Interleague Parody

by bl on Jun 25, 2008 1:27 AM EDT

If I recall there have been multiple discussions on here about the level of play in the NL compared to the AL. Supposedly the NL was catching up and this was the year they were going to be as good as, if not better than, the AL.

Well, we are 184 games into interleague play and the AL is 109-75, a .592 winning percentage. That translates to a 96 win season for a regular team.

I am sure that I have probably jinxed the AL now and should have waited until interleague play is over. But I have always been in the "AL is MUCH better" camp and just had to run my mouth a little early I guess.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Obvious

How could anyone argue that the NL is better? The AL has so much more depth in terms of quality teams. The AL East is sick, the Angels may be the best team in baseball, Oakland is suprisingly good and the AL Central is better than it is showing (excluding the Royals, who suck and always will suck).
In the NL, the good teams are Cubs, Phillies, Marlins and D-Backs and that’s it IMO. And I’m still waiting for the flying fish to come back to earth while also waiting for the D-Backs to get back to playing better baseball.
I would estimate that that AL has 10 of the top 15 teams in baseball. The imbalance between leagues is a joke.

by joltinjoe on Jun 25, 2008 1:50 AM EDT 0 recs

Royals are 11-3 in interleague

Open you’re eyes.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jun 25, 2008 1:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

i love....

....that i know that you’re not even kidding with this argument.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

Actually I was...

Good try.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jun 25, 2008 2:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

Not only that.

Saying “suck and always will” is pretty ignorant. There’s really no argument for it. All it proves is the poster is pretty ignorant.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jun 25, 2008 2:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

well, sure, it'd be ignorant.

if you took him literally. which you just asked not to be taken when you made an argument that the Royals are actually “good” if not for the league they were in.

i thought it was more obvious what he was saying than what you were (since you’re still posting on both sides of the issue…...i THINK at least). but whatever.

anyway, i’ve heard plenty of times how “ignorant” everyone else is for not realizing the Royals have turned the corner and are now a contender. again, i think i’d do better is vegas following joltinjoe’s rule.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:20 AM EDT up 0 recs

Never said the Royals were a contender

That’d be pretty foolish to say, no?

I won’t even say they’ll be good in the next five years (although there’s a pretty decent chance they will), but I’d bet quite a bit they’ll be good at some point in the next, say, 20 or 30 years.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jun 25, 2008 3:08 AM EDT up 0 recs

don't take things so seriously

when I wrote that the “Royals suck and always will suck” of course I was writing literally. I realize that they won a World Series about 20 years ago and they probably will again someday as well. But they’re a bad team that has some prospects, but not enough to make them a contendor in the next five to ten years. If they were loaded like the Rays, then I would change my opinion, but they’re not. They have some nice pieces, but as long as they’re owned by the Wal Mart king pin they’ll never be able to keep enough good players together to suceed.
Anyway, the point was that the AL is very good, despite a couple bad teams, and the NL is a step or two behind.

by joltinjoe on Jun 25, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

re: don't take things so seriously

I mean I WASN’T writing literally. my bad LOL

by joltinjoe on Jun 25, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

What argument?

He’s stating a fact. If the Royals “suck and always will suck”, where does that put the majority of the NL?

Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club

by eazyb81 on Jun 25, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up 0 recs

the majority of the NL....

....sucks.

the majority’s definitely better than the Royals, though.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

DH

It’s worth pointing out that the AL teams have an advantage in interleague play. When an NL team plays in an AL park, the NL team has to use a bench player as a starting hitter. The AL team already has a guy on the team who is supposed to be starting quality. Even in games in NL parks, the AL team has at the very least a really good pinch hitter. The AL should always be over .500 against the NL, even if the leagues are of equal strength.

by yellomellojello on Jun 25, 2008 2:08 AM EDT 0 recs

Well...

Then shouldn’t the NL teams have a better starting 8 plus pitching? I mean, the AL has to spread their payroll between 16 (9 starters + 5 SP + CL +SU) players who they expect to influence most every game while the NL only has 15.

I know this isn’t perfect logic, but I mean, if the AL has an equal starting 8 plus a bettter guy on the bench (the DH) doesnt’t that just mean they were able to put a better team together?

by SuperBean on Jun 25, 2008 2:16 AM EDT up 0 recs

Boxcutter

pretty well sums it below. The only thing I’d add is that your point on pitching is very minimal. The only roster spot it ends up amounting to having an impact on is the bull-pen depth, not quality necessarilly. For instance, if an AL team is going to spend a few series in an NL park, many times you’ll see them send down a position player and add an additional arm. Vice-versa for an NL team.

by slurve on Jun 25, 2008 7:50 AM EDT up 0 recs

+1

Thats it in a nutshell.

