With the conclusion of the All Star Game last night, a couple of questions come to mind that need to be answered. Is the AL really better than the NL? Should home field advantage be awarded to the winner and does it make a difference? Many people on sports talk radio say that the AL is the better league. They say it has better hitters, pitchers, and the All Star Game just proves it. After all, the AL has won this most important game 10 out of the last 11 years with 2002 being a tie. Is this a relevant correlation? I say it isn’t, but I guess I will just have to state my case with a few statistics and observations of my own.
In the overall history of the All Star Game, the NL has actually won four more times. There have been two ties as well, one in 1961 and the other in 2002. So even if the AL won both of those they would still be two spots behind the NL.
There is a cycle to the wins of the All-Star game. The NL won eight in a row from 1963-1970, and then went on to win it 11 times in a row from 1972-1982. During that same span of time, the American League won the World Series 8 times while the National League won it 11 times. In other words when the NL dominated the All Star Game winning it 19 times in a 21 year period of time the AL won the World Series 42% of the time. That is not dominating to me.
Now let’s look at the AL dominance in the All Star Game for the past 11 years. I can not factor this year’s All Star Game into the equation because we do not know the outcome of the 2007 World Series, but if we look at the last 10 years in which the AL has won the All Star Game and 2002 a tie, the AL has won six World Series to the NL’s four. Again, hardly dominating compared to what the analysts would have you believe.
Then we have the matter of the score of each game. If one says that the AL is so much better than the NL, then the score should reflect it. In last night’s game, the winner was decided by one run. Last year, the final determination was also decided by one run. In 2005, two runs; 2003, one run; 2002 a tie; 2001 and 2000 the NL lost by three runs. There have been very few real blow-outs in the All Star Game like it was in 2004 with a score of 9-4.
Any discussion on the relevance of the All Star Game is not complete without discussing the absurd change that Bud Selig made in 2003. Of course I think most of what Bud does is silly including that hairstyle of his, but I digress. The last four years in which the winner of the All Star Game is awarded home field advantage for the World Series it has actually benefited the winner very little. The AL has won the All Star game the last four years thus securing home field advantage for the World Series, but they have lost to the NL twice in those four years. Most recently the St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Detroit Tigers in 2006 and the Florida Marlines beat the vaunted Yankees in 2003 even though both of the AL teams had home field advantage. That does not mean that I think it should remain this way because I think home field advantage should be rewarded to the team who has earned it with a winning record. The assignment of home field advantage based upon winning an exhibition game is ludicrous to me, but in the end there are many factors that determine the outcome of the World Series.
In summary, the AL appears to be on one of those cycles where they are winning the All Star Game, but that does not insure a World Series win. History has proven that this mid-summer classic is nothing more than a 50-50 split. And while the AL appears to be the more dominant league on paper, the final outcome is always decided by the intangibles. Everyone thought the Tigers would steam roll over the Cardinals last year, but in the end the Redbirds were left holding the trophy. The games are decided by the players and not history.
I wonder if the Sabermetrics nerds threw away their calculators after last years World Series predictions?
Why is the West more dominate than the East in the NBA?
Why is the AFC more dominate in the NFL? At least MLB has a balance to it, even if the more recent (still meaningless) All Star games haven't been.
Evil, who knows. In Baseball, at least over time it has averaged out. I am a NL guy all the way. I want pitchers to pitch and hit. Having a DH inflates the hitting stats for the AL, but when the world series comes, they have to hit in some of the games. In the end, I think that favors the NL, because they love being able to put a DH in for the games in the AL parks.
SoCal: In a way, comparing the AL and NL is a lot like comparing apples and oranges. The NL is a fastball pitchers' and hitters' league. Yes, they throw the breaking ball, but not nearly as much. The AL is far more of a finesse pitchers' league. Which is to say that they tend to be a lot sneakier and the hitters have to think about what might be coming at them on the next pitch a lot more than in the NL.
That is why, statistically, hitters struggle a bit when making the transition from an NL team to an AL team (I'm not mentioning any names here, but we all know several of whom we are speaking about). Pitchers have a bit of the same struggle until they figure out that they have to mix up their pitches a lot more than they are used to in the NL, whereas AL pitchers tend to do rather well when they make the leap to the NL.
As for the home field advantage thing, I'm normally a little lukewarm about it, but this year not so much, since I'm (facetiously, of course) predicting that two Seattle teams (the Mariners and the (former) Pilots) will be meeting in the WS and the current Seattle team will need those four games at home, where their record tends to be a bit better.
Last edited by sleeplessinseattle on July 11th at 11:32 AM.
Sleepless, I agree the two are different games. The DH changes things, but I for one happen to love the NL tradition more.
As for which pitchers do better when they switch, I don't necessarily believe it is one way or the other. Randy Johnson did well at Seattle, then AZ before his back gave out. He is a fast ball guy all the way.
Look at Jeff Weaver who did well in St. Louis last year only to stink it up in Seattle. Now he is doing better, but it happens. Barry Zito did well in Oakland, horrible this year in San Fran. Wells is the same in both leagues. Andy Pettite and Clemens have faired well in the AL and NL. Just my observations.
I thought the same thing last night as I was watching the game. They kept mentioning how the AL was so dominant, winning the last 9 (now 10) All-Star games. Then, they said the World Series record over the last 11 years was 7-4 in favor of the AL. That's not all that dominating. I agree.
Jgrace, let me say that I appreciate your even keel in all of the debates on here. You do a nice job of staying even tempered. We agree on this one, but that is just because we are both objective enough to read the bottom line.
Yeah I agree socal. I don't think overall there is anything there to say the AL is that much better then the NL.
I do think the DH adds an extra hitter in the AL, which may lead to more hits in the 9th spot compared to the NL. But when it comes time to play one another, I wonder if the NL is more likely to get a hit from one of their pitchers then the AL is? There would be a great stat to check out!
I vote for letting all pitchers hit.
If you are strictly an AL guy, something else to look. How many more strike outs does a NL pitcher have compared to an AL pitcher due to the fact the NL faces pitchers in their lineups? I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to see if there really is anything to it.
I think a way to determine which league is stronger would be to look at the interleague records. I believe the AL has generally won more interleague games in recent years.
Ian, that sounds great accept you have to take into account which parks you are playing in. Do the parks where AL teams visit NL win more or vice versa. The pitchers hitting does make a difference.
It's always a myth in each sport that one side is dominating the other. It may happen for a little while then one conference will collapse and the other one will take its place.
With the conclusion of the All Star Game last night, a couple of questions come to mind that need to be answered. Is the AL really better than the NL? Should home field advantage be awarded to the winner and does it make a difference? Many people on sports talk radio say that the AL is the better league. They say it has better hitters, pitchers, and the All Star Game just proves it. After all, the AL has won this most important game 10 out of the last 11 years with 2002 being a tie. Is this a relevant correlation? I say it isn’t, but I guess I will just have to state my case with a few statistics and observations of my own.
In the overall history of the All Star Game, the NL has actually won four more times. There have been two ties as well, one in 1961 and the other in 2002. So even if the AL won both of those they would still be two spots behind the NL.
Now let’s look at the AL dominance in the All Star Game for the past 11 years. I can not factor this year’s All Star Game into the equation because we do not know the outcome of the 2007 World Series, but if we look at the last 10 years in which the AL has won the All Star Game and 2002 a tie, the AL has won six World Series to the NL’s four. Again, hardly dominating compared to what the analysts would have you believe.
Any discussion on the relevance of the All Star Game is not complete without discussing the absurd change that Bud Selig made in 2003. Of course I think most of what Bud does is silly including that hairstyle of his, but I digress. The last four years in which the winner of the All Star Game is awarded home field advantage for the World Series it has actually benefited the winner very little. The AL has won the All Star game the last four years thus securing home field advantage for the World Series, but they have lost to the NL twice in those four years. Most recently the St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Detroit Tigers in 2006 and the Florida Marlines beat the vaunted Yankees in 2003 even though both of the AL teams had home field advantage. That does not mean that I think it should remain this way because I think home field advantage should be rewarded to the team who has earned it with a winning record. The assignment of home field advantage based upon winning an exhibition game is ludicrous to me, but in the end there are many factors that determine the outcome of the World Series. 
