Who Will Win the World Series?

[frankb03]

I just like the way they have been playing of late and their new and better attitude under the new management.
I agree that relief pitching is so important in a short series and could be their undoing.
How do you rate the teams at this time re: who is going to win WS?

NL
Cubs
Mets
Dbacks (I agree with KB)

AL
Tampa
Angels
Red Sox

The Rays remind me of the 1969 Mets. A young team with great young pitching. I think they're the team to beat in the playoffs and WS.

[Bill the Thrill]

Dbacks vs Red Sox
and the Sox will win

[savage1]

1. Angels
2. D'Backs (Webb, Haren, Johnson is dangerous in a series)
3. Cubs
4. Tampa
5. White Sox

Wow-you rate Arizona ahead of the Cubs.
I would rate Milwaukee and even the Dodgers ahead of the Dbacks(Obviously,I think LA will win the division).

[kbsooner21]

Wow-you rate Arizona ahead of the Cubs.
I would rate Milwaukee and even the Dodgers ahead of the Dbacks(Obviously,I think LA will win the division).

Their pitching in a series is spectacular.

[savage1]

Their pitching in a series is spectacular.

That may be, but I have concerns about their offense or lack of it.

[Three Jack]

In answer to your question, although not conclusive by any means, the continued dominance of AL over NL in interleague play, the recent All Star Games and WS means something.
This year AL finished a whopping 47 games ahead of NL in interleague play, and the Cubs record was nothing to write home about.
Even the crappy Royals excelled against the NL.
Until NL can prove it can defeat the NL(other than the fluke of St. Louis over the Tigers in WS), in my mind any AL team deserves to be a better bet than any NL team especially one which hasn't won a WS in an eternity.

I will be like Phil Ste ele and pick out my selected time frame to prove my point-Al has won 11 out of the last 16 WS or 68.7%.

You can call interleague and all star games and WS results meaningless-I don't-the past is many times indicative of the future in all wakes of life-not just baseball.
Eventually something that hasn't happened will like the Red Sox finally winning a WS after 86 years of waiting.
Can the Cubs do the same-maybe? However, based on the way I evaluate things-considering that they haven't won it in 100 years and couple it with stats that I consider valid- the interleague results, the All Star Game results,the trend in the WS games and just what I see with my own eyes when I watch NL teams play especially against the Al teams(does the 47 game dominance of the AL over the NL this year and dominance in previous years results mean nothing to you?)

By my way of thinking, to dismiss All Star game results, teams like Cub's inability to win a WS in 100 years, recent interleague and WS results as meaningless is about the same as going to the track and not even looking at the racing form because after all it is "meaningless" also and just playing one longhshot after another in every race.

Ignorant logic is better than NO LOGIC, because that is what your posts contain-or is unrealistic hopes based on your heart and not your mind!

Ok-lets see.
How would you have done if you had bet every Al team in the All Star game in say the last decade ,every Al team against every NL team in every interleague game and every AL team against every NL team in the Ws as opposed to the other way around?

Why does a racing form exist? Stats and trends do count and people who go WITH them rather than AGAINST them do much better over time than people who ignore them entirely!

Your argumentative and reasoning abilites are that of someone about 100.
I pointed out tons of examples why Al is a better league using my criterion which you ignored or disregarded;lets call an ace an ace here.

I have presented OBJECTIVE facts in support of my argument.
You have presented nothing other than to suggest that my criterion is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=savage1;1460692]Here are a few more things to consider:
From 2004-2007:
WS won AL 3 NL 1
Games won during those WS AL 13 NL 4(3 sweeps by AL)
Interleague Play- AL finished a whopping 145 games above 500 against the NL
All Star Games won- AL 4 NL 0
Can anyone honestly say/imply that this is of absolutely no bearing and/or just a coincidence in making a rational judgment as to who is most likely to win the next WS and which league is better?[/QUOTE]

Respect your opinion but obviously must disagree especially when you consider the 3 sweeps by AL when combined with the other supporting data.
I realize in 2006 St. Louis did defeat the Tigers, but I still have to think stats would favor picking an AL team over a NL team if forced to pick today.

