PDA

View Full Version : How bad is the NL?


Fake Chet Lemon
06-21-2006, 09:11 AM
I knew the National League was bad this year, but what the AL Central did to the NL Central on Tuesday night (6/20) was vicious. Lead by the Sox 20-6 victory the AL Central went 5-0 and won by a combined score of 50-20!!!

ESPN.COM listed the Mets as the #1 team in their Power Poll last week. Does anyone over there know baseball? No NL team should ever be listed in the top 5 this year, ever. The BEST team in the NL would likely finish 4th if they played in the AL Central, 3rd in a best case scenario and possibly even 5th.

Is there any reason to play the World Series this year after the ALCS?

rdwj
06-21-2006, 09:13 AM
ESPN rated a New York team #1 in the power rankings? Who would have guessed?!?!

Tragg
06-21-2006, 09:19 AM
Let's hope it doesnt' get more unbalanced with the midseason trades. It likely will. Atlanta will be dumping doggie (they'd love to scoop a trove of young players for Jones, although that may have to wait until offseason), as will Pitt; maybe even the Brewers and Phillies will lease out a few players.
Of course, ultimately, that will/may lead to imbalance the other way
The NL was a lot stronger than the AL in the 1960s due, primarily, to the AL's being slow to the game in signing black athletes. But not like this.
After all the NL hasn't won a single world series game since 2003.

Frater Perdurabo
06-21-2006, 10:03 AM
The NL is so bad that the three most recent World Series champs to come from the NL were EXPANSION teams that did not exist in 1990! Even the Colorado Rockies won the NL Wild Card in 1995. The only long-time NL franchises to win a World Series since 1983 are the Braves (95), Reds (90), Dodgers (88) and Mets (86). The NL should be ashamed!

Meanwhile, the AL's most recent expansion team can't get out of the cellar in its own division, despite a team full of very good, young players (Kazmir, Crawford, etc.). If the Devil Rays started out in the National League, they already would have made the playoffs.

Ten different AL teams have won at least one World Series since 1983, for a total of 15 AL World Series victories. The NL has won seven World Series since 1983. In terms of World Series games won since 1983, the AL has destroyed the NL 75-49, for a .573 winning percentage.

Frater Perdurabo
06-21-2006, 10:09 AM
Let's hope it doesnt' get more unbalanced with the midseason trades. It likely will. Atlanta will be dumping doggie (they'd love to scoop a trove of young players for Jones, although that may have to wait until offseason), as will Pitt; maybe even the Brewers and Phillies will lease out a few players.

This is a good point. AL teams are not likely to want to help one another, and there will be so many teams "in the hunt" that very few will be sellers. OTOH, a number of NL teams will be out of it. AL teams will raid those NL sellers for whatever talent they have.

The AL could have eight 90-win teams this year: White Sox, Tigers, Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rangers, Athletics (starting their annual surge) and Indians (don't count them out yet). It's almost certain there will be at least five. Any one of these eight teams would win 100+ games in the NL.

Fake Chet Lemon
06-21-2006, 10:11 AM
I credit the Yankees for this imbalance.

By them setting the bar with their goofy payrolls, it forces everyone else in the league to try and find creative ways to keep up.

It works the opposite in the NL. The Cards DUMPED payroll when they moved into their new stadium because the rest of their division isn't that good. If the Yankees were in the NL Central, the Cards wouldn't have dumped payroll that year.

ChiSoxLifer
06-21-2006, 10:38 AM
Did anyone notice the AL central teams went undefeated versus the NL central teams last night?

bigsqwert
06-21-2006, 11:20 AM
Did anyone notice the AL central teams went undefeated versus the NL central teams last night?

Yes. The person who started this thread since he mentioned it.

ode to veeck
06-21-2006, 11:28 AM
Anyone got the interleague W-L AL vs NL total so far? Looking at it now and then by day, it looks like the NL is getting mostly whalloped this year.

Chicken Dinner
06-21-2006, 11:32 AM
The NL doesn't spend 8 million plus for a bench player like the AL does (DH) because they don't have to.

