biggentleben

It's really a negligible difference in a per game basis. If you want to know why the NL has been decimated by the AL in interleague, I have a pair of very good alternative explanations for you - expansion and realignment. Expansion teams traditionally are much weaker teams initially, and they frequently dilute the pitching of the overall league, causing a rise in overall offensive numbers. The issue that is not often reflected is that those expansion teams carry very weak lineup themselves for multiple years as they build up a roster and farm system to sustain a workable major league lineup. In 1993, two expansion teams were added...to the National League. This was just prior to interleague beginning, and while these teams certainly were competitive quickly, the effect on other teams in the league in bringing down competitive level was certainly felt. In 1998, you have another expansion, adding yet another expansion team to the National League and one to the American League. The 1998 expansion brought with it realignment. The Milwaukee Brewers, who had been a team to win 92 games in 1992 just before interleague, moved to the National League at a time when the franchise was in a tailspin. From 2001-2004, the Brewers went on a 4-year run of losing at least 94 games each season, and their first season over .500 in the National League was a full decade after being added to the NL. Of course, we all saw the recent realignment. The Astros, after a full decade since the last time they won 90 games and 9 years since they made the playoffs, moved to the AL, and within 2 years, they were in the playoffs for the American League. Really, it's dumb luck as much as anything with both cases on realignment, but it certainly impacted the numbers. It's one big reason why I'd never utilize interleague numbers in any way as an argument for nor against the DH. They're not a good measuring stick as the league has been changing quite a bit and unevenly between the two leagues in that time.

Like I mentioned to you then, though, it depends on how you make up your team. Upton's got some real deficiencies in the outfield, whereas that's Gordon's specialty. Upton's a guy who can sit in the middle of your lineup, whereas Gordon probably profiles better at the top or bottom of it. I said it'd certainly not be for less than 5 years on either Upton or Cespedes for that "few million more", so that part is also significant. I'm not saying it wasn't a good deal for Upton, but I think both were good deals for their teams.

In fact to further the basketball point, a similar rule in the NBA would be that all power forwards from this point on would have a designated free-throw shooter. This player would enter the game any time a free throw was to be shot and immediately removed once the free throws were completed. If a designated hitter would have been put in place for any position of the manager's choosing (a poor-hitting catcher or shortstop, for instance), comparing directly to free throw shooting in the entirety of the NBA would be a more apt discussion. However, you blanketly remove those pitchers who do contribute with their bats as well as those who are incompetent, just as you'd remove the power forwards who shoot 90% from the free throw line along with those who shoot 50%.

It is only a huge difference because no one in the NBA has ever challenged and/or changed that rule. If we'd never known anything but pitchers hitting, it wouldn't be a rule, it'd be a consequence of someone being so comfortable with the pitching they're getting that they're tolerating whatever contributions they get at the plate - or even vice versa. However, baseball made a rule that said pitchers DON'T have to hit (not that they do, as the standard that every player playing the game hits was standard part of the basics of the game from the inception of the concept of the game, just as the idea of a player shooting a free throw after being fouled was part of the basics of the game, unless a rule changes that). So, a rule was required to STOP pitchers from hitting, not to allow it.

Heck, we as sports fans are all guilty of the "presumed guilty until proven innocent" in sports. Look at the baseball hall of fame voting recently... It's an issue throughout the country to assume the worst about someone and then have them have to prove to you their innocence/goodness/whatever. That's just astounding to me.

Tony LaRussa did it as well quite a bit.

I'd counter that with that pitchers were much better hitters before the DH. That said, you don't have to even hit .300 to positively impact the game. A smooth fielding, .230-hitting shortstop can have a long major league career being just that. As a Braves fan in the 1990s, I can tell you that none of Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine were going to be position players if they couldn't pitch. However, there were probably a half-dozen to dozen games a season where the pitcher for the Braves impacted the winning run in the game by moving the runner over. Even without bunting, Glavine was a master of rolling over a ball just right to get a grounder to the second baseman and move a runner from second to third. Maddux had a similar skill in landing a ball between the pitcher and second baseman with a swinging bunt with a guy on third. Those end up as outs, counted against batting average, but they're often vital to a win, and with the Braves in that era, it was rare that they were scoring a ton, so pushing over a runner was a huge, impactful thing that the team found out guys like Vinny Castilla, JD Drew, and Gary Sheffield simply couldn't do, in spite of all their big bopper power.

They could have put in a rule to bring in a designated free-throw shooter in basketball to change those "events". Interestingly, pitchers became MUCH worse hitters after the adoption of the DH. Odd, that, isn't it?

This whole post just needs to go. Growing up? The American League brought in the DH because they were so badly stuck in their ways of bigotry and racism that they were being shelled by the National League in every All Star game due to the talent disparity. Fans in cities with multiple teams would absolutely choose the better talent, and in the days before huge TV deals, ticket sales and merchandise meant profits, so the AL was desperate to do something, anything to bring added interest to the game. So you can have all the negative feelings you want and say all the disparaging things you'd like about NL baseball, but you need to look no farther than the efforts of the man celebrated yesterday to see why the DH happened, and the future decision of whether to adopt the rule league-wide will be made by primarily rich, white men, but I do find it incredible the lineage of strong National League backing in the African American community similar to the loyalty the same community has to the Democratic Party.

Still not a terrible deal. My biggest issue with Justin will always be his streaks. He isn't a guy who goes .350 and then .250...he's a guy who goes .700 and then .070. It's incredible to ride when he's hot and an absolute black hole when he's not. If a team could ever get that leveled out, they'd have an MVP caliber player. Heck, the one season he was able to have a consistent season without the major dips, he arguably should have won the MVP award.

