So I was thinking about the American League and the National League, and how the AL dominated the NL to the tune of a 154-98 record against the NL in interleague play, until the Tigers' pitchers started throwing the ball all over the field and the Cardinals won the World Series last season. For the last few years (at least) the American League has been the better of the two leagues, just as it's been accepted that the NL owned most of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Although there are a lot of talented players in the National League, you have to question any league that allows Kyle Lohse to strike out 12 guys in a game.
Anyway, a lot of research has been done as to why the AL is the superior league at this point, and from what I can gather, most of it has to do with the majority of talent - specifically pitching - migrating to the AL. Another reason I would guess is the bottomless coffers of the Yankees and Red Sox and the rest of the league trying to compete with them or find ways to beat them cheaper (i.e Moneyball, etc.). The Mets seem to be the only team in the NL willing to throw money around.
Anyway, while I was thinking about the baseball deal I realized that there is a definite balance issue in every major sport. Football has the AFC, and hockey and basketball have the Western Conference. Even European soccer has seen the power move to England, as three of the final four teams in the European Champions League play in the English Premiership.
Why is this? What has to happen for entire leagues or conferences to become that much better than the other one?
I started writing this well before I did any sort of meaningful research on the topic so I guess I'm going to throw out a bunch of speculative answers and hope that eventually I can look into this more.
1. Obviously the more you play against top-level talent, the better you're going to get, and the harder you're going to work to keep up with them. All it takes is one real good team in a conference to raise the bar and, eventually, given the resources, others will follow. I'm thinking that the Yankees, Red Wings, Lakers, and Patriots within the last 5-10 years would be the teams that set the tone for their respective leagues/conferences.
2. It may be a front office thing, with the more talented GM's and scouts all happening to be in one league. This is kind of an offshoot of the first theory, with the GM's/scouts essentially 'competing' against each other to build better teams.
3. Does it have something to do with geography? If you do a big picture analysis it doesn't seem to, as most of the good teams in baseball are midwest/east coast based while most of the good hockey and basketball teams are from the west coast, but when you look at individual sports, for some it makes a little more sense. Chris Pronger demanded a trade from cold and snowy Edmonton, a city steeped in hockey lore, to sunny Anaheim so that his wife would stop bitching every day. For two more examples of this phenomenon, see Wayne Gretzky (Edmonton to LA for his actress wife) and David Beckham (dreary old Manchester to sunny Madrid, then LA for Posh Spice). If hockey and basketball players continue to marry bitches who complain about the weather and shopping, you can expect cities with an abundance of good weather and shopping opportunities to land big time free agents. This doesn't necessarily ring true with baseball, -where good teams reside on the cold east coast and picturesque Detroit- but then again baseball is a summer game, and most of the guys have houses in Florida and Arizona anyway. Football is much different, where you have solid teams in places like Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Baltimore, not exactly winter time destinations.
4. It could be and probably is just a cyclical thing, because it wasn't long ago that the NFC was dominant, the Bulls and Pistons and Celtics were winning titles and the Islanders, Canadiens and Bruins were powerhouses. Bad teams get high draft picks, which turn into ticket sales, which creates money for free agents, etc.
When looking at the four possible theories I've laid out here, I'll take the pussy route and say it's probably a combination of all of these factors as to why certain conferences/leagues are much better than others, and that I've just wasted much of my time as well as yours.
Anyway, a lot of research has been done as to why the AL is the superior league at this point, and from what I can gather, most of it has to do with the majority of talent - specifically pitching - migrating to the AL. Another reason I would guess is the bottomless coffers of the Yankees and Red Sox and the rest of the league trying to compete with them or find ways to beat them cheaper (i.e Moneyball, etc.). The Mets seem to be the only team in the NL willing to throw money around.
Anyway, while I was thinking about the baseball deal I realized that there is a definite balance issue in every major sport. Football has the AFC, and hockey and basketball have the Western Conference. Even European soccer has seen the power move to England, as three of the final four teams in the European Champions League play in the English Premiership.
Why is this? What has to happen for entire leagues or conferences to become that much better than the other one?
I started writing this well before I did any sort of meaningful research on the topic so I guess I'm going to throw out a bunch of speculative answers and hope that eventually I can look into this more.
1. Obviously the more you play against top-level talent, the better you're going to get, and the harder you're going to work to keep up with them. All it takes is one real good team in a conference to raise the bar and, eventually, given the resources, others will follow. I'm thinking that the Yankees, Red Wings, Lakers, and Patriots within the last 5-10 years would be the teams that set the tone for their respective leagues/conferences.
2. It may be a front office thing, with the more talented GM's and scouts all happening to be in one league. This is kind of an offshoot of the first theory, with the GM's/scouts essentially 'competing' against each other to build better teams.
3. Does it have something to do with geography? If you do a big picture analysis it doesn't seem to, as most of the good teams in baseball are midwest/east coast based while most of the good hockey and basketball teams are from the west coast, but when you look at individual sports, for some it makes a little more sense. Chris Pronger demanded a trade from cold and snowy Edmonton, a city steeped in hockey lore, to sunny Anaheim so that his wife would stop bitching every day. For two more examples of this phenomenon, see Wayne Gretzky (Edmonton to LA for his actress wife) and David Beckham (dreary old Manchester to sunny Madrid, then LA for Posh Spice). If hockey and basketball players continue to marry bitches who complain about the weather and shopping, you can expect cities with an abundance of good weather and shopping opportunities to land big time free agents. This doesn't necessarily ring true with baseball, -where good teams reside on the cold east coast and picturesque Detroit- but then again baseball is a summer game, and most of the guys have houses in Florida and Arizona anyway. Football is much different, where you have solid teams in places like Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Baltimore, not exactly winter time destinations.
4. It could be and probably is just a cyclical thing, because it wasn't long ago that the NFC was dominant, the Bulls and Pistons and Celtics were winning titles and the Islanders, Canadiens and Bruins were powerhouses. Bad teams get high draft picks, which turn into ticket sales, which creates money for free agents, etc.
When looking at the four possible theories I've laid out here, I'll take the pussy route and say it's probably a combination of all of these factors as to why certain conferences/leagues are much better than others, and that I've just wasted much of my time as well as yours.
Labels: baseball, Posh Spice, sports
posted by f theb at 10:58 AM
0 comments
