AL vs NL

[williewilliejuan]

I don't think having the pitcher bat is "intelligent" I think it's boring as fuck.

Smart people aren't bored by it.

 

[Thruthefog]

The DH has nothing to do with it. The NL was boring as fuck before the DH.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Every time this is brought up, the NL fans like their league and the AL fans like their league.

 

[calsnowskier]

Every time this is brought up, the NL fans like their league and the AL fans like their league.

That's why I wanted arguments to be made. I didn't want to "ban" the DH discussion, because it is probably about 85-90% of the issue. But I wanted to hear reasons for one over the other.

 

[calsnowskier]

The DH has nothing to do with it. The NL was boring as fuck before the DH.

Based on??

Being a homer is fine. You can can like one over the other because if your team. That does hold a level of logic.

If it isn't homerism, though, why was the NL boring while the AL wasn't, pre-DH?

 

[Thruthefog]

Based on??

Being a homer is fine. You can can like one over the other because if your team. That does hold a level of logic.

If it isn't homerism, though, why was the NL boring while the AL wasn't, pre-DH?

It's homerism. I loved watching Mays, McCovey, and Marichal play at the Astrodome in its first year.

 

[JohnU]

Maybe we can be specific:

The best managers are in which league? Bochy, Collins, Baker, Maddon ... Girardi, Sciocia, Showalter, Francona ...

Who has the best closers?

 

[JohnU]

The DH has nothing to do with it. The NL was boring as fuck before the DH.

The DH has nothing to do with it. The NL was boring as fuck before the DH.

Truth is, the DH was implemented by the AL because it saw ITSELF as less interesting. In the early 70s, the AL was in serious trouble.

 

[tducey]

Both leagues are pretty fun to watch and have their qualities but because of Boston and Toronto it's the AL for me.

 

[soxfan1468927]

We're at 13 straight seasons of the AL having a better interleague record than the NL.

 

[$500 Million]

So what I've gathered from this thread is that NL fans are sophisticated, highly intelligent fans who have a deep understanding of the game and AL fans are short bus riding window lickers who still use coloring books.



Enjoy Spring Training and watching the Cubs win 120 games

 

[soxfan1468927]

Smart people aren't bored by it.

I would say smart people would be easily bored by it.

 

[JohnU]

So what I've gathered from this thread is that NL fans are sophisticated, highly intelligent fans who have a deep understanding of the game and AL fans are short bus riding window lickers who still use coloring books.

I'd say you are working with a very small sample size.

 

[broncosmitty]

Truth is, the DH was implemented by the AL because it saw ITSELF as less interesting. In the early 70s, the AL was in serious trouble.

Seriously?

I always thought the Players Union pushed for it to extend careers for aging sluggers. Before my time though.

What kind of trouble, declining attendance en sech?

 

[msgkings322]

Every time this is brought up, the NL fans like their league and the AL fans like their league.

I was a White Sox fan as a kid, became a Giants fan decades ago (but still like the Sox). I like the NL game better, but it's not a big deal to me. I'm glad there are 2 styles, makes the sport more interesting, and uniquely so.

 

[packerzrule]

as a fan of a team that was both, I much prefer the NL

 

[JohnU]

I always thought the Players Union pushed for it to extend careers for aging sluggers. Before my time though.

I don't recall all the details but if the union had been as strong as you imply, both leagues would have had it at the time. The AL at the time was clearly an inferior product. Had the NL seen the same need, no telling what would have happened. Attendance in the AL was way off as a result of a boring game.

The other impetus for the DH came after the dominant 1960s for pitchers when practically nobody in the AL could even manage a .300 average.

As an NL fan, I am accustomed to not seeing the DH most of the time but I don't abhor its use. I think the bitching about it is based on some crapped-up jargon and Xeroxed complaints that no longer apply.

Hell yes, there is more dugout strategy with the pitcher hitting. Nothing like getting 2 on, 2 out, the No. 8 hitter coming up ... and in the AL, you have to pitch smart to this guy. In the NL, you just walk him and try to get the pitcher out. Meanwhile, NL managers look down the bench to see if they have one of those aging sluggers to use as a PH, knowing they have to find a relief pitcher who might be a big-leaguer, might just be pretending to be one. (I cite the Reds as prime meat, oddly, since the DH could really help that operation.)

I think AL strategy, while different, is still pretty apparent of various lineup options that NL managers don't have available to them, especially in the 7-8-9-1 slots. The best the NL can do is let the pitcher bat in the 8 hole, ahead of some guy whose OBP is about the same as his weight.

(This is a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz reply. sorry)

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Don't think its a contest

The NL is top heavy and their top teams, Cubs and Dodgers, maybe the Nats, are as good as anyone in baseball
The Mets can enter the discussion

But the dropoff from those teams to the rest of the teams is pretty steep


AL has far more depth in terms of quality teams.....The AL East alone has 4 teams that will likely finish above .500......The AL West can be wide open this season, with as many as 3 teams with a legit shot at winning it......And if the Royals can bounce back, the AL Central could have 3 legit contendors as well

 

[JohnU]

But the dropoff from those teams to the rest of the teams is pretty steep

I agree that the bottom tier of teams in the NL was pretty lame -- Braves, Reds, Brewers, Rockies, Phils. I don't think the "rest" are necessarily on the decline. The Pirates may be if they rebuild.

St. Louis and San Fran are both capable of winning a pennant and frequently do.

Without going over the entire league, I'd say that head-to-head, teams like the Marlins can beat the Mariners 3 out of 5. I just don't see as much of a disparity at the top as you do, though I concur that the bottom is a lot lower in the NL, at least for now.

But if Tampa is as bad as they showed, and Oakland, the White Sox and Twins are as weak as they've been, I don't even know if the bottom tier is that much different.

 

[Virginia Gamecock]

Don't think its a contest

The NL is top heavy and their top teams, Cubs and Dodgers, maybe the Nats, are as good as anyone in baseball
The Mets can enter the discussion

But the dropoff from those teams to the rest of the teams is pretty steep


AL has far more depth in terms of quality teams.....The AL East alone has 4 teams that will likely finish above .500......The AL West can be wide open this season, with as many as 3 teams with a legit shot at winning it......And if the Royals can bounce back, the AL Central could have 3 legit contendors as well

This was exactly the argument I was going to make. Last year, there were 10 teams in the AL with a .500 record or better. The NL: only six. In my opinion, the NL is definitely more top-heavy and has more teams that, from year to year, just don't really have a shot (Brewers, Reds, D-Backs, Padres, Rockies, Braves, Phillies, Marlins). Compare that to the AL, which have fewer teams that we can generally count out from year to year as having no legitimate shot at contending (Twins, Rays, A's, and maybe to some extent the White Sox. Angels are soon to be added to this list with their dumpster fire of a roster and depleted farm system).

I've always been an NL guy, so obviously I'm going to suggest the NL is better, especially with pitching. But to be honest, I think they are both just different and that one really isn't better than the other. Want good pitching matchups? Watch an NL game. Want to see a 12-10 score? watch an AL game.