PDA

View Full Version : Why is the NL so bad?


JohnTucker0814
08-30-2006, 10:16 AM
What is it about the NL that is so bad? I mean the Texas Rangers would be in the wild card lead in the NL?

What has happened to them that they can't field 4 of 16 teams with a .600 winning percentage?

There are only 3 teams out of contention in the NL (Washington, Chicago, Pittsburgh)

There are possibly 8-9 teams already out of contention in the AL (Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle, Texas, Anaheim, Toronto, Boston)

I know it's been talked about on here quite a bit, but wow... it's amazing that the NL can be bad for 2 straight years... San Deigo was 1 game over .500 last year in the playoffs.

jdm2662
08-30-2006, 10:21 AM
To be honost, it's not uncommon for all pro sports to have a conference much stronger than the other. Prior to to last season, the NBA had a much stronger western conference than Eastern conference. The NFC won Super Bowls every year from 1984-96. The western conference in the NHL is stronger than the Eastern Conference. It goes in spurts. The NL used to be much stronger than the AL for years. Hell, the AL Central was the worst division in baseball for many years, and now it's the toughest.

downstairs
08-30-2006, 10:40 AM
To be honost, it's not uncommon for all pro sports to have a conference much stronger than the other. Prior to to last season, the NBA had a much stronger western conference than Eastern conference. The NFC won Super Bowls every year from 1984-96. The western conference in the NFL is stronger than the NHL. It goes in spurts. The NL used to be much stronger than the AL for years. Hell, the AL Central was the worst division in baseball for many years, and now it's the toughest.

Yep. That's all there is to it. Any further analysis is silly, because there are so many teams. Its really just random chance, honestly.

Frater Perdurabo
08-30-2006, 12:16 PM
Because of the astronomical payrolls of the Yankees and Red Sox, any team that wants a fighting chance in the AL must also spend lots of money and/or invest their resources more intelligently. Despite Billy Beane and his lemming supporters being grade A pricks, Beane's approach has allowed the A's to remain competitive and win divisions. The Twins have ridden their organizational accumen to several division titles as well. KW had to out-think and out-manuever higher-payroll clubs to win last year.

Winning in the NL is a cakewalk. No wonder the Braves won so many consecutive division titles. It just doesn't take as much to be competitive in the NL, so owners have no incentive to invest huge dollars or buckle down and hire the best scouting/managerial/coaching talent. Plus, one of the biggest payroll teams in the NL - the Cubs - have been pitiful at spending wisely. Another - the Dodgers - have been disappointing over the past few years.

PKalltheway
08-30-2006, 02:35 PM
Yep. That's all there is to it. Any further analysis is silly, because there are so many teams. Its really just random chance, honestly.
Yeah, I agree. It just runs in cycles. The NL won four straight World Series from 1979-1982, something the AL has yet to duplicate since then. In fact, the AL hasn't won at least four straight World Series since the 1949-1953 Yankees, who won five straight. The rest of the AL trying to compete with the big payrolls of Boston and New York has something to do with it as well. It isn't like NL teams haven't been spending money in the last few years. It's that they haven't spent their money wisely.

JohnBasedowYoda
08-30-2006, 02:41 PM
There are possibly 8-9 teams already out of contention in the AL (Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle, Texas, Anaheim, Toronto, Boston)

Boston is only 6.5 out of the wildcard, wouldn't count them out. If we consider the White Sox having a chance for the AL Central then they have a shot for the WC too.

Johnny Mostil
08-30-2006, 03:18 PM
What has happened to them that they can't field 4 of 16 teams with a .600 winning percentage?


I doubt there's been many years when one-fourth of the teams in a league finished with a .600 winning percentage. In fact, going back to '94, the first year there were three divisions, I can only find two years in which either league even had three .600 teams: 1998 for the NL, and 2002 for the AL. Neither league appears to have had even a single .600 team in 2000, and the NL also didn't have one in 2001 (though that didn't stop the D-backs from winning the Series).

spiffie
08-30-2006, 03:26 PM
Boston is only 6.5 out of the wildcard, wouldn't count them out. If we consider the White Sox having a chance for the AL Central then they have a shot for the WC too.
Yes, but Boston is also without their 3 best players indefinitely. If the Sox were 6.5 back and missing Thome, Dye, and Konerko I would pretty much be ready to write them off too.