SoxSpeed22
06-21-2006, 11:34 AM
The Yankees and the Red Sox really tipped the scales between 2003 and 2004 by signing or trading for a lot of NL players.

RKMeibalane
06-21-2006, 11:37 AM
The NL doesn't spend 8 million plus for a bench player like the AL does (DH) because they don't have to.

And as long as that's the case, they're going to get their asses kicked. The American League sends Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Frank Thomas, and Travis Haffner to the plate. The NL counters with Eric Milton and Glendon Rusch flailing away.

Edit: I would hope people have more common sense than to call the four men I just mentioned "bench players." The DH is a starting position in the AL, and has been for more than three decades.

RKMeibalane
06-21-2006, 11:45 AM
While I'm thinking about it, I think MLB should do an experiment next season during interleague play. Let the AL teams use the DH in National League parks, and we'll see how badly the NL gets clobbered.

FedEx227
06-21-2006, 11:48 AM
Edit: I would hope people have more common sense than to call the four men I just mentioned "bench players." The DH is a starting position in the AL, and has been for more than three decades.

Oh my god! CHANGE! More exciting baseball!

ChiSoxLifer
06-21-2006, 11:49 AM
Yes. The person who started this thread since he mentioned it.

Oh how stupid of me. I need to be more attentive when I read.

JorgeFabregas
06-21-2006, 11:53 AM
ESPN.COM listed the Mets as the #1 team in their Power Poll last week. Does anyone over there know baseball? No NL team should ever be listed in the top 5 this year, ever. The BEST team in the NL would likely finish 4th if they played in the AL Central, 3rd in a best case scenario and possibly even 5th.

I agree that the AL is way better, but you're drinking a bit much of the Kool-Aid here. The Mets or the Cardinals would never finish below the Royals, failing a plane crash.

soxfanatlanta
06-21-2006, 12:20 PM
Is there any reason to play the World Series this year after the ALCS?

In principle, I agree. However, when I think back to the 2003 Marlins, and the 1990 Reds - yeah you still have to play them :tongue:

Frater Perdurabo
06-21-2006, 12:46 PM
I agree that the AL is way better, but you're drinking a bit much of the Kool-Aid here. The Mets or the Cardinals would never finish below the Royals, failing a plane crash.

Agreed, but somebody in the AL has to be the punching bags for all the superior teams. If KC played full-time in the NL, I guarantee they would not be in last place of their division. However, I'm not sure the Cubs, Pirates or Marlins would have double digit wins right now if they played in the AL.

It's almost to the point where the leagues need to re-align franchises based on strength. The NL could be for the inferior teams - generally from smaller market cities - all of whom would play most of their schedule against each other. Finishing the season in first would give a team the right to step up to the superior AL for the next season. Meanwhile, each season's last-place AL team would then descend to the inferior NL for the next season. AL teams would play each other in a grueling marathon regular season, with the first and second place teams facing off in the World Series.

For the sake of comedy, in the inaugural year of this alignment I'd put the Cubs into the AL. They almost certainly would finish last and be the first team to be demoted to the NL.
:redneck

viagracat
06-21-2006, 12:47 PM
In a Trib column today, an unnamed Sox clubhouse employee referred to the AL as "the man's league".

Except for the Marlins, who so far are kicking AL ass! What's up with that? :o:

Crazy game sometimes.

RKMeibalane
06-21-2006, 01:25 PM
Agreed, but somebody in the AL has to be the punching bags for all the superior teams. If KC played full-time in the NL, I guarantee they would not be in last place of their division. However, I'm not sure the Cubs, Pirates or Marlins would have double digit wins right now if they played in the AL.

It's almost to the point where the leagues need to re-align franchises based on strength. The NL could be for the inferior teams - generally from smaller market cities - all of whom would play most of their schedule against each other. Finishing the season in first would give a team the right to step up to the superior AL for the next season. Meanwhile, each season's last-place AL team would then descend to the inferior NL for the next season. AL teams would play each other in a grueling marathon regular season, with the first and second place teams facing off in the World Series.