This about this: When the Red Sox play in an NL stadium, they can keep Papi in the line-up by putting him at 1B, then either Lowell or Youkilis go to the bench. Not a bad first bat off the bench right? You just made the AL team deeper because of the quality of their bench. The order of the bats off the bench stays the same for the NL, but for AL teams it improves. You now have a starter quality player on your bench. And most DHs usually end up being top quality hitters (unless you are Jose Vidro in Seattle), corner outfielders, 1B, and 3B. It’s not shortstops and 2B. So whether the DH goes to the bench in NL stadiums, or he replaces someone else, the guy going to the bench is usually a real good hitter.

When a team like the Cubs play in an AL stadium, they end up having to start a usual back-up (either as the DH, or at another position to let a regular starter move to DH), so guys like Micah Hoffpauir end up getting more at bats. Plus, you just weakened their bench because their best hitter is now in the line-up, so they don’t have the usualy clutch pinch hitter on the bench. Their depth just got zapped, while the AL team still has the same bench order they usually do.

So, in the 8th inning when your 8 hitter is coming up with runners on 1st and 2nd with two out in a one run game and you want to pinch hit, the AL is going to have a distinct advantage over the NL in both stadiums. For the AL, the top bat off the bench is still available in AL stadiums, while the NL now has to use their second best bat off the bench. And in NL stadiums, the AL can pinch hit with a player that is a quality 1B, 3B, or corner OF… a pretty good bat. The NL still has to use a guy who doesn’t start for a reason.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 25, 2008 6:08 AM EDT up 0 recs

Which just proves the AL is better

These NL teams aren’t required by any rule to keep crappy players on their roster with the excuse that they are bench players. If the bench were so much more important in the NL, they would invest more in getting valuable players there.

Reality is, the DH allows more talented players to play, so AL teams have assemble more talented rosters, so they are the better teams, playing with or without the DH. The DH may be a cause of the inequality, but it’s not a big advantage if 2 teams are really of equal strength .

by acerimusdux on Jun 25, 2008 8:54 AM EDT up 0 recs

weak argument

that is like saying Arena football WRs are better than NFL ones because the Arena rules let them run towards the DBs before the snap.

Playing a game the way it is supposed to be played doesn’t make you a worse team even if it puts you at a disadvantage when playing against someone who plays with different rules. It just means your opponent plays by different rules… thats. IT.
I’m sure even Champ Bailey would have problems with a WR already running at full speed when the ball is snapped.

by nms on Jun 25, 2008 10:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

So...

If a team went to a starting caliber player and said “Look, we know you are good enough to start, but we need depth. We already have a starter at your position. But we will pay you the same amount or less to be on our bench.”.... do you think the player will sign for that team or for the team that let’s him start?

Teams do have every right to stack their bench as much as they can, but players also have the right to play for teams that will let them play consistently. If a player is good enough to start, he is going to pick a team (when possible) that will let him start. And NL teams usually take that starting quality back up and trade them to improve another position. If you have a great 3B, and another good one who is just a few notches below, sure you want to hold onto him for depth. But, when another team comes along and offers you a good RF, which you need, you are going to make that deal every time. Because getting 600 at bats from a RF is better than getting 200 at bats from your back-up 3B.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 25, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1

wow, you nailed it.

Go Pirates!!!

by cool hand Charlie on Jun 25, 2008 10:29 AM EDT up 0 recs

The difference is massive, though.

You make some good points, but if there is an AL advantage here, it’s relatively small.

Most AL teams don’t have a David Ortiz quality hitter as their DH.

The average DH in the AL is hitting .250/.337/.422, while NL DH’s are hitting .240/.308/.398. Last year, NL DH’s hit about the same as AL DH’s.

These are the same guys that end up being the first bat off the bench in NL parks.

I don’t think a slight advantage at one spot in the batting order in AL parks, or a slight upgrade on the bench in NL parks comes close to explaining the massively lopsided record in interleague play.

