GimmeShelter Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Nail it down with Mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 It's like both bullpens WANT to lose the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiguelBormand Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Man the Rangers are pure trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The Rangers would be the best team in the National League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiguelBormand Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The Rangers would be the best team in the National League. you would be the smartest person in the second grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 you would be the smartest person in the second grade. which has essentially the same type of talent playing the NL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The Rangers would be the best team in the National League. You are not that far off. WHile they do not have the pitching that many NL teams have, they have maybe the 3rd best lineup of anyone out there. I give the Mets and a healthy St Louis (with Rolen) a slight edge. But check out the numbers of that Rangers lineup. Quite solid. They would, in all honesty, be competing for a WC in the NL, with ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeShelter Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 You are not that far off. WHile they do not have the pitching that many NL teams have, they have maybe the 3rd best lineup of anyone out there. I give the Mets and a healthy St Louis (with Rolen) a slight edge. But check out the numbers of that Rangers lineup. Quite solid. They would, in all honesty, be competing for a WC in the NL, with ease. Are they not competing for a DIVISION title in the AL? Remember the DH goes away in the NL and double switches makes the TEXAS staff even more exposed. They would be Milwaukee in the NL. But you knew that despite your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 you would be the smartest person in the second grade. You add NOTHING to this board. We talk baseball in this forum. You just attack other posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The Rangers would be the best team in the National League. What would make them necessarily different than the Phillies? Not a lot from my long vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The Rangers would be the best team in the National League. Yep. I just checked out their Interleague record this year-7-8. They would be world beaters. Small sampling, I will grant you, but certainly nothing to make as definitive statement as you have made here.I don't buy it. Good pitching has proven to win out over the long haul of a season, and the Rangers would not have that even in the NL. Teams that live in band box ball parks have an extremely hard time thriving over a 162 game season. That has been proven over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrik Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 To paraphrase a movie: Being the best team in the National League is like being the smartest kid with Down Syndrome. You've got the Mess and then pretty much trails off from there. Cards aren't as strong as previous years and the NL West is perhaps the weakest division in baseball. Whoever comes out of the senior circuit isn't going to hold a candle to the AL come WS time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 To paraphrase a movie: Being the best team in the National League is like being the smartest kid with Down Syndrome. You've got the Mess and then pretty much trails off from there. Cards aren't as strong as previous years and the NL West is perhaps the weakest division in baseball. Whoever comes out of the senior circuit isn't going to hold a candle to the AL come WS time. Mavrik- Don't fool yourself. The team that will win teh World Series will be the team that is playing well and the team that gets it's pitching set up correctly and can take advantage of match-ups. Being the better league, necessarily, does not mean a hill of beans over a 7 game series. You COULD have a scenario where the AL playoffs is a drag out, knock down fight that totally drains the winner. At teh same time, the NL winner COULD cake walk and set their rotation. Anything can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrik Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Mavrik- Don't fool yourself. The team that will win teh World Series will be the team that is playing well and the team that gets it's pitching set up correctly and can take advantage of match-ups. Being the better league, necessarily, does not mean a hill of beans over a 7 game series. You COULD have a scenario where the AL playoffs is a drag out, knock down fight that totally drains the winner. At teh same time, the NL winner COULD cake walk and set their rotation. Anything can happen. I don't doubt that the Mets are a good team at all. A team does not get a 12.5 game lead solely because the rest of the division sucks. BUT, compare them with the top AL teams Tell me who you would take a series: Mets vs. Angels Mets vs. Tigers Mets vs. Yankees Mets vs. Black Sox Mets vs. Twins Mets vs. Red Sox. of those matchups, I personally would only say a sure thing would be the Mets over the Angels, and at the moment, over the Black Sox the way they're playing. I have to believe any one of those 6 AL teams who's good enough to emerge as king of the hill amongst them would be good enough to beat whatever teh NL threw at them. But, you are correct. Anything can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Mavrik; You might be able to add Toronto to that list. Solid hitting, especially when Rios gets back. Good starting staff, with 1 great starter (Halliday). OK pen, with a lights out closer (check out Ryan's stats. Off the charts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I don't doubt that the Mets are a good team at all. A team does get a 12.5 game lead solely because the rest of the division sucks. BUT, compare them with the