Why the AL is better...unless the NL wants to do something about it

[Rice Cube]

Good SweetSpot blog:

The AL is definitely the better league - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

1. It's not the DH.

2. AL teams have better players.

3. AL teams have smarter front offices.

4. Because of 2 and 3, AL teams are toughened up by better competition.

If the Cubs, as the NL Central team with (allegedly) the most resources, want to compete annually, they have to not only build their team better and use said resources more wisely, they also have to think in terms of not just building to win the NL Central, but to be able to dominate the Yankees and Red Sox.

Time will tell if the Ricketts have the balls and the bankroll to make that plan work.

 

[dabynsky]

Good SweetSpot blog:

The AL is definitely the better league - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

1. It's not the DH.

2. AL teams have better players.

3. AL teams have smarter front offices.

4. Because of 2 and 3, AL teams are toughened up by better competition.

If the Cubs, as the NL Central team with (allegedly) the most resources, want to compete annually, they have to not only build their team better and use said resources more wisely, they also have to think in terms of not just building to win the NL Central, but to be able to dominate the Yankees and Red Sox.

Time will tell if the Ricketts have the balls and the bankroll to make that plan work.

I agree with the premise that the AL as a whole is better than the NL. I also agree that making the Cubs better is going to increase their chances of winning a World Series. That said the NL has split the World Series the past 10 years with the AL. You just have to get there to have a chance to win it.

 

[Rice Cube]

I agree with the premise that the AL as a whole is better than the NL. I also agree that making the Cubs better is going to increase their chances of winning a World Series. That said the NL has split the World Series the past 10 years with the AL. You just have to get there to have a chance to win it.

It is a crapshoot, and given the greater resources than the rest of the division the Cubs should always have a chance to get to the postseason. I just think that they should spend a little more in order to get the team to the point where they can play the AL East tough, and they also have to get past the Phillies. Once they get to the playoffs though, it's in the hands of the baseball gods.

All that said, I'm not sure how much $ the Cubs actually have to spend this coming offseason so I think the priority should be to free up money and bolster the foundation of the franchise through smart draft signings and foreign amateur signings.

 

[dabynsky]

It is a crapshoot, and given the greater resources than the rest of the division the Cubs should always have a chance to get to the postseason. I just think that they should spend a little more in order to get the team to the point where they can play the AL East tough, and they also have to get past the Phillies. Once they get to the playoffs though, it's in the hands of the baseball gods.

All that said, I'm not sure how much $ the Cubs actually have to spend this coming offseason so I think the priority should be to free up money and bolster the foundation of the franchise through smart draft signings and foreign amateur signings.

I don't expect the payroll to increase and I would honestly be surprised if it held steady at the level it is at now. I think as, you mentioned in the draft thread, the money they spend on signing guys that were drafted in later rounds because of signability issues will point to where this team is headed. I don't think it has to be an either or proposition with competing next season, but I am hoping that really we see both. It will be an interesting half a year to see what the Cubs spend.

 

[bobferg]

Considering that in the last decade the NL and AL have split 10 World Series i think your logic is pretty flawed.

 

[dabynsky]

Considering that in the last decade the NL and AL have split 10 World Series i think your logic is pretty flawed.

I think using 10, 7 game series between two teams to determine the relative strength of leagues is flawed reasoning.

 

[Rice Cube]

The interleague matchups give you a larger sample and point to the AL being the superior league in the regular season. In the playoffs, the short series allow a lot of randomness to seep in which is why teams like the 2006 Cardinals were able to win the World Series.

You can also make the argument that the Yankees probably should have won in 2001 and 2003, or that last year's Giants should've been destroyed by the Rangers. In a short series, the way the ball bounces makes for some interesting upsets.

 

[bobferg]

The interleague matchups give you a larger sample and point to the AL being the superior league in the regular season. In the playoffs, the short series allow a lot of randomness to seep in which is why teams like the 2006 Cardinals were able to win the World Series.

You can also make the argument that the Yankees probably should have won in 2001 and 2003, or that last year's Giants should've been destroyed by the Rangers. In a short series, the way the ball bounces makes for some interesting upsets.

Is the goal to win a meaningless regular season inter league game or a World Series game?

 

[dabynsky]

Is the goal to win a meaningless regular season inter league game or a World Series game?

The goal is to win the World Series, but do you really believe that there is so magic formula that guarantees success in the postseason? Do you think that 7 games is really enough time to determine the better baseball team?

