Interleague play, to some the scourge of American culture, will end for the 2009 regular season on Sunday. To hear some baseball purists and radio talk show hosts (among others) speak, you would think that Interleague play is the single largest problem facing the game today, dwarfing the challenges posed by steroids, the economy and Scott Boras. I’m glad to know that there are people out there with passionate opinions about the game, but come on guys. Get a hold of yourselves.
At the beginning of IP this year, Jayson Stark went and found a group of players who don’t like it. Aside from revealing Adam Dunn to be a complete whiner, Stark’s column tries to take an objective look at some of the things that make the players unhappy.
The major complaints seem to be that there are more “meaningless” series’ (i.e. Kansas City vs. Houston) than there are “rivalry” ones (like the Yankees vs. the Mets), it goes on too long, the travel can make things really difficult, and of course my personal favorite: “it’s not fair.”
I have some pretty strong opinions on the unbalanced schedule, and it occurs to me that we should explore that topic very soon. I’m the rare guy who is a fan of baseball’s schedule, and nothing gets me itchy quicker than someone telling me “it’s not fair”. Dude. You’re a professional ball player, playing at the highest level. If the New York Yankees had to play the New York Mets, and the Tampa Bay Rays had to play Edison Community College, I’d say that’s not fair. You’re playing another major league team. Stop talking and sit down. You’re embarrassing yourself.
I have to say I kind of enjoy interleague play. I’m not over-the-moon in love with it, but it is sort of fun to see my AL club go to Wrigley and St. Louis, as they did this year. I’m not a big fan of the designated hitter, and I like watching Ron Gardenhire have to manage under national league rules.
It reassures me that my skipper understands the nuances of the game. I don’t really understand these people who get all worked up over it, and think it’s an annual scarring of the game. What’s the big deal? The world is not going to come to an end because the Dodgers are playing at US Cellular Field. It mixes things up a little bit. Don’t get your undies in a bunch.
I do think MLB should look at some format changes, though. The National League should bring the rules with them when they go on the road, and vice versa. Namely, there should be a designated hitter at the NL home games, and pitchers should bat at the AL home games. It would make things a little more interesting for the fans, and might sell a few more tickets.
Also, I think the overall league records should determine home field advantage for the World Series. That would be infinitely more fair than a using a one shot beauty pageant like the All-Star Game to determine such an important facet of the championship series. If MLB is going to continue to ignore the best and most obvious way to determine home field advantage (which is, of course, the better record of the two participants), they should at least try to do something a little more played out, if not scientific.
Neither of these are new or original ideas. I’ve probably heard Bert Blyleven talk about the home field advantage thing on 50 different Twins broadcasts over the years. But just because Bert wants it doesn’t make it a bad idea.
It’s not a panacea. It’s not going to end world hunger, fix insolvent banks or bring stability to Afghanistan, but it is a nice little diversion. It’s the rare venture that MLB puts together that is largely for the fans. Stark’s column points out that IP increases ticket sales on an average of nearly 10%, and my guess is that it increases TV ratings by at least that much.
Tweak it, yes. Make some minor changes. But don’t get rid of it. It’s just kind of fun.
Loading ...
Rich makes some interesting points about the “okay-ness” of interleague play. I agree with some of them – especially the one he makes about players whining that it’s not fair. Anytime Major League baseball players whine about something being not fair it makes me want to throw things. Sharp and heavy things. At them.
Nonetheless, I am not a fan of interleague play. The scheduling issue is my biggest complaint. Some teams play 15 interleague games. Others play 18. With the “rivalry” series, teams in the same division don’t play the same teams – so the end result is an uneven break in the season that can skew standings dramatically impact playoffs, world series, etc.
Expect it to come into play this year with five of six divisions separated by four or fewer games.
To me, it’s just one more example of how Bud Selig has tarnished the game. He’s taken the tradition of American League and National League only meeting in the all star game and the World Series and turned it into a half-assed attempt to raise revenues.
If you want to do interleague play, intersperse it throughout the entire schedule rather than forcing all the games to be played at the same time. That would give schedule makers the flexibility to create a schedule that makes more sense.
It’s not like the individual markets couldn’t still market those as their interleague games, even if they happen throughout the year. As it is, with the unbalanced leagues, two national league teams still have to meet in NL games while Interleague play is going on because there aren’t enough teams in each league for a full slate of IL games.
If you do it the way I propose you can put five teams in each division and someone will always be playing interleague.
This continues to be one of the things Selig points to as an example of what baseball has accomplished during his tenure. If this is what he wants to hang his hat on it’s just further illustration in my eyes that a change in leadership is long overdue.
Andy said, “If you want to do interleague play, intersperse it throughout the entire schedule rather than forcing all the games to be played at the same time. That would give schedule makers the flexibility to create a schedule that makes more sense.”
As a “Baseball Purist” I hate interleague play and to play these games throughout the season would only be an additional poke in the eye to people like me. The game feels diluted enough!
I don’t know why MLB ever went to interleague play unless they thought they had to be more like the NFL? Baseball was unique in that their two leagues only met in the All-Star Game, World Series and Spring Training competition. That was enough IMO! As far as rivals go , they already have enough in each league.
Playing one another less often created greater pride and a more competitive feeling that their league was different and better. Some of that is lost when they play regular season games with each other. In turn it makes for a slightly less intense All-Star Game and World Series Meeting IMO.
I believe football and basketball already have all the intensity they need by the nature of their games. Baseball not so much.
Off topic – can someone tell me why Selig moved Milwaukee to the National to make the League totals unbalanced?
Tony,
I actually agree with you about interleague play – both from the purist’s perspective that you spelled out and from the perspective of what it does to the schedule.
I don’t know why Milwaukee was chosen to move to the National League. But if they stayed in the AL there would have been 15 teams in each league, which would have necessitated at least one interleague series going on at a time.
It just screws with the schedule way too much. I’d rather see it done away with, but if they are going to keep it, they’ve got to find a better way than having some teams play 18 interleague games and some teams 15. For strength of schedule and many other reasons, the way they do it now just doesn’t make any sense.