Because They are required to have a Cub on it.......
He Makes Ryan Look Like a Sain
· 5 months ago
Because the Sox are in the American League?
Lazy Intern
· 5 months ago
Because they have Cubs members, it is a fact of life, the Cubs don't win. They take their curse with them wherever they go. They are who they are.
George
· 5 months ago
Because the game always gets decided at the end by the have-tos. Those 1-from-each-team have-to-select players.
The past few years have shown the teams have been pretty much even, until some lucky bounce or hit in the end. Hasn't been any real domination like there used to be.
Amy
· 5 months ago
they are just in a big bad spot. remember that for quite a few years, the National League always won and won the World Series regularly and pundits critiqued the American League as losers. When Joe Torre manages next year, things will change. yes, betting on the Dodgers to win the National League.
on a much nicer note, how fun to see the Sox jacket on display last night. Take that, Red Sox fans. The White Sox were the Sox first.
Stones
· 5 months ago
Mark Buehrle said it best..."Because we're better"!
wordslinger
· 5 months ago
It's a quirk. Each year, every team is different. What happened the year before doesn't matter.
The National League dominated through the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Cubs Fan
· 5 months ago
Because of Albert Pujols.
Deep South
· 5 months ago
When the POTUS arrives at the ballpark wearing the jacket of an American League team...you know you're screwed!
bored now
· 5 months ago
what all star game?
turning to america's sport, the bears begin training camp on july 31st. on the same day, homewood-flossmoor (and U of I) standout xavier fulton begins training camp with the tampa bay buccaneers.
for those who are interested, the pro bowl games have been much more balanced, with the nfc winning 20 of the 39 games played since the merger...
Anonymous
· 5 months ago
Thank big Albert for last night.
Mike Murray
· 5 months ago
===It’s a quirk. Each year, every team is different. What happened the year before doesn’t matter.
The National League dominated through the 60s, 70s and 80s. ===
U r right WS, but AL never had a drought of 12 years with no victory.
AL is 11-0-1 in last 12 games!
Can't only be just an unlucky streak.
NL is pathetic. Inter-league play is a much better indicator of overall league talent, and the AL has had a 2-1 win-loss ratio every year since at least 2000.
Both leagues have great talent, but AL has much greater depth, with the exception of bullpen strength cuz they vary a lot from year to year and are roughly even. The depth gap is just a fact. (I would argue that is is due to DH, but that is debatable)
Recent All-Star games partially reflect that disparity, but again, the NL has enough talent to make 1 competitive team.
Mike Murray
· 5 months ago
The depth disparity, in my opinion, gets in the heads of the NL players and mentally prepares them to loose.
That is just my theory, but I have yet to hear a better one.
After all, when was the last time u flipped a coin 12 times and did not land at least once on tails. Can't just be bad luck. Baseball is a mental game - at least for the pros.
Downstate weed chewing hick
· 5 months ago
Either the AL is a better league (which it seems to be based upon the interleague win loss stats) or AL fans are better at voting for the best players rather than the most popular players. I am a Cubs fan, but it was laughable that the Cubs were trying to get me to vote for Fonzie this season. Imagine if that worked. What a joke it would be to make him an allstar this season.
GA Watcher
· 5 months ago
I agree with Peter Gammons. He said that while he would give a slight edge to the American League in having better offensive players, the AL has a significant advantage over the National League when it comes to pitching. Not only has the American League dominated the All-Star Game for the past two decades, it has also dominated interleague play since it started in 1997.
fedup dem
· 5 months ago
Because the National League was led by its MVCA (Most Valuable Choke Artist), Albert Pujols!
phil
· 5 months ago
Because Michael Madigan doesn't want them to.
Rod
· 5 months ago
No DH
Ravenswood Sox Fan
· 5 months ago
It is unfair to pit minor league players against the major league all stars.
wordslinger
· 5 months ago
MM, both those teams last night were loaded and it was a one-run game, so I'll stick with my contention that the current AL streak for the all-star game is a quirk.
Having said that, the AL is certainly stronger overall than the NL. That makes the accomplishments in recent years of last night's AL starter, Halladay, that more remarkable.
