CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:34:34 -0000

--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.

Re: Question of the day

Captain Flume — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:52:56 -0000

Maybe the NL needs Charlie Wheeler to hit those "home runs" for them.

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:47:08 -0000

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."

Re: Question of the day

You Go Boy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:20:38 -0000

because it's like Casey Stengel would say..."Those gentlemen are dead at the present time".

Re: Question of the day

John Doe — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:13:17 -0000

Aaahhhhh, because they lack talent?

Re: Question of the day

Boscobud — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:16:07 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:14:05 -0000

- Amy - Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 2:22 pm:

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 donâ€™t mean it that way. the way you say it, â€œthrows like a girlâ€ 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.

Re: Question of the day

votecounter — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:59:32 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Abe's Ghost — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:40:57 -0000

global warming

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:22:38 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Mike Murray — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:19:23 -0000

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 hasnâ€™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/art...

"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 donâ€™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. Doesnâ€™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...

Re: Question of the day

MrJM — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:37 -0000

Kass says it's the fault of The Combine...

-- MrJM

Re: Question of the day

HoosierDaddy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:54:06 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Slugfest — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:30:33 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Red Bird fan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:22:10 -0000

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...

Re: Question of the day

BIG R.PH. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:58:05 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Anon3 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:50:00 -0000

just accept it this format plays to the AL's current make up.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:47:17 -0000

George, I would hope NL pitchers have better numbers. There's no DH -- you know, like real baseball.

Re: Question of the day

George — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:43:56 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

L.S. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:31:24 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Reggaeman — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:30:24 -0000

AL threw more strikes, caught more balls and got more hits

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:29:37 -0000

===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.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:20:38 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Reality Check — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:02 -0000

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).

Re: Question of the day

Third Generation Chicago Nativ — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:09:59 -0000

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