American League 90 loss teams

[Brock Beauchamp]

I just noticed the AL is going to finish the season with just one 90 loss team, Oakland.

 

The NL is likely to have six.

 

Crazy.

[jokin]

 

I just noticed the AL is going to finish the season with just one 90 loss team, Oakland.

The NL is likely to have six.

Crazy.

 

Just one more reason why it's important to take NL stats with a grain of salt.  AL vs. NL is 165-130.  Only 5 AL teams have a losing record vs. the NL- and unfortunately, the Twins are one of those 5.

[biggentleben]

 

Just one more reason why it's important to take NL stats with a grain of salt.  AL vs. NL is 165-130.  Only 5 AL teams have a losing record vs. the NL- and unfortunately, the Twins are one of those 5.

 

The NL is much more split - elite vs. crap. The AL has a whole lot of meh, with one 90 loss team, but most likely no 95 win teams and possibly only 2 90-win teams.

[spinowner]

 

The NL is much more split - elite vs. crap. The AL has a whole lot of meh, with one 90 loss team, but most likely no 95 win teams and possibly only 2 90-win teams.

You call it a whole lot of meh but I call it parity. I'd rather have that than a league with 7 of the worst 8 teams in MLB. I don't think the five NL teams that coasted into the postseason are as elite as it may appear. I think their good W-L records are due as much, if not more, to the quality of their opposition than to the quality of their teams. I have to believe they would have had much more difficulty in the AL, especially the Mets. I'm not going to take the time to confirm this notion, but I'll bet the NL East has the worst extra-division record since divisions came into existence in 1969.

[jokin]

 

The NL is much more split - elite vs. crap. The AL has a whole lot of meh, with one 90 loss team, but most likely no 95 win teams and possibly only 2 90-win teams.

 

The AL is still better overall, top to bottom... again. The good teams in the AL beat each other up, the good teams in the NL pad their numbers on a lot of bad teams.

[biggentleben]

I think it's funny how on forums for NL teams, there is a very territorial love for the NL...on forums for AL teams, likewise for AL.

 

I think there are legit arguments for either league, but interleague, the All-Star game, and World Series are rarely indicative of which league is stronger.

[Shaitan]

The A's had Sam Fuld leadoff today and Danny Valencia bat cleanup. Think about that next time we're debating who our 4th outfielder should be.

[spinowner]

 

... interleague, the All-Star game, and World Series are rarely indicative of which league is stronger.

Agree on the second and third but disagree on the first. The AL has had a winning record in interleague play for the last twelve years. When there's a consistent disparity over the course of that many seasons it's highly indicative that the AL is stronger.

[jokin]

 

You call it a whole lot of meh but I call it parity. I'd rather have that than a league with 7 of the worst 8 teams in MLB. I don't think the five NL teams that coasted into the postseason are as elite as it may appear. I think their good W-L records are due as much, if not more, to the quality of their opposition than to the quality of their teams. I have to believe they would have had much more difficulty in the AL, especially the Mets. I'm not going to take the time to confirm this notion, but I'll bet the NL East has the worst extra-division record since divisions came into existence in 1969.

 

You nailed it spin, especially on the Mets- they are by far the best team going away in the division, but their record outside of the NL East is only 43-43, @ .500.  The Braves have the worst record outside of the division @ 30-53- a winning percentage of only .361 (30-53). But the Phillies (.384), Marlins (.429) and even the Nats ((.453) are pretty awful, too.

[jokin]

 

I think it's funny how on forums for NL teams, there is a very territorial love for the NL...on forums for AL teams, likewise for AL.

 

I think there are legit arguments for either league, but interleague, the All-Star game, and World Series are rarely indicative of which league is stronger.

 

I've been a Cub fan all my life, and the NL seemed to be clearly the stronger league years ago, but my perception is that AL has generally been stronger overall lately in the things we can quantify- the AL inheriting horrible Houston evened things out a bit, but now the Astros are one of the best young clubs in all of baseball. And without the Dodgers' ridiculous $300M payrolls, and the ongoing success of the Cards and Giants, the NL has been pretty moribund.  And I'm not sure how we can discount interleague play- where the AL has mostly had the upper hand for a while, this despite the lack of use of the DH handicap in the NL home parks.

