Master Index of Archived Threads


Interleague play

Benjamin Grimm Jun 10 2007 05:33 PM

There were 14 interleague games being played today, and which game does ESPN use to highlight as its Sunday night game? Braves-Cubs. Except for when some of the designated rivals play, does anyone get all that revved up about interleague games? I know I don't.

TransMonk Jun 10 2007 05:37 PM

I don't even care about the rival games.

metirish Jun 10 2007 05:49 PM

I'm bummed I missed Phillie at KC.....looking at the games today I would have liked to have seen Boston at Arizona.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 10 2007 05:54 PM

TransMonk wrote: I don't even care about the rival games. I can't really say that I do, either. If I had a vote, I'd stop interleague play and restore a little bit of normalcy to the schedule.

cooby Jun 10 2007 05:56 PM

Hopefully ESPN will get the lowest ratings ever tonight and they'll realize nobody cares to watch the Braves and stop showing them

Willets Point Jun 10 2007 07:39 PM

I just notice on the scoreboard that Minnesota played Washington today and was wondering if that is the Nationals first match up against the former Senators? Have they played the Rangers?

Frayed Knot Jun 10 2007 08:58 PM

I could certainly do without it. Or at least would prefer a reduced IL sked -- like why does it need to be 18 games per team? Playing about half that many would still preserve the novelty of "new" matchups they seem to want but not take such a huge chunk out of the regular schedule. btw, the AL is kicking the NL's butt so far this season -- which would make it the 3rd year in a row that they've held a significant esge.

Elster88 Jun 10 2007 09:22 PM

Am I the only one who likes going to see teams at Shea that rarely get there? Is it just the old folks who don't like IL play or is it everyone?

cleonjones11 Jun 10 2007 11:20 PM

I dont like MLB Intercourse play

MFS62 Jun 11 2007 05:37 AM

="Willets Point"]I just notice on the scoreboard that Minnesota played Washington today and was wondering if that is the Nationals first match up against the former Senators? Have they played the Rangers? I was at RFK stadium when the expansion Washington Senators played the Minnesota Twins. Time flies. Later

Rockin' Doc Jun 11 2007 05:43 AM

Yancy - "If I had a vote, I'd stop interleague play and restore a little bit of normalcy to the schedule." Count me in.

seawolf17 Jun 11 2007 07:59 AM

I'd vote against interleague play also, but I am interested in seeing the Twins and A's come to Shea... so I guess that's the Catch-22. I'd rather have a balanced schedule for the integrity of the playoffs, though.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 11 2007 08:33 AM

Yeah, that's where I'm coming from too. I don't have a "purist" objection to seeing the Mets play the Royals or the Devil Rays every few years. It's just that I liked it better when the Mets played 18 games every year against teams in their division, and 12 against every team in the West. I realize that three divisions makes that nice balance impossible, but getting rid of those interleague games would help somewhat. I'd rather see more games against other teams in the NL. It's crazy that the Mets only make one trip each year to Chicago, St. Louis, LA, etc.

Frayed Knot Jun 11 2007 10:23 AM

That's my main objection too. Think about it this way; we went from having 9, then 11, different opponents in the first 30 years of our existance who we saw 4 to 6 times each, to having 20 now but where 15 or 16 of those are either a one-visit each way situation or a one-and-done who we may not see for another 5 years. Obviously you don't want to swing too much towards either extreme, but I think the baseball sked works better when you play fewer teams more often.

Batty31 Jun 11 2007 04:23 PM

I am all for getting rid of interleague play altogether. I don't get psyched for games against the MFY anymore, either. Having said that, I would like to catch the A's at Shea since they are my second favorite team, and you would never catch me going to MFY stadium to see them.

Nymr83 Jun 11 2007 04:49 PM

i'd rather ditch the interleague. if it was kept i'd want it to be FAIR (no rivalry games and a division rotation like the NFL's) but that would require 16 teams in each league to work right.

Edgy DC Jun 11 2007 05:05 PM

What's wrong with 15 teams in each league?

TransMonk Jun 11 2007 05:09 PM

Edgy DC wrote: What's wrong with 15 teams in each league? An interleague game would have to be scheduled everyday. I imagine if that were easy, there would be 15 in each league now and Milwaukee would still be in the junior circuit.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 11 2007 05:43 PM

I think 15 in each league could work, and it may actually be easier to schedule than the current mess.

Edgy DC Jun 11 2007 05:58 PM

I concur. There's approximately 54 series in a year. Each team (in a 30-team organization divided into two leagues of 15) playing only two three-game series each against a teams in a single opposite league division still leaves 150 interleague series to be played. Almost three times what we need. Is my math wrong? I've got 15 teams in a league each playing 2 series (home and away) against 5 teams in an opposing division. 15 x 2 x 5 = 150

TransMonk Jun 11 2007 07:31 PM

Certainly possible...for some reason baseball's content with the unbalanced leagues. 15 team leagues would make oodles more sense.

Gwreck Jun 11 2007 07:42 PM

I would be fine with interleague if -- and only if -- they put 15 teams in each league. Otherwise it's stupid.

Edgy DC Jun 11 2007 09:12 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 11 2007 10:13 PM

I can't imagine how the NL Central teams (and fans) stand the injustice.

Gwreck Jun 11 2007 09:51 PM

Who moves to the AL to fix the disparity? Houston?

Frayed Knot Jun 11 2007 09:58 PM

One problem is that the expansion/realignment took place a few years prior to the implementation of interleauge and I'm sure they weren't interested in realigning back. With two 15-team leagues you could actually schedule fewer IL games than they have now (approx 175 total IL games as opposed to the current 250 or so). The negative is that you'd have to have one series going on at all times of the season. I have no idea how easy or difficult that would be to inter-weave with everything else.

Gwreck Jun 11 2007 10:07 PM

I don't think it would be difficult at all. The drawback is that the interleague games wouldn't be grouped together as an "event," which does boost attendance. Still, there are a lot of series that would sell out or have good attendance regardless so I don't think that concern should be put ahead of competitive balance. (Which of course means baseball wouldn't do it).

Edgy DC Jun 11 2007 10:23 PM

="Frayed Knot"]One problem is that the expansion/realignment took place a few years prior to the implementation of interleauge and I'm sure they weren't interested in realigning back. The last expansion and realignment came in 1998 (Tampa Bay and Arizona added, Milwaukee jumping), after interleague play began. Arizona also entered with an agreement to switch to the American League if re-alignment necessitated it. Conangelo supposedly did what he could to keep Selig from forcing the issue. I'm not sure whether Selig still holds that card, but that could pretty easily fix the situation, with Arizona jumping to the AL West and Houston to the NL West.

Gwreck Jun 11 2007 10:34 PM

IIRC, it was first 5 or first 10 years of the franchise's existence. Can't remember which.

Nymr83 Jun 11 2007 10:48 PM

wouldnt it make more sense to send milwaukee back where they came from?

DocTee Jun 11 2007 10:56 PM

yes. to my mind, the brewers are still an AL team

Edgy DC Jun 11 2007 11:02 PM

Well, that might make more aesthetic sense to our need to defend the meaning of the National League, but as far as logical sense, if the Brews return to the AL Central, who goes west? Kansas City is the only answer. While they'd little more inconvenienced time zone-wise than Houston would be, they'd be still leaving a division where all their rivals are within 800 miles.