You get what you pay for: the AL/NL discrepancy

[James282]

Last night I heard some commentary on the radio about how the NL is a joke and how poorly NL teams are structured and how AL GMs are so much better than NL GMs etc and so on..and remembering that this was also the prevailing thought on this board, I decided to look into it a little bit.

There are 14 teams in the American League, who had a combined payroll of $1,306,601,780 going into this season, for an average payroll of $93,328,698. 16 National league teams have an average payroll of $74,060,075 and an aggregate payroll of $1,184,961,212. How could people trying to analyze the success or failure of various front offices without mentioning this?

But, you might say, this gets skewed just a little due to the Yankees and Red Sox exorbitant payrolls! Looking more closely, though, the AL has 7 of the top 10 biggest payrolls in baseball and the middle two teams(Baltimore and Oakland) have payrolls of 95mm and 80mm - and the average payroll of non-yankee or Red Sox teams is $80,687,418 - which is higher than the average of National League teams without removing any teams!

Small market darling Oakland is actually the 16th highest payroll in the majors(read - they have a completely average payroll) - and the little guys at Minnesota make more than almost half of the National League teams! There is some good work going on in front offices in the American League, don't get me wrong - but with a $20,000,000 per team advantage wouldn't you expect the American League to beat the National League year in and year out? IMO, the gap in wins and losses between the two leagues is simply representative of a willingness or an ability to spend and little else. Maybe the amount spent is a skill and not simply an event of circumstance - but I'm definitely not convinced just based on the wins and losses that AL GMs are somehow better at structuring teams than NL teams.

By another metric - looking at the top half of teams using Pecota's upside rankings for various farm systems, we find that while the Rays, Yankees, Angels, and Twins are numbers 1-4, the AL only has 7 of the top 15 systems. Using under 25 talent across both the major and minor leagues, the AL has 8 of the top 15 systems. Considering that the AL has fewer teams than the NL, this is certainly a small credit to the AL, but it's very very close either way.

One concession that I will make is that the top AL teams are certainly better than the top NL teams. The Twins and Indians specifically are exceptionally well run and IMO have done the first and 2nd best jobs of compiling a team over the last few years considering the talent they project to have going forward vs. the amount of money that they spend. The NL doesn't have any teams that can hold a candle to the development that these 2 teams have shown, though the Diamondbacks have compiled some very promising talent on a significantly smaller payroll than either of these two teams.

Anyway, I just felt like throwing this out there because the whole attitude that AL GMs are super smart and NL GMs are retards who can't put a team together is getting on my nerves. Maybe a gap in ability exists among the top teams, but across the board it's very very close and I don't think a conclusion can be drawn either way when taking into account the considerable advantage in resources that AL GMs have.

James

[Suigin406]

good post james...i haven't seen too much of this argument in the past, so my opinions might be off...

could anyone bring up stats on revenues for the teams (if it's out there) because teams in the AL may just be a much better draw for fans and that has an effect on payrolll as well...typical fans would like to see offense and the DH has a big role in this...

again, don't know how much fan attendance has to do with this argument, just wanted to throw revenues and markets into the mix...

[delta k]

Um, does someone specifically say 'hey NL GMs you can't spend as much'?

Ok then. It's their fault they are behind the times, no?

And obviously needing 1 additional bat for DH adds a little to that payroll.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, does someone specifically say 'hey NL GMs you can't spend as much'?

Ok then. It's their fault they are behind the times, no?

And obviously needing 1 additional bat for DH adds a little to that payroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the placement of teams in the NL and AL is totally beyond the control of the teams in them. The Red Sox will always be able to spend more than the Reds because they are in a market that makes way more money. You can't expect teams to just pay money out of pocket with no hope of recuperating that money even if the team is successful.

[hoyasnaxa]

If the Yankees were to switch to the National League, the distribution would reverse. I think it will balance out more in the near future, and I think the rise of the Mets and the NL West will help that, but the AL has the Yankees and Red Sox, has to pay another hitter due to the DH, and because of this should be the league with higher payrolls.

The AL has also done better in interleague play and All Star games, but I really dont think there is a drastic difference in GM quality between the two leagues.

[James282]

the "has to pay another hitter due to the DH" argument is flawed because of the fact that simply needing a dh doesn't make more money appear in the coffers to pay for one. let's move past that please.

[Wynton]

Can the disparity be attributed in part to the fact that there are some well-payed DHs out there?

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Can the disparity be attributed in part to the fact that there are some well-payed DHs out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly some of it, but having a well paid DH is certainly a huge advantage to these teams in interleague play when say the Mets and Red Sox meet and the Mets use their best bench player(Endy Chavez plays OF, making Alou a DH?) and the Red Sox walk out David Ortiz. Also, it's not like because you are in the American League the commissioner gives you an extra allowance to pay for a DH. They still act within the confines of a budget just like NL teams, and NL teams, if they had this money, would simply spread it out for higher quality across the board, another good starter, etc.

James

[MicroBob]

once upon a time it was considered that the NL had more of the 'better' markets and draws and that was part of why they were so successful.

I don't know if this is still the same now.
Things have changed somewhat with all the new stadiums of the past 10-15 yrs in both leagues.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
good post james...i haven't seen too much of this argument in the past, so my opinions might be off...

could anyone bring up stats on revenues for the teams (if it's out there) because teams in the AL may just be a much better draw for fans and that has an effect on payrolll as well...typical fans would like to see offense and the DH has a big role in this...

again, don't know how much fan attendance has to do with this argument, just wanted to throw revenues and markets into the mix...

[/ QUOTE ]

revenue is tricky b/c it's mostly private - teams don't need to disclose much of it.

as James alluded to, generating revenue a skill, it's not just a factor of market size. well run teams win, which creates various revenue streams. astute exec's have created their own lucrative TV deals, which are a huge revenue stream.

it's an interesting subject, anyways. Nate Silver wrote a good market sizing article, with some surprising results. the Red Sox play in like the 11th biggest market in the country, yet to many they are lumped in with the Yankees as being the 800lb gorillas in MLB. sure they spend a lot, but a lot of that is b/c how well run the club is, and how much revenue they generate.