Future Shock: AFL Prev... (10/08)
21 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| Home | Unfiltered | Articles | Newsletter | Statistics | Fantasy | Events | Radio | Glossary | Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 8, 2009 Relative League QualityI Told You, Don't Call Me Junior!
The American League is kicking the National League's butt, and has been for a number of years. Check out some of the numbers from the last five seasons, courtesy of Jay Jaffe's article last month: a 714-546 record in interleague games, an even better run differential, and not a single year with an interleague winning percentage under .540. The AL is Danny Almonte to the NL's 11-year-old little leaguer. So how did this happen? Why, all of a sudden, is the American League so dominant? Is it just a cyclical shift, or is there something deeper that will keep the AL on top for the foreseeable future? First, we need to actually quantify it. You might remember a couple years back when Nate Silver and David Gassko had a back-and-forth over historical league quality. Long story short, David felt that Nate and Clay hadn't regressed to the mean enough, while Nate said that David was regressing too much. Regardless, in terms of year-to-year AL versus NL quality ratings, both sets of numbers should tell us the same thing. So a huge thanks to David, who lent me his numbers from the beginning of time up through 2004:
 This is coming from the AL's perspective, so anything above zero means the AL is better, and anything below zero means the NL is better. (I'm also using a three-year rolling average, instead of the single-year numbers.) Clearly this is pretty cyclical, with the NL having a few more total years on top, the AL being a bit more dominant in the years in which it's ahead, and a lot of back and forth in between. Subjectively, we can guess that the AL was dominant in the '20s because of the Ruth/Gehrig Yankees, while the NL was dominant for most of the '50s because AL teams were so slow to infiltrate the Negro Leagues. But we're not going to be able to explain every dip and jump, and those anecdotes don't tell us why the AL is better today.
|
Team Health Reports: Washington Nationals
So a typical AL team would be expected to have a higher payroll than an NL team due to the designated hitter right? (ie because an AL team has 10 starters vs only 9 for an NL team.) IIRC this is a big issue in the labor negotiations.
This is the generally-held opinion (or at least the one used in CBA negotiations), but I don't actually think it's true. Teams create their budgets based on expected revenue -- simply having to hire a DH doesn't increase expected revenue. Having a greater chance at the postseason does. Which helps explain why NL teams were spending more than AL teams in the '80s.
The DH creates a huge imbalance.
First, it gives a significant edge to AL teams in their home parks. They have budgeted for a full time player whereas the NL has to put a part time player into a full time role.
Second, it has completely changed how teams handle stocking their benches. NL teams have to pay for more mediocre players than AL teams do since they are much more likely to come into games. If you have 4 bench spots and a DH and 15 million dollars to spend on them, an AL team can put 10-11 on the DH and 1 each on the bench spot where the NL will likely need better bench players and have to put 2-3 mil on each player.
Lastly, it also completely changes how you manage your bullpen. The AL can afford more long relievers (1+ inning guys) in their pen since they never have to worry about hitting for them. An AL team could just go to an all relievers rotation and not have to worry about a thing.
I've heard this argument a few times, but it generally fails to account for the fact that the vast majority of teams do not have a set DH. In fact, last year, only 7 teams had a primary DH who exceeded 500 PA. And this includes Luke Scott, who accumulated at least 40% of his PA while playing the field. The other true DH's were Hideki Matsui, Jack Cust, Jason Kubel, Aubrey Huff, David Ortiz and Adam Lind.
If you switched the typical offensive performance by a pitcher with even a replacement-level position player, I would think you would gain at least a few wins. Those players that cycle into the DH spot also get more regular at bats, suggesting that they are better able to maintain their hitting skills.
There's also the additional benefit of being able to maintain a bench... you don't have to pinch hit for pitchers (or, in some cases, use two pinch hitters when a same-handed reliever is brought in). Managers have easier choices to make on when to bring a new pitcher into the game instead of worrying about when the pitcher's slot is coming up.
AL Managers gain a lot of flexibility from the DH slot.