ADVERTISEMENT

2018 Atlanta Braves thread

TarHeelNation11 said:
We're already doing this and the season hasn't even started?

Repeat after me, "It. Won't. Make. A. Difference." The pace of the game is not why people (and by people, I mean the ultra-coveted 18-35 demographic) don't watch. People don't watch because they find the sport, itself, boring. Like the sheer design/purpose of the sport. No amount of time-shrinking is going to make one iota of a difference. If you don't like baseball, you don't like baseball. Bastardizing the rules isn't going to bring in young fans.
Click to expand...

I do agree that measures such as eliminating the intentional walk, and other things designed to shave maybe 2 minutes off a game isn't going to move the needle. The issue is that the action is so sparse that it is impossible to hold the attention of a casual fan.

Baseball was always my favorite sport to play/watch growing up. But that's when I had all the time in the world on my hands, and would do homework or play on my GameBoy or something during the dull parts of the game. Now, as most people, I don't have the time for that. I can't blame people that don't want to watch a game where they might not see a ball put in play for 20 minutes, or see a baserunner for over an hour.

At some point the MLB will need to decide if they're fine drifting towards the bottom of the pecking order of the four major sports but keeping their traditions and style of play, or whether they want to make significant changes in order to keep up with the changing interests of fans. Radical changes that make both the games shorter, as well as the time spent playing the game to be more action-packed would definitely be shunned by hardcore baseball traditionalists, but they would almost certainly bring in a new group of fans. Things like starting everyone at 1-1 (which is essentially just lowering the strikes needed to strikeout to 2 and balls to walk to 3), or starting innings with a player on base, would speed up the action and increase scoring.

Obviously the easiest thing to increase action in NL games would be to adopt the DH.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I do agree that measures such as eliminating the intentional walk, and other things designed to shave maybe 2 minutes off a game isn't going to move the needle. The issue is that the action is so sparse that it is impossible to hold the attention of a casual fan.

Baseball was always my favorite sport to play/watch growing up. But that's when I had all the time in the world on my hands, and would do homework or play on my GameBoy or something during the dull parts of the game. Now, as most people, I don't have the time for that. I can't blame people that don't want to watch a game where they might not see a ball put in play for 20 minutes, or see a baserunner for over an hour.

At some point the MLB will need to decide if they're fine drifting towards the bottom of the pecking order of the four major sports but keeping their traditions and style of play, or whether they want to make significant changes in order to keep up with the changing interests of fans. Radical changes that make both the games shorter, as well as the time spent playing the game to be more action-packed would definitely be shunned by hardcore baseball traditionalists, but they would almost certainly bring in a new group of fans. Things like starting everyone at 1-1 (which is essentially just lowering the strikes needed to strikeout to 2 and balls to walk to 3), or starting innings with a player on base, would speed up the action and increase scoring.

Obviously the easiest thing to increase action in NL games would be to adopt the DH.
Click to expand...
The sport has slowed down for several reasons. TV and advertising for instance. But also the game itself. How many pitchers today pitch into the 7th or 8th inning. Hell there might be 6 pitching changes for just one team per game. Situational pitching has slowed the game as much as anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910, TarHeelNation11 and Hark_The_Sound_2010
nctransplant said:
The sport has slowed down for several reasons. TV and advertising for instance. But also the game itself. How many pitchers today pitch into the 7th or 8th inning. Hell there might be 6 pitching changes for just one team per game. Situational pitching has slowed the game as much as anything.
Click to expand...

True, another measure I heard being tossed around was make any pitcher have to face a minimum of 3 batters or something. Toning down the "lefty specialist" would speed the game up a little bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
nctransplant said:
The sport has slowed down for several reasons. TV and advertising for instance. But also the game itself. How many pitchers today pitch into the 7th or 8th inning. Hell there might be 6 pitching changes for just one team per game. Situational pitching has slowed the game as much as anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you! Situational pitching is the absolute worst development in baseball in the past 10 years. That shit needs to be outlawed somehow.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
True, another measure I heard being tossed around was make any pitcher have to face a minimum of 3 batters or something. Toning down the "lefty specialist" would speed the game up a little bit.
Click to expand...
I would be on board with this. I would probably stop watching, though, if they went to 2 strikes and 3 balls. Just being honest. It would be such a pathetic attempt to cater to a new audience. I believe MLB should, as you point out, just accept that it's going to sink to the bottom of Big Four (that's football, basketball, and soccer, mind you. Hockey is trash and has terrible ratings).
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
We are arguing different things. I'm not debating that other countries' love for baseball helps MLB. I'm simply saying that that doesn't help MLB gain more American viewership.
Click to expand...
Ok, but MLB has no incentive to change if their numbers worldwide are ok. FIFA wasn't scrambling to "fix" soccer when it was basically non existent in the US.
 
