Oh yeah....going way back to what Sam was talking about in #30, it seems like this years crop of National League rookie hitters/position players are doing alot better than their AL counterparts.

That seems to mostly be the case for him the last few seasons.(since he left Montreal) It's not really luck though. He has lapses in concentration and just doesn't bear down, and ends up giving in and throwing fat fastballs over the middle of the plate all to often. His hits allowed are often ROCKETS off the bat and over the wall.

The one encouraging thing about Vazquez this season is that he's done a very good job of keeping the ball in the ballpark (just seven homers in 89.1 IP).

I do know what you mean, though - he's pretty frustrating to watch. He's big-inning prone - he'll be cruising, just mowing down opposing hitters, then suddenly the hits will start dropping in, and he'll start trying to strike out every batter, resulting in still more hits. Then he'll work out of the inning, and come back and work a couple more scoreless. He actually reminds me a lot of Jose Contreras when Contreras first arrived on the South Side.

Baseball Prospectus's book Baseball Between the Numbers includes a chart, based on the Davenport Translation system, showing the relative quality of the two leagues over time. According to this chart, the NL ranks as the more difficult league every year from 2001 to 2005, with significant advantages from '01 to '03, and much smaller ones in '04 and '05. But if we accept the premise that the AL is now significantly superior to the NL, either this system is flawed, or there was a major change between '05 and '06. The latter seems unlikely, as it doesn't seem like there was any great migration of talent from the NL to the AL this past offseason. Any thoughts?

If a team with an AL roster was suddenly transported into the NL, then over the course of the season they'd really suffer,

I haven't read all the thread after this statement, but I think this is a tremendous exaggeration. In many cases the DH on an AL team can make a contribution in the field if they had to. David Ortiz is perhaps an example of someone who couldn't, but while one wouldn't want to run Dmitri Young out in the field on a daily basis, he didn't look much worse than Manny Ramirez. Of course, now Young's got his troubles, Leyland can do his little resting trick and keep Pudge's bat in the lineup.

If the DH rule was done away with overnight (in my dreams!), while some AL teams would have to rethink their rosters substantially, a lot more would probably just try to get away with paying that pinch-hit specialist a la Gates Brown a heck of a lot less, or giving him more fielding practice.

The argument isn't that the Cards and Astros individual teams are the key to anything, it's that the world series is another (small) data point on the relative strength of the leagues. I don't think that's a controversial position, but if you don't agree that's fine too.

On the point of the Mets, I think the interleague data suggests that the AL is significantly stronger (which you subsequently agreed with) and thus, two AL teams being within one and three games of the Mets record (loss column, c'mon) in spite of both having significantly more injuries in the first half suggests those are actually stronger teams as is, and even moreso health neutral (an important limitation I stated initially). I don't think the rosters tell a different story, either.

Your response was "I think the Mets are as good" which is fine for what it is, and may of course be correct. While it may be true that that 10 game number is a general and not a specific conclusion, it doesn't automatically follow that it is inapplicable to the Mets, and there's been no reason presented to suggest it wouldn't, either, as I've noted.

Of course we don't actually know what the Mets would do in the AL...and we never will, either.

Right now, your argument rests on the notion that the Cardinals' pitchers are pitching below their true talent level, and will improve. But that applies equally to the White Sox. Garcia and Garland are having the worst seasons of their careers, and Vazquez's peripherals indicate that he's had some bad luck (91 H, 7HR, 22 BB, 72 K). I guess you can argue that Contreras is pitching over his head, but if so, he's been doing it for a year now.

JRE has so thoroughly won the argument that he has had to resort to better arguing his counterpart...now that is a guy interested in a real debate.

Thanks, Randy Jones.

JRE has so thoroughly won the argument that he has had to resort to better arguing his counterpart...now that is a guy interested in a real debate.

Hey, I'm just trying to cover all the bases, so to speak.

A year ago, I would have agreed with cardsfanboy. The White Sox won in spite of having some serious flaws. They won a lot of games they shouldn't have. Not to say that they weren't good, but they were probably only the fifth- or sixth-best team in MLB.

I'd say that this year's team is clearly better than last year's, and they're not even really hitting on all cylinders. They've got one of the best offenses in baseball despite having two automatic outs at the bottom of the lineup most of the season. They're fourth in the AL in ERA despite two of their starters having atrocious start and serious bullpen problems. The Sox haven't lost much time to key players due to injury (knocks wood), but otherwise, I don't see how they've been particularly lucky.

"Of course we don't actually know what the Mets would do in the AL...and we never will, either."

I look forward to finding out in late October.

On the point of the Mets, I think the interleague data suggests that the AL is significantly stronger (which you subsequently agreed with) and thus, two AL teams being within one and three games of the Mets record (loss column, c'mon) in spite of both having significantly more injuries in the first half suggests those are actually stronger teams as is, and even moreso health neutral (an important limitation I stated initially). I don't think the rosters tell a different story, either.

Well, I think I agreed the AL is significantly stronger from the get-go, but never mind. Have the Red Sox had significantly more injuries than the Mets, who've lost all three of their starting outfielders and the entire back end of their rotation for significant periods of time? Certainly, the Yankees have been decimated, but that's where you start to lose coherence to the argument, because if you say the Mets should be X games ahead of the Yankees but Y games ahead of the Red Sox, given certain levels of injuries and whatever level of cross-league comparison, you just can't have nearly enough precision to know if your analysis makes any sense at all.

It is imprecise enough at the league level, to say an average AL team is this many games better than an average NL team. To try and then make a judgment about how many games the Mets "should" be ahead of this or that AL counterpart, given a zillion circumstantial factors, to be considered truly "equal" to that team, just stretches the analysis much too far. I just don't think there's any way to even guesstimate how far ahead of the Phillies the Red Sox would be, or how far ahead of the Yankees the Mets would be, if they switched leagues. And to use this analysis of league-wide quality as if you can estimate that is, I think, insupportable. I think the following is the most you can say:

1) The Red Sox would be stomping the NL East to bits, to some extent roughly in the way the Mets are doing. Would it be an eight-game lead? A 13-game lead? More? I have no idea.

2) The Mets would very likely be ahead of the Yankees, because they are a better team than the Yankees, probably given equal health (my bias, perhaps), and certainly in light of the Yankees' injuries, but they would be in a race, just as the Red Sox are. It's close enough, though, that if they'd had some bad breaks along the way, they might be slightly behind, or if they'd had some good breaks, maybe up a bit more than the Sox currently are on the Yankees.

I mean, if we went through the teams' talent base the way JRE and cardsfanboy did with the White Sox and the Cardinals, I am pretty confident that I could defend the Mets vis-a-vis the Evil Empire and the Old Towne Team a bit better. I think a roster with Beltran, Wright, Delgado, Floyd, Reyes, Pedro, Wagner, Glavine . . . I think that roster tells a story of talent as deep and versatile as any in the game.

Sam,

At this point, the obvious two best teams in bseball are the Chisox and the Mets. Order to be determined come October. No chicken counting before that. You never know what the Yanks or Red Sox might come up with in the meantime, and the Tigers look pretty sporty too.

The Cardinals? Are the Cardinals still in the league?

Are you so immature you can't say Mets?

I had a good friend about 20+ years ago, a Cardinal fan, who couldn't say "Yankees," "Mets," or "Dodgers." Instead it was always the "Slime," the "Scum" and the "Sleaze," respectively. They checked him into the bughouse after the 1985 Series, and he only gets to eat very soft food.

I would expect better from this site, I mean we have people using two three game series as evidence, I guess next thing I know we'll branch the evidence out to say that since the Royals took a series from the white sox, that makes the royals a better team.

Now we're talking.

Baseball Prospectus's book Baseball Between the Numbers includes a chart, based on the Davenport Translation system, showing the relative quality of the two leagues over time. According to this chart, the NL ranks as the more difficult league every year from 2001 to 2005, with significant advantages from '01 to '03, and much smaller ones in '04 and '05. But if we accept the premise that the AL is now significantly superior to the NL, either this system is flawed, or there was a major change between '05 and '06. The latter seems unlikely, as it doesn't seem

I'll have to re-read the article in BBBTN, and I don't want to give away too much of what is in my article and research, but there appears to have been a huge migration in talent from the NL to the AL over the last several years at least. Even though the inter-league record is almost dead even since its inception in 1997, when we look at all the players who have switched leagues since 1997, the AL appears to be much the better league for pitchers and hitters. How do we know that? If 50 players who were league average collectively (say an offensive lwts of exactly zero) move to the other league and then have a collective lwts of +3 per season, we can say that the new league is a worse league by 3 runs per player/season. If the 50 or so players who move in the other direction lose 3 runs, then we can say almost with certainty that the one league is 3 runs per player/season better than the other. That is one of the methods I used in my research. In almost every season since 1997 and definitely in 04 and 05, players, both pitchers and batters, get "better" (relative to their leagues) when they go to the NL and worse when they go to the AL. That strongly suggests, and it is almost unequivocalble, depending on the sample sizes, that the AL is the better overall talent.

