 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » DH rule
Schef33
DH rule
January 09, 2004 at 03:02PM View BBCode
Now i need your help. I have a persuasive speech to do on why the DH rule should be abolished for the AL. So I need some viewpoints on this subject and what you think. If you are a fan of the DH rule then I would like to hear your views also. And if you don't want to help me then....:(
Bob
1. Takes away managerial strategy
2. Less "little ball"
3. Allows "incomplete" ballplayers -- pitchers don't bat and the DH doesn't field
Arguments for:
1. Aging (and popular) stars can hang around at the DH position
2. More offense
3. Who wants to see the pitcher hit anyway?
January 09, 2004 at 03:05PM View BBCode
Arguments against:1. Takes away managerial strategy
2. Less "little ball"
3. Allows "incomplete" ballplayers -- pitchers don't bat and the DH doesn't field
Arguments for:
1. Aging (and popular) stars can hang around at the DH position
2. More offense
3. Who wants to see the pitcher hit anyway?
ME
January 09, 2004 at 03:38PM View BBCode
i like DH for AL only the good hitting pitchers can just go to the NL.
Duff77
Personally, I think it can go both ways... There's nothing worse than watching a team load the bases with two out only for the pitcher to hack at it like my grandmother. On the other hand, there's almost nothing worse than watching Roger Clemens take people's heads off knowing he'll never have to face the heat himself. And there is less strategy with the DH, that's for certain.
But the overriding thing for me is that I like the way pitchers are used in the AL. Granted, ALers don't work a whole lot more innings than NLers, but I love to see a good pitching performance and I hate it when a guy going strong has to be pulled for a pinch hitter. I just hate it. I like to see pitchers stay out there as long as they're going well, and I like to see them taken out on the basis of their performance--not game situation. That's just my opinion, but it tilts me slightly in favor of the DH.
January 09, 2004 at 04:42PM View BBCode
The only thing Bob Costas ever said that I listened to was a little take he had on the DH--it should ALWAYS remain the way it is...DH in one league, no DH in the other. For one important reason: The debate is good for baseball. Fans love debating whether or not the DH is a good rule, and whether the NL or AL is a better league because of it. So far as I can tell, people are pretty much split on the issue, which is a good thing, because it keeps people talking.Personally, I think it can go both ways... There's nothing worse than watching a team load the bases with two out only for the pitcher to hack at it like my grandmother. On the other hand, there's almost nothing worse than watching Roger Clemens take people's heads off knowing he'll never have to face the heat himself. And there is less strategy with the DH, that's for certain.
But the overriding thing for me is that I like the way pitchers are used in the AL. Granted, ALers don't work a whole lot more innings than NLers, but I love to see a good pitching performance and I hate it when a guy going strong has to be pulled for a pinch hitter. I just hate it. I like to see pitchers stay out there as long as they're going well, and I like to see them taken out on the basis of their performance--not game situation. That's just my opinion, but it tilts me slightly in favor of the DH.
skierdude44
January 09, 2004 at 07:55PM View BBCode
i like the dh. it allows u to play power hitters that may be injury prone and keep them healthy for a playoff run, jason giambi is an example of that from last year. i think it lets players who can still hit stay around longer which is something that i like. bernie williams has lost a few steps in center but as he proved this postseason he can still hit so why not keep him around as an extra bat rather than have a pitcher bat and find a new centerfielder. i agree with duff though it is nice to have it different in each league. i think it is gay though when a guy is pitching a gem but its a tight game an he is pulled for a pinch hitter who in the al may not even be a dh quality hitter and then rely on the bull pen to close out the game. im bias cuz im a yankee fan though. i think people that favor the dh usually r fans of al teams and vice versa.
happy
January 10, 2004 at 07:49PM View BBCode
I kinda think that because of it being different in the 2 leagues it creates some problems, like the good hitting pitchers stay in the NL, and the pitchers who HATE to hit end up staying in the AL, and i dont think it should cause players to choose their teams because of their league.
sycophantman
But Duff mentioned that Bob Costas had said only one thing that he agreed with. Well I concur except for one thing, the wild card is hurting the regular season. The season already lasts a LONG time, why devalue all that just to give some not quite good enough team a chance?
