The American League has more big payroll teams. With more free spending owners, they are attracting better players. This helps the Amerincan League All Star team have the better players, thus making it more likely that they will win the game and is pennant winner be the host team in the World Series. Isn't this a case of big bucks having a major impact on the World Series winner - EVEN BEFORE the two teams are determined?
2006-07-06 13:57:32 · 9 answers · asked by billhill1066 6 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Georgie: I always enjoy reading your answers. I agree that some of the NL owners choose not to spend as much. This doesn't take away from my suggestion that since the AL owners are paying more, that they are in effect "buying" home field advantage for the World Series. By the way, don't include the Giants in the "cheap" category. They have the competitive disadvantage of being the only team that has to annually pay a very hefty mortgage 4 their new park.
Indianalee: Thanks 4 your research. I reviewed it. The top 4 payrolls are all AL teams. Have to go thru 6 NL to pass the top 4 AL in payroll. And, to advance my point, 3 of the top 4 AL teams (out of 12 AL teams) produced 4 of the 8 AL starters and 3 of the 7 pitchers. I am now more sure of my theory than before.
David R: "Their payroll may be less, but their talent isn't necessarily worse." - Most players go to where the most $ is. The better players are more likely to get the most $. Sad 2 say, Cub fans accept less.
2006-07-08 15:17:53 · update #1
Olelefthander: I've always liked southpaws -helped my batting average. But lefties' thinking is fuzzy. Not political lefties, who are right (correct); but lefthanders, who have perhaps been dulled dealing with a righthanded world. I agree that "Individual teams are buying their way into a better chance to win the series." BUT, the top 4 payroll teams are all AL teams! Yes, the 3 teams you mentioned are in contention. But, only one of them is in a division with the top 4 payroll teams.
Revenue sharing as presently constituted is not working and is not the answer. First of all, it doesn't seem to impair the top payroll teams frim continuing their spending. For example, with all the Yankees' broadcast and telecast income, their "tax" (revenue sharing) hardly impacts them. Second, what's the use of revenue sharing, if there is no requirement that the teams that receive the extra money are not required to spend it on player salaries? We need either an NFL or NBA type $ cap.
2006-07-08 15:37:54 · update #2
It is indisputable that playing home is an advantage. Yes, fans don't win games; players do. But you definitely may play differenly if you know that you have the last "at bats". There is no manager who would not prefer home field. That's why iis is called "home field advantage".
David W: I only agree that if it's a sweep by the team that is the visiting for the first 2 games - perhaps it doesn't matter. If it's a sweep by the team that was home (had the "home field advantage" for 4 of the potential 7 games) then it does matter. Despite what the Red Sox did 2 years ago, the winner of the first two games rarely loses the World Series. Being at home for the first 2 games is a major advantage.
jssc.lynn: I agree that the AL teams that spend the big $ are mainly trying to be the best in the AL. However, if those teams are attracting the best players to the AL, then, it follows that the AL could have the best players. And yes, from "Damm Yankees" - "You Gotta Have Heart".
2006-07-08 16:00:24 · update #3
K: "The white sox don't buy talent. It's home grown" (like Tome???) But, the fact that talent is "home grown" does not make a difference. Just because it's home grown does not mean that it stays home. For it to stay, it has to be compen$ated. A team that spends has an advantage in keeping its homegrown talent. Take Oakland for example. Few would disagree that the A's consistently have the best young talent. Billy Beane definitely knows what he's doing. The problem for the Oakland franchise is that they (allegedly) do not have the $ to keep their top talent. As a result, former top A's talent is now earning big $ - with other teams. In the past off season, Oakland diverted from tradition and modestly ventured into the free agent waters.
Mary: Yes, we can AND DO all get along. We all love and enjoy THE game. That's why we're on subject here. I'd just like there to be a more competitive playing field. It may never be level , but that shouldn't stop us from trying.
2006-07-08 16:20:58 · update #4
I totally agree even though i am a yankees fan so we know somethin about big payrolls. I thought this rule was a joke when i heard about it, even though the AL team in the world series would probably have homefield advantage anyway, it is one of the worst rules i've ever seen.
2006-07-06 14:02:11 · answer #1 · answered by tarheelsjordan 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I love the fact that the All-Star game winner decides which league will have home field advantage. The only way which would be better would be to have the team with the best interleague record as the team with home field advantage. Personally, I don't believe in home field advantage. The game is played the same no matter if you're the home team or visiting team. Fans don't decide the outcome of a game (I have to bite my lip on that concession because I AM a Cubs fan. lol)
Anyway, I think both leagues are pretty even for the most part. National League teams are more likely to add their talent through deep drafts and minor league season. Their payrolls may be less, but their talent isn't necessarily worse.
2006-07-06 14:06:49 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe that is intentional but it is what is happening. The teams with the bigger payroll are buying the better players. And most of those teams are the AL teams. I really do not believe that there is a real competition between the NL and AL in general. I think mostly they are wanting to win the world series. I do think it is kinda funny that the past teams that have won did not have the bigger payroll fur the bigger heart. That may sound "corny" but it is true.
2006-07-06 15:44:43 · answer #3 · answered by jssc.lynn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The NL has some pretty high payroll teams. I'd say you're missing the trees for the forest. Individual teams are buying their way into a better chance to win the series.
This is why revenue sharing, and more of it, was so critical. Look, it's the first year of increased revenue sharing and the Reds, Tigers and Brewers are all in contention.
2006-07-06 14:25:54 · answer #4 · answered by olelefthander 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Good players are good players no matter how much they get paid and the better team will win no matter which League they play for. Sad to say, but : If the AL wins, everyone will say they "bought" it, but if the NL wins, they'll say the "underdog defeated the behemoth" or some other dumb stuff like that. Let's just enjoy the game and stop over-analyzing everything! Can't we all just get along???
2006-07-06 22:40:15 · answer #5 · answered by Mary* 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't buy this conspiracy theory at all. The American League has more big payroll teams? Actually, the National League has 8 teams in the top 12 of highest spending teams.
2006-07-06 14:05:35 · answer #6 · answered by indianalee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not.
The teams in the NL could spend just as much if they wanted too.
But they are cheap, and will attract cheap players.
2006-07-06 14:00:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The white sox dont buy talent. Its home grown.
2006-07-07 04:30:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's a sweep it doesn't matter
2006-07-06 14:00:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