ESPN

Jayson Stark

  (1:00 PM)

I have a feeling this is going to be one of the most spirited debates we've ever had in this format. I can't wait. So let's get going.

J.J. (CT)

I was at all 3 games in Boston this week to see the Sox totally dominate the Brewers (who even when they were leading you just knew it was only a matter of time before the Sox came back). The Brewers although have some big hitters just have no pitching and their defensive was beyond pathetic. The NL might have closed the gap but I still don't think they're better than some of the AL powerhouses.

Jayson Stark

  (1:03 PM)

I was waiting for a question just like this. But let me ask you something. Other than the Red Sox, who I think are the best team in the American League, what are the other AL "powerhouses?" Do the Yankees still qualify? How about the Tigers? I think the Indians have win-the-World-Series upside, but they're hitting .236 as a team. I guess we could include the Angels. But a couple of years ago, people were saying that the AL had nine of the 10 best teams in the sport, and maybe 10 of 10. That's not even close anymore.

Randy (Denver, CO)

Top 20 in BA: 14 of 20 in the NLTop 20 in OPS: 15 of 20 in the NLTop 20 in HR: 16 of 20 in the NLAnd it is not because of weaker pitching. The NL has Santana, Peavy, Webb, Zambrano, Volquez, Sheets, Hamels, and so on.

Jayson Stark

  (1:06 PM)

Hey Randy, great research. You're really helping me make my case. I didn't rank the best under-30 pitchers in baseball when I was doing this research. But I did look at the influx of pitchers into the NL over the winter: Santana, Haren, Volquez and Jurrjens for starters. What's the most significant pitcher to go from the AL to the NL? Dontrelle Willis? He's been a non-factor. Livan Hernandez? My point is, the pitching tide is also rising in the NL.

Scott (Boston)

The AL has won three of the last four World Series (all of them sweeps), and hasn't lost an All-Star game since 1996. Is this really a debate?

Jayson Stark

  (1:07 PM)

Look, it's hard to dispute what's happened in the postseason and the All Star Game over the last decade. But this is about right now. So what do the 1997-2007 All Star Games have to do with which league is better right now?

Sky (Schenectady, NY)

Wouldn't it make sense that the NL is batting better because their pitching is worse? (4.23 ERA for NL vs. 4.08 for AL)Plus, do you actually trust that any NL team besides maybe the Dbacks and maybe Cubs would be able to compete with AL teams like Boston, Cleveland and LA in the World Series?

Jayson Stark

  (1:10 PM)

You don't think the Mets, Phillies and Braves couldn't win a postseason series against those teams? Why couldn't they? If the 2006 Cardinals could win a World Series, there's no reason to assume any AL team would be automatic in October.

Batch (Boston, MA)

Ok lets talk right now then ... if the NL is better why do they have a losing record against the AL so far? You can taut names and stats, but for my money, I'll take the W's

Jayson Stark

  (1:11 PM)

We're talking about one weekend. And it's 22-19. So that's as much about matchups as it is about superiority. Sorry. You AL proponents are going to have to do better than that.

Scott (Boston)

The problem with looking at raw numbers of NL players vs. AL players is the DH. Of course NL pitching numbers are better, and of course overall records could simply be a product of better overall competition in the AL- the more good teams there are, the tougher it is to post a high winning percentage.

Jayson Stark

  (1:13 PM)

But that's the other odd thing this year. Even with the DH, the AL has been outdone by the NL in every significant offensive category. Check out the numbers in the intro to this chat. And if you go back through the DH era, there are very few seasons where the NL was even within 20 points of the AL in OPS. It's early, but if you factor out the DH, the NL has been by far the better hitters' league. And that's amazing.

Boomer, Wrigleyville

AL is taking on older guys with larger contracts; guys who are in the decline stages of their careers or who put up 1 career year and sign a big contract (Gary Matthews Jr).The NL is letting the old guys go and giving the playing time (and contracts) to younger guys who are only going to get better.

