T1B

What's that, 10 in a row now? We won't count the tie.

Just stay down NL bitches, and look on the bright side. You might could compete in the Mexican league.

War Wagon wrote:What's that, 10 in a row now? We won't count the tie.

Just stay down NL bitches, and look on the bright side. You might could compete in the Mexican league.

Please be sure to tell that to the defending WS champs, too. Bode. :P

battery chucka' one wrote:

War Wagon wrote:What's that, 10 in a row now? We won't count the tie.

Just stay down NL bitches, and look on the bright side. You might could compete in the Mexican league.

Please be sure to tell that to the defending WS champs, too. Bode. :P

At least last year's AL champs are going to actually make the playoffs. The Cardinals haven't exactly been fighting champions.

Shoalzie wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:

War Wagon wrote:What's that, 10 in a row now? We won't count the tie.

Just stay down NL bitches, and look on the bright side. You might could compete in the Mexican league.

Please be sure to tell that to the defending WS champs, too. Bode. :P

At least last year's AL champs are going to actually make the playoffs. The Cardinals haven't exactly been fighting champions.

I understand your opinion on this, bro'. I really do. Heck, I was pulling for the Tigers to win last year but, still, scoreboard trumps all other arguments. And right now, it's bode NL.

Bitch Slapped by the AL or by LaRussa?

I guess he's a genius, I would have never thought of only running Peavy and Penny out for a single inning of work each, and saving one of the top RBI producers of the last few years with the winning run on base in the bottom of the 9th for later in the game. WTF Tony?, the game is only 9 innings what are you saving Pujols for

battery chucka' one wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote: Please be sure to tell that to the defending WS champs, too. Bode. :P

At least last year's AL champs are going to actually make the playoffs. The Cardinals haven't exactly been fighting champions.

I understand your opinion on this, bro'. I really do. Heck, I was pulling for the Tigers to win last year but, still, scoreboard trumps all other arguments. And right now, it's bode NL.

True...still hard to take losing the Series last year the way the Tigers did.

I'm just here to RACK the thread title and to get a post in before Jizminphilly shows up and tries to bury another thread with nothing more than an idiotic DH argument.

Hey, who were the DH's last night?

And I'm now just here waiting for Barney Fu to drop in and "curbstomp" me for starting such a moronic thread, since St. Loser won the WS last year with an inferior team.

tap, tap, tap... I'll be waiting, BF.

rozy wrote:Hey, who were the DH's last night?

In retort...how many pitchers actually hit for themselves on Tuesday? I can't think of any.

Shoalzie wrote:

rozy wrote:Hey, who were the DH's last night?

In retort...how many pitchers actually hit for themselves on Tuesday? I can't think of any.

For EITHER team, pointmisser.

Careful, Shoalz, since I know you inherently agree with me, and think clearly. On level playing fields, the AL is kicking the NL's ass. Consistently. There are the 2 fluke WS wins by St. L and Fla. but other than that the AL is simply far superior as a whole for at least a decade + now.

So chew on your straws somewhere else...

Winning a 7 game series can be considered a fluke championship? /ponder

rozy wrote: On level playing fields, the AL is kicking the NL's ass. Consistently.

Define level- if you are refering to the All-star game then you're a bigger moron than WW and that's saying a lot. The current all-star game barely holds a candle a world series game in terms of intensity and pressure. It is perhaps the most laid back game of the entire MLB schedule. And regardless of whether the game is at an NL Or AL park, you probably won't see pitchers hit again. The rosters are too big and the so by default this god-awful game will slide further into the shitter b/c it'll never be a game with 'real' strategy.

There are the 2 fluke WS wins by St. L and Fla. but other than that the AL is simply far superior as a whole for at least a decade + now.