He's dominated not only pitching against teams with DHs, but also with most of his starts against powerful AL East teams. He and Santana, who also dominated in the AL when he played in that Butler building in Minnesota, are the two best pitchers of their generation.
Contreras' 18-game winning streak a few years back was amazing, too.
YNM
· 5 months ago
I do agree that overall the American League seems to have better pitching, especially power pitching. In fact, speaking in generalizations of course, the AL seems to have more power everything while the NL is more finesse.
I think there may be something to the "voting for the best vs. voting for popular" theory as well. At least recently.
Not sure any theory fully explains the last 13 years, however.
And for anyone to pin last night's result on Pujols alone is ludicrous. If "The Freak" would have pitched as he can then the Pujols error would have been moot. And let's not forget he did tie the ASG record for assists for a 1B despite the error, making some great defensive plays.
Frank Booth
· 5 months ago
The assembled AL teams have annually done a better job at doing the little things needed to win while the NL teams plan like the AL squads of yesteryear -- swing hard and hope for a homer. Inconsistent pitching and untimely hitting isn't a winning combo as any Cubs fan will tell you.
Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan
· 5 months ago
Because Barry throws like a girl and the teleprompter decided this years game.
You Go Boy
· 5 months ago
I know I'm off topic, but how many "legislators" went to the All Star game, I wonder.
815Sox
· 5 months ago
Comes down to the pitching
Shore
· 5 months ago
To Lazy intern.
for the record to the cubs haters. the only ex-cub that played last night was josh hamilton and he never played a game in a cub uniform. marquis and lilly didn't play.
Bill
· 5 months ago
Because they suck.
Anon
· 5 months ago
Not ENOUGH Cubs on the team. Pujols 0-3 and an error. Thanks for the help, Albert.
Team Sleep
· 5 months ago
I think the better question is what happened to Tim Lincecum last night? He must have been nervous. That doomed them.
The National League can't seem to either get down their timely hitting or their power strokes. For a team with Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Ryan Howard, Ryan Braun and Raul Ibanez to hit no home runs is sad and inexplicable.
Speaking at Will
· 5 months ago
Dan S. is right. That was a real lollipop first pitch. Come on Barry, bring the heat!
PoliticalEditor
· 5 months ago
Nate Silver and Baseball Almanac do brilliant job of explaining AL dominance ... and why it is not likely to change any time soon. Yes, it begins with DH. DH rule means AL pitchers have far fewer "easy outs." Perhaps not a big deal in any one game. But impact grows cumulatively over course of 162 games in regular season, 1 potential "play-in" game and 12 potential intra-league, post-season games.
Puts premium on AL pitchers with mental toughness, forces them to focus fiercely on every batter.
We all know numbers can lie. But these are compelling: NL pitchers who move to AL on average see their ERA worsen by several points. AL pitchers who move to NL, on average, improve their ERAs. Hitters? AL batters traded to NL, on average, gain 10+ points in BA. NL batters traded to AL, again on average, see their BA drop.
Scooby
· 5 months ago
I think the All Star Game record is just one of those quirks because any little thing can decide a one run game, but I do think overall as the pool of interleague games continues to grow you will see a noticeable difference with the AL at least at a 55% - 45% split. An AL lineup is built to have 9 batters, the NL only 8. There's just a deeper pool of batting talent in the AL. On the pitching side I think AL pitchers (regardless of talent) are mentally tougher. NL pitchers get a free out every nine batters, not so with AL pitchers who have to bear down on every pitch.
I don't think that difference is big enough to consistently decide a single game, like an All Star game, or even a small number of games series, such as a 7 game World Series, but I think that with a large enough pool of games like several years worth of interleague games, you will see a noticeable gap between the two leagues.