His idea to split the teams into four team divisions is one I VERY much agree with. How much better would it be if we went back to having to win the division to get to the playoffs?
January 11, 2004 at 02:39PM View BBCode
I'm a National League guy here, I dislike the DH. I would rather have the strategy of a game when you have to worry about when to pull your pitcher for a pinch hitter, things like that make the game more deep and involving...But Duff mentioned that Bob Costas had said only one thing that he agreed with. Well I concur except for one thing, the wild card is hurting the regular season. The season already lasts a LONG time, why devalue all that just to give some not quite good enough team a chance?
His idea to split the teams into four team divisions is one I VERY much agree with. How much better would it be if we went back to having to win the division to get to the playoffs?
happy
you cant take the Yanks and Sox out of the same division, and they need to face each other in the playoffs sometimes.
January 13, 2004 at 11:05PM View BBCode
that is dumb. i site this year as an example. the Yankees, Redsox, AND the Orioles are all MUCH better than anyone in the central.you cant take the Yanks and Sox out of the same division, and they need to face each other in the playoffs sometimes.
FuriousGiorge
January 13, 2004 at 11:13PM View BBCode
The Wild Card has destroyed the pennant races. As long as the Wild Card exists there is no such thing as a true pennant race, and that has hurt baseball. Books have been written about the races of 1908 and 1967 (among others), and while postseasons are fun, we had those already, and we had pennant races too, with teams fighting it out down the stretch and fans watching the standings every day. People say things like "well, in 1993, the Braves and Giants were both great teams, and with the wild card they both would have been in the playoffs." Yeah, but that would have taken the drama out of the regular season. People still remember that pennant race, and I'm afraid it'll probably be the last.
happy
January 14, 2004 at 02:46AM View BBCode
the wild card races go down to the wire, and the pennett races in the crappy divisions.
FuriousGiorge
This all goes to the heart of the matter, and the biggest problem baseball has been dealing with over the past 10-15 years. No, it's not labor strife, or competitive imbalance, or a dwindling fan base. All of those things are problems, but they stem from one common thing: the fact that the people who run the game have no long-term plan for its continued prosperity. Instead of making plans, Bud Selig and Co. have spent the last 10 years saying "Football is successful. How can we be more like them?" So they come up with hairbrained schemes like salary caps and interleague play and Wild Cards, to try to emulate football. Baseball is not football. They are different games, and have to be approached in different ways. Wild Cards are okay in football because the regular season is short and the best team doesn't always have the best record. Wild Cards don't make a ton of sense in baseball, with a 162 game schedule. If no other reason, that's why I don't like the Wild Card, because it's a transparent attempt to "footballize" the game.
January 14, 2004 at 03:53AM View BBCode
Well that's the whole point. The "races" that you do have are between teams which aren't really that good. If two great teams are in the same division, then they won't have a pennant race because one of them will win the Wild Card. I mean, the Wild Card lets more teams have a chance to make the playoffs, but at the expense of the regular season. Too many mediocre teams have a shot at the playoffs, and while the Marlins were a nice story this year it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth when an inferior team runs a few hot weeks into a championship. It makes me wonder why I should care about the 162 games they play during the summer.This all goes to the heart of the matter, and the biggest problem baseball has been dealing with over the past 10-15 years. No, it's not labor strife, or competitive imbalance, or a dwindling fan base. All of those things are problems, but they stem from one common thing: the fact that the people who run the game have no long-term plan for its continued prosperity. Instead of making plans, Bud Selig and Co. have spent the last 10 years saying "Football is successful. How can we be more like them?" So they come up with hairbrained schemes like salary caps and interleague play and Wild Cards, to try to emulate football. Baseball is not football. They are different games, and have to be approached in different ways. Wild Cards are okay in football because the regular season is short and the best team doesn't always have the best record. Wild Cards don't make a ton of sense in baseball, with a 162 game schedule. If no other reason, that's why I don't like the Wild Card, because it's a transparent attempt to "footballize" the game.
