Why are the Pirates so bad in interleague play?
Posted by Andy on June 21, 2011
Reader David D. emailed in to ask why the Pirates are so bad in interleague play. Let's look at it a little bit.
Since interleague play began in 1997, the Pirates have the worst record in such games:
| Rk | Tm | G | W | L | RS | RA | pythW-L% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PIT | 203 | 75 | 128 | .369 | 882 | 1082 | .408 |
| 2 | SDP | 231 | 97 | 134 | .420 | 977 | 1096 | .448 |
| 3 | CIN | 209 | 92 | 117 | .440 | 931 | 1083 | .431 |
| 4 | BAL | 254 | 112 | 142 | .441 | 1142 | 1263 | .454 |
| 5 | ARI | 208 | 94 | 114 | .452 | 971 | 1043 | .467 |
Not only are they the worst, but they are the worst by a pretty big margin.
It's even less pretty in recent years. Here are the worst records in interleague play, 2006 through yesterday:
| Rk | Tm | G | W | L | RS | RA | pythW-L% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PIT | 82 | 26 | 56 | .317 | 331 | 454 | .359 |
| 2 | SDP | 85 | 30 | 55 | .353 | 336 | 418 | .401 |
| 3 | LAD | 82 | 30 | 52 | .366 | 315 | 401 | .391 |
| 4 | HOU | 88 | 34 | 54 | .386 | 365 | 472 | .385 |
| 5 | PHI | 90 | 36 | 54 | .400 | 406 | 488 | .417 |
Since 2006, the Pirates have an overall winning percentage of .404, and a .413 winning percentage in NL-only games. They are a lot worse in interleague play.
Why is this?
I think there are two big reasons why the Pirates' record is so bad:
1. The entire NL is not as good as the AL, at least in interleague play.
The reasons for the imbalance are not entirely clear. My theory is that NL teams are at a disadvantage in interleague play because they don't usually carry a bench player as good a hitter as the full-time DH in the AL (although this would account for discrepancies only in AL parks.)
In any event, the numbers don't lie. Here are the cumulative league-wide records in interleague play since 2006:
| Rk | Lg | G | W | L | RS | RA | pythW-L% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AL | 1354 | 768 | 586 | .567 | 6744 | 5792 | .569 |
| 2 | NL | 1354 | 586 | 768 | .433 | 5792 | 6744 | .431 |
That means that an average NL team is winning only 43% of their interleague games, and the Pirates have been a quite below-average NL team so it's not surprising that their winning percentage is still pretty far south of 43%.
2. The Pirates have been unlucky in their interleague games. If you look back at the table above, it shows that the Pirates' Pythagorean W-L% since 2006 is .359, as compared to their actual W-L% of .317. This means that they probably deserved more like a 29-53 record instead of 26-56.
I went back and checked their W-L record in 1-run interleague games since 2006, and it's 7-17. It's pretty easy to think they deserved 3 more wins there, for a record of 10-14, which would have meant they matched their Pythagorean prediction.
So there you have it...they are a bad team in a bad league for interleague games, and they've had a little bad luck to boot.
June 21st, 2011 at 12:23 pm
By the way, I made heavy use of the Situational Records search to generate the data in this post:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/situational.shtml
Thanks to Neil for reminding me of its existence!
June 21st, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I think a bigger question for me is how come the Rockies are so good at Interleague lately compared to the rest of the NL. Since 2006, they've gone 51-31 against the AL, a winning percentage 20% higher than the NL average (which would look even worse if you take Colorado out of it.) Pittsburgh's much closer to the typical NL team, and not really an anomaly anymore, especially when you compare their IL record from average to their NL record from average, but the Rockies certainly are outliers. It's a huge advantage for them compared to the rest of the NL, and almost certainly had an impact on them getting the Wild Card twice in that span.
June 21st, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I would say the AL is overall better at interleague (57% winning pct), because the advantage of a full-time DH roster member for their home games is greater than the advantage the NL teams get at their home parks when their pitchers bat. In other words, the Sox get to use Ortiz as a DH at Fenway, while the Pirates will use Garrett Jones (big advantage to the Sox). At PNC Park, the Pirates would bat Charlie Morton while the Sox would bat Tim Wakefield (no advantage). All other things being equal, the AL has an inherent advantage over the NL in interleague...
