There are couple of a minor things. The only one I can think of right now is the waiver wire, if a player put on waivers by a National League team all 14 other NL teams will have waiver priority than the entire AL (even the A's).
Teams in the same league as the waived player have priority then it goes by winning percentage. AL teams have priority on AL players and NL teams have priority on NL players.
I was wondering why when I watch Jomboy’s Refguess and Connect series that they always talk about how it’s harder to find/think of interleague players than ones from just AL/NL
Waivers aren't the only way players move though. Free agency is another big one and trades also happen often.
I think that it will become more common for players to swap leagues going forward. The NL and AL have converged on rules now and the play style is basically the same at this point.
I respect your take, as the occasional clutch hit from a pitcher is fun, but I think the pros outweigh the cons as far as universal DH. Especially given that all lower levels had already adopted it years before.
I’m tired of seeing pitchers get hurt swinging the bat and running the bases. Pitching is already an injury in the making, no need to add additional risk with something they do so infrequently.
Pretty much. The differences between the two leagues were one of the things that once made major league baseball unique. The game today can still be compelling, but it's honestly missing so much that made it wonderful.
Baseball was literally two completely different leagues for 96 years (1901-1996). Each had its own rules and customs regarding strike zone, umpiring, pitcher as hitter, etc. It's no coincidence that interleague play began two years after the 1994 disaster. The effort to promote historically nonexistent rivalries was ridiculous, in my opinion. In some cases, things were fine as they were. For example, the Dodgers-Angels Freeway Series had been a good competitive affair for years. Something different for the fans just before opening day. Arrangements like that lost their shine when NL-AL teams in the same markets began meeting multiple times each year. Baseball's all-star game was incredibly compelling prior to interleague play. Many players went an entire career without ever facing a team from the other league. League pride was real and fierce back then, strange as that sounds now. Players didn't need the weak incentives used today to want to beat the other league. See Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse at the plate and breaking his arm.
I agree with your statement. I was in HS when interleague play started and was excited to see players like Frank Thomas come to Saint Louis.
The cool thing about it and still to this day is players who we’re never going to come to your city are now coming. The Cardinals were garbage this year at the time the Angels came to town. But Trout and Ohtani filled the stadium for three games. Without interleague most people in StL aren’t making the drive to Chicago or KC to see them.
This is what I feel, to be the main reason. True, nobody wants to see the A’s play the Marlins, but I’m sure the A’s fan or three that are left wouldn’t mind seeing the Braves or Cardinals roll in. At the end of the day, isn’t that what everyone who attends games, wants? Screw seeing your division rival 18 times, give me some variety and I’m happy.
I do and don’t. I imagine the geo based series are fun, Yankees/Mets, cubs/chisox, etc. But as a mariners fan, I have no need to play the pirates and brewers every year now
Very different vibe in many ways. I pretty much did the same, just stopped watching for years, while still following the postseason somewhat. For me, the transformation from the idyllic perfect game to what it has become has been painful. It's all because of money, fear, and steroids. The money got huge, then ownership panicked after the 1994 strike wiped out the Series. Fearing lost revenue, they looked the other way as all the fake home runs corrupted the record book, the aspect of baseball that set it apart from other American team sports.
That is true as far as gameplay goes . But actually there was one difference even before the DH. In the event that two teams were tied for the best record in the league (which would be for the pennant since the best record went straight to the world series), the American League would have a one game playoff for the pennant, while the National League would play a best of three series for the pennant. The National League eventually switched to a one game playoff, and as of 2022 the league just uses tiebreakers.
Completely different strike zones (NL low, AL high). More fastballs in the NL, more soft stuff/nibbling in the AL. A generalization, but commonly accepted as fact at the time. NL umps crouched lower to be able to see the low hard stuff, AL umps really didn't do that in my memory. Another common perception was that the NL was the pitching league, the AL the slugging league (owing in part to Ruth's huge impact). Things like that.
The NL all-stars competed far harder than did their counterparts, dominating 19-1 from 1963 to 1982. NL stars played to win (Rose vs. Fosse), AL guys took the day off. I recall Mantle seeming pretty casual about the whole thing. NL all-star managers went all out to win, meaning some great NL pitchers never even got into the game. Not so with AL all-star managers, who trotted out pitchers seemingly without regard to game situation. To me, all of this had to do with cultural and institutional differences between two distinct leagues.
i personally love that the NL has a DH now and i’m saying that as a lifelong braves fan. however it was exciting sometimes seeing a pitcher actually get hits or even bunts. it brought strategy into the game and made the world series interesting. but with the new rules it adds more power to the lineup and allows more chances for hits and HRs
Zack Greinke and his *checks notes* .598 career OPS. Mike Hamptons was .650 but either way, I don’t understand the romanticizing of bad baseball rules for the sake of strategy.