[biggentleben]

 

I've been a Cub fan all my life, and the NL seemed to be clearly the stronger league years ago, but my perception is that AL has generally been stronger overall lately in the things we can quantify- the AL inheriting horrible Houston evened things out a bit, but now the Astros are one of the best young clubs in all of baseball. And without the Dodgers' ridiculous $300M payrolls, and the ongoing success of the Cards and Giants, the NL has been pretty moribund.  And I'm not sure how we can discount interleague play- where the AL has mostly had the upper hand for a while, this despite the lack of use of the DH handicap in the NL home parks.

 

...or the handicap of completely changing the NL teams' style of play by having the DH in AL parks.

 

I feel you cannot compare the leagues based on 2-4 game series that are randomly (now) scattered throughout the season, meaning an AL team can't do a pitcher swap for two weeks to be ready for a road trip through the NL, and vica versa, an NL team can't just pick up a bopper bat from AAA for a two-week AL road trip. Until you're comparing apples to apples, it's really hard to put weight into games that are handicapping one team or another each time from their typical way of play.

[old nurse]

_{The NL was so moribund this year that any team that had a big bopper bat in the minors found some way to get them to the majors by the end of the year.}

[jimmer]

 

I just noticed the AL is going to finish the season with just one 90 loss team, Oakland.

The NL is likely to have six.

Crazy.

And the 3 best records in baseball all come from one division in the National League and there could very well be five teams in the NL with 90 or more wins.

[TheLeviathan]

...or the handicap of completely changing the NL teams' style of play by having the DH in AL parks.

 

I feel you cannot compare the leagues based on 2-4 game series that are randomly (now) scattered throughout the season, meaning an AL team can't do a pitcher swap for two weeks to be ready for a road trip through the NL, and vica versa, an NL team can't just pick up a bopper bat from AAA for a two-week AL road trip. Until you're comparing apples to apples, it's really hard to put weight into games that are handicapping one team or another each time from their typical way of play.

Um, both leagues have a handicap. You don't think it hurts AL teams to lose their DH?

 

Look, I'm not fiercely pro-AL or anything but it appears to me that the NL has WAY more garbage teams that the competent ones are cleaning up on.

[spinowner]

 

...or the handicap of completely changing the NL teams' style of play by having the DH in AL parks.

 

I feel you cannot compare the leagues based on 2-4 game series that are randomly (now) scattered throughout the season, meaning an AL team can't do a pitcher swap for two weeks to be ready for a road trip through the NL, and vica versa, an NL team can't just pick up a bopper bat from AAA for a two-week AL road trip. Until you're comparing apples to apples, it's really hard to put weight into games that are handicapping one team or another each time from their typical way of play.

Most analyses I've read conclude that it's a bigger disadvantage for AL teams to lose the DH than for NL teams to gain it. That said, I've expressed the proposal before that the visiting team in an interleague series should be allowed one totally unrestricted roster move for that series. That would include anything, for example signing a free agent to a 3-day contract, putting a minor leaguer not on the 40-man on the team, anything. There would be no options used, no service time lost, no restrictions of any kind. That would help to negate any disadvantage to a visiting team from either league.

[biggentleben]

Um, both leagues have a handicap. You don't think it hurts AL teams to lose their DH?

 

Look, I'm not fiercely pro-AL or anything but it appears to me that the NL has WAY more garbage teams that the competent ones are cleaning up on.

That was my point. Both leagues have a disadvantage.

 

As far as crap teams go, a big part of it is the aftermath of the trade deadline. Coming into the deadline, the only really crappy teams were Philly and Milwaukee. Atlanta, Cincinnati, Colorado, and Miami all blew up their teams and have been terrible in the second half. The Braves will have a top 3 pick, for instance, and they were 42-42 before the blow up.

[biggentleben]

_{The NL was so moribund this year that any team that had a big bopper bat in the minors found some way to get them to the majors by the end of the year.}

Yeah, like Carlos Correa and Miguel Sano...oh, wait.

[biggentleben]

Most analyses I've read conclude that it's a bigger disadvantage for AL teams to lose the DH than for NL teams to gain it. That said, I've expressed the proposal before that the visiting team in an interleague series should be allowed one totally unrestricted roster move for that series. That would include anything, for example signing a free agent to a 3-day contract, putting a minor leaguer not on the 40-man on the team, anything. There would be no options used, no service time lost, no restrictions of any kind. That would help to negate any disadvantage to a visiting team from either league.