Duff77
As much as I think something has to be done to resolve the horrible disparity between those teams that can afford free agents and those that can't, the fact of the matter remains that in the good-old days, it just didn't matter so much. Nowadays, no team can survive being in the cellar year after year. Nobody shows up. Building new stadiums doesn't help. The only thing people respect is winning.
There are probably several reasons for this, but I think the biggest one is free agency. It's destroyed fan loyalty. Since "your guys" now routinely abandon you for more money, it's really hard to have a personal relationship with a team. And once you lose that, victory is the only thing that can motivate you.
I don't think there's a solution to this. There's absolutely nothing to be done about free agency. There's no way to go back to the old system. So fan loyalty is, I believe, essentially dead. If that's the case, then the only way to get butts in the chairs in the moneyball era is to make sure each team has an equal opportunity to win. That's salary caps. And since fans will start bitching about the games being too long once their team falls out of the race, you need the wild card to keep more teams in it for a longer period of time. I really think that's just the way it is.
January 14, 2004 at 05:07AM View BBCode
I think the wild card was an attempt to deal with a deep-seated problem that really has no solution...people just don't like baseball that much anymore. You see to me, I could give a damn if there's a wild card, or if there's a pennant race, or whatever...I like baseball enough that it will maintain my interest no matter how they do it. For generations, baseball went along as a completely unbalanced game where a team from New York won every season, and where for most towns, there was nothing even resembling a pennant race after June 1st. People continued to stay interested because they had an appriciation for the game--which I, personally, think is really starting to lack. It think "footballizing" baseball is an attempt to make the game more interesting because people just don't like baseball that much anymore.As much as I think something has to be done to resolve the horrible disparity between those teams that can afford free agents and those that can't, the fact of the matter remains that in the good-old days, it just didn't matter so much. Nowadays, no team can survive being in the cellar year after year. Nobody shows up. Building new stadiums doesn't help. The only thing people respect is winning.
There are probably several reasons for this, but I think the biggest one is free agency. It's destroyed fan loyalty. Since "your guys" now routinely abandon you for more money, it's really hard to have a personal relationship with a team. And once you lose that, victory is the only thing that can motivate you.
I don't think there's a solution to this. There's absolutely nothing to be done about free agency. There's no way to go back to the old system. So fan loyalty is, I believe, essentially dead. If that's the case, then the only way to get butts in the chairs in the moneyball era is to make sure each team has an equal opportunity to win. That's salary caps. And since fans will start bitching about the games being too long once their team falls out of the race, you need the wild card to keep more teams in it for a longer period of time. I really think that's just the way it is.
FuriousGiorge
I'm not sure how the "free agency destroys fan loyalty" argument really works. Just look at football. The situation with free agency is even more dire there, with teams constantly being forced to cut veterans to get under the cap. Players move around like nomads toward the end of their career, and even young players often end up switching teams in their prime (like Stephen Davis). No one is accusing football fans of not being loyal. Well guess what: baseball fans care too. Not just you and I, and the other diehard fans, but casual sports fans. They care about baseball. Baseball is the most affordable and fan friendly experience in person of the four major sports. Most people I know have been to a baseball game, and a lot of people I know have never seen football, basketball or hockey in person. Baseball is not in any sort of dire situation needing to grab fans any way possible. Sure, the sports pie is divided more ways now, and TV ratings have taken a hit, but baseball still holds a proportionally large slice of that pie from April to October. Baseball TV ratings are never going to be football's, and people need to change their expectations accordingly.
