Interleague play: It's dumb. Also so is the unbalanced schedule.
by Stacey on Jun 15, 2010 2:00 PM EDT
in Commentary & Analysis
Email
PrintThis past Sunday I was in a house where the television was tuned to the last game of the Yankees-Astros series. I didn't pay much attention to it, but as I walked through the room as the Astros made the final out to give the Yankees the sweep, it crossed my mind that I hate interleague play. There are a number of reasons, not the least of which is that with each passing year it makes the schedule within divisions less and less fair, especially since the unbalanced schedule came back into play in 2001.
I don't say this as an Orioles fan. I say this as a baseball fan. I know the Orioles could be scheduled to only play the Astros and the Pirates in interleague and they'd still have the worst record in baseball. But interleague play, combined with the unbalanced schedule, has made the individual schedules of each team in a division so different that it hardly seems fair to anyone. In a 162 games season it should be possible for each team in a division to have close to identical schedules (and before interleague started in 1997 and the unbalanced schedule in 2001, they pretty much were).
But take a look at some of the discrepancies among teams in the AL East this year in interleague:
Rays: Diamondbacks - 3, Braves - 3, Astros - 3, Padres - 3, Marlins - 6
Yankees: Diamondbacks - 3, Astros - 3, Dodgers - 3, Phillies - 3, Mets - 6
Red Sox: Diamondbacks - 3, Rockies - 3, Dodgers - 3, Giants - 3, Phillies - 6
Blue Jays: Diamondbacks - 3, Rockies - 3, Phillies - 3, Padres - 3, Giants - 3, Cardinals - 3
Orioles: Marlins - 3, Mets - 3, Padres - 3, Giants - 3, Nationals - 6
The Blue Jays I guess don't have a natural rival, so they play an entire extra team than the rest of the AL East. And the Red Sox are somehow paired up against the Phillies as their "natural" rival. What kind of sense does that make (although at least it's closer than the Braves, against whom they used to play six games)?
It's not about the talent level that any team will play against on a given year, it's about the fact that in interleague play alone changes the balance of the division. Imagine the Red Sox finish the year in first place, one game ahead of the Rays. Who knows what might have happened if both teams had an equal playing field, opponent-wise?
When interleague started, they at least TRIED to make it fair. Back then each team played the teams in their corresponding division, and all the same number of times. But when some bright young fellow figured out that MLB might make more money if the Angels and Dodgers play each other six times a year, we were forced into "natural" rivalries. Then, with the advent of unbalanced schedules (or, as I like to call it, "The best way to make sure the Yankees and Red Sox can play each other on national tv four hundred times per year), it got even wonkier. It became difficult to evenly lop off games against the entire AL because every team was locked into 18 games against every other team in their division.
Now, thanks to interleague and thanks to the unbalanced schedule, the amount of games each team in a division plays against other divisions in the AL is jacked up as well. Going back to the Rays and Red Sox example: in 2010, not only do those two teams have 15 interleague games where they don't play the same opponent, because of the corner the rest of the schedule has been painted into, now the Red Sox are only facing the Twins five times in 2010 while the Rays face them eight. The Rays play the Rangers six times and the Red Sox play them ten, and the list goes on. It's absurd.
This isn't groundbreaking information, not by any means. But it's something that bugs me every year. And when you take time to look at the numbers, it's kind of crazy just how different the schedules of divisional rivals are.
If I had authority over the schedule I'd do away with interleague and the unbalanced division games altogether, but that will never happen. They just make MLB too much money. But there has to be something that can be done to ensure that the Red Sox don't play the Phillies more times than the Twins, or that the Blue Jays and Yankees have less than 22 games that don't overlap, opponent-wise. I know that it's hard to coordinate a schedule of 162 games across 30 teams, but surely they can figure out a way to keep the Red Sox from playing the Mariners five more times than the Blue Jays do. Can't some nerd can write a computer program for that?
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with most of this...