tarheel0910 said:
Ok, but MLB has no incentive to change if their numbers worldwide are ok. FIFA wasn't scrambling to "fix" soccer when it was basically non existent in the US.
Click to expand...
Not a good comparison because soccer is the most popular sport in a ton of countries, many of those being economically strong countries (compared to Latin America), such as England, Italy, Germany, France, etc. Baseball is the most popular sport in America and Japan, and then a bunch of poor af countries in Latin America.

And besides, I'm saying baseball shouldn't change much, especially not with respect to game-shortening.
 
BillyL said:
71df8465763da07202806037546d8951--cardinals-baseball-st-louis-cardinals.jpg
Click to expand...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyL
People saying the game of baseball needs to be shorter don’t understand the beauty of the game. Baseball is not on the clock, how are you going to make the game shorter?
By trying to shorten the game, you lose the strategic part of the game. Baseball is & always will be a “thinking” mans sport.
I do agree that certain rules need to be put in place to help keep pace. Keeping a batter in the box,instead of adjusting his gloves after every pitch & limiting how many times a catcher can visit the pitcher are the main two.
The schedule is too long, getting rid of interleague play would help.
 
In addition to cutting the amount of games in half, I think the MLB would be better off cutting the amount of teams in half. Again, won't happen for the same reason as the former, but it'd be such a better product. Then, we wouldn't even need to bastardize the game with rules changes.

100 game seasons with 5 teams in 4 divisions would be great. Bye bye to the shitty markets and places that can't draw fans. No harm done if they scrap Tampa, Miami, Seattle, Oakland, Kansas City, San Diego, Colorado, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Toronto
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
In addition to cutting the amount of games in half, I think the MLB would be better off cutting the amount of teams in half. Again, won't happen for the same reason as the former, but it'd be such a better product. Then, we wouldn't even need to bastardize the game with rules changes.

100 game seasons with 5 teams in 4 divisions would be great. Bye bye to the shitty markets and places that can't draw fans. No harm done if they scrap Tampa, Miami, Seattle, Oakland, Kansas City, San Diego, Colorado, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Toronto
Click to expand...
I think the NBA needs to do the same thing in terms of down-sizing number of teams. It's basic logic that as you add more teams, you're most likely going to dilute each individual team's level of talent.

Agreed it would work with baseball too (your selected markets would need tweaking because no way could Kansas City be cut.) I disagree with your statement "then, we wouldn't even need to bastardize the game with rule changes." I still don't think you need to tweak the rules, regardless.

Just spit-balling for fun here. If the league did contract, as a strategy to keep eliminated markets "in the loop," what about creating hybrid market teams? As an example for argument's sake, say you merge the Brewers with the Pirates. You keep one team name, scrap the other team name, but incorporate the other city's name in. They now become the Pittsburgh-Milwaukee Pirates. They play half (or some pre-determined number) of their home games at PNC Park and the other half at the Brewers' stadium. Now, you've just created scarcity for fans in both cities. Instead of the home team playing at home ALL the time, the number of home games gets cut in half, making them (hopefully) more desirable for fans to pay for. Especially when you consider that contraction would mean 1-3 more star-ish players on the roster. So theoretically, you've just cut the league by one team, yet you don't lose either market. Sure, the players would probably dislike having two homes, but MLB players make more money than sin, so they can get over it. You could do all type of marketing things like still have the team wear Brewers current and throwback jerseys while in Milwaukee. The team wouldn't totally have to re-brand.