All Star Game
· 5 months ago
Partly a quirk but partly because the AL has more firepower and in recent years, has just simply been a better league overall. For the record, I'm a fan of a team in the NL. It sucks - and while I'm all for blaming Albert (now you know which team I root for, haha) .. the real goat was Ryan Howard last night. Prime slot for knocking in either the tying run or both that and the go ahead run and he took a half swing at a ball that didn't make it halfway to home plate and looked worse than most kids in beginner t-ball do at the plate. Howard is your goat this year, as much as I'd like to pin it on golden boy Pujols. Maybe next year. Oh, and allegiances aside, maybe Bud Selig should think twice about 'making it count' when the players are voted in by the fans in an easily corrupted formate. Hmm? Just because you screwed up and called that one game a few years ago Bud, doesn't mean you needed to immediately put in this random order to 'make it count' right afterwards. No game that determines home field advantage in the WORLD FLIPPIN' SERIES should include players who are voted in by anyone other than the managers of those squads!!! Ok, I'm done. Thanks for the forum, Rich :)
Mike Murray
· 5 months ago
Bull pens are comparable I believe.
NL has better specialty guys (due to 'strategy' of NL) and AL has better closers and set up men.
Starting pitching is definitely better in the AL. There is just more power pitching is in the AL, and the AL starters are better in general.
Why? Because better pitchers are needed to face the better line ups. Think about it, when a starting pitcher gets old and looses velocity, where does he go. A NL team so he can have 2 free outs every nine hitters.
No question where the offense is.
Also, AL spends more money and has the higher revenue generating teams, with a few exceptions like cubs, mets and to some extent the dodgers.
All comes down to the DH. It makes the game more exciting (more $$$ from fans) and requires better players to be competitive.
It just took decades for the DH effect to take hold. I don't think it's a pendulum either. AL will dominate until NL accepts that it just can't compete without a DH.
And I don't want to hear about all the great strategy and the like in the NL either. It's just a way to gloss over the fact that many NL teams rely upon washed up players and defensive specialists.
And DH baseball is real baseball. look up why NL rejected the DH, it was by accident, not some desire to keep the real game. 6 to 6 vote with 2 abstaining and the abstaining votes would have been for the DH but an owner could not be reached. Saw it on ESPN.
DH for life.
Speaking at Will
· 5 months ago
I think I just heard Rush Limbaugh blame the "National" leagues loss on the fact that the league had been "Nationalized."
"I dont think its any coincidence that Barack threw out the first pitch at a "Nationalized" ball park last night." ; )
WOW
· 5 months ago
Maybe we could poll the 20+ legislators that were there?
Plutocrat03
· 5 months ago
The curse of the Cubs of course!
Boscobud
· 5 months ago
Cubs have played in 9 World Series but only won 2. White Soxs have played in 5 World Series but only won 3. The American League team has won the All Star Game for the past 11 years not including the tie in 2002. Overall over the past 10 years the American League has won 6 World Series and the National League won 4.
Why the National League hasn't won a All Star Game is because they don't need to win. They proved that they can win the big game without winning the All Star Game.
Third Generation Chicago Nativ
· 5 months ago
The American League is just better, they won 61 World Series, whereas the National only 41. Of course it's also better because the White Sox are in the American League, and the POTUS is one of their biggest fans. The Stats
Reality Check
· 5 months ago
The American is and for some time has been clearly the better league. The All-Star game results are fluky, but they reflect a real talent gap. Check out interleague results, as others have noted, but also the pattern of stat inflation when players move from the AL to the NL (and deflation when they move the other way).
wordslinger
· 5 months ago
MM, the DH is an abomination. It's that kind of football offense thinking that led us all to believe McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, et al were on the legit.
They're nothing more beautiful than small ball, as Ozzie will tell you.
Anonymous
· 5 months ago
===Inter-league play is a much better indicator of overall league talent, and the AL has had a 2-1 win-loss ratio every year since at least 2000.===
Awful analysis from someone who clearly hasn't been watching baseball for very long.
Reggaeman
· 5 months ago
AL threw more strikes, caught more balls and got more hits
L.S.
· 5 months ago
AL in recent years has generally had better long ball hitters and better closers, both matter a lot in these types of heavy subsitution games.
That being said, it was a pretty good game last night that could have gone either way. A well timed triple and a sac fly decided it. And then it was three shut down closers in a row.
George
· 5 months ago
Mike Murray. Where or where to begin...
