
>>
>> What a shame you missed the entire point of the post with your MSNBC
>> analysis.
>
> Actually, I think he nailed it.
> You have said nothing to support your assertions. You simply made a
> blanket statement which is completely subjective.
>
> mario in victoria

> you here that timmy your better than your record ------------- giants had a lot of
> luck & beat a better team no repeat nope wait another 50 years
> shou ld of spent some $$$ to fill in for the beard ya think?

I'm unsure of what your answer means.
You're making a statement and not even trying to back it up.

What team HAS repeated as a WS winner lately?

mario in victoria
--
i'm out of it

[Zoysgha]

Hardly. There are specifics. It is just too bad that he can't handle
being taken down with the facts.

[Zoysgha]

That's OK. Most MSNBC libtards can't deal with facts. They just brey
like flatulent cows.

> I'm wondering if you really just disagree with my analysis, or are
> bothered by the fact that there simply was any analysis to begin with.
> Seeing as you brought up MSNBC in a snide, pejorative fashion, I figured
> I won't have to go all that far out on a limb and assume that you are
> one of those Fox news sycophants that are allergic to analysis.

You were the one with the pejorative statement when you condescendingly
assumed I enjoyed only pop music and am not as sophisticated as you in
analysing things. That is straight out of the "elite" MSNBC school of
patronising puke.

[Jon Rossen]

On 6/26/2012 2:31 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
> On 26-Jun-12 01:02, Jon Rossen wrote:
>> On 6/25/2012 7:03 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>> On 25-Jun-12 12:21, Jon Rossen wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2012 2:57 AM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>>> On 25-Jun-12 03:42, mario in victoria wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2012 10:07 PM, Zoysgha wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25-Jun-12 00:53, nomisnala wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:02 pm, *ernie <alreadydelet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Three main reasons:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Better players.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> OK, that�s obvious. But I think there�s a reason for this. The

>>>>>>>>> success
>>>>>>>>> of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American
>>>>>>>>> League to
>>>>>>>>> perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go
>>>>>>>>> into a

>>>>>>>>> season knowing it�s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the

>>>>>>>>> wild
>>>>>>>>> card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a
>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>> setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free
>>>>>>>>> agent
>>>>>>>>> signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in
>>>>>>>>> roster
>>>>>>>>> spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep
>>>>>>>>> you in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth
>>>>>>>>> starter
>>>>>>>>> spot
>>>>>>>>> or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> 2. Bad front offices in the �rich� NL teams.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets,
>>>>>>>>> Cubs
>>>>>>>>> and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been
>>>>>>>>> three of
>>>>>>>>> the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank
>>>>>>>>> McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal
>>>>>>>>> hairdressers

>>>>>>>>> than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL�s big

>>>>>>>>> spenders,
>>>>>>>>> and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been

>>>>>>>>> disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the �rich� AL teams -- New

>>>>>>>>> York,
>>>>>>>>> Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams
>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>> Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity
>>>>>>>>> increases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. Competition breeds talent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you play against better players, you tend to get better,
>>>>>>>>> correct?

>>>>>>>>> This is one issue that I�m not sure the NL can correct except with

>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and
>>>>>>>>> Padres 30

>>>>>>>>> games a year isn�t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees

Sorry, didn't mean it the way you took it. I'm sure you are
sophisticated even though I do not share your political leanings.

The SF Giants will win the WS again this year and right after that Obama
will get re-elected. He won't be the best candidate but he'll get 'hot'
at just the right time. <G> Probably when Mitt Romney starts opening
his mouth during the debates and folks start to see the following truth:
That Romney is the elitist, not folks on the left.

[Zoysgha]

Apology accepted.

[Awful Lincecum]

Zoysgha <aksdjf...@htie.com> wrote:

>
> The Giants and Cards were hardly the best teams in MLB during the
> year. In 2010, the Giants got in because the Padres blew a big
> lead in a bad division. The pitching got hot and they won.

Uh, Mr. Clueless, their pitching didn't just get hot in the playoff.
They had the best pitching the entire year. Look it up.

> The last good teams to win the WS were the Yankees, Phillies and
> Bosox. Those teams were truly good and deserved it.

Oh you mean the teams that routinely outspent the other teams. So
in your opinion whoever spends the most money should always deserve
to win, right?

As far as the AL having better players, it may be true due to two
big reasons:

1) The DH. Whenever you compare an AL lineup to an NL lineup, even
with 8 spots on both teams being even, you're comparing a DH to a
pitcher for the 9th spot. So AL teams have one extra starting
*hitter* than the NL teams, thus even if the rest of the roster are
dead even, The AL has the advantage in the DH.

That's also probably why the AL seems to do better in interleague
games. When pitchers are in the lineup, the NL isn't really in much
of an advantage since pitchers still bat like pitchers. But when
the DH is in the lineup, the AL has a big advantage, since the DH is
often a great hitter who's making big money or at least one of the
best hitters on the team, while the NL is starting a bench player,
not an everyday player.

