AL vs NL

[broncosmitty]

You totally lost me here.

The Tigers have one of the best interleague records.


But they're 1-8 in October Interleague since '84.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The Tigers have one of the best interleague records.


But they're 1-8 in October Interleague since '84.

That's because the Tigers suck... Just sharing my opinions...

 

[David_son]

I don't think having the pitcher bat is "intelligent" I think it's boring as fuck.

Well you know what else would be exciting Designated Fielders I mean you want the best defense out there but certainly dont want their less than electric offense coming to bat.

 

[soxfan1468927]

In the history of interleague play, there are only 4 NL teams who have a record above .500. Anyone know them?

 

[JohnU]

I said earlier that leagues don't win games and clearly it is not the league's fault if its members lose games to the other league unless we have some form of metric that proves the various teams are actually better for a reason.

About all we have to go on is the DH, and the less quantifiable "market share."

I do think that the AL has an advantage in the interleague games because the DH is a product of roster construction, not just a guy off the bench who gets to bat when the game is in an AL park.

Otherwise, there is a big difference in interleague records and there's no rational explanation for that. If you took any team from either league and told them to go into the other league (Houston, Milwaukee) ... what do you project? Let's say ... the Twins move into the NL Central. They would still suck, right? If the Rays moved into the NL East, would they suck worse than the suckiest of all Sucky McSuckface teams?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I do think that the AL has an advantage in the interleague games because the DH is a product of roster construction, not just a guy off the bench who gets to bat when the game is in an AL park.

Counterpoint being that AL teams don't build their rosters/benches with all the NL moves in mind, so the NL has an advantage in the NL parks.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

If the Rays moved into the NL East, would they suck worse than the suckiest of all Sucky McSuckface teams?

They'd likely be better. The AL East is well better than the NL East. The NL East kind of sucks - might suck as badly as the AL Central.

 

[JohnU]

Counterpoint being that AL teams don't build their rosters/benches with all the NL moves in mind, so the NL has an advantage in the NL parks.

Yeah, there is that ... AL pitchers don't really even practice bunting. I honestly don't know a good reason for this. It's not like ... well, the AL teams just have better players. Some might have some better players but the way guys move around now, and the overall scouting and metrics, that just doesn't fly with any logic. I used to think it would balance out, like the ASG did at one time. Apparently the NL has its hands wrapped around its throat for most of the season.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Yeah, there is that ... AL pitchers don't really even practice bunting. I honestly don't know a good reason for this. It's not like ... well, the AL teams just have better players. Some might have some better players but the way guys move around now, and the overall scouting and metrics, that just doesn't fly with any logic. I used to think it would balance out, like the ASG did at one time. Apparently the NL has its hands wrapped around its throat for most of the season.

The rational explanation is that, as a whole, the AL is a better league than the NL. I don't even think it's very debatable.

Approximately 300 interleague games a season and the AL has dominated them since 2003.

 

[JohnU]

They'd likely be better. The AL East is well better than the NL East. The NL East kind of sucks - might suck as badly as the AL Central.

I wasn't specifically trying to single out the Rays in my comment, if it appeared that way. All in all, until this past year, TB has been pretty competitive. I will re-assert the general point .... if any team shifted leagues, would they automatically be worse/better/about the same? Houston was the worst team in baseball when they changed leagues and 2 years later, are a serious contender. We sort of know why, I guess. The Brewers changed leagues and did actually contend for awhile.

 

[JohnU]

The rational explanation is that, as a whole, the AL is a better league than the NL. I don't even think it's very debatable.

Numbers make it rational but rationale doesn't make any sense. So, standing on the number alone, the question is ... WHY is the AL better? Better players, sure. But why is that? It's not like the AL is that Catholic school downtown that has a football factory and all the really good players just become Catholics so they can play for them.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Houston was the worst team in baseball when they changed leagues and 2 years later, are a serious contender. We sort of know why, I guess.

We know exactly why. Their personnel changed. That team was heading in this direction before the move.

I don't think you can even look at it the way you're trying to. A team moves to a different league, three of their prospects go off the charts, the team contends, and you're going to assert that it's because the league they moved to is weaker? Makes no sense.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Numbers make it rational but rationale doesn't make any sense.

Because you're a NL fan.

Seems to me that typically in a given year, there's a couple, two-tree great teams in the NL, maybe a few mediocre teams and then a bunch of shit. I think the AL tends to have as many or more great teams a fair amount of mediocre teams and a couple shit teams. Result being, as a whole, the AL is better.

 

[JohnU]

I don't think you can even look at it the way you're trying to. A team moves to a different league, three of their prospects go off the charts, the team contends, and you're going to assert that it's because the league they moved to is weaker? Makes no sense.

I don't assert anything. All I have are 2 examples and the ownerships of each franchise operates in a different way. Please don't assume that I am using the Houston-Milwaukee shifts as any sort of point in this conversation. I am trying to establish that there is no real logic to the interleague record being what it is other than some vague "well the AL is clearly better and this proves it."

I don't think 2 franchise shifts proves anything, even if they happened the same week to the same division with the same rules and the same budgets and the same everything else.

 

[JohnU]

Seems to me that typically in a given year, there's a couple, two-tree great teams in the NL, maybe a few mediocre teams and then a bunch of shit. I think the AL tends to have as many or more great teams a fair amount of mediocre teams and a couple shit teams. Result being, as a whole, the AL is better.

Your scientific research here is pretty cloudy. A "bunch of shit" and "a fair amount" are not exactly answering the "why" question.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Numbers make it rational but rationale doesn't make any sense. So, standing on the number alone, the question is ... WHY is the AL better? Better players, sure. But why is that? It's not like the AL is that Catholic school downtown that has a football factory and all the really good players just become Catholics so they can play for them.

Well average payroll in the AL is about 6.2% higher. And the Dodgers skew that a little. The median team payroll in the AL is 23.5% higher.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Your scientific research here is pretty cloudy. A "bunch of shit" and "a fair amount" are not exactly answering the "why" question.

Well, I've neither the time nor inclination to go back over nearly fifteen years that the AL has dominated interleague play and rank those four hundred some-odd teams relative to each other, so you're gonna have to take what you get.

If you want to take a more scientific stab as to why the AL is so much better at playing baseball than the NL, I encourage you to do so.

 

[JohnU]

If you want to take a more scientific stab as to why the AL is so much better at playing baseball than the NL, I encourage you to do so.

I am inclined to go with "they play better baseball" but that's maybe using too-complex metrics. Either way, I would have thought that over the last dozen or so years that the trend would have balanced out a little bit. In any event, I am always fascinated with this result. I watch the games that involve the Reds and, even though they suck a lot currently, the games they lose to the AL are often the result of just terrible play, not that they are overmatched. But "Reds" and "terrible play" are pretty much the same thing of late.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Well average payroll in the AL is about 6.2% higher. And the Dodgers skew that a little. The median team payroll in the AL is 23.5% higher.

Good point. It also might be worth pointing out that (somewhat arguably) the two best teams in MLB over the last twenty years, NYY & BOS are both in the AL. They've also been the biggest spenders. AL teams have had to compete with that.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Numbers make it rational but rationale doesn't make any sense. So, standing on the number alone, the question is ... WHY is the AL better? Better players, sure. But why is that? It's not like the AL is that Catholic school downtown that has a football factory and all the really good players just become Catholics so they can play for them.

I think it is simple... NL strategy is more pitching and small ball, AL is about offense(now of course there are specific teams in both leagues that are opposite of the general league philosophy). Pitching and small ball does not win the regular season, but it is better for the playoffs... Offense wins the regular season...