Why? Because they spend more money on an "everyday" player rather than their bench? I mean you realize if this is such a disadvantage to them that they don't HAVE to pay a starter $10 mil a year right?
You realize that by spending less on a pitcher they'd have a less chance of winning right?
You realize they can sign Darwin Barney for $1 mil and play him as a DH.
Sure, and not do as well. The NL could spend nothing on bench players or spend a lot on one guy for the games they play DH.
They CHOOSE to pay guys that rather than spending on their bench because it makes more sense and probably wins more games.
And the NL chooses to not spend on a DH bench guy so they can spend in other areas. Something the AL can't do if they want to win more games.
That's not some inherent disadvantage.
Yes it is because the rules are different. If you wanted the same balance the AL team would always have the DH and the NL would always have the pitcher bat. Truthfully we need standardized rules. That's the only way to truly balance this advantage out.
As for the AL being better... you can cite IL records all you want but if the AL truly was better 80% of the time like it suggest that would bare fruit in the playoffs and it just doesn't. I'm not even suggesting the NL is "better." I'd say they are mostly 50-50 nearly every year and honestly the world series tends to play to that. At the end of the day, if you don't buy that then whatever. I can literally cite as much math and reason as I want but if you don't buy something then you just don't buy it and I don't know how I'm suppose to argue against the numbers when they suggest the AL has always had an advantage in IL play.
1) The IL record is aprt of the evidence that the AL appears to be the stronger league.
2) The number of sub .500 teams does as well.
3) We've done the math and shown where the AL is always at a disadvantage by either having someone taken away of the NL getting an addition made.
4) The playoffs to a large degree are the hot teams. We've all said that so let's not go changing that now for such a small sample size.
I'd totally be interested in the numbers that shows this to be false. Not seen any yet that has been explained away.
My stance is who bloody cares which league is "better?" I only care which TEAM is the best because at the end of the day that's all that matters. Save this which league is better stuff for the joke that is the all-star game which I'll also mention I never watch either because it's rather pointless to me as well.
At best you can only say who is better in the league not all of baseball. When you expand all of baseball you need to expand your criteria in the absence of a balanced schedule.
