In the NHL 7 out of the 30 teams finished with records with fewer wins than losses...in MLB right now you have 11....a lot less parity than you think. There are some truly awful teams out there. The NHL has parity....MLB has injuries that seems to artificially cause parity thanks to its ridiculously long schedule.
In the NHL 7 out of the 30 teams finished with records with fewer wins than losses...in MLB right now you have 11....a lot less parity than you think. There are some truly awful teams out there. The NHL has parity....MLB has injuries that seems to artificially cause parity thanks to its ridiculously long schedule.
That's an unfair comparison because baseball doesn't have OT losses. Take out OT losses and 13 teams in the NHL finish with fewer wins than losses...including the Stanley Cup Champions.
In the NHL 7 out of the 30 teams finished with records with fewer wins than losses...in MLB right now you have 11....a lot less parity than you think. There are some truly awful teams out there. The NHL has parity....MLB has injuries that seems to artificially cause parity thanks to its ridiculously long schedule.
That's definitely wrong. The NHL's version of .500 is completely different than everyone else's. The W-L-OTL makes records look much better than they are. Did you take that into account?
If you guys seriously think the MLB has as much parity, or even close to as much parity as the NHL then you are out of your mind.
Which team always wins the AL East? Which two teams always fight each other for the AL Wildcard? Which team won the NL East the past few years?
Parity my ass.
Baltimore goes into every season doubting they will make the playoffs. Same thing with Toronto.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
That's definitely wrong. The NHL's version of .500 is completely different than everyone else's. The W-L-OTL makes records look much better than they are. Did you take that into account?
i didn't but i could....
playing at .500 means earning 82 out of a possible 164 points in a season. there were 7 teams that finished with fewer than 82 points.
exact same number.
8 teams if you include the .500 mark. if you include the .500 mark in MLB the number jumps to 14 teams who are at, or below .500
playing at .500 means earning 82 out of a possible 164 points in a season. there were 7 teams that finished with fewer than 82 points.
exact same number.
8 teams if you include the .500 mark. if you include the .500 mark in MLB the number jumps to 14 teams who are at, or below .500
I don't think you can look at the NHL and MLB the same. 10 MLB teams out of 30 makes the "playoffs" now while 16 out of 30 make the NHL playoffs.
To me, I think disregarding the bottom 10 teams in the MLB and taking the top 20 would show that there is a lot more parity in the MLB. Are those 20 teams going to legit be near or around the playoffs in August? I believe so. If you do that as of right now, Milwaukee, Oakland and Philly, all teams with over 30 wins would be out of the parity mix. Philly and Milwaukee are teams that made the playoffs last season. Philly had 102 wins. There is quite a bit of parity in the MLB.
I don't think you can look at the NHL and MLB the same. 10 MLB teams out of 30 makes the "playoffs" now while 16 out of 30 make the NHL playoffs.
To me, I think disregarding the bottom 10 teams in the MLB and taking the top 20 would show that there is a lot more parity in the MLB. Are those 20 teams going to legit be near or around the playoffs in August? I believe so. If you do that as of right now, Milwaukee, Oakland and Philly, all teams with over 30 wins would be out of the parity mix. Philly and Milwaukee are teams that made the playoffs last season. Philly had 102 wins. There is quite a bit of parity in the MLB.
why would you simply disregard 1/3rd of the league???
the amount of teams making the playoffs has zero implications on parity. there are a lot of crappy teams and a lot of really good teams. thats not parity...thats haves and have nots.
ive seen the mets all time team cause of the 50th anniversary thing and i pretty much agree with everyone's selection for each position. i wondered what the yankees all time team would look like since im a yankee fan and i gotta say it's pretty simple to me. catcher would be yogi berra and the only one remotely close would be bill dickey. first base would be gehrig by lightyears. second base i would actually go with cano even though most people would still put lazzeri there, i think he's already better than lazzeri and he definetely will have better numbers than him by the time he retires. shortstop its jeter and not even close. third base and i know how much some yankee fans wouldn't like it but its a-rod by a mile. and in the outfield it's a no brainer. ruth, gehrig, dimaggio. ruth in right and i think mantle was a better cf than joe d so i put dimaggio in left. as for best lefty handed starting pitcher it would be whitey ford. and for best right handed pitcher it would be red ruffing. closer would obviously be mariano. and manager i would give the slight edge to joe mccarthy over casey stengel.
why would you simply disregard 1/3rd of the league???
the amount of teams making the playoffs has zero implications on parity. there are a lot of crappy teams and a lot of really good teams. thats not parity...thats haves and have nots.
There really is no dominant team in baseball. Before the Yankees were on this 10 win streak, they were 31-25. A few games over .500.
There are some teams that have a very good shot at winning it all, but there are less stacked teams and more new teams coming into the fray. Pittsburgh and Baltimore come to mind of teams that were down for a while, but are up this season. There is a lot more talent spread around the league. There are no easy wins in the league except for maybe a few teams and even then, you don't know with the way pitching is right now.
This is the highest point of parity in the MLB and that makes it more exciting. It's not the NHL or NFL level, but it's much greater than it used to be.
Today has just been non-stop Dickey love by the sports media day.
Dickey always needs love, bro. Every day.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
On my way home from my first Mets game (and baseball in general). Gotta say, it isn't that bad when watching it live. Anyone wanna give me an idea of what quality of game this was (average, above average etc.)
On my way home from my first Mets game (and baseball in general). Gotta say, it isn't that bad when watching it live. Anyone wanna give me an idea of what quality of game this was (average, above average etc.)
Average run of the mill game in a 162 game season.
On my way home from my first Mets game (and baseball in general). Gotta say, it isn't that bad when watching it live. Anyone wanna give me an idea of what quality of game this was (average, above average etc.)
Really depends on the fan.
It's average for most people, but it's your first so it's always special.
As you begin to go to more games and see some **** go down you'll begin to raise your standards and the games you really remember will start to stand out.
I've been to ALOT of baseball games and I've seen it all: walk-offs, clinchers, playoffs, comebacks, shutouts, slugfests, you name it. So a 5-0 game would be whatever to me, but to you it'll always be awesome cause it's the first one