"Starting pitching is definitely better in the AL. There is just more power pitching is in the AL, and the AL starters are better in general."
Except that 6 out of the top 10 strikeout pitchers are NL pitchers. And 6 out of the top 10 in ERA are also from the NL.
"Think about it, when a starting pitcher gets old and looses velocity, where does he go."
Actually, they go where they can sit on the bench and don't have to do physically active things like hit.
"Also, AL spends more money and has the higher revenue generating teams, with a few exceptions like cubs, mets and to some extent the dodgers."
Wrong again. In reality, 7 out of the top 10 revenue generating teams are National League teams. According to Forbes, the NL owns 7 out of 10 of the highest net worth teams. The only AL teams with a significant fan base are the Yankees and Red Sox.
That makes this statement simply ridiculous: "All comes down to the DH. It makes the game more exciting (more $$$ from fans) and requires better players to be competitive."
In reality, the AL makes LESS money from its fans, yet spends MORE money on its players. Doesn't sound very smart to me.
wordslinger
· 5 months ago
George, I would hope NL pitchers have better numbers. There's no DH -- you know, like real baseball.
Anon3
· 5 months ago
just accept it this format plays to the AL's current make up.
BIG R.PH.
· 5 months ago
Because the AL has less teams than the NL.
Because each team needs to be represented, the NL then has more bad players from bad teams.
See Upton's bad play in Left Field and the poor pitching by Bell.
Red Bird fan
· 5 months ago
Maybe it has something to do with the Yankees who won 26 World Series titles. The closest NL team is the Cardinals who won 10.
After looking that the states, the Cards won twice as many World Series titles as both Chicago teams combined. If the Cubs continue to win at their current rate, it will take them 500 years to catch the Cards...
Slugfest
· 5 months ago
To Anon post at 10:13 this morning: Albert was not the reason the NL lost last night. He had an early error but made up for it with two back-to-back stellar plays at first. Heath Bell is the catalyst this year. Those Padres pitchers are a curse.
HoosierDaddy
· 5 months ago
Cubbies get over it. Albert had a bad night, but as Slugfest said, he had two stellar defensive plays. If anybody lost the game it was that skinny geek they started at the mound. Franklin was a hella better pitcher and he's not even a starter. You Scubbies don't even have any all stars on your team. Period. Cards also had Molina, and don't forget Franklin.
As for why they lost-- every game's a new game. This year it was pitching. I would like to see a comparison of salaries between the leagues. Seems like the guys pulling down the astronomical bux play AL ball. Could be a factor. Just saying.
MrJM
· 5 months ago
Kass says it's the fault of The Combine...
-- MrJM
Mike Murray
· 5 months ago
Well allow me to retort...
WS: the DH and small ball are not mutually exclusive. U correctly alluded to 2005 white sox, but also the rays from last year, the twins from always, etc.
And as far as real baseball goes, what is the AL then fake baseball?
Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 12:29 pm:
===Awful analysis from someone who clearly hasn’t been watching baseball for very long.===
Ok, u kinda got me here. First, I am 22 so I have only been following baseball closely for about 8 years. As far as my 2-1 ratio since 200 I was wrong.
But since 2003 AL has dominated NL with roughly a .550 winning percentage. The last 6 years of domination made me forget about the first 3 or 4 years where the NL had the slight advantage.
"In the 251 Interleague games that dotted the Major League schedule in two stints (May 22-24 and June 12-28), the American League went 137-114 (.546) and nine of the 14 AL clubs had winning records. The 2009 season marked the sixth straight campaign in which the AL won the season series, extending its all-time Interleague lead to 1,673-1,534 (.522)."
I was wrong on the exact numbers, but not on the overall point. NL = weak sauce and AL is clearly the more talented league.
George: this is almost too easy for me.
===Except that 6 out of the top 10 strikeout pitchers are NL pitchers. And 6 out of the top 10 in ERA are also from the NL.===
The NL is horrible offensively, that is why the NL pitchers are where they are on those lists. Pitchers are free outs and often strike outs and the 8th hitter in the NL is often a defensive specialist where as the AL it tends to be a power hitter with a low average. AL = better offense = more runs = higher era. Take AL pitchers in their prime and move them to NL and what happens...why don't u ask CC about it?
