Is the growing imbalance between the AL & NL good for baseball?

[Johnny O]

The Yankee-Red Sox arms race of the last few years has led to other AL teams like Anaheim, Detroit & Seattle (to what degree is speculative, the impact of The Rivalry might be indirect but it's undeniably a factor) joining the FA spending spree, mostly at the expense of the NL. Is it just a temporary cycle? You can legitimately argue that any of the AL playoff teams would have beaten the Cardinals, a team that dominated the NL last year. There has been a significant talent drain in the NL - is this good for baseball?

[koko]

In the 60's the NL was dominating the AL. It's a cycle.

[YankeePride1967]

All sports have cycles. In football, the NFC dominated the 80s and 90s, now the AFC is dominating. In baseball, the NL dominated the 60s and 70s, now the AL is. It's natural.

[Johnny O]

All sports have cycles. In football, the NFC dominated the 80s and 90s, now the AFC is dominating. In baseball, the NL dominated the 60s and 70s, now the AL is. It's natural.

I do agree it moves in cycles, but it seems the financial disparity has never been greater. This can, of course, be attributed to the AL teams being ahead of the curve in generating cash flow from cable contracts and the owners re-investing the profits in the rosters, but at this point it appears disparity might last for quite some time. The NL reaction, as a whole, could be to invest more in player development.

[YankeePride1967]

I do agree it moves in cycles, but it seems the financial disparity has never been greater. This can, of course, be attributed to the AL teams being ahead of the curve in generating cash flow from cable contracts and the owners re-investing the profits in the rosters, but at this point it appears disparity might last for quite some time. The NL reaction, as a whole, could be to invest more in player development.

yes, I think in the end it will even out. I know the winner of the WS isn't the only criteria, but since 2001, the AL has won 2 and the NL has won 2 WS. And the two NL wins came against the team with the highest payroll.

[Johnny O]

yes, I think in the end it will even out. I know the winner of the WS isn't the only criteria, but since 2001, the AL has won 2 and the NL has won 2 WS. And the two NL wins came against the team with the highest payroll.

I do agree that the WS winner isn't a good criteria, but the results are what they are. The DBacks & Marlins wholly deserved their respective championships, but I don't think either was the best team in MLB. I know the "best" team doesn't always win, but it seems to me that the Marlins in particular were very fortunate to win.

[cubswin]

I'm not sure there is an imbalance.

[RhodeyYankee2638]

theres an imbalance

AL has better teams
NL has better players

[Evil Empire]

theres an imbalance

AL has better teams
NL has better players

Well, is that really true? If their players are really better, they would have won an all star game more recently than 1996.

[Prickly Pete]

Well, is that really true? If their players are really better, they would have won an all star game more recently than 1996.

A better way to judge than the All-Star game might be interleague play (since it's a much larger sample size). The NL won the interleague series in 2002 and 2003, and it was almost dead even in 2004 (127-125 for the AL).

[RhodeyYankee2638]

Well, is that really true? If their players are really better, they would have won an all star game more recently than 1996.

Good point, but if you compare teams in the AL and NL, the AL has more power driven, all around teams. The Sox, Angels and Yanks are better than every team in the NL (in my opinion, open to criticism). The AL also has a division in which 3/4 teams in the past 5 years or so has won 90+ games (AL West).

Then look at the NL, in which teams like the Giants rely on 2 main compontents (Bonds and Schmidt) to carry their team. If you look at the NL, they clearly have the best pitchers (Johnson, Schmidt,Gagne) the best hitters (Bonds, Pujols) and even the best fielders (Rolen, Edmonds, Cameron).

As for the NL not winning the All-Star game, i'd say my theory proves true. NL Has the better players, but the AL is much deeper.

[ChewieTobbacca]

NL defenitely has the better individual players but not as big of a gap.

The NL as a whole batted .263/.329/.423/.752 and the AL batted .270/.333/.433/.766
Of course the DH has a part to play in that

The individuals in the NL were usually better than the AL

Using VORP (value over replacement player) which measures in a position adjusted, league adjusted and park adjusted way how many runs more a player produces than a regular dude, we can see how some things match up. Keep in mind that VORP doesn't include projections for the whole season so a player playing every game can have a higher VORP than a person who was better in the few games he played.

