05-01-2010, 01:02 AM
<!--quoteo(post=94011:date=Apr 30 2010, 11:33 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 30 2010, 11:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just curious -- when was the last time that happened? And do you see it changing anytime soon? With the disparity in financial resources, I don't. Although...anything is possible, I suppose.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, see -- that is random and I don't have as big of a problem with it. You draw the short straw and get the Twins during a year when they're world beaters. Shit happens. The Sox/Royals disparity is built in every single season.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to look at the Cubs vs. Sox and Cards vs Royals records or make conjectures about if the Cubs "get up" for the series.<b> Just look at the Royals record every year since interleague started. Now look at the Sox record. Which team is better? Which team would you rather play 6 times a year? </b>You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Anyway, I hate that they get the Royals and we get the Sox for that many games. I despise it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish you would have just said that up front. We could have saved about 5 pages of posts. How much it helps the Cards and how much it hurts us doesn't matter. If it gives them just a 1-game edge every season, it's still bullshit.
Fucking hell.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1995 was the last season the Royals posted a better record than the Sox.
Just curious -- when was the last time that happened? And do you see it changing anytime soon? With the disparity in financial resources, I don't. Although...anything is possible, I suppose.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, see -- that is random and I don't have as big of a problem with it. You draw the short straw and get the Twins during a year when they're world beaters. Shit happens. The Sox/Royals disparity is built in every single season.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to look at the Cubs vs. Sox and Cards vs Royals records or make conjectures about if the Cubs "get up" for the series.<b> Just look at the Royals record every year since interleague started. Now look at the Sox record. Which team is better? Which team would you rather play 6 times a year? </b>You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Anyway, I hate that they get the Royals and we get the Sox for that many games. I despise it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish you would have just said that up front. We could have saved about 5 pages of posts. How much it helps the Cards and how much it hurts us doesn't matter. If it gives them just a 1-game edge every season, it's still bullshit.
Fucking hell.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1995 was the last season the Royals posted a better record than the Sox.