I suppose the same arrangement could work with expansion, as well. MLB could bring more markets into the fold by globbing them in with existing franchises. For argument's sake, Charlotte could tack on to the Nationals. I don't know, maybe it's a dumb idea and wouldn't work, but it's intriguing to me as a concept.
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
Just spit-balling for fun here. If the league did contract, as a strategy to keep eliminated markets "in the loop," what about creating hybrid market teams? As an example for argument's sake, say you merge the Brewers with the Pirates. You keep one team name, scrap the other team name, but incorporate the other city's name in. They now become the Pittsburgh-Milwaukee Pirates. They play half (or some pre-determined number) of their home games at PNC Park and the other half at the Brewers' stadium. Now, you've just created scarcity for fans in both cities. Instead of the home team playing at home ALL the time, the number of home games gets cut in half, making them (hopefully) more desirable for fans to pay for. Especially when you consider that contraction would mean 1-3 more star-ish players on the roster. So theoretically, you've just cut the league by one team, yet you don't lose either market. Sure, the players would probably dislike having two homes, but MLB players make more money than sin, so they can get over it. You could do all type of marketing things like still have the team wear Brewers current and throwback jerseys while in Milwaukee. The team wouldn't totally have to re-brand.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea, but with the way MLB's farm system is set up I'm not sure you would need it if contraction occurred. There is approximately 5,638 minor league teams in each state and plenty of people go to those games. It keeps baseball alive in those states that don't have a major league team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
tarheel0910 said:
Interesting idea, but with the way MLB's farm system is set up I'm not sure you would need it if contraction occurred. There is approximately 5,638 minor league teams in each state and plenty of people go to those games. It keeps baseball alive in those states that don't have a major league team.
Click to expand...
While that's true, minor league teams don't hold sway in markets accustomed to having a major league team, you know? Like the Bulls thrive in Durham because Durham has never had a pro team. I don't think a minor league team would cultivate a following in, say, Tampa if the Rays were scrapped. But I could be wrong.

I do agree that minor league teams do really well in towns all over the country.
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
While that's true, minor league teams don't hold sway in markets accustomed to having a major league team, you know? Like the Bulls thrive in Durham because Durham has never had a pro team. I don't think a minor league team would cultivate a following in, say, Tampa if the Rays were scrapped. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
I think they would hold sway if you took away the major league team. It would be the only game in town. Not so much in Tampa, but their major league team doesn't even have any sway.

Side note: It irritates me to no end that some cities who shouldn't have baseball have it, while NC never got one. Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to have two FL teams? Or Toronto and DC? Seriously, what the hell?
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
I think the NBA needs to do the same thing in terms of down-sizing number of teams. It's basic logic that as you add more teams, you're most likely going to dilute each individual team's level of talent.

Agreed it would work with baseball too (your selected markets would need tweaking because no way could Kansas City be cut.) I disagree with your statement "then, we wouldn't even need to bastardize the game with rule changes." I still don't think you need to tweak the rules, regardless.

Just spit-balling for fun here. If the league did contract, as a strategy to keep eliminated markets "in the loop," what about creating hybrid market teams? As an example for argument's sake, say you merge the Brewers with the Pirates. You keep one team name, scrap the other team name, but incorporate the other city's name in. They now become the Pittsburgh-Milwaukee Pirates. They play half (or some pre-determined number) of their home games at PNC Park and the other half at the Brewers' stadium. Now, you've just created scarcity for fans in both cities. Instead of the home team playing at home ALL the time, the number of home games gets cut in half, making them (hopefully) more desirable for fans to pay for. Especially when you consider that contraction would mean 1-3 more star-ish players on the roster. So theoretically, you've just cut the league by one team, yet you don't lose either market. Sure, the players would probably dislike having two homes, but MLB players make more money than sin, so they can get over it. You could do all type of marketing things like still have the team wear Brewers current and throwback jerseys while in Milwaukee. The team wouldn't totally have to re-brand.

I suppose the same arrangement could work with expansion, as well. MLB could bring more markets into the fold by globbing them in with existing franchises. For argument's sake, Charlotte could tack on to the Nationals. I don't know, maybe it's a dumb idea and wouldn't work, but it's intriguing to me as a concept.
Click to expand...
I do like that idea. It might need to be teams/cities closer than Milwaukee and Pittsburgh to get it to work, but I like the idea. Maybe even tell the fans that the city with the better turnout for their half of the home games gets to keep the team after 10 years or something (but just use that as a carrot, and walk it back before actually having to do it).

