National League vs American League ...

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:52 pm

I know it's an old argument, but what's your opinions on why you prefer one league over the other?

I liked the NL mainly bec. it was a faster and more small ball league but I dont know if thats the case anymore. And of course I hate the DH.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:59 pm

When I was a little kid it seemed like the NL had all the fun, brightly colored uniforms, while all the AL teams looked black-and-white and generally felt like they were for old people. My allegiances remain the same, but now I can say it's because I don't like the DH. That 'vintage' feel to some AL teams and parks is now a point in its favor, however.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:00 pm

Uhh...DH. That's all that needs to be said of the AL.

Pitchers should hit like the rest of the team. It brings a lot more strategy to each game.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:03 pm

I only watch National League ball. Go Mets.

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:03 pm

I'll take the NL. Same reason already stated, I hate the DH.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:16 pm

I follow the NL because my home team plays there. But I acknowledge that the AL currently has better, deeper talent. I followed the AL when I lived in an AL city.

The DH has been around for over 30 years and is a part of the sport at all levels. I'm not convinced by the argument that it decreases strategy. You sacrifice when you have a man on base with the pitcher spot coming up; that's not strategy, it's a no brainer. There are more double switches in the NL but I don't think bullpen use differs significantly between leagues. Some managers have their individual quirks though.

I am looking forward to Randy Johnson's return to the NL batters box for comedic reasons.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:21 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:The DH has been around for over 30 years and is a part of the sport at all levels. I'm not convinced by the argument that it decreases strategy. You sacrifice when you have a man on base with the pitcher spot coming up; that's not strategy, it's a no brainer. There are more double switches in the NL but I don't think bullpen use differs significantly between leagues. Some managers have their individual quirks though.

I think the biggest strategy component is how long you're going to stick with your starter or long relief pitchers. When you have them coming up in the next inning, you can either extend your current releiver or bring in someone else knowing you're going to have to pinch hit for him in the next inning and lose his services going forward. Also, removing your starter sooner than you want because he comes up to bat with guys on base and you don't want to waste his out. Things like that, greatly affect the outcome of games. If you pull your starter too early, you end up using more pitchers, going deeper in your pen. The ripple it causes isn't seen in the AL.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:23 pm

The DH has been around for over 30 years and is a part of the sport at all levels.

That's why I refuse to watch college baseball with their cute little metal bats.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:30 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote:The DH has been around for over 30 years and is a part of the sport at all levels. I'm not convinced by the argument that it decreases strategy. You sacrifice when you have a man on base with the pitcher spot coming up; that's not strategy, it's a no brainer. There are more double switches in the NL but I don't think bullpen use differs significantly between leagues. Some managers have their individual quirks though.
I think the biggest strategy component is how long you're going to stick with your starter or long relief pitchers. When you have them coming up in the next inning, you can either extend your current releiver or bring in someone else knowing you're going to have to pinch hit for him in the next inning and lose his services going forward. Also, removing your starter sooner than you want because he comes up to bat with guys on base and you don't want to waste his out. Things like that, greatly affect the outcome of games. If you pull your starter too early, you end up using more pitchers, going deeper in your pen. The ripple it causes isn't seen in the AL.

Agreed, but I don't think it makes a huge difference at a macro level. If that was that big of a factor, I'd expect to see significant differences in IP stats between NL and AL starters, and appearances for relievers. The data just doesn't support it. It can influence individual games though.

What I do see is higher SO totals for NL pitchers, which is what you'd expect from facing a guy 2-3 times/game who hasn't wielded a bat since high school.

fatheadX · Post by **fatheadX** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:41 pm

I'm an NL apologist as well. My bias started early. My parents are from Pennsylvania, so when we visited, everyone talked about the Phillies and their games were shown (living in New Mexico, we only got the Game of the Week). The Big Red Machine was in full effect, so I got interested in them as well. When we got cable, the Cubs and Braves games were broadcast (remember when TBS used to be WTCG?). Then I moved to Colorado and the Rockies became my team. Habits are hard to break, although I kind of like that the DH exists to make the leagues at least a little different.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:10 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:(Back and forth about the DH)

I actually agree with both of you guys, and to me, having/ not having the DH is a wash. It does introduce a little more strategy into each game, but it also puts a bat in pitchers' hands.

I'm an AL fan because my team is AL, but I'm actually glad that there is the DH distinction between the leagues.

fanatic · Post by **fanatic** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:34 pm

Because I follow my home team- Jays, I'm a bigger AL fan. However, I do recognize that NL ball has a much deeper strategy to it and would rather have my team play in it if given the choice. As it is, I will sit back, crack open a cold one and wait for the three run dinger!

As stated before though, the AL has got a tonne more talent nowadays.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:55 pm

Still ain't buying the strategy argument. Strategies are slightly different in the NL but I don't think necessarily deeper. If managing a NL team was rocket science, Charlie Manuel wouldn't be capable of managing the Phils to a winning record two years in a row.

