Agreed. I just wanted to clarify what CoF said previously.

You are correct sir!

_________________

American league last 3 seasons in interleague play:

'08
149-103 (70-55 at NL Parks)

'07
137- 115 (65-60 at NL Parks)

'06
154-98 (68-58 at NL Parks)

You can try to defend the NL by blaming the designated hitter but the fact is the American league has dominated the National league because their rosters are stronger 1 through 25. Period.

This clearly makes you a superior fan over NL team fans. Good for you!

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

If the BoSox and Yankees were in the NL, they would still spend the same amount of money, thus pulling other teams into higher payrolls, which would make the NL overall better. It has nothing to do with the DH. If they didn't have a DH, they would just spend the DH $ on an extra pitcher.

Keyser is right on here.

_________________

That sums it up nicely.

The DH is an advantage. Parse stats all you want, the DH is an advantage. There will come a time when the NL is again dominant as it has been in the past. What will that mean? What will that do?
Well, that and fifty cents will get you a newspaper. BFD.

_________________
Stupidity irritates the crap outta me... and yes, I irritate myself far too often.

Since the steroid fueled Satans Trilogy of Champoinships from the Yanks, the WS are split even, 4-4. If the AL is so superior, why have they only won half the last 8 championships?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

the american league SHOULD dominate inter-league play EVERY year. the fact is they have one extra big-money hitter to throw in the lineup that a national league team does not. in the american league parks, the advantage is huge for the AL teams. the NL team has to trot out a bench player to fill the DH hole, which, while better than having a pitcher hit, rarely can stack up to the AL team who likely has one of its highest-paid offensive powers batting cleanup as a DH. the bench player is a bench player for a reason. i remember having this debate last year during inter-league, and the cubs were running out daryle ward to bat 7th as the DH. hardly an even trade off, but an NL team isnt going to pay a non-fielding slugger millions to play a handful of inter-league games. when in NL parks, the AL has to bat the pitcher, true, but even with the handful of decent hitting pitchers in the NL, the advantage of an NL team over an AL team is minor at best, and certainly less than the ALs advantage in AL parks. plus, in some cases where the DH actually owns a glove, the AL can still hide their DH in the lineup somewhere for a 3-game series in an NL park.

as far as the DH making no difference, that is utterly ridiculous. all you have to do is look at the league eras since the advent of the DH to see what a difference it has made. the NL era every years since has been lower. every year! of COURSE it is easier to pitch in the NL, and of course it has to do with the extra hitter in the lineup. to say otherwise is ridiculous!

hey, i dont mind the AL playing with a DH. i prefer the NL style of ball, but thats just my choice, and seriously, it doesnt matter how strong the NL ever gets, the AL will always score more runs and more often than not win inter-league play. the AL isn't nearly as dominant as some like to think, but if you go by the numbers, magically, around 1973, the AL became a far superior league.

This is a borderline moronic statement. It's due to the DH - the yanks and sox just happen to play in the league w/ the DH.

_________________

No, its due to them spending insane amounts of money on payroll. As I said, if there was no DH or the Yanks and/or BoSox were NL teams, they would just spent that DH money on another pitcher.

_________________

what you say is true, but i dont see how that is relevant. all of a sudden both leagues would be playing by the same rules, and the AL's era would go down and level out with the NL, the AL wouldn't score as many runs and level out with the NL, and it would once again show that the DH makes pitching in the AL much more difficult than the NL.

the concept is actually pretty simple: additional slugger in lineup in place of pitcher = harder to get outs = more runs = higher era = reason why AL pitchers would be more likely to succeed in NL. i am confused how anyone can argue that.

You guys are missing the point. Keyser's point is not that the DH makes the AL better. The point is that the Yankees and Red Sox seemingly bottomless wallet makes the AL better. They spend like crazy. Most years, in order to get to the World Series, you have to beat one or both of those teams. In order to compete with those teams, you have to spend money. Much more so in the AL than NL.