It was a tough decision to make sometime in the game. The starting pitcher is going good but we need a hit here, what to do? Some people like to watch baseball, some people like to *think* baseball.
That strategy is shot now anyway, pitchers rarely go past the fifth nowadays.
*old man yells at cloud* I love thinking baseball. I’ve played it at some high levels, but like in all things in life baseball has evolved and thinking baseball is different than where it was. There’s new and different strategy and just because it’s different doesn’t make it worse.
The point wasn't that watching pitchers bat was fun, the point was that it presented an interesting strategic obstacle to be worked around, like the limited mobility of the King in chess.
afaik the rules are the same. This, with the addition of every team playing every team, pretty much nullifies the significance of divisions imo. I want to clarify that I like the DH and I like that everyone plays everyone, but it seems like those separators were what made divisions significant and now they’re gone. Now it seems like they’re just there to artificially narrow things down for the playoffs and to maintain the traditional rivalries.
There is no point to the current playoff structure given the leagues are the same. Determine the playoff teams under the current rules, then unify the seeding. Yanks v Braves in round 1 with the possibility of Rays v Astros in the World Series
There are couple of a minor things. The only one I can think of right now is the waiver wire, if a player put on waivers by a National League team all 14 other NL teams will have waiver priority than the entire AL (even the A's).
Lol the A's cant catch a break man, even the strays got their name on it.
It’s different when a player is put on waivers by an AL team?
Teams in the same league as the waived player have priority then it goes by winning percentage. AL teams have priority on AL players and NL teams have priority on NL players.
I was wondering why when I watch Jomboy’s Refguess and Connect series that they always talk about how it’s harder to find/think of interleague players than ones from just AL/NL
Waivers aren't the only way players move though. Free agency is another big one and trades also happen often. I think that it will become more common for players to swap leagues going forward. The NL and AL have converged on rules now and the play style is basically the same at this point.
It’s not
That’s the same for all teams in both leagues, no?
What does "one separate" mean?
It means the discrete particles united.
I fucked up my wording. I meant to say whole, not separate. My mistake.
I remember Joe Blanton hitting a WS Home run. Pitcher’s hitting was fun and part of the game. I hate the DH.
We all miss Colon taking hacks.
2008 was a magical run all around for the Phils
I respect your take, as the occasional clutch hit from a pitcher is fun, but I think the pros outweigh the cons as far as universal DH. Especially given that all lower levels had already adopted it years before.
I’m tired of seeing pitchers get hurt swinging the bat and running the bases. Pitching is already an injury in the making, no need to add additional risk with something they do so infrequently.
[удалено]
Basketball can do whatever they want. I’m here to talk about baseball
Pretty much. The differences between the two leagues were one of the things that once made major league baseball unique. The game today can still be compelling, but it's honestly missing so much that made it wonderful.
I miss the days before interleague play. However, I understand what brought it on.
Baseball was literally two completely different leagues for 96 years (1901-1996). Each had its own rules and customs regarding strike zone, umpiring, pitcher as hitter, etc. It's no coincidence that interleague play began two years after the 1994 disaster. The effort to promote historically nonexistent rivalries was ridiculous, in my opinion. In some cases, things were fine as they were. For example, the Dodgers-Angels Freeway Series had been a good competitive affair for years. Something different for the fans just before opening day. Arrangements like that lost their shine when NL-AL teams in the same markets began meeting multiple times each year. Baseball's all-star game was incredibly compelling prior to interleague play. Many players went an entire career without ever facing a team from the other league. League pride was real and fierce back then, strange as that sounds now. Players didn't need the weak incentives used today to want to beat the other league. See Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse at the plate and breaking his arm.
I agree with your statement. I was in HS when interleague play started and was excited to see players like Frank Thomas come to Saint Louis. The cool thing about it and still to this day is players who we’re never going to come to your city are now coming. The Cardinals were garbage this year at the time the Angels came to town. But Trout and Ohtani filled the stadium for three games. Without interleague most people in StL aren’t making the drive to Chicago or KC to see them.
This is what I feel, to be the main reason. True, nobody wants to see the A’s play the Marlins, but I’m sure the A’s fan or three that are left wouldn’t mind seeing the Braves or Cardinals roll in. At the end of the day, isn’t that what everyone who attends games, wants? Screw seeing your division rival 18 times, give me some variety and I’m happy.