Again, if one league's pitching AND hitting is a lot better than the other league's, you can't tell by looking at team w/l records, individual or collective stats, or even by watching everyone play. Both leagues will look exactly the same even if one league is much better than the other, as long as it is much better in pitching AND hitting and as long as the collective parks in the AL are around the same as the collective parks in the NL. In fact, if the parks in the NL were more hitter friendly on the average than the parks in the AL, then the NL hitting would look better than the AL hitting and the NL pitching would look worse than the AL pitching. What I am trying to say is that there is simply no way of knowing which team in the AL is better than which team in the NL unless you know the relative quality of the leagues, which is very difficult to ascertain without detailed study of players who switch leagues or by studying inter-league play.

Obviously, the w/l results of inter-league play can give you a rough idea of the balance of power, but you have to be careful as there is obviously a lot of fluctuation in 250 games per year or so.

If the AL is indeed much better than the NL, to the tune of around 58/42 (or 56/44 as the Red Sox seem to think), then if you think you know the "true record" (its likely record if it played a million games) of a team in each league, you simply adjust that record by the 58/42 or 56/44, or however much imbalance you think is in the league. So if a team is a true .500 in the AL (like maybe a Minnesota), it would likely be equivalent to a true .570 team in the NL, like say a Cardinals team. My wild-ass guess is that the Mets are a true .586 team in the NL, which is not much better than a true .500 team in the AL, believe it or not. Of course, one of the reasons why the Mets are so good and that it is a little bit of a surprise is that they have a disproportionate number of former AL players, I think. For example, while Pedro has clearly lost much of his fastball, he is now being compared to a group of pitchers who are almost a half a run worse than his former AL colleagues and he pitches against hitters who are around 5 runs worse per year per player than his former AL opponents.

Also, John Jarvis did a study several years ago about the DH and pitcher hitting in interleague games. What he came up, and is probably still true today, is that the AL teams' pitcher hitting is a little worse than NL teams' pitcher hitting and that NL DH's are worse than AL DH's. this means that the home team wins interleague games slightly more often (about 54.2% to 53.5% for non-interleague games), and that the AL has an ever so slight inherent advantage overall since the DH advanatge is slightly greater than the pitcher hitting advantage.

The Cardinals? Are the Cardinals still in the league?

The ghost of Bill Terry is going to slap you, Andy. And if the Cardinals rise up and beat the Mets in October, I'm going to join him.

Also, John Jarvis did a study several years ago about the DH and pitcher hitting in interleague games. What he came up, and is probably still true today, is that the AL teams' pitcher hitting is a little worse than NL teams' pitcher hitting and that NL DH's are worse than AL DH's. this means that the home team wins interleague games slightly more often (about 54.2% to 53.5% for non-interleague games), and that the AL has an ever so slight inherent advantage overall since the DH advanatge is slightly greater than the pitcher hitting advantage.

Very interesting, mgl. But there's another very interesting factor at play - namely home field advantage. From a game theory perspective, home field advantage should be greater under NL rules than AL rules, because of the pitcher's spot in the lineup. Did Jarvis have anything to say about that?

The Mets sure do seem to be getting a lot of love on this thread. But I have a hard time accepting that they are an elite team with Trashcel and Hernandez bringing up the rear of their rotation.

I honestly don't know if they belong in a group with the White Sox, Tigers, Yankees and Red Sox.

The Cardinals? Are the Cardinals still in the league?

The ghost of Bill Terry is going to slap you, Andy. And if the Cardinals rise up and beat the Mets in October, I'm going to join him.

I was just trying to see if anyone caught the reference, and anyway you know I'm a Slime fan and don't really care if the Scum beat out the late St. Looie team or not.

I have a lot of respect for MGL's work, and look forward to the article. BUT, the odds that a true .570 team (the collective AL) would only post a .500 record over about 2250 games since 1997 is exceedingly tiny. That's a pretty good-sized sample. Of course, teams aren't randomly assigned opponents, but it's hard to believe that would make much difference, if any. The number of players changing leagues, in contrast, is relatively tiny and very much non-random. Maybe AL GMs are better at selecting talent right now. I don't know. But if the NL talent edge is real and anything close to this magnitude, it has to be a pretty recent development.

I know I'm wrong on this, but I think that considering that teams are going to lose 30 games and win 30 games no matter what that you really should just concentrate on the 102 games remaining. Otherwords account for 'replacement' level when looking at these numbers. I find it hard to believe that the best team in the national league or second best team in the nl would have a rough time playing .500 ball in all the divisions in the al.

heck just looking at the worse teams in each league, nobody can seriously tell me that the Royals are better than the pirates, the Royals are about as bad of a team as you can make in baseball right now. (currently royals have 22 wins, pirates 26 wins-- projects to pirates 56 wins, royals 50, using the flat 10 games comment that makes the royals 4 games better than the pirates, and there is no way that is the case of course if using pyth then the pirates project much better 72 wins...which may help explain some of the obvious difference)

1997-1999's talent level's are irrelevant to this year's talent levels. In fact due to the draft you would expect some sort of inverse correleation between a league's talent level from 10 years ago to this year.

From a game theory perspective, home field advantage should be greater under NL rules than AL rules, because of the pitcher's spot in the lineup. Did Jarvis have anything to say about that?

I don't know what you mean.


I have a lot of respect for MGL's work, and look forward to the article. BUT, the odds that a true .570 team (the collective AL) would only post a .500 record over about 2250 games since 1997 is exceedingly tiny.

I am not saying that the AL has had a 57/43 advantage since 1997. Only that currently I think the advantage is 58/42 or so. There has been a huge influx of talent from the NL to the AL since 1997. Around 15% of all PA's in a season are by players who have switched leagues. That is more than I would have thought. The talent shift is probably not a random result. As someone pointed out, the AL spends a lot more money, and if nothing else, the two smartest teams by far and away, are the Red Sox and A's.

From a game theory perspective, home field advantage should be greater under NL rules than AL rules, because of the pitcher's spot in the lineup. Did Jarvis have anything to say about that?

I don't know what you mean.

I think he means that the home team is more likely to pinch-hit for a pitcher, because the pitcher's already worked the top half of the inning, than the visiting team is.

I could be wrong, though.

The Mets sure do seem to be getting a lot of love on this thread. But I have a hard time accepting that they are an elite team with Trashcel and Hernandez bringing up the rear of their rotation.

I hear that. But who is bringing up the end of the Yankees' rotation, since you say you don't know if they "belong in a group with the White Sox, Tigers, Yankees and Red Sox"? And who is at the heart of the Tigers' batting order, who compares with Beltran/Delgado/Wright?

The point is, you can look at every team that -- by its performance so far this year -- seems to have a claim to being elite, and find a soft underbelly that would lead you to say, "Huh? That isn't comparable to the other teams in that group! How can that team be elite?!"

Certainly, the tail end of the Mets' rotation may prove their undoing. But that potential weakness doesn't convince me that they wouldn't be easily competitive with the best the AL has to offer. Better? No -- because of that very problem. But it doesn't keep them from being on a par with those teams.

But who is bringing up the end of the Yankees' rotation?

Instant death to anyone who does this.

From a game theory perspective, home field advantage should be greater under NL rules than AL rules, because of the pitcher's spot in the lineup. Did Jarvis have anything to say about that?

I don't know what you mean.

The away team bats first. So, under NL rules, if the starting pitcher goes X innings, then his spot in the lineup comes up fewer times if he is at home than if he is away. So the home team is more able to pinch hit.

For instance, suppose the home and away pitchers have both gone 6 innings, given up 1 run each, look good to keep pitching, and the pitcher's spot is first up in the seventh inning for both teams. The situation seems symmetrical, but it's not, because the away team has to bat first. So if the away team wants to leave their pitcher in for the seventh inning, they have to bat him in the top of the seventh - and presumably he's a bad hitter. Whereas the home team can leave their starter in for the seventh, and then pinch hit for him in the bottom of the inning.

Naturally, this doesn't apply in the AL.

So NL rules create more of an advantage for the home teams than do AL rules, which are "fairer" as between the home and away teams. And so this seems to be a small inbuilt advantage for the NL in interleague play, as the NL team will always be the home team when NL rules are used. Now, I think this is a much smaller advantage than the AL's roster advantage, but it does need to be addressed.

Somewhat off-topic but folks keep mentioning double-switching...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. With modern bullpen usage, double-switching is almost always a bad idea.

