Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Baseball's Ten Most Shameful Events
(Just my opinion)
1. Cap Anson forces baseball to ban Fleetwood Walker, creating a color bar that lasted 58 years in 3 pro sports.
2. The 1919 Black Sox World Series
3. Performance enhancing drugs.
4. The players strike that cancelled the 1994 World Series.
5. The Designated Hitter.
6. Bowie Kuhn awards playoff spots to Yankees and Dodgers at mid-season in 1981.
7. The asterisk on Roger Maris' record.
8. The cancellation of a week of games after 9-11.
9. Bud Selig declares a tie in the All Star Game.
10. A tie-breaking wild card game when there is no tie.
Honorable Mention: TV Networks controlling game scheduling and imposing blackouts.
1. Yeah, Cap Anson was a complete d*ck
2. Pretty bad
3. Also bad, but I wouldn't rank it in my top 10
4. Absolutely deserving of a spot here, because of the f*cking strike Montreal lost by far its best chance to win a World Series, effectively ending baseball in Montreal
5. What? How in the world is it shameful?
6. I'm a Yankees fan so oorah
7. Shameful I agree
8. Wuuut? Come on man, it was a national tragedy
9. Not a big fan of the all star game anyways
10. I actually enjoy the system, it gives more incentive to win the division
Agreed that technically, there was no asterisk 9I'm familiar with Phil Pepe's book on this subject) But adding an extra line to the record book to note that Roger Maris had an extra eight games to work with basically served the same purpose. Babe Ruth had an extra 17 games to work with when he broke Ralph Seybold's A.L. record with 29 home runs but nothing was ever said about that. IIRC, that change was made while Faye Vincent was MLB's commissioner in 1992.
I don't think that this is the reason that Babe Ruth didn't have any side notes attached to his HR record. If I'm not mistaken, Seybold broke the A.L. HR record in 1902. In 1901 (first year for the American League) the number of regular season games was 140 which is the same number of games that Ruth had in 1919, the year he had broken Seybold's A.L. HR record.
Granted the number of regular season games had gone from 140 to 154 in 1904. But by the time the 1919 regular season came around the schedule had gone back down to 140 games (only to see it go back up to 154 games again in 1920). That being said, Ruth had broken Seybold's record in what I believe was the team's 99th game so the total number of games at that point is meaningless.
Granted the number of regular season games had gone from 140 to 154 in 1904. But by the time the 1919 regular season came around the schedule had gone back down to 140 games (only to see it go back up to 154 games again in 1920).
The United States entered WW 1 in April of 1917 when the 154 game season had already begun. The following year it was reduced to 124 games due to war concerns, in 1919 it was bumped to 140 games, and restored to 154 games in 1920.
I didn't think the added notation to the Maris record was a matter of shame so much as simple stupidity. In 1961 baseball had something incredible to promote, an assault on the most famous record in the sport by not just one, but two players. There was no real AL pennant race going, the Yankees won 109 games, finishing eight ahead of Detroit, so the home run race was the main attraction in September.
Then Commissioner Ford Frick, who up until this point had been viewing his job as saying "It's a league matter" whenever there was any sort of controversy, suddenly swung into protective reaction for the first and only time, deciding to dilute this incredible promotional opportunity by announcing that even if the record was broken, we are only going to sort of count it.
No that's not what parity means. Parity means that different teams wins championships and make the playoffs every year. Of which the MLB has more of than NBA which makes what you said false and since you just admitted in your post that it's false I don't know why you said it in the first place.
No that's not what parity means. Parity means that different teams wins championships and make the playoffs every year. Of which the MLB has more of than NBA which makes what you said false and since you just admitted in your post that it's false I don't know why you said it in the first place.
I understand the basis of the NBA argument. There are only 5 players on the court, roughly 8 guys that see the court each night. So if you stumble and draft high....you will get a franchise guy. But one of the main problems with the NBA is
They split conferences by East/West. This means the East has more North (Cold weather) teams. This is a big factor with NBA prima donna mentality. So Cleveland is essentially forever doomed. And so are teams like Brooklyn, Toronto, Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Washington. Will Detroit or Philadelphia be able to recover? I dunno.
In the West there is only one team that can't get over the hump and it's the Sacramento Kings
Glad to help you separate your imagination from reality anytime.
Unless you are drunk, my definition fits alot better than this
"Parity means teams have a chance to build a team with good decisions, payroll etc.
By the very nature you won't get championship parity in the NBA over a 10-20 year period due to that."
Which is a wishy washy statement of nothing. But anyway your backtracking in general was closer to the truth when comparing the parity of the two sports. Stick to that.
Unless you are drunk, my definition fits alot better than this
"Parity means teams have a chance to build a team with good decisions, payroll etc.
By the very nature you won't get championship parity in the NBA over a 10-20 year period due to that."
Which is a wishy washy statement of nothing. But anyway your backtracking in general was closer to the truth when comparing the parity of the two sports. Stick to that.
Parity WITHIN baseball is horrible. But if you want to point to completely different sports to defend baseball having "parity" then feel free to make a stupid argument again.
While MLB has horrible salary and competitive parity, the very nature of the sport lends to more volatility in CHAMPIONSHIP results.
Sports like basketball, with only 5 players on the court at one time and playing both ways, is inherently more stationary. (Hence the joking reference to tennis, singles in case you were wondering...)
So, congratulations. Another apologist like the guy claiming things were no worse now than before...that baseball doesn't have a parity problem because you can point to other sports with 5 players or 1 player or whatever and claim that makes it ok.
Seriously, MLB payroll of just 3 teams is around 40%.
But that's ok, because they have "parity" in your eyes.
Parity WITHIN baseball is horrible. But if you want to point to completely different sports to defend baseball having "parity" then feel free to make a stupid argument again.
While MLB has horrible salary and competitive parity, the very nature of the sport lends to more volatility in CHAMPIONSHIP results.
Sports like basketball, with only 5 players on the court at one time and playing both ways, is inherently more stationary. (Hence the joking reference to tennis, singles in case you were wondering...)
So, congratulations. Another apologist like the guy claiming things were no worse now than before...that baseball doesn't have a parity problem because you can point to other sports with 5 players or 1 player or whatever and claim that makes it ok.
Seriously, MLB payroll of just 3 teams is around 40%.
But that's ok, because they have "parity" in your eyes.
Yea because what's important is making sure everyone has the same payroll, nobody cares how many teams have a chance to win a championship. Lets worry about the important things.
Give me a break. Just stop your embarrassing yourself. There should be other forums for your to troll with this irrelevant(maybe you thought this thread was about tennis), incoherent nonsense.
..., nobody cares how many teams have a chance to win a championship. Lets worry about the important things.
That's where our opinions differ.
Fans of teams with the mega payrolls love the advantage, fans of teams with small payrolls don't....I feel that for MLB in total the unbalance (at least you've stopped denying that there is even a problem) will hurt their overall strength and allowing it to happen to this great of an extent is causing MLB to decline even further.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
