Red Mosquito

What's the league disparity in hit batsmen, AL vs. NL?

numbers wrote:It puts the American League at a huge disadvantage in inter league and World Series play, but I like how the leagues have different identities.

Especially when the NL wins the all-star game.

It absolutely puts the al at a huge disadvantage.

Hate the college basketball shot clock? Use it to your advantage!


http://deadspin.com/michigan-state-stud ... socialflow

cutuphalfdead wrote:It absolutely puts the al at a huge disadvantage.

I crunched some numbers on this, and I'm not so sure it does. This isn't a scientific look at the statistics, but here's what I did: I looked at all of the "competitive" World Series since 1973 (with "competitive" defined as: a series that went 6 or 7 games). I did this because I figured that using all of the Series in which one team had a huge advantage (talent-wise, you could say) could end up skewing the numbers. This doesn't, of course, take into account shorter Series (4-5 games) in which most of the games were very close, but I didn't want to spend much longer than I have working on this So here's what I found:

Using just 6- and 7-game Series, we're left with 23 samples: 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2011, and 2013. There was a surprising symmetry between these Series: 75 games were played in AL parks, and 75 were played in NL parks. Here are the records:

AL Home Record: 49-26 (75 games, .653 winning %)

NL Home Record: 47-28 (75 games, .627 winning %)

So, in competitive World Series since 1973, in which the DH was used in AL parks but not in NL parks, home field advantage was still an advantage, but AL teams have actually won more games on the road than NL teams. So probably not a "huge" disadvantage, no?

ADDENDUM: Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...just read this on Wikipedia:

At first, the DH rule was not applied to the World Series. From 1973 to 1975, all World Series games were played under National League rules, with no DH and pitchers batting. For 1976, it was decided the DH rule would apply to all games in a Series, regardless of venue, but only in even-numbered years. This practice lasted through 1985. As of 1986, the DH rule was used in games played in the stadium of the American League representative.

That means that even though all of the AL teams referred to above did have the DH during the regular season, meaning their pitchers didn't have to worry about batting until the World Series, some didn't have a DH in the Series at all, and in some, both teams had DHs. So if you take the numbers since 1986, the following records apply:

AL Home Record: 30-15 (45 games, .667 winning %)

NL Home Record: 28-18 (43 games, .651 winning %)

So even in fewer road games, the AL was still able to pick up more wins on the road than the NL.

And if we took out the years in which the DH played for both teams (and assume the AL was at a "disadvantage" in the years in which their pitchers didn't bat during the regular season but did during the WS), the records look like this:

AL Home Record: 42-25 (67 games, .627 winning %)

NL Home Record: 38-26 (64 games, .594 winning %)

AL still ekes out an extra road win in 3 fewer games.

So do we now think that home field matters more in general than which league's rules we're playing under?

Simple Torture wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It absolutely puts the al at a huge disadvantage.

I crunched some numbers on this, and I'm not so sure it does. This isn't a scientific look at the statistics, but here's what I did: I looked at all of the "competitive" World Series since 1973 (with "competitive" defined as: a series that went 6 or 7 games). I did this because I figured that using all of the Series in which one team had a huge advantage (talent-wise, you could say) could end up skewing the numbers. This doesn't, of course, take into account shorter Series (4-5 games) in which most of the games were very close, but I didn't want to spend much longer than I have working on this So here's what I found:

Using just 6- and 7-game Series, we're left with 23 samples: 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2011, and 2013. There was a surprising symmetry between these Series: 75 games were played in AL parks, and 75 were played in NL parks. Here are the records:

AL Home Record: 49-26 (75 games, .653 winning %)

NL Home Record: 47-28 (75 games, .627 winning %)

So, in competitive World Series since 1973, in which the DH was used in AL parks but not in NL parks, home field advantage was still an advantage, but AL teams have actually won more games on the road than NL teams. So probably not a "huge" disadvantage, no?