Fine, you're bringing in a reliever and your pitcher is due up second next inning. So what? Is your reliever going to start the next inning? Surely about 90% of the time these days, no he's not. Therefore, taking a starting player out of the game to move the pitcher's spot in the order back hurts you.

Now if you're ahead and you want to make a defensive replacement anyway, then maybe you double-switch (depending in part on whether you've got a better PH on the bench you might want to use in that spot anyway). If that position's regular starter was getting the day off, but now you can bring him in, you double-switch. And of course if your intention is for the reliever to start the next inning, you double-switch.

But the reflex "I'm bringing in a reliever and the pitcher's spot is due up" double-switch is a bad move.

the two smartest teams by far and away, are the Red Sox and A's.

Stupid f'ing Cardinals. :-)

Certainly, the tail end of the Mets' rotation may prove their undoing.

I'll take CWS. I don't care that the projections weren't good for them - I had them pegged as the best team during the offseason and said so.

They're very strong in a lot of areas. They're bullpen isn't great, but it's certainly not bad either.

Also, to whoever said that NYM would be dominating the AL West the way they're dominating the NL East, you're out of your mind. Anaheim, while bad, is still better than FLA and WAS (and maybe ATL as well). The Rangers and Oakland are playing much better than Philadelphia.

In closing, the Rangers are going to win the AL West.

But the reflex "I'm bringing in a reliever and the pitcher's spot is due up" double-switch is a bad move.

2Alous point seems to be more about that you can get an extra IP from your SP in general than the opposing team without having to risk another PA from him.

I am not saying that the AL has had a 57/43 advantage since 1997. Only that currently I think the advantage is 58/42 or so. There has been a huge influx of talent from the NL to the AL since 1997.

mgl, how do you establish the baseline? What was the relative strength of the two leagues in 1997? Can you identify the transition year? Was the NL that much stronger in 1997 that the talent drain has only now resulted in an AL advantage?

the hot streak is the fact that they are playing well right now, and having a few guys playing over their heads, while not many(except maybe garcia) playing below their true ability, meanwhile the cardinals have at least two pitchers playing below their ability and probably one hitter with none really playing over their head.

Although JRE has already aluded to this, that statement isn't exactly true...

1.)The Sox' SS, Juan Uribe, is hitting close to 90 points below his career OPS.

2.)The Sox' CF, Brian Anderson, has put up an OPS of .583. His ZiPS projection, FWIW, was .263/.323/.425.

3.)Jon Garland and Freddy Garcia (current ERAs of 5.58 and 4.66) are well above their career ERAs (4.52 and 3.97 respectively).

I still don't think the best part of this team -- its pitching -- has reached it's 'pinnacle' yet.

I think it's pretty silly to say the AL is superior when you have a guy like Chris Shelton in the top 40 AL OPS when he wasn't even good enough for the Pirates' minor leagues. :-)

2Alous point seems to be more about that you can get an extra IP from your SP in general than the opposing team without having to risk another PA from him.

I wasn't responding to 2Alous. A few folks earlier brought up double-switching. My post is not about the NL/AL advantage/disadvantage, it's about the general idiocy of double-switching.

Lets assume for a second that Pedro Martinez is a true talent 4 ERA pitcher or so in the AL. (Which is in line with his xFIP from 2004.) If we assume that, and make the associated adjustments to the numbers of the other players on the Mets, does the proposition that the Mets are true talent .500 team in the AL still seem so outlandish?

I'm a bit surprised by this result on the face of it, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

The real question I have is how unusual is this? It seems to me that this degree of differential would be historically unusual, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

For what it's though, Baseball Prospectus's DT cards seem to reflect these differences pretty well. If you look at the adjusted peripherals of various players who changed leagues, you don't see as much differentiation as you might expect. Beckett's K and BB ratios are almost identical once you adjust for league. Perhaps those DT cards are doing something right.

Lets assume for a second that Pedro Martinez is a true talent 4 ERA pitcher or so in the AL. (Which is in line with his xFIP from 2004.) If we assume that, and make the associated adjustments to the numbers of the other players on the Mets, does the proposition that the Mets are true talent .500 team in the AL still seem so outlandish?

I'm a bit surprised by this result on the face of it, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

It makes no sense at all. First of all, it assumes that the Mets are actually a true talent .586 team in the NL (MGL's assumption in # 113), when they're actually playing .620 ball right now and, IMHO, are in fact that good (if not better). I know he regresses to the mean because, well, that's what statisticians do when calculating these things. But those of us who want to combine statistical analysis with observation of on-field play and player quality and developent in making such judgments don't just do mechanical regressions and call it a day. If they stay normally healthy, the Mets will finish WELL above .586 this season, and their "true talent" level in the NL is well above that. So whatever adjustment you're going to make to AL levels, it shouldn't be from that baseline.

Second, you didn't say what "associated adjustments" you are making for other players, and since they don't have a last season in the AL the way Pedro does, I wonder what you did. But, for instance, you could have made an adjustment using the exact same season for Carlos Delgado, HIS last season in the AL. He had a better year then than he's having for the Mets so far.

This is just annoying. I'm quite happy to agree that the AL is better. By far. But the idea that the best team in the National League -- which, if you want me to be honest about it, is actually better than any team the AL has, though I've tried to be nice about it, and agree the Mets are only on a par with the best in the AL -- would be a mere .500 also-ran in that league, is just ####. The Mets are better than the Red Sox, they're better than the Tigers, they're better than the White Sox, and they're DEFINITELY the best team in their own city.

Semi-seriously, but nowhere close to definitively or maybe even usefully, strolling through the AL OPS leaders:

Gary Matthews, Jr ... WTF? Anyway, always a lousy hitter in the NL, has been average in the AL and having a great season this year.

Troy Glaus ... performed the same in the NL as in the AL.

Shea Hillenbrand ... the same in both, having a career year.

Mike Lowell ... tough to judge. Breakout seasons at 29 and 30, sucked at 31. Now he's got park factors working for him, age working against him, underperforming those age 29-30 seasons, outperforming his age 26-28 seasons, probably outperforming his projections. Let's call that even.

Ramon Hernandez ... mediocre at Oakland till breaking out at age 27. Performed at that level for 2 years in San Diego. Having a career year so far.

Vlad Guerrero ... same in both leagues, down year this year ... could be AL pitching has improved.

Lyle Overbay ... looks about the same so far.

AJ Pierzynski ... awful in his year with the Giants

Brad Wilkerson ... park factors messing things up, probably hitting a little worse

Orlando Cabrera ... ain't hit nowhere, having a career year

Corey Patterson ... way better than 2005, about in line with 2003-2004

Ty Wigginton ... about the same, little better in the AL but could be park factor

Jason Michaels ... worse

Mark Loretta ... in line with 2005, much worse than 2002-2004 ... age, injury, park factors

Mark Grudzielanek ... a little worse, again age a factor

Doug Mientkiewicz ... in line with last year

Scott Podsednik ... hard to say, in line with 2004, below 2003

Luis Castillo ... worse, all in BA

Adrian Beltre ... told you so! :-) way out of line with 2004 but 2004 way out of line with everything else

Richie Sexson ... 2005 was a mild career year. 2006, not so much

Placido Polanco ... better in 2005, worse in 2006

Jason Kendall ... finally a BIG drop though age and heavy usage are key factors

That's it. All the recent NL to AL switches with enough PA to qualify and I don't have the numbers to say for sure there's no downward trend there, but there sure doesn't seem to be anything dramatic.

Now AL to NL

Carlos Beltran ... Umm, great as he was in Houston, he had the same OPS+ as he had in KC that year. Stunk in 2005, killing it in 2006. I'm calling it even.

Nomar ... killing it this year, nothing to brag about in 2004-2005.

Soriano ... that's a big jump

Carlos Lee ... mild career year but nothing too out of line

Eric Byrnes ... tearing it up

Carlos Delgado ... given expected age-related decline and pitchers parks, I'll call this a plus

Corey Koskie ... even but better than 2005

Jacque Jones ... near career year

Scott Hatteberg ... OK, the NL does suck

Edgar Renteria ... no, really it does

Aaron Rowand ... even

Randy Winn ... even despite that great half-season

David Eckstein ... better

Steve Finley ... still refusing to go away

Orlando Hudson ... worse

So AL hitters coming to the NL have done better while NL hitters going to the AL have stayed about the same. Hmmm... I guess overall I'd rather have the AL list than the NL list, but I think I'd rather have Delgado/Beltran/Soriano than Guerrero/Glaus/Hernandez. Still those lists don't suggest to me that the talent flow on offense has been all that unbalanced the last couple of years. There are two on the AL->NL list who I wouldn't want on my team (Finley and Hatteberg) and one who I really really wouldn't want starting for me (Byrnes ... a Byrnes/Jones platoon could be awesome though). The NL->AL list has just one guy I really wouldn't want on my team (Mienkiewicz) and I guess 3 I really really woudln't want starting (Wigginton, Michaels, Podsednik ... and certainly not Beltre at that money).

