Baseball: The National League

What the heck is wrong with the National League. Of the 16 teams, only five are playing above .500.

When there are a number of teams that do well... it makes it harder to win. There are more poor teams in the AL, which allows for higher winnings by other teams. In the NL, most teams are at least average. If not for the Cubs and Pirates, then the entire NAtional League would comprise of average to good teams.

Nice question, Thekerham.

I'm sure not the baseball guy, but Giants Fan, your answer surprises me. Guess it shouldn't since you're a NL guy.

Look at the record in interleague play. Look as who's won the All Star game over the past 10 years. Going back to '91, the AL has won 10 series championships, NL 4. Is there any doubt that top to bottom the AL has been superior lately?

It "seems" to me, the NL's loaded with sub par teams. The Royals (AL) may be the worst franchise in professional sports, but overall, I think the AL is vastly superior. I also thought Cleveland would be in contention this year, so what I think ain't much. (Cubs? Where did they go? Another team I expected to be more competitive).

I'd like to see BHN's take on this.

While the AL may dominate the NL as of today, that doesn't necessarily mean the NL is full of sub par teams, it just means the AL is chock full of good ones... namely the Red Sox, Yankees, Detroit, and Chicago.

But in the NL, nearly every team is at least average. The best teams, at least the ones that usually do quite well, are Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta, Mets, and (When Bonds is healthy and playing well) the Giants. All 5 of those teams are really capable of beating anybody... it's just that super-teams like the Red Sox and Yankees make it difficult for them to actually win anything.

But all the other teams are just average teams, that could win at any time, so usually finish around .500.

That is why so many teams don't have that good of a refcord, becaue almost all NL teams are at least average, so it's more difficult to really win a lot of games. With the team St. Louis has, you'd think they'd have a record similar to that of Detroit, but it's because of the ability of the other teams in the NL that prevents that.

Well now there are seven above .500 but only one above .600 while 9 teams are above .500 and once again only one above .600 as of today

I think the NL is fascinating because it will go down to the wire. Granted the AL kicks their ass in the All Star game but....

Anyway this goes back to the DH rule (or probably not). Is there anything else that would explain the disperancy between the two leagues. Also the Mets look like they got a damn good chance and the wild care race will be interesting. My hope is that the Giants get it and go on the win the world series, redeeming Barry Bonds to the haters out there (or at least making him somewwhat less miserable).

Originally posted by Kwyjibo

Anyway this goes back to the DH rule (or probably not). Is there anything else that would explain the disperancy between the two leagues.

I think one of the major differences in the two leagues with regards to competetiveness is New York and Boston, they are probably the biggest baseball markets in the country and are willing to spend big bucks to be good, heck i think the yankees payroll is greater than the majority of the entire NL's. They also have a storied past and players dream of playing for the yankees or the red sox. My second point in this is the NFL, it has sucked away fans from every team but look at NL cities, come july or august what are people thinking about in Atlanta, the Falcons. In Texas? the Cowboys. Chicago? the Bears (with the exception of some die hard Cubs and White sox fans) The NFL has taken away so many fans that clubs can't justify spending big money to be competitive. I'm sure there are many holes in my theory but it's the best i can come up with right now.

All I can say is that the NL teams aren't playing as well as they should be.

The AL is the superior league, and has been for awhile. The AL East has all the money, and most the stars. The NL really only has 2 teams that could compete in the AL, Cards and Mets.

If this kind of grotesque imbalance were happening in the NFL, the NFC's entrant could look forward to getting annihilated in the Super Bowl. But baseball is very different, in that the better team does not always win the World Series... not by a long shot. The 1954 Indians were a historic 111-43, one of the greatest records ever, and had a legendary pitching staff (Early Wynn, Bob Lemon, Mike Garcia at his best, and the still 13-3 Bob Feller). The 1954 Giants were enormous underdogs... just as the 1988 Dodgers were to the 1988 A's.

And just as the 1988 Dodgers turned everything around in the bottom of the 9th inning in Game One, when Gibson hit that unbelievable pinch-hit HR with two outs off Eckersley, the 1954 Giants did the same thing in Game One when Willie Mays made baseball's all-time most famous catch about 450 feet from home plate, saving the game and setting up Dusty Rhodes' ultra-cheap 3-run pinch-hit HR in the bottom of the 10th to win Game One. The huge underdog Dodgers took the 1988 Series in 5. The even more huge underdog Giants took the 1954 Series in 4.

So....

The good news is, you don't have to rule out a great World Series this year. The A.L. will be sending the better team to the Series, but they just might get their @$$es kicked, or, better yet, it just might be a great series--like the one the 82-79 (!) 1973 Mets gave the defending champ 1973 Oakland A's.

BHN