Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Indians trade Casey Blake for two minor leaguers Bar-right-arrows



Is AL>NL actually true?

The AL is better than the NL, right? On LGT, at the very least, the NL is often referred to as the weaker league and, according to the prevailing public opinion, it isn't really all that close.  

Recently, one of my close friends and I had a discussion about this and, with interleague play creeping up, I thought this could be relevant, or at least interesting to discuss here.  As the Indians, LGT-reading fan, I clearly believed that the AL was leaps and bounds ahead of the NL while he, as a huge Mets fan, naturally disagreed.  I wanted to look more deeply into this and I soon got my opportunity in my money and banking class that afternoon.  

In order to understand the issue, it is important to recognize which sets of data are useful.  I eliminated world series games because that is too small a sample size (it seems as though anything can happen in a 7 game series) and all-star games because they are an inexact science, at best.  Finally, I didn't feel comfortable relying on the statistics of players who transfer from one league to the other - there is so much that goes into a player's performance from one year to the next that it would be hard to attribute any difference in statistics to a disparity in the leagues.  The only thing I could think of to look at was the records of both leagues in interleague play since it began in 1997.  My friend hypothesized that, while the AL would have a higher win % than NL teams, it is because of they are constructed specifically around the DH, which gives them an unfair advantage in home interleague games.  The idea here is that the AL teams use a professional DH (though we can argue how much of an advantage that has gained us this year) while the NL teams usually uses its bench players as their DH.  He even went as far as to guess that the NL is better than the AL, and that it will be reflected in the interleague records at NL stadiums.  We, obviously, needed to look at interleague records at both AL stadiums and NL stadiums.  Here is what I emailed him during that class (stats all thanks to B-Ref):

 

First, I took the overall interleague records since interleague play started (1997).  As we expected, the AL is leading, but only slightly (51%).  Over the last 5 years it has shifted slightly in the AL's favor (53%).  So the AL has been better but not by much.  In games played @ AL stadiums, the AL has a 59% win pct. over the last 10 years and a 60% win pct. over the last 5.  In games played @ NL stadiums, as you hypothesized, the NL actually holds the advantage (54% over both time periods).  It seems as though you were right - the AL holds a significant advantage in games played with a DH and the NL, somewhat surprisingly, holds an advantage in games played in the NL.

Here's where it gets interesting, at least in my mind.  It occurred to me that maybe the NL wins more @ home because there is just a straight-up home field advantage.  I looked at the numbers from all the overall games that have been played in baseball over the last 5 & 10 years.  The home team, in both periods, wins about 54% of the time, or exactly the rate at which NL teams win interleague games at home.  Basically, what this means is that NL teams win @ home exactly as much as you would expect them to because they are playing at home.  The advantage AL teams have at home (at thus in interleague play overall) can be broken down into two components: their home field advantage and their DH advantage, though it is impossible to separate the two.


My ultimate conclusion is this - the NL and the AL, statistically speaking, are actually equal.  The NL wins @ home 54% of the time because home teams in general win 54% of the time.  The AL wins @ home 60% of the time because they are built to play @ AL stadiums whereas NL teams are not.

That is what I concluded upon this writing a few weeks ago.  I have since decided that my friend's supposed (or actual) unfair AL advantage can be flipped and be applied to the NL teams as well.  That is, NL teams are built for deeper benches, speed and defense, and their managers are more adept at employing the "small ball" strategies that only apply because the pitcher has a spot in the batting order.  This can be seen as a specific advantage to the NL and, thus, their winning percentage in home interleague games should in fact be higher than the 54% of the time that the home team wins in general.  Since it is not, I'll say that the NL is indeed worse than the AL (according to the most concrete data we can use), but the difference is substantially more minimal than we'd like to think.  

Apologies for the length of this post - I am really curious to know what other directions this sort of "research" can be taken.  I would love to hear some discussion about this - LGT!  By the way, with all this lack of attention in money & banking, I still pulled the A-!