At catcher, the AL was dominant with I-Rod, Lopez, Posada all rated higher than the best NL catcher (Kendall, though Posada was rated 48.9 and Kendall 47.5, I-rod was 63.1)

At first base, NL just smoked AL. Pujols (103.5), Helton (94.8), Casey (66.2), Thome (60.3), Overbay (53.5) were all better than the best AL 1B who was Mark Texeira
(52.6)

At second base, NL again had the better individuals with a big leader though fewer people - Loretta (76.2), Kent (55.2) Durham (40.3) better than the best 2B in the AL (Soriano at 39.8). For reference, Bellhorn was second best in the AL at 37.6 and Cairo had a rating of 22.2.

At third base, there was a bigger wash - the leader again was in the NL with Beltre (89.1) and Rolen (73.7 - keep in mind he did miss time to injuries though) leading the pack, Mora was the top in AL with 73.6 - for reference, A-Rod had a 62.3 rating (4th) - Mora is so underappreciated

At shortstop, AL was superior - Tejada (73.0), Guillen (Detroit) 70.5, Young (Texas) 60.1, Jeter 59.7, all better than the best in the NL (Rollins - 50.9 and Wilson - 50.6)

Tejada had 725 PA's while Guillen had 583 so if Guillen played the full season, he would've been the best SS last year (take that SEA for trading him off!) - was Guillen underrated or what?

In Left Field, the NL again had better individuals but only one this time - Bonds had an incredible 142 which is more than double(!!) the next best who was Manny (68.6) - Dunn was third at (64.8) - Matsui was 4th with 57.5 rating

In center field, NL again has the better individual, with the leader Edmonds (88.9) and next highest being the AL with Damon (51.0), Rowand (50.0) - Beltran totaled VORP was 74.5 which is really good (but Edmonds is still the #1 CF in the game).

In right field, AL leads with Vlad at 88.5, Abreu (NL - 83.8 - what an underrated year), Berkman (83.7 - again very underrated by many), Ichiro (80.9), Drew (78.7) and finally 6th was Sheff (63.4) - this makes me solidify my notion that Vlad was truly deserving of the MVP - but this position also shows how the AL has one playe above everyone else then quite a few NL'ers high up as well.

At DH, of course the NL has no DH, but its fun to point out that Ortiz was 71.3 with 661 PA's but Travis Hafner had 576 PA's and put up an amazing 70.9 - had Hafner played fulltime, he would easily have been the best DH (not to mention he put up the top OPS+ in the AL with a 158 which is quite amazing - what a bat the Indians have)

Pitcher wise the AL had the better few individuals (though of course VORP does adjust due to the AL and NL being different on pitchers) so the AL has the best with:

Pitcher.... IP... VORP
Santana 228 88.8
Schilling 226.2 72.9
Johnson 245.2 69.3
Sheets 237 66.8
Pavano 222.1 62.4
Zambrano 209.2 61.3
Clemens 214.1 61.3
Schmidt 225 60.1
Radke 219.2 60.1
L. Hernandez 255 58.3
Peavy 166.1 57.5
Oliver Perez 196 54.5
Westbrook 215.2 54.4
Escobar 208.1 53.2
Oswalt 237.0 51.8
Pedro 217 51.2

Again while the AL had the top 2 pitchers, the NL pitchers all around were superior (at the top)

FWIW none of the starting pitchers we had last year were anywhere near the top - having RJ is a considerable boost (going from no starter with a VORP above 37 to the 3rd best in VORP)

[staticm]

growing imbalance?

World Series winners since 2000

2000 - AL (yankees)
2001 - NL (D-backs)
2002 - AL (Angels)
2003 - NL (marlins)
2004 - AL (Red Sox)

you couldn't get more balanced if you tried...

[RhodyYanksFan]

growing imbalance?

World Series winners since 2000

2000 - AL (yankees)
2001 - NL (D-backs)
2002 - AL (Angels)
2003 - NL (marlins)
2004 - AL (Red Sox)

you couldn't get more balanced if you tried...

...but that means 2005 is the NL's year...not good for Yankee fans.

[SubwayFanatic]

growing imbalance?

World Series winners since 2000

2000 - AL (yankees)
2001 - NL (D-backs)
2002 - AL (Angels)
2003 - NL (marlins)
2004 - AL (Red Sox)

Isn't if funny that people like to whine about the Yankees payroll, say it's ruining baseball, the Yankees win every year, yadda, yadda, meanwhile, there's been a different World Series champion the last five years?