One thing I like about interleague play is that you get a chance to see some of the other league’s stars live at the ball park. Think about it. Without interleague play the only chance you’d get would be the All-Star game or the World Series. Unless of course you travel to another stadium, but fans in Colorado would not have a convenient trip like we here in the Baltimore/D.C. area. I know that’s kind of a stupid reason but I like it.
Besides scheduling the one thing I would change is the DH rule. Let it be known I am a fan of having the pitcher bat in all leagues before I say what I’m about to say. Because the DH rule does exist I think during interleague play NL stadiums should use the DH rule and AL stadiums have the pitcher bat. This way, for one reason listed above, the fans of the AL teams that do not travel to NL parks can see NL baseball and vice versa. But I suppose in a way this idea was ruined with the invention of the television…
"If I was being paid thirty-thousand dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400." - Ted Williams
I'm anti pitchers hitting in all leagues
and I’m anti-the NL and AL facing off before the World Series. That being said, I’m also part of the problem for the reason you mentioned. I like to see players and teams I don’t normally get to see otherwise so I go to the interleague games even though I wish they didn’t exist.
Isn't it almost impossible to believe that none of the perfect games this season have been thrown against us? -O'sFan21
I like watching pitchers hit.
For one thing I like watching the really terrible ones like Daniel Cabrera because it’s hilarious. For another, I like watching the pitchers who hit in college or were good hitters in high school because it’s fun.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
I like the pitchers hitting for 2 reasons.
1. They’re on the field, they should hit. Pitchers hit in every league up until the Pros, I don’t understand that.
2. When the amazing moments happen say:
a. Danys Baez getting a hit then scoring the eventual GW run last year in D.C.
Any pitcher that hits a HR."If I was being paid thirty-thousand dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400." - Ted Williams
Ehh not really.
Almost no pitchers hit in college unless they are also position players.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
I hate pitchers hitting for two reasons
1) they suck at it
2) it’s boring
Isn't it almost impossible to believe that none of the perfect games this season have been thrown against us? -O'sFan21
But if all pitchers have to hit in every team in MLB I’m pretty sure they would practice more and hopefully get better years down the road. Maybe even as good as Tatum.
"If I was being paid thirty-thousand dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400." - Ted Williams
That's kinda an argument against it
when the novelty wears off you’re left with a bunch of guys striving to be as good as Craig Tatum. I rather get to watch additional years of guys like Thome, Baines, Matsui, etc… then see some shitty pitcher hit and possibly get hurt doing so.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
I was trying to be a little humorous...
If a pitcher gets hurt (see Chien-Ming Wang) it sucks I know. But it’s also part of the game. I know these guys had to do some running in their days. So saying “it’s BS my pitcher got hurt running the bases” is a pretty poor excuse in my opinion.
I also understand your view on seeing older guys just hit. But if you’re too old to run or too old to play the field then I think you’re too old to play the game…
"If I was being paid thirty-thousand dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400." - Ted Williams
But it isn't part of the game
Not in the AL. The DH is part of the game in the AL. I don’t understand this mentality of “pitchers hitting is the right way”. If you like it, fine, but you can’t just say “it’s part of the game”. It very much is not a part of the game in our league and it hasn’t been for 37 years.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
FWIW
I enjoy the difference between the leagues on the DH question. It allows for variety in styles of play, for the preservation of great hitters who, for whatever reason, can’t play the field, and for the advantage of good hitting pitchers such as Carlos Zambrano and Micah Owings.
That said, I don’t really like interleague play at all. I enjoyed it when you had to make the World Series to compete against the stars of the other league. It made it more special to me.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
THIS. X 1000
I enjoyed it when you had to make the World Series to compete against the stars of the other league. It made it more special to me.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
I disagree
Most possible World Series match-ups bore me because theres such little history and familiarity between the teams. I don’t see more regular competition between league doing anything to harm the excitement and significance of the World Series.
I completely agree with you on both counts.
I can’t wait for the interleague experiment to end. I detest it. And the difference between leagues is one of the things I love about baseball compared to other sports.
by owllover711 on Jun 15, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
A good post on the subject
The Rangers get to play the Astros six times this year while the Angels play the Dodgers and the A’s play the Giants. Super fair.
