It appears the "National League doesn't try because they don't have to try" screed has basis in fact.

didn't Bill James write something along these lines vis-a-vis the AL West in the 1980s?

there was a stretch there where the AL West winner had fewer than 90 wins in 4 seasons out of 6 or something like that

his point was, as I recall, why should the Angels make bold moves to get up to 99 wins if they can sit tight with who they have and expect 90 wins or so

he also pointed out that if a group of teams all feel this way, it tends to be self-perpetuating

It appears the "National League doesn't try because they don't have to try" screed has basis in fact.

It's right there in black and white - the NL isn't trying to hide it. In 2007, the AL had one team with a payroll of less than $60 million (Tampa Bay). The NL had six (Arizona, Colorado, San Diego, Washington, Pittsburgh, Florida), and none of the three contenders of those six are looking to add much payroll this winter.

why should the Angels make bold moves to get up to 99 wins if they can sit tight with who they have and expect 90 wins or so

Depends on how much they care about giving their team the best chance of getting past round one in the playoffs.

Wouldn't a team in a mediocre division want to beef up to make sure of getting to the playoffs?

Wouldn't a team in a mediocre division want to beef up to make sure of getting to the playoffs?

You'd think so, but they're not. Look at last year's trading deadline - all sorts of NL contenders passed on trading opportunities rather than trade away youngsters.

Wouldn't a team in a mediocre division want to beef up to make sure of getting to the playoffs?

You might want to address your question to that collection of AAAA owners over there, but your answer's pretty much contained in the Stark article.

Wouldn't a team in a mediocre division want to beef up to make sure of getting to the playoffs?

Not if they believe they're already maximizing their profits.

Not if they believe they're already maximizing their profits.

There was a quote attributed to Jerry Reinsdorf (although I'm not sure if he actually said it) that said it was better to finish in second place than it was to finish first. You finish second, and you generate fan excitement, and people will start showing up to the ballpark. You finish first, and expectations will go up, and your players start getting more expensive, and you need to pay more to stay in it.

"there was a stretch there where the AL West winner had fewer than 90 wins in 4 seasons out of 6 or something like that"

False.

Since division play began, the AL West has had just 4 seasons (in non-strike years) in which its division winner did not win at least 90 games. Those 4 seasons were spread out: 1979, 1984, 1987 and 1998. 1984 was an interesting season in this regard, because Detroit won 104 games (and went on to win the World Series), while no other team in the AL East or West won 90 or more.

Similarly, the AL East has had 5 seasons where the winner won fewer than 90 games. Three of those 5 seasons, however, were concentrated: 1972, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 2000. While your claim above remains untrue, it is the case that from 1998-1991, only the '91 Blue Jays (91-71) won more than 89 games in a regular season.

Since its invention, the AL Central has had 2 complete seasons (1997, 1998) where the winner failed to win at least 90 games.

Sounds like something Connie Mack once said about how the best business model for him was to be in the race all year but finish fourth, so he didn't have to give his players raises.

don't confuse me with the facts, I was just quoting Bill James


anyway, my point was that HIS point was that the AL West was CONSIDERED a weak sister at the time, much like the NL is today

didn't Bill James write something along these lines vis-a-vis the AL West in the 1980s?

He did, jmac66. But for the life of me, I can't find where he wrote it.

me neither--I seem to remember that he couched it in terms of "game theory", which, since I know nothing about it, I'm confident in saying that he was full of sh!t

I thought that there was a microeconomic term for that situation but my college days keep getting longer and longer ago.

Game theory is kind of like the Prisoner's Dilemma applied to other aspects of life.

I'm not talking about game theory, Paul. I'm talking about a market that has competition but it isn't cutthroat. What will the rational firm do?

Can we start a poll of fans of an NL Team?

Does this sound like the management of your team?
I'll answer for Philly -- YES. They always talk in terms of contending in the division, never in terms of wanting to build a dynasty or the best club in baseball.

I've been thinking about this in terms of the Rockies, who in some respects haven't spent a lot of money this offseason, except that they intend to lock up several of their quality young players, like they've already done with Aaron Cook and still intend to do with Holliday and others. How should the Rockies be spending their money this off-season? If they had an extra $50 million lying around, how could they have used it to make the team better?

The Rockies had basically two weak spots last year, catcher and second base, but there aren't any really good free agent options at either position. They've re-signed their own free agent to catch, and they've made a run at several of the lesser-tier second basemen on the market this winter. I'd like to think that they'd go after Chase Utley if he was on the market, but he isn't.

