Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
June 07, 2004
Interleague Play

Interleague play kicks off today. Over the seven years it's been in effect, MLB has tinkered with the schedule to try to maintain the novelty that brought fans out to the ballpark. The system has developed into one where a team plays a different division each year, but a local rivalry always gets a home and home series (Yankees-Mets, Dodgers-Angels) if one exists. New teams come into a ballpark every year, and with the exception of the rivalry series, you get to see an opponent every six years or so. That's about the right length of time to keep these games interesting.

(I do miss, however, the predictability of the old schedules.)


Posted by David Pinto at 10:48 AM | Games | TrackBack (0)
Comments

In my view, interleague play has run its course. The novelty has completely worn off, and it completely screws with the balanace of schedules found in the leagues. Take for example, the American League East. During interleague play the Yankees play at home Colorado and San Diego. They travel to LA and Arizona with six games against the Mets in between. The Red Sox, on the other hand, play San Diego and LA in Fenway, and they travel to Colorado and San Fransisco. They also play three against the Phillies and three against the Braves. Considering the park effect of Coors Field and the differences between Arizona and SF right now, it seems that the balance of schedules between two fierce competitors is greatly upset. I think that for interleague play to really work outside of just being a marketing tool for Major League Baseball, the schedule of same-division competitors has to be fairly identical.

Posted by: Ben at June 7, 2004 11:35 AM

For some reason, the Phillies' "natural rivalry" with the Orioles extends only so far as the O's visiting Philly this summer. The Phils have a series with the Red Sox this summer in lieu of trekking down I-95 and having Camden Yards fill 3/4ths with red-clad phans.

Posted by: Michael at June 7, 2004 11:36 AM

I don't mind interleague play, especially with mixing it up every year (Yankees - Braves every year, ugh). What I find annoying is the six "rivalry" games. Make it just one three game series, it is more special that way. Six games vs. the Mets sort of diminishes the spectacle.

Completely unrelatedly, have two perfect game pitchers ever faced each other? With Wells on the shelf, it doesn't look like it'dl happen until possibly August or September.

Posted by: Robert at June 7, 2004 02:25 PM

i don't like interleague play at all, so i mostly agree with ben. but you can't do much about the scheduling problem cuz you set the schedule before you find out who's good that year. who thought that the reds would be on top the nl central? or the mariners on the bottom of the al west? so it's unpredictable.

Posted by: lisa gray at June 7, 2004 09:18 PM

My one gripe with Interleague play would be with the home-and-home rivalries. Obviously, there are some no-brainers, like the Yankees-Mets, Cubs-White Sox and Marlins-Devil Rays. However, it has to be distressing for fans of teams without true rivalries. To this day, I wonder why the MLB moved the Brewers to the National League the exact same year they started Interleague play in 1997. That move setup a 16-team NL and 14-team AL, meaning that two NL teams would be leftover if true, concrete home-and-home series were ever set. That, in turn, has led to the rotation we see when it comes to teams that don't have rivalries. Interleague play won't be truly perfect until two new franchises join the American League, or a National League team switches leagues.

That aside, I think Interleague play has been singled out too much. Over the course of a season, a team plays 18 interleague games. Well, look at any other sport. In Basketball, an Eastern conference team will play 30 games against the Western conference, more than a third of the team's overall games. Hockey is almost identical, while an AFC team in football will play the NFC four teams, basically a quarter of their schedule. Of the four major sports, baseball devotes the lowest percent of its schedule to playing the other league/conference. I don't think the 18 games of Interleague play take away from the mystique of October. The Yankees played the N.L. Central last year, only to be stunned in the World Series by the NL East Florida Marlins. It's not like Interleague Play cancels out the chances for surprises and upsets.

But I think the real value of Interleague play is the scenarios is creates. Take the AL East. Normally, it's a fairly boring division, with the Yankees and Red Sox always holding first and second place in some fashion. Now, because of Interleague Play, the Devil Rays have won eleven straight, and are actually WITHIN distance of the Red Sox. You're saying that's not good for baseball, when a matter of two weeks can take a fifth-place team within a few games of second place? I think it is. One complaint people often make about baseball is that once June hits, you can start saying who's out of the pennant race and who isn't. With Interleague play, those comments have to be held off until the All-Star break. An extra month of all the division titles up for grabs can't be bad for the sport.

Posted by: Ken at June 22, 2004 03:59 AM

My one gripe with Interleague play would be with the home-and-home rivalries. Obviously, there are some no-brainers, like the Yankees-Mets, Cubs-White Sox and Marlins-Devil Rays. However, it has to be distressing for fans of teams without true rivalries. To this day, I wonder why the MLB moved the Brewers to the National League the exact same year they started Interleague play in 1997. That move setup a 16-team NL and 14-team AL, meaning that two NL teams would be leftover if true, concrete home-and-home series were ever set. That, in turn, has led to the rotation we see when it comes to teams that don't have rivalries. Interleague play won't be truly perfect until two new franchises join the American League, or a National League team switches leagues.

That aside, I think Interleague play has been singled out too much. Over the course of a season, a team plays 18 interleague games. Well, look at any other sport. In Basketball, an Eastern conference team will play 30 games against the Western conference, more than a third of the team's overall games. Hockey is almost identical, while an AFC team in football will play the NFC four teams, basically a quarter of their schedule. Of the four major sports, baseball devotes the lowest percent of its schedule to playing the other league/conference. I don't think the 18 games of Interleague play take away from the mystique of October. The Yankees played the N.L. Central last year, only to be stunned in the World Series by the NL East Florida Marlins. It's not like Interleague Play cancels out the chances for surprises and upsets.

But I think the real value of Interleague play is the scenarios is creates. Take the AL East. Normally, it's a fairly boring division, with the Yankees and Red Sox always holding first and second place in some fashion. Now, because of Interleague Play, the Devil Rays have won eleven straight, and are actually WITHIN distance of the Red Sox. You're saying that's not good for baseball, when a matter of two weeks can take a fifth-place team within a few games of second place? I think it is. One complaint people often make about baseball is that once June hits, you can start saying who's out of the pennant race and who isn't. With Interleague play, those comments have to be held off until the All-Star break. An extra month of all the division titles up for grabs can't be bad for the sport.

Posted by: Ken at June 22, 2004 04:00 AM