The past 10 WS - AL has won 6.
The past 12 WS- AL has won 7


2006- St. Louis
2005- White Sox
2004- Boston
2003- Florida
2002- Anaheim
2001- Arizona
2000- Yanks
1999- Yanks
1998- Yanks
1997- Florida
1996- Yanks
1995- Atlanta
1994- Not Held
1993- Toronto


I would hardly call that 'superior' Roz. I might concede that the Yanks have been a far superior team than the rest of MLB over that 10 year + span but based on the way they completely outspent just about every team in that span, it's not difficult to see why.

I'm as big an AL guy as they come, but I would never claim bode based on the All-Star game. The All-Star game is a glorified exhibition game, and the starting lineup is chosen by what amounts to a popularity contest. Full disclosure: when I grew up, the NL honks were claiming bode based on the All-Star game, even though the AL was winning the World Series more often than not.

For that matter, in the modern era the World Series isn't even the best meausre of league supremacy bode. Only one team from each league goes to the World Series, and anything can happen in a short series. Not to mention that it's not always the best team from each league who winds up there. Under the current format, wildcard teams have a pretty good track record of reaching the World Series, much better than the track record of wildcard teams reaching the Super Bowl in the NFL during the 1970's, when the NFL had a playoff format similar to MLB's playoff format today. Maybe there's more parity in MLB today than there was in the NFL during the 70's. But that's a topic for another thread.

Anyway, back to the point, it seems to me that the best measure of league strength right now is interleague play. Unlike the All-Star game, those games count in the standings, and there's a much greater pool of games and teams involved than is the case in the World Series. There's no question which league has the advantage there.

War Wagon reached the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
War Wagon reached the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason.

Read more, post never.

The conclusion he reached this time was a fun poke in the ribs of jim based on an earlier thread where all the points you just typed were already brought out, though with much more color and humor and a whole lot less....you....and your threadkilling boredom.

The sky is blue when the clouds aren't covering the sky. And Tuesday comes after Monday. Hey, I have an idea. Want to go watch some paint dry? We can eat twinkies and count our toes.

R-Jack wrote:Fact. During The Yankees WS years, they got far more from their investments than any other team who tried to keep pace with them dollar for dollar, and there were several... I implore you to mix in some light, hell even slight, research.

And I never hear the losers Yankee haters make any mention of the other variables...

Oh, like say... facoring in cost of living/housing/whatnot in NY as compared to the other big-spending teams.


Oh... there is that.


In terms of REAL teams (like ones not hailing from KC or Colorado and whatnot), if you factor those variables in, it's not the wide margin that some people rely on as an excuse.

I’m all for bashing jiminphilly, just on general principle, Dins, but a cost of housing argument? Based on 2006 numbers, I believe the Cardinals paid out $3.55 million per player, the Yankees $7.79 million. It costs 4 million dollars more per year to live in New York? The difference between the Yankees and #2 (Boston) was about $3 million per.

On an unrelated note, Kansas City paid their players an average of $1.89 million. Not sure you get me to live in Kansas City for less than $2.5 million per.

Goober McTuber wrote:It costs 4 million dollars more per year to live in New York?

Dude... have you been lately?

The wife and I are spending a long weekend in NYC in the fall. Over the course of 3 days, I expect to blow at least 2 grand. If you extrapolate that out over the course of 365 days and add in "superstar expenses" like hookers, caviar, coke, and limos... that comes to at least 15 million per year. The Yankees pay their players a pittance, imho...

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:The wife and I are spending a long weekend in NYC in the fall. Over the course of 3 days, I expect to blow at least 2 grand.

For that kind of money, you could spend a week at someplace really nice.

Goober McTuber wrote:Not sure you get me to live in Kansas City for less than $2.5 million per.

Pretty funny you mention that, Goobs.

A friend of mine's family owns a very large restaurant chain in the Upper Midwest, and some distribution companies that go with it. He moved out here several years ago, to snowboard go to college. After graduation, he kind of floundered, and was living in semi-poverty. Well, his uncles and whatnot decided to make him an offer he couldn't refuse to come home (Twin Cities, actually), and work for them.


He refused.

They made him another offer he couldn't refuse.