For the sake of comedy, in the inaugural year of this alignment I'd put the Cubs into the AL. They almost certainly would finish last and be the first team to be demoted to the NL.
:redneck

Does this mean that Hangar would be the National League President, then? I actually think baseball should go back to having two league offices, separate balls, and umpiring crews. The mixing has gotten old.

ode to veeck
06-21-2006, 01:35 PM
By my count, it looks like the Al vs NL W-L is 61-53 or the Al is winning at a .535 clip vs the NL so far this year.

I want Mags back
06-21-2006, 01:37 PM
THE NL sucks. I cant say much more about it

Fake Chet Lemon
06-21-2006, 01:52 PM
Did anyone notice the AL central teams went undefeated versus the NL central teams last night?

Did anyone notice you can't read?

Fake Chet Lemon
06-21-2006, 01:55 PM
I agree that the AL is way better, but you're drinking a bit much of the Kool-Aid here. The Mets or the Cardinals would never finish below the Royals, failing a plane crash.

My point was they could finish behind the Sox, Tigers , Twins and Indians for 5th place.

Fred Manrique
06-21-2006, 01:56 PM
I agree that the AL is way better, but you're drinking a bit much of the Kool-Aid here. The Mets or the Cardinals would never finish below the Royals, failing a plane crash.

I love to insult the National League as much as the next guy, but I highly doubt that the Mets or Cards would finish behind the Twins or Indians (at least the way they are playing presently). As for the rest of the NL, I don't see anyone who could manage a winning record in the AL.

nebraskasox
06-21-2006, 02:19 PM
By my count, it looks like the Al vs NL W-L is 61-53 or the Al is winning at a .535 clip vs the NL so far this year.

You might double check. I get 61-43 for a .587 pct.

ode to veeck
06-21-2006, 05:33 PM
I love to insult the National League as much as the next guy, but I highly doubt that the Mets or Cards would finish behind the Twins or Indians (at least the way they are playing presently). As for the rest of the NL, I don't see anyone who could manage a winning record in the AL.

I dunno about that, the Twinkies have won 8 straight and 9 of ten

Fenway
06-21-2006, 05:53 PM
I highly doubt Bronson Arroyo would be 9-3 with an ERA of 2.47 if he was still with Boston.

The NL can't win an All-Star Game, their last World Series game win was in 2003. The AL is simply a much stronger league right now, cripes the Orioles went into Shea and took 2 of 3.

Hitmen77
06-21-2006, 11:48 PM
I highly doubt Bronson Arroyo would be 9-3 with an ERA of 2.47 if he was still with Boston.

The NL can't win an All-Star Game, their last World Series game win was in 2003. The AL is simply a much stronger league right now, cripes the Orioles went into Shea and took 2 of 3.

The Royals took 2 of 3 from the Astros at Houston. :o: And KC is going for the sweep against the Pirates tomorrow.

Vernam
06-22-2006, 12:08 AM
I love to insult the National League as much as the next guy, but I highly doubt that the Mets or Cards would finish behind the Twins or Indians (at least the way they are playing presently). As for the rest of the NL, I don't see anyone who could manage a winning record in the AL.:?: The Twins have won 10 of 12. I cut slack to any team that has to play the Sox and Tigers as much as they do.

Mets would do okay in the AL, but they wouldn't be dominant anywhere except maybe the West division.

Vernam

CubsfansareDRUNK
06-22-2006, 12:18 AM
While I'm thinking about it, I think MLB should do an experiment next season during interleague play. Let the AL teams use the DH in National League parks, and we'll see how badly the NL gets clobbered.

Why? The AL is clobbering the NL even without the DH! :D:

McCuddy
06-22-2006, 12:26 PM
I highly doubt Bronson Arroyo would be 9-3 with an ERA of 2.47 if he was still with Boston.



Hell, Bronson Pinchot would have a winning record in the NL this year.

Frater Perdurabo
06-22-2006, 12:38 PM
Hell, Bronson Pinchot would have a winning record in the NL this year.