I wouldn't have an issue with that. I understand the numbers show it's easier to gain a hitter than lose one, which makes sense, but if you consistently have a DH, a guy like Evan Gattis has a spot on your roster. An NL team struggles to justify that guy for intraleague, but he'd be more useful in interleague than a defense first bench guy, and most bench guys in the NL are there based on defense, not offense.

[TheLeviathan]

That was my point. Both leagues have a disadvantage.

As far as crap teams go, a big part of it is the aftermath of the trade deadline. Coming into the deadline, the only really crappy teams were Philly and Milwaukee. Atlanta, Cincinnati, Colorado, and Miami all blew up their teams and have been terrible in the second half. The Braves will have a top 3 pick, for instance, and they were 42-42 before the blow up.

The AL is at the more significant disadvantage.

 

I'd also argue you are putting the cart before the horse. Those NL teams sold off because they stink terribly, now they are even a bit worse.

[USAFChief]

If the lack of a DH is such a big disadvantage to the NL, the solution seems pretty obvious to me.

[jimmer]

 

Yeah, like Carlos Correa and Miguel Sano...oh, wait.

or the team with the 3rd best record in baseball, the Cubs. :-)

[Mike Sixel]

Is this the A's first 90 loss season under Beane, not that I want this to turn into another bash / praise Beane thread.....

[biggentleben]

The AL is at the more significant disadvantage.

 

I'd also argue you are putting the cart before the horse. Those NL teams sold off because they stink terribly, now they are even a bit worse.

No, they were .500 teams, and they each made a choice based on finances, primarily, to sell off certain players. The remaining team after sell off did quite a bit worse.

 

Basically, the opposite happened with Texas. They were a .500 team who went for it and acquired significant pieces, and they've moved into first place with a second half surge in opposition to teams like Atlanta and Miami, who were in similar playoff position going into July, but chose to sell.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And the 3 best records in baseball all come from one division in the National League and there could very well be five teams in the NL with 90 or more wins.

This thread wasn't meant to be an indictment of the NL, though it has turned into that... I was just pointing out how crazy it is to have just one 90 loss team in a league.

[biggentleben]

or the team with the 3rd best record in baseball, the Cubs. :-)

The point being that significant young players appeared throughout the league, not just in the NL.

[jimmer]

 

This thread wasn't meant to be an indictment of the NL, though it has turned into that... I was just pointing out how crazy it is to have just one 90 loss team in a league.

I was just pointing out more crazy stuff buddy.

[biggentleben]

If the lack of a DH is such a big disadvantage to the NL, the solution seems pretty obvious to me.

Same here. Go back to the ball of Chief's youth, where real pitchers had to take their time in the box as well. Glad to see you support the removal of that new-fangled DH monstrosity that is damaging the integrity of the game.

[jimmer]

 

The point being that significant young players appeared throughout the league, not just in the NL.

sorry, I thought your response was focusing more on the moribund part of the poster's post, not the NL part.  Both Houston and the Cubs didn't meet that criteria either.

[bluechipper]

 

No, they were .500 teams, and they each made a choice based on finances, primarily, to sell off certain players. The remaining team after sell off did quite a bit worse.

Basically, the opposite happened with Texas. They were a .500 team who went for it and acquired significant pieces, and they've moved into first place with a second half surge in opposition to teams like Atlanta and Miami, who were in similar playoff position going into July, but chose to sell.

Texas had a lot more talent than Miami and especially Atlanta to begin with, so I don't think that's a good comparison. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Basically, the opposite happened with Texas. They were a .500 team who went for it and acquired significant pieces, and they've moved into first place with a second half surge in opposition to teams like Atlanta and Miami, who were in similar playoff position going into July, but chose to sell.

 

Yeah, I'd suggest the whole flaw in your stance is your idea that .500 in the AL is the same as it is in the NL if teams like Texas and Miami have comparable talent levels pre-deadline.

 

I'm not sure how anyone can look at Texas versus Atlanta or Miami and think they are on the same playing field.  If anything, I think that comparison shows even more clearly the NL inferiority right now.