Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
Discussion in the Ask the Commish forum
Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
Aloha from Hawaii! Is there a difference in the playoff systems between the Pacific and Central Leagues? If so, why and how long have they had differing playoff series prior to the Japan Series? Thanks!
Reply to this topic
Comments
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: westbaystars | Posted: Oct 13, 2004 5:40 PM
| YBS Fan
]
Based on the first question, it appears that you haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever. Have you?
If you can first explain the major difference between the two leagues' playoff systems this year, I'll answer any further questions you may have to the best of my ability.
If you can first explain the major difference between the two leagues' playoff systems this year, I'll answer any further questions you may have to the best of my ability.
Sure, I'll Play
[ Author: Guest: Alohano | Posted: Oct 14, 2004 12:54 PM
]
Maybe I phrased my question too simply, yes, I'm a newbie. But why is the Pacific League having a playoff between Seibu and Nippon Ham with the winner playing Daiei when (at least I haven't heard of any games) the Dragons are just waiting for the Pacific League winner as the Champion of the Central League? Do both leagues play the same number or regular season games? Why is there a difference and how long has there been a difference?
Mahalo from Hawaii!
Mahalo from Hawaii!
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: westbaystars | Posted: Oct 14, 2004 7:03 PM
| YBS Fan
]
Thank you. You are correct, the Pacific League had playoffs, the Central League did not. I do expect even newbies to do some research before asking questions.
The announcement about how the playoffs were to work was made back in May of 2003 here. As you can see, most people here were opposed to the idea. I think that most of them would agree that it turned out to be a much bigger success than they'd have thought.
So, the simple answer to your question is that the Pacific League intruduced a playoff system starting this year, and the Central League had none. Details of the two stages can be found in the above thread and in some of the threads related to the actual playoffs under the News forum.
Now, for an answer that goes a little beyond what you asked. The Pacific League, between 1973 and 1982, had split seasons, with the champion of the two halves playing a playoff series (game?) to decide the Pacific League championship. Unfortunately, I don't have first hand knowledge of how it worked in 1976 or 1978, when Hankyu took first in both halves (but I do know that they won the Pacific League in both cases).
The only screwy thing the Central League has done to try to shake the final standings around a bit was introduce a system whereby the team with the most wins took first place a couple of years ago, as opposed to the highest winning percentage. Because ties are allowed, it was possible for one team to have taken the league with a lower winning percentage. I think (memory fails me right now) that if there was such a case where the team with the highest winning percentage didn't have the most wins, that there would be a one game playoff. But it didn't happen, so it's some trivia that didn't stick in my head all that long.
- Do both leagues play the same number or regular season games?
Normally, yes. But this year the Pacific League played 133 games each (135 scheduled - 27 games per team) and agressively made up games in order to have the playoffs start on October 1. Meanwhile, the Central League had a 140 game schedule (28 games per team - of which 138 are played due to the strike - check News for more details), and it looks like the BayStars will still be making up games after the Nippon Series starts this Saturday (October 16).
There have been other differences between the two leagues in the past as well. For a while, the Pacific called games after 12 innings while the Central called them after 15 innings. The Pacific didn't make up tied games while the Central League did for a while (so some teams finished with more games played than others).
I hope this helps clear up what's going on.
The announcement about how the playoffs were to work was made back in May of 2003 here. As you can see, most people here were opposed to the idea. I think that most of them would agree that it turned out to be a much bigger success than they'd have thought.
So, the simple answer to your question is that the Pacific League intruduced a playoff system starting this year, and the Central League had none. Details of the two stages can be found in the above thread and in some of the threads related to the actual playoffs under the News forum.
Now, for an answer that goes a little beyond what you asked. The Pacific League, between 1973 and 1982, had split seasons, with the champion of the two halves playing a playoff series (game?) to decide the Pacific League championship. Unfortunately, I don't have first hand knowledge of how it worked in 1976 or 1978, when Hankyu took first in both halves (but I do know that they won the Pacific League in both cases).
The only screwy thing the Central League has done to try to shake the final standings around a bit was introduce a system whereby the team with the most wins took first place a couple of years ago, as opposed to the highest winning percentage. Because ties are allowed, it was possible for one team to have taken the league with a lower winning percentage. I think (memory fails me right now) that if there was such a case where the team with the highest winning percentage didn't have the most wins, that there would be a one game playoff. But it didn't happen, so it's some trivia that didn't stick in my head all that long.