Well of course he would, don't be reedikulus. :tongue:

PaulDrake
06-22-2006, 02:23 PM
Is my math fuzzy or does the AL have a 71-47 edge so far?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings/grid

McCuddy
06-22-2006, 03:11 PM
That's what I got - and #72 is Tampa Bay today.

QCIASOXFAN
06-22-2006, 04:00 PM
The N.L. is just brutal! I will say one good thing, the N.L. West is all at or over .500, but the most over is the Padres and they are only over by 5 games.

Deebs14
06-22-2006, 06:00 PM
That's what I got - and #72 is Tampa Bay today.

Finishing off the sweep of the D-Backs with a nice outing by Kazmir today.

Also didn't know until today that TB's pitcher James Shields (4-0) is the cousin of Aaron Rowand.

jdm2662
06-22-2006, 10:56 PM
How bad is the NL?

KC has won four in a row and five of their last six. All against the NL. :o:

JimEdmonds15
06-22-2006, 10:59 PM
Bad enough that I still believe my Cards will win it this year.. then again it's early..

1951Campbell
06-22-2006, 11:05 PM
Hell, Bronson Pinchot would have a winning record in the NL this year.

So would Charles Bronson.

"No dice."

"This ain't over."

:D:

gf2020
06-22-2006, 11:31 PM
Also didn't know until today that TB's pitcher James Shields (4-0) is the cousin of Aaron Rowand.

Does Jon Garland have a cousin we can trade to acquire Shields?

Fake Chet Lemon
06-23-2006, 10:10 AM
Royals-Flush of the Pirates :kneeslap: !!!

RKMeibalane
06-23-2006, 08:45 PM
The Red Sox are crushing the Phillies 6-0 after two innings. The AL's dominance continues.

Tragg
06-24-2006, 08:47 AM
While I'm thinking about it, I think MLB should do an experiment next season during interleague play. Let the AL teams use the DH in National League parks, and we'll see how badly the NL gets clobbered.
I think they definitely should switch where the dh is used; use it in NL parks and let the pitchers bat in AL parks.

Historically, the NL has been well ahead of the curve, as compared to the AL. As I said above, in the 50s and 60s it was signing black athletes; they were also the first league to put teams in California (solidifying both the SF and LA markets as NL first); was the first league to put teams in the sunbelt, which exploded after the commercialization of air conditioning (Atlanta then Houston).
ESPN helps the AL (the RedSox are their home team, and ESPN will always promote them; and then there are the yankees).
The NL probably over-expanded.
And the Marlins antics haven't helped either...immediate dispersals after winning...the Indians and BlueJays did the same thing in the AL, but they also won a lot of games for a much longer period before doing so.

Ol' No. 2
06-24-2006, 09:33 PM
As of right now, only TWO NL teams are above .500 in interleague play: Milwaukee (6-4) and Colorado (5-2). Three more are at .500 (NY, Florida, San Diego). 11 out of 16 teams are below .500.

Chips
06-24-2006, 10:54 PM
As of right now, only TWO NL teams are above .500 in interleague play: Milwaukee (6-4) and Colorado (5-2). Three more are at .500 (NY, Florida, San Diego). 11 out of 16 teams are below .500.

The NL ****ing sucks. It seems like it is much worse this year than in past years.

chisoxfanatic
06-24-2006, 10:56 PM
My prediction for the All Star Game:

AL: 16
NL: 5

The NL is HORRIBLE!!!

itsnotrequired
06-24-2006, 11:00 PM
The NL ****ing sucks. It seems like it is much worse this year than in past years.

14 interleague games today. 9 are complete as of this post and the AL has won 8 of them. San Fransisco beat the Athletics but it took a three run bottom of the 9th to pull it off. Yankees-Marlins was rained out.

Royals are leading the Brewers in the 8th.

beckett21
06-24-2006, 11:00 PM
What about all of the excitement and strategy involved with the double switch? :rolleyes:

The NL is just plain bad.