The biggest free agents this year seem to have been the centerfielders, but the Rockies already have a centerfielder who is young, cheap, and decent. Willy Taveras hasn't been as good as, say, Torii Hunter the past couple of years, but I'm not sure he won't be better than Hunter for the next five years. I don't think that's a gamble worth $100 million.

So they're more or less standing pat, but given that they're still a young team that was very good last year, that may be the best strategy at the moment. As far as what Edmundo says:

They always talk in terms of contending in the division, never in terms of wanting to build a dynasty or the best club in baseball.

It seems to me the best way to build a dynasty is to develop players like Ubaldo Jimenez, not to sign players like Carlos Silva.

"anyway, my point was that HIS point was that the AL West was CONSIDERED a weak sister at the time, much like the NL is today"

If that was Bill's point, Bill was wrong. The AL West has never been a weak sister to the AL East for an extended period. The AL East was the weak sister during the Bash Brother's years, but not 4 out of 6 seasons.

For what it's worth, I don't buy this theory, unless there is a structural reason* which makes one league (or division) a weak sister. The American League is a bit better than the National League right now. However, that seems to me to be a relatively small advantage and one which is cyclical. It's not unlikely that nothing will change in terms of the behavior of NL management, but the advantage will swing back the other way in a few years. Maybe the Yankees do meet the "structural advantage" question. But that is one team out of 14, not really enough to explain an entire league. And insofar as the Yankees outspend the other AL teams (forcing the rest to spend more), the Mets outspend the NL, yet no one seems to contend that forces the other NL clubs to raise their payrolls.

*You might argue that the Yankees and Red Sox explain the structural reason.* I'm not sure I buy that. It's not the case that year in and year out, they each win 100 or more games a season. In fact, the Red Sox have NEVER EVER won 100 games in a season. And despite their two recent world championships, Boston won fewer games from 2001-2006 than the "structurally deficient" Oakland A's (549-573).

In fact, the Red Sox have NEVER EVER won 100 games in a season.

1946 says hi. I won't mention the deadball years.

I'm not talking about game theory, Paul. I'm talking about a market that has competition but it isn't cutthroat. What will the rational firm do?

Collude, without actually talking to their competitors, to keep prices high and take profits.

"1946 says hi. I won't mention the deadball years."

My bad. I looked at their team page on bb-ref. Obviously, I didn't look closely enough.

AL West has never been a weak sister to the AL East for an extended period. The AL East was the weak sister during the Bash Brother's years, but not 4 out of 6 seasons.

That's not just wrong, it's spectacularly wrong. The AL West was the weak sister for a decade 1978-87. Now it's true that the division had the occasional outstanding team thrown in there (80 Royals, 83 White Sox), but for the better part of 10 years the AL East teams was top-to-bottom vastly superior to the AL West.

Over the five seasons from 1983 to 1987, there were only nine AL West teams that finished over .500. Over the same period in the AL East, there were twenty-three teams that finished over .500. In both 1983 and 1984, five AL East teams finished over .500, but only one AL West team.

That period also included two of the weakest divison champs ever, the 1984 Royals (who went 84-78) and the 1987 Twins of 1987 (who went 87-75 and who were outscored on the season).

The long-term inferiority of the AL West wasn't just something that Bill James thought up. It was a real topic of conversation throughout the baseball world.

It seems to me the best way to build a dynasty is to develop players like Ubaldo Jimenez, not to sign players like Carlos Silva.

Nobody's talking about signing Carlos Silva. What about trading for Johan Santana, or Miguel Cabrera (you're nuts if you're telling me the Rockies couldn't find room in their lineup for him)?. The Rockies may have young talent that they're developing, but they certainly aren't making any big, splashy moves.

And why should they? Their competition isn't doing it, either. This is why the top, expensive talent seems to find their way over to the AL sooner or later.

That's not just wrong, it's spectacularly wrong. The AL West was the weak sister for a decade 1978-87. Now it's true that the division had the occasional outstanding team thrown in there (80 Royals, 83 White Sox), but for the better part of 10 years the AL East teams was top-to-bottom vastly superior to the AL West.

Absolutely correct. AL West winning percentages, beginning in 1978: .471, .469, .465, .481, .474, .466, .476, .490, .477.

That the AL West was a weak sister for an extended period of time is fairly obvious.

I agree with #24-#25. There was a lot of discussion about the AL West's inferiority in the mid-1980s. But that topic fizzled out when the AL West sent teams to the World Series for five straight years (1987-1991).

Nobody's talking about signing Carlos Silva. What about trading for Johan Santana, or Miguel Cabrera (you're nuts if you're telling me the Rockies couldn't find room in their lineup for him)?. The Rockies may have young talent that they're developing, but they certainly aren't making any big, splashy moves.