Jayson Stark

  (1:16 PM)

You're exactly right. I'd like to refer you to check out two great pieces written in the last week on this very topic. One was by one of my favorite analysts, David Pinto of the Sporting News. He pointed out that most plate appearances in the National League are being allotted to players between 24-30. But in the AL, most plate appearances go to players between ages 31-34. That tells us that the AL is becoming the league of the aging boppers, while the NL is becoming the league of the up-and-coming stars.

Jayson Stark

  (1:17 PM)

The piece on this topic was written by my friend Joel Sherman in the New York Post yesterday. He took David Pinto's thesis one step further and suggested that older every-day players constitute the group most likely to be adversely affected by testing for PEDs and, maybe just as significantly, amphetamines. Check out both those pieces (after this chat, of course). Excellent work.

hi

If past World Series/All Star games don't matter then what should "younger guys who are only going to get better" have to do with the CURRENT question of who is better RIGHT NOW (as you so kindly put it)

Jayson Stark

  (1:18 PM)

Because those young guys are already outperforming the more established stars in the other league. The numbers don't lie.

Dan ( Boston Ma)

How can this even be a question?? The NL is full of guys like Chris Young, Jeff Suppan, Randy Johnson etc., that git LIT UP in the AL- go to the NL and are dominate again. Its amazing that the NL- the place where former all stars go to die, is getting so much pub..Stats are based on who you compete against- the NL is inferior, therefore you get inflated stats. It will be a AL and Red Sox October once again..

Jayson Stark

  (1:22 PM)

See, here's another myth. I accept the argument that it's harder to pitch in the AL than the NL because the lineups are deeper. And I agree that we've seen a number of pitchers have a tough time going from NL-AL in recent years, while guys going the other way seem to revive. But the NL is not "full of" guys who couldn't pitch in the AL. That's ridiculous. Tell me which of these guys couldn't pitch in the AL: Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, Johan Santana, Cole Hamels, Carlos Zambrano, John Smoltz,.Ben Sheets, Roy Oswalt, Dan Haren, Tim Lincecum, etc. There is tremendous pitching in the NL. I hate to break that to you.

Mark

THESE STATS ARE MEANINGLESS. Jayson, I expected more out of you. You can't point to all these offensive stats without also pointing out the vast differences between the AL and NL pitching stats. Maybe the AL pitching overall is better, even though you keep posting ridiculous comments from people naming the top pitchers in the AL. Regardless, none of these stats mean anything since they are completely separate groups of players. Until interleague play, we don't know if they NL has better hitting b/c they are better hitters or because the AL has overall better pitching.

Jayson Stark

  (1:24 PM)

Hey, they're not meaningless, because they're so far out of whack with numbers from EVERY other season in the DH era. But I do agree with your point to some degree. When we have a larger interleague sampling, we'll know more about the correct answer than we do today.

Steve Colorado Springs CO

I think if you look at the depth among the different positions right now you would have to say the NL is stronger. I had a real hard time voting for the NL All-stars because there are so many legitimate studs right now.

Jayson Stark

  (1:25 PM)

Thank you, Steve. David Pinto compared the leagues position by position in the piece he wrote that I mentioned earlier. The NL was outproducing the AL at EVERY position except center field.

Adam (NY)

Using a Boston sweep over the Brewers as a case of AL dominance doesn't make sense. You are talking about the best team in one league against an average at best team from another. If the Red Sox had dominated the D-backs or Cubs, then thats a different story.

Jayson Stark

  (1:28 PM)

Very well said. That series didn't prove anything more about the strength of the American League than the Reds-Indians series proved about the strength of the National League.

Spencer (Orange County)

Red Sox > D-BacksAngels > CubsIndians > Phillies Rays > MarlinsWould you disagree with any of this?

Jayson Stark

  (1:32 PM)

That's a really interesting way to look at it. The best team in the AL would seem to be better than the best team in the NL. But beyond that, I'm not convinced. If you're going to match Rays and Marlins, then I'll match Braves and A's, and I'll take Atlanta. I don't think there's a clear-cut answer on any of those matchups. Anybody vehemently disagree?

