Thoughts on the AL vs. NL "league strength" debate

[SABR Matt]

This is the problem with small samples, Ubi. You can point to all of the reasons the NL is four games lucky in Pythagenpat that you'd like, but this is why your commenting on what this year's record is adds nothing to the discussion. When you total up the RS for each league in IL play since 1997, the AL is running about a 4% edge when last I looked...when you do that same calculation from 2004-2009, the edge increases.

I don't think the league gap is very large THIS year...I do think it has been large in prior seasons and some of the reasons have been discussed here.

[Ubiquitous]

Who has added to the conversation?

We've had some cliches and stereotypes banded about that have turned out to be not true but that is about it and the orginal article that was linked too also did a good job debunking those reason.

What makes 2004-2009 so special?

In 2004 the AL won 1 more game than the NL. In 2009 the AL had virtually the same record as they did in 2010. A year in which you want to exclude from the discussion. So now we are down to 2005 to 2008. 2007 had virtually the same record as 2009 and 2010 and so did 2005. So what are we left with? 2006 when the AL crushed the NL in interleague and 2008 they did that as well.

Also you mention that the AL since 1997 is running a 4% edge but that is misleading. From 1997 to 2004 the NL outscored the AL by 41 runs in 1948 games. The AL had no edge during that time frame.

My view is simple. Just because a league wins more games in a small batch of games that doesn't mean that every single team in that league is better than their counterpart. For instance last year there is little evidence that the bulk of the AL was better than the bulk of the NL. It is quite possible that some teams in each league are better or worse than their record indicates if they had played in a different league but that doesn't mean that all teams would have better or worse records if they switched leagues.

[Ubiquitous]

If the leads hold the record will move to 111-109 with 4 games to play tonight.

[Ubiquitous]

Boston's 6 runs in the 7th keeps the tally at .500 for the day so far. It should be 5-5 with 4 games in progres.

So 112-108.

[SABR Matt]

This laser focus on straight wins and losses just isn't interesting to read, Ubi...it does nothing to move the ball forward, so to speak.

You were the one insisting we look at match-ups and expected results to make a determination as to the real strength of league...now you're content to just call out records as though that solves anything. I've told you what has been observed...not just by me...by THT as well. They had a nice article before the start of the 2010 season talking about the amount of free agent talent shifting from league to league in the last six years...they made the case that the AL got noticeably better than the NL starting around 2004 or 2005 and the difference was trackable in the movement of free agent wins above replacement. That my own independent, albeit unpublished, approach finds a jump at the same time is, at the very least, interesting.

And the same article predicted that the gap had closed in 2010 (and an update this off-season suggested that 2011 would be even more even).

[Ubiquitous]

This laser focus on straight wins and losses just isn't interesting to read, Ubi..

Then don't read it.

.it does nothing to move the ball forward, so to speak.

Then move it forward.

You were the one insisting we look at match-ups and expected results to make a determination as to the real strength of league...now you're content to just call out records as though that solves anything.

I'm giving a running total of this year's IL results but that is not all I'm doing. Those are not the only posts of mine.

I've told you what has been observed...not just by me...by THT as well. They had a nice article before the start of the 2010 season talking about the amount of free agent talent shifting from league to league in the last six years...they made the case that the AL got noticeably better than the NL starting around 2004 or 2005 and the difference was trackable in the movement of free agent wins above replacement. That my own independent, albeit unpublished, approach finds a jump at the same time is, at the very least, interesting.

I believe you are talking about a study MGL did in 2006. By part 3 of that study MGL had come to the conclusion that difference in league quality up to that point was very small. Part 1 and Part 2 did show that the NL had made big gains in offensive talent leading up to 2004 and that the AL gained some of it back that season but then in 2005 and 2006 it gained a lot. On the pitching side I believe the AL had been gaining talent from the NL all throughout the decade up to that point. But when MGL factored in, um, other factors(?) he found that the "true" difference between the leagues was quite small and that it is probably a bit overstated when compared to the real world results.

And the same article predicted that the gap had closed in 2010 (and an update this off-season suggested that 2011 would be even more even).

It is difficult to have a discussion on these studies when I don't know which ones you are referencing but I believe you are referring to short blogposts from Steve Treder which didn't really have any research involved.

[csh19792001]

107 AL to 104 NL is lucky. I you look at te Pythag, it should be closer to 111-100. BTW, your record is quite impossible. There needs to be an even number of ballgames...you're missing a tally somewhere.

Hi Matt,

Wins by League:		
Year	 AL	 NL
97	117
114	110
116	135
136	115
132	120
123	129
115	137
126	125
136	116
154	98
137	115
149	103
137	114
134	118
115	109
1921	1761

(Apologies for the lousy and misaligned formatting).

Is this worth a T-Test? .05 significance value? 

In your opinion, how statistically significant is the discrepancy in W-L%, given this sample size?

[SABR Matt]

I do not believe MGL is what I was referring to...unfortunately, I didn't guess back in 2009 (or 2005 for that matter when the original discussion broke out at THT) that I would be having this discussion two years later...I will dig around and see if I can figure out what I was reading.

[Ubiquitous]

Looks like it is going to be 8-6 NL tonight putting it at 121-117 going into the final day of IL.

[csh19792001]

I do not believe MGL is what I was referring to...unfortunately, I didn't guess back in 2009 (or 2005 for that matter when the original discussion broke out at THT) that I would be having this discussion two years later...I will dig around and see if I can figure out what I was reading.

Using the complete AL vs. NL record from 1997-2011, I ran a 2 tailed, independent samples t-test in Excel using the standard .05 (95% confidence interval) value as the threshold.

The two-tail p-value for this t-test, based on the data set in question (p=0.034). The implies a statistically significant discrepancy between the NL and Al, in terms of their total W-L totals. It also implies that the overall likelihood of the discrepancy being "random" or "due to luck" is about 3%.

The t-test results do not (and cannot) account for other potentially extraneous, confounding variables which could/would distort the integrity of the results. That's open for discussion.

[csh19792001]

"The AL is definitely the better league"


By David Schoenfield, Senior Writer, ESPN.com

From 1963 to 1982, the National League won all but one All-Star Game. As a kid from an American League city, the irritating aspect about this was the National Leaguers were so arrogant and cocky about it, and Pete Rose was the ringleader. It was a stone-cold fluke to win 19 of 20 games, but to the National League this was all the proof it needed of its superiority.

Truth is, the NL was the superior league. It won 12 of 20 World Series in that span, but more importantly it was viewed as the more exciting, hip league. It was the league of Koufax and Drysdale, Mays and Aaron, Bench and Morgan, Garvey and Parker. Other than Reggie, these were the biggest names of the era. Going back to the 1950s, the NL had integrated quicker than the AL. Teams such as the Giants and Pirates invested early in Latin America. NL cities such as Cincinnati and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh built shiny new multi-purpose stadiums (hey, they were cool at the time), while many of the AL teams were playing in old, decaying parks. In 1972, only three AL teams drew at least a million fans -- Detroit, Boston and Chicago. Nine NL teams drew more than a million.

The National League hasn’t crowed in a long time. For the most part, everyone agrees: the American League is the stronger league. Since 2006, the AL is 762-582 in interleague play entering Monday, including 50-34 in 2011.

The question: Why is the American League better? Let’s examine some of the possible reasons.

"The DH rule gives the AL a big advantage."

This is a popular argument. AL teams get to run out sluggers such as David Ortiz or Victor Martinez or Vladimir Guerrero, while NL teams are stuck with backup outfielders and reserve infielders. Sure enough, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, in interleague play since 2006 AL teams are 414-255 at home (a .619 winning percentage) and 348-327 on the road (a .516 winning percentage). There you go, right?

Except … home teams have a natural home-field advantage anyway. In all games in 2010, home teams had a .559 winning percentage, road teams a .441 winning percentage. Do the math and you discover AL teams are playing 60 percentage points better at home compared to the 2010 overall percentage, but 75 percentage points better on the road.

Cross off the DH theory.

The Yankees and Red Sox give the AL a big advantage, otherwise the leagues are even.

Ahh, yes, the whole “the Yankees and Red Sox outspend everybody to buy their success” theory. Well, it’s true, the Yankees and Red Sox are 122-70 in interleague play since 2006. That still means the rest of the AL is 640-512 since 2006. (And the Phillies have a larger payroll than Boston this season anyway, and the Cubs and Mets spent more than the Red Sox in 2009, and the Mets and Tigers spent more in 2008, but don’t let facts get in the way).

Still, maybe the AL outspends the NL, right?

2011 $100 million-plus payrolls: AL 6, NL 6.
2010 $100 million-plus payrolls: AL 5, NL 3.
2009 $100 million-plus payrolls: NL 5, AL 4.
2008 $100 million payrolls: AL 6, NL 4.
2007 $100 million payrolls: AL 5, NL 2.
2006 $100 million payrolls: AL 5, NL 1.

So, yes, the AL has had more $100 million payrolls. But what if we look at the number of teams in the top half of all payroll:

2011: 8 NL, AL 7.
2010: 8 NL, AL 7.
2009 8 NL, AL 7.
2008: NL 8, AL 7.
2007: NL 8, AL 7.
2006: NL 8, AL 7.

Still convinced that the AL is better merely because it spends more?

"The AL has drafted better."

I looked at all the first-round picks from 1998 through 2007 (first 30 picks only) and added up their collective wins above replacement (WAR) from Baseball-Reference.com. Now, all this value wasn’t necessarily accrued by the drafting team, but it’s a quick gauge to assess if the AL has gained an advantage through the draft.

This turns out not be the case, at least in terms of first-rounders. NL picks have collected about 646 wins above replacment (not including those who created negative value) and AL picks have collected about 592 wins above replacement.

Now, WAR isn’t the best method for comparing leagues since, for example, NL right fielders are being valued in comparison to other NL right fielders, AL right fielders to AL right fielders, and so on. Still, it’s difficult to say AL teams have been scooping up more first-round talent.

"The AL signs all the big free agents"

I checked out the top 50 players in WAR since 2009. Only six of those players were signed by their current teams as free agents -- three American Leaguers (Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez and CC Sabathia) and three National Leaguers (Cliff Lee, Matt Holliday and Jayson Werth).

Of the top 25 highest-paid players in 2011, 12 are American Leaguers. A one-year aberration? In 2010, 11 of the top 25 were ALers; in 2009, 10 of 25; in 2008, 13 of 25; in 2007, 13 of 25; in 2006, 14 of 25.

I don’t see any evidence that the AL is buying up all the best free agents.

As far as cross-league trades, five American Leaguers did come from the NL via trade: Miguel Cabrera, Adrian Gonzalez, Ben Zobrist, Dan Haren and Yunel Escobar; three National Leaguers came from the AL via trade: Roy Halladay, Zack Greinke and Hanley Ramirez. Jose Bautista did come to the Blue Jays after being waived by the Pirates.

Still, I don’t see enough evidence that the AL is acquiring more star players that NL teams can’t afford.

So, the AL is better because …

Three main reasons:

1. Better players.

OK, that’s obvious. But I think there’s a reason for this. The success of the Yankees and Red Sox pushes the rest of the American League to perform better and make smarter front-office moves. If you go into a season knowing it’s going to take 95 wins just to compete for the wild card, you have to make the right moves. Maybe that means signing a good setup guy or a good backup outfielder -- not the big-money free agent signings, but the cumulative effect of having better players in roster spots 20 through 25. In the NL, if 90 wins is enough to keep you in the playoff race, there is less incentive to improve that fifth starter spot or upgrade a weak spot in the lineup.

2. Bad front offices in the “rich” NL teams.

Who has spent the most in the NL in the past six years? The Mets, Cubs and Dodgers (and now the Phillies). Those first three have been three of the worst-run franchises of the decade. Omar Minaya kept his job with Mets way too long. Jim Hendry has kept his job way too long. Frank McCourt would rather spend money on houses and personal hairdressers than ballplayers. Throw in the Astros, another of the NL’s big spenders, and four of the five big-market franchises have essentially been disasters or become one. Meanwhile, the “rich” AL teams -- New York, Boston, the Angels, the White Sox -- have been consistently smart and successful. Throw in that some of the smaller payroll AL teams such as Tampa Bay and Minnesota have been smarter and more creative than their NL counterparts such as Pittsburgh and the front-office disparity increases.