In the NL, only 1 of the top 10, 5 of the top 20, and 10 of the top 40 in OPS are over 30 (there are a number at 30 so yes I cheated some). In the AL, 4 of the top 10, 9 of the top 20, and 15 of the top 40 are over 30 (and a number at 30). That's not that big a difference I guess.

the two smartest teams by far and away, are the Red Sox and A's

Jason Kendall says hi, then grounds weakly to short. Where the shrotstop, still shocked at the stupidity of the Loaiza deal calls over to Milton Bradley to handle the honors.

I'll give the A's credit, but far and away the smartest team, thats some real fanboy stuff.

mgl, how do you establish the baseline? What was the relative strength of the two leagues in 1997? Can you identify the transition year? Was the NL that much stronger in 1997 that the talent drain has only now resulted in an AL advantage?

You can establish the relative strength of each league simply by looking at what happens (stats relative to their peers in each league) when players switch leagues. You can also look at the raw stats of visiting players in interleague games compared to visiting players from the same league playing the same home teams in the same stadiums. IOW, lets say that a group of dead average (for their league) batters have an OPS of .780 when playing the other league in the other league's parks. Let's say the in those same parks and against those same pitchers, same-league batters have an OPS of .800 and they are dead-average in their own league. Well obviously those same-league batters are 20 points in OPS better. You also need to adjust for any "familiarity" factor of course, although that should affect both leagues the same.

As far as the Mets, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell how much better or worse they are than any AL team. All you know about the Mets is how they do versus NL teams (pretty much). Obviously that is not the case for players on the Mets who have played in the AL. For all we know the NL could be a little league team compared to the AL. The Mets would still look like a great team, yet they would suck as compared to any other AL team. A lot of smart people on this thread are not getting that.

Second, you didn't say what "associated adjustments" you are making for other players, and since they don't have a last season in the AL the way Pedro does, I wonder what you did. But, for instance, you could have made an adjustment using the exact same season for Carlos Delgado, HIS last season in the AL. He had a better year then than he's having for the Mets so far.

Delgado went from hitting .269/.372/.535 in the AL to hitting .301/.399/.582 in the NL the next year. You wanna reconsider your point? Yes, he's declined this year, but he's also 34, two years older. Pedro, in spite of being two years older, is having better results...

This is just annoying. I'm quite happy to agree that the AL is better. By far. But the idea that the best team in the National League -- which, if you want me to be honest about it, is actually better than any team the AL has, though I've tried to be nice about it, and agree the Mets are only on a par with the best in the AL -- would be a mere .500 also-ran in that league, is just ####. The Mets are better than the Red Sox, they're better than the Tigers, they're better than the White Sox, and they're DEFINITELY the best team in their own city.

Ok. I think that's reasonable. I disagree with it, but I think it's reasonable. I suspect they're not as good as any of those teams(Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers or White Sox), but I don't honestly think they're a .500 true talent team.

I think they're probably on level with the Blue Jays, the A's, or the Rangers. Maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse.

Jason Kendall says hi, then grounds weakly to short.

I enjoyed this line.

As the fan of an AL team, I'll make this peace offering to the fans of NL teams. Most all of us AL team fans will root lustily for the NL representative in the world series if, somehow, the AL representative is the new york AL team.

As far as the Mets, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell how much better or worse they are than any AL team. All you know about the Mets is how they do versus NL teams (pretty much). . . . For all we know the NL could be a little league team compared to the AL. The Mets would still look like a great team, yet they would suck as compared to any other AL team.

This is of course true. But what's important to remember is that the simple generalization about the relative strengths of the leagues (even if we have a fair degree of confidence that we've assessed it pretty accurately) does NOT provide enough of a basis to then take that, ipso facto, and draw conclusions about the strengths of individual teams and how they would translate into the other league. It is just impossibly simplistic, and flat-out wrong, to say: "Well, this analysis tells us that an average AL team is 10 games better than an NL team, so Team X in the NL must be 10 games better in the standings to be considered the equal of Team Y in the AL." As some in this thread have tried to do.

That is just ludicrous. It makes about a hundred assumptions that simply don't follow from a league-wide analysis when applied to individual teams. The fact is, it is -- as MGL says -- IMPOSSIBLE to know how much better or worse the Mets (or the Cardinals, or whomever) are than their AL counterparts. And this sort of analysis doesn't tell us -- which has been my point all along. It's my contention, in looking at their talent, assessing the capabilities of their players vis-a-vis those of AL counterparts when I see those guys, that the Mets have talent that is easily on par with the best in baseball. If anyone thinks that a general conclusion about the league-wide superiority of the AL tells them -- to the contrary -- the Mets would be a .500 team in the AL, well then they're drawing some pretty wild conclusions that the data simply won't support. And a lot of smart people SHOULD get that.

As the fan of an AL team, I'll make this peace offering to the fans of NL teams. Most all of us AL team fans will root lustily for the NL representative in the world series if, somehow, the AL representative is the new york AL team.

Why bother rooting for the NL? The Yankees are the only AL team that's lost a World Series this century. The NL teams will win all by themselves...

I think people are underestimating how HUGE a 10-win average difference would be. What that roughly means is every single NL team would have to replace a league-avg OF with Jason Bay or Miguel Cabrera, AND replace a lg-avg starter with Johann Santana, to match the corresponding AL team. (Each of those nets you about 50 runs). I find that more than a little hard to believe.
And this difference emerged over just 2-3 years, without anyone noticing (until now)?

In almost every season since 1997 and definitely in 04 and 05, players, both pitchers and batters, get "better" (relative to their leagues) when they go to the NL and worse when they go to the AL.

For pitchers you need to do this "relative to league," but why adjust for league for the hitters? Aren't they essentially equivalent environments?

Delgado went from hitting .269/.372/.535 in the AL to hitting .301/.399/.582 in the NL the next year. You wanna reconsider your point? Yes, he's declined this year, but he's also 34, two years older.

Speaking of cherry picking! In 2003, in the AL, Delgado hit .302/.426/.593. He didn't all of a sudden go "boom" in 2005 when he switched leagues to the inferior league. He returned to the career norms he'd had all along, bibigon. 2004 was a down year for Delgado, not a reflection of the awesomeness of the league.

I think they're probably on level with the Blue Jays, the A's, or the Rangers. Maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse.

What can I say to a comment like that? Can't cite stats, of course -- all the stats are against inferior NL competition. Could point out they beat the Yankees in a series earlier in the year, but that's three games, and anyway they also lost to the O's two of three. We'll just have to see what the future holds for the core of this Mets' team, both this year and in the next several years. History will tell the tale of their "true talent." I'm confident my position will be well-vindicated. Hopefully, the NL will rise along with the Mets to slay AL arrogance once and for all!

Are you so immature you can't say Mets?

Yep.

Relax everyone this is the same guy who thought we were overhyping David Wright last year and I look forward to collecting on our the next best 10 yrs, ARod or Wright bet.

No way the Yanks or Red Sox are better than the Mets, they are in the same tier. The White Sox are definately the best team in baseball and that is barely disputable at this point and the Tigers, they remind me of an AL version of the Braves teams that make the playoffs and bomb, IMO.

How come no one is comparing the Tigers to last years Orioles or Nationals? that is probably a much more accurate comparison than to compare them to the Braves, since that implies there is a possibility that the Tigers will make it to the post season.

since that implies there is a possibility that the Tigers will make it to the post season.

Are you implying there is no possibility that the Tigers will make the play-offs? I have my issues with the Tigers -- I seriously doubt they can score enough runs consistently enough, at least as currently constituted (team OBP: 10th in the AL) -- but there is every chance that the Yankees' injury and starting pitching woes will at least open the door for the wild card to be from the AL Central, and the Tigers may just surprise both of us. I wouldn't bet on them, but I sure wouldn't just dismiss them, either.

As far as the Orioles and Nationals are concerned, neither of them had young starters of the quality of Bonderman and Verlander. Those guys stay healthy, and the Tigers will be OK. I may be wrong about this, but I also don't think either of those teams ever got to 24 games over .500, as the Tigers are right now. You don't play .662 ball for this long without some legit talent. They may not last; they may not make the post-season. But they are not the 2005 Orioles, and they're not the 2005 Nats.

no possibility? no, but I find it to be highly unlikely.

Bedard was a pretty good pitcher last year (posting a 2.08 era in the first half of last season) looking like he was going to have a breakout year.

The Tigers should finish better than the orioles, but I think it's a stretch to think they are world beaters all the sudden.

Mickey is better than Willie!