- Do both leagues play the same number or regular season games?
Normally, yes. But this year the Pacific League played 133 games each (135 scheduled - 27 games per team) and agressively made up games in order to have the playoffs start on October 1. Meanwhile, the Central League had a 140 game schedule (28 games per team - of which 138 are played due to the strike - check News for more details), and it looks like the BayStars will still be making up games after the Nippon Series starts this Saturday (October 16).
There have been other differences between the two leagues in the past as well. For a while, the Pacific called games after 12 innings while the Central called them after 15 innings. The Pacific didn't make up tied games while the Central League did for a while (so some teams finished with more games played than others).
I hope this helps clear up what's going on.
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: Guest | Posted: Oct 15, 2004 2:27 AM
]
Westbay-san wrote, in part:
- The announcement about how the playoffs were to work was made back in May of 2003 here. As you can see, most people here were opposed to the idea. I think that most of them would agree that it turned out to be a much bigger success than they'd have thought.
I never thought that it couldn't lead to exciting games (as it did), but I still oppose it on the grounds that in leagues as small as six teams, putting three of them in a playoff is far too many and allows far too high a likelihood of a weak team capturing the title.
Further, I'd reserve judgment on even the success of this effort - if the Lions get wiped out 4-0 or 4-1, is that really all that positive? I haven't tried to formally study the issue, but lately I've wondered if the V-9 Giants weren't unwittingly assisted by the split season arrangement of the Pacific League in the last few years of the Giant dynasty, especially since many of the regular season records of those Giants in that period were less than overwhelming.
Jim Albright
- The announcement about how the playoffs were to work was made back in May of 2003 here. As you can see, most people here were opposed to the idea. I think that most of them would agree that it turned out to be a much bigger success than they'd have thought.
I never thought that it couldn't lead to exciting games (as it did), but I still oppose it on the grounds that in leagues as small as six teams, putting three of them in a playoff is far too many and allows far too high a likelihood of a weak team capturing the title.
Further, I'd reserve judgment on even the success of this effort - if the Lions get wiped out 4-0 or 4-1, is that really all that positive? I haven't tried to formally study the issue, but lately I've wondered if the V-9 Giants weren't unwittingly assisted by the split season arrangement of the Pacific League in the last few years of the Giant dynasty, especially since many of the regular season records of those Giants in that period were less than overwhelming.
Jim Albright
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: WayneMcGwire | Posted: Oct 15, 2004 2:23 PM
]
- I never thought that it couldn't lead to exciting games (as it did), but I still oppose it on the grounds that in leagues as small as six teams, putting three of them in a playoff is far too many and allows far too high a likelihood of a weak team capturing the title.
I agree with you. Those where really exciting games played by Seibu and Daiei.
Thanks, but I think that's why many people are eager to cook up the "Asian League" project first. Consider if there were an off-season series played bewteen the four teams representing the NPB-CL, NPB-PL, KBO, and CPBL. How exciting these games will be! Just like how exiciting the Japan vs. China soccer game was in Beijing two or three months ago - a high level game plus racial/historical factor (I don't know if same thing happened in Europe). Although I think CPBL and KBO need to improve themselves.
And then a real "World-Series" which is not a "North American Series." In this case, Asian people can fly to neighbor countries to see what baseball's top games is going on this year.
And then, the NPB-MLB All Star Series will not need to be held every other year, by which I mean games can be played not so formally, but can be played under any occasion if any two teams agreed to play.
I agree with you. Those where really exciting games played by Seibu and Daiei.
Thanks, but I think that's why many people are eager to cook up the "Asian League" project first. Consider if there were an off-season series played bewteen the four teams representing the NPB-CL, NPB-PL, KBO, and CPBL. How exciting these games will be! Just like how exiciting the Japan vs. China soccer game was in Beijing two or three months ago - a high level game plus racial/historical factor (I don't know if same thing happened in Europe). Although I think CPBL and KBO need to improve themselves.
And then a real "World-Series" which is not a "North American Series." In this case, Asian people can fly to neighbor countries to see what baseball's top games is going on this year.
And then, the NPB-MLB All Star Series will not need to be held every other year, by which I mean games can be played not so formally, but can be played under any occasion if any two teams agreed to play.
