26 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauderI certainly agree that it's a substantial possibility that the MLB champ could lose to another pro team somewhere in the world. But they don't actually play that series. so, until they do, I see nothing wrong with the champion of the world's premier league being called the "world" champion.
It's a reasonable hypothesis that the San Francisco Giants of 2012 would have won a series against the Japanese champions. It was also a reasonable hypothesis that the Soviets would win the Olympic Gold medal in hockey in 1980 or that the New England Patriots would finish their unbeaten season with a rousing victory in the Super Bowl.
Sometimes funny things happen when you actually play the games.
Even if the Japanese produced a better national team on average than the US (an unlikely possibility), the fact is that the MLB draws talent from the Japanese league, not the other way around. The MLB would still be the top league even if the Japanese national team were better than the US national team much the same way that the NHL is the world's top hockey league even when/if European teams may have the best national team.
Originally posted by sh76The NHL has it right. Their best team is rightfully called the Stanley Cup Champions. A glorious moniker without the ridiculous "World" business which is so unnecessary and, frankly, a bit classless. Americans misuse it because it's a top-shelf thing that comes with boasting that your no. 1 at everything. Institutionalized arrogance.
The MLB would still be the top league even if the Japanese national team were better than the US national team much the same way that the NHL is the world's top hockey league even when/if European teams may have the best national team.
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZambonerBaseball doesn't have a recognizable name like the Stanley Cup. If it did, maybe they would use it.
The NHL has it right. Their best team is rightfully called the Stanley Cup Champions. A glorious moniker without the ridiculous "World" business which is so unnecessary and, frankly, a bit classless. Americans misuse it because it's a top-shelf thing that comes with boasting that your no. 1 at everything. Institutionalized arrogance.
I really think you're being a bit sensitive on this. What's the big deal? The MLB the top league in the world and it draws talent from all over the world. It's not like the American soccer league champ is calling itself world champion. This is baseball and it is undisputed that the MLB is the top baseball league. I really don't think it's meant to be an "institutionalized" boast.
In the World Cup in soccer and in the individual sports, presumably you have no problem with that phrase because the best athletes in the sport in the world are competing. Well, in the MLB, NFL and NBA (and NHL too, probably), the best performers in those sports in the world are competing. So, they happen to be playing for American (and Canadian) cities. I don't see the major difference.
If the NFL put a couple of teams in Europe (which there were some rumblings about a few years back), would that make it any better?
29 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauderOn a lighter note, eat me.
On a lighter note, the Jays are kinda sucking so far. What's up with that?
Seriously though, I'm bummed but not surprised. Me and my neighbour talked it through after the Dickey trade. Would we really be surprised if the Jays, after all their moves, ended up finishing the year .500? The answer was no. Can't help but be disappointed though. Simply put, the bats need to turn it around. Can't score enough runs if you don't get on base.
02 May 13
Originally posted by tomtom232A fair point. I had originally thought the World Series was named so originally because of a newspaper but apparently that is a myth.
Wth difference would that make? Claiming to be a world series champ is less arrogant than claiming to be a world champ?
You're just arguing semantics now.
25 May 13
The Reds are rolling right now. They've won four in a row and 11 of 13. Though they still trail the Cards by a game and a half, they have the third best record in baseball behind only St. Louis and Texas.
Today's amazing Joey Votto stat. Everybody knows that getting ahead in the count gives the pitcher a big advantage and the figures bear that out; in the NL this year after an 0-2 count batters hit a paltry .162 so they're essentially cooked. EXCEPT for Joey Votto. Even if you get ahead 0-2, he's hit 10-32 this year or .313. Fluke? Small sample size? Well last year he was 19 for 68 in the same situations, so is his last 100 ABs after being 0-2 he's hitting .290 or 128 points better than league average.
27 May 13
Originally posted by no1marauderYou jinxed that one....
The Reds are rolling right now. They've won four in a row and 11 of 13. Though they still trail the Cards by a game and a half, they have the third best record in baseball behind only St. Louis and Texas.
Today's amazing Joey Votto stat. Everybody knows that getting ahead in the count gives the pitcher a big advantage and the figures bear ...[text shortened]... is last 100 ABs after being 0-2 he's hitting .290 or 128 points better than league average.
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=330526117
27 May 13
Originally posted by no1marauderimpressive!
The Reds are rolling right now. They've won four in a row and 11 of 13. Though they still trail the Cards by a game and a half, they have the third best record in baseball behind only St. Louis and Texas.
Today's amazing Joey Votto stat. Everybody knows that getting ahead in the count gives the pitcher a big advantage and the figures bear ...[text shortened]... is last 100 ABs after being 0-2 he's hitting .290 or 128 points better than league average.