B.A.D. bad.

itsnotrequired
06-24-2006, 11:28 PM
...and the Brewers fall to the Royals.

Pathetic.

Chips
06-24-2006, 11:35 PM
...and the Brewers fall to the Royals.

Pathetic.

The NL has nothing on us.

TheOldRoman
06-25-2006, 12:04 AM
As much as I would like to see the Tigers lose and Brewers win, I am taking a little pride in this pasting the NL is taking. I am actually rooting for the A's right now.:o:
Lets stretch this winning streak to 16, and then start the real games again.

Ol' No. 2
06-25-2006, 10:25 AM
The NL ****ing sucks. It seems like it is much worse this year than in past years.It definately is. Last year the AL was +20. This year they're already +41 with a week to go.

Fenway
06-26-2006, 07:06 PM
Theo Epstein said on the pregame show this afternoon that according to Red Sox projections a team that would win 95 in the National would win only 85 in the American. That is a huge swing.

Going to be interesting to see what the Mets do against Boston and the Yankees.

Ol' No. 2
06-26-2006, 07:11 PM
Theo Epstein said on the pregame show this afternoon that according to Red Sox projections a team that would win 95 in the National would win only 85 in the American. That is a huge swing.

Going to be interesting to see what the Mets do against Boston and the Yankees.The Kansas City Royals are 7-5 in interleague play. Is there anything more you need to know?

Fenway
06-26-2006, 07:29 PM
The Kansas City Royals are 7-5 in interleague play. Is there anything more you need to know?

not really

I said earlier in the year that IMHO Pittsburgh is the worst team in baseball

ozziesox13
06-26-2006, 09:48 PM
Hate to say it, and I know this has been a sensitive word in Sox speak recently, but the National really looks like garbage now. I cannot remember the ultimate score so far between the AL and NL, but the margin is pretty big. Just watching the NL Central get battered and schooled all last week and this weekend by the AL Central has been enough to convince me it is almost a matter of AAA versus Major League Baseball.


The NL pitchers with few exceptions are fooling nobody. But why is this such a surprise? The AL has been dominating the NL for the past couple years now. Since 2003, the NL has not won a SINGLE GAME in either the All Star Game or the World Series. Now that is domination.

jabrch
06-27-2006, 11:52 PM
There is not a single team in the entire NL that is playing over .500 ball both on the entire season and the past 10 games...

There are 5 in the AL, including 3 in our division.

QCIASOXFAN
06-27-2006, 11:58 PM
The N.L. is sooooo bad the Royals are 8 for 10 this month when facing teams in that league.

buehrle4cy05
06-28-2006, 12:15 AM
The N.L. is sooooo bad the Royals are 8 for 10 this month when facing teams in that league.

That's awful. The Royals would be 4th in the NL Central right now, at the least.:?:

tstrike2000
06-28-2006, 01:01 AM
It's unbelievable how bad the NL is. With the exception of the Mets and maybe the Cardinals, just about every team is hovering just above or below .500. And that's with the Cardinals losing 8 in a row. You can pretty much make an argument for any of those divisions being the worst in baseball.

QCIASOXFAN
06-28-2006, 01:11 AM
That's awful. The Royals would be 4th in the NL Central right now, at the least.:?: Our Royals would be damn near a wildcard team over there right now.:tongue:

DrCrawdad
06-28-2006, 01:30 AM
Our Royals would be damn near a wildcard team over there right now.:tongue:

Earlier this season I stated that, "...The Pirates, perhaps the worst team in MLB." The Royals are not good, but they would not holding down 6th place in the NL Central.

Fake Chet Lemon
06-28-2006, 09:15 AM
The Kansas City Royals are 7-5 in interleague play. Is there anything more you need to know?

I am totally serious, the Royals (now 8-5 interleague) could challenge for a division title in the NL. Not saying they would win one, but they would be in the race all year. Not one NL division leader has a winning record against the AL through June 27th. The NL Comedy Central truly is a joke.