Baseball has problems, no doubt about it. Competitive balance is getting worse, and that's not good. Revenue is not shared properly, because the system baseball uses existed before TV money. If that system were modernized, most of the competitive balance problems would go away. A salary cap is unnecessary, as are most of the solutions the Lords of Baseball come up with. Interleague play, Wild Cards, contraction, all of these things address a problem which doesn't exist, which is the perception that baseball is losing fans. Baseball is not losing fans, and doesn't need harebrained schemes to temporarily draw more people to the park. What it needs is some direction from a person who realizes that small tweaks are usually a better solution than giant hammer blows.
January 14, 2004 at 05:46AM View BBCode
I can't say that I agree with much of that. Free agency has existed in baseball since the mid-70's. From that time until the strike in 1994, baseball attendance increased steadily. It dropped after the strike and has been increasing since then. Many people believe the 1980's were one of the best eras baseball has ever had. Attendance was at record levels, and competitive balance was as high as it's ever been. Free agency, which a lot of people had predicted would destroy competitive balance, actually helped level the playing field, as players were more evenly scattered throughout the league.I'm not sure how the "free agency destroys fan loyalty" argument really works. Just look at football. The situation with free agency is even more dire there, with teams constantly being forced to cut veterans to get under the cap. Players move around like nomads toward the end of their career, and even young players often end up switching teams in their prime (like Stephen Davis). No one is accusing football fans of not being loyal. Well guess what: baseball fans care too. Not just you and I, and the other diehard fans, but casual sports fans. They care about baseball. Baseball is the most affordable and fan friendly experience in person of the four major sports. Most people I know have been to a baseball game, and a lot of people I know have never seen football, basketball or hockey in person. Baseball is not in any sort of dire situation needing to grab fans any way possible. Sure, the sports pie is divided more ways now, and TV ratings have taken a hit, but baseball still holds a proportionally large slice of that pie from April to October. Baseball TV ratings are never going to be football's, and people need to change their expectations accordingly.
Baseball has problems, no doubt about it. Competitive balance is getting worse, and that's not good. Revenue is not shared properly, because the system baseball uses existed before TV money. If that system were modernized, most of the competitive balance problems would go away. A salary cap is unnecessary, as are most of the solutions the Lords of Baseball come up with. Interleague play, Wild Cards, contraction, all of these things address a problem which doesn't exist, which is the perception that baseball is losing fans. Baseball is not losing fans, and doesn't need harebrained schemes to temporarily draw more people to the park. What it needs is some direction from a person who realizes that small tweaks are usually a better solution than giant hammer blows.
ME
8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs, that slim compared to 12 of 32 in football or the pathetic 16 of 29 in basketball.
January 14, 2004 at 06:00AM View BBCode
Wild Card = less interesting for the good teams, but way more interesting for the mediocre/above average teams that are not in worthless divisions like the AL central. The Braves ran away with the NL East title last year, as did the Giants with the West. Only real race was in the central. that's only 2 teams with very important games in september. With the wild card, the dodgers, marlins, phillies, diamondbacks and even expos are still alive in september. their fans care about baseball more. I wouldn't have watched the expos on gamecast nearly as much in the summer if there was no wildcard, cause i knew they had no chance of catching the braves. in the AL, the mariners/red sox fought for it, and both teams are way better than the twins.8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs, that slim compared to 12 of 32 in football or the pathetic 16 of 29 in basketball.
Duff77
At any rate, I fully realize the 70's were the glory era for free agency. It did create competitive balance and it WAS good for the game...as I said, the lack of competitive balance is killing it now. But as time went on and the dollar amounts skyrocketed, the relationship between the fans and the players changed drastically. I mean people went nuts when Kirby Puckett signed for a million dollars a year. They thought Hersheiser signing for 4.5 million was even more crazy. Now 4.5 million buys you a mediocre relief pitcher....
I know a lot of people think it's hogwash, but when the guys on the field make 100,000 times more than you do, it's really hard to feel any kind of connection to them...I mean they're just a different class of human being altogether.