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: Guest: Kuma | Posted: Oct 21, 2004 1:22 PM
]
The only problem is the players union in the MLB. Reflecting upon the history of the organization it is unlikely they would allow a team to commit to having their players play in a "meaningless" game or series. Especially if it's in the middle of the off season. Many players fly back to there homes and don't do many baseball related things in the off season. I'm not sure the American audience would spend much time watching baseball deep in the off season (although some definitely would). With out the viewership there will be less TV money (if it was on TV at all), and lets face it, the dollar talks here.
Another thing to consider about a Asia -vs- North America World Series is that the MLB may not want to risk potentially losing to a team in a league that they view as inferior. There would also need to be some sort of convention on the rules of the game, from team structure, to the kinds of balls that are used. And finally, MLB has worked hard to eliminate artificial turf, while NPB has no [very few] natural surfaces.
Another thing to consider about a Asia -vs- North America World Series is that the MLB may not want to risk potentially losing to a team in a league that they view as inferior. There would also need to be some sort of convention on the rules of the game, from team structure, to the kinds of balls that are used. And finally, MLB has worked hard to eliminate artificial turf, while NPB has no [very few] natural surfaces.
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: Guest: Jim Albright | Posted: Oct 15, 2004 11:48 PM
]
I said, without checking things out:
- [...] lately I've wondered if the V-9 Giants weren't unwittingly assisted by the split season arrangement of the Pacific League in the last few years of the Giant dynasty, especially since many of the regular season records of those Giants in that period were less than overwhelming.
The Giants did benefit from a weak opponent in 1973, which was the last of the V-9 teams, but the first of the split season format in the PL. So, the Giants didn't gain much advantage from the split season format.
If you're going to put half of the league in the playoffs, the incentives created in this system are helpful in avoiding my main objection to the system - but they don't eliminate it.
Jim Albright
- [...] lately I've wondered if the V-9 Giants weren't unwittingly assisted by the split season arrangement of the Pacific League in the last few years of the Giant dynasty, especially since many of the regular season records of those Giants in that period were less than overwhelming.
The Giants did benefit from a weak opponent in 1973, which was the last of the V-9 teams, but the first of the split season format in the PL. So, the Giants didn't gain much advantage from the split season format.
If you're going to put half of the league in the playoffs, the incentives created in this system are helpful in avoiding my main objection to the system - but they don't eliminate it.
Jim Albright
Re: Pacific and Central League Playoff Differences?
[ Author: canfan | Posted: Oct 15, 2004 11:17 AM
]
I personally don't like this new format. First of all, it is not balanced with the Central League format (it would be better if the CL adopted the same format). Secondly, the team with the better record gets to play all the games at their own turf (like all five games in the SL vs. FDH series being played at Fukuoka Dome - what gives?). Thirdly, the stupid rule that the third place team gets to be behind one game if they they reach the next series (they are already shorthanded with the better record team getting home field advantage throughout the series).
Well, that's my two cents on the whole PL playoff format.
Well, that's my two cents on the whole PL playoff format.
More Differences
[ Author: Guest: Alohano | Posted: Oct 15, 2004 4:22 PM
]
Why have there been such differences between the two leagues, seemingly for many, many years now? If there is one professional league organization, one commissioner, how did it ever come to be that the two leagues could play different numbers of games, have different ways of identifying a champ, etc., and only to meet in the Japan Series? Is it politics, the influence of the Giants, etc.?
Thank you in advance.
Thank you in advance.
Re: More Differences
[ Author: westbaystars | Posted: Oct 15, 2004 7:38 PM
| YBS Fan
]
First and foremost, the two leagues are not considered equal among the powers-that-be in Pro Yakyu. The Central League has the largest draw (with the Giants), and therefore the most influence. The Commissioner has generally been nothing more than a figure head controlled by the Giants, similar to politicians controlled by oil and other special interest groups. The NPB Commissioner has no power whatsoever, as he stated time and again during the recent strike crisis [Google].
So, since the Giants are essentially the governing power of Pro Yakyu, why is it that they allow the Pacific League to try various schemes that differentiate them from the Central League? It's because the Giants really haven't cared what the Pacific League teams have done to promote themselves. The only time they've been concerned with the Pacific League has been for the Nippon Series (and All-Star games). It hasn't mattered to them who they faced. In fact, they'd probably like the weakest opponent they could get to show their superiority.
But to the Pacific League, these little schemes have had meaning. They're always out to figure out how to attract more fans. Any way to attract more attention to the Pacific League is considered to be a Good Thing. The designated hitter, like with MLB's American League, is one of those things that differentiate the Pacific League from the Central - allowing some old timers another year or two, or more often than not, allowing a big slugging foreign player with poor defensive skills to put up a home run show.