I sure as heck didn't think the white sox were better than the Cardinals last year

How'd that work out for you?

:)

Seriously, with their team defense, the Cardinals are actually pretty similiar in how they are put together with the Sox.

I'm not really interested in arguing about who has the higher talent level. I mean we don't have decent metrics on managers and GMs right now, so it's not like we can really compare the whole packages anyway.

What I do know is that I can't see any set of numbers that point to the Cardinals having a better rotation. I think you are totally fanboying it and as long as you know that, I have no problem with your "my dad is the best dad in the world" statements. I hope my Sox win, but if the Cards win, I hope you enjoy yourself.

peace.

Whoa. The 2005 Orioles sure pounded the world better cards tonight.

Whoa. The 2005 Orioles sure pounded the world better cards tonight.

And as long as we're on the "tonight" kick . . .

I think [the Mets are] probably on level with the Blue Jays. . . . Maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse.

Mets 6, (on a level with the) Blue Jays 1

(Unfortunately, it's El Duque v. Doc Halladay tomorrow. I'll shut up now.)

see every time I think this site has something going for it, we get comments like this

Whoa. The 2005 Orioles sure pounded the world better cards tonight

I mean even if the Tigers sweep the series, it doesn't mean they are a good team, or the better team, how tough of a concept is that to grasp. I mean if that is true, then the cardinals who took 2 out of 3 vs the Mets are better than the Mets, and the Devil Rays who took two out of three against the white sox is clearly the better team.

When the season ends, I wouldn't be surprised to see 1. the Reds below .500, 2.The Tigers in third or even fourth place 3. The Red Sox with the Best record in the al 4. The Cardinals with the best record in baseball. (of course I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Dodgers or Mets have the best record either, but would be if it's the Tigers) I would be more surprised to see the Tigers in the playoffs than any of those possibilities.

I don't understand why anyone would attempt to look at Pedro's or any other player's performance and try to make assumptions about league quality. There are just way too many variables. Look at Clemens. He was the best pitcher baseball in 1998 and than posted an ERA+ of less than 100 in 1999. Pedro posted an ERA+ over 200 in 2003 and then had an off year for him and posted an ERA+ of 125. I'm sorry, his stuff didn't decline that much in one offseason. Luck and fluctuations in performance are factors that can't be ignored.

For example, there's no way anyone could have anticipated that Kris Benson would have a better than Josh Beckett this season.

I don't think the Tigers will make the playoffs either, but their run differential right now is much better than either the Orioles' or Nationals' ever were last year even when those teams had their biggest leads. The Tigers are clearly playing better at this point than either of those teams were, therefore. BTW, I'm very glad that Verlander struck out five batters tonight; I don't care that he gave up seven hits and four runs--that's just luck evening out and a good lineup--but he needs to start getting some batters out by himself.

see every time I think this site has something going for it, we get comments like this

Whoa. The 2005 Orioles sure pounded the world better cards tonight

I think you have to take a comment like that as just a zinger, cardsfanboy, and not intended to be any sort of serious analysis. Just meant as a jab, that's all. Laugh a little.

As to your list of possibilities, I'd rank them thusly as for how surprised I'd be if they happened:


1. The Tigers in fourth place.
2. The Dodgers with the best record in baseball.

(Either of those two would astonish me beyond belief. The others all pale compared to those two. Numbers 3-8 -- none of them would shock me all that much.)

3. The Cardinals with the best record in baseball.
4. The Tigers in third place.
5. The Tigers in the play-offs.
6. The Yankees with the best record in baseball.
6. Any of the Tigers, Mets, White Sox, or Red Sox with the best record in baseball.
7. The Reds below .500.

of course having the best record in baseball doesn't necessarily mean you are the best team in baseball, even I as a Cardinal fan was pretty sure that the Red Sox were the better team in 2004.

Of course I'm also the guy that is pretty confident that the Braves would have won the division in 1994.

I'm pretty confident about that myself. It was only 6.5, there was a month and a half left, and the Braves were a comeback team back then. I lived in the Bay Area in '93, so I know...

As the fan of an AL team, I'll make this peace offering to the fans of NL teams. Most all of us AL team fans will root lustily for the NL representative in the world series if, somehow, the AL representative is the new york or boston AL team.

Fixed.

Pedro posted an ERA+ over 200 in 2003 and then had an off year for him and posted an ERA+ of 125. I'm sorry, his stuff didn't decline that much in one offseason. Luck and fluctuations in performance are factors that can't be ignored.

Actually, between 2003 and 2004 was when his old velocity disappeared for good. It wasn't luck or fluctations - it was undergoing the transition from "guy with consistent 95-97 MPH fastball" to "guy with consistent 87-89 MPH fastball." He could still crank the occasional high 90s bullet out - as he did when he got knocked around in that game 7 inning in the ALCS that year, got angry, and started to let it fly - but on a start-to-start basis he was undergoing the process of becoming a different pitcher, without the old gas. His 4.69 ERA against the AL East in 113 innings in '04 shows just how difficult that transition was for him against the teams who knew him best.

This USA Today article from April, 2004, details the concerns about the velocity loss:
Red Sox fans ratchet up angst over Pedro's arm

About the 4.00 ERA AL Pedro comment. That type of comment strikes me as a "plug in adjustment factor into model without thinking" type of analysis. Given how Pedro pitches relative to 85% of the pitchers in majors, there is no league where Pedro would be a 4.00 ERA type pitcher.
In 2004, Pedro was saving some stamina for the postseason.

About Delgado 2004, he was coming off a major injury which depressed his hitting stats. You can't cherry pick those numbers to argue for the quality of the two leagues.

I would the 2006 Mets stack up well with any of the AL studs - keep in mind that this team survived Matsui, IPOR, and Lima, anchors which will not be seen again. By the end of the year, Wright, Reyes, Milledge and Pelfrey should be much improved as well.

So NL rules create more of an advantage for the home teams than do AL rules, which are "fairer" as between the home and away teams. And so this seems to be a small inbuilt advantage for the NL in interleague play, as the NL team will always be the home team when NL rules are used.

While your case makes sense logically, 2Alous, the evidence doesn't back it up. Leaving out interleague games, here is how the home team has done in each league, for 2000-2005:

NL 3750-3268, .5343
AL 3232-2812, .5347

Either it's not a really meaningful advantage (perhaps because NL teams have quality 7th-inning relievers), or other AL advantages balance out the HFA.

Pedro hasn't thrown 95-97 since 2001. Why is 2004 the first year he had to make this transition? It's just the first year his numbers indicated that he wasn't untouchable.

And just for the heck of it, here are the numbers for interleague games (also 2000-2005):

NL home: 422-334, .558
AL home: 435-320, .576

Interesting that HFA is *that* much higher in interleague games than in intraleague. That definitely leads credence to the idea that each team is optimized towards its still of play (I know, that's not exactly an earth-shattering revelation).

but on a start-to-start basis he was undergoing the process of becoming a different pitcher, without the old gas. His 4.69 ERA against the AL East in 113 innings in '04 shows just how difficult that transition was for him against the teams who knew him best.

I think that's an excellent observation. I also think you have to acknowledge that it tells us only a limited amount about how Pedro would do against AL competition today, when (a) they aren't nearly as familiar with him any more -- there's been some turnover in the time he's been gone, and (more importantly) (b) he's had over a year to successfully make that transition to the pitcher without the old velocity. For what it's worth, here's what Pedro did against AL competition in 2005:

May 22 (v. NYY): 7 4 1 1 1 6 (ND)
Jun 12 (v. Ana): 7 6 3 3 4 3 (ND)
Jun 18 (v. Ana): 6 9 4 4 1 7 (L)
Jun 24 (v. NYY): 8 6 2 2 2 3 (W)

Total: 28 25 10 10 8 19 1-1 3.21 ERA

Seems pretty similar to what he did against the NL -- slightly higher ERA (he was 2.76 against NL teams in 189 IP), but given the small IP v. AL opponents, that difference isn't significant. One less run against Seattle, and the difference disappears. Best indication we have, I think, is that Pedro would be the Pedro he is for the Mets (certainly not the Pedro of old, darn the luck) if he were still in the AL.

Regarding Delgado in 2004. He was hurt in the first half and actually tore up the league after the ASB, posting an OPS over 1.000.

style of play, I meant, of course.

I mean, if we went through the teams' talent base the way JRE and cardsfanboy did with the White Sox and the Cardinals, I am pretty confident that I could defend the Mets vis-a-vis the Evil Empire and the Old Towne Team a bit better. I think a roster with Beltran, Wright, Delgado, Floyd, Reyes, Pedro, Wagner, Glavine . . . I think that roster tells a story of talent as deep and versatile as any in the game.

