AL Takes Allstar game

the American league win 4-3

Was there ever any doubt?

The NL is quite simply the weaker league and has been for many, many years.

True I mean it is obvious that the best division is in the Al with the Yankees Red Sox Jays Rays and Orioles

Even though the American League is better; winning the last 12 completed All star games is amazing. Simply, the better team just does not always win.

Originally posted by quackquack
Even though the American League is better; winning the last 12 completed All star games is amazing. Simply, the better team just does not always win.

and yet another year of home field advantage to the al team in the world series regardless of end of season standings. what a joke.

Regardless of the all star game, the AL deserves home field advantage as they play more games against tougher teams.

The superiority of the AL to the NL can be directly attributed to the Yankees and their spending habits. Then you have teams like the
Red Sox spend more to keep up with them until most teams in the AL become better than teams in the NL. Until their is parity in baseball, or teams in the NL spend more on payroll, you can expect more of the same. As for myself, I have one response to the outcome of the game which is 😴

Originally posted by whodey
The superiority of the AL to the NL can be directly attributed to the Yankees and their spending habits. Then you have teams like the
Red Sox spend more to keep up with them until most teams in the AL become better than teams in the NL. Until their is parity in baseball, or teams in the NL spend more on payroll, you can expect more of the same. As for myself, I have one response to the outcome of the game which is 😴

the Yankees were doing the same thing back in the 70s and 80s - including the latter part of the 1963-1982 period when the NL won 19 of the 20 All-star games.

But the AL is clearly the better league right now - as interleague play has demonstrated in recent years - but I'm not sure why. One would think that free agent pitchers would greatly prefer to pitch in the NL where they don't have to face lineups with the DH -- over time, the NL should have been able to build up a strong pitching advantage over the AL (while the quality of hitters would remain the same for both leagues)

Or do most pitchers also greatly prefer not having to hit? Or do the better pitchers actually prefer the challenge of facing the tougher AL lineups?

Originally posted by whodey
The superiority of the AL to the NL can be directly attributed to the Yankees and their spending habits. Then you have teams like the
Red Sox spend more to keep up with them until most teams in the AL become better than teams in the NL. Until their is parity in baseball, or teams in the NL spend more on payroll, you can expect more of the same. As for myself, I have one response to the outcome of the game which is 😴

Although I wish it were otherwise, last time I checked the Yankees are not the best team in baseball. They are not even in first place in their division. They had only three All Stars (Jeter and Rivera who started the career as Yankees) and one signing Texeira. The AL would have been just as good without Texeria as Morneau, Cabrera, Youkilis and Pena are all arguably as good. It is simply untrue to say the AL won just because the Yankees spend a lot of money.

Lets assess this using raw data instead of opinions shall we?

Leaders in the AL


East
1. Red Sox (#2 in spending at $155 million last year) They have the second highest pay roll in their division.
2. Yankees (#1 in spending at $218) THey have the highest pay roll in all of baseball

Central
1. Detroit (# 12 in spending $98) THey have the second highest pay roll in their division.
2. White Sox (#10 at $100) They have the highest pay roll in their division.

West
1. Angels (#7 in spending at $111) They have the second highest pay roll in their division
2. Texas (#17 in spending at $78)

NL

East
1. Phillies (#8 in spending at $101) They have the second highest pay roll in their division.
2. Florida (#29th in spending at $33)

Central
1. Cardinals (#11th in spending at $99) They have the second highest pay roll in their division.
2. Brewers (#16th in spending at $72)

West
1. Dodgers (#3 in spending at $125) They have the highest pay roll in their division
2. Giants (#9 in spending at $101)

Now breaking it down, only 3 of the top two teams in each division are out of the top 12 teams in pay roll. In fact, if it were not for the Breweres, Marlins, and Rangers, all the top two teams would be in the top 12 clubs in terms of pay roll. The top 12 teams all spent $98 million or more last year in pay roll.

In terms of AL money teams vs. NL money teams, if you look at the top 12 lowest pay roll teams, we see that the NL has 8 of those teams as compared to only 4 AL teams. These are all teams that spent $73 million or less last year on their teams. So the NL has twice as many teams that spend $73 million or less on their teams per year with the Yankees and Red Sox at the top of the heap. So I ask you, is it any wonder that the AL continues to dominate the All Star game? Is it any wonder that both the Yankees and Red Sox continue to dominate the play offs and/or Word Series?

In conclusion, I would aruge that some front offices are better than others no matter their pay roll. For example, if you look at the Cardinals and the Cubs, the Cubs spend $112 per year as where the Cardinals spend $99 per year. Now granted there is not much diffenrence in pay roll and are argueable neck and neck, however, the Caridinals consistantly outperform the Cubs. I would simply say that this is due to the management. The Cardinals consistantly outpreform as where the Cubs consistantly underpreform. Nonetheless, even though the Cubs consistantly underpreform, they are never last in their division. I think the Mets are another example of teams that underpreform consistantly. Even though both the Cubs and Mets underperform, however, both are playing 0.500 ball or better.

For me, the most perplexing are the Florida teams which are the Marlins and Rays. Even though both are at the bottom of the payroll, they consistantly are battling for the top of their divisions. So why is that? Perhaps it is due to location? For example, the best players may choose to play for a lower salary simply because they prefer the nicer whether. Maybe its the same reason that teams like the Florida Gators are always conending for a national championship? Who knows? As for the Yankees, I would say that they consistantly underperform as well. What I think is funny, however, is when they don't win a World Series the fans as well as the media act as though they underperformed. In fact, the Yankees missed the play offs last year for the first time in almost two decades and you would have thought the world was ending. LOL. I would simply argue that it is possible to buy a play off birth for the most part, but not necessarily a World Series. Its just like going to Vegas and gambling. Sure, you may beat the odds for a hand or two, but keep playing day in and day out and the house will win all your money. All you have to do is stick around and keep playing and the odds will catch up to you.

