NL Pitching
Scott Blaha
Tim Phillips wrote:
>
> In article <33C530...@globalvision.net>, sbl...@globalvision.net wrote:
> >OK, somebody tell me again how the NL pitching is far superior to the
> >AL pitching.......
> >
> >Scott
> Wasn't that an AL umpire behind the plate on Tuesday night?
Oh, come on Tim-that's pretty lame...
> BTW, if you'll recall, the game was tied until Alomar's homer. How many hits
> did the AL have? 6? That's not exactly a lot, you know.
Well, six was enough to beat the super-duper can't be hit astounding NL
pitching
wasn't it?
> The AL did outpitch the NL, but remember Piazza's boneheaded running play?
> That took the NL out of a potentially big inning. The outcome could've been
> different.
Yeah sure, excuses, excuses-and I could probably sayif Belle would've
played
the AL would've won by a larger margin.....
What I really keep trying to point out is that there is no real overall
difference
in the level of talent in either league. It's the misplaced logic that
some people
use to try and prove otherwise that is laughable.
Scott
--
sbl...@globalvision.net
Visit my website at http://ww3.globalvision.net/~sblaha
Tim Phillips
>> Wasn't that an AL umpire behind the plate on Tuesday night?
>
>Oh, come on Tim-that's pretty lame...
Ok, maybe I am making excuse, but it was an AL umpire.
Actually, I was trying to be brief with my first post, but the fact of the
matter is the AL calls a tighter strike zone than the NL, pure and simple.
That does NOT mean one is better than the other; it simply means that unless
you throw the ball down the middle of the plate in the AL (at least with some
umps), you're not going to get the call. And we all know what happens when
you throw the ball down the middle of the plate...
>
>> BTW, if you'll recall, the game was tied until Alomar's homer. How many hits
>> did the AL have? 6? That's not exactly a lot, you know.
>
>Well, six was enough to beat the super-duper can't be hit astounding NL
>pitching
>wasn't it?
>
I don't think anyone is saying that the pitching in NL is "astounding" when
compared to the AL THIS year. As a matter of fact, I always hear on Sports
Center how dominating the AL pitching is, especially Randy Johnson and Roger
Clemons (and don't get me wrong: they are. Johnson is absolutely
overpowering and Clemons is a Hall of Famer). A great deal of the talk was
centered around that subject LAST year (and if you doubt the difference
between the leagues last year, just check pitching stats). Part of the reason
the NL stats were better is because two of the best pitchers in the AL,
Johnson and Cone, were out for most of the year. Two of the better AL from
1995, Brown and Al Leiter, came to the NL. So the AL was probably pretty
pitching thin in 1996.
>> The AL did outpitch the NL, but remember Piazza's boneheaded running play?
>> That took the NL out of a potentially big inning. The outcome could've been
>> different.
>
>Yeah sure, excuses, excuses-and I could probably sayif Belle would've
>played
>the AL would've won by a larger margin.....
>
Yeah, right, sure...
>What I really keep trying to point out is that there is no real overall
>difference
>in the level of talent in either league. It's the misplaced logic that
>some people
>use to try and prove otherwise that is laughable.
Now I agree with you there, at least to a point. The AL has some better
sluggers, and the NL has some better pitchers. With regards to this, however,
is the fact that there is an obvious difference in ball parks in both leagues.
The AL is full of smaller hitter's parks (Fenway, Tiger Stadium, Jacob's
Field, Camden Yards, the Ball Park, etc...), while the NL has more pitcher's
ball parks (Dodger Stadium, Busch, the Astrodome) -- with the notable
exceptions of Coors Field and Wrigley, of course.
I think both teams did very well (pitching-wise) and it was a great AS game.
Tim
P.S: Piazza did make a boneheaded play.