Josh NJ

Jayson,I think your absolutly correct that the NL has closed the gap. I especially like your point about the bright young stars. Going position by position...not man AL teams would take their own SS over J-Roll or their own 3B over David Wright....2B - Utley...etc etc

Jayson Stark

  (1:35 PM)

Well, let's just take shortstop. Think about the depth at that position in the NL versus the AL. Jimmy Rollins, Yunel Escobar, Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, Rafael Furcal, Troy Tulowitzki. That's six tremendous young players at one position, all under 30. Now what's the AL group under 30: Bobby Crosby, Jhonny Peralta, Erick Aybar, Yuniesky Betancourt. Is it even close?

Matt (Arlington, VA)

One of the primary arguments for the NL is that the Cubs and Diamondbacks are the two elite teams. I take umbrage with this argument, particularly given the competition that these teams have faced. The Cubs have played 9 games against the 4 worst teams in the NL, and another 9 against a not-very-good Pittsburgh team. The Diamondbacks have played a whopping 17 games against the bottom 3 teams in the NL, and another 3 against a bad Tigers team. They're not elite, they're untested. I also think that looking at individual players and stats is quite misleading, given the team nature of the the game. A handful of superstars does not an elite team make (see Tigers, Detroit; Yankees, New York). All told, I think more AL teams are well-balanced, which is just as important as having stars.Has the NL closed the gap? Yes, and that's to be expected. Are they the better league? No. Not yet.

Jayson Stark

  (1:38 PM)

Anybody who would go to that much trouble to make his case deserves to be heard. It's true that the schedules have benefited both teams. There are more weak teams to fatten up on in the NL than the AL. I've conceded that point. And we're only one-quarter of the way through the schedule, so a lot can change. But I don't think anyone has really presented a compelling case yet that the AL is still clearly superior. I'd like to hear one, to be honest.

Chris (Phoenix)

Great debate topic! I went position by position and picked who I thought was the best player at the position and here is my team. Pujols-1b, Hudson- 2b, Ramirez- SS, C Jones- 3b, Holiday- LF, Hamilton- CF, Upton- RF, Martinez-C, Webb-P. That would be 7 NL players and 2AL players. I think the only debate is in RF with Upton, but look at the numbers and he has been the best at the position this year..... what do you think?

Jayson Stark

  (1:39 PM)

I don't know that I'd agree on all those choices. But I agree with the main point. And I wouldn't have two years ago. Or even last year.

Greg (Long Island)

Look, it's fine and dandy to have this debate, but you positively CANNOT use stats from this season to back up any argument. The NL has onyl been playing the NL, and the AL has only been playing the AL (save for 41 games which were summarily dismissed earlier in the chat). The only valid arguments one can make would have to be based on opinion.

Jayson Stark

  (1:41 PM)

Let me say this again. Yes, it's early. And yes, except for one weekend, we've only had NL-versus-NL and AL-versus-AL. But the leaguewide offensive numbers are way out of whack compared with the rest of the DH era. So if we can't use stats from this year to talk about who's best right now, can't we at least compare them to 1973-2007 and make a valid point that something's different here?

Jack

Seriously, this is getting absurd. Why SS under 30... because it makes your argument look good! None of this will mean anything until the NL wins a large portion of the interleague games, wins an All star game, and is competitive in the World Series. While I agree that you can't look so far in the past to predict now, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much since JUST LAST SEASON when the NL wasn't at all competitive. It just doesn't make any sense and is bad statistical analysis.

Jayson Stark

  (1:45 PM)

See how magnanimous I am in these chats? I even post messages from people who think my logic is absurd. I'm fine with revisiting this debate any time, any place -- and especially after we've seen who wins the All Star Game and World Series. But why isn't it valid to talk about all the good young players in one league, while the other league's stars age before our eyes? If the NL is this representative now, and the average age of its best players is so much younger, isn't that a great example of how -- and why -- the tide is shifting? And especially in an age with aggressive drug-testing.

Scott (Boston, MA)

the Nl is for Players, the AL is for teams. It's that simple. If you want to say there are more superstars and Aces in the NL, that's fine, but if we're talking 25 man rosters, then the AL trumps the NL hands down.