How does one go about league-independent valuation in this context? For a guy like Wright, absolutely, he's a stud, but would his OPS be .040 lower in the AL?

For the Tigers' talk in this thread, I believe they had a terrible end to last season [around .500 at the start of August, maybe?] and that's with less-than-full seasons from Polanco, Guillen, Ordonez, Verlander, Zumaya, Rogers, Granderson, Shelton, etc... They've improved a lot from a team that was pretty solid for most of last year.

His 4.69 ERA against the AL East in 113 innings in '04 shows just how difficult that transition was for him against the teams who knew him best.

Maybe it's because they're inexorably linked, but I seemed to remember that Pedro faced the Yanks more frequently than usual that year. Any starting pitcher who has to deal with an offense as stacked as the 2004 Yanks would have an inflated ERA. I think that was also the year where the Yankees finally figured Pedro out - to a limited degree, so the 3.90 ERA has to be taken in context.

I think it is safe to say that the current Yankees offense is not at par with the 2004 version.

How does one go about league-independent valuation in this context?

Well, for one thing you look at the play of the game. You see how David Wright can hit the ball to the opposite field and how he can hit with two strikes; you see what balls Jose Reyes can get to in the hole; you observe how Carlos Beltran can turn on certain pitches down in the zone.

You see the skills they have against individual opponents whom you know to have talent levels that are as good as those of the best in the AL, and you measure them by that yardstick. Without looking it up, for instance, and knowing how David Wright has done against Jason Schmidt, I'd say that if he can turn around a Schmidt fastball he can do just fine against the AL's best. If Jose Reyes can steal a base against Brian Schneider, I'm willing to bet he can be successful running on the AL's top catchers. There's still a place for assessing individual talent and skill. If Glavine can deal with Albert Pujols, Andruw Jones, Chase Utley, Miguel Cabrera, etc., with reasonable success, I think I can take that as a pretty decent indication he's well-equipped for the AL, too.

In the particular case of the Mets, we do have a few seasons of Beltran and Pedro and Delgado in the AL, too. They had a fair degree of success, if memory serves. I'm willing to believe that if they went back over there, they'd still be competitive, and there's no reason to believe that teammates like Wright and Reyes and Floyd who are their peers (and in Wright's case, their superior) wouldn't be equally competitive.

But since these are such subjective judgment calls I'm describing, I readily concede that they are subject to incredible bias creeping in, and there is no way to deal with that. It's one way to deal with the inherent difficulty of comparing teams and players across leagues when there is only very limited interleague play, but it's far from fool proof and it'll start more arguments than it'll ever resolve. Which is fine, too.

Maybe it's because they're inexorably linked, but I seemed to remember that Pedro faced the Yanks more frequently than usual that year.

He didn't.

The Yankees had indeed figured him out, but that had started in '03. He only made 4 starts against them in '04, same as against Baltimore. He made 6 starts against Toronto, three against Tampa. It was actually the Orioles who did the most damage against him in both '03 and '04, even more than NYY, but the real key was that where he had once been Superman against the likes of the Blue Jays and the Devil Rays, he was now "merely" very, very good - which, when coupled with the O's and the Yanks ownage, drove his overall numbers against the division to the level of the mediocre.

Interestingly, in '03 he pitched more against Tampa than against any other division opponent. Only 1 start against Toronto that whole year.

By the end of the year, Wright, Reyes, Milledge and Pelfrey should be much improved as well.

Wright should be much improved by the end of the year? Reyes should be much improved over what he's doing now? Get out of here.

This is of course true. But what's important to remember is that the simple generalization about the relative strengths of the leagues (even if we have a fair degree of confidence that we've assessed it pretty accurately) does NOT provide enough of a basis to then take that, ipso facto, and draw conclusions about the strengths of individual teams and how they would translate into the other league.

Yes it does, actually.

<i>I don't understand why anyone would attempt to look at Pedro's or any other player's performance and try to make assumptions about league quality.<i>

Which is why you look at the 75 to 100 or so players who switch leagues each year and their collective 3000 or so PA. That tells you A LOT about the relative quality of the leagues. If all 100 players from one league had a collective OPS+ of 100 in one league and one year and then had a collective OPS+ of 90 the next year in the other league, that tells you that they are now "worse" relative to the players in the new league (and themsleves of course). That is either due to aging (which is true since traded players tend to be around 31 years old on the average), to lack of familiarity with the pitching, the fact that the average player in the new league is better, or some combination. If all of the players in the other league gain 10 points in OPS+, then we can rule out aging and familiarity and conclude that one leage is 10% better than the other. It's not that hard.

Hopefully I'll have my research and article finished in a day or so. I don't know where I'll publish it. Maybe BP or Hardball Times. It should be real interesting and enlightening.

Interestingly, in '03 he pitched more against Tampa than against any other division opponent. Only 1 start against Toronto that whole year.

And that was the year Toronto had a really good offense (5.5 R/G, second only to the Red Sox in the AL).

If all of the players in the other league gain 10 points in OPS+, then we can rule out aging and familiarity and conclude that one leage is 10% better than the other. It's not that hard.

Yeah, but the chances of that are pretty slim.

Like usual I'll take the other end of the bet, and happily spank the majority of the primates. I think the Tigers will make the playoffs.

of course having the best record in baseball doesn't necessarily mean you are the best team in baseball

All things being equal what else would mean someone is the best team in baseball? We aren't in a situation where some teams have improved at the deadline when other haven't (04 Sox vs Cards) but in a situation where more teams are and have been to a certain extent what they are.

I'm sorry but I have a heck of a hard time taking a guy seriously who says the white sox are on a hot steak. Won the world series last year, and so far have been one of the top 2-3 teams this year. Yeah some hot streak. I bet he wishes his cards were on such a hot streak.

Like usual I'll take the other end of the bet, and happily spank the majority of the primates. I think the Tigers will make the playoffs.

I agree actually. I think they're legit. Ordonez, Guillen, Granderson, and Shelton are all good hitters having years in line with reasonable expectations. They've gotten a lot more out Thames than expected, but if you have a look at his minor league record, I think there's even reason to expect some of that to continue. Thames is really the only guy who's performing "over his head."

The pitching is a different story. They're going to regress a decent amount there(it's just not reasonable for them to maintain a 3.51 ERA in the AL), but at the same time, they're not doing it with smoke and mirrors either.

I say they win 95 games, and that might be somewhat conservative. That only requires them to go 46-42 the rest of the year.

95 wouldn't get them into the playoffs. I keep thinking Seattle 2002, myself. They had a similar record and run-differential at this point, but did it with overperforming pitching and a hacktastic offense. In the second half, reality came calling and they slumped to 93 wins and missed the playoffs. That 2002 season permanently scarred me, BTW. The Mariners, Red Sox, and Dodgers of '03 taught me that the team with the better offense will always win a division race, even if its pitching is substantially worse. The 2002 Red Sox have absolutely no excuse for not making the playoffs; they were the best team in baseball that year. There, with the Angels, was a case of a team getting lucky and staying lucky till it had won the World Series, so it does happen. But it will never, ever happen to the Tigers--only to teams no one cases about with scumbag owners who inexplicably win two World Championships in the time since one of the original 16 has had a winning season and ones whose core fanbase are arrogant Reaganites who insist they're not in Los Angeles and think Rallymonkeys, Darren Erstad, and David Eckstein are cute. At least the Angels have real people like Shredder, BHW, and ARMoM among their fans, so I don't have to feel too bad about their moderate recent success.

Like usual I'll take the other end of the bet, and happily spank the majority of the primates. I think the Tigers will make the playoffs.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the Tigers made the playoffs.

People still seem to have this impression that they're still not much changed from the 2003 version.

But really, they've changed a LOT:

You know who they currently have who plays a significant part this year and played a significant part in the 2003 clubs?

Inge
Monroe
Maroth
Bonderman
Spurling
Jamie Walker
Infante (maybe)

That's it.

For players who were part of both teams (but not significant contributors), you add:

Santiago
Ledezma

Let's go through the numbers and see how likely they are to falter:

C - I. Rodriguez - .296/.323/.432 - not that much removed from his 2005 season. Probably expect about the same.
1B - Shelton - .272/.339/.512 - a little worse than he posted in 2005. Probably expect about the same.
2B - Polanco - .288/.319/.362 - wow, what happened? stopped hitting for power and stopped taking a walk. Probably expect better OBP and power.
3B - Inge - .221/.282/.467 - somewhat inline with what you'd expect. Worse contact rate, but more power than expected. Expect somewhat about the same.
SS - Guillen - .292/.370/.492 - OBP is right in line with past two years. SLG splits both. Probably expect about the same.
LF - Monroe - .240/.280/.439 - Much worse than track record. Probably expect better OBP with similar SLG.
CF - Granderson - .284/.378/.483 - Better than short track record. However, his minor league track record suggests that this might not be a fluke. Probably expect slightly worse production.
RF - Ordonez - .306/.354/.524 - Better than the past two years, but below the years prior to that (when he was healthy). Probably expect about the same.