 

[daddies3angels]

The goal is to win the World Series, but do you really believe that there is so magic formula that guarantees success in the postseason? Do you think that 7 games is really enough time to determine the better baseball team?

i agree with this. Anyteam can have a great 7 games

 

[Rice Cube]

Is the goal to win a meaningless regular season inter league game or a World Series game?

The goal is to win the championship. In order to do that one must construct a team that will get to the playoffs irrespective of random luck or intangibles. That means you have to evaluate players effectively/efficiently.

Baseball, more so than any other sport, relies on a lot of luck. Over the course of the regular season, the talent wins out over luck. Over the course of the playoffs, luck becomes more accentuated.

If the 2006 Cardinals beat the 2006 Detroit Tigers in 5 games, it doesn't mean they're the better team overall, it just means that they won that particular best-of-seven. But history will still remember them as the 2006 World Series champions.

So I get your point, bobferg, but the goal has to first be to get to the playoffs. At that point you can postulate that the team with the better record is the favorite, but you simply don't know how the ball will bounce in that month of postseason play. However we can all agree that it is impossible to win the World Series unless you first get to the playoffs, and it is more likely that your team can beat the Yankees if they have already been constructed with that goal in mind. If your team can consistently beat the Yankees, they should dominate the NL.

 

[bobferg]

All I am saying is that if the AL front offices were really that much better then the NLs, if the players are that much better and if the competition was really that much better then the last decade shouldn't have split World Series winners.

 

[Rice Cube]

All I am saying is that if the AL front offices were really that much better then the NLs, if the players are that much better and if the competition was really that much better then the last decade shouldn't have split World Series winners.

I've already explained the role of luck in baseball especially in short series. There's nothing more I can say on the subject. But it's not out of the realm of logic to think that a Cubs team constructed to defeat powerful teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox should also dominate the National League on their way to the pennant. Luck, injuries, etc. will get in the way, though, which is why the games are played on the field, not on paper. But to build a team, you have to do it well on paper first. After that, again, it's in the hands of the baseball gods.

 

[Rice Cube]

Here's a list of World Series champs:

List of World Series champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you should look to at least 1995, because that's when the first wild-card teams played in the playoffs. The decade before was also largely dominated by AL teams.

 

[poodski]

I side with Rice Cube. I am not going to really say anything because he has said it all, but the AL is better.

THOUGH I do think the gap is getting smaller.

 

[bobferg]

What is the difference? I think there is more luck involved in winning a few random 3 game series against random ass teams in inter-league play then winning the World Series.

 

[poodski]

What is the difference? I think there is more luck involved in winning a few random 3 game series against random ass teams in inter-league play then winning the World Series.

There is absolutely more luck in a 3 game series, but here is the problem with using the WS.

A) you are using approximately 60 games (6 games a series) pitting only (supposedly) the best team from each league.

B) you are using a much larger scale (what 200 games a year) between ALL the teams in both leagues.

You are getting a much bigger idea of what each league is made up in slot B. It's not about series wins its about the amount of games won.

Point A proves even more that the playoffs are a crap shoot.

 

[Rice Cube]

It makes sense to build the best team possible anyway, as that will increase their chances of getting to the playoffs a bunch. I don't know if it'll be this year or next, but at some point the Cubs need some form of overhaul anyway and then they can build it up again. Just an opinion.

 

[seandon]

I completely disagree.......The main reason the AL is better than the NL is BECAUSE of the DH. I swear I believe that if Houston, The Pirates and the Marlins were AL teams, they'd be better than Kansas City, Baltimore, and Oakland. The DH is bogus. The AL having the DH would be like me trying to play one of you in "Madden" on PS3, yet you play on "All-Madden" mode, and I play on "Pro" mode.....It's ridiculous. I do, however, agree that teams need to get better at talent evaluation. Spending money is not the answer! Since the year 2000, Anaheim, Marlins, White Sox, and the Cardinals all won World Series titles with payrolls less than $80M.....Other teams are just stupid, that's all.

 

[DewsSox79]

I completely disagree.......The main reason the AL is better than the NL is BECAUSE of the DH. I swear I believe that if Houston, The Pirates and the Marlins were AL teams, they'd be better than Kansas City, Baltimore, and Oakland. The DH is bogus. The AL having the DH would be like me trying to play one of you in "Madden" on PS3, yet you play on "All-Madden" mode, and I play on "Pro" mode.....It's ridiculous. I do, however, agree that teams need to get better at talent evaluation. Spending money is not the answer! Since the year 2000, Anaheim, Marlins, White Sox, and the Cardinals all won World Series titles with payrolls less than $80M.....Other teams are just stupid, that's all.

disagree on the DH part

Agree on spending- Not how much you spend but how you spend it.