Jayson Stark

  (1:48 PM)

I'm willing to accept that AL teams tend to accumulate more bats than NL teams. But the presence of the DH dictates that. You have to have a different roster-building philosophy in the AL than the NL because there's a different set of rules. Doesn't that make sense? And if it does, how does it mean one league trumps the other "hands down?"

Scott (Los Angeles)

Can we get rid of the argument that the AL is better because they win the World Series? This only means that the team that one was the best team. In reality, a league could have the best team, while the other league has the next ten best teams. This does not necessarily mean the league with the World Series winner was the better league. I realize this has not been the case recently, but want people to realize, World Series winner does not equal best league.

Jayson Stark

  (1:50 PM)

On its face, I agree with you, Scott. But what people are pointing to is that it's not just one year. The AL has won seven of the last 10 World Series, and 10 All Star Games in a row (plus one tie). So I understand why people citing those results don't look at them as just isolated incidents. A decade has to constitute some kind of trend. But what happened in that decade doesn't necessarly mean that things haven't changed this year.

Joe (Boston)

Jason, I agree with you about a power shift and younger players coming out of the NL, but I still think in head to head matchups the AL has some big advantages. They have the extra bat for the home games, but more than that more AL teams work the pitcher and get pitch counts up early in games, neutralizing some of the SP's from the NL. Miggy Cabrera said he noticed this and AL games tend to last 30+ minutes longer. I think the "grind-it-out" mentality of the AL teams directly lead to the 3 sweeps referenced above. One man's opinion.

Jayson Stark

  (1:54 PM)

Now this is a well thought-out argument. For one thing, it's always going to be tough to weigh the meaning of interleague results because one team is always going to be playing the game with a different set of rules than the rules it uses the rest of the year. But you're right about how different the offensive philosophies are in the two leagues. There are only a few teams in the NL that stress patience, on-base percentage and running up pitch counts. But the AL teams that do that have had great success in the postseason, the Red Sox and Yankees in particular. And it's always fascinated me why that mentality should be so different in one league than it is in the other.

SprungOnSports (Long Island)

To build of Joe from Boston's point, do you think that pitchers like Lincecum, Hamels, Zambrano, and Sheets would survive in the AL? The deep lineups would run their pitch counts up and force them out of games.

Jayson Stark

  (1:57 PM)

Hold on. Those guys all have great stuff, which would enable them to win in any league. Would their numbers look the same in the AL because of those deep lineups and the patience of those lineups? Of course not. But those aren't just ordinary pitchers you just listed. And it's the run-of-the-mill pitchers who get chewed up by those deep lineups. Not the great ones.

Adam (Philadelphia, PA)

Just to spit out a statistic based on Joe's statements:Pitches per plate appearence this year are:AL 3.80NL 3.81

Jayson Stark

  (1:58 PM)

Thanks, Adam. Good point. But I still believe more AL teams have that grind-down-the-pitcher mentality than NL teams. So I don't understand that one, either. Maybe it tells us philosophies are changing, too.

Frank, Brainerd MN

Why don't they swap rules for interleague. Have the DH in NL parks and have the pitchers hit at home in the AL. Would fans a chance to see both things.

Jayson Stark

  (1:59 PM)

I've proposed this for years. What I'd like to see is DH Night once in each series in NL parks, and Let The Pitcher Hit night once in each series in AL parks. That would make those games real attractions. Don't you think?

Jayson Stark

  (1:59 PM)

Oops. Only have time for one more.

JT (Cranston, RI)

I'm not sure that this constitutes the AL being better, but in recent years teams with 82 wins have been in the NL playoffs, while in the AL you have to win around 93 games to get into the playoffs.

Jayson Stark

  (2:02 PM)

It's true, JT, that AL wild-card teams have averaged more wins than NL wild cards, and that it has taken more wins in general to make the "tournament" in the AL. But is that going to be true this year? The AL doesn't have one team with a .600 winning percentage, and only the Tigers have a sub-.400 winning percentage. So there's more balance in the AL than ever, which suggests it should take fewer wins.

Jayson Stark

  (2:03 PM)

Thanks for the fun debate. I don't know that we've settled it yet. But we could debate this topic once a month all year long -- including January! Thanks again for participating. We'll resume the great debates next week. Same time. Same day. Same place.