ADDENDUM: Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...just read this on Wikipedia:

At first, the DH rule was not applied to the World Series. From 1973 to 1975, all World Series games were played under National League rules, with no DH and pitchers batting. For 1976, it was decided the DH rule would apply to all games in a Series, regardless of venue, but only in even-numbered years. This practice lasted through 1985. As of 1986, the DH rule was used in games played in the stadium of the American League representative.

That means that even though all of the AL teams referred to above did have the DH during the regular season, meaning their pitchers didn't have to worry about batting until the World Series, some didn't have a DH in the Series at all, and in some, both teams had DHs. So if you take the numbers since 1986, the following records apply:

AL Home Record: 30-15 (45 games, .667 winning %)

NL Home Record: 28-18 (43 games, .651 winning %)

So even in fewer road games, the AL was still able to pick up more wins on the road than the NL.

And if we took out the years in which the DH played for both teams (and assume the AL was at a "disadvantage" in the years in which their pitchers didn't bat during the regular season but did during the WS), the records look like this:

AL Home Record: 42-25 (67 games, .627 winning %)

NL Home Record: 38-26 (64 games, .594 winning %)

AL still ekes out an extra road win in 3 fewer games.

So do we now think that home field matters more in general than which league's rules we're playing under?

It does. The rules affect a team like the Red Sox that uses a set DH every night alot more than teams that rotate a DH. Just years of watching them with Ortiz might make it seem like a bigger deal than it is.

How are AL teams at more of a disadvantage than NL teams, though? Both leagues have teams constructed a certain way (for example, AL teams are more likely to have an all-hit no-glove player on the roster, while NL teams would be looking for more defensive versatility) that puts them at a disadvantage when playing in the opposing league's parks.

It's not a big deal for an NL team to sub in a bench player for the pitcher, it's a much bigger deal for an AL team to sub in a pitcher for one of their everyday players.

That "protecting the QB" crap cost SF the game yesterday. No way that was a hit to the head.

Actually some bad decisions on SF's part cost them the game, but still.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:That "protecting the QB" crap cost SF the game yesterday. No way that was a hit to the head.

can we get a gif of this?

awesome. those are the kinda calls that need to go. if the guy was trying to hit brees in the head, he did a terrible job.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

"He will definitely need some Nyquil tonight!" -my fiancee

So, why aren't calls like this reviewable? Both in real time and in slow-mo, it's obvious that this was a devastating hit, and the way his neck moved, I'm not surprised the refs threw a flag (I'm more surprised that Brees got up!). I've heard far too many people proclaim, "What an awful call!", but at full speed, it sure looked like a shot to the head. But it contact to the head/neck is what they want to call, couldn't they make these calls challengeable or automatically review them? The league has basically decreed that turnovers and touchdowns are such big game changers that every one of them needs to be reviewed; I think calls like this fall into the same category.

What I take out of that is that Drew Brees is short and Aaron Murray's stock just went up.

It was bang bang and the refs made the call they thought was right. I don't have a problem with it. It wasn't a clothesline, because his arm hit him in the chest. He just knocked the shit out of Brees.

Cut/Chop blocking should be illegal if the above is illegal.

They should probably just start reviewing those calls but again, could have gone either way under review.

I think any hit to Drew Brees should be illegal. Would be devastating to see Luke McCown enter the game.

BurtReynolds wrote:I think any hit to Drew Brees should be illegal. Would be devastating to see Luke McCown enter the game.

if thats the point of the rule you shouldnt be allowed to hit qb's at all.

i dont think thats even close to a clothesline.

his right shoulder hits the left side of brees body at the perfect moment to maximize legal damage

If you think that's a bad roughing the passer call on Brees check this one. Where exactly are you supposed to hit this guy?

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/je ... gif/209557

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:If you think that's a bad roughing the passer call on Brees check this one. Where exactly are you supposed to hit this guy?

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/je ... gif/209557

yeah that one was worse. both were terrible, of course, but at least the brooks hit looked bad.