So, hitting-wise it seems like they've UNDER-performed so far in relation to expectations.

Pitching-wise:

Rogers - 3.17 ERA - Considering last year he had a 3.46 ERA in TEXAS, it's not unlikely that Rogers can keep this up in the pitcher's park in Detroit. Probably expect about the same.
Robertson - 3.38 ERA - Hmmmm, way about of line with career norms. Probably expect him to get about a 1+ run worse especially since his peripherals haven't changed much except HRs slightly.
Bonderman - 3.82 ERA - Out of line with his career norms, but his peripherals have gotten MUCH better. In addition, he's always has been known to have the stuff, and he's gotten more mature. So, probably expect about the same.
Maroth - 3.56 ERA - Hmmm, with his peripherals and this being well above career norms. Probably expect him to be about 1+ run worse.
Verlander - 3.39 ERA - Dominated minors. However, his peripherals aren't so hot. Probably expect him to be about 0.5-0.7 runs worse.

RP

Jones isn't this bad, but he's not likely as good as 2005.
Rodney is good and likely will stay about as good.
Zumaya is just sick and likely will stay that way.
Walker is good, but I don't think he's THIS good.
Spurling has been bad, but his ERA hasn't reflected it.

So, overall, the offense is likely to get slightly better, however, the pitching is likely to get MUCH worse. Of course, that's assuming Zumaya doesn't start starting, and they don't make any trades to shore up their pitching or hitting.

Hmmmm, taking a look at it, I think it will be a LITTLE surprising if the Tigers make the playoffs (as I don't think they're as good as the Yankees or Red Sox WHEN HEALTHY). But the thing is, I don't know if the Yankees can keep this up with a bottom of the order of Cabrera, Phillips, Cairo/Crosby. Well, actually, having A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Posada, Damon, and Cano might be enough to cover for the bottom of the order deficiencies....

I think the Central goes to the White Sox, the East goes to the Red Sox, and the Yankees and Tigers will fight it out for the wild card.

Of course, that all also depends on who can stay healthy.

F

Oops, I missed DH which has been Thames lately. He'll probably get worse, but as bibigon noted, his minor league has shown he CAN dominate at times. But man, if I was looking at his minor league track record before 2004, I don't know if I'd say that.....

Ok, so maybe the hitting stays about the same then, since if Thames regresses they'll have Dmitri Young to be mediocre for them.

F

You can also look at the raw stats of visiting players in interleague games compared to visiting players from the same league playing the same home teams in the same stadiums.

MGL: Vinay reports that the NL at home in interleague play (no DH for either team) is 422-334, .558, much BETTER than their intra-league .534 mark. This meets your test: same park, home hitters and pitchers of average ability, and visiting players of average ability for their respective leagues. Yet, the AL visitors are clearly scoring fewer runs and/or allowing more runs. How do you reconcile that with your theory? (The AL's even better home record clearly reflects the DH advantage.)

If all 100 players from one league had a collective OPS+ of 100 in one league and one year and then had a collective OPS+ of 90 the next year in the other league, that tells you that they are now "worse" relative to the players in the new league

This only works if you base OPS+ on position players only, excluding pitchers, which I assume you have.

That is either due to ....lack of familiarity with the pitching,

It could be that adjusting to the AL is harder than the reverse (though don't know why that would be true). This analysis would be more convincing if it held up when looking at 2 or 3 years of post-switch performance.

The impact of "rest" on one of Detroit's bats using the DH slot isn't zero but its very small I'd suggest.

I disagree with this statement... Mike E (or anyone for that matter), have there been any studies done on the advantages of resting players regularly vs. running them out there every day? Maybe in the context of Cal Ripken Jr. or someone like that?

I'm convinced that Jason Kendall shaved about 3-5 productive years off his career by not resting more early on as a young player and especially after he came back from the hand (not ankle) injury. I've often wondered why teams let guys play 162 games per year, when they could potentially get more production with regularly scheduled rests that have them play 145-150. Any evidence that teams that rest players more go into fewer slumps? How would you even measure that?

So NL rules create more of an advantage for the home teams than do AL rules, which are "fairer" as between the home and away teams. And so this seems to be a small inbuilt advantage for the NL in interleague play, as the NL team will always be the home team when NL rules are used.

While your case makes sense logically, 2Alous, the evidence doesn't back it up. Leaving out interleague games, here is how the home team has done in each league, for 2000-2005:

NL 3750-3268, .5343
AL 3232-2812, .5347

Either it's not a really meaningful advantage (perhaps because NL teams have quality 7th-inning relievers), or other AL advantages balance out the HFA.

I am well aware of this problem. I did quite a lot of research on this issue. That's why I described the advantage as "game theoretical." In game theory the NL rules should lead to a greater home field advantage than AL rules, in practice home field advantage is virtually identical across the two leagues. The conclusion I reached is that managers have a tendency to leave their starters in too long*, so forcing the away team to take their starter out earlier than they would like is not a practical disadvantage.

* By too long, I mean in the context of the individual game. i.e. I think that (generally), if the manager went to the bullpen earlier he'd win that specific game more often. However, managers are not managing for the specific game, they are managing for the season, and saving the bullpen is important. It would not surprise me in the least if (most) managers' strategies are near-optimal with respect to the season as a whole, but evaluating that question is beyond my competence.

Any stats on how NL players perform as DH's, compared to their overall or road (since in interleague games, an NL DH is always on the road) stats? I'd think the sensibilities of such a role are a bit different. This isn't Strat-O-Matic

Also, I wonder whether NL managers with AL DH experience, either as a player or manager, set up their lineups for such games differently than managers whose experience is purely NL. Over the years, AL batting orders have been redefined by the DH; the #9 hitter now is not necessarily your weakest hitter, but someone whose skills are almost that of a second leadoff man. (Ozzie Guillen was a leading example of this, and I believe that was instituted by Tony LaRussa during his year-and-a-half managing Guillen with the Sox.)

This is of course true. But what's important to remember is that the simple generalization about the relative strengths of the leagues (even if we have a fair degree of confidence that we've assessed it pretty accurately) does NOT provide enough of a basis to then take that, ipso facto, and draw conclusions about the strengths of individual teams and how they would translate into the other league.

Yes it does, actually.

No, it doesn't, actually. For many of the reasons we've discussed in this thread: the DH rule. The park adjustments. The number of ex-AL/NLers on the team's roster. The fact that some teams would be more well-suited than others to make the transition. My position is pretty simple: not every team would translate equally according to the "average" league adjustment. It is thus fatally over-simplistic to say that because the average NL team is X games worse than the average AL team, a SPECIFIC NL team would lose that number of games if it went over, or that a particular NL team has to win that many more games in the NL to be considered the equal of an AL counterpart. You just cannot take such a generalized conclusion and simply translate it to a specific case with any confidence at all.

There's another way to approach this. If anyone really thinks it's so simple as saying, "The AL is 10 games better, period, so you just add 10 games to an AL team and subtract 10 games from an NL team, and voila -- you've got the answer," do you really truly think that the White Sox, as currently constituted, would be 58-15 in the National League? That they are an .800 true talent team relative to the National League? Of course, that assumes you think they are a .658 true talent team in the AL, which maybe you don't think they are -- I'm sure MGL wouldn't use that as his starting point, of course. But my general point here is that you can't take the general superiority level of the league and assume that it would then translate into the performance of a particular team's record shipped over. No AL team, no matter how good, would play .800 ball in the National League. And, I hate to tell you, the Mets wouldn't play .500 ball in the American League, either. If, as MGL thinks, you can draw conclusions about individual team's strengths from the general strengths of the leagues, then you sure as heck can't do it that way.

Speaking of cherry picking! In 2003, in the AL, Delgado hit .302/.426/.593. He didn't all of a sudden go "boom" in 2005 when he switched leagues to the inferior league. He returned to the career norms he'd had all along, bibigon. 2004 was a down year for Delgado, not a reflection of the awesomeness of the league.

AFICT, everyone is dong this with Pedro. It's lame.

And then I was going to say what Guy said. Unless the players making the switch maintain the dominance, it doesn't mean what people are interpreting it to mean.

Do you honestly think the Red Sox would be THAT much better than 45-27 having played the Mets' schedule? Baseball just doesn't work that way.

Aren't the Red Sox also playing well above their pythag this season?

A ten game difference in quality between leagues is huge. While I knew the AL was better, I didn't think it was that huge. Then I double checked my own research from before the season, and what do you know, it is 10 games. When doing predictions on my site I had to subtract about 5 wins per team from the AL to make the records add up, and add about 5 to the NL. The overall records for MLB did add up, there was no "Lake Wobegon effect" in my initial predictions.

