Dodgers beat the Red Sox

[ORS]

Interleague play is in the middle of the season. A lot can change between June and September. I don't use that to measure one league's success over the other. Remember' date=' the Tigers swept the Cardinals in interleague play.[/quote']

There are two measuring sticks by which the leagues as a whole can be compared. One involves many different matchups that occur over a 5-week span and includes every team in the leagues. The other offers one matchup that covers a week. Only a great fool chooses the latter.

[Rodney Harrison]

There are two measuring sticks by which the leagues as a whole can be compared. One involves many different matchups that occur over a 5-week span and includes every team in the leagues. The other offers one matchup that covers a week. Only a great fool chooses the latter.

 

Yet the matchup at the end has greater weight. If the AL was so dominant, why didn't they win the World Series?

[ORS]

Yet the matchup at the end has greater weight. If the AL was so dominant' date=' why didn't they win the World Series?[/quote']

The weight of the moment is irrelevant to any analysis of the quality of the leagues in total. It only involves two teams. IL play involves every team. This shouldn't be hard to figure out.

[Rodney Harrison]

The weight of the moment is irrelevant to any analysis of the quality of the leagues in total. It only involves two teams. IL play involves every team. This shouldn't be hard to figure out.

 

Bottom line is, although the AL destroyed the NL in interleague play in the middle of the season, an NL team is champion. And in the end, that's all that matters.

[jacksonianmarch]

He lives in Cali. Give him a break. The smog makes em a lil slow.

[ORS]

And in the end' date=' that's all that matters.[/quote']

Only to an idiot. Seriously, if you really believe the WS winner is a better indicator than IL play of which league is stronger, you are f***ing stupid. Don't retort, because that is fact. It's not up for debate.

[Rodney Harrison]

Only to an idiot. Seriously' date=' if you really believe the WS winner is a better indicator than IL play of which league is stronger, you are f***ing stupid. Don't retort, because that is fact. It's not up for debate.[/quote']

 

And only an idiot would bring up a mid-season meaningless series as an indication of one league's superiority over another. This isn't football, where NFC teams play AFC teams all season long instead of a determined period of time. Without looking it up, can you tell me who was the better IL team in 2003? Or on any given year?

[ORS]

No, and I don't care. I don't care which league is better or worse. It means nothing to me. I'm only interested in this topic because I find it laughable that someone thinks this is true.

[jacksonianmarch]

each team plays 18 interleague games. Multiply that by 30 teams and divide by 2 because of 2 participants in each game and you have a sample size of 270 games. Yet you wish to cling to 7 games between 2 clubs. Love the left coast logic.

[Rodney Harrison]

No' date=' and I don't care. I don't care which league is better or worse. It means nothing to me. I'm only interested in this topic because I find it laughable that someone thinks this is true.[/quote']

 

That "someone" isn't me. My original statement was that the difference between the AL and NL isn't as big as people think. I didn't say either league was superior. JacksonianMarch brought up interleague play, hence the discusssion.

[seabeachfred]

And only an idiot would bring up a mid-season meaningless series as an indication of one league's superiority over another. This isn't football' date=' where NFC teams play AFC teams all season long instead of a determined period of time. Without looking it up, can you tell me who was the better IL team in 2003? Or on any given year?[/quote']

 

Rod, since 1988 the American League has won the All Star Game 15 times, the NL only 3 with a tie in 2002. You and ORS can argue the merits and demerits of the WS or Inter-league play until the cows come home, but in the annual All Star game made up of the best players from both leagues the American League has beaten the National League like a drum. That's a fact and it jumps out at you.

[Rodney Harrison]

each team plays 18 interleague games. Multiply that by 30 teams and divide by 2 because of 2 participants in each game and you have a sample size of 270 games. Yet you wish to cling to 7 games between 2 clubs. Love the left coast logic.

 

Not to be picky, but not all teams play 18 interleague games. Because there are only 14 AL teams and 16 NL teams, there will be two NL teams playing each other while the rest are playing against the AL. So that means that some NL teams will have played only 15 interleague games (the entire NL West played only 15 IL games in 2006).

[Rodney Harrison]

Rod' date=' since 1988 the American League has won the All Star Game 15 times, the NL only 3 with a tie in 2002. You and ORS can argue the merits and demerits of the WS or Inter-league play until the cows come home, but in the annual All Star game made up of the best players from both leagues the American League has beaten the National League like a drum. That's a fact and it jumps out at you.[/quote']

 

And between 1963 and 1982, the AL only won it once, yet won 8 out of 20 WS in that span. All-Star games are just an exhibition.

[jacksonianmarch]

And between 1963 and 1982' date=' the AL only won it once, yet won 8 out of 20 WS in that span. All-Star games are just an exhibition.[/quote']

 

we arent talking about 63-82. Stop living in the past.

[Rodney Harrison]

we arent talking about 63-82. Stop living in the past.

 

I was merely going along with Fred's point about the All-Star game. It's an exhibition game. Nothing else.

[MANNYHOF24]

I can't believe people would stoop this low, and respond 135 times to a thread like this. This should have been moved crap after post 1.

