Um ... yes. That's precisely what they should have done, if they're sincerely trying to win the game. Do teams normally pull their best players mid-game?

In the ASG they do.

So you're citing a situation in which the team isn't trying to win the game, to show that teams normally pull their best players mid-game in a situation in which they are trying to win the game?

I don't see the point.

We see when managers pull their best players mid-game with the outcome still in doubt: spring training games. But in no other games.

What puzzled me is that I didn't see Daniel Murphy.

The way Charlie Manuel was managing, trust me -- Murphy was bound to get in there pretty soon. Probably to pitch the 10th.

You are a good sport Sam.

I don't know a damn thing about fantasy baseball, but what is there about it that might account for that strange result? Is it possible that the fantasy leagues don't make enough statistical adjustment for relative league strength? That's a sincere question, and not a rhetorical one.

Thinking about it for a minute, I came up with two possible answers - (1) fantasy baseball is based on raw numbers and doesn't make any statistical adjustments, so the relative league strengths would weigh in favor of the star NL players; and (2) steals. So it kind of makes sense, but is still a little weird. Even now, ESPN's rankings for the second half start off with five National Leaguers.

So you're citing a situation in which the team isn't trying to win the game, to show that teams normally pull their best players mid-game in a situation in which they are trying to win the game?

I don't see the point.

The point is that this practice isn't putting the National League at a competitive disadvantage, because the AL managers are engaging in it, too. NEITHER team is keeping its best players on the field throughout the game, as managers do in regular season play. What the NL managers are not doing, at least not consistently, is to manage intelligently within the current ASG paradigm. And that IS putting them at a competitive disadvantage. So you can change the paradigm, and perhaps that would make the game itself better (I have mixed feelings about it, myself). It might eliminate what has been hurting the NL, because you might find the NL managers doing better under the framework they are used to, compared to the ASG system that they've been screwing up now for years.

What the NL managers are not doing, at least not consistently, is to manage intelligently within the current ASG paradigm. And that IS putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

To the extent that this is true, I don't think it adds up to much of the explanation for the 0-for-13 streak.

Bay is a disaster in the field?

I don't know what your definition of "disaster" is but for two seasons running he has been one of the five worst left fielders in baseball according to UZR. As a Red Sox fan, that seems about right to my eyes. He can't really move, has no real arm and tends to take peculiar angles.

The point is that this practice isn't putting the National League at a competitive disadvantage, because the AL managers are engaging in it, too. NEITHER team is keeping its best players on the field throughout the game, as managers do in regular season play.

Fair enough. I now see the point, but I'm more concerned in why the game is not played to win rather than why the NL specifically has not won.

As for the AL's dominance (12 wins in a row not including the idiotic tie), I suspect what's going on is some combination of (1) luck/randomness, and perhaps (2) better players in the game for the AL, and (3) better managers for the AL.

Luck/randomness is my nomination for the main reason. First, there's no need to cut off our endpoint at 1997 (the AL's first win of the streak). The NL won three games in a row just before that.

Second, the AL has several wins by just 1 run, and most of the AL's wins (10 of the 12 wins) were by 1-3 runs. Just two blowouts.

The AL's margin of victory in the past 13 games:

0-run ties: 1
1-run wins: 5
2-run wins: 2
3-run wins: 3
4-run wins: 0
5+run wins: 2

Close games are largely a matter of luck, and I think that's mostly what we're seeing here. We've seen these kinds of streaks before: the Yankees in the postseason from 1998-2000 (11 straight wins at one point if I recall correctly); the Red Sox in the postseason from 1986-1995 (13 losses in a row). There's nothing going on here other than dumb luck, for the most part. The NL can't be this bad compared to the AL; the worst team in the league will win something like 1/3 of their games against the best team, most of the time.

I'm more concerned in why the game is not played to win rather than why the NL specifically has not won.

Me too. Although I guess I would say, "why" the game is not played to win is rather obvious. I would find the event far more compelling if it was played to win. And if it was played to win, then the outcomes (e.g. the domination of one league or the other) would be a far more worthy topic of inquiry.