1 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

The AL is better

by Roger Dorn on May 14, 2008 10:34 AM EDT   0 recs

It seems wierd that you would include interleague games played in July, but discount interleague games played in October.

If you are a fan of sports, you realize that there is almost always an imbalance between the two halves. In the NBA there is the Western Conference, in the NFL it’s the AFC (and before that, the NFC was the dominant conference for about a decade or so).

It’s all cyclical and one day the NL will be the better league and the AL will look old and slow. I think you will start to see a change happen over the next few years.

by Toxicadam on May 14, 2008 11:02 AM EDT   0 recs

I think the DH advantage that you mention is significant, but I bet you can find actual numbers behind it if you looked. And what about the advantage that NL pitchers have at the plate over AL pitchers?

by dgcambridge on May 14, 2008 12:02 PM EDT   0 recs

If you have some free time, try the 3 part series from THT (from 2006).

...it is clear that the conventional wisdom with regard to the current AL dominance in inter-league play is correct – namely that the overall or average talent in the AL is likely much better than that in the NL. However, it appears that most or all of that advantage is in the offense and that the quality of pitching is roughly equivalent in both leagues.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

by RachelAnn on May 14, 2008 12:03 PM EDT   0 recs

There’s lots of research on this, including the stuff RachelAnn linked.

I agree that there’s no reason to leave the World Series out of interleague play studies, but the result is still a fairly small sample of games, only 270 per season I think.

I also think that jake is underestimating the dominance of a .600 team. After all, if the AL has played as a .600 team at home, then the NL has been playing as a .400 team on the road. The AL is on a 49-32 pace, the NL is on a 32-49 pace - this is assuming 81 games each, home and road. In the NL parks, it’s reversed but not as extreme - 44-37 pace for the home NL, 37-44 for the road AL.

So the total 162-game pace in those games is 86-76 for the AL, and it’s 76-86 for the NL. I think we can all agree that a 76-win team and a 86-win team, while not vastly different, are still significantly different.

Anyway, you actually get a much larger sample studying the players who have moved between the leagues, and there are two aspects to study. One, what does the year-over-year performance for dozens of league-switching players suggest about the degree of difficulty of the two leagues. Two, how balanced or unbalanced has the exchange of talent been? That is, how many runs, wins, win shares, etc. have been going from the AL to the NL each, and how many have been coming back?

Prior studies, and I apologize for not linking right now, have suggested that the first factor leans significantly to the AL, and the second factor leans overwhelmingly to the AL — primarily because of money.

Five of the top six payrolls belong to AL teams, and those five top AL payrolls total around $858. The top five NL payrolls total around $575 million, so we’re talking about a $287 million difference, almost all of which is going to free agents signings, about half of which are players changing leagues.

And the AL teams aren’t just spending more, they’re spending smarter. We critique individual spending decisions all the time, but there can be little doubt that the biggest-spending AL teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers) are spending money a lot smarter than their NL counterparts (Mets, Dodgers, Cubs). Smarter free-agent signings mean more production, which means more quality moving from the NL to the AL.

The 2007 Red Sox alone got huge numbers out of Beckett, Lowell, Lugo, Drew, and Schilling — all of whom were in the NL a few years ago. Who did they give back to the NL? Nomar and Pedro — who’ve produced very little for their new league. The AL also has gotten almost all the production out of players coming over from Japan — Ichiro, Matsui, Matsuzaka, Okajima.

Anyway, the talent imbalance is somewhat pervasive and definitely significant.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 12:57 PM EDT   0 recs

Jay, I agree with you point on using players who switch leagues as a better indicator, but I’m not so sure that aging and increasingly decrepit Nomar and Pedro are the best examples.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on May 14, 2008 1:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s an example of both trends, though — and anyway, all players that switch leagues are aging and increasingly decrepit.