Just out of curiosity, what makes Kansas City immune here? I just looked up attendance, and was actually surprised where they ranked, but it was still in the bottom half of the league. I figured it was a recent boost from the world series appearance, and then checked 2010 stats and they were in the bottom five back then, so I imagine they'll be back there soon enough.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I do like that idea. It might need to be teams/cities closer than Milwaukee and Pittsburgh to get it to work, but I like the idea. Maybe even tell the fans that the city with the better turnout for their half of the home games gets to keep the team after 10 years or something (but just use that as a carrot, and walk it back before actually having to do it).

Just out of curiosity, what makes Kansas City immune here? I just looked up attendance, and was actually surprised where they ranked, but it was still in the bottom half of the league. I figured it was a recent boost from the world series appearance, and then checked 2010 stats and they were in the bottom five back then, so I imagine they'll be back there soon enough.
Click to expand...
I just thought KC had better average attendance than it did. But I looked up the numbers and you're right. The theoretical elimination wouldn't be about in-game attendance though. It would be about market capture. The Braves are unique in that they don't have great in-game attendance Monday - Thursday, but they capture a huge swath of the South in Georgia, SC, NC, TN, parts of Florida, AL, MS, even some of Kentucky. The Braves have the biggest (# of affiliates) radio network of any professional U.S. team.

It was my understanding (I could be wrong) that the Royals have a similar effect on the Midwest in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc. But I could be wrong and that could be the Cardinals that do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
tarheel0910 said:
I think they would hold sway if you took away the major league team. It would be the only game in town. Not so much in Tampa, but their major league team doesn't even have any sway.

Side note: It irritates me to no end that some cities who shouldn't have baseball have it, while NC never got one. Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to have two FL teams? Or Toronto and DC? Seriously, what the hell?
Click to expand...
I don't know, man. Every pro league makes the same mistake. People do not trust Southern markets to support teams, so instead, they put multiple teams in L.A. (A place that doesn't support ANY pro franchise adequately, unless they're championship contenders), and New York. MLS did the same thing. They refused to put a team in the South, and then finally put a team in Orlando and they're like "see, that's the South, right?!" Everyone knows Central Florida downward isn't "the South." And then they finally put a team in Atlanta and it goes over like gangbusters (mostly because Atlanta is a town full of faggits and hipsters, but I digress).

All that is to say that there's zero reason Florida should have two teams, D.C. and Baltimore should have separate teams, and California should have FIVE teams. Now the Rays are reportedly moving to Ybor City..... lulz. That will be a new location, with the same results -- no one showing up unless the Yankees are in town. Too many transplants.

IMO, the two teams who need to be relocated are the A's and the Mariners. Either one of those could slot into North Carolina. Could the Knights' new stadium be retrofitted to add 20,000 additional seats? Probably not.
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
IMO, the two teams who need to be relocated are the A's and the Mariners. Either one of those could slot into North Carolina. Could the Knights' new stadium be retrofitted to add 20,000 additional seats? Probably not.
Click to expand...
It seems like I read somewhere that the stadium was built so that a future expansion could be done. I doubt it would be for an additional 20k though.
 
The Mariners are fine. They have the stadium and decent fan support. Right now, I would say the A's and Rays are the two biggest relocation candidates if neither one can get a new stadium.
 
Alright, I'm gonna talk about the Braves now, if that's okay with everyone. (sigh)

Basically, this year is more than likely going to be a repeat of last season with a slight record improvement. I'm still very excited for this season because we're going with the kids this time instead of veteran patchwork. I want to see what these guys can do, and we're finally getting the opportunity to do just that. With the exception of catcher and RF (at least at the moment), we're young and fresh everywhere, and that's such a great sight to see.

For me though, the season doesn't officially start until the elephant in the room makes his presence known. For the first few weeks of the season, I'll be happy to be watching baseball again, but it won't be real until Ronald Acuña is in the outfield everyday. I know there's a chance it could be Jason Heyward, Part II, but something feels different about this guy. I heard a lot about Heyward when he was coming up, but it doesn't compare to the hype around Acuña. EVERYONE has something to say about him. This dude has the confidence and swagger going on with him that has been missing from this franchise for so long. In high pressure situations, it always seems like we get scared and shoot ourselves in the foot. Acuña seems like the type of dude who can go up there with the runners in scoring position when we're down against the opponents' ace and be like "hold my beer." That's the type of dude we've been missing for quite some time, and I am salivating over seeing what he can do. I hope his confidence rubs off on others.