The AL is far more talented.

by dkdc on Jun 25, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up 0 recs

Skewed numbers

The AL still has better “DHs”, but the numbers listed above are probabyly falsely inflated for the NL. Not all NL teams put the players they start, that normally wouldn’t, as their DH. Say the Cubs for example. They have had six games against the Blue Jays and Rays where they could use the DH. Of those six games, five of the times the DH was a usual starter (Lee twice, Soto twice, and A-Ram once (Hoffpauir was the 6th one). In the five games with a starting fielder at DH, the Cubs started Blanco twice, Hoffpauier twice, and Fontenot once (moved DeRosa to 3B and Fontenot started at 2B).

So when those stats are showing us that NL DHs aren’t all that inferior to AL DHs, they are using the stats that were put up by A-Ram, Soto, and Lee… not by Hoff, Blanco, and Fontenot, the players that were in the line-up that usually wouldn’t be.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 25, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

...

It’s impossible to argue that one league’s roster construction is better for BOTH cases. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. If the AL roster construction was superior in BOTH AL and NL settings, why wouldn’t NL teams use it?

If you want to argue that one team has an advantage overall from interleague play, you have to argue that it is because their home field advantage is larger than the other leagues.

by mraver on Jun 25, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up 0 recs

I agree...

If the emphasis in the NL to sign players who can field a position gives them a competitive advantage in NL games, it should also give them an advantage in interleague games in NL parks.

Does anyone know the home/road splits for intraleague games?

by DenverBears on Jun 25, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

There's no parody in the major leagues,

but there’s parody in Major League.

by naropean on Jun 25, 2008 9:05 AM EDT 0 recs

Yeah,

I’m really not sure if the poster is using parody on purpose or doesn’t know how parity is spelled.

...and curse Sir Sidney Ponson, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on Jun 25, 2008 10:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

Parroty?

by DrunkIrish on Jun 25, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

umm.... may i point out

i think that every team in the NL has at least 3 bench players that are better than 40 percent of the Indians startering 9….....

by kershaw_equals_stud on Jun 25, 2008 10:26 AM EDT 0 recs

Parity, not Parody...

“Parody” is what The Daily Show does.

by mraver on Jun 25, 2008 11:31 AM EDT 0 recs

and "play on words"....

....was what his title was

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 25, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

.

MLB has more parody than Weird Al.

I’m sorry.

I will leave now.

http://yankeesmtom.blogspot.com/

by hallofamer2000 on Jun 25, 2008 12:41 PM EDT 0 recs

you must not forget

the fact that NL pitchers also have to worry about hitting, meaning the managers need a different type of bench to make double switches. in the AL you can have just power bats sitting around and extra DH’s. in the NL everyone has to play at least a little defense and the manager needs a bunch of guys with flexibility. thats is why on the cubs you see mark derosa and eric patterson fontenot etc… they can play almost everywhere. i like the NL play better, more thought, more is asked from pitchers, and who doesn’t like seeing a well timed double switch.

"If you were a hot dog, would you eat yourself?"

by Trobone on Jun 25, 2008 1:43 PM EDT 0 recs

A different take?

I think it’s pretty clear that most of the teams in the AL are better than most of the teams in the NL for various reasons. One distinction that I think needs to be made is that this is not a statement about the players in the NL or AL. It’s a statement about the teams.

I hadn’t though of it this way until last week. I was lucky enough to make it to a chat in Boston with Bill James and Rob Neyer and this was a point that they both made in a similar discussion.

To me, it makes sense. If we were to go around the horn and name the best position players in the game, would it be an even mix of NL/AL?

Here’s a list off the top of my head based on this year to date. It will focus more on offense (OPS to date min 200 or so AB’s):
C: Brian McCann or Russ Martin
1B: Albert Pujols or Lance Berkman
2B: Dan Uggla or Chase Utley
SS: Hanley Ramirez or Jose Reyes
3B: Chipper or AROD

Now. Through five positions of the IF, there are 9NL players this year and one AL. Is this to say that the NL has superior players? No. And also, this is just a snapshot of a half a season of baseball.

Onto the OF!

LF: Burrell or Bay
CF: Hamilton or Mclouth
RF: Drew or Holliday

Now. We all see that there are a lot of NLers there. We could expans it to the top 4 at each position and im sure the numbers would change slightly. That said, it seems that the number of top regulars for this year to this point on the offensive side of things are coming from the NL. I guess the question is Why?

Is it a fluke? Is it that the AL has better pitching? Is it luck? Has anyone looked at run differential in these games?