Edit: Is it just me or do the majority of the division leaders have the second highest pay rolls in their division? Maybe there is something to this? 😛 In fact, if it were not for the Dodgers, they would all be like this.

Thanks for crying about payrolls. It always reminds me how great it is to root for a team that invests in its product.
But lets look at real facts:
(1) Baseball already have a luxury tax to help teams that won't spend and many of them pocket it and don't invest in their product. If baseball needs anything, it needs minimum payrolls, not maximums. There are agreed upon rules spend what you want to build a team. Those were the rules when your team was purchased.
(2) Baseball has a draft where bad teams (often those that refuse to pay players) have the opportunity to take whomever they want. Teams that sign high priced free agents consistently lose draft picks and teams that refuse to pay talented players get rewarded by having draft picks.
(3) We group many of the high priced teams in the same division. So the Yankees and Red Sox who spend a lot compete directly while the overwhelming majority of small market/ incompetent cheap organiztions like the Pirates and Kansas City compete in the Central Divison. If the divisions were reformed and the Yankees did not have to play in the best division in baseball they would spend less.
(4) The cities that cares most about baseball: New York and Boston have good teams. Teams that care about football like the Steelers have good football teams. If the almost billionaire who owns your team is too cheap to spend like a real major team perhaps contraction is a good solution. TV networks are profitable in areas where people like baseball and the Yankees and Red Sox have used that money to promote their team and the sport.
(5) Teams like Tampa, Florida and Milwalkee who have their best players young will have a lower salary and a better team than teams that are forced to get more expensive older players. Higher salaries do not mean better players.

None of this however has to do with the All Star game.

Originally posted by quackquack
Thanks for crying about payrolls. It always reminds me how great it is to root for a team that invests in its product.
But lets look at real facts:
(1) Baseball already have a luxury tax to help teams that won't spend and many of them pocket it and don't invest in their product. If baseball needs anything, it needs minimum payrolls, not maximums. ...[text shortened]... salaries do not mean better players.

None of this however has to do with the All Star game.

I think the bottom line is that the baseball union is the best in the world. Time after time MLB has caved to the unions so that it is to the point that players are free to make as much as they want, so long as there is a team willing to pay for them. After that, it is only a matter of teams who want to shell out the dollars so what you have is MLB as a whole being nothing more than a farm system for the big money teams. Its like my team the Reds. They only have one player worth anything who is Joey Votto. So at some point the Reds will have to make a decision once his contract is up and he is worth big bucks. They will either let him walk or lower the talent over all on the team in order to afford him. It kinda reminds me of A-Rod when he played for the Rangers or Griffey when he played for the Reds.

As far as the unions go, I noticed a change in the parity of baseball after the last baseball strike in the mid 90's. It has never been the same since. But having said that, who cares? The players are making as much as as they can and the media loves the big money teams because this often correlates into a bigger audience in the post season. The only ones who are left out in the cold are small market baseball fans. No wonder people say that baseball is dying.

Originally posted by quackquack
(3) We group many of the high priced teams in the same division. So the Yankees and Red Sox who spend a lot compete directly while the overwhelming majority of small market/ incompetent cheap organiztions like the Pirates and Kansas City compete in the Central Divison. If the divisions were reformed and the Yankees did not have to play in the best division in baseball they would spend less.

I like the idea of grouping teams accordingn to pay roll than location. Howver, you still have a lack of parity in the division such as the Angels who spend $111 million and the A's who spend $78 million a year. An even bigger discrepency is the Yankees at $218 million and the Orioles at $95 million in the same division. How many of you know that hell will freeze over before Baltimore even sees the post season again?

I think the thing to do if you are not going to adjust pay rolls is to match teams that spend on equal footing so that the only hurtle would be a 4 game series at the end of the year. Heck, my Reds beat the Yankees 2 out of 3 last year in New York so I would say their odds would be much better than they are now trying to compete the entire year with teams like the Yankees. I garauntee you that if the Reds had played more games wtih the Yankees last year they would not have been on the winning side of things.

Baseball is only dying in places where teams don't spend money.
(1) Over seven million fans attended ball games in New York last year. Both teams were disappointing. Fans want to see teams that invest in their team. If a team can't/ won't spend money you shouldn't be in young own division, you should be out of MLB.
(2) The Orioles have an excellent young outfield and a stud rookie catcher. They are headed the right direction. You fail to see that because they don't have a high payroll. I think you want small market teams to have no chance but the Floridas, Tampas and Brewers prove otherwise. Your favorite team isn't bad because it has a small payroll. It is bad because it has not yet developed good players.

Originally posted by quackquack
Baseball is only dying in places where teams don't spend money.
(1) Over seven million fans attended ball games in New York last year. Both teams were disappointing. Fans want to see teams that invest in their team. If a team can't/ won't spend money you shouldn't be in young own division, you should be out of MLB.
(2) The Orioles have an excellen ...[text shortened]... because it has a small payroll. It is bad because it has not yet developed good players.

Well said, I hate this talk about payroll when a team is only as good as the owner wants to make it.

Don't complain about your car breaking down if you don't want to put money into it.

Spend money on your ball team, they start winning... people will come to watch.

P-