The playoff system this year had a number of goals (which canfan-san didn't get). First of all, it allowed more teams to be in the race until the end. After the pennant is decided, fans stop coming to games. An announced attendance of 10,000 "paid" only has a few hundred actually in the stands - and this for a Giants' game! The third place spot for the Pacific League this year literally came down to the last game of the season for both Nippon Ham and Chiba, who would have been unable to draw any but the most hardened fans for the last month of the season otherwise. But because five teams midway through the last month still had a chance, the Pacific League saw record attendance this year, despite playing less games than last year.
Secondly, there were incentives to finish in first - namely getting the seed berth in the playoffs. Furthermore, so the second and third place teams can't just slack off and accept their positions, if the team facing the first place team finished more than five games out, the first place team would get a free win to start Stage II. In the case this year, it meant that the Lions couldn't let up after the Hawks clinched first place. They had to stay within five games that last week, and they just barely managed it, finishing 4.5 games out.
A further incentive was getting to host all of the playoff games by finishing above the challenger. Teams in Japan don't split the turn style receipts (which is why they don't accurately report attendance). By finishing higher in the standings, the higher team got extra revenue for hosting those games, which were all pretty much sold out.
The Central League players have voiced that they'd also like to have such a playoff system put into place next season. So the Pacific League's experiment may be adopted throughout NPB next year.
I had mentioned the Central League having the standings ranked by wins instead of winning percentage a few years ago. The Pacific League wisely avoided that one. It turned out that the system confused people more than it spurred interest and was given up after that one season. So, it's not just the Pacific League that's looking for new gimmics to market itself with. But overall, they do work harder than the Central League to attract fans. (See this thread for what the Daily Yomiuri's Jim Allen thinks of the Central League owners in this regard.)
So, why are there so many differences cropping up between the two leagues? Because of a lack of unified leadership and the necessity to promote the Pacific League in a unique manner.
I don't think I'm saying anything new here, but it's good to put all of these concepts into one place. Thanks for the good questions.
So, since the Giants are essentially the governing power of Pro Yakyu, why is it that they allow the Pacific League to try various schemes that differentiate them from the Central League? It's because the Giants really haven't cared what the Pacific League teams have done to promote themselves. The only time they've been concerned with the Pacific League has been for the Nippon Series (and All-Star games). It hasn't mattered to them who they faced. In fact, they'd probably like the weakest opponent they could get to show their superiority.
But to the Pacific League, these little schemes have had meaning. They're always out to figure out how to attract more fans. Any way to attract more attention to the Pacific League is considered to be a Good Thing. The designated hitter, like with MLB's American League, is one of those things that differentiate the Pacific League from the Central - allowing some old timers another year or two, or more often than not, allowing a big slugging foreign player with poor defensive skills to put up a home run show.
The playoff system this year had a number of goals (which canfan-san didn't get). First of all, it allowed more teams to be in the race until the end. After the pennant is decided, fans stop coming to games. An announced attendance of 10,000 "paid" only has a few hundred actually in the stands - and this for a Giants' game! The third place spot for the Pacific League this year literally came down to the last game of the season for both Nippon Ham and Chiba, who would have been unable to draw any but the most hardened fans for the last month of the season otherwise. But because five teams midway through the last month still had a chance, the Pacific League saw record attendance this year, despite playing less games than last year.
Secondly, there were incentives to finish in first - namely getting the seed berth in the playoffs. Furthermore, so the second and third place teams can't just slack off and accept their positions, if the team facing the first place team finished more than five games out, the first place team would get a free win to start Stage II. In the case this year, it meant that the Lions couldn't let up after the Hawks clinched first place. They had to stay within five games that last week, and they just barely managed it, finishing 4.5 games out.
A further incentive was getting to host all of the playoff games by finishing above the challenger. Teams in Japan don't split the turn style receipts (which is why they don't accurately report attendance). By finishing higher in the standings, the higher team got extra revenue for hosting those games, which were all pretty much sold out.
The Central League players have voiced that they'd also like to have such a playoff system put into place next season. So the Pacific League's experiment may be adopted throughout NPB next year.
I had mentioned the Central League having the standings ranked by wins instead of winning percentage a few years ago. The Pacific League wisely avoided that one. It turned out that the system confused people more than it spurred interest and was given up after that one season. So, it's not just the Pacific League that's looking for new gimmics to market itself with. But overall, they do work harder than the Central League to attract fans. (See this thread for what the Daily Yomiuri's Jim Allen thinks of the Central League owners in this regard.)