===Actually, they go where they can sit on the bench and don’t have to do physically active things like hit.===
You have to be kidding me, that is the worst analysis ever. It does not hold water. Pitchers get old and go to AL so they don't have to bat? Name one. More importantly, this assumes that batting 3 times is more physical then pitching 6 innings. Have you ever played baseball?
===Wrong again. In reality, 7 out of the top 10 revenue generating teams are National League teams. According to Forbes, the NL owns 7 out of 10 of the highest net worth teams. The only AL teams with a significant fan base are the Yankees and Red Sox.===
Those stats are from 2004 and Seattle was number 4 so it has to have a fan base. White Sox and Detroit have improved greatly in revenue. Your stats are cherry picked. But I will admit that there was not any evidence to support my claim either. It appears that with the exception of the obvious teams, revenues depend upon performance for the most part and that varies.
===In reality, the AL makes LESS money from its fans, yet spends MORE money on its players. Doesn’t sound very smart to me.===
Well I can tell you are a Cubs fan. The Cubs are a very smart business but a horrible franchise. Unitl recently they have not spent much on players even thought they are always at the top of the list in revenues. The point of the franchise from a fans point of view is to win, not to maximize profits. AL spends more, and maybe that is why it continues to dominate the NL. Maybe if the Cubs would have spent $ like they have n the last few years it would not have taken 101 years and counting to win a World Series...
I have said more then my share on this subject, so I am done now. I got to get back to work...
Amy
· 5 months ago
Dan S. at 10:50 a.m., no, no, Obama did not do a good job of tossing up the ceremonial pitch. oh, right you don't mean it that way. the way you say it, "throws like a girl" is a sexist statement. not nice.
Abe's Ghost
· 5 months ago
global warming
votecounter
· 5 months ago
Amy
The CUBS were the first sox (The White stockings) were the Cubs The Chicago Cubs Are as Old as Professional Baseball Itself
Inspired by the success of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, who were the first fully professional team in baseball history, a number of cities sponsored professional teams of their own. William Hulbert, a successful Chicago businessman, led that city's efforts to form the Chicago White Stockings in 1870.
Dan S. at 10:50 a.m., no, no, Obama did not do a good job of tossing up the ceremonial pitch. oh, right you don’t mean it that way. the way you say it, “throws like a girl†is a sexist statement. not nice. Let me rephrase that, like a "girly girl". At least he didn't try to shoot it, like a basketball that is.
Boscobud
· 5 months ago
I am watching a 1987 All Star game when the NL won 2-0. The NL had more spunk in there ball playing than they do now. Leon Durham looks so young.
John Doe
· 5 months ago
Aaahhhhh, because they lack talent?
You Go Boy
· 5 months ago
because it's like Casey Stengel would say..."Those gentlemen are dead at the present time".
Amy
· 5 months ago
Dan S. at 3:14 p.m. still sexist. what part of that denigrating someone by giving them any "girl" description whatsoever is sexist don't you get?
here's a clue, try substituting any reference for an African American person into your humor and see that you are racist.
same thing goes for the use of female gender to critique. calling a man something feminine to denigrate him or his performance denigrates women. so terms like "he throws like a girl" or "put on a skirt" yelled to men playing sports, or whatever denigrates women. it's the kind of thing they don't want you yelling at sports events. or have you not heard that statement they play at many college stadiums telling you that racist and sexist language will not be tolerated?
and, as an avid sports fan i'm so sick of it you can probably hear me screaming through the internet.
there's a really great t shirt put out by women's softball... "You wish you could throw like a girl."
Captain Flume
· 5 months ago
Maybe the NL needs Charlie Wheeler to hit those "home runs" for them.
wordslinger
· 5 months ago
--And as far as real baseball goes, what is the AL then fake baseball?--
MM,
Sadly, they have many good players playing a perverted brand of baseball instituted by the Junior Circuit in 1973 -- a year of the secret bombing of Cambodia, the Saturday Night Massacre, Arab oil embargo, leisure suits -- you get the picture.
