This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Just looking at ERA is not the best way to decide by DBCooper
Again compare to rest of the league. 68 was a horrible hitting year for all of MLB. Due to raised mound, large strike zone and just weak hitting overall. Yaz led the league batting .301. Lowest slugging avg in AL since 1915. White Sox were shut out 23 times that year, a record. In 2000 7 guys hit over .340, 10 teams hit over 200 HRs and it was a record for most HR until 2017. Obviously we know steroids was rampant as well. 2000 was one of the best hitting years ever and Pedro dominated.