June 21st, 2011 at 1:51 pm
The DH has nothing to do with it -- indeed, *AL* teams are at a disadvantage, since their pitchers don't get much practice hitting, and regular DHes aren't as common as you think -- the teams often give someone a day off by having him DH, or work him back into the lineup after an injury. The reason for the discrepancy is that the AL is a tougher league than the NL, and the margin is huge at the moment.
June 21st, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Re: the theory that the DH is a major factor in the AL's far superior performance in interleague play:
David Schoenfield of ESPN has a pretty good refutation of that theory (as well as addressing other factors) in his SweetSpot blog today:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/12644/the-al-is-definitely-the-better-league
June 21st, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Followup to mine @5 -- The point that Schoenfield makes about the DH theory is that the AL's relative edge over the NL is higher in road games, played without the DH.
June 21st, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Sure wish we could get rid of the designated hitter - I believe without the DH the NL records would improve dramatically. The DH is a bad rule and needs to disappear from professional baseball in this country.
June 21st, 2011 at 2:31 pm
I tend to agree with Eric, although I do find some of the things that come up this time of year fascinating--for years the Red Sox have had to put Ortiz at first base and deal with his poor defense and risk of injury. Now they're talking about putting Gonzalez in right field, which IMO would be insane. I can't wait to see what actually happens.
June 21st, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Kinda surprised to see the Padres @ #2, as they get their "natural rival" Seattle 6 times every year.
June 21st, 2011 at 3:18 pm
I like the DH in that it helps extend star players' careers (selfish fan perspective) but I do believe the two leagues should be the same, either way.
June 21st, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I think it's pretty obvious that the AL is better than the NL simply because it has more talent right now. There's no reason this has to be true, it just is at the moment.
The Pirates are bad at interleague play because they're bad at baseball and will only look worse against better competition.
Having pitchers hit is silly. They're almost universally bad at it and it stifles the offense in three innings a game. It makes for much less strategy and far fewer interesting situations.
June 21st, 2011 at 4:48 pm
@ 11 - Having pitchers hit is silly? I tend to disagree with you on that. A good pitcher can negate his spot in the order by pitching well. As "small ball" gets used less and less in today's game, I will agree that pitchers such as Ted Lilly do look pretty silly swinging the bat. However, pitchers like Greg Maddux did relatively fine moving a runner over by laying down a bunt or hitting a well placed grounder.
I also agree with Eric's view of the designated hitter. There are plenty of career minor leaguers who are VERY good at one aspect of the game but another aspect prevents them from reaching the majors. Ortiz no doubt is a great hitter, but c'mon and make the guy play defense. However, I do wish I had a "designated go to the craft store with my wife" available.
Finally, as much as I dislike the designated hitter, I do like the two leagues being different. I think they need to have something to separate them or else we could just have one big league. As a Cubs fan (and if the Cubs aren't in contention...hold your jokes), I will almost always root for an NL team over an AL team.
June 21st, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I would not have guessed that Philly would be that bad in interleague games over the last few years.
June 21st, 2011 at 6:00 pm
@6, John
Good link on the refuting of the NL being hurt by the last of a DH, but it does stand to reason that Pittsburgh and other low-payroll teams would be hurt more, just because the allocation of resources dictates that someone on their bench is probably not going to be a major league quality starter. Indeed, Pittsburgh DHs over the last few years:
2011: .231/.286/.308
2010: .125/.194/.250
2009: .238/.304/.286
2008: .273/.360/.545
2007: .222/.282/.306
2006: .238/.273/.286
2005: .174/.269/.217
Other than 2008, every year they've hit worse than a #9 hitter on an AL team would be expected to - I think it's unreasonable to think that ISN'T hurting them.
Designated hitters for NL teams have been abysmal in general this year.
June 21st, 2011 at 6:53 pm
@11...
"It makes for much less strategy and far fewer interesting situations."
HUH?! How does effectivly having a free pinch-hitter five times a game INCREASE strategy? As for 'interesting situations?' I'd say pitch count and solid bullpens are what do that. Otherwise every time you have to think about hitting for the pitcher, as in years past, it becomes a VERY interesting situation.
June 21st, 2011 at 8:49 pm
@2
Kendall, have the Rockies played the AL East in interleague play very often? That would be an equalizer.
How about the Yankees or Red Sox batting in the thin air of Denver?
And that highlights the inequity of inter-league play in any given year(s) ......... an imbalanced schedule!