Meanwhile, the pefect NFL, the league MLB should try to emaulate, with it's great salary cap and wide open league, "Hey, everyone can win in the NFL!" is potentially on the verge of a team like the Patriots winning three out of the last four years.

[yecul2]

Fanatic, what's your point? The Yankees' monetary edge (or Boston's) is irrelevant? I don't think you really have any argument to stand on whatsoever if you really want to continue along that vein.

The imbalance is not really between the NL and AL. It's Boston/New York and all the rest.

[SubwayFanatic]

Fanatic, what's your point? The Yankees' monetary edge (or Boston's) is irrelevant? I don't think you really have any argument to stand on whatsoever if you really want to continue along that vein.

The imbalance is not really between the NL and AL. It's Boston/New York and all the rest.

Ummm.... If you don't understand my point, try reading it again. It's not that difficult to grasp.

[Hitman23]

I hear alot of arguements regarding all sports with imbalance. IMO, complete balance would make all sports boring. It would be like a crap shoot for champions. If everyone had the same level of talent, the same size ballpark, the same revenue, the same way of running a team, where would the fun be? We need the strong teams and the weak teams. We need the dynasties. We need the cycles. It's a part of any contest.

[Bosox Guy in Chitown]

Ummm.... If you don't understand my point, try reading it again. It's not that difficult to grasp.

I think the point yecul2 is trying to make is that, given the nature of a playoff series, the playoffs are - to a certain extent - a bit of a crapshoot. So, looking at the WS winner is a bit of a rough method of evaluating parody (if that is your goal).

I believe (but not sure) that there were 6 teams last year that spent $100 million or more on payroll. Of those six, four made the playoffs. The sox have now made the playoffs two years in a row, and likely will again in 2005. The Yankees have made the playoffs something like 7 years in a row.

Look at the NFL. Yes, the patriots have won two of the last three. But look a little deeper. Look at how much changeover there is, year-to-year, among the teams that qualify for the playoffs and, hence, are in position to win it all.

I think that is the difference yecul2 is trying to highlight when he describes the position of advantage the Sox and Yanks have over most other baseball teams.

[Bosox Guy in Chitown]

I hear alot of arguements regarding all sports with imbalance. IMO, complete balance would make all sports boring. It would be like a crap shoot for champions. If everyone had the same level of talent, the same size ballpark, the same revenue, the same way of running a team, where would the fun be? We need the strong teams and the weak teams. We need the dynasties. We need the cycles. It's a part of any contest.

I agree. I can't stand to watch the extreme display of mediocrity that the NFL has become. Whoo-hoo.... a playoff match-up of two 9-7 teams... yay!

[Hitman23]

I agree. I can't stand to watch the extreme display of mediocrity that the NFL has become. Whoo-hoo.... a playoff match-up of two 9-7 teams... yay!

exactly! the NFL is a prime example. yeah I know every fan of every team has an equal shot at winning, but where's the fun in that? Where's the challenge? Do you think RSN would have been as happy as they were beating the Yanks in the ALCS in 2004 had there been complete balance in baseball all these years? Would it have meant as much? There's no way. David beat Goliath, and that's a story. Mario beating Luigi? Now that's boring.

[SubwayFanatic]

exactly! the NFL is a prime example. yeah I know every fan of every team has an equal shot at winning, but where's the fun in that?

But does every team in the NFL really have an equal shot at winning? Teams like the 49ers and Dolphins started this year knowing they would be horrible, just like the Devil Rays did in baseball.

[ChewieTobbacca]

But does every team in the NFL really have an equal shot at winning? Teams like the 49ers and Dolphins started this year knowing they would be horrible, just like the Devil Rays did in baseball.

That actually proves that the league idea of parity isn't really working

I mean when we entered the year, parity was supposd to be a high in the NFL yet somehow everyone knew that the Patriots Colts and Eagles would be top dogs (surprise was Steelers of course)

[SubwayFanatic]

That actually proves that the league idea of parity isn't really working

I mean when we entered the year, parity was supposd to be a high in the NFL yet somehow everyone knew that the Patriots Colts and Eagles would be top dogs (surprise was Steelers of course)

Exactly.