3. Competition breeds talent.

If you play against better players, you tend to get better, correct? This is one issue that I’m not sure the NL can correct except with time and better player development. Playing the Astros and Cubs and Padres 30 games a year isn’t going to prepare you for the Red Sox, Yankees and Rays.

So the AL remains the superior league. Just don’t blame the DH anymore. It’s just too bad there isn’t a modern-day Pete Rose to rub in the NL’s faces a little bit.

[Ubiquitous]

Not a good last day for the NL so far. I believe they are behind 8-2 and are trailing in the other two games with two games left tonight. I think at one point they had the lead in 6 or 7 games and only trailed in one and were tied in a couple. The last few innings of each game really saw them fall apart.

[csh19792001]

Not a good last day for the NL so far. I believe they are behind 8-2 and are trailing in the other two games with two games left tonight. I think at one point they had the lead in 6 or 7 games and only trailed in one and were tied in a couple. The last few innings of each game really saw them fall apart.

But you're still not even close to convinced that the AL is significantly superior to the NL?

(FWIW, at this point, I'm definitely an NL fan, BTW). I watch Yankee and Sox games because everyone I know does, every night. It's a religion.

All I'm saying is that I have no axe to grind here. My posting this stuff actually contravenes my own sentiments and beliefs.

[Ubiquitous]

Because the AL won the last day?

Do I believe the AL is "significantly superior"? No.

[Ubiquitous]

There is a team in the NL that I think is not as good as their record would indicate over the last two years and has not played the AL well either and that team is the Reds.

I think in general the NL Central is usually not as good as their record would indicate.

[brett]

If the AL is NOT stronger, the huge question is "why not" when they spend more on player payroll. I think if you line up each AL and NL team by payroll, the AL is ahead in every spot.

[Ubiquitous]

The link that CSH posted at the beginning and reposted on the next page has info on the money and it isn't really true that they spend more money. I also have some data on the payroll on the first page that takes a similar view.

The Yankees spend more money than anyone else but the rest of the AL is in line with the rest of the NL except the bottom two teams in the NL traditionally spend very little.

[csh19792001]

I'd say this is also strong evidence that the AL has been much stronger the past 15 years...

[csh19792001]

Year	 AL	 NL
1997	97	117
1998	114	110
1999	116	135
2000	136	115
2001	132	120
2002	123	129
2003	115	137
2004	126	125
2005	136	116
2006	154	98
2007	137	115
2008	149	103
2009	137	114
2010	134	118
2011	131	121
Total   1937   1773

So that's a .522 winning percentage. Put another way, of the 30 franchises in existence- ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 wins), only THREE teams have a career winning percentage higher than .522:

Yankees: .568
Giants: .538
Dodgers: .524

I don't know if any of this is strong evidence in favor of one league over the other.

[milladrive]

I think this whole thread would carry a whole lot more water if and when the NL finally steps up to the plate to catch up with the rest of professional baseball and institutes the DH. Jmho.

For a long time, I was against it. But that was back when teams carried an average of ten pitchers. Now that they carry more, and much of the bullpen have specialized roles, the NL benches are much less deep than the AL benches, which don't need to be factored into pinch-hitting-for-the-pitcher roles. Nowadays, so long as there are going to be "dedicated pitchers," I'm no longer against the DH. I'd also like to see the rosters expanded to 27 or 28 men (but that's a discussion for another time and space).

[csh19792001]

Did anyone else think the Pirates looked like a Triple A team facing Verlander last night?

Not because Verlander was particularly on fire...(he was)...but they just looked totally overmatched. I mean, seriously...look at their lineup!

The Pirates have a .384 lifetime winning percentage lifetime, in interleague play. That's 15 years, folks; not a small sample size. That's pathetic. They've usually looked like a Triple A team when I've watched them (which has usually been when facing AL teams the last 15 years).

I think the main ingredient in this whole debate is that the bottom 4 NL teams are just far, far weaker than the bottom 4 AL teams. It might really be that simple.