And frankly, I have to argue with you on this, although without the benefit of any data to back it up... But I'd argue that back in the day, guys didn't automatically leave the teams that drafted them for more money, or for a chance at a title. George Brett didn't play with five different teams. He didn't ditch KC because the Yankees made him a better deal, or because he could've won more rings somewhere else. Cal Ripken stayed in Baltimore for his entire career. I think in the 70's and 80's, you had many more guys who would stick around in the places they started...and for longer... Whereas these days I think you've got way more players who'll ditch the town that loves them for another half million a year.
I agree that revenue sharing would solve a lot of these problems. More guys would stay if their teams could make them a competitive offer. I just don't know if the attitude of the guys on the field--or in the stands--is what it once was. But then maybe my perspective is tainted by my experience with the Orioles, where over the last 15 years I've seen a horrifying degredation in both the dedication of the fans AND the players.
January 14, 2004 at 06:05AM View BBCode
If I recall, you were the one who told me revenue sharing wasn't practical in baseball because of the way the TV contracts are distributed...at least in comparision to football. Maybe I have that wrong.At any rate, I fully realize the 70's were the glory era for free agency. It did create competitive balance and it WAS good for the game...as I said, the lack of competitive balance is killing it now. But as time went on and the dollar amounts skyrocketed, the relationship between the fans and the players changed drastically. I mean people went nuts when Kirby Puckett signed for a million dollars a year. They thought Hersheiser signing for 4.5 million was even more crazy. Now 4.5 million buys you a mediocre relief pitcher....
I know a lot of people think it's hogwash, but when the guys on the field make 100,000 times more than you do, it's really hard to feel any kind of connection to them...I mean they're just a different class of human being altogether.
And frankly, I have to argue with you on this, although without the benefit of any data to back it up... But I'd argue that back in the day, guys didn't automatically leave the teams that drafted them for more money, or for a chance at a title. George Brett didn't play with five different teams. He didn't ditch KC because the Yankees made him a better deal, or because he could've won more rings somewhere else. Cal Ripken stayed in Baltimore for his entire career. I think in the 70's and 80's, you had many more guys who would stick around in the places they started...and for longer... Whereas these days I think you've got way more players who'll ditch the town that loves them for another half million a year.
I agree that revenue sharing would solve a lot of these problems. More guys would stay if their teams could make them a competitive offer. I just don't know if the attitude of the guys on the field--or in the stands--is what it once was. But then maybe my perspective is tainted by my experience with the Orioles, where over the last 15 years I've seen a horrifying degredation in both the dedication of the fans AND the players.
sycophantman
It seems obvious to me that it's a bad idea...
Look at the NBA and the NHL, they let so many teams into their playoffs that it makes the loooooooooong regular season almost pointless!
If you can be average and get to the playoffs, then you are devaluing the product, and the regular season just becomes a step above crass profiteering...
The arguement that if there was no wild card there would be nothing but runaway winners everywhere is tragically flawed. How can you compare the drama of having only one playoff spot to play for, and only one, in your division, against a consulation prize. Why play 162 games? Lets shorten it to 81 games if you don't even need to win your division!
You don't need all those games to separate the teams from each other under those circumstances...
January 14, 2004 at 01:38PM View BBCode
Why does everyone seem to like the wild card?It seems obvious to me that it's a bad idea...
Look at the NBA and the NHL, they let so many teams into their playoffs that it makes the loooooooooong regular season almost pointless!
If you can be average and get to the playoffs, then you are devaluing the product, and the regular season just becomes a step above crass profiteering...
The arguement that if there was no wild card there would be nothing but runaway winners everywhere is tragically flawed. How can you compare the drama of having only one playoff spot to play for, and only one, in your division, against a consulation prize. Why play 162 games? Lets shorten it to 81 games if you don't even need to win your division!
You don't need all those games to separate the teams from each other under those circumstances...
happy
the twins.
being in a good division shouldnt give you a huge disadvantage. seeing the twins in the playoffs at all is like seeing the devil rays player during the all star game. you know the ONLY reason why they are there is because you GOTTA let one in.
