The Great NL vs AL Debate

[also authored by Jonesin']


THE GREAT SENIOR CIRCUIT, by adam
I and most of the other posters here at Dirty South Sports are not big fans of the designated hitter. For one, we live in a National League market (even me up here in Philly), and secondly, we, with the Braves, have always had great hitting pitchers ("chicks dig the long ball"). But that doesn't stop the annoying nags that continue to crap on the NL for being weaker, and saying things like, "we aren't paying pitchers to hit, but to pitch."

To start with, the AL is not simply stronger, but AL teams are built differently. It may seem like a surprise, but you cannot consider just the interleague record. For the Braves, we have been better then most with a .526 (103-93) winning percentage in interleague play. The highest in the NL. There was a time when it was highest in the majors. In the AL, the three highest teams are the Yankees at .586, the Oakland A's at .580 and finally the Minnesota Twins at .571. Those differences seem to suggest something is up. And something is. There is a built-in bias towards the AL in interleague play. That bias is simply the fact that they have an additional hitter on their roster, even without the DH in a NL park. That's right, the DH comes off the bench as a pinch hitter with better numbers then most teams would carry for that role (mainly because if they hit like that they would start every game). NL teams are built differently, they are not designed to keep a 10th position player, so their 10th man is often weaker then the AL's and also cheaper (one of the main reason overall salaries in the AL seem to blow the NL out of the water). This bias takes place in both directions. When an NL team visits an AL team, then their top 10 players are often under-matched by the AL team's top 10. (I'd say the AL also has an advantage in home stadiums since two teams Tampa and Minnesota still play on synthetic grass while no one in the NL does).

This dichotomy has played out more prominent over the last decade for another reason. Players are playing longer. There are simply more good older players moving to the AL to DH for the simple reason of prolonging their career. It is getting to the point where certain players simply can not play in the NL at all. Take Big Papi. His skills at first base are so weak, I doubt a team in the NL could start him for a whole season at first and come out with a winning record. There would be so many errors and missed throws to counter-act those huge bombs. Also, I would be unsure of his stamina to play 162 games on the field rather then ride the bench and swing every inning or so. It makes me wonder about players like Chipper, who beat the hell out themselves diving and stooping grounders all season, that if they played in the AL and got to DH would they be as injury prone?

The same can be said about the pitching side. How often, late in the game, does a pitcher get removed to put in a hitter in a key situation? All the time. Now in the AL, there is no strategy for that. There is no worry. So pitchers can pitch later into the ballgame, which also means that you don't need to carry as many middle relief pitchers. The exposure is less. In the NL, that middle relief is often the difference between a winning season and a losing one.

Finally there is a completely different managerial strategy. In the NL you have the double switch. Mangers maneuver their lineup so that the pitcher won't have to hit in the next inning. They must constantly be aware of who's up next, and if I replace this pitcher now, will i have to use two next inning? Or, if I replace him now, I have to double switch, but who am I taking out? These kinda questions never get asked in the AL. It is more like algorithmic hitting. Start at one, add 1 until reached 9, and repeat. That is all, a monkey can manage an AL line up.

When you add all this up, it is no surprise that the AL seems on paper to be better then the NL. It is not a power thing, or a better pitching thing, but it is a design thing. Simply, AL teams are designed differently for a different kind of competition, a simpler one. It is almost like two different sports, or two different species of related animals, cousins. I do not want the NL to adopt the DH. I would love it if the AL dropped theirs, but I understand that there is a fundamental difference between the way baseball is played in both leagues. If you think they can be compared directly, you are wrong. I prefer the NL because it is baseball at its purist, and in my opinion, if the AL fans got to see more baseball without the filthy DH, I think they would agree.


REAL MEN PLAY IN THE AL, by jonesin'
Why not use the DH? You could use the argument that by not hitting, AL pitchers have higher stamina across a full season. But they are taken out for pinch hitters less often, so they throw more innings in the AL right? Lets use Santana as an example: in 2008 he threw 234.3 innings for the Mets - most in his career. For hitters the DH does allow for players to extend their careers by moving to DH. It allows younger players to make the jump to the majors earlier because they can hit (and maybe can't field worth a damn). Its good to see players like Mike Piazza and Jim Thome given a chance to continue playing at a high level after they've lost their ability to make a sizable contribution in the field. And sure we can use names like Thome and Ortiz to make the case that all AL teams have 9-10 startable hitters on their club, but lets look across the league:

• Five DH's drove in more than 70 runs: Aubrey Huff (who played 70 games in the infield), Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Jason Kubel (50 games in OF) and Milton Bradley.
• The same five were the only ones to hit 20+ home runs.
• Only two DH's hit over .300 (Huff, Bradley) while the average DH hit .263 last season
• Of these five DHs at the top, only Thome and Ortiz went to the playoffs.

Sure having the DH slot available allows for AL teams to bring in more starter-caliber talent to rotate between the DH and fielding positions. Sure that leads to higher payrolls. But its all relative. As long as you manage your roster within the style of your league, you will be successful. No team, no matter if its the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or Phillies, can put nine all-stars in a lineup. Talent is spread out too much across the league. What these teams have in common is a strong, powerful middle of the order, with table-setters before and after. Jeter and Damon set up A-Rod, Abreu and Giambi. Reyes sets up Wright, Beltran and Delgado. Rollins and Victorino ahead of Utley, Howard and Burrell. Its the same for every team in both leagues.

The American League does not have an advantage in this sense. Most DHs are players who have lost their ability to field the ball well. These are players past their prime, who can still hit the ball, sure, but not as well as they used to. Not as well as the guy who replaced them at their position (see Philadelphia trading Thome to make room for Howard, or the fading abilities of Giambi and Frank Thomas). This levels the playing field. Its not an advtange or a disadvantage to have the DH, but its there to keep these players in the league. If you can hit, you can play. In the NL if you can hit, but can't field.. then you can play maybe twice a week when the pitcher is getting rocked. What help is it when, say, the Braves they have a Frank Thomas riding the bench waiting for Hudson to get pulled? When at the same time Tampa is struggling to score runs because their DH can't hit the long ball. Swapping Thomas for their slap-hitting DH improves both clubs, keeps things competitive, and lets a star like Thomas continue playing with the dignity he deserves.

Besides, since 2001 the National League has won the World Series four times. And so has the AL.