Not that this proves anything, but since it matches up with the research MGL is due to publish, I can't argue against it anymore.

I still think the Mets can beat anybody. David Wright for World Series MVP.

There's another way to approach this. If anyone really thinks it's so simple as saying, "The AL is 10 games better, period, so you just add 10 games to an AL team and subtract 10 games from an NL team, and voila -- you've got the answer," do you really truly think that the White Sox, as currently constituted, would be 58-15 in the National League? That they are an .800 true talent team relative to the National League? Of course, that assumes you think they are a .658 true talent team in the AL, which maybe you don't think they are -

Bad math. It's 10 games over 162, not 10 games over 73. In other words, the 48-25 White Sox would be 4-5 wins better to this point. I don't think that's unrealistic.

The AL is 10 games better, period, so you just add 10 games to an AL team and subtract 10 games from an NL team, and voila -- you've got the answer,"

I understand your point Sam, and generally agree with it. But your example above implies 20 games better, not 10. Add 5 to one, subtract 5 from the other. There's your 10.

Bad math. It's 10 games over 162, not 10 games over 73. In other words, the 48-25 White Sox would be 4-5 wins better to this point. I don't think that's unrealistic.

Unless they were playing the "better than them" Cardinals, then they'd be 70-3 with a Pythag record of 78-(-5).



I know this will come back to me, so just ignore it as childish teasing...

But your example above implies 20 games better, not 10. Add 5 to one, subtract 5 from the other. There's your 10.

No, Miserlou. I meant add 10 games to the AL team if you switched it to the NL; subtract 10 games from the NL team if you sent it the other way. That is the direct meaning of the statement in the intro:

An AL team that projects to win 85 games in the AL this season projects to win 95 in the NL, according to general manager Theo Epstein.

But SG is right -- at the halfway point, it wouldn't be 10 . . . yet. For the White Sox, it would mean not 58-15, but 52/53 wins. I guess that's plausible. So, perhaps, would be suggesting the Mets (on a 102 win pace in the NL) might be a 90-95 win team in the AL. I disagree with that point, but I wouldn't strenuously object the way I have to the claim they would somehow be a .500 team over there. Because that claim piles on the regression MGL does first from their current pace (.630) to say they are likely a "true talent" .585 team in the NL, and then uses that as a baseline to translate them over into a -- voila! -- .500 team in the AL. To which I say . . . well, this is a family website. So I'll just say that reasoning is nonsense.

Add 5 to one, subtract 5 from the other. There's your 10.

Given this, and that we're not quite at the halfway point, then the 48-25 Sox should be 50-23 in the NL.

Though they are playing over their heads to this point. (probably not to the same extent as the Tigers)

Sam, please try and remember a time when the discussion was whether or not Jose Reyes would ever be healthy for a full season, and whether he'd then be worth having in the regular lineup. Not too long ago, the question was, "Is Ty Wigginton our Jeff Kent?" The answer most of us came to was, "Probably not." (And he wasn't-we didn't trade him for Carlos Baerga). Or, "Is Mo Vaughn the fattest Met ever?" Or, "Is Butch Huskey the next Mo Vaughn?"

As it is said in "1986: A Year to Remember," "Teams around the league were upset with the Mets' infatuation with playing hard, and winning." Sad music in the background- everyone is always ready to tear us down.

So do what the video does- segue into "You Belong to the City," watch Darryl Strawberry drink some milk, and enjoy the ride.

MGL's studies leave no room for alternative viewpoints, even though they are merely statistics calibrated by a person, rather than ironclad facts. But the question is, do they pass the smell test? We watch this team every day, have seen plenty of AL games- this is a .500 team? No- I've reached the same conclusion you have, they are likely the best team in baseball.

So even when the Mets win the WS, there are people who will be on this site claiming it is not really an accomplishment, as they won an inferior NL, then beat an AL team in a small sample size.

I'm okay with that.

We watch this team every day, have seen plenty of AL games- this is a .500 team? No- I've reached the same conclusion you have, they are likely the best team in baseball.

Another smart guy that doesn't seem to understand that everything you watch and see about the Mets is versus NL competition (90% of course). You CANNOT possibly discern how good they are as compared to an AL team (I don't mean that literally). It is like special relativity. You cannot EVER tell whether you are moving or your surroundings are moving, as long as you are not accelerating. Or something like that.

I am not saying that they would be a .500 team in the AL. Only that whatever their true strength is the NL, if the AL is better by whatever (say, 56/42), then you can incontrovertibly figure out what their true strength would be in the AL by using a log5 or odds ratio method and it is going to be substantially less than in the AL. I'll repeat what I said - that is incontrovertible.

"you can incontrovertibly figure out what their true strength would be in the AL by using a log5 or odds ratio method and it is going to be substantially less than in the AL. I'll repeat what I said - that is incontrovertible."

I would love to live in a world of such certainty, MGL. I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge, but I am continually surprised by your claims to know the absolutely correct answer to certain questions (ok, most questions that you answer on the site).
League atmosphere does not necessarily equate with a new entrant into said league's performance. There have been more than a few players who played as well or better in the major leagues than in AAA, for instance. To think that you can create a formula that can tell me 100% DEFINITIVELY that the Mets will be 10 games worse in the AL seems ludicrous.

I can buy that the AL is better overall, and that the Mets would face a tougher schedule in the AL, which might contribute to a lower w/l record- or might not. Frankly, I'd love to see it, given that I believe the talent on the Mets, game in and game out, would trump that of any AL team. But all this certainty- don't you get tired of it? Or has every one of your statistical projections come true your entire life?

All certainty aside, I am curious about the method. In essence, do you go in with the assumption that the AL is X amount better than the NL, then adjust the Mets stats accordingly, then declare them a .500 team? Isn't that begging the question? I'm assuming there's a step missing in that equation, curious what it is...

Only that whatever their true strength is the NL, if the AL is better by whatever (say, 56/42), then you can incontrovertibly figure out what their true strength would be in the AL by using a log5 or odds ratio method and it is going to be substantially less than in the AL. I'll repeat what I said - that is incontrovertible.

I'll try one more time: it is NOT introvertible, because it does NOT work like special relativity. Unlike matter in the universe, which all relates according to uniform rules defined by relativity, teams do not convert uniformly by the general formula. The Giants, for example, might be stronger relative to the AL than the formula would suggest because of idiosyncratic factors specific to their roster, their park, and the DH rule. Maybe instead of losing 10 games in the transition they'd lose seven, or five. You cannot "incontrovertibly" figure an individual team's "true strength in the AL" from what an average team would achieve, because no specific team would convert on an exactly average basis.

I'll go this far in your direction, MGL: A team's "true strength" in the NL gives us a very strong indication of what its true strength would be in the AL, and in this historical moment, where the AL is obviously significantly stronger, all NL teams would be weaker relative to AL competition than they are in the NL. But they would not be uniformly weaker -- some would lose more than others; the translation would vary from team to team. The variance is sufficient that it is over-simplistic and misleading to suggest we can simply use the league-wide average to state that we "know" what each team's "true strength" would be in the other league.

It is like special relativity. You cannot EVER tell whether you are moving or your surroundings are moving, as long as you are not accelerating. Or something like that.

Isn't it that the more you know about your position, the less you know about your velocity and vice versa? Actually, isn't that pretty much Heisenberg?

Where is that poster that calls himself "Schrodenger's Bat"? This is not my area of expertise.

It is like special relativity. You cannot EVER tell whether you are moving or your surroundings are moving, as long as you are not accelerating. Or something like that.

Isn't it that the more you know about your position, the less you know about your velocity and vice versa? Actually, isn't that pretty much Heisenberg?

No, you're mixing up two of the theories of physics.

Special relativity tells us that there IS no special, fixed frame of reference. Therefore, it's not possible to tell that you're moving unless you are accelerating (hence people thinking that the earth stood still and was the center of the world).

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that the product of the uncertainties of measurement of the position and momentum of a particle cannot be less than a certain number. IOW, yes, that the more precise your measurement of the position, the less precise your measurement of the momentum CAN be, and vice versa.

That is not however, what MGL is using as a metaphor.

F

Notwithstanding Heisenberg, I'm certain that the AL is now 42 games over .500 (with the Rox/Angels TBD).

Special relativity tells us that there IS no special, fixed frame of reference. Therefore, it's not possible to tell that you're moving unless you are accelerating

Well, actually, that's plain old Gallilean relativity. Special relativity says that, in addition, the speed of light will be observed to be the same for all (non-accelerating) observers.

(hence people thinking that the earth stood still and was the center of the world)

Eh? I have no idea what this means.