Right. I wouldn't be surprised if the official is Colletti, and he's talking about Bedard. Apparently the Orioles and Dodgers were pretty close to a Bedard for Kemp, et al deal a couple weeks ago, but the dodgers wouldn't pull the trigger. Pre-Haren, I think signing Kuroda vs. trading for Bedard made sense. Now I'm not so sure. Trading a guy like Kemp is risky, but the dodgers hardly have a lock on the west or the playoffs.

re the AL West -- IIRC, the Orioles absolutely murdered the AL west in the 70's and early 80's.

What about trading for Johan Santana, or Miguel Cabrera (you're nuts if you're telling me the Rockies couldn't find room in their lineup for him)?

Now we're talking about a different thing, though. This isn't an unwillingness to spend money; it's an unwillingness to spend your organizational future.

Sure, if Miguel Cabrera falls into your lap, you find a spot for him. But what would it have taken for the Rox to pry him loose from the Marlins? Probably something like Ubaldo Jimenez, Chris Iannetta and Dexter Fowler, plus a few lesser prospects. I don't know that that trade makes sense for the Rockies, especially when they're pretty well set at all the positions Cabrera can play. Ideally, you'd do something like Garrett Atkins and Iannetta for Cabrera -- and I'd probably make that trade -- to free up a spot for Cabrera, but the Fish wouldn't do that.

And for Santana, if his price is too high for the Red Sox and Yankees, I assume he would not be worth it for the Rockies, either.

And for Santana, if his price is too high for the Red Sox and Yankees, I assume he would not be worth it for the Rockies, either.

There's probably also like zero chance Santana signs a long term contract in Colorado.

The long-term inferiority of the AL West wasn't just something that Bill James thought up. It was a real topic of conversation throughout the baseball world.

There is nothing remarkable about the division's inferiority at the time, and it is not remarkable that it disappeared. Take a look at the 14-team 2-divisional AL in the late 70's

California
Chicago
Kansas City
Minnesota
Oakland
Seattle
Texas

Baltimore
Boston
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
New York
Toronto

The AL West had 4 expansion teams -- which generally are no good for many years -- and 2 of the 3 original teams in the division had recently moved (Twins and A's) which usually corresponds to low investment in the team before the relocation. In contrast, the AL East had 5 original teams and only 2 expansion teams, and the only team recently relocating was the Brewers, who were an expansion team that moved after only one season. It was largely the new and neglected teams in one division, and the old and established teams in the other.

didn't Bill James write something along these lines vis-a-vis the AL West in the 1980s?

He did, jmac66. But for the life of me, I can't find where he wrote it.

1986 BJ Abstract, Texas Rangers comments

He notes that by 1978 the A's and Twins had unraveled in the West, while the Brewers made a completely unexpected leap and the Tigers had one of the alltime great rookie crops (Whitaker, Trammell, Parrish, Morris) in the East.

It had the players it would take to make the deal. But it wasn’t happening. Not unless his team got realigned to the American League in the next 30 seconds, anyway.

I think it was definitely the Brewers. Who they were trading with I don't know.

Now we're talking about a different thing, though. This isn't an unwillingness to spend money; it's an unwillingness to spend your organizational future.

It's everything. Why bust the bank, or trade prospects to win now, when you've got a good chance of winning now if you're anything better than mediocre?

We can go back and forth as to whether it makes sense for the Rockies to make any individual move. But the fact is that they're not going after big-name free agents, they're not trying to trade for "impact" players; they're standing pat with the guys they have. And it makes total sense that they do so. Why? Because none of their competition is bringing in impact players, either.

And It's not just the Rockies - it's something that affects most of the National League to a greater or lesser degree. Even the NL "players" (Mets, Cubs, Dodgers) content themselves with the leavings of the Angels, Red Sox, and Yankees.

We can go back and forth as to whether it makes sense for the Rockies to make any individual move. But the fact is that they're not going after big-name free agents, they're not trying to trade for "impact" players; they're standing pat with the guys they have. And it makes total sense that they do so. Why? Because none of their competition is bringing in impact players, either.

As I mentioned above, I wonder about this logic. The NL overall might be pretty mediocre, but it's still very competitive. The west is particularly tough -- the Padres, Dodgers, Rockies, and DBacks could all win the division next year. Is it better to keep your prospects and have a 25%-40% chance of making the playoffs, or trade some of them for a 75% chance? The DBacks have certainly put the Dodgers, Padres, and Rockies in a much tougher position because with the Haren trade. And, of course, it's a truism that most of the prospects won't become stars or even above-average players.