NL vs. AL

by Bornin85 on Nov 18, 2007 3:09 PM EST Comment 16 comments

So, I get the gist from comments on this site as well as, oh, everywhere else that the AL has an advantage on the NL. Certainly interleague play has proven this is true. My question is, why do you think this happened?

Is it because the Yankees, and teams like them, bought up a bunch of talent that remained in the league? Did other teams follow their methods and start bringing talent to the AL side?

Or is it the different approaches to baseball? I don't think we can blame the DH - time is split pretty evenly in interleague play between AL and NL ballparks.

Or is it all just a myth perpetuated by ESPN?

0 recs | Comment 16 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Payroll...

the highest payrolls are in the AL which forces the rest of the AL to spend or get creative to compete.

by djk royal on Nov 15, 2007 5:37 PM EST reply actions

AL and NL cycles

I think it is pretty clear that right now the AL is much better than the NL. There has actually been some serious research done to back this up. My feeling is that things just come in cycles. Sometimes the AL will have more talent and at other times the NL will have more talent. Right now we're just in an AL upswing. It will eventually change.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 15, 2007 5:41 PM EST reply actions

One theory Rob Neyer stated in his blog...

"Everybody wonders why the American League all of a sudden seems like it's gotten superior to the National League," Snyder said. "The American League is far more aggressive in international signings."

Think about that. The American League contains 14 of 30 major league teams; that's 47 percent. But those 47 percent are signing 61 percent of the most promising young Dominicans, Venezuelans, etc. (not to mention Japanese). Nobody's noticed, because this information generally isn't a part of the public record. But let us suppose for a moment that the 14 American League teams had grabbed 61 percent of the players in the first seven rounds of the amateur draft last June? You think anybody would have noticed?

The American League's overwhelming dominance in 2006 (until the World Series) probably won't be repeated in 2007. But the AL's general superiority looks like it'll last for some time.

by djk royal on Nov 15, 2007 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

I think

payroll is part of it what djk royal said is correct. I think the other thing is having the DH as a hitter eliminates the weaker batter of the pitcher; therefore, creating more offense. The pitchers have to be better, because they have to face more batters that can do more damage. I don't know when this split happened specifically, it seems like the divide really happened to a greater degree in the late 90's. Are there more bandboxes in the AL vs the NL? That could be a factor as well.

by lordbyronk on Nov 15, 2007 5:42 PM EST reply actions

small parks

i think the NL has more actually

the Bob, Coors, Philly, Cinny are the most homer-rpone places, and all in the NL

AL just has Arlington and, to a lesser extent, the Cell

by LeoBloom on Nov 15, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

the red sox and yankees forced it

Since they have the resources, they are pretty much always going to be good.

To compete with them, you have to really commit to winning, not just saying, "well, we're an 85 win team, lets see how the season shakes out" (i.e., what every NL team has done basically)

by LeoBloom on Nov 15, 2007 6:08 PM EST reply actions

Hah, no

I understand what he meant. Just wanted to shake things up.

by Bornin85 on Nov 16, 2007 3:49 PM EST reply actions

Gotcha

Thanks for clarifying, hate to see anybody get upset over a miscommunication. I can get that at work anyday, prefer to avoid that on RR since this is kind of my place to get away from work.

by MileHighKCfan on Nov 16, 2007 4:28 PM EST up reply actions

everybody hit right on...

I think it has to do with the chance meetings of RedSox and Yanks in playoffs leading to more money spent because of higher revenue leading to more meetings in playoffs leading to more money...any player that kills the NL just waits to get an AL contract...maybe we should just compare avg player salary in each league and we could figure this out...and do it for each year and see if it fits...the better question is why is the AFC better than the NFC and why is the West better than the East...at least they both play by the same rules...the AL over NL thing is just so obvious (DH and money)...its just to damn bad the Tigers just threw away the series to an 83 win shit team and that team and to be the EFFING Cardinals

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

by PhattStairs on Nov 19, 2007 12:17 PM EST reply actions

both have large elements of randomness

and I think AFC/NFC is more random

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Nov 19, 2007 12:30 PM EST reply actions

the big money teams in the NL...

are pretty poorly run

the Cubs, Dodgers, Giants and Mets are all mediocre and much worse than their AL counterparts

this makes a difference

by Will McDonald on Nov 19, 2007 12:36 PM EST reply actions

Lots

of different answers. Which is what I was hoping for - I think it's a combination of all these things, not just one thing.

Now - since we know now that the Royals would probably win more in the NL, would you go back in time and switch leagues, or stay in the AL, knowing that it'll take longer to win, but that we'll have a higher quality team for the hardship?

by Bornin85 on Nov 19, 2007 5:09 PM EST reply actions

Yes, I'd switch

I wanted us to switch to the NL at the time and I was pissed that we didn't. I wish we could switch right now. I want the Royals to have winning seasons, division titles and playoff success. If playing in a weaker NL helps with that, then I'm all for it.

I also think that it is easier for a small market team to be successful in the NL than the AL because you have one fewer big bat that you have to pay for and big bats are extremely expensive.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 19, 2007 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

the bar was pretty low

for a long time in the AL Central, and the Royals blew it

by FlintHillsRoyal on Nov 19, 2007 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

switching leagues is too jarring for me

Its too big a disconnect from the team's glory days and all the AL battles we had. The Al Central is actually better for us than the NL Central, which has the Cubs who will likely become a mega-revuen juggernaught.

by FlintHillsRoyal on Nov 19, 2007 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

The Cubs

...have been a mega-revenue team for decades, but have never managed to become anywhere near a juggernaut. I'm much more worried about Cleveland, Detroit and Minnesota than I would be about the Cubbies.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 19, 2007 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

NO NO NO...

I would not of switched...the Brewers made a good transition because they didn't have a strong winning history beforehand...the Royals had a legacy and of course blew it during the years of the week AL Central...I love the rivalry history...and I love that soon we will have a resurgence...I love NL ball and hate the freakin DH, but I take pride in the Royals being an AL team...I think wanting to switch is hindsight 50/50...most want to switch now because we have built a team that would steamroll the NL

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

by PhattStairs on Nov 19, 2007 7:32 PM EST up reply actions