Reader question: Scoopy, I was reading a bit about the All Star Game and was curious about your opinion on why a league can dominate the All Star Game for a length like the AL has done for 7 years. There is inter-league play, free agency where players move between leagues, etc. Granted, up until recently, there wasn't much incentive, other than pride, to play hard in the game so that may have been a factor. Is it the fans fault for picking "favorite" players instead of necessarily the best players?
It's more than seven years. The NL last won a game in 1996. In the early stages of the streak, it was mostly a matter of luck, like flipping a coin heads several times in a row, because the teams were evenly matched. At one point Bonds, Sosa, and Pujols were all in the NL, and Roger Clemens was their starting pitcher - and they still got their asses kicked. (The AL scored six runs off Clemens in the first inning!) That was 2004, and interleague play was even that year.In 2003, the NL actually dominated interleague play by a wide margin, (137-115) and still lost the all-star game.
Between 1997 and 2003, the AL went 6-0-1 in the all-star game, but actually lost the interleague competition 863-833, so they were winning the summer classic even when the NL had the talent edge.
During the past five years, however, the AL has just plain been better. Look at the interleague records
2005 American 136 116
2006 American 154 98
2007 American 137 115
2008 American 149 103
2009 American 137 114
Of course, even with the AL's talent advantage, there is still plenty of luck involved in the all-star results. Look at the math. The 1927 Yankees played .772 ball against second division clubs. The same stat for the 1906 Cubs was a similar .779. Let's assume that's about as high as the likelihood can ever go for one major league club besting another. So what were the odds of those legendary teams winning seven in a row against those second division guys? Greater than four to one against.I don't think we can assume that the match-up of current AL versus current NL offers a 77% likelihood of an AL victory. It's 56.6% based on the table above, so any long streak of victories is still a fluke. The AL is better, but an event with a .566 chance of occurring still only has a 1.9% chance of occurring seven times in a row. Granted, that's more than double the chance of a 50% probability happening seven times in a row (0.8%), but it is still a fluke. The answer to your question is that the AL has had SOMEWHAT better players, and MUCH better luck.
Key links
No comments:
Post a Comment