The second thing I'm looking most forward to is obviously the pitching. Julio Teheran can do whatever he wants. Be good or bad, I don't really care. His time is ticking anyway.

Despite his subpar finish last year and how ridiculous that whole arbitration situation was, I'm still on the Folty train. This has to be the year though. He has shown he can be dominant in stretches, but he has to put it all together this year. I'm definitely not saying he should be dominant all the time, but he needs to be much more consistent. He was either really good or really bad with little in between last year. He just needs to be more consistent, and he'll be fine. I fully expect him to do just that.

The rest of them are really just a crap shoot at this point. Luiz Gohara looks like a total beast, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he can put together in a full season. I'm a little down on Sean Newcomb, and I don't think he'll be in our future. I just don't see it. I think he'll be a throw in for a trade down the road. I really like Max Fried as well; I think he can really be something. It kind of sounds like he's gonna get the Alex Wood treatment and start out in the bullpen for now and then get inserted into the rotation later. Whatever works, I guess. A lot of these guys are just auditioning to see who stays and who gets to be trade pieces, really. Looking forward to seeing how that all unfolds.

Ozzie Albies is a keeper, by the way, and I haven't given up on Swanson either. I think he'll settle down now that he isn't the center of attention anymore and he doesn't have all these absurd expectations hanging over him. Again, Ozzie is a total stud. I think he goes off this year and does big things. He has that confidence in him that I love as well.

Freddie Freeman will be Freddie Freeman. Next.

Third base kind of is what it is, and honestly, I just have this feeling about Austin Riley that he's going to be a bust. I don't what it is, but it's just how I feel. I think we need to trade him while he's still considered a top prospect. Either sign a 3B or make him be a part of a trade that gets us one. I'm not going to speculate who though. I don't play that game.

But yeah, that's pretty much all I have. Expectations are low, but I can't wait to see how everyone plays and how things unfold. Let AA truly get a feel for what he has, and then watch as he turns this franchise around. Can't wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
MWHeels said:
The Mariners are fine. They have the stadium and decent fan support. Right now, I would say the A's and Rays are the two biggest relocation candidates if neither one can get a new stadium.
Click to expand...
True that on Rays, but they're fixing to relocate to Ybor City. Definitely on the A's.
 
coolwaterunc said:
Alright, I'm gonna talk about the Braves now, if that's okay with everyone. (sigh)

Basically, this year is more than likely going to be a repeat of last season with a slight record improvement. I'm still very excited for this season because we're going with the kids this time instead of veteran patchwork. I want to see what these guys can do, and we're finally getting the opportunity to do just that. With the exception of catcher and RF (at least at the moment), we're young and fresh everywhere, and that's such a great sight to see.

For me though, the season doesn't officially start until the elephant in the room makes his presence known. For the first few weeks of the season, I'll be happy to be watching baseball again, but it won't be real until Ronald Acuña is in the outfield everyday. I know there's a chance it could be Jason Heyward, Part II, but something feels different about this guy. I heard a lot about Heyward when he was coming up, but it doesn't compare to the hype around Acuña. EVERYONE has something to say about him. This dude has the confidence and swagger going on with him that has been missing from this franchise for so long. In high pressure situations, it always seems like we get scared and shoot ourselves in the foot. Acuña seems like the type of dude who can go up there with the runners in scoring position when we're down against the opponents' ace and be like "hold my beer." That's the type of dude we've been missing for quite some time, and I am salivating over seeing what he can do. I hope his confidence rubs off on others.

The second thing I'm looking most forward to is obviously the pitching. Julio Teheran can do whatever he wants. Be good or bad, I don't really care. His time is ticking anyway.

Despite his subpar finish last year and how ridiculous that whole arbitration situation was, I'm still on the Folty train. This has to be the year though. He has shown he can be dominant in stretches, but he has to put it all together this year. I'm definitely not saying he should be dominant all the time, but he needs to be much more consistent. He was either really good or really bad with little in between last year. He just needs to be more consistent, and he'll be fine. I fully expect him to do just that.

