05-01-2010, 12:24 AM
<!--quoteo(post=94001:date=Apr 30 2010, 08:08 PM:name=MrSheps)-->QUOTE (MrSheps @ Apr 30 2010, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=93995:date=Apr 30 2010, 06:36 PM:name=Bricklayer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Apr 30 2010, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=93987:date=Apr 30 2010, 08:05 PM:name=Destined)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Destined @ Apr 30 2010, 08:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=93981:date=Apr 30 2010, 03:52 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Apr 30 2010, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=93977:date=Apr 30 2010, 05:05 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 30 2010, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=93974:date=Apr 30 2010, 05:01 PM:name=Destined)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Destined @ Apr 30 2010, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs and Cards had the same Interleague schedule last season, <b>but the Sox & Royals series.</b> The schedules are balanced as they can be, and they can't be truly fair across the board unless we home & home with the whole NL. I think the schedule makers do a great job having so few differences over the course of 162 games. I'm with PcB on this.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's why it's absolute horseshit -- right there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really. There are 162 games in a season, the Cubs and Cards have the exact same schedule for over 90% of those games. In any professional or collegiate sport, the MLB has the most balanced schedules for same division teams by a long shot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
Arguing against interleague play in general is one thing. But about specifically playing the Sox is fucking dumb.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Playing the same schedule against the same set of teams, regardless of league, is fair. Having to play 6 games against a more competitive team while your direct competition plays 6 games against an inferior team is not.
FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, I think people understand that it's usually better to play 6 against the Royals than the White Sox. I know I've said that since the beginning. What's being debated is how much better it is. Again, here's why it <i>might</i> not make much of a difference:
<b>
1. In any given year, though it seems hard to believe lately, the Royals could have a better record than the Sox, in which case playing the Sox is better. </b>
2. The schedules are not the same sans the Royals/Sox. Last year the Cubs and Cards had another non-similar AL opponent, and the Cards' opponent (Twins) was 22 wins better than the Cubs' (Indians). Since those were 3 game series not 6 it doesn't fully erase the Royals/Sox difference, but it cuts it by half or more, since the Twins were the best AL team either the Cards or Cubs faced.
3. The NL portion of the schedule isn't fully balanced either. If the Cubs last year played an extra game or even series, which I think has happened before, with say the Padres, and the Cards got the Phillies, that is also unbalanced. You'd have to look at the schedules as a whole to know who had the overall rougher schedule.
<b>
4. While you can look at the Cards record against the Royals and the Cubs record against the Sox and realize that the Cubs have the harder time in that comparison, you also though have to factor in the fact that the Cards are generally better than the Cubs, so they would likely have a higher win % v. any team. Meaning that if the Cards are beating the Royals at .545 clip (random number for the example) that doesn't mean the Cubs would. They could have a .500 record against the Royals. There's no way to know, but I'm guessing that since interleague started the Cubs record is worse than the Cards across the board. One thing that would be good to know is what is the total KC win/loss record since interleauge compared to the Sox. Another thing to ask is how do the Cubs do v. the Sox compared to how they play overall. The Cubs could have .475 record overall since interleauge began, but a .500 v. the Sox. In which case playing the Sox could be good for the Cubs. Maybe they get up for those games, play better in them, etc. </b>
Anyway, I hate that they get the Royals and we get the Sox for that many games. I despise it. But how much of a difference that makes isn't the same each year, and the difference might not actually correlate to a very significant disparage in overall record.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes sir. I agree.
And that's why it's absolute horseshit -- right there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really. There are 162 games in a season, the Cubs and Cards have the exact same schedule for over 90% of those games. In any professional or collegiate sport, the MLB has the most balanced schedules for same division teams by a long shot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
Arguing against interleague play in general is one thing. But about specifically playing the Sox is fucking dumb.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Playing the same schedule against the same set of teams, regardless of league, is fair. Having to play 6 games against a more competitive team while your direct competition plays 6 games against an inferior team is not.
FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, I think people understand that it's usually better to play 6 against the Royals than the White Sox. I know I've said that since the beginning. What's being debated is how much better it is. Again, here's why it <i>might</i> not make much of a difference:
<b>
1. In any given year, though it seems hard to believe lately, the Royals could have a better record than the Sox, in which case playing the Sox is better. </b>
2. The schedules are not the same sans the Royals/Sox. Last year the Cubs and Cards had another non-similar AL opponent, and the Cards' opponent (Twins) was 22 wins better than the Cubs' (Indians). Since those were 3 game series not 6 it doesn't fully erase the Royals/Sox difference, but it cuts it by half or more, since the Twins were the best AL team either the Cards or Cubs faced.
3. The NL portion of the schedule isn't fully balanced either. If the Cubs last year played an extra game or even series, which I think has happened before, with say the Padres, and the Cards got the Phillies, that is also unbalanced. You'd have to look at the schedules as a whole to know who had the overall rougher schedule.
<b>
4. While you can look at the Cards record against the Royals and the Cubs record against the Sox and realize that the Cubs have the harder time in that comparison, you also though have to factor in the fact that the Cards are generally better than the Cubs, so they would likely have a higher win % v. any team. Meaning that if the Cards are beating the Royals at .545 clip (random number for the example) that doesn't mean the Cubs would. They could have a .500 record against the Royals. There's no way to know, but I'm guessing that since interleague started the Cubs record is worse than the Cards across the board. One thing that would be good to know is what is the total KC win/loss record since interleauge compared to the Sox. Another thing to ask is how do the Cubs do v. the Sox compared to how they play overall. The Cubs could have .475 record overall since interleauge began, but a .500 v. the Sox. In which case playing the Sox could be good for the Cubs. Maybe they get up for those games, play better in them, etc. </b>
Anyway, I hate that they get the Royals and we get the Sox for that many games. I despise it. But how much of a difference that makes isn't the same each year, and the difference might not actually correlate to a very significant disparage in overall record.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes sir. I agree.
I hate my pretentious sounding username too.