Guest Jules Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yes, it's baseball, but I find the strategy in the NL and slap hitting, base stealing, scrapping, hustly, hearty play of the NLThere is no evidence the NL is a more "scrapping, hustly, hearty" style of game. This is a myth. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Don't start, Jules. There's generally more strategy involved in NL, I agree. I don't necessarily find it to make the game more enjoyable to watch by any noticeable margin, though. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'll agree with Matt, except substitute Hanley for Reyes. Personal preference, of course, but the general point is the same. Triples are much more exciting than Home Runs. Also, let me be the wiseass NL fan who reminds everyone who likes the AL of the first rule in the rulebook: Rule 1.01:Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager... The AL violates the very first rule in the book. As such, I don't watch it. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Don't start, Jules. There's generally more strategy involved in NL, I agree. I don't necessarily find it to make the game more enjoyable to watch by any noticeable margin, though. Don't start what? I was adding that for comedic effect. Calm down. And personal preference. I've explained why I find the NL more enjoyable to watch. To me it's a very different style of play, just like college baseball is a very different style of play to me (and is almost unwatchable because of it). I'll watch an AL game if it's on, but I'll choose an NL game over an AL game. And Matt, while I'll agree that triples are more exciting than home runs, generally, Hanley is more exciting than Jose because he'll give you both. My love for Hanley Ramirez knows no bounds. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Triples are much more exciting than Home Runs. Also, let me be the wiseass NL fan who reminds everyone who likes the AL of the first rule in the rulebook: Rule 1.01:Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager... The AL violates the very first rule in the book. As such, I don't watch it. Triples can be more exciting. A walk-off or necessitated HR to tie/come within range/win a ball game is more exciting then a triple in a lot of cases, too. And, there are only 9 players playing offensively or defensively at any given time, still. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Adding the context of "game winning" for the HR feels like cheating to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Don't start what? I was adding that for comedic effect. Calm down.O.k. I was responding to Jules, not you. Calm down. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Nothing is more exciting than a homerun. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 I could post a picture of the color red and you would call it blue, bob. Or at least crimson, or something. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yankees' stadium a money pit Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Calm down. You're just jealous because you're brand of baseball is inferior. And a home run is kind of boring. I mean, you score a run, so that's exciting, but if you are in the stadium, I'd say a triple is more exciting to watch. But it's not like either of those events are owned by any one league. So let's look at what the two leagues do differently mostly at the plate. AL teams have more sluggers down the line, so they generally put the ball in play less, walk more, and strike out more (this is all just a guess, but I'd say on average, judging the 8 position players in an NL lineup vs. the 9 AL hitters) while the NL has more bunting, stealing, squeezing, and the like. To me, a game that features the ball being put in play more often is more exciting, though I don't think it necessarily relates to better baseball. Just more entertaining and exciting for me. (And remember, IN MY OPINION). Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Adding the context of "game winning" for the HR feels like cheating to me. I agree. And Lammy, I was kidding about the 9 player thing. Well, not kidding, but just being mischievous. It's all good with me. Link to post Share on other sites
dondoboy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Does anyone remember this!I just found this again. Someone mentioned it this morning on local sports radio. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Nothing is more exciting than a homerun. Nothing except a triple, that is!! Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 double switch exactly, I think you where dusty baker in a previous life. and the pitcher spot is a much greater timportance. The pithcer is pitching a 5 hit 1 run game but man he is on fire right now. your team is down by 1. it is the bottom of the 7th. What do you do? What do you do? The pressure the thought. Brain Aneurysm! From the SAT days the AL is to Checkers as the NL is to Chess. the NL is a thinking man's small ball game. The AL is a big hitters score as many runs as possible game. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 You're just jealous because you're brand of baseball is inferior.Inferior, yet somehow overall better quality...Hmm. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Does anyone remember this!I just found this again. Someone mentioned it this morning on local sports radio. That guy's crazy, though. Inferior, yet somehow overall better quality...Hmm. Methinks you forgot to bring your sarcasm detector today. And not necessarily better quality. More conducive to winning games. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 exactly, I think you where dusty baker in a previous life. and the pitcher spot is a much greater timportance. The pithcer is pitching a 5 hit 1 run game but man he is on fire right now. your team is down by 1. it is the bottom of the 7th. What do you do? What do you do?Shoot the hostage. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Plus, in the NL, the manager actually does have some marginal affect on the outcome of the game. Joe Torre is going to be a Hall of Fame manager for sitting with his legs crossed for like 15 years. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 the NL is a thinking man's small ball game. The AL is a big hitters score as many runs as possible game.I think this is too broad of a generalization. The NL throws away an out every time a pitcher bats, basically. This alone doesn't equate to the DH in the AL increasing runs by a gargantuan margin. I think payrolls, parks, etc. come in to play as equally as the DH/non-DH factor. Methinks you forgot to bring your sarcasm detector today.Hey, I'm right there with you, man. re: managing. I agree (and stated early) that managing in the NL is a harder job than managing in the AL. Link to post Share on other sites
dondoboy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Plus, in the NL, the manager actually does have some marginal affect on the outcome of the game. Joe Torre is going to be a Hall of Fame manager for sitting with his legs crossed for like 15 years. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Torre would be going into the HoF as a player, not a manager (if voted in). Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Torre would be going into the HoF as a player, not a manager (if voted in). I would think he's got a more than decent chance of going in as a manager. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Sources: Red Sox, Youkilis agree to deal ESPN.com news services The Red Sox locked up another of their young stars to a long-term deal Thursday.Boston avoided arbitration with Kevin Youkilis, agreeing to a four-year contract with the first baseman worth more than $40 million, sources told ESPN's Peter Gammons. The deal includes an option for a fifth year. Youkilis enjoyed a breakout season in 2008, hitting .312 with 29 home runs and 115 RBIs. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 The Red Sox locked up another of their young stars to a long-term deal Thursday."Young"? He'll be 30 when the season starts... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts