All Star Dominance NL 24 wins AL 2 wins 1960-1982

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I find it almost impossible that a league's all-star team could lose 24 times in 26 games

sure the NL had somewhat better talent, but even the 1962 Mets won once in 4 games

and pitching could be the x factor every so often

over a 162 game season, this would represent a record of 12-150

and there was certainly no home field advantage or home cooking umpiring

of course the AL had a more recent string of 13 straight wins

[csh19792001]

That's random. Meaningless statistical noise.

This constitutes the converse:

Interleague Play 1997-2012: The Complete Record

2074-1887 (AL carries a .521 winning percentage)

Sorted by winning percentage:

New York Yankees	282	170	112	0.603
LA Angels of Anaheim	284	164	120	0.577
Chicago White Sox	283	163	120	0.576
Boston Red Sox	        283	161	122	0.569
Minnesota Twins	        282	157	125	0.557
Oakland Athletics	284	154	130	0.542
Seattle Mariners	284	153	131	0.539
Detroit Tigers	        283	152	131	0.537
St. Louis Cardinals	235	125	110	0.532
Atlanta Braves	        259	137	122	0.529
Texas Rangers	        284	149	135	0.525
Miami Marlins	        270	140	130	0.519
New York Mets	        262	137	122	0.515
San Francisco Giants	254	130	124	0.512
Cleveland Indians	283	137	146	0.484
Washington Nationals	280	135	145	0.482
Colorado Rockies	238	113	125	0.475
Tampa Bay Rays	        268	127	141	0.474
Toronto Blue Jays	283	132	151	0.466
Houston Astros	        245	107	123	0.465
Arizona Diamondbacks	235	109	126	0.464
Chicago Cubs	        235	108	127	0.46
Milwaukee Brewers	229	105	124	0.459
Los Angeles Dodgers	254	115	139	0.453
Philadelphia Phillies	265	120	145	0.453
Kansas City Royals	283	128	155	0.452
Baltimore Orioles	283	126	157	0.445
Cincinnati Reds	        235	104	131	0.443
San Diego Padres	254	111	143	0.437
Pittsburgh Pirates	229	91	138	0.397

[JR Hart]

That's random. Meaningless statistical noise.

This constitutes the converse:

Interleague Play 1997-2012: The Complete Record

2074-1887 (AL carries a .521 winning percentage)

Sorted by winning percentage:

New York Yankees	282	170	112	0.603
LA Angels of Anaheim	284	164	120	0.577
Chicago White Sox	283	163	120	0.576
Boston Red Sox	        283	161	122	0.569
Minnesota Twins	        282	157	125	0.557
Oakland Athletics	284	154	130	0.542
Seattle Mariners	284	153	131	0.539
Detroit Tigers	        283	152	131	0.537
St. Louis Cardinals	235	125	110	0.532
Atlanta Braves	        259	137	122	0.529
Texas Rangers	        284	149	135	0.525
Miami Marlins	        270	140	130	0.519
New York Mets	        262	137	122	0.515
San Francisco Giants	254	130	124	0.512
Cleveland Indians	283	137	146	0.484
Washington Nationals	280	135	145	0.482
Colorado Rockies	238	113	125	0.475
Tampa Bay Rays	        268	127	141	0.474
Toronto Blue Jays	283	132	151	0.466
Houston Astros	        245	107	123	0.465
Arizona Diamondbacks	235	109	126	0.464
Chicago Cubs	        235	108	127	0.46
Milwaukee Brewers	229	105	124	0.459
Los Angeles Dodgers	254	115	139	0.453
Philadelphia Phillies	265	120	145	0.453
Kansas City Royals	283	128	155	0.452
Baltimore Orioles	283	126	157	0.445
Cincinnati Reds	        235	104	131	0.443
San Diego Padres	254	111	143	0.437
Pittsburgh Pirates	229	91	138	0.397

It doesn't mean much more. Oh wait, out here in the heartland, we get pretty excited about the Pirates-Royals annual match-up!

[9RoyHobbsRF]

It doesn't mean much more. Oh wait, out here in the heartland, we get pretty excited about the Pirates-Royals annual match-up!

well the NL dominance in the OP was from 1960-1982 ... don't know what relevance 1997-2012 has to do with 1960 to 1982?

especially ASG vs regular season played with DHs and different rules etc.

[filihok]

don't know what relevance 1997-2012 has to do with 1960 to 1982?

The very first thing that he said.

That's random. Meaningless statistical noise.

Get yourself a coin. Flip it 10 times. Then 10 more. Then 10 more. Then 10 more. If you do it enough times you'll end up with heads on all 10 flips. That doesn't mean that each flip didn't have a 50/50 chance.

Between 1960 and 1982 there were 24 tails in 26 flips.

I find it almost impossible that a league's all-star team could lose 24 times in 26 games

It's not impossible at all, just improbable.
The odds of a 24 tails out of 26 flips is about 1 in 206,000.
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coi...alculator.html

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I would suggest the AL and the NL difference in talent level was not a coin flip

most knowledgable baseball fans agree

Al Kaline was probably the best AL RF up until 1966

he MIGHT be 4th or 5th best if he joined the NL

Frank Malzone batted cleanup one all star game

he probably would not have batted cleanup for any NL team let alone make an all star team

the talent level was just so dissimilar

[filihok]

I would suggest the AL and the NL difference in talent level was not a coin flip

most knowledgable baseball fans agree

Didn't mean to suggest that it was. Was merely introducing probabilities into the discussion.

What do you think the talent difference was?
51/49?
52/48?
53/47?
54/46?
55/45?

I can't imagine it'd be much more than that. 55/45 is about the difference between last years' Angels and Royals


Nice not so subtle insult that you added.
I think I know a bit about baseball.
Not as much about baseball before 1985 or so. I ain't that old.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Didn't mean to suggest that it was. Was merely introducing probabilities into the discussion.

What do you think the talent difference was?
51/49?
52/48?
53/47?
54/46?
55/45?

I can't imagine it'd be much more than that. 55/45 is about the difference between last years' Angels and Royals


Nice not so subtle insult that you added.
I think I know a bit about baseball.
Not as much about baseball before 1985 or so. I ain't that old.

well it certainly was not 50/50 which eliminates your premise from serious consideration

and I would suggest over the course of sports history, there are very few dead even matches going into a contest

that is why there are point spreads in football and basketball and odds on basebal lteams winning

I have seen no serious estimate or response to why the nl won 24 of 26

saying it was luck or a coin flip gone bad is inexcusably lazy

the Nl probably had at least 3 (if not 5 or 6) better pitchers than the AL at his time

Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, Carlton, Seaver etc

the OFs are really no comparison even with Frank Robinson switching leagues

Aaron Mays Clemente F Robinson and throw in the occasional Billy Williams or Willie Stargell or George Foster

[9RoyHobbsRF]

if the talent level was 55/45 then you would expect the nl to win maybe 15 of the 26 games, they won 24

it really is a phenomenal history

[filihok]

well it certainly was not 50/50 which eliminates your premise from serious consideration

and I would suggest over the course of sports history, there are very few dead even matches going into a contest

that is why there are point spreads in football and basketball and odds on basebal lteams winning

I have seen no serious estimate or response to why the nl won 24 of 26

saying it was luck or a coin flip gone bad is inexcusably lazy

Sigh...
You may, or may not, be aware that all probabilities are not 50/50.
I ask you again, what do you think the probabilities were?
If the probabilities had been 50/50 we'd expect 24 out of 26 once every two hundred thousand tries. If the probabilities were higher than that, then it'd be more likely.

24 wins vs 2 wins is a 92/8 split. Certainly that wasn't the true talent difference between the NL and AL in that time frame. But, a 50/50 split can give extreme odds so a 55/45 split would have an even higher probability of those results, right?


Between 1960 and 1982 the NL had a 8705 to 8367 lead in WAR
*source

So, yeah, looks like the NL was the better league during that time frame. They weren't enough better that we'd expect them to win 24 out of 26 game though. But, there existed a small probability that that would happen. That's just the probability that happened.

[filihok]

if the talent level was 55/45 then you would expect the nl to win maybe 15 of the 26 games, they won 24

it really is a phenomenal history

At a 55/45 split we'd expect the NL to win 24 out of the 26 games 1 out of every 26,000 tries.

[Herr28]

Sure was an amazing run. Good old Freddie Lynn and the boys came back hard in '83 though. Poor Atlee Hammaker gave up the first grand slam in All Star Game history to Lynn as the AL routed the NL 13-3. The coin flip didn't work out for Whitey's boys that year.

[GiambiJuice]

It's a random statistical quirk and nothing more. Pit the 40-win '62 Mets against the 114-win '98 Yankees and the Mets certainly win more than 2 of 26 games.

The NL was certainly the superior league for most of that timeframe, but not to nearly the extent that the All-Star game winning percentage would indicate.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sure was an amazing run. Good old Freddie Lynn and the boys came back hard in '83 though. Poor Atlee Hammaker gave up the first grand slam in All Star Game history to Lynn as the AL routed the NL 13-3. The coin flip didn't work out for Whitey's boys that year.

Hammaker had earlier given up a home run to Jim Rice. They actually discussed in the AL dugout how not to pitch Lynn in that situation (inside slider) and that's precisely what Hammaker threw.

What were the factors for NL dominance? I remember Carl Yastrzemski being voted in or chosen at first base a few times when he had no business being an all-star anymore. 24 of 26 and even 13 in a row have to be anomalies. It's not like the world series in that period were so lopsided toward one league, or the caliber of player that much greater.

Just the breaks?

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Hammaker had earlier given up a home run to Jim Rice. They actually discussed in the AL dugout how not to pitch Lynn in that situation (inside slider) and that's precisely what Hammaker threw.

What were the factors for NL dominance? I remember Carl Yastrzemski being voted in or chosen at first base a few times when he had no business being an all-star anymore. 24 of 26 and even 13 in a row have to be anomalies. It's not like the world series in that period were so lopsided toward one league, or the caliber of player that much greater.

Just the breaks?

Hammaker became one of a few Giants pitchers to get blasted in the ASG (seemingly in a row)

Reuschel gave up back to back HR to lead off the game in 1989

and others, it almost became a curse for a Giant to pitch in the ASG

Hammaker never really recovered, his career went way downhill after that

Even in 1983 9-4 with a 1.70 ERA first half, 1-5 with a 3.38 ERA 2nd half

we all knew when Dravecky lost game 6 in 1987 on 1 misplayed ball, that Hammaker going in Game 7 was not good

[JR Hart]

Hammaker became one of a few Giants pitchers to get blasted in the ASG (seemingly in a row)

Reuschel gave up back to back HR to lead off the game in 1989

and others, it almost became a curse for a Giant to pitch in the ASG

Hammaker never really recovered, his career went way downhill after that

Even in 1983 9-4 with a 1.70 ERA first half, 1-5 with a 3.38 ERA 2nd half

we all knew when Dravecky lost game 6 in 1987 on 1 misplayed ball, that Hammaker going in Game 7 was not good

They should have pitched Krukow. He pitched game 4. In the old days Krukow would have gotten the ball.

[Herr28]

Hammaker became one of a few Giants pitchers to get blasted in the ASG (seemingly in a row)

Reuschel gave up back to back HR to lead off the game in 1989

and others, it almost became a curse for a Giant to pitch in the ASG

Hammaker never really recovered, his career went way downhill after that

Even in 1983 9-4 with a 1.70 ERA first half, 1-5 with a 3.38 ERA 2nd half

we all knew when Dravecky lost game 6 in 1987 on 1 misplayed ball, that Hammaker going in Game 7 was not good

I think Dizzy Dean would agree (obviously not as a Giant however). That cursed drive off the bat of Earl Averill ruined a great career. I am not too thrilled to see any Cardinals playing in the ASG or that damn HR Derby. Now after the injury to Han-Ram in the WBC, I won't be excited to see them there either. Call me crazy, but I like my guys to be playing for the Redbirds if they gotta get hurt!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hammaker became one of a few Giants pitchers to get blasted in the ASG (seemingly in a row)

Reuschel gave up back to back HR to lead off the game in 1989

and others, it almost became a curse for a Giant to pitch in the ASG

Hammaker never really recovered, his career went way downhill after that

Even in 1983 9-4 with a 1.70 ERA first half, 1-5 with a 3.38 ERA 2nd half

we all knew when Dravecky lost game 6 in 1987 on 1 misplayed ball, that Hammaker going in Game 7 was not good

And don't forget Shawn Estes who gave up the game winning HR in the 1997 All-Star to Sandy Alomar, Jr.!



As for Atlee Hammaker a major shoulder injury led to his decline.

San Francisco Chronicle- Sunday, April 17, 2005

Unfortunately for Hammaker, injuries could touch him. By the time he toted a 1.70 ERA into the 1983 All-Star Game at Comiskey Park, he had been dealing with shoulder tendinitis for probably his previous three starts. Nevertheless, he agreed to pitch that night, and wound up allowing seven runs in two-thirds of an inning. Fred Lynn tagged him for the first grand slam in All-Star Game history.

To those fans who believe Lynn's slam irreparably ruined Hammaker's psyche, he politely might answer, "Rubbish." Hammaker said his All-Star Game memory is a positive one. That doesn't mean he wasn't aware of those negative perceptions.

"I already knew what people were gonna say," Hammaker said, adding that he put off going on the disabled list because, in essence, he wanted to prove to any doubters that the slam would not affect him.

His first start after the All-Star Game: a complete-game, 4-2 win over the Cubs. His last start of '83: a 14-strikeout, one-walk, 7 2/3-inning outing against Houston. So much for a damaged psyche.

SOURCE

[blade1969]

I would suggest the AL and the NL difference in talent level was not a coin flip

On the other hand, the NL only had a 13-10 advantage in Wrold Series over this same time. While the World Series isn't a very good way of determining which league is stronger, it's better than an All-Star Game. At least it's a best-of-seven rather than one game, and it's between two real teams, not a bunch of guys thrown together the day before.
I think the NL probably did have a talent advantage in the early 60's but from then on, I think it was pretty even. I don't know why the NL won so many all-Star games. Maybe they took it more seriously (Pete Rose) or maybe it was just luck. Who knows.

[bluesky5]

I wonder if the NL was accessing a deeper talent pool than the AL?

[blade1969]

I wonder if the NL was accessing a deeper talent pool than the AL?

I'm sure we all know that NL clubs, in general, were quicker to sign dark skinned players than AL clubs, though by the mid-60s I think that advantage was gone. Other than that? I don't know. Maybe some of the NL teams simply had better scouts than the AL teams?

[bluesky5]

Links to westfields articles: http://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/integration-1947-1986
Part one: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...gues_part_one/
Part two: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...two-1956-2003/

1955
Players of color used in significant roles in the AL in 1955 were Larry Doby, Elston Howard, Connie Johnson, Hector Lopez, Minnie Minoso, Carlos Paula, Dave Pope, Vic Power, Harry Simpson, and Al Smith: 10 players, several of them stars, one who would be elected to the Hall of Fame.

1955
In the NL in 1955 were Hank Aaron, Sandy Amoros, Gene Baker, Ernie Banks, Bill Bruton, Roy Campanella, Roberto Clemente, George Crowe, Lino Donoso, Jim Gilliam, Ruben Gomez, Chuck Harmon, Monte Irvin, Sam Jones, Brooks Lawrence, Willie Mays, Roman Mejias, Don Newcombe, Jackie Robinson, Hank Thompson, and Bob Thurman: 21 players, many of them stars, seven who would become Hall of Famers.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This gap quickly intensified. By 1960, the AL was making use of 17 black players, and the NL featured 38. Over the next decade, the American League finally began to seriously integrate, but was still unable to catch up: in 1965 the tally was 42 players of color in the AL, 57 in the NL; in 1970 it was AL 63, NL 82.

Moreover, the distinction was much more than a matter of quantity. After Larry Doby and Satchel Paige were signed by the Indians in 1947-48, no AL organization developed a player of color who would go on to the Hall of Fame until Rod Carew and Reggie Jackson, both of whom entered the league in 1967.

By that year, NL teams had already brought 18 black Hall of Famers to the majors, including several who are widely considered to be among the greatest players of all time: Roy Campanella, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, and Joe Morgan.

[strato]

At least the first 10 years of the '63-82- 19-1 NL advantage, maybe just a lot of little things that broke the NL way

63-Pepitones fielding

64- Radatz blowing a 9th inning lead in his third inning of relief

66-68-absolutely no hitting by either side-NL won 3 1 run games

69-Denny McLain mssing the start due to arriving late and his replacement Stotlemyer getting shelled

70 or '71- Rose's mayhem on Fosse for a 1 run win