[VA Sox Fan]

I can't believe people would stoop this low' date=' and respond 135 times to a thread like this. This should have been moved crap after post 1.[/quote']

 

Yeah....well, you know.....things are slow.......

[ORS]

That "someone" isn't me. My original statement was that the difference between the AL and NL isn't as big as people think. I didn't say either league was superior. JacksonianMarch brought up interleague play' date=' hence the discusssion.[/quote']

Again, we aren't talking about which league is better. We are talking about what event has more relevance to that determination. You absolutely are the "someone" who thinks the WS tells us more than IL play. Try and keep up.

[Mr Crunchy]

the man who doesnt think either league is superior didnt pay attention to the interleague results i guess

 

the beating the national league took in interleague play was historic

sure

the tigers tossed the world series into the shitter and they were the best team in the american league pretty much from april to october

that said

the cards won the nl with 83 wins

 

the tigers had a horrid week in october and they paid for it

the national league is just horrid

period end of story

[Rodney Harrison]

Again' date=' we aren't talking about which league is better. We are talking about what event has more relevance to that determination. You absolutely are the "someone" who thinks the WS tells us more than IL play. Try and keep up.[/quote']

 

You didn't make any mention of that in your original post. The WS matters more than IL play.

 

We won't remember which league was better in IL play in a given year, but we do know who won the WS in a given year. The irrelevance of IL play in the overall picture speaks volumes.

[Rodney Harrison]

the tigers had a horrid week in october and they paid for it

the national league is just horrid

period end of story

 

You could extend the same courtesy to a lot of NL teams. Maybe they just had a horrid month. It goes both ways.

[ORS]

You didn't make any mention of that in your original post. The WS matters more than IL play.

 

We won't remember which league was better in IL play in a given year, but we do know who won the WS in a given year. The irrelevance of IL play in the overall picture speaks volumes.

Again, what "matters" and what we "remember" aren't the same as relevant data. When you want to compare the relative quality of two things, the bigger and more inclusive sample is always more relevant than the smaller and more exclusive one. This is plain common sense.

[Mr Crunchy]

the nl winner won 83 games

the team they beat had 56 year old tommy glavine as their ace

of the 4 nl playoff teams i dont think any would finish in the playoffs in the american league

 

if we were in court and needed to prove an argument the only parameters we have to gauge this subject are the head to head games sir rodney

[Rodney Harrison]

Again' date=' what "matters" and what we "remember" aren't the same as relevant data. When you want to compare the relative quality of two things, the bigger and more inclusive sample is always more relevant than the smaller and more exclusive one. This is plain common sense.[/quote']

 

We're getting into semantics here. The fact that we won't remember IL play results means that most fans don't give it much importance.

 

If interleague play were spread out over the entire season, it would hold more weight. But you can hardly judge a team's performance (or a league) by having the leagues play each other 70 games into the season.

[Rodney Harrison]

the nl winner won 83 games

the team they beat had 56 year old tommy glavine as their ace

of the 4 nl playoff teams i dont think any would finish in the playoffs in the american league

 

if we were in court and needed to prove an argument the only parameters we have to gauge this subject are the head to head games sir rodney

 

Your point places so much emphasis on hypothetical situations. That's why you can't use it to prove anything.

[Mr Crunchy]

there was nothing hypothetical about the beating the national league has endured over the last few seasons

[Rodney Harrison]

And yet the last six World Series have been split by both leagues.

[ORS]

We're getting into semantics here. The fact that we won't remember IL play results means that most fans don't give it much importance.

 

If interleague play were spread out over the entire season, it would hold more weight. But you can hardly judge a team's performance (or a league) by having the leagues play each other 70 games into the season.

Why does what people remember matter? We aren't discussing the historical importance of the WS vs. IL play. We are debating which one tells more about the relative strength of the leagues. The amount of importance fans place on IL play means nothing in this discussion.

 

If your argument against IL play begins with the fact that it doesn't occur over the whole season, then you completely contradict yourself by placing more importance on a series that lasts only one week. I'm not saying IL is a perfect gauge. It's just better than the WS. For some reason, you can't seem to get this.

[Rodney Harrison]

If your argument against IL play begins with the fact that it doesn't occur over the whole season' date=' then you completely contradict yourself by placing more importance on a series that lasts only one week. I'm not saying IL is a perfect gauge. It's just better than the WS. For some reason, you can't seem to get this.[/quote']

 

Again, we're arguing semantics here. I've said it here before. The AL destroyed the NL in interleague play in 2006, yet an NL team is champion. Whoever won the mid-season IL series means nothing in ths bigger picture.

 

Interleague play can't fully answer the question "which league is better." In fact, there is no answer. We just place emphasis on different things.

[ORS]

Again, we're arguing semantics here. I've said it here before. The AL destroyed the NL in interleague play in 2006, yet an NL team is champion. Whoever won the mid-season IL series means nothing in ths bigger picture.

 

Interleague play can't fully answer the question "which league is better." In fact, there is no answer. We just place emphasis on different things.

No, this isn't a semantical argument. We aren't parsing words differently. The lines are clear. You think the WS tells us more because it's what people will remember. I think IL play tells us more because, well, there's a shitload more data in it. One of these stances involves the stuff of analysis. The other involves perception. I'll let you try and figure the rest out.