The rest of them are really just a crap shoot at this point. Luiz Gohara looks like a total beast, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he can put together in a full season. I'm a little down on Sean Newcomb, and I don't think he'll be in our future. I just don't see it. I think he'll be a throw in for a trade down the road. I really like Max Fried as well; I think he can really be something. It kind of sounds like he's gonna get the Alex Wood treatment and start out in the bullpen for now and then get inserted into the rotation later. Whatever works, I guess. A lot of these guys are just auditioning to see who stays and who gets to be trade pieces, really. Looking forward to seeing how that all unfolds.

Ozzie Albies is a keeper, by the way, and I haven't given up on Swanson either. I think he'll settle down now that he isn't the center of attention anymore and he doesn't have all these absurd expectations hanging over him. Again, Ozzie is a total stud. I think he goes off this year and does big things. He has that confidence in him that I love as well.

Freddie Freeman will be Freddie Freeman. Next.

Third base kind of is what it is, and honestly, I just have this feeling about Austin Riley that he's going to be a bust. I don't what it is, but it's just how I feel. I think we need to trade him while he's still considered a top prospect. Either sign a 3B or make him be a part of a trade that gets us one. I'm not going to speculate who though. I don't play that game.

But yeah, that's pretty much all I have. Expectations are low, but I can't wait to see how everyone plays and how things unfold. Let AA truly get a feel for what he has, and then watch as he turns this franchise around. Can't wait.
Click to expand...
tl;dr
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant and coolwaterunc
Maybe if MLB had a salary cap then smaller market teams like Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh & Tampa Bay could compete year in & year out. It’s the big market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox & Dodgers that ruin the game.
You can talk about the NBA all you want, if they don’t figure out a way to stop players from forming “super teams” fans will get tired of that crap eventually.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
In addition to cutting the amount of games in half, I think the MLB would be better off cutting the amount of teams in half. Again, won't happen for the same reason as the former, but it'd be such a better product. Then, we wouldn't even need to bastardize the game with rules changes.

100 game seasons with 5 teams in 4 divisions would be great. Bye bye to the shitty markets and places that can't draw fans. No harm done if they scrap Tampa, Miami, Seattle, Oakland, Kansas City, San Diego, Colorado, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Toronto
Click to expand...
Worst idea ever
 
uncfan in ky said:
Maybe if MLB had a salary cap then smaller market teams like Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh & Tampa Bay could compete year in & year out. It’s the big market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox & Dodgers that ruin the game.
You can talk about the NBA all you want, if they don’t figure out a way to stop players from forming “super teams” fans will get tired of that crap eventually.
Click to expand...
Nope nope nope. I hate the salary caps. Smaller market teams just need to figure out another way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
uncfan in ky said:
Maybe if MLB had a salary cap then smaller market teams like Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh & Tampa Bay could compete year in & year out. It’s the big market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox & Dodgers that ruin the game.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with that. Small market teams win a decent share of championships. The Dodgers aren't a good example to use. They actually hurt your argument since they haven't won since the 80's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010, coolwaterunc and TarHeelNation11
tarheel0910 said:
Not sure I agree with that. Small market teams win a decent share of championships. The Dodgers aren't a good example to use. They actually hurt your argument since they haven't won since the 80's.
Click to expand...
The Cubs and Red Sox also hurt his argument. Yes they both have recent WS titles, but overall, they should have / should be winning a lot more. The Angels also hurt the argument as well. Lots of money, no results. Mets too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010 and tarheel0910
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DF1972

T.J. Yates Named Atlanta Falcons Quarterbacks Coach

Replies
0
Views
80
Blue Heaven
DF1972
DF1972
K

Jalen Washington

Replies
13
Views
840
Four Corners
kc2525
K
RobJones__

Transfer Portal Thread (not UNC specific)

Replies
266
Views
11K
Four Corners
dadika13
dadika13
andrew jones

UNC-Duke Postgame Notes

Replies
0
Views
257
Four Corners
andrew jones
andrew jones
andrew jones

Wagner-UNC Postgame Notes

Replies
0
Views
180
Four Corners
andrew jones
andrew jones
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back