2) AL spends more money than the NL. I'm not sure if that's the
case for the entire league, but if you look at the top 5 or 6 teams,
AL almost always outnumbers the NL. For example, in 2012, 5 of the
top 6 payrolls are AL teams. In 2011, 4 of the top 5 are AL teams.
In 2010, 6 of the top 9 are AL teams. In 2009, 4 of the top 6 are
AL teams. What's more, the top team is always the Yanks, by a wide
margin. And Boston is often #2.

The Yanks and the Sox are routinely 2 of the biggest spenders, if
not *the* top 2 spenders, and you wonder why the AL East is always
competitive? Duh!

The comment about the Giants not repeating was so dumb. When was
the last team that repeated? It was 12 years ago, by the Yanks, the
team that always spends the most money. When was the last time a
team who didn't have the highest payroll repeated? You have to go
back almost 20 years.

And last year the Giants led their division until late August, even
though I believe they only had 1 position player on the entire
roster who did not go on the DL.

The NL won 3 of the last 4 WS, and 4 of the last 6. The Yanks beat
the Phillies in 2009, and also almost doubled the Phillies' payroll.
In 2007 the Red Sox beat the Rockies, and almost *tripled* the
Rockies' payroll. The last non-Yanks/non-Red Sox AL team who won?
You have to go back 7 years(White Sox).

Offense wins in the regular season, but pitching wins World Series.
It's kinda like how in football, offense *might* get you the best
record, but defense usually wins the Super Bowl. Baseball is
different from football though, where the playoff is a different
game than the regular season. There are a lot of mediocre pitchers
in baseball, and a good hitting lineup will eat those pitchers up in
the regular season. But in the playoff, you only face the better
pitchers, and the #5 pitcher doesn't even pitch in the playoff. The
better pitchers can often shutdown the good hitting lineups. If you
have 2 dominmant pitchers like the Dbacks did with Johnson and
Schilling in 2001, that might be enough to win the WS since all you
need is 4 wins(2 starts each), even though the Yanks easily had the
better team overall. Being hot late in the season also helps in the
playoff, but nonetheless, success in the playoff often requires a
different formula than success in the regular season.

Despite being the biggest spender in baseball every year, the Yanks
only won 1 WS in the last 11 years, even though they were probably
the so called "best team in the regular season" in many of those
years. Ask them if they care about being the best team in the
regular season. :-)

[Zoysgha]

Apology accepted.

[Phil]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message

news:oCoGr.24710$u71....@newsfe07.iad...

point is that if the gnats spent $ to replace the beard they might be able
to repeat again in 50 years --------- nah even with a relief ace & a 2011
version of the timmy pot head they still wouldn't repeat but there is always
2061 ! errr








--
Phil

[Phil]

"Awful Lincecum" wrote in message
news:XnsA07F22979EBE0...@130.133.4.11...

Since 2000 the Yankees have been in 4 world series & won 2 of
them ---------- best record in mlb this century & the best ever.





--
Phil

[mario in victoria]

On 6/27/2012 3:01 PM, Phil wrote:

<snip>

> Since 2000 the Yankees have been in 4 world series & won 2 of them
> ---------- best record in mlb this century & the best ever.

> --
> Phil

'This' century started in 2001.

But yes, the Yankees are tied for the most WS losses this century.

mario in victoria
--
pedantic, as always

[Phil]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message

news:hjMGr.25755$u71....@newsfe07.iad...

21st century starts at 2000

Yankees best in mlb in 21st century ---------- and they are the best
alltime


--
Phil

[mario in victoria]

On 6/28/2012 10:11 PM, Phil wrote:
> --
> pedantic, as always
>
>
> 21st century starts at 2000
>
> Yankees best in mlb in 21st century ---------- and they are the best
> alltime
>
>
> --
> Phil

mario in victoria
--
pedantic, as always


21st century starts at 2000

Yankees best in mlb in 21st century ---------- and they are the best
alltime


--
Phil

You could look it up.

Paraphrased from various (many) sources:

"The new millennium, as per the Gregorian Calendar used in most of the
world, began on January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000."

mario in victoria
--
so many wrong.
why am i not surprised?

[Phil]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message

news:IFcHr.11503$%Y2....@newsfe02.iad...

Gregory ? Who does he play for ?

PETE belongs in the hall of fame !

20th centiry started when 19th ended and the 21st started when the 20th
ended , thats why it was 1999 & then 2000 by my count.

[mario in victoria]

************************************
You really are obtuse, aren't you?

I'm not surprised you don't know what the Gregorian Calendar is.
But it's been in use longer than you.

You could look it up.

Every resource says you're wrong.
Play it as you like, but you're wrong.

That means: Not right.

You're wrong.
Look it up.
You can learn a lot about things that way.