Thome25
06-28-2006, 09:18 AM
It's unbelievable how bad the NL is. With the exception of the Mets and maybe the Cardinals, just about every team is hovering just above or below .500. And that's with the Cardinals losing 8 in a row. You can pretty much make an argument for any of those divisions being the worst in baseball.

I don't think the Mets and Cardinals are all that great either. I just think they're getting fat playing the other garbage teams in the NL.

Hitmen77
06-28-2006, 09:23 AM
I'm glad we have interleague play. Without it, people would have no idea how bad the NL teams are because teams like the Cardinals were just racking up wins against sucky NL teams.

Now, if St. Louis manages a better W-L record than the Sox, we'll know it's completely meaningless. We know not to lump in KC with Pittsburgh as the "worst 2 teams in baseball". Seriously, the Cubs and a few others are much worse than the Royals.

BNLSox
06-28-2006, 04:40 PM
It actually gives credence to Bud's All Star Game counting. I mean if the NL leaders have much more of a cake walk, which evidence seems to suggest, then record should really not be a determining factor in who hosts the All Star Game.

Frankly, if there is going to continue to be interleague its time to just make it year round and make the schedules more balanced. At least the best teams would have a shot instead of great teams getting turned away from the post season due to such a unbalance in scheduling.

PeteWard
06-28-2006, 11:25 PM
It actually gives credence to Bud's All Star Game counting. I mean if the NL leaders have much more of a cake walk, which evidence seems to suggest, then record should really not be a determining factor in who hosts the All Star Game.

Frankly, if there is going to continue to be interleague its time to just make it year round and make the schedules more balanced. At least the best teams would have a shot instead of great teams getting turned away from the post season due to such a unbalance in scheduling.

I disagree: The All Star game is merely an exhibition and has never been a reflection of which league is better. I see nothing wrong with the old way of alternating the home field. Or they should let the league with the better interleague record have home field. The present arrangement is just sop for Fox.

By the way, why the hell are the Twins playing the Dodgers this year?

Tragg
06-29-2006, 09:11 AM
I heard Lasorda this morning say, well it was the other way in the 1970s when the NL dominated the all star game. While I concede the NL's superiority then, it wasn't like it is today. For one thing, the NL didn't dominate in the World Series. Now the NL can't even win a single world series game.

And to get specific about the dominance, it's the AL Central dominating the NL that probably accounts for 2/3 of the differential.

Fenway
06-29-2006, 06:03 PM
Boston is just laughing through the NL East ( 13-1 ) and they have made the Mets look bad the last 2 nights. Makes Theo's statement that a team that projects to 95 wins in the National would win 85 in the AL look about right.

DrCrawdad
07-06-2006, 11:40 PM
I'm glad we have interleague play. Without it, people would have no idea how bad the NL teams are because teams like the Cardinals were just racking up wins against sucky NL teams.

Now, if St. Louis manages a better W-L record than the Sox, we'll know it's completely meaningless. We know not to lump in KC with Pittsburgh as the "worst 2 teams in baseball". Seriously, the Cubs and a few others are much worse than the Royals.

The Royals romped their NL Central opponents and now have a better record than the Pirates AND are 1/2 game behind the Cubbies it's time to stop calling the Royals the worst team in MLB.

Cubs 31 54
Royals 30 54
Pirates 29 58

JimEdmonds15
07-07-2006, 02:35 AM
Pretty awful considerinig the Cards are like 3-17 or something in their last 20 games.. and still are within reach of the best NL Record.. disgusting league!

TornLabrum
07-07-2006, 08:56 AM
The more I read this thread, the more I think of it as being like an old Johnny Carson bit.

Johnny: You know the National League is really bad.
Ed and Audience: How bad is it?

tstrike2000
07-07-2006, 09:53 AM
The more I read this thread, the more I think of it as being like an old Johnny Carson bit.

Johnny: You know the National League is really bad.
Ed and Audience: How bad is it?

http://www.jersooz.com/images/carnac.jpg Carnac, "75."

Ed McMahon, "75."

Carnac opens envelope and says, "The number of wins it will take to easily win any division in the National League."