Wacky change points in the All-Star game
Now that we’re writing about baseball . . . what do you think of Phil Price’s observation about All-Star games from 1965 to the present (with N indicating National League wins and A indicating American League wins):
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNANNANAAAAAANNNAAAAATAAAAAAThe “T” indicates a tie (in 2002): unlike regular games, there is no requirement that the All-Star Game continue until somebody wins, and pitchers are reluctant to pitch too many innings and potentially hurt themselves.
I was born into an era in which the National League won every game. Now, the American League wins (or, at least, doesn’t lose) every game. This is happening in a sport where even bad teams beat good teams occasionally, so it’s really mystifying. It would be possible to explain a small edge for one league or the other, that persists for a few years —- the league with the best pitcher will have an advantage, for example, and that pitcher can play year after year —- but these effects can’t come close to explaining the long runs in favor of one team or another. Predicting next year’s winner to be the same as this year’s winner would have correctly predicted 80% of the games in my lifetime…and that’s if we pretend the National League won the tie game in 2002. (If we pretend the American League won it, it’s 84%).
What would be a reasonable statistical model for baseball All-Star games, and why isn’t it something close to coin flips?
Comments
Back when the NL was winning they only had 12 teams to the AL’s 14. Now the NL has 16 teams to the AL’s 14. You would think having more players in your league would help. Go figure.
Or maybe it’s because the Brewers moved to the NL, and they’re jinxed.
Posted by: Chris Mealy | July 16, 2008 07:32 PM
Having more teams in the league doesn’t necessarily help, though, because of the requirement that at least one All-Star be selected from each team. Admittedly, that’s only 2 more roster spots locked up by teams without the best players, but it makes it more difficult to selecting the strongest team possible (especially given the current bias toward using every player, which is the other reason the 2002 Game ended in a tie: no one was left).
Posted by: Dara | July 16, 2008 08:18 PM
I don’t know, but suspect, that the same trend (albeit over a shorter timeline) would appear if you looked at the leagues records against each other in inter-league (regular season) play.
The conventional wisdom regarding the apparent talent disparity between leagues has it that much of the difference comes from the amount of talent stockpiled by the Yankees and Red Sox, thanks to their absurd payrolls, and the spillover effect that leads other AL teams to spend more in hopes of competing (whereas the NL teams need not play this game, and with few exceptions don’t).
Perhaps total player payroll for each league, or average salary for the All-Stars, might have a correlation with All-Star results?
Posted by: Joel Parker | July 17, 2008 11:14 AM