So, why are there so many differences cropping up between the two leagues? Because of a lack of unified leadership and the necessity to promote the Pacific League in a unique manner.
I don't think I'm saying anything new here, but it's good to put all of these concepts into one place. Thanks for the good questions.
Re: More Differences
[ Author: Guest: Stevie | Posted: Oct 16, 2004 1:17 AM
]
I wanted to bring up a point that I mentioned during one of the playoff games which hasn't yet been brought up here - and I will preface this by saying I wasn't really "up" on these playoffs initially. It seemed like having a three-team playoff in a six-team league was a bit ridiculous.
In this case, however, it seems like these PL playoffs actually corrected for something in the regular season. Not to knock the Hawks (apologies to all Daiei fans), but if you look at the season series for teams against each other, you'd see that the Lions would have been leading the PL if it weren't for Daiei's utter dominance of the cellar-dwelling Orix BlueWave (23-4 for the season). However, Daiei lost their season series vs. both Seibu and Lotte. Seibu, on the other hand, won all of their season series except against Kintetsu, and that was still only 13-14 (pretty even). In the end, Seibu got to play their way into the Japan Series.
Having said that, though, I think this playoff series went a little too well. There was the razor-thin race for the #3 spot between Ham and Lotte, and both Stages were very exciting, coming down to their deciding games with lots of lead changes and nail-biting scenarios. How could next season's PL playoffs even equal what was witnessed this year? I would expect viewers might consider next season's playoffs a let down, even if things went well.
Anyway, just a couple of comments. Good discussion!
- Stevie
In this case, however, it seems like these PL playoffs actually corrected for something in the regular season. Not to knock the Hawks (apologies to all Daiei fans), but if you look at the season series for teams against each other, you'd see that the Lions would have been leading the PL if it weren't for Daiei's utter dominance of the cellar-dwelling Orix BlueWave (23-4 for the season). However, Daiei lost their season series vs. both Seibu and Lotte. Seibu, on the other hand, won all of their season series except against Kintetsu, and that was still only 13-14 (pretty even). In the end, Seibu got to play their way into the Japan Series.
Having said that, though, I think this playoff series went a little too well. There was the razor-thin race for the #3 spot between Ham and Lotte, and both Stages were very exciting, coming down to their deciding games with lots of lead changes and nail-biting scenarios. How could next season's PL playoffs even equal what was witnessed this year? I would expect viewers might consider next season's playoffs a let down, even if things went well.
Anyway, just a couple of comments. Good discussion!
- Stevie
Re: More Differences
[ Author: canfan | Posted: Oct 16, 2004 12:18 PM
]
The only thing I am wary of is that the playoff format might become too diluted if they start adding more qualifying places. Would you want NPB to adopt a playoff format like the NBA or NHL (top 4 teams from each league making it)? One of the things that makes baseball races so exciting is that it makes the playoff spots cherished goals. (Yes, I know that once the teams are decided for the championship series fan interest drops.)
A better solution (I think) would be for the NPB to divide the whole thing into three divisions (four teams in each division) and allow a fourth wild card team into the playoffs (like the MLB). In this way all the teams get to play against the Giants and Tigers (and yeah, don't put the Giants and Tigers in the same division so that the chances of them meeting in the championship series is higher).
A better solution (I think) would be for the NPB to divide the whole thing into three divisions (four teams in each division) and allow a fourth wild card team into the playoffs (like the MLB). In this way all the teams get to play against the Giants and Tigers (and yeah, don't put the Giants and Tigers in the same division so that the chances of them meeting in the championship series is higher).
Re: More Differences
[ Author: Guest: Jim Albright | Posted: Oct 17, 2004 12:08 AM
]
canfan wrote, in part:
- A better solution (I think) would be for the NPB to divide the whole thing into three divisions (four teams in each division) and allow a fourth wild card team into the playoffs (like the MLB). In this way all the teams get to play against the Giants and Tigers (and yeah, don't put the Giants and Tigers in the same division so that the chances of them meeting in the championship series is higher).
I could endorse this plan for a 12 team NPB. There is some increase in the probability of a weak champion, but not nearly so much. It would have some of the virtues of the current plan (more playoff games, incentives to win), and as canfan says, it would work with everybody playing nondivisional foes, which would help the overall economic health of NPB. Unfortunately, getting the NPB powers-that-be to adopt such an approach is the real roadblock.