The other point is that the AL team picked up five certain aging/decrepit players from the NL, and the AL team let those other two players go, while NL teams let those first five go and signed Nomar and Pedro. These weren’t accidents, they go to the budgets and savvy of the top-spending teams in the two leagues.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 1:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I guess I didn’t spell it out, those two players ended up on the top three NL payrolls. Pedro signed with the Mets, while Nomar was traded to the Cubs and ended up signing with the Dodgers. Meanwhile, the Yankees send Randy Johnson back to the NL and bring Andy Pettitte back from the NL … you could do this all day, and you’d be surprised how imbalanced it is.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 1:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Good points. thanks for clearing that up.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on May 14, 2008 1:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hanley

Ramirez would be a rather different example. What kind of a beast has this kind turned into? Good lord.

by DocNo on May 15, 2008 10:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

All fair points, and I think that wins and losses could be the best indicator of league success? If AL teams are dominating at a .600 clip at home, how much of that is due to the fact that a) they are the better league (in all of our minds, by the way, mine included), b) they have the DH advantage I alluded to and c) they are playing at home. ‘C’ is quantifiable – the home team wins 54% of the time overall. That means A & B together account for the difference, and what I am trying to say is that the DH advantage could have a lot more to do with it than we think.
This DH advantage is fairly sizable, if we think about it conceptually. I am not just talking about the statistical difference between the average DH and the average NL hitting pitcher, or the average NL player who plays DH in interleague play. It is deeper than that – it seems that AL teams specifically construct their teams around the presence of the DH. That is, they sign or develop an extra batter that NL teams don’t need to. If there was no DH, he (the Hafner or Ortiz) would be playing 1B somewhere and there would be one less spot for Garko or Youkilis. This could also account for the payroll disparity – DHs likely get paid significantly more than the bench players in the NL.

You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person

by jakesinger777 on May 14, 2008 1:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I fail to see how the DH advantage shouldn’t be mostly (if not entirely) counter-balanced by a DH disadvantage in the NL parks. You already wrote that the AL teams are playing merely league average as road teams — does that not suggest that they’re damaged by losing the DH? One of those 1B/DH types has to sit, and even if it’s the lesser hitter, often a defensive penalty comes along with that. The DH also causes AL teams to have rosters less ideally constructed for the frequent substitutions used in NL games — NL teams should have deeper benches the same way AL teams have a better DH.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 2:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree, and mention that in my original post. Logically, the DH factor is a greater advantage than having a deeper bench. Additionally, the Indians, playing the NL, have the luxury of bringing a bigger bopper off their bench than do any NL team, precisely because they are so constructed.

I don’t neglect the NL advantage of playing at home during interleague play, it just feels like less of an advantage.

You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person

by jakesinger777 on May 14, 2008 2:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The other thing is that you’re immensely exaggerating the impact of the average DH vs. the best bench/platoon guy on an average NL roster. You basically are saying it would be an 8-win difference over a 162-game season.

In 2007, all AL DH’s had an 802 OPS. For NL guys playing DH in interleague, it was 787 — not a huge difference. Now that doesn’t account for losing production somewhere else on the field, but the real difference between an average DH and a replacement level LF/RF/1B is going to be something between two to three wins.

I still think, with the NL getting every benefit of the doubt, it’s still 84-78 compared with 78-84. As an average across all 30 teams, that’s still a huge difference.

by Jay on May 14, 2008 2:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I would also add that from my perspective, when someone says “the AL is better than the NL” what is generally meant is that the top half (or so) of the AL is significantly better than the top half of the NL. I haven’t engaged in too many arguments where someone takes the position that the 2007 Devil Rays would have done way better than the 2007 Pirates. What you generally hear is that the 2007 Blue Jays might have won any or all of the divisions in the NL last year. I don’t have the inclination to run numbers factoring for this, but have at it Jay.

by Fredward on May 14, 2008 5:28 PM EDT   1 recs

FYI, in Starks column today [ link] it seems that the Tribe gets the benefit of the easiest interleague schedule this year:

Reds (twice), Rockies, Padres, Giants, and Dodgers

How a Cleveland team actually got a favorable schedule for once boggles my mind.

by talonk on May 15, 2008 7:34 PM EDT   0 recs

That’s amazing that we play the NL West without having to play Arizona

You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person

by jakesinger777 on May 15, 2008 7:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not when you consider that we play CIN twice. Gotta love fake rivalries.

by JulioBernazard on May 16, 2008 2:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to unusual actually. As Julio said, since we have a “fake” rivalry with the Reds, we play them twice every year. That means when we play the NL West, Central or East, we will only play 4 of the 5 teams in those divisions.

