Page 2 of 5

Re: Is the NL east the best division ever?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:18 am
by Mookie4ever
Philliebuster wrote:Now when you say this, there has to be a division that is coming into you mind that was historically better....which was it...heck throw one out there and tell me why they were the better division.



raiders_umpire wrote:
Philliebuster wrote:Following the NL west is a joke thread, the worst team in the NL East is 66-60. That's amamzing....and I can't quite remember a complete division ever finishing all teams above .500. or maybe it does happen alot. Could the NL east be the best division ever? I don't know how one could find these stats.


hard to really say if they are the best division ever by depth,,,, but i would venture to say easily that the NL East last place team this year will be the best "last" place team in baseball.... but i also can not say that Atlanta is the best first place team in baseball either,,,so that really wipes out the "best" division in baseball theory imo....


The AL West in 2002

Team W L WL%
Oakland OAK 103 59 .636
Anaheim ANA 99 63 .611
Seattle SEA 93 69 .574
Texas TEX 72 90 .444


Oakland had the Big 3 and and MVP year from Tejada
Anaheim won the WS as the Wild Card team
Seattle was the best team to not make the playoffs
and Texas was damned respectable for having to play 54 games against division rivals who averaged 98 wins each.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:23 am
by stumpak
All you can say about the NL East is that it is solid top to bottom and lacks the really bad team you find in other divisons (or the 4 or 5 you find in the NL West).

But, AT LEAST two team in all three of the AL divisions would probably win the NL East: Oakland, Anaheim, Chicago, Cleveland, New York and Boston. Teams like Minnesota and Toronto would have a good shot.

There is no way the NL East the best division this year, much less ever.

Re: Is the NL east the best division ever?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:26 am
by WharfRat
Mookie4ever wrote:The AL West in 2002

Team W L WL%
Oakland OAK 103 59 .636
Anaheim ANA 99 63 .611
Seattle SEA 93 69 .574
Texas TEX 72 90 .444


Oakland had the Big 3 and and MVP year from Tejada
Anaheim won the WS as the Wild Card team
Seattle was the best team to not make the playoffs
and Texas was damned respectable for having to play 54 games against division rivals who averaged 98 wins each.


Good call.

I'm not even convinced this is the best the NL East has been this decade. In 2003, the Braves won 100 games, the Marlins won the Series, and the Phillies and Expos both were over .500. The Mets stunk.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:26 am
by Philliebuster
Thank's, I disagree with the Mets and O's being even and the Marlins are better that B-jays....and Nats are a better TEAM than the D-rays...better pitching....all three have better pitching in the NL is why they are better.

And OK, now we're getting somewhere....the 2002 AL West is impressive, adding the fact that the champs came from that division. But it did only have 4 teams and Texas was 31 games back of the A's.

Maybe i'm looking at it as the most BALANCED divison, and not the BEST, I don't know....but thought it should be debated. The fact that Texas was nearly 20 games under .500 knocks them out of the debate becasue it's only a 4 team division.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:29 am
by Philliebuster
Yeah....I really guess it depends on how the season ends, if someone from the NL East wins the WS and the wildcard...then maybe....but in the end how the teams fared from that divison definately means something....good point. If the NL east teams all don't make it anywhere in the playoffs, then they can't be the best ever.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:29 am
by acsguitar
AL East way better. Look at the players there.

Arod, Sheff, Jeter, Manny, Ortiz, Damon, Renteria, Tejada, Mora, crawford, etc...anyways good players

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:34 am
by Philliebuster
I don't think the individual players matter....AROD's never won a WS...I think it may hinge upon how far the teams from that division advance in the playoffs and who wins the WSeries. However when discussing the overall best division ever...all teams regular season standings in that divison have something to do with the decision. But I agree, if someone from the NL East doesn't win the WS, then the argument is shot.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:35 am
by dannyolbb
Certainly there must be a computer program that can help with this argument. Obviously, it can't be proof (there won't be an absolute proof in this argument), but it could help.

Then again, maybe it's just wishful thinking.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:06 am
by blankman
ARod's never won a WS....what does that have to do with anything at all? A ton of guys have never won a WS. Heck Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols has never won one...does that mean anything to this debate?

Record-wise they may be the best, but they sure as hell aren't even close to the best division in history. And yes, I think the AL East is better as a division as well. They may be top-heavy, but you don't need a ton of depth to be better (example, the '01 D-Backs who rode just Randy and Curt). I'd rather have the best of the best than a bunch of better than average teams.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:11 am
by Rirruto
The NL East is pretty damn good top to bottom. Any team in the division could win the wild card, it should make for an interesting September.