January 14, 2004 at 08:11PM View BBCode
the thing is that the NHL and NBA letting too many people has nothing to do with MLB. teams under 500 DONT make the playoffs. think, who was the crappiest team in MLB last year? was it a) the Boston Redsox, or b) the crappy minnisota twins?the twins.
being in a good division shouldnt give you a huge disadvantage. seeing the twins in the playoffs at all is like seeing the devil rays player during the all star game. you know the ONLY reason why they are there is because you GOTTA let one in.
FuriousGiorge
January 14, 2004 at 08:16PM View BBCode
So why not get rid of the divisions entirely, have big 14 and 16 team leagues, and just let the top 4 (or whatever) from each league into the playoffs? Why divide teams up when you're just looking at final records to determine who goes to the postseason?
happy
January 14, 2004 at 08:18PM View BBCode
i was gonna say that, but then it woudl be exactly like the wildcard race. oops, that defeats the whole theory.
Duff77
January 15, 2004 at 05:03AM View BBCode
You know it might be cool to see them go with eight divisions, with four teams in each league (would require two expansion teams, which ain't likely), and then just have the division winners make the playoffs. You'd have the same number of playoffs teams as the wild card, but winning a division would actually mean something.
hobos
January 15, 2004 at 05:17AM View BBCode
Schef33 wants to know what we all think about the DH and it turns into a wild card debate. Schef, u shouldve posted this in something other than off topic, this was bound to happen
nextyearcubs
Here is a little stat for you, since 1990, the team with the worse record has gone 9-4 in Series, and 45-30 overall... And those who want the team with the best record to win every year (and call themselves purists ) might hate this, but its great for the game and competetion, because if the better record wins, why bother with a World Series at all anyways?
About the DH, its terrible. When you played ball as a kid, the best player was the pitcher, and they all could hit a ton. It was like that in high school and even many colleges. So why do they forget to hit in the pros? (OK, I know there are reasons for this that deal with player development) The game is more compelling without the DH, there are more possibilities regarding substitution, etc. A team needs a better bench and bullpen without a DH. Who doesn't love a pitcher that can hit? The Braves' pitchers always could hit... The Cubs had 6 HR from their starting staff, and at least a couple of those won games...
But I am with Duff, its better to have it both ways. There are many people out there who love the DH, and they have the AL. As for me, I'll always have the NL... Its a good compromise.
January 15, 2004 at 11:39AM View BBCode
Who cares what winning a division means... It just says that you were better than the 4, 5, or six teams grouped in your geographical region based upon your league... big freaking deal if you ask me, all that matters about it is the playoff spot. Do you really think that it was better when only two teams made it to the postseason? I love the Wild Card, it basically results in meaningful games being played in more cities in the regular season. The argument that it makes the regular season less meaningful is half baked because with less playoff spots, there is less to play for... So in other words, that game in September between two above .500 teams means nothing without the WC because they are both hopelessly behind the top dog who's magic number is 2 anyways. With the Wild Card, we had reasons to watch because not everything was settled... This season, which featured some runaways, wasn't set until game 161 when the Cubs clinched the central, and both WC's were undecided the final week. People in so many different cities had reason to tune in or walk up and buy a seat. Its exciting to the fan because the WC teams do hold their own in the playoffs, as recent evidence backs up. Maybe you can just say they got hot, but either way, the WC teams put up pretty good fights. I love the fact that with the WC, it seems like half the teams in the league are still in it at the All Star break. Its great for baseball because it breeds optimism in more fans across the country. In my opinion, what brings more fans isn't just winning, its also optimism about winning (why do you think the hot stove league gets so much attention? nobody really pays that much attention to other sports' offseasons, save the draft), the promise of a postseason, and more people get that with the Wild Card. Good for fans, good for competition, good for the game.Here is a little stat for you, since 1990, the team with the worse record has gone 9-4 in Series, and 45-30 overall... And those who want the team with the best record to win every year (and call themselves purists ) might hate this, but its great for the game and competetion, because if the better record wins, why bother with a World Series at all anyways?
