Sitting here with the Sox up on the Rocks 3-1 in the 7th, and thinking of the recent World Series, I'm amazed at the dominance of the American League over the National League in both the All Star Game and the WS over the past ten years.
The All-Star Game speaks for itself...the AL has won something like 9 in a row (not counting the Marxian/Selig tie a few years back)
However, the World Series has illustrated AL dominance as well. While they have not won every WS over the past ten years, they have been the better team arguably in every series since the Braves of 1995.
07-possible sweep
06-STL (but they only won 83 games and Detroit LOST the series with all the errors)
05-ChiSox Sweep
04-BoSox sweep
03-Marlins (thanks to Steve Bartman) beating a better Yanks team thanks to Beckett
02-Angels (rally monkey outlasting and outclutching the Dusty Baker Giants)
01-Dbacks (beating a better Yanks team thanks to the Big Unit and Schill)
00, 99, 98 Dominant Yanks
97 Miracle Marlins beating the Indians in 7
96 Yanks dominance begins...
Now, why such the dominance?
My opinion is better competition and I'm sad to say...the DH. Pitchers in the AL are forced to face stronger lineups all year and make better pitches due to the top to bottom strength of the AL lineups. NL pitchers are able to pick and choose whom to pitch to due to the weak 8/9 hole in the lineup. This competition and concentration manifested over an entire season makes the pitching better for the AL teams...and we all know good pitching beats good hitting.
You may argue that AL teams have to play the NL rules just as often and that it may hurt the AL teams who don't know how to play NL style small ball, but their teams seem to overcome this problem.
As a purist, I hate the DH and would like it removed...but do you think the DH has made the AL teams stronger thus contributing to the latest AL dominance? Thoughts?
9 comments:
I think it bears mentioning that of the teams that rank in the top 10 in payroll, 7 are in the American League.
Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, White Sox, Mariners, Tigers, and Orioles.
The three National League teams are the Mets, Dogers, and Cubs (not coincidentally the three most populous cities in America).
Of those top ten teams, AL teams spent $815 million this year. The NL only $322 million. That means that if you are a big money player, there is more than twice as much money out there for you if you sign with an AL team.
I know that payroll does not automatically equal winning, but you have to admit that it does factor in significantly. Especially when you are talking about getting proven talent via free agency.
On a side bar, I also hate the DH. If you keep going down that slippery slope, you'd end up with a situation like football. 9 players that just bat, 9 that just play the field. And while the idea of specialty players is intriguing (and already used to some extent with pitchers -middle relievers, setup men, and closers), I agree that it doesn't quite seem in the spirit of the game. I honestly think though that the NL would adopt the DH before the AL drops it.
I am with Sir Ian on this topic. When the Yankees really took off around the turn of the century, teams in the AL were faced with two choices: 1) keep up 2) be hopelessly left behind. Teams like Oakland, Minnesota, and Cleveland kept up through player development, cutting edge front offices, and general baseball intelligence. Other teams, like the Angels, Red Sox, Orioles (who are hopeless b/c of management), and even the Blue Jays went out and not only spent more money than ever, but with the exception of the Orioles, also have totally overhauled their team philosophy. The Yankees quite honestly forced other AL teams to get better if they wanted any chance to compete.
In the National Leauge, that same scenerio hasn't happened. The closest team would be the Braves, but they could never consistently turn their playoff appearances into World Series appearances. I guess you could argue they did force the NL East to step up their game, but the Yankee parallel doesn't quite hold up.
All said, it's no secret that the majority of talent lies in the AL right now. Heck, one of the best strategies NL GMs can undertake is to pluck pitchers from the AL East. The league change alone is usually worth a half run off their ERA.
In the end, I think it is all cyclical. I do think though, that the Red Sox are poised to rip off a run that will rival what the Yankees did the past 12 years.
First, with respect to the idea of getting rid of the DH, stop. There is no way that the Player's Union would agree to getting rid of an extra paid player. Also, I doubt the teams would want it. I mean, who wants to see pitchers hit? Chicks dig the longball, right??
As E-on says, I bet we are far closer to seeing the NL implement the Designated Hitter than seeing the AL remove it.
Now, I've crunched some numbers on the side that you may find interesting. Using E-on's idea, I totaled all of the salaries in MLB.
For the AL, the total was $1.29B for 14 teams, an average of $92.8M per club.
For the NL, the total was $1.18B for 16 teams, an average of $73.75M per club.
Even if you remove the Yanks and the Sox from the equation, the AL's average is $80.59.
Also, if you keep the Yanks and Sox in the total and remove the D-Rays and their piddly $24M, the AVERAGE AL payroll is $99M. Mind boggling.
One would think though that only big market teams can compete, but recent history has shown that this is not at all the case.
Let's look at this issue of parity.
In this decade (2000-2007),
NL (Out of 16 teams)
12 different teams have made the postseason (75%)
9 different teams have made the NLCS (56%)
7 different teams have made the World Series (44%)
AL (Out of 14 teams)
9 different teams have made the playoffs (64%)
9 different teams have made the ALCS (64%)
5 different teams have made the World Series (35%)
I think that it is extrodinary that nearly half the NL teams have been in the World Series this decade. Also, nearly two-thirds of the AL clubs have been in the ALCS. That's remarkable.
Finally, seven different teams have won the World Series in the past eight years.
To me, that is extreme parity and shows that any team can compete.
Dav,
On the surface, your argument is true. Any team can compete. But the economics of baseball make it a whole lot easier for big market/high-revenue teams to be able to compete.
A small market team cannot, under any circumstances, afford to make a mistake with a high-priced, long-term Free Agent. Likewise, they cannot afford to have bad drafts (injury bad luck included) if they want to compete. Finally, a small market team's competitive window opens and shuts quicker than high revenue teams.
So while it's true that anyone can compete, only the best and the brightest small market, low revenue teams actually can. And when they do, it's for much shorter than their wealthier brethren.
As usual, Dave is using selective figures to play devil's advocate and (for some strange reason) kiss up to the AL.
So in the spirit of fighting fire with fire, here are some more fuzzy figures:
1. Of the 12 highest paid players in MLB, 9 are on AL rosters (that's 75% for those keeping score at home).
2. Of those 12 players they make $162 million of the $209 million paid out. (That's 78%...again a TON more money out there for AL players)
3. Since 2000, FOUR teams in the NL have played in the World Series, and then not made the playoffs the next year. Compare that to only 2 in the AL (and the Angels, after missing the playoffs in 2003, did play in the post-season in '04,'05,and '07). To me that suggests that NL teams have to take bigger risks to sign veteran players for short term contracts to make a run at a pennant and then loose them the next season because they can't pay them. Consistency is much harder to attain. The most consistent NL teams have been St. Louis and Atlanta (both with payrolls this year above $87 million).
4. And finally, the most obvious stat...inter-league play. In just the last 3 years, the AL is 98 GAMES OVER .500 in inter-league play. Winning 56% of the time. That's a landslide in politics! If the leagues were truly equal, you'd expect to see a +/- 2% difference at MOST.
Numbers don't lie...unless you manipulate them into saying what you want them to.
Oops...sorry. That's 3 AL teams that played in the World Series and then not in the post-season the following year. I forgot Detroit. But even still, their 88 wins this year would have put them in the playoffs (and certainly in contention) if they played in the NL.
I feel like Dav...
gotta love the conversation.
"guys, can we turn down the radio and just talk?"
Post a Comment