He refused.

He finally explained, something along the lines of "I'd rather live on $15K a year here, than $75K anywhere in the Midwest. There's no comparison between the two. I guess for $90K, I can fly out and spend my weekends in Oregon."

So, $90K it was to start(doing like outside sales/accounts stuff).


And just this afternoon, I talked to a mutual friend, and dude can't take it, turned down another raise, and is moving back here to start over.


Buuuuurrrrrn.

So you have friends who are gay. Well, color me surprised.

Goober McTuber wrote: Not sure you get me to live in Kansas City for less than $2.5 million per.

That's because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, which is not a surprise.

Do you know how many former NFL and MLB players from all over choose to call the KC area "home" long after their careers have ended?

It's a long list, and it starts with George Brett, originally from Cali. Once folks have lived here for awhile, they want to stay. Not sure why that is. I guess other places don't have all this area has to offer. Either that, or those places where they're originally from are just shitholes infested with asswipes like yourself and Dins.

I'll go with the latter.

Honestly Whitey, I've never been to KC. And I don't anticipate going there any time soon.

I do know several people who have spent time there.

And the nicest thing I've ever heard anyone say about KC(and Misery in general) is "at least it's not Oklahoma."


Badge of honor, right there.

Whitey,

Maybe for people like George Brett, it’s something along the lines of why I post here. It just makes me feel that much smarter. George hangs out with a bunch of IKYABWAI retards and feels like Albert Einstein.

Goober McTuber wrote:For that kind of money, you could spend a week at someplace really nice.

We have stayed in some pretty nice places this year. You'd shit if you saw all the miles the wife and I have logged just 7 months into the year. We've taken long weekends in Montreal, Toronto, DC, Bar Harbor, and Winnepesaukee... not to mention two weeks in Italy.

Next year we're definitely going to the UK and I also want to spend some time in the U&L... never been. Or the maybe the Rockies and the Grand Canyon. Never seen that shit either. Who knows. Anyways...

Lemme guess, all these places pale in comparison to Wisconsin, errrr, God's Country? It doesn't make sense to do NYC "on the cheap." So... where would you suggest?

I’d wait till winter and do a week in the Caribbean. Antigua, Aruba, Curacao. Some place like that. A week in northern Wisconsin in the summer on the right lake is pretty sweet, though.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I also want to spend some time in the U&L... never been.

A sincere suggestion(don't get used to it) -- July or August.


Don't emulate a certain poster on these boards and decide to honeymoon in Victoria... in January.


Not that there isn't plenty of nice weather most of the rest of the year(SHHHHHH!!!!), but your best chance for perfectly clear days to see all there is to see in the distance will be somewhere in the late June-early September range.


Unless you want to see a hurricane that lasts for 3 days... then hit up the coast in January.

Dinsdale wrote: And the nicest thing I've ever heard anyone say about KC(and Misery in general) is "at least it's not Oklahoma."

Badge of honor, right there.

Well, we'll take what limited props we can get.

To be honest, none of those former players actually live in KCMO, but in one of the many affluent 'burbs surrounding, mainly the OP (Overland Park, KS), or Prarie Village, Leawood, Olathe, etc. We won't even mention Mission Hills, where the ultra rich snobs reside.

The KC Metro area counts almost two million residents, less than a 1/4 of that number actually lives in the City proper. It's probably that way in most major older U.S. cities these days as "white flight" to the suburbs is not a new story.

But KC remains the anchor for the rest, and it's not such a bad place, afterall. It's just a place I happen to call home. Probably not that much different than say, Portland or Milwaukee once you get past the diverse geography.

And Goobs, notice I didn't say Madison. I have been there, more than once, as my eldest sister used to live there. Nice college town, though not really what you'd classify as a major league city. My brother has now lived in Green Bay for the past 10 years or so. Has a house about two freaking blocks from Lambeau Field. Someday soon, I'm going to take him up on his open invite and head up that way for a visit.