I don't agree, and feel it isn't even close.
Want more-I am admittedly using my criterion that interleague play counts for something:
Lets take the teams in AL East against NL:
Tampa 12-6
New York 10-8
Boston 11-7
Baltimore 11-7
Toronto 8-10
Combined 52-38
Lets take a look at NL Central:
Cubs 6-9
Milwaukee 7-7
St. Louis 7-8
Reds 9-6
Houston 7-11
Pitsburgh 5-9
Combined 41-51
I haven't checked the records of the other NL Divisions, but come on to say that NL Central from top to bottom is equal overall to AL East doesn't make sense.

Also just check the overall records of AL against the NL in the last few years-it is telling. The "who played who" reference you make all evens out over time and indicates to me that AL is superior.
As I stated in another post, the AL is 145 GAMES OVER 500 AGAINST NL from 204 through 2008(original post erroneously said through 2007).
How do you explain that???

All Star game may have less significance that Interleague games, but the fact that Home Field advantage in WS is at stake counts form something.
I totally disagree with you about Interleague play-a 145 game advantage over 5 years shows clearly which teams and league are better and counts for something is making one's decision as to who to bet.

Nothing is certain except life, death and taxes;I just happen to think that some of the stats and trends I cited have at least some relevance to the issue.

Thnaks for a great laugh, Savvy...congrats on winning all those All Star game and Interleague play...means a lot!

[savage1]

Three Jack-Not all of what you posted has to do with the WS;however, it doesn't prove overall which league is better and has been for a number of years, which is still the AL in my opinion. One WS win doesn't prove anything about the strength of the leagues.
By the way you conveniently never answered the question I posed to you the other night:

You know there are exceptions to everything.
Let me ask you something:
Think back to the 2006 season when a 500 St. Louis team during the regular season won the WS over Detroit.
Now lets say and somehow magically you became incredibly,filthy rch and had a chance to buy any major league team you wanted to for the following season and seasons to come
Do you think you would have been more inclined to buy the Cardinals based on their winning the WS or would you have been more inclined to buy the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, Mets and perhaps a few other teams?

[frankb03]

[QUOTE=Three Jack;1528372]

Here are a few more things to consider:
From 2004-2007:
WS won AL 3 NL 1
Games won during those WS AL 13 NL 4(3 sweeps by AL)
Interleague Play- AL finished a whopping 145 games above 500 against the NL
All Star Games won- AL 4 NL 0
Can anyone honestly say/imply that this is of absolutely no bearing and/or just a coincidence in making a rational judgment as to who is most likely to win the next WS and which league is better?[/QUOTE]












Thnaks for a great laugh, Savvy...congrats on winning all those All Star game and Interleague play...means a lot!

Jack great stuff

[Three Jack]

Three Jack-Not all of what you posted has to do with the WS;however, it doesn't prove overall which league is better and has been for a number of years, which is still the AL in my opinion. One WS win doesn't prove anything about the strength of the leagues.
By the way you conveniently never answered the question I posed to you the other night:

You know there are exceptions to everything.
Let me ask you something:
Think back to the 2006 season when a 500 St. Louis team during the regular season won the WS over Detroit.
Now lets say and somehow magically you became incredibly,filthy rch and had a chance to buy any major league team you wanted to for the following season and seasons to come
Do you think you would have been more inclined to buy the Cardinals based on their winning the WS or would you have been more inclined to buy the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, Mets and perhaps a few other teams?

Savy, first of all I have no idea what you are talking about posing some question???

Second, its okay to admit you are wrong..most of us are wrong 5, 10, 15 times a day. If you came out and said you thought the LAA were going to win b/c of their pitching, their hitting, their manager, their closer...so be it. That's all logical. But your warped since of reality to think that ALL Star games and InterLeague play have absolutely anything to do with who wins a WS is comical! Your reasoning is 100% flawed and it was just proven yet agin- and it has been proven wrong 2 times in 3 yrs...what more do you want?