Isn't it almost impossible to believe that none of the perfect games this season have been thrown against us? -O'sFan21
I realize this response is days late,
but I was thinking about this post on my way home from work tonight. While I admit that in theory interleague play is alluring, it’s because it gives fans the thrill of the foreign and exotic.
A buddy of mine (a NYY fan, but whatevs) loves to refer to the NL as “Canadian baseball”, but it really does seem foreign to me. I’ve been to O’s interleague games against the Nats, Braves, and Mets, and the thrill only lasts for a minute or two before the realization that what I’m watching is just… wrong… sets in.
When I was a kid, I LOVED the complete separation of the leagues. Because it was before payrolls got insane and free agency became the norm, it was cool to find out every October that there was an ENTIRE OTHER LEAGUE that had been playing games I didn’t even care about all year up to that point. I never knew who the hell Lenny Dykstra was until 1993 (I didn’t become a diehard O’s fan until I was 6, right before the Mets won in ’86, so I only learned about him for the first time in ’93 because that was more or less the next time he was on the national stage. And that foreign-ness fascinated me.
But you’re exactly right, interleague competition is completely unfair, at least as it’s currently set up. It’s weird enough that we played the NYM’s last weekend. But SF and SD this week? No thanks. It cheapens the post-season structure, and the unbalanced schedule will only ever be acceptable to me if MLB imposes a salary cap. That’s the only thing that’s allowed inter-conference play and unbalanced scheduling to work in the NFL, because it provides a modicum of parity. No matter how much Jerry Jones makes on merch and ticket sales, he’s only allowed to spend as much as all the other teams.
"Don't worry, the fans don't start booing until July."-Earl Weaver
by NoTimeForLove, Dr. Jones! on Jun 17, 2010 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The trouble is, MLB makes a lot of money from this
Therefore the owners like it, and the players like it.
And while we’ve often had cause to regret it, this is yet another reason to deplore having an owner as the Commissioner – the one person who is supposed to be in it for the good of the game is, like the rest of the powerful interests in the league, in it for the money.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Anyone remember Fay Vincent?
He tried to call it down the middle & the owners damn near chased him up a tree & set fire to it.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
i like interleague play for the reasons mentioned — see the other teams, some freshness, maybe even develop a “natural rivalry” with the nats. I’m kidding… sorta.
But the unbalanced schedule is stupid, and it seems to be where your beef is. As you said: “When interleague started, they at least TRIED to make it fair. Back then each team played the teams in their corresponding division, and all the same number of times.” From that I gather that interleague play isn’t really what you hate so much as the unbalanced schedule, which makes interleague play that much more unfair.
I think it’s dumb anyway, as I doubt in the long run that they make more money by staging more Yankees/Red Sox games. The more we see it, the less meaningful each game is, and the less likely people are to tune in to a given game. It’s simple supply and demand — don’t allow supply to exceed demand. Baseball, however, is not smart enough and not only cannot adapt (by, say, shortening the season) but changes things in the wrong direction (unbalanced schedule).
I hate interleague, but for the opposite reason
I hate the way that the differences between the two leagues is treated as a novelty. If i had my way, i’d either get rid of the DH all together or force the NL to adopt it. And expand interleague so that you have roughly a quarter of the season played against teams from the other league.
Play each NL team for 3 games (45 games), each non-division AL team 7 games (70 games), and each division AL team 13 times (52 games) for a 162 game season.
Expanded interleague makes the issue of leagues with odd numbers of teams less of an issue.
^ Future commissioner
"If I was being paid thirty-thousand dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400." - Ted Williams
Bud would've approved...
"If I was being paid thirty-thousand dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400." - Ted Williams
Thank You
I can’t stand Interleague because of the unbalanced schedule. I would much rather see the Giants play the Cardinals, Cubs, etc. in more than two series’ a year than watch the Orioles, Blue Jays and Red Sox. Plus, I don’t want to watch 18 Giants-Diamondbacks games a year.
"Even the Swedes are getting mad."-Randy Hahn
"It's very cozy in the sin bin."-Randy Hahn
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