Babe Ruth, Josh Gibson, Ted Williams, Buck O'Neil, Joe D., Satchel Paige et. al, never heard the words "Designated" and "Hitter" strung together. Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, et al never played in a game with a designated hitter.
(Can you imagine how intimidating Bob Gibson would have been if he never had to bat?)
Earlier, you said washed-up players go to the National League. I admire Mr. Incredible, the Pride of Peoria, but let me ask you: What National League team could Jim Thome start on? The answer is not a one.
Ever since we were in pre-school, if you wanted to bat, you had to be in position to play the field.
It's balance in The Force, Yoda. That, my friend, is baseball.
All Comments
The past few years have shown the teams have been pretty much even, until some lucky bounce or hit in the end. Hasn't been any real domination like there used to be.
When Joe Torre manages next year, things will change. yes, betting on the Dodgers to win the National League.
on a much nicer note, how fun to see the Sox jacket on display last night. Take that, Red Sox fans. The White Sox were the Sox first.
The National League dominated through the 60s, 70s and 80s.
turning to america's sport, the bears begin training camp on july 31st. on the same day, homewood-flossmoor (and U of I) standout xavier fulton begins training camp with the tampa bay buccaneers.
for those who are interested, the pro bowl games have been much more balanced, with the nfc winning 20 of the 39 games played since the merger...
The National League dominated through the 60s, 70s and 80s. ===
U r right WS, but AL never had a drought of 12 years with no victory.
AL is 11-0-1 in last 12 games!
Can't only be just an unlucky streak.
NL is pathetic. Inter-league play is a much better indicator of overall league talent, and the AL has had a 2-1 win-loss ratio every year since at least 2000.
Both leagues have great talent, but AL has much greater depth, with the exception of bullpen strength cuz they vary a lot from year to year and are roughly even. The depth gap is just a fact. (I would argue that is is due to DH, but that is debatable)
Recent All-Star games partially reflect that disparity, but again, the NL has enough talent to make 1 competitive team.
That is just my theory, but I have yet to hear a better one.
After all, when was the last time u flipped a coin 12 times and did not land at least once on tails. Can't just be bad luck. Baseball is a mental game - at least for the pros.
Having said that, the AL is certainly stronger overall than the NL. That makes the accomplishments in recent years of last night's AL starter, Halladay, that more remarkable.
He's dominated not only pitching against teams with DHs, but also with most of his starts against powerful AL East teams. He and Santana, who also dominated in the AL when he played in that Butler building in Minnesota, are the two best pitchers of their generation.
Contreras' 18-game winning streak a few years back was amazing, too.
I think there may be something to the "voting for the best vs. voting for popular" theory as well. At least recently.
Not sure any theory fully explains the last 13 years, however.
And for anyone to pin last night's result on Pujols alone is ludicrous. If "The Freak" would have pitched as he can then the Pujols error would have been moot. And let's not forget he did tie the ASG record for assists for a 1B despite the error, making some great defensive plays.
for the record to the cubs haters. the only ex-cub that played last night was josh hamilton and he never played a game in a cub uniform. marquis and lilly didn't play.
The National League can't seem to either get down their timely hitting or their power strokes. For a team with Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Ryan Howard, Ryan Braun and Raul Ibanez to hit no home runs is sad and inexplicable.
Puts premium on AL pitchers with mental toughness, forces them to focus fiercely on every batter.
We all know numbers can lie. But these are compelling: NL pitchers who move to AL on average see their ERA worsen by several points. AL pitchers who move to NL, on average, improve their ERAs. Hitters? AL batters traded to NL, on average, gain 10+ points in BA. NL batters traded to AL, again on average, see their BA drop.
I don't think that difference is big enough to consistently decide a single game, like an All Star game, or even a small number of games series, such as a 7 game World Series, but I think that with a large enough pool of games like several years worth of interleague games, you will see a noticeable gap between the two leagues.
NL has better specialty guys (due to 'strategy' of NL) and AL has better closers and set up men.
Starting pitching is definitely better in the AL. There is just more power pitching is in the AL, and the AL starters are better in general.