June 21st, 2011 at 8:53 pm
The DH has been an utter travesty and abomination since day one. I say bring back steroids and Barry Bonds but screw the DH to the wall. When we're done with that we can get rid of the hidebound, puritannical, hypocritical, exclusionary, boring, clueless, bad-business-running, old guard that runs baseball and get some new blood in there. Less Bud Selig, more Mark Cuban.
Oh, and I love unicorns and rainbows, too.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:01 pm
"The Pirates have been unlucky in their interleague games. If you look back at the table above, it shows that the Pirates' Pythagorean W-L% since 2006 is .359, as compared to their actual W-L% of .317. This means that they probably deserved more like a 29-53 record instead of 26-56."
Hey Andy-
Quickly looking at the very small sample size here, almost all the teams underperformed their Pythagorean W-L%. I'm curious if A) there is a discernible trend of poorer teams underperforming their Pythagorean W-L% and B) if so, what we might attribute this to?
June 21st, 2011 at 9:05 pm
I didn't really know how to even begin searching for an answer to my question. Then I remember some of the advanced standings page on ESPN.com...
8 of 15 below .500 teams have underperformed their Pythag this year. 7 of 15 have outperformed. Both totals include teams within just a few percentage points... I simply looked at Win% and Pythag% and whether it was higher or lower. So, another small sample size shows my hunch to be in error.
It would be interesting to see if there was anyway to identify teams that we'd expect to under- or outperform their Pythag. I just have no idea how to do it...
June 21st, 2011 at 9:17 pm
My guess would be that great teams tend to over-perform Pythag, and bad teams under-perform, just because that would be part of the reason their records end up so good or bad. I've probably seen some study on this but I don't remember. Anyway, it wouldn't be hard to check several seasons to see if that's true.
I also think teams with good bullpens tend to outperform Pythag. Having a good record in close games helps.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:35 pm
@16
Neil, actually they perform better against the AL East, at least in the regular season, than against the other two divisions. They've played AL East teams a third of the time and gone 19-8 in those games, losing just one series (a 2007 sweep at Toronto) outscoring the division 152-107. The Yankees were swept at Coors Field in 2007 and the Rockies took two out of three at Boston that season (but of course got swept by the Red Sox in the WS) and then also won two of three against the Red Sox at Coors last year.
I actually think it either has something to do with the Rockies bench being better than the typical NL team, Jason Giambi's closer to a true DH than anybody else in the league has, or alternatively, in figuring out how to pitch effectively at Coors field, the Rockies might have also stumbled on something that translates better across leagues. American League teams can't go in to Denver and expect to win like they can at any other NL venue.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:45 pm
BSK, JT is right I think, and the lists in my original post are just the few worst teams--the fact that they underperformed their Pythag is part of what made them among the bottom 5 teams, hence why they were on my list.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:52 pm
@21
Kendall, nice catch. I posted lazily, without checking.
A 19-8 record against the AL East is indeed solid. The Rockies are not just built for Coors Field.
I can't see Giambi being single-handedly responsible for the Rockies good inter-league road record.
Perhaps your theory about Rockies' pitchers learning to nibble at the strike zone at Coors has some merit!
June 21st, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Pfft. I like that the leagues are different. The only problem I have with the DH it is being adopted by lower professional leagues and amateur leagues thus making pitchers that already suck at hitting even worse at it.
As for the DH advantage, it was never compelling to me and I think the refutations are spot on. The AL is the more talented league. Even when people say the NL was at its best in the 50s and 60s, one supremely talented team in the American League dominated the World Series for the first part of the era where the NL clearly had more/better stars (in part due to its embrace of integration).
June 21st, 2011 at 11:32 pm
The AL has the advantage not necessarily in how they can place their lineup either at home or away according to the DH rule. They have the advantage because they can attract better players with the DH. AL teams can guarantee significant, consistent playing time to 9 hitters. 9 players who generally know where they'll be playing and where they'll be hitting in lineup day after day. So the AL gets David Ortiz and Edgar Martinez and NL Matt Stairs and Lenny Harris. Sure the AL will bench them at NL parks, but they don't always. They swap out a weak hitter and reconfigure their lineup (DH to LF, LF to CF), and they still have a better roster to rely on to pinch-hit, rest others, etc.
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:16 am
JT and Andy-
Makes sense. My check of this year's standings included everyone below .500, so it didn't really look at the truly abysmal team. What JT said makes sense.... if a team wins 110 games, it is likely they got lucky along the way. If they somehow won that many while underperforming, that is scary. Likewise for a team that loses 110. If their record was better than their on the field performance, yikes!