Who Will Win the World Series?

[savage1]

And I would also bet you that 100% of those same knowledgeable fans, if they selected a team from the AL to win a future World Series, would NEVER us dominance in the All Star game as a major basis, or any basis, for their reasoning.

I'm out....

Not a good response as the AL is made up of players from MANY teams not one.
Come on-you know as well as i do that those fans would have chosen any of the teams I mentioned and a few more before choosing the Cards.
Its like when a very mediocre horse gets lucky and wins a race against some superior competition.
Most of the smart money doesn't press their luck in future races by betting on the same horse.

[frankb03]

In short, I am simply pointing out that many times a good team such as the Phillies can win a WS, but sometimes a team like St. Louis can get hot.

In some ways in 2004 we can say the same thing about the Red Sox. They got hot at the right time. They were down and out vs. Yanks 0-3. They won their next 8 games. We can look back at history and find dozens of teams that won the WS that wasn't the best team.

[savage1]

One last point about the DH then I'm going to bed.

It's the mental part of DHing. Many NL DHers have expressed how hard it is for them to stay focused as the DH. They're not used to batting then sitting around on the bench for 2 or 3 innings. The AL DHer are 'professional DHer'. They've learned to play the 'position'. Once again a huge advantage for the AL. And once again if you disagree you disagree with many NL ballplayers and most baseball experts.

I don't disagree at all;as I stated in a previous post, I am not talking about the reaons for the discrepancy-I am simply talking about the situation as it CURRENTLY exixts.

[savage1]

In some ways in 2004 we can say the same thing about the Red Sox. They got hot at the right time. They were down and out vs. Yanks 0-3. They won their next 8 games. We can look back at history and find dozens of teams that won the WS that wasn't the best team.

VERY true, but I maintain that in spite of the great comeback needed, the Sox in 2004, which played in the best division in baseball, was considered a lot more of a contender to win the WS that year than were the Cards in 2006, a team which was regarded as very mediocre in a very mediocre division.

[savage1]

We all have, accept our man Savy!

And if you are going to be loud and obnoxious about it, you better expect a large cup of when it doesn't work out your way!

Actually I already did congratulate the Phillies before this discussion and am very happy for them and their fans;

...

The Phillies are a very fine and deserving team to win the World Series.
They turned their lousy Interleague record around and deserve a lot of credit!
Forum: ALL SPORTS DISCUSSION Today, 10:03 PM


Congratulations to all Phillies fans;you truly deserve it and have a very fine team!!

[Three Jack]

Not a good response as the AL is made up of players from MANY teams not one.
.

Not shit Sherlock...but how many of those players actually have a chance to make the World Series for the All-Star game to mean anything? At least half the roster knows they ain't making it so the All Statr game is a true exhibition for them, yet you think it has significance....


Damn, Savvy, you are smarter than this, I think....

[Three Jack]

Actually I already did congratulate the Phillies before this discussion and am very happy for them and their fans;

...

The Phillies are a very fine and deserving team to win the World Series.
They turned their lousy Interleague record around and deserve a lot of credit!
Forum: ALL SPORTS DISCUSSION Today, 10:03 PM


Congratulations to all Phillies fans;you truly deserve it and have a very fine team!!

Congratulating is one thing, but admitting you were wrong when provinen to be wrong seems to be quite another!

[savage1]

Congratulating is one thing, but admitting you were wrong when provinen to be wrong seems to be quite another!

Life is a learning experience;I will admit that while I still think Interleague play is one factor to consider, there are also factors.
In retrospect, I think it is difficult to say who will win the WS in advance until the two teams in question get there.
One must consider how the teams are playing when they get to the series and other emotional factors.
For example, someone at another forum suggested that the Rays might have some trouble maintaining the emotional intensity they did in defeating the Red Sox.
Also, some teams just match up well against certain teams as we see many times during the regular season.
Many chose the Rays to win this series based on their own criterion and were wrong.
There is really no right or wrong way to determine who is going to win the WS;if the team you choose wins, then one can argue that at least some of the factors you chose had some validity and conversely the opposite if the team you chose lost.
The Phillies won it this year by convincingly defeating the Rays in five games.
Thankfully, when I saw the Phillies dispose of Milwaukee and especially LA, I changed my assessment on them and bailed out of my series bet.