Why? Because better pitchers are needed to face the better line ups. Think about it, when a starting pitcher gets old and looses velocity, where does he go. A NL team so he can have 2 free outs every nine hitters.
No question where the offense is.
Also, AL spends more money and has the higher revenue generating teams, with a few exceptions like cubs, mets and to some extent the dodgers.
All comes down to the DH. It makes the game more exciting (more $$$ from fans) and requires better players to be competitive.
It just took decades for the DH effect to take hold. I don't think it's a pendulum either. AL will dominate until NL accepts that it just can't compete without a DH.
And I don't want to hear about all the great strategy and the like in the NL either. It's just a way to gloss over the fact that many NL teams rely upon washed up players and defensive specialists.
And DH baseball is real baseball. look up why NL rejected the DH, it was by accident, not some desire to keep the real game. 6 to 6 vote with 2 abstaining and the abstaining votes would have been for the DH but an owner could not be reached. Saw it on ESPN.
DH for life.
"I dont think its any coincidence that Barack threw out the first pitch at a "Nationalized" ball park last night." ; )
Why the National League hasn't won a All Star Game is because they don't need to win. They proved that they can win the big game without winning the All Star Game.
The Stats
They're nothing more beautiful than small ball, as Ozzie will tell you.
Awful analysis from someone who clearly hasn't been watching baseball for very long.
That being said, it was a pretty good game last night that could have gone either way. A well timed triple and a sac fly decided it. And then it was three shut down closers in a row.
"Starting pitching is definitely better in the AL. There is just more power pitching is in the AL, and the AL starters are better in general."
Except that 6 out of the top 10 strikeout pitchers are NL pitchers. And 6 out of the top 10 in ERA are also from the NL.
"Think about it, when a starting pitcher gets old and looses velocity, where does he go."
Actually, they go where they can sit on the bench and don't have to do physically active things like hit.
"Also, AL spends more money and has the higher revenue generating teams, with a few exceptions like cubs, mets and to some extent the dodgers."
Wrong again. In reality, 7 out of the top 10 revenue generating teams are National League teams. According to Forbes, the NL owns 7 out of 10 of the highest net worth teams. The only AL teams with a significant fan base are the Yankees and Red Sox.
That makes this statement simply ridiculous:
"All comes down to the DH. It makes the game more exciting (more $$$ from fans) and requires better players to be competitive."
In reality, the AL makes LESS money from its fans, yet spends MORE money on its players. Doesn't sound very smart to me.
Because each team needs to be represented, the NL then has more bad players from bad teams.
See Upton's bad play in Left Field and the poor pitching by Bell.
After looking that the states, the Cards won twice as many World Series titles as both Chicago teams combined. If the Cubs continue to win at their current rate, it will take them 500 years to catch the Cards...
As for why they lost-- every game's a new game. This year it was pitching. I would like to see a comparison of salaries between the leagues. Seems like the guys pulling down the astronomical bux play AL ball. Could be a factor. Just saying.
-- MrJM
WS: the DH and small ball are not mutually exclusive. U correctly alluded to 2005 white sox, but also the rays from last year, the twins from always, etc.
And as far as real baseball goes, what is the AL then fake baseball?
Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 12:29 pm:
===Awful analysis from someone who clearly hasn’t been watching baseball for very long.===
Ok, u kinda got me here. First, I am 22 so I have only been following baseball closely for about 8 years. As far as my 2-1 ratio since 200 I was wrong.
But since 2003 AL has dominated NL with roughly a .550 winning percentage. The last 6 years of domination made me forget about the first 3 or 4 years where the NL had the slight advantage.
From
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2009062...
"In the 251 Interleague games that dotted the Major League schedule in two stints (May 22-24 and June 12-28), the American League went 137-114 (.546) and nine of the 14 AL clubs had winning records. The 2009 season marked the sixth straight campaign in which the AL won the season series, extending its all-time Interleague lead to 1,673-1,534 (.522)."
I was wrong on the exact numbers, but not on the overall point. NL = weak sauce and AL is clearly the more talented league.