[CTSoxFan]

That actually proves that the league idea of parity isn't really working

I mean when we entered the year, parity was supposd to be a high in the NFL yet somehow everyone knew that the Patriots Colts and Eagles would be top dogs (surprise was Steelers of course)

The difference is (or seems to be, anyway) that in the NFL, it's a lot easier to go from really bad to really good. It's also a lot easier to go from really good to really bad. Very, very tough to maintain a dynasty in the NFL, though there DO seem to be a handful of franchises committed to losing, year after year.

[SubwayFanatic]

The difference is (or seems to be, anyway) that in the NFL, it's a lot easier to go from really bad to really good. It's also a lot easier to go from really good to really bad. Very, very tough to maintain a dynasty in the NFL, though there DO seem to be a handful of franchises committed to losing, year after year.

But isn't the reason some teams can go from good to bad or vice versa more of a result of the 16-game schedule than the salary cap? If baseball only played 16 games, you may see a team like the Orioles in the World Series, but over the long haul they show that they are only a third or fourth place team.

[CTSoxFan]

But isn't the reason some teams can go from good to bad or vice versa more of a result of the 16-game schedule than the salary cap? If baseball only played 16 games, you may see a team like the Orioles in the World Series, but over the long haul they show that they are only a third or fourth place team.

I'm not sure if the length of schedule has much to do with it. Truth be told, if baseball teams had six days of rest before each game, and all that time could be spent plotting strategies down to each individual play, then it might indeed mitigate against some of the day-to-day upsets that happen over the course of a 162-game season.

We're probably in apples-to-oranges territory here, but I still think the salary cap works as a huge deterrent towards "empire-building" in the NFL. I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing, though...and it still seems to me that poorly-managed franchises remain stuck in the mud no matter how great the opportunity to advance.

[Vile Tom]

I agree. I can't stand to watch the extreme display of mediocrity that the NFL has become. Whoo-hoo.... a playoff match-up of two 9-7 teams... yay!

Winning at that rate in baseball would be about a 91-71 regular season record and plenty of teams with that record make the playoffs.

There's 6 NFL teams this season that can win 12 games. Three of the 6 won that many last year too. They're good because they're well run and well coached not because they can afford to spend 4 times as much on player salaries as the average team. The thing that's changed in the NFL is there aren't as many really bad teams the way there were in the 70's and 80's.

[Bosox Guy in Chitown]

But does every team in the NFL really have an equal shot at winning? Teams like the 49ers and Dolphins started this year knowing they would be horrible, just like the Devil Rays did in baseball.

The 49ers and Dolphins are both a couple of seasons removed from playoff runs. Do you think the Royals and D-rays have a reasonable shot at the playoffs anytime soon? No way. That's not the case in the NFL.

Now, I don't think the NFL should be a model for MLB. But there is a difference between the two leagues.

[Bosox Guy in Chitown]

Winning at that rate in baseball would be about a 91-71 regular season record and plenty of teams with that record make the playoffs.

There's 6 NFL teams this season that can win 12 games. Three of the 6 won that many last year too. They're good because they're well run and well coached not because they can afford to spend 4 times as much on player salaries as the average team. The thing that's changed in the NFL is there aren't as many really bad teams the way there were in the 70's and 80's.

The win percentage cannot be compared on a one to one basis. That's two different animals. In baseball, you need to win the bulk of your games to make the playoffs. In football (and basketball) slightly over .500 will do.

[mrbawm]

I think the non-guaranteed contracts and almost fully polished players that are immediately useful coming out of the draft have a heck of a lot more to do with the NFL being in the situation it is in than it's hard cap.

[cubswin]

The 49ers and Dolphins are both a couple of seasons removed from playoff runs. Do you think the Royals and D-rays have a reasonable shot at the playoffs anytime soon? No way. That's not the case in the NFL...

I think that's the key point (if you buy the argument -- I'm not sure whether I do).

It doesn't matter if you have a good idea in preseason who will be the very good teams and who will be the very bad. Nobody's arguing that it should be a crapshoot as of game 1 of the season. The question of competitive balance is more of a long-term, structural one: can every team have a shot at becoming a potential WS winner? Is any team virtually assured of being a contender? It's arguable that many small market teams have virtually no shot at maintaining a competitive team over a period of several years while teams like the Yankees, and to a lesser extent the Sox and Angels, have to screw up in order not to be a contender. This is not the case in the NFL (or any other league, as far as I know).