See 2005, we played everyone in the west but the Dodgers. Not sure how mlb determines which teams we miss each year, but it seems random to me. We just got lucky I think.

by talonk on May 16, 2008 3:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It is nonetheless amazing.

Consider the parity we’ve got going on so far—there are 20 teams within four games of each other, ranging from six games over .500 to two games under.

There are three teams above that group and seven teams below it.

Almost our entire interleague schedule, five out of six series, is among the seven teams at the bottom — including the worst two records in baseball.

The NL West team we’re skipping? Best record in baseball, 11 games over .500. The four teams we’re not skipping? They’re averaging 7 games below .500. And the “rival” we’re playing instead of the D’backs is 18-23, rather than 26-15.

I’d say it’s pretty damned amazing — and I’ll take it.

by Jay on May 16, 2008 3:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh, I totally agree we’ll take it. Like I said, Cleveland usually gets the short end of the stick in scheduling, no matter what sport it is.

Just an FYI, here are the AL Central’s interleagues schedule:

Cle: @Cin, SD, @Col, @LAD, SF, Cin
Chicago: @SF, Col, Pit, @CHC, @LAD, CHC
Detroit: @AZ, LAD, @SF, @SD, StL, Col
KC: @Fla, @AZ, @StL, SF, Col, StL
Minn: @Col, @Mil, Was, AZ, @SD, Mil

Looks like the White Sox got a decent break as well, but Detroit and KC didn’t.

As for the other AL “powerhouse” teams:
Bos: Mil, @Cin, @Phi, StL, AZ, @Hou
NYY: NYM, @Hou, SD, Cin. @Pit, @NYM
LAA: LAD, Atl, NYM, @Phi, @Was, @LAD

We got off easy.

by talonk on May 16, 2008 5:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

White Sox have to play the Cubs, though.

by odradek on May 16, 2008 6:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If they insist on these rivalries, why don’t we also play PIT? The two cities (to me) seem to have a more natural rivalry than CLE and CIN.

by JulioBernazard on May 16, 2008 6:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

NL West = favorable

Didn’t we clobber them in 2005 or something?

by Jay on May 15, 2008 7:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

15-2, right?

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on May 15, 2008 7:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Almost, in 2005 we went 15-3 in interleague play, but 4-2 vs the Reds, so that made us 11-1 vs the NL West (AZ, COL, SD, SF) with Padres getting the lone win, Eaton over Westbrook.

by talonk on May 15, 2008 8:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions -- and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Capt
A Trip Back to the Park

Recent FanPosts

Small
Blake to Dodgers Trade Imminent?
Super_grover_small
Grady Sizemore Query
Img_0095-b_small
The Minors: Kinston
Img_5482__crop_2__small
David Dellucci has his own blog!
Fail-blue-screen_small
Why the season isn't quite dead but its close...
Ray_charles_small
Casey Blake
Reporter_small
The Cleveland Indians: Inflating Egos Since 2008
3444ant_black_small
Minor Gainers and Losers
Small
Position Players called in to Pitch

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

A Look at the Tribe's New Prospects
Indians Acquire Anthony Reyes From Cardinals
Stark: Dodgers dealing for Blake
Betancourt Pitch f/x Analysis
Crowe to Buffalo
Casey has his own Category!
Military Service for Choo?
C.C. Sabathia, Prince Fielder Keep Imagining Each Other As Giant Talking Hot Dog, Hamburger
LGT Fantasy Football
League Park Society

Post_icon New FanShot All FanShots Carrot-mini


Site Meter