Not bad. I figured no one would get him for less than 5 years, but getting him at less than $21M per is not actually that bad of a contract.

My favorite cartoon character above all was Eeyore, with Garfield a close second. Pooh stories could always use more Eeyore.

Absolutely agree there. I am not certain that Avery definitely did it, but I'm not sold that he's completely innocent either. The way the case was run, however, is criminally negligent for certain.

I haven't seen the tape. I know that's one thing one of the media members from the trial remarked about the documentary, though, is that there's a lot of stuff Dassey mentions early on without prompting about the case that wasn't known at that time publicly. Once again, I'm not saying he's guilty nor that Avery is. I'm just saying that the played tape in the film makes it look like he never offered any information without prompts, and this reporter said there's a big chunk of the first part of the interrogation that's not in the documentary that Dassey offers up case details without any prompts or nudges. Googling this after watching it was almost as time consuming as the show itself. There are just a ton of layers to this case. After going through anything I could find online, I'm of the opinion that the brother of the victim was involved, Avery's family members were involved, and Avery himself was an odd duck where this woman was involved, especially when you look at the phone records of his calls to her.

There's a ton of that confession that isn't shown on the documentary. He was fed a number of things, but he also had offered a lot of things earlier that were outside of public knowledge of the case without prompting, and they chose not to include that with the documentary. Not saying that the interrogation was done well, but it's painted to be pure fabrication when in fact, there's probably at least some knowledge on Dassey's part in pieces of the case.

I don't see any other way the team would have been viable. After this offseason, the team would have been screwed. With their financial situation, no way could they bring back Heyward and Upton along with keeping Kimbrel and Melvin's salaries on board as well. Heck, even with all the trades they've made, they're still around $80M in payroll. The revenue stream really can't afford much more than $100-110 in Atlanta, in spite of it being one of the largest metro areas in baseball. The farm system was complete crap. As has been seen since, Peraza as the best prospect wasn't exactly a great thing. Albies has been coming well. Heck, of the top 30 or so prospects in the system currently, only 4 actually had played a moment in the Braves system as of the final day of the 2014 season. I put together a top 100 prospects in the Braves system (and just updated it this week), and I cringe to think of how bad that list would be without the last two seasons. It's crazy the return to the system. However, it's darned near magic to turn taking on Bronson Arroyo's salary into also adding Touki Toussaint. Turning Alberto Callaspo and Kelly Johnson into John Gant and Rob Whalen is a stroke of genius. Heck, even Jonny Gomes was flipped for a viable prospect. The team really used its resources well in their rebuild. Obviously, there are things done that haven't been perfect. I was not a fan of coming out so strongly with the 2017 rhetoric. The Andrelton deal still doesn't make sense to me, and it definitely didn't then, but the points of contention with what has been done are much fewer than the overall satisfaction with the return on what has been done thus far.

So, in other words, the Braves 2015 and 2016.

He's actually got a good pitching arm. I've always found it funny that he was such a highly regarded pitcher, yet he had such an average outfield arm. I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. There's already talk about it happening with a player in the Braves organization who has a pure rifle in right field, but he also has very good speed/power combo stats right now, so he's not likely to be shifted for a bit.

I love how they try to reference that Griffey was the first #1 pick voted in to the HOF as saying the draft is a complete crap shoot and going for #1 is fool's gold. That could have been true in the past, but teams don't draft in 2016 like they did in 1976 or 1986. Soon, Chipper Jones will join as another #1 pick. Alex Rodriguez will have the numbers as a former #1 pick, but I'm sure PEDs will keep him out. Joe Mauer is building toward a very interesting case for sure, though it'd sure be nice for his case if he could get past 2500 hits or even to 3000, and that's likely at least 5 more years, if not 10 at his current production to skim the bottom end of those numbers. That doesn't take into effect the guys like Price, Strasburg, Harper, and Justin Upton who could very well work their way to the Hall someday. That's not to say the #1 pick is a lock for success, but it's certainly not the crap shoot that it once was with better scouting and processes overall for the draft. I guess I certainly don't have a problem with what the Braves are doing right now. That said, they've been put there by the finances of the game being so incredibly uneven, and that's going to continue to be an issue in the game until baseball finally pulls itself together and negotiates one media deal for the sport and splits it across the teams. Until then, there is a tremendous have-and-have-not line in the game, but I noticed Stark never mentioned THAT in his article...

No, Vancouver moved to Memphis and is still there. Charlotte moved to New Orleans, but then the NBA gave an expansion team to Charlotte. New Orleans was the Jazz from 1974-1979 before moving to Utah. One of the more traveled ones was the Clippers franchise, which started in Buffalo as the Braves, then moved to San Diego as the Clippers, then up to LA. The Houston Rockets started in San Diego from 1967-1971 before moving to Houston. It's crazy the movement in the NBA. Of course, I cheer for a team that's moved significantly twice, once from Boston to Milwaukee, and then from Milwaukee to Atlanta, with each move signifying big jumps for baseball, being the northern-most team when moving to Milwaukee and then the first team in the deep south when moving to Atlanta.

I've got a couple of them. When they put up the Ted Williams card set, he was featured in that set, and those were "pretty" cards.

I mentioned it in the Celebrity Death Pool thread, but that was about the only mention, I think. Great guy, and great advocate for the game.

Monte Irvin passed away. He got to have half a career in the major leagues, but he was very favorably compared to George Sisler when he was younger, I would have loved to see his career numbers all in the majors.

ONeal? You saying Jermaine was amazing? Shaq played college ball.

And in this case, race is the issue truly in primarily the money-making sports. Once you factor in all sports in the NCAA, racial balance is much more diverse. It's still not gen pop numbers, but athletes have skills that general population doesn't have in equal amounts either.