For someone who said they wouldn’t comment on me anymore through other posters you certainly didn’t keep your word after thinking you’re punishing me for putting me on ignore for the upteenth time. I know exactly what giddy is, and you didn’t talk O’Neil up after last night’s game so tonight had nothing to do with what O’Neil did like it did last night when he sucked after you talked him up.Stalk? I thought I smelt a stench coming from the Southern part of the state, and now I know what that stench was, because it was you.
Always nice to beat the Yanks.
Let's keep it rolling!
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
And as I keep saying, what evidence do you have that the "League just isn't that strong?" Salaries are up, and so is the population base from which players are recruited.
You keep demeaning a .500 winning percentage as a sure sign of mediocrity when we have compelling evidence from last year that the difference between percentages of Atlanta (.640), Texas (.560), and Arizona (.520) last year were insignificant because Atlanta did not make it to the WS and both Texas and Arizona did.
And why did that happen? Because the statistical difference between 64%, 56%, and 52% is 12%, which is actually quite small.
What I also find interesting are these MLB team payrolls matched to their current won-lost records--
1. NYMets, $308M, W-L 32-37
2. NYY, $305M, 50-23
3. Houston, $250M, 32-39
4. Philly, $246M, 47-23
5. Texas, $232M, 33-37
6. Atlanta, $232M, 38-30
7. Dodgers, $230M, 43-29
8. Cubs, $225M, 34-37
9. Toronto, $224M, 34-36
10. Giants, $201M, 34-37
11. Boston, $182M, 36-35
17. Seattle, $142M, 42-31
18. White Sox, $136M, 19-53
20. Kansas City, $118M, 41-31
25. Baltimore, $101M, 46-24
26. Cleveland, $100M, 44-24
28. Tampa Bay, $98M, 33-38
Three of the top five team payrolls have losing records. And three of the bottom 11 payrolls are 41-31, 46-24, and 44-24.
Every year, somehow, someway, MLB always ends up at .500.
There is absolutely no way anyone can prove the league and players have gotten worse.
It might be hard to prove talent levels have gotten better, but I think the last 2 decades look better than the previous 3 decades, since I've been following MLB.
The pitchers throw incredible breaking stuff. Pens have become specialized and no longer is the dumping ground for failed starters.
I think the tendency is to overinflate the way things were when we were young, and some of those Sox teams from the 70's looked awesome, but I think the pitching has come a long way since then, and probably the hitting, too.
Is 2024 worse than 2018, or 2013 or 2007? It's hard to say. It makes sense there might be some ebbs and flows, but how can anyone prove it?
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
I would put it this simply. MLB is, for lack of a better word, balanced, and that's definitely the way the Commissioner and probably the owners want it. Almost everybody, rich or poor, has a shot. I think it's beyond question that the postseason format, now with six division winners and six wild cards, 12 out of 30 teams, has made that possible. Thus my harping on the fact that the WS last year was played between a team who finished with 90 wins and the other with 84 wins.
That said, let's not forget that just 6 years ago the Red Sox won 108 games in the regular season and beat the Yankees (100 wins) in the ALDS, 3 games to 1, the Astros (103 wins) in the ALCS, 4 games to 1, and the Dodgers (92 wins), also 4 games to 1.