Dodgers beat the Red Sox

[Mr Crunchy]

come on rodney

we only need 1 more pin

[Rodney Harrison]

No' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The question is, what does "which league is better?" mean? To you, it's a collection of isolated data which have no bearing in the future. To me, it's who was champion in the end. Yes, the World Series is a smaller and more exclusive sample size, but in the end, it's what matters most. We can argue until we both drop dead, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Like I said, there is no answer to the question.

[ORS]

The question is' date=' what does "which league is better?" mean?[/quote']

This is simple, it is the league with better teams.

 

To you, it's a collection of isolated data which have no bearing in the future.

I must have missed the part where the WS has bearing on the future.

 

To me, it's who was champion in the end.

This involves only two teams, the league champions. This tells us what league had the best team at the end of the season, not the better league.

 

Yes, the World Series is a smaller and more exclusive sample size, but in the end, it's what matters most.

The WS' historical importance, again, doesn't tell us s*** about the leagues. Remember, this is about the leagues, not the record books.

 

We can argue until we both drop dead, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

This isn't about opinion. You are wrong. I've shown you the folly in your logic and the gross contradictions in your points. Whether or not you can own up to them is up to you.

[Rodney Harrison]

This involves only two teams' date=' the league champions. This tells us what league had the best team at the end of the season, not the better league.[/quote']

 

So technically, the best team at the end of the season should come from the better league, right? Because if it doesn't, your statement is contradictory.

 

There is no answer, so how can I be wrong? This isn't the NFL, where both conferences play each other all year long. Nor is it the NBA, where all 30 teams play each other at least twice. The IL argument is still flawed because you play at most five teams from the other league every year. It doesn't tell you anything. It could be a better representation than the World Series, but it still tells you nothing about the strength of both leagues.

[ORS]

So technically' date=' the best team at the end of the season should come from the better league, right? Because if it doesn't, your statement is contradictory.[/quote']

You can't be serious. No, technically - or even theoretically, the best team does not come from the better league. The best team is the best team. It is its own entity. It is part of a league, but it doesn't define the league. It and all the other teams define the league. There is nothing contradictory about my statement, and I'd love to see the hairbrained connection you make there. Have at it.

 

There is no answer, so how can I be wrong? This isn't the NFL, where both conferences play each other all year long. Nor is it the NBA, where all 30 teams play each other at least twice. The IL argument is still flawed because you play at most five teams from the other league every year. It doesn't tell you anything. It could be a better representation than the World Series, but it still tells you nothing about the strength of both leagues.

Sorry, Rodney, there is an answer, and the last couple of sentences suggest you are stubbornly coming around to see it. I never said IL was perfect. In fact, I said it wasn't. It's just better than the WS, which has been my point all along. And, you are wrong about it telling nothing. Hell, the WS tells us something, even if it is very little, but IL play tells us more.

[Rodney Harrison]

You can't be serious. No' date=' technically - or even theoretically, the best team does not come from the better league. The best team is the best team. It is its own entity. It is part of a league, but it doesn't define the league. It and all the other teams define the league. There is nothing contradictory about my statement, and I'd love to see the hairbrained connection you make there. Have at it.[/quote']

 

Since you put it that way, each interleague series can also be viewed as part of the league, but they don't define the league itself.

 

Sorry' date=' Rodney, there is an answer, and the last couple of sentences suggest you are stubbornly coming around to see it. I never said IL was perfect. In fact, I said it wasn't. It's just better than the WS, which has been my point all along. And, you are wrong about it telling nothing. Hell, the WS tells us something, even if it is very little, but IL play tells us more.[/quote']

 

No, there is no definite answer. We're arguing over something that does very little to answer the question "which league is better." I don't see how a mid-season series tells you more about the state of each league than one at the end of the season.

[jacksonianmarch]

Since you put it that way, each interleague series can also be viewed as part of the league, but they don't define the league itself.

 

 

 

No, there is no definite answer. We're arguing over something that does very little to answer the question "which league is better." I don't see how a mid-season series tells you more about the state of each league than one at the end of the season.

 

stop sniffing glue, it is bad for you.

[ORS]

Since you put it that way' date=' each interleague series can also be viewed as part of the league, but they don't define the league itself.[/quote']

But I'm talking about viewing the cumulative total of all those series. Nice try. Keep at it, you'll make a point sometime, even if it's by accident.