Jim Albright
- A better solution (I think) would be for the NPB to divide the whole thing into three divisions (four teams in each division) and allow a fourth wild card team into the playoffs (like the MLB). In this way all the teams get to play against the Giants and Tigers (and yeah, don't put the Giants and Tigers in the same division so that the chances of them meeting in the championship series is higher).
I could endorse this plan for a 12 team NPB. There is some increase in the probability of a weak champion, but not nearly so much. It would have some of the virtues of the current plan (more playoff games, incentives to win), and as canfan says, it would work with everybody playing nondivisional foes, which would help the overall economic health of NPB. Unfortunately, getting the NPB powers-that-be to adopt such an approach is the real roadblock.
Jim Albright
Giants' Rule of NPB?
[ Author: Guest: alohano | Posted: Oct 16, 2004 2:10 AM
]
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply!
Here are my last questions. Do the Giants (execs, brass) not believe that a competitive league and competitive teams is good for the NPB as a whole and/or the Giants themselves? If not, why?
Are they really that able to be financially and culturally successful even if the rest of the teams stink, are losing money, etc? To what level do they have regard for the quality of the other teams on and off the field?
IMO, the Giants should be careful for what they wish for because they might get it. They can play themselves if the rest of the league fails or there are only 4-6 strong teams and 6-8 miserably failing franchises. Is the "system" so bogged down or "good ol' boy" to ever change?
I am looking forward to reading your insight and opinion.
Here are my last questions. Do the Giants (execs, brass) not believe that a competitive league and competitive teams is good for the NPB as a whole and/or the Giants themselves? If not, why?
Are they really that able to be financially and culturally successful even if the rest of the teams stink, are losing money, etc? To what level do they have regard for the quality of the other teams on and off the field?
IMO, the Giants should be careful for what they wish for because they might get it. They can play themselves if the rest of the league fails or there are only 4-6 strong teams and 6-8 miserably failing franchises. Is the "system" so bogged down or "good ol' boy" to ever change?
I am looking forward to reading your insight and opinion.
Re: Giants' Rule of NPB?
[ Author: Guest: John Brooks | Posted: Oct 19, 2004 4:26 AM
]
- Do the Giants (execs, brass) not believe that a competitive league and competitive teams is good for the NPB as a whole and/or the Giants themselves? If not, why?
The Giants don't believe in a competitive league, it's not good for the Yomiuri Corporation. As I've said in numerous threads, the NPB is in the problem it is because of the ways the corporations own the teams.
- Are they really that able to be financially and culturally successful even if the rest of the teams stink, are losing money, etc? To what level do they have regard for the quality of the other teams on and off the field?
The Yomiuri Corporation owns numerous media outlets in Japan, such as newspapers, television stations, and of course the Yomiuri Giants. They have the finances to continue even if the rest of the NPB is doing terrible. The Giants have no regard for the well being of the NPB, they just signed Tuffy Rhodes he was released from Kintestu, have signed numerous other free agents, and have been invovled in numerous draft scandals.
Related threads:
The Giants don't believe in a competitive league, it's not good for the Yomiuri Corporation. As I've said in numerous threads, the NPB is in the problem it is because of the ways the corporations own the teams.
- Are they really that able to be financially and culturally successful even if the rest of the teams stink, are losing money, etc? To what level do they have regard for the quality of the other teams on and off the field?
The Yomiuri Corporation owns numerous media outlets in Japan, such as newspapers, television stations, and of course the Yomiuri Giants. They have the finances to continue even if the rest of the NPB is doing terrible. The Giants have no regard for the well being of the NPB, they just signed Tuffy Rhodes he was released from Kintestu, have signed numerous other free agents, and have been invovled in numerous draft scandals.
Related threads:
About
This is a site about Pro Yakyu (Japanese Baseball), not about who the next player to go over to MLB is. It's a community of Pro Yakyu fans who have come together to share their knowledge and opinions with the world. It's a place to follow teams and individuals playing baseball in Japan (and Asia), and to learn about Japanese (and Asian) culture through baseball.
It is my sincere hope that once you learn a bit about what we're about here that you will join the community of contributors.
Michael Westbay
(aka westbaystars)
Founder
Copyright (c) 1995-2024 JapaneseBaseball.com.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Some rights reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Some rights reserved.