[Three Jack]

Three Jack-Not all of what you posted has to do with the WS;however, it doesn't prove overall which league is better and has been for a number of years, which is still the AL in my opinion. One WS win doesn't prove anything about the strength of the leagues.
By the way you conveniently never answered the question I posed to you the other night:

You know there are exceptions to everything.
Let me ask you something:
Think back to the 2006 season when a 500 St. Louis team during the regular season won the WS over Detroit.
Now lets say and somehow magically you became incredibly,filthy rch and had a chance to buy any major league team you wanted to for the following season and seasons to come
Do you think you would have been more inclined to buy the Cardinals based on their winning the WS or would you have been more inclined to buy the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, Mets and perhaps a few other teams?

Winning a World Series just proves who the best team was that year and if I was filthy rich I would by the franchise that has the best future at the best value....and if it is the WS winner, so be it.

[frankb03]

One WS win doesn't prove anything about the strength of the leagues.

One WS? 2-1 last 3. 3-4 in last 7. 4-5 in last 9. We can go back further during the Yankees dominance but I'm not sure how that plays a factor in recent season interleague play.

Savage IMO the reason you have so many problems with so many members is how you go about expressing your opinion. We all have opinions. But too often you express your OPINION as if it's gospel. Then no matter what proof is offered to dispel your opinion you don't waver. You complete close the door to any other possibilities.

Yes the AL dominated the NL in interleague play. I think it's ONE factor that a bettor has to consider. But there are other important factors. Teams play such a limited schedule interleague schedule. They only play a few teams each season.

I believe the primary reason the AL has dominated is due to the DH rule. I don't necessarily believe the AL is better. AL teams are built around 9 batters. What AL team doesn't bat their DH 3, 4 or 5? In some cases the DH is the teams best hitter. In interleague play and in the WS the NL utilizes a backup or 4th outfielder as DH. The AL has a huge advantage. If you disagree then you are disagree with every baseball expert.

[Three Jack]

I believe the primary reason the AL has dominated is due to the DH rule. I don't necessarily believe the AL is better. AL teams are built around 9 batters. What AL team doesn't bat their DH 3, 4 or 5? In some cases the DH is the teams best hitter. In interleague play and in the WS the NL utilizes a backup or 4th outfielder as DH. The AL has a huge advantage. If you disagree then you are disagree with every baseball expert.

So true, Frank..the NL DH's typicaly bat 7 - 9 in the order, where in most cases, they are one of the AL teams best hitters. I believe, and I could be worng, that NL pitchers have more home runs than NL DH's the last 5 years(Blanton's HR this year).

[savage1]

Winning a World Series just proves who the best team was that year and if I was filthy rich I would by the franchise that has the best future at the best value....and if it is the WS winner, so be it.

That doesn't directly answer the question I asked;in essence I was asking is that based on the WS win of the Cardinals in 2006, would this have been the first team you would have purchased for the 2007 season and seasons to come if you had the means to do so?

[frankb03]

I believe the primary reason the AL has dominated is due to the DH rule. I don't necessarily believe the AL is better. AL teams are built around 9 batters. What AL team doesn't bat their DH 3, 4 or 5? In some cases the DH is the teams best hitter. In interleague play and in the WS the NL utilizes a backup or 4th outfielder as DH. The AL has a huge advantage. If you disagree then you are disagree with every baseball expert.

Since 2004 in interleague play the NL is 327-314 at home vs. AL.

AL @ home vs NL 403-236

Further proof the AL has a huge advantage having teams built around their DH. I do believe the AL is the better league but no where near the dominance that Savage proclaims.

[Three Jack]

That doesn't directly answer the question I asked;in essence I was asking is that based on the WS win of the Cardinals in 2006, would this have been the first team you would have purchased for the 2007 season and seasons to come if you had the means to do so?

Savy, it is such a stupid question and I DID ANSWER IT. If I was purchasing a team, it would be long term and not short term, so who the best team or who won the WS would be immaterial, it would be about VALUE.

When you buy a team, you aren't buying what they won, you are buying the future so the past means nothing. Who WAS the best means nothing.