I do think that NL teams are at a bit more of a disadvantage in the NL parks, theyre just not built that way. That’s just my opinion.

Thoughts?

by benzalman on Jun 25, 2008 2:48 PM EDT 0 recs

team count

Well, there are 2 extra teams in the NL.

by BobbyMac on Jun 25, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

Holliday

is a LF. I would put Ludwick or Dye in there for RF. Of course there are so many corner OF that are so bunched up near each other (BA and OBP within like 10-30 points of each other, and SLG within 40) that it’s hard to pick just two.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

For fun: The way it REALLY is.

I have a feeling, reading through your list, that you were looking for results to prove your hypothesis. I’ll go through the list, using EqA as a baseline and adjusting for defense.

C: Mauer or McCann. Mauer’s EqA is higher than Martin’s, and defense makes it a rout. McCann’s .311 EqA beats out the .306 of Mauer, but it’s hard not to see defense making the difference there. Catcher’s an important defensive position.
1B: Pujols. Easily the best all-around player at his position. Miggy might make a case for this in the future if injuries hurt Pujols’ production.
2B: Utley or Kinsler. Kinsler’s third in EqA, but he’s good defensively while Uggla is (a fluke, and) a 1B playing out of position. Utley reigns anyway.
3B: ARod. Chipper’s out of his mind at the plate right now, but no one would choose him as a better player.
SS: Reyes or Hanley. The NL has a stranglehold on the SS position. Reyes plays pretty good defense, and Hanley is awful. He’ll have to move off soon. Rollins is probably 2a.
LF: Bay or Burrell Holliday plays LF, not RF, and is a product of his park. EqA doesn’t like him. There are a lot of guys that could fit in here.
CF: Hamilton or Sizemore. McLouth’s the EqA leader, but I doubt there’s a GM in the league that would take him over the other two.
RF: Markakis, Guerrero, or Drew. The AL cleans up in RF, unless you think Ryan Ludwick or Xavier Nady belong in the discussion.

Looking at it this way, they’re pretty much dead even. I might give the NL the nod given that Pujols, Utley, and Hanley/Reyes/Rollins are all much better than their AL counterparts. Still, it’s closer than it looks in the above post.

by DrunkIrish on Jun 25, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

Actually no.

the above (as stated in the post) was just OPS through yesterday to base the rankings. Not an issue of choosing someone over another.

Using OPS, EQA, VORP or whatever you want, I think you’ll find that there are probably a similar number of great players in each league. Also, as stated above, not really my hypothesis – it came from Bill James and Rob Neyer. I just think it’s a pretty valid point.

I actually came up with that list using just those numbers (ops). I dont really have a bias in it as I dont really care which league has better teams.

by benzalman on Jun 26, 2008 12:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

Apples to Oranges

You can’t compare season stats for the stars in each league to determine which league is better. That doesn’t work because NL players predominantly face NL pitchers in NL parks and vice-versa. You can’t compare MLB to Japan this way… you can’t compare MLB to the Midwest League this way either, so it won’t work trying to compare the NL to the AL this way.

The question of league quality is whether a player would do better or worse if he was traded from one league to the other.

As a Twins fan, every June I watch my team dominate in interleague play. Its been uncanny. Perhaps its a fluke, perhaps there’ s a small tactical advantage to constructing the roster around around a DH, but anecdotally it seems like the teams over there simply just aren’t as good. Because of this, our fans are wary of free agents from NL teams because they don’t expect them to fare as well “in the tougher league”.

These league quality disparities (if we’re indeed seeing one) are cyclical. The NL was better in the 60s & 70, it seems like the AL could be better now.

by DavidFoss on Jun 26, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

To sum up my above post without the players.

It doesnt matter how good individual players in each league are. In fact most of the best ones could be in one league or the other. That said, it has a small impact on which teams actually do well.

I think the paragraph you wrote here is a saying something similar to what i’m saying.

“As a Twins fan, every June I watch my team dominate in interleague play. Its been uncanny. Perhaps its a fluke, perhaps there’ s a small tactical advantage to constructing the roster around around a DH, but anecdotally it seems like the teams over there simply just aren’t as good. Because of this, our fans are wary of free agents from NL teams because they don’t expect them to fare as well "in the tougher league".

Simply, it’s not really the players, it’s the teams.

by benzalman on Jun 26, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up 0 recs