top AL teams Tell me who you would take a series: Mets vs. Angels Mets vs. Tigers Mets vs. Yankees Mets vs. Black Sox Mets vs. Twins Mets vs. Red Sox. of those matchups, I personally would only say a sure thing would be the Mets over the Angels, and at the moment, over the Black Sox the way they're playing. I have to believe any one of those 6 AL teams who's good enough to emerge as king of the hill amongst them would be good enough to beat whatever teh NL threw at them. But, you are correct. Anything can happen. Mavrick-Series are not played in a vacuum. They are affected by what has happened before them and how match-ups play out. Sitting here on July 27 is not a time to examine match-ups that may occur in late October. The edge an American team has by simply playing in the AL come World Series? Negligible. It could even be a hinderance as I laid out earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrik Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Mavrik; You might be able to add Toronto to that list. Solid hitting, especially when Rios gets back. Good starting staff, with 1 great starter (Halliday). OK pen, with a lights out closer (check out Ryan's stats. Off the charts). My bad. I had completely forgotten about them. Definitely a team to keep an eye on in the later half of the season. Ryan has been worth every penny at that huge contract they threw at him. Rios and Wells put up some great offensive numbers. They just need to have Burnett making some solid starts to go along with Halladay. If he can do that, they'll have a nice 1-2 combination to get them knee deep into wild card and possibly division contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrik Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Mavrick-Series are not played in a vacuum. They are affected by what has happened before them and how match-ups play out. Sitting here on July 27 is not a time to examine match-ups that may occur in late October. The edge an American team has by simply playing in the AL come World Series? Negligible. It could even be a hinderance as I laid out earlier. eh I wouldn't necessarily call it a hinderance, and i see what your saying. But if there is certain level of play that is inheritantly different this year than what is going on in teh NL. All these AL teams spend most of the season facing off against each other, so the level play and the requirement to maintain that level of play becomes significantly higher. Aside from a team or two in the NL, the Mets don't get the experience of having to play that level of play. they can play at a level good enough to beat the teams they have to play 18-20 times a season. It could very well be a hinderance to AL teams, especially if the the good ones play down to the level of their opponents instead of the level they are capable of performing at. But i do believe that playing a constant high level of ball only prepares you further for the type of ball you'll be seeing come October. I'm not going to predict the series right now, but it's pretty obvious that these teams (alogn with the Cards and whoevr wins out the NL west) are going to be the main competition for playoff spots. I would throw a Royals-Nationals WS matchup, but it would seem inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 eh I wouldn't necessarily call it a hinderance, and i see what your saying. But if there is certain level of play that is inheritantly different this year than what is going on in teh NL. All these AL teams spend most of the season facing off against each other, so the level play and the requirement to maintain that level of play becomes significantly higher. Aside from a team or two in the NL, the Mets don't get the experience of having to play that level of play. they can play at a level good enough to beat the teams they have to play 18-20 times a season. It could very well be a hinderance to AL teams, especially if the the good ones play down to the level of their opponents instead of the level they are capable of performing at. But i do believe that playing a constant high level of ball only prepares you further for the type of ball you'll be seeing come October. I'm not going to predict the series right now, but it's pretty obvious that these teams (alogn with the Cards and whoevr wins out the NL west) are going to be the main competition for playoff spots. I would throw a Royals-Nationals WS matchup, but it would seem inadequate. Maverick, I could quote you verse and song of any number of "weaker" teams that were not supposed to win the world series against better opponents, but did. As far as hinderance, my insinuation was such that the AL playoff survivor COULD be bloodied and beaten, going a full 7 games, with overused bullpens and teh ability not to set up their rotation the way they would wish. Doesn't mean it will happen, it just could. Could happen in teh NL as well. Buit to sit here and say that there is an inherant advantage with the AL as we stand here today, that is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeShelter Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 I don't doubt that the Mets are a good team at all. A team does not get a 12.5 game lead solely because the rest of the division sucks. BUT, compare them with the top AL teams Tell me who you would take a series: Mets vs. Angels Mets vs. Tigers Mets vs. Yankees Mets vs. Black Sox Mets vs. Twins Mets vs. Red Sox. of those matchups, I personally would only say a sure thing would be the Mets over the Angels, and at the moment, over the Black Sox the way they're playing. I have to believe any one of those 6 AL teams who's good enough to emerge as king of the hill amongst them would be good enough to beat whatever teh NL threw at them. But, you are correct. Anything can happen. Mets split with Yanks and took 2 of 3 in Toronto so not sure how we would be underdogs against those 6 teams plus Toronto. I would worry more about how Detroit will fair against the better AL teams based on actual results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.