About the DH, its terrible. When you played ball as a kid, the best player was the pitcher, and they all could hit a ton. It was like that in high school and even many colleges. So why do they forget to hit in the pros? (OK, I know there are reasons for this that deal with player development) The game is more compelling without the DH, there are more possibilities regarding substitution, etc. A team needs a better bench and bullpen without a DH. Who doesn't love a pitcher that can hit? The Braves' pitchers always could hit... The Cubs had 6 HR from their starting staff, and at least a couple of those won games...
But I am with Duff, its better to have it both ways. There are many people out there who love the DH, and they have the AL. As for me, I'll always have the NL... Its a good compromise.
happy
the reason that pitchers are the best hitters on the team is because the total lack of talent forces talented players to play pitcher. the BEST hitters are not also the BEST pitchers (except Ruth) remember being a major league quality pitcher or hitter, you need to be one of the best of the best. everyone knows that just because you were the best hitter in your house league baseball team DOESNT mean you are gonna make single A.
January 18, 2004 at 01:27AM View BBCode
wow, our QB is the fastest player on our team, and he is the best CB on the team too.the reason that pitchers are the best hitters on the team is because the total lack of talent forces talented players to play pitcher. the BEST hitters are not also the BEST pitchers (except Ruth) remember being a major league quality pitcher or hitter, you need to be one of the best of the best. everyone knows that just because you were the best hitter in your house league baseball team DOESNT mean you are gonna make single A.
BloodyNine
Eastern League
-Mets
-Yankees
-Red Sox
-Phillies
-Blue Jays
-Expos
-Orioles
[Washington]
Northern League
-Cubs
-White Sox
-Reds
-Indians
-Pirates
-Brewers
-Tigers
-Twins
Southern League
-Braves
-Marlins
-Devil Rays
-Astros
-Rangers
-Cardinals
-Royals
[Carolina]
Western League
-Dodgers
-Giants
-A's
-Angels
-Padres
-Mariners
-DiamondBacks
-Rockies
No interleague play. No DH (since that is the actual thread we're running). No wild-card. Each of the four league champions go to the post season. If you're not the best team in your league, you don't play in October.
January 19, 2004 at 10:40PM View BBCode
Four leagues. Eight teams each. Geographically based.Eastern League
-Mets
-Yankees
-Red Sox
-Phillies
-Blue Jays
-Expos
-Orioles
[Washington]
Northern League
-Cubs
-White Sox
-Reds
-Indians
-Pirates
-Brewers
-Tigers
-Twins
Southern League
-Braves
-Marlins
-Devil Rays
-Astros
-Rangers
-Cardinals
-Royals
[Carolina]
Western League
-Dodgers
-Giants
-A's
-Angels
-Padres
-Mariners
-DiamondBacks
-Rockies
No interleague play. No DH (since that is the actual thread we're running). No wild-card. Each of the four league champions go to the post season. If you're not the best team in your league, you don't play in October.
happy
so no interleague play, does that mean you only play 7 other teams the whole 162 games? B-B-B-Boring
also, the best league is going to be by far the east, and the north is going to totally suck. for example this year, the Yankees, Red Sox, and Orioles are better than the best team in the north, and the money that they use would also mean that the mets and Phillies at one point or another would be good, if they dont continue to spend like morons. adding a team to Carolina may not be a smart move either.
January 19, 2004 at 10:54PM View BBCode
ok...so no interleague play, does that mean you only play 7 other teams the whole 162 games? B-B-B-Boring
also, the best league is going to be by far the east, and the north is going to totally suck. for example this year, the Yankees, Red Sox, and Orioles are better than the best team in the north, and the money that they use would also mean that the mets and Phillies at one point or another would be good, if they dont continue to spend like morons. adding a team to Carolina may not be a smart move either.
Pages: 1 2