You're wrong.

mario in victoria
--
pete was a jerk and a gambler (if you mean pete rose)

[Duwop]

On Jun 30, 4:50 pm, "Phil" <P...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> PETE belongs in the hall of fame !
>

Okay, now we know you are a nut.

I hope that when he dies, they bury him in a crypt that's immediately
ajacent to the HOF property so he can stay "just" outside in
perpetuity.

That would be sweet.

[mario in victoria]

Love it!!!!

Thanks, I needed that after Italy's embarrassing loss to Spain.

mario in victoria
--
got dismantled

[Phil]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message

news:cUNHr.34471$FV6....@newsfe05.iad...

cannucks will believe anything huh?
PETE belongs in the hall of fame & canada needs to follow montreal & get
out of mlb - start your own league like japan did--
Phil

[mario in victoria]

On 7/3/2012 11:50 AM, Phil wrote:
> "mario in victoria" wrote in message

> news:cUNHr.34471$FV6....@newsfe05.iad...

>
Gregory ? Who does he play for ?

PETE belongs in the hall of fame !

20th centiry started when 19th ended and the 21st started when the
20th ended , thats why it was 1999 & then 2000 by my count.

************************************
You really are obtuse, aren't you?

I'm not surprised you don't know what the Gregorian Calendar is.
But it's been in use longer than you.

You could look it up.

Every resource says you're wrong.
Play it as you like, but you're wrong.

That means: Not right.

You're wrong.
Look it up.
You can learn a lot about things that way.

You're wrong.

mario in victoria
--
pete was a jerk and a gambler (if you mean pete rose)

cannucks will believe anything huh?
PETE belongs in the hall of fame & canada needs to follow montreal &
get out of mlb - start your own league like japan did--
Phil

Believe anything? Well, only when it's factual, unlike some people who
think an uninformed opinion is better than the truth.

And why the racial slur?

Did I touch a nerve by pointing out how ignorant you are about millenia?

Pete (Rose) was still a gambler.
You could look that up to...

mario in victori
--
you're still wrong on all counts

[Uncle Abogado®]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:31:12 -0400, Zoysgha <aksdjf...@htie.com>
wrote:

>That's OK. Most MSNBC libtards can't deal with facts. They just brey
>like flatulent cows.

I suspected that you were a blithering idiot after your first post.
Thank you for providing confirmation of my suspicions.

[Zoysgha]

I knew from your first post that you were a complete asshole. There was
no need for additional confirmation even though your gay Dickey worship
posts provided ample evidence.

[Awful Lincecum]

The illiteracy problem in this country is saddening. :-)

Btw, what kind of team do you guys think the Yanks would be if their
payroll is only in the neighborhood of around $100M or less like most
of the other teams? Perennial doormat?

[Dano]

"Awful Lincecum" wrote in message

news:XnsA091EFC6BA50F...@130.133.4.11...

<snip>

The illiteracy problem in this country is saddening. :-)

Btw, what kind of team do you guys think the Yanks would be if their
payroll is only in the neighborhood of around $100M or less like most
of the other teams? Perennial doormat?

============================================

I don't know. But they could probably find a way to be quite competitive
anyway. With good management...wise drafting...a different philosophy. Why
do they spend so much? Because they CAN. Their revenues are so far above
and beyond everyone else that it's a no brainer. Their fans would be pissed
if they failed to spend like they do. There really is no comparison.

[Zoysgha]

Upset cause the Giants are back to being perennial sucktards? Too
fucking bad. Most of the fans that bitch like little pussy girls like
you root for teams that do not deserve a major league team.

You're a fucking loser.

But your apology is still accepted.

[Awful Lincecum]

You must be blind(or just really stupid). The Giants are in 1st
place. :-)

> You're a fucking loser.

Wow you sound pissed. I guess I must have said something that was
so correct and so hurt your feeling. :-) Just by the language you
used versus mine, everyone can see who the loser is already. :-)

The Yankees can still be competitive with an average payroll? I
guess it's possible but it's highly unlikely. Most of those big
contract players only flocked to NY because they can throw the most
money at them. They don't have better management. What they have
is so much money that would make any average management look good.
Otherwise Tampa might have ruled the AL East the last couple of
years.

You guys are proud of the 3 WS that you won in the last 12 years,
but do you know how much more money you've spent than the average
team in those 12 years? Around a billion dollars. Yet you only won
3. That's actually quite pathetic.

It's like someone who spent $40 grand on a sporty BMW or whatever to
race with a bunch of Corollas and Prius, and you still lose 9 out of
12 races. Here you are bragging about the 3 wins, not realizing how
pathetic you are considering the circumstances.

They don't have better management. They simply have a lot more
money. Good management with that kind of money would have won more
than 3. They can fill an all-star lineup at each position with
$200M.

Now go back to crying and using foul language like the loser you
are. :-)