The data doesn't support the more HR angle either. In 2006, the average NL team hit 177.5 HRs vs. 181.8 HRs/yr for the AL. The delta in 2005 was greater but still well under the 11% I'd expect for having an extra bat in the order.

Personally, I could take or leave the DH but I think it does help to maintain some difference between the league. Increased player movement and interleague play has blurred the lines between the leagues. If not for the DH, this thread would be as relevent as whether people like the AFC or NFC in football.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:05 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:Still ain't buying the strategy argument. Strategies are slightly different in the NL but I don't think necessarily deeper. If managing a NL team was rocket science, Charlie Manuel wouldn't be capable of managing the Phils to a winning record two years in a row.

Yeah, but with the talent they have, they should have been in the WS for the last couple years. When you're a sh*tty manager, you end up out of the playoffs.

And BTW...I don't understand why you need stats to prove that there is a difference in strategies from AL to NL...it's there. You see it happen damn near every game. Just because that stats don't show that pitchers don't pitch more innings or there are more homers or whatever, it doesn't matter. Strategy doesn't equal stats increases/decreases...if you do a good job, stats might go down...if you do a bad job they might go up. But it all has an opposite reaction as well. That's why I don't buy the stat arguement in regards to strategy from AL to NL.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:06 pm

I prefer the NL because I like the symetry of making every defensive player hit. SF is right regarding strategy, as James and others has shown that the pitcher batting has no meaningful impact on strategy. 99% of the time the decision to pinch hit or sacrifice is automatic. The only substantial difference is the double switch, which I seem to vaguely recall. As a Cub fan Dusty's inability to actually pull of this herculean intellectual feat means that I haven't seen one in awhile

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:16 pm

I provide meaningful stats because it's a slow Friday at work and meaningless ones because Kazuya hasn't been around here lately

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:16 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:I provide meaningful stats because it's a slow Friday at work and meaningless ones because Kazuya hasn't been around here lately

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:23 pm

I'm a NL guy too. The purist in me hates the DH whether it increases strategy or not. Even if there is no aggregate effect on IP with starters, there is undeniably some effect on the manager's decision during the game, and often demands a deeper bench of pinch hitters and utility players.

Aside from that, it also just rubs me the wrong way to see some oversized guy who can't throw, field or run anymore trot out for his professional at bats 4 or 5 times a night as well.

grtwhtsk · Post by **grtwhtsk** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:42 pm

I prefer the AL, but that's probably because I watch a lot more of their games! I do really think that it would be better if both leagues either used the DH or didn't. Come the World Series, I find it ridiculous when they switch back and forth depending on the home ballpark. Only in baseball do you have different rules between two leagues. With there now being interleague play, I think that there should only be one rule (DH or no DH).
Can you imagine if the NBA had a designated shooter rule with only the Western Conference having it? The designated shooter to be used once every 4 free throw situations. Then the Eastern and Western conferences would switch based on what arena they're playing in.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:02 pm

I'm a Yankees fan so naturally I prefer the AL. That said, I also think the DH rule is a good thing. Forcing pitchers to hit would be like forcing teams to use their kickers at running back every third series. It's not strategic, it's just stupid and boring. I don't think it was anyone's intention that the game develop in such a way that pitchers would end up being such radically inferior batters, but it did.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:04 pm

seanmac31 wrote:Forcing pitchers to hit would be like forcing teams to use their kickers at running back every third series. It's not strategic, it's just stupid and boring.

That is a ridiculous comparison. The kicker touches the ball 5 times a game...MAYBE. The pitchers touch the ball in baseball more than any other player besides the catcher for crap's sake. They are the biggest part of a team winning or losing. Comparing them to kickers in the NFL...come on.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:09 pm

Even Pre - DH, wasn't the AL always thought of as the more wide open circuit? More offense and more long ball than hit and run and small ball (NL).

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:23 pm

NL-Cuz I was raised in a NL town (STL). I have many friends who grew in AL towns and love the AL.

I dig the line-up strategies in the NL. Double Switch anyone?

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:26 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:Forcing pitchers to hit would be like forcing teams to use their kickers at running back every third series. It's not strategic, it's just stupid and boring.
That is a ridiculous comparison. The kicker touches the ball 5 times a game...MAYBE. The pitchers touch the ball in baseball more than any other player besides the catcher for crap's sake. They are the biggest part of a team winning or losing. Comparing them to kickers in the NFL...come on.

It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. In each case, the position is manned by a specialist who does not require many or any of the skills that a regular player needs. How many times a game the pitcher touches the ball doesn't change that in the slightest. It certainly doesn't change the fact that the inferiority of pitchers to position players with a bat is not an intended development of the game.

But if you prefer, it would be like insisting that quarterbacks play middle linebacker every third series. Equally pointless and bizarre, but hey, they touch the ball...

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:38 pm

That comparison seems a little ridiculous to me. The rules of the game are simple, everyone who plays in the field hits, period. Furthermore, the rotation of batting order is fixed, not some arbitrary designation as your sample suggests. Baseball has never been a game of free substitution (and likely never will be), so comparing it to any other american sport in that regard is totally offbase.