[savage1]

Not shit Sherlock...but how many of those players actually have a chance to make the World Series for the All-Star game to mean anything? At least half the roster knows they ain't making it so the All Statr game is a true exhibition for them, yet you think it has significance....


Damn, Savvy, you are smarter than this, I think....

I agree BUT still, if what YOU said was entirely correct, then I would think that NL would have won some of those games in the last 10 years;afterall your assessment applies to both teams.
I simply find it hard to believe that is strictly coincidence that the AL has dominated the game as much as they have of late.

[frankb03]

the Al has won more games than the NL, meaning they are BETTER, this year's WS notwithstanding.

The AL is a better wager due to the rules. They have an unfair advantage.

Sugar Ray Robinson is considered the greatest pound for pound boxers. He'd lose 99 out of 100 of his fights to some very average heavyweight champs like Buster Douglas, Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith. No one would ever consider Buster Douglas a better fighter than Sugar Ray.


The AL and NL play with different sets of rules clearly giving on league and huge advantage. With an even playing field the AL wouldn't enjoy the huge domination they now have. Their record at the NL parks prove that. They're below 500 on the road where they don't get to utilize the DH.

[frankb03]

I agree BUT still, if what YOU said was entirely correct, then I would think that NL would have won some of those games in the last 10 years;afterall your assessment applies to both teams.
I simply find it hard to believe that is strictly coincidence that the AL has dominated the game as much as they have of late.

Savage once again your argument doesn't have any validity. In the 60s and 70s the NL dominated the AS game. They won 19 of 20 games from 1963 to 1982. At the same time they didn't dominate the WS during that period.

Do you really believe the NL was the better league for 20 years? I don't. I do believe AS game streaks are mere coincidences.

The game has changed so much due to free agency. Five of the six top salaried team reside i the AL. Those teams get many of the best players. Every free agency season the Yanks and Red Sox are leading candidates to land the big fish. That plays a HUGE role in the AL's dominance. Without free agency the Sox and Yanks aren't in contention each season.

IMO the best team in baseball, the Rays have the 2nd lowest payroll. It's sad! In a few years that great team will be pilfered by the Mets, Yanks and Sox. The Rays were a great story. A much better story the the Yanks or Sox winning again.

[savage1]

The AL is a better wager due to the rules. They have an unfair advantage.

Sugar Ray Robinson is considered the greatest pound for pound boxers. He'd lose 99 out of 100 of his fights to some very average heavyweight champs like Buster Douglas, Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith. No one would ever consider Buster Douglas a better fighter than Sugar Ray.


The AL and NL play with different sets of rules clearly giving on league and huge advantage. With an even playing field the AL wouldn't enjoy the huge domination they now have. Their record at the NL parks prove that. They're below 500 on the road where they don't get to utilize the DH.

Agreed-we are simply looking at the situation differently-you are looking at it because of the reason it exists, whereas I am looking at it ONLY as it currently exists.

[savage1]

Savage once again your argument doesn't have any validity. In the 60s and 70s the NL dominated the AS game. They won 19 of 20 games from 1963 to 1982. At the same time they didn't dominate the WS during that period.

Do you really believe the NL was the better league for 20 years? I don't. I do believe AS game streaks are mere coincidences.

The game has changed so much due to free agency. Five of the six top salaried team reside i the AL. Those teams get many of the best players. Every free agency season the Yanks and Red Sox are leading candidates to land the big fish. That plays a HUGE role in the AL's dominance. Without free agency the Sox and Yanks aren't in contention each season.

IMO the best team in baseball, the Rays have the 2nd lowest payroll. It's sad! In a few years that great team will be pilfered by the Mets, Yanks and Sox. The Rays were a great story. A much better story the the Yanks or Sox winning again.

There was no Interleague play during the era from the 60's to 80's, which is an important part of my criterion for evaluating the two leagues.
Also, there was no DH until 1973.
Also, while not dominating per se, if my math. is right, the NL did win 12 out of 20 WS during the time frame you cite.
Many people including me do think from top to bottom that the NL was the superior league during the time frame you cite.