George: this is almost too easy for me.
===Except that 6 out of the top 10 strikeout pitchers are NL pitchers. And 6 out of the top 10 in ERA are also from the NL.===
The NL is horrible offensively, that is why the NL pitchers are where they are on those lists. Pitchers are free outs and often strike outs and the 8th hitter in the NL is often a defensive specialist where as the AL it tends to be a power hitter with a low average. AL = better offense = more runs = higher era. Take AL pitchers in their prime and move them to NL and what happens...why don't u ask CC about it?
===Actually, they go where they can sit on the bench and don’t have to do physically active things like hit.===
You have to be kidding me, that is the worst analysis ever. It does not hold water. Pitchers get old and go to AL so they don't have to bat? Name one. More importantly, this assumes that batting 3 times is more physical then pitching 6 innings. Have you ever played baseball?
===Wrong again. In reality, 7 out of the top 10 revenue generating teams are National League teams. According to Forbes, the NL owns 7 out of 10 of the highest net worth teams. The only AL teams with a significant fan base are the Yankees and Red Sox.===
Those stats are from 2004 and Seattle was number 4 so it has to have a fan base. White Sox and Detroit have improved greatly in revenue. Your stats are cherry picked. But I will admit that there was not any evidence to support my claim either. It appears that with the exception of the obvious teams, revenues depend upon performance for the most part and that varies.
===In reality, the AL makes LESS money from its fans, yet spends MORE money on its players. Doesn’t sound very smart to me.===
Well I can tell you are a Cubs fan. The Cubs are a very smart business but a horrible franchise. Unitl recently they have not spent much on players even thought they are always at the top of the list in revenues. The point of the franchise from a fans point of view is to win, not to maximize profits. AL spends more, and maybe that is why it continues to dominate the NL. Maybe if the Cubs would have spent $ like they have n the last few years it would not have taken 101 years and counting to win a World Series...
I have said more then my share on this subject, so I am done now. I got to get back to work...
The CUBS were the first sox (The White stockings) were the Cubs
The Chicago Cubs Are as Old as Professional Baseball Itself
Inspired by the success of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, who were the first fully professional team in baseball history, a number of cities sponsored professional teams of their own. William Hulbert, a successful Chicago businessman, led that city's efforts to form the Chicago White Stockings in 1870.
Read more: http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/early_...
Dan S. at 10:50 a.m., no, no, Obama did not do a good job of tossing up the ceremonial pitch. oh, right you don’t mean it that way. the way you say it, “throws like a girl†is a sexist statement. not nice. Let me rephrase that, like a "girly girl". At least he didn't try to shoot it, like a basketball that is.
here's a clue, try substituting any reference for an African American person into your humor and see that you are racist.
same thing goes for the use of female gender to critique. calling a man something feminine to denigrate him or his performance denigrates women. so terms like "he throws like
a girl" or "put on a skirt" yelled to men playing sports,
or whatever denigrates
women. it's the kind of thing they don't want you yelling
at sports events. or have you not heard that statement they play at many college stadiums telling you that racist and sexist language will not be tolerated?
and, as an avid sports fan i'm so sick of it you can probably
hear me screaming through the internet.
there's a really great t shirt put out by women's softball...
"You wish you could throw like a girl."
MM,
Sadly, they have many good players playing a perverted brand of baseball instituted by the Junior Circuit in 1973 -- a year of the secret bombing of Cambodia, the Saturday Night Massacre, Arab oil embargo, leisure suits -- you get the picture.
Babe Ruth, Josh Gibson, Ted Williams, Buck O'Neil, Joe D., Satchel Paige et. al, never heard the words "Designated" and "Hitter" strung together. Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, et al never played in a game with a designated hitter.
(Can you imagine how intimidating Bob Gibson would have been if he never had to bat?)
Earlier, you said washed-up players go to the National League. I admire Mr. Incredible, the Pride of Peoria, but let me ask you: What National League team could Jim Thome start on? The answer is not a one.
Ever since we were in pre-school, if you wanted to bat, you had to be in position to play the field.
It's balance in The Force, Yoda. That, my friend, is baseball.