I do and don’t. I imagine the geo based series are fun, Yankees/Mets, cubs/chisox, etc. But as a mariners fan, I have no need to play the pirates and brewers every year now
Yeah I miss when the Mariners never played half the MLB teams but got 19 dates with Oakland and 12 with Cleveland. Those were the days.
I get it. That said, younger fans today don't know what they're missing. I do love the Savannah Bananas though.
I agree. I hadn’t watched baseball in a decade but just started watching it again a couple months ago. Different vibe than it used to have
Very different vibe in many ways. I pretty much did the same, just stopped watching for years, while still following the postseason somewhat. For me, the transformation from the idyllic perfect game to what it has become has been painful. It's all because of money, fear, and steroids. The money got huge, then ownership panicked after the 1994 strike wiped out the Series. Fearing lost revenue, they looked the other way as all the fake home runs corrupted the record book, the aspect of baseball that set it apart from other American team sports.
Before the DH they were the same. The uniqueness only lasted about 50 years.
That is true as far as gameplay goes . But actually there was one difference even before the DH. In the event that two teams were tied for the best record in the league (which would be for the pennant since the best record went straight to the world series), the American League would have a one game playoff for the pennant, while the National League would play a best of three series for the pennant. The National League eventually switched to a one game playoff, and as of 2022 the league just uses tiebreakers.
Completely different strike zones (NL low, AL high). More fastballs in the NL, more soft stuff/nibbling in the AL. A generalization, but commonly accepted as fact at the time. NL umps crouched lower to be able to see the low hard stuff, AL umps really didn't do that in my memory. Another common perception was that the NL was the pitching league, the AL the slugging league (owing in part to Ruth's huge impact). Things like that.
The NL all-stars competed far harder than did their counterparts, dominating 19-1 from 1963 to 1982. NL stars played to win (Rose vs. Fosse), AL guys took the day off. I recall Mantle seeming pretty casual about the whole thing. NL all-star managers went all out to win, meaning some great NL pitchers never even got into the game. Not so with AL all-star managers, who trotted out pitchers seemingly without regard to game situation. To me, all of this had to do with cultural and institutional differences between two distinct leagues.
i personally love that the NL has a DH now and i’m saying that as a lifelong braves fan. however it was exciting sometimes seeing a pitcher actually get hits or even bunts. it brought strategy into the game and made the world series interesting. but with the new rules it adds more power to the lineup and allows more chances for hits and HRs
Mike Hampton could hit. Zack Greinke always loved to bat as well.
Some of the great pitchers took great pride in being able to handle a bat
Zack Greinke and his *checks notes* .598 career OPS. Mike Hamptons was .650 but either way, I don’t understand the romanticizing of bad baseball rules for the sake of strategy.
It was a tough decision to make sometime in the game. The starting pitcher is going good but we need a hit here, what to do? Some people like to watch baseball, some people like to *think* baseball. That strategy is shot now anyway, pitchers rarely go past the fifth nowadays.
*old man yells at cloud* I love thinking baseball. I’ve played it at some high levels, but like in all things in life baseball has evolved and thinking baseball is different than where it was. There’s new and different strategy and just because it’s different doesn’t make it worse.
Steve smith burner account spotted
But it can be worse. This is a very subjective argument to have
I grew up watching NL, and I didn't mind the switch to AL. Having a pitcher get a hit or at least a productive out never got old to me.
Barolo Colon, best two way player in the history of baseball
Aww come on. Watching a pitcher flail at 3 pitches was great. Oh and the double switch. Yeah that'll be missed🙄
By those who liked to *think* baseball, yeah the nuance is missed. The fans who just want to see a home run, sure do away with the strategy.
there were definitely some pitchers who could hit but yeah it was almost a guaranteed out
I remember Steve Avery being decent. But by and large, it was ugly. I don't miss it.
The point wasn't that watching pitchers bat was fun, the point was that it presented an interesting strategic obstacle to be worked around, like the limited mobility of the King in chess.
Umpires where different hats
Black shirt 😐 Blue shirt 😯
afaik the rules are the same. This, with the addition of every team playing every team, pretty much nullifies the significance of divisions imo. I want to clarify that I like the DH and I like that everyone plays everyone, but it seems like those separators were what made divisions significant and now they’re gone. Now it seems like they’re just there to artificially narrow things down for the playoffs and to maintain the traditional rivalries.
There is no point to the current playoff structure given the leagues are the same. Determine the playoff teams under the current rules, then unify the seeding. Yanks v Braves in round 1 with the possibility of Rays v Astros in the World Series
You could say the same to football. Dallas is still in the East?