Again, if there were no DH, those teams would spend DH money on another pitcher. Thus, spending would still be at the same insane level, and spending of the other teams would have to be high in order to compete with them. The DH is a factor in the AL being better, but it really comes down to spending money, something which teams in the AL must do more of if they want to compete with the beasts of the east.

_________________

Your point including Boston is a mistake. They're not #2 in team salary. But the point you're trying to make has some merit.
The NYY is a juggernaut with financial advantages (YES network, willingness to pay exorbitant luxury tax) that most other teams cannot compete with. In that, your point has some merit. However, the other teams in the AL and in MLB in general seem to be holding a line beneath 140 M. There are quite a few teams between 140M and 120M, with the majority of those in the AL (80%). Salaries in the top ten make the AL teams at 60%.
But, consider this. The NYY advantage is so large, take them out of the equation for a moment. Without the NYY, the top ten team salaries are split 50/50. The NYY are unreachable, untouchable (somewhere, Stone Roses just got a hard on and doesn't know why exactly, other than it's pinstripe related) and for all practical purposes, not worthy of inclusion in this discussion as they've not won the WS in some time (for them). Other, less salaried and <gasp> NL residing teams have won the WS recently. For all the purported salary advantages and (more important in my view) batting order advantages, the AL isn't as dominant as you would like to think.
The DH makes for a greater advantage than the spending amount. An inherent and unfair advantage that should be changed, but that's a discussion for another day.

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors ... laries.htm

_________________
Stupidity irritates the crap outta me... and yes, I irritate myself far too often.

This is from Mark Cubans blog after he lost his bid to buy the cubs.



Teams have to be better in the AL because they HAVE to beat the Yankees and Red Sox to make it to the World Series.

But then they lose that position player. If the Sox want to play Thome they lose Konerko. If the Red Sox want to play Ortiz they lose Youkilis. If the Yankees want to play Matsui they lose Abreu. AL teams STILL beat NL teams in THEIR parks because their overall rosters are better and not because of 1 position.

look, all of the muddying of the argument about salaries and keeping up with the yankees and the red sox and all that doesnt change the fact that i pointed out in this simple statement:



it is a simple fact that due to the rules of the game in the AL that allow an extra slugger in the middle of the lineup makes pitching easier in the NL, and it is not a coincidence or accident that the NL has had a lower ERA every year since '73. it isnt a complicated issue.

i will grant you that point about the DH taking the place of an every day player, that is true. over the last couple of seasons, the AL has an edge over the NL in NL parks, but it is pretty close, at least within reason. they have an overwhelming edge in AL parks due to the DH, and will have that edge every year in inter-league play.

And if the Yankees and Red Sox didn't have a DH, they would spend that DH money on another pitcher. The AL is better beacuse those 2 teams have spent billions over the last few years, and anybody else in the AL that wants to win the pennant, has to beat them. Simple as that.

_________________

well it is easy to see this is going nowhere, but one thing is apparent - you are reading much more into a clear statement of fact than there really is, overcomplicating the obvious for sake of extending an argument. as a matter of fact, i am not sure you even have absorbed what is being said: for the last 35 consecutive years, since the year of the inception of the DH, the AL ERA has been higher every single year, clearly indicating that due to this rule, it is harder to pitch in the AL. just having the DH in the lineup changes the whole approach at the plate for a team. no more black hole at the bottom of a lineup to work around. no more having to burn up your bench pinch-hitting and double-switching with bench players. the whole AL style of game is based on scoring advantages to the hitting team. to ignore these truths and deny the DH is the overwhelming reason why pitching is harder in the AL than the NL is ridiculous.

And if the Yankees were in the NL, the gap would be significantly closer, if not in the NL's favor becuase they spend money like its going out of style.

_________________

The Yankees spend a ton of money and still suck. And not every team in the AL is overpaying like its going out of style. Look at the Royals Twins A's and many more. There are bloated payrolls in the NL as well just not the one that stands out like the Yankees. You could take away the DH and have the Yankees still spend like crazy and the leagues would be alot closer. Oh and the AL style of baseball blows and is contributing to keeping the last vestiges of the 90's style steroid era collecting paychecks.

_________________