 

I don't see how a mid-season series tells you more about the state of each league than one at the end of the season.

It's real easy, numbnuts. The mid-season one is 30x bigger and 5x longer in duration.

[Papelbon58]

I cannot believe Rodney Harrison is actually this stupid. I'm sure he is just being a troll, but just in case....

 

A league may have the best team but no other good teams, while the other league may have 5 or 6 great teams. While the Cardinals were arguably the "best" team last year, the AL had the next 5 teams before any other National League team was mentioned and therefore the AL was the better league. Moron.

[Rodney Harrison]

It's real easy' date=' numbnuts. The mid-season one is 30x bigger and 5x longer in duration.[/quote']

 

Yet teams can have bad stretches in mid-season. Someone mentioned that the Tigers had a bad week in late October. Can you extend the same courtesy towards the NL in June?

[Rodney Harrison]

I cannot believe Rodney Harrison is actually this stupid. I'm sure he is just being a troll, but just in case....

 

A league may have the best team but no other good teams, while the other league may have 5 or 6 great teams. While the Cardinals were arguably the "best" team last year, the AL had the next 5 teams before any other National League team was mentioned and therefore the AL was the better league. Moron.

 

Not being a troll, but is it possible to be the "best" and not win?

[ORS]

Yet teams can have bad stretches in mid-season. Someone mentioned that the Tigers had a bad week in late October. Can you extend the same courtesy towards the NL in June?

What period of time has a greater chance of a team experiencing both a good patch and a bad patch, one week or five weeks, thus giving a truer representation of the team's overall quality? Swing and miss, Rodney. You are hanging by a thread.

[Rodney Harrison]

What period of time has a greater chance of a team experiencing both a good patch and a bad patch' date=' one week or five weeks, thus giving a truer representation of the team's overall quality? Swing and miss, Rodney. You are hanging by a thread.[/quote']

 

Either way, it's still a bad stretch. The Twins were all but out of it in June and suddenly they go on a historic surge on their way to the division. Granted, they beat most of their NL opponents, but a series in June cannot give a representation of a team's quality.

[a700hitter]

I think that the NL has more young bright stars than the AL, e.g. Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Miggy Cabrera to mention a few. Pujols is still fairly young too.

[ORS]

Either way' date=' it's still a bad stretch. The Twins were all but out of it in June and suddenly they go on a historic surge on their way to the division. Granted, they beat most of their NL opponents, but a series in June cannot give a representation of a team's quality.[/quote']

 

f*** man, are you really this dense? No s*** one month can't tell the whole picture of a team, but it tells a shitload more than one week. The argument isn't about how good an indicator IL play is. It's about what the better one is. IL play tells you more than the WS. End of story. The hypotheticals and annecdotals don't do anything to change that.

[Rodney Harrison]

f*** man' date=' are you really this dense? No s*** one month can't tell the whole picture of a team, but it tells a shitload more than one week. The argument isn't about how good an indicator IL play is. It's about what the better one is. IL play tells you more than the WS. End of story. The hypotheticals and annecdotals don't do anything to change that.[/quote']

 

If I answered your first question, how reliable would my response be?

 

IL play may tell more than the WS, but it's minimal. I think I said that in some other post in this thread. Just relax and watch the Sox in spring training. No need to get angry over what some shmuck over the Internet is trying to argue.

[Rodney Harrison]

Pujols is still fairly young too.

 

Assuming he's telling the truth about his age...

[jacksonianmarch]

If I answered your first question, how reliable would my response be?

 

IL play may tell more than the WS, but it's minimal. I think I said that in some other post in this thread. Just relax and watch the Sox in spring training. No need to get angry over what some shmuck over the Internet is trying to argue.

 

minimal?

[ORS]

I'm not angry. I think it's funny actually. And it's not minimal. There are 14 AL teams, each one plays 18 IL games, that's 212 IL games. 30x more than a 7-game WS. 30x. It tells us 30x more than the WS does. It's still not perfect, but it tells us that much more than the WS.

[a700hitter]

Assuming he's telling the truth about his age...

I thought we found out everyone's true age after 911... except for El Duque's