Since this season's nterleague play begins this weekend, do you enjoy interleague games or not?

~Adam

[ June 16, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

I voted "Yay" but it's really more like "sort of Yay" -- there are too many interleague games, particularly with teams that have home-and-home series like Yankees-Mets, White Sox-Cubs, etc. -- the "interleague play" product is watered down. It's less interesting with every passing year. I would have ALL teams play no more than two-game series against the other league's teams and rotate between home and road games. So one year the NY teams would meet at Shea for 2 games, the next year they'd play 2 at Yankee Stadium. Same for the other interleague series. This would allow for a few more head-to-head matchups between NL and NL and between AL and AL that can affect division and wild card races.

Of course, a big problem is the inbalance between the leagues. It would help have each league with 15 teams, 5 per division.

I would like to hear some snarky announcer refer to the series between "the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles."

I enjoy it. I know all the markets don't have exciting cross-town rivalries like New York does, but at its worst, I don't think the games are any different from other regular season games and it does provide an added element of drama to the game.

I remember originally worrying that it would affect the aura of the World Series, but I haven't found that to be the case.

The rule change I hate is the wild card. It irks me to no end that teams that aren't good enough to win their division have gone on to win the World Series. And yes I'm just bitter about the Florida freakin' Marlins. But there ya have it. Plus, I hate the short 3-of-5 opening round of playoffs.

I think the bloom has gone off the rose.

While Interleague play seemed like a good idea at the time, I think its time has passed. Problems:

- The World Series and All Star Game lose their "mystique." Before, these events may be the only time that AL and NL players/teams compete against each other. Now everybody plays everybody. There's no excitement to seeing the other league's stars. There are no 'first time' meetings of pitcher-batter. (I remember in years past the excitement of seeing the AL's best vs. the NL's best or vice versa. Like, Barry Bonds facing Rogers Clemens, or Greg Maddux pitching to Ken Griffey Jr. Of course, now all four in the NL.)

- The AL and NL lose their "mystique." There was always a great debate over which league is better, and which 'system' was better. The AL was known for the three run homer and lots of off-speed pitching. The NL used small ball (stealing, bunting, hit-and-run), double switching of pitchers/position players, and lots of fast ball pitching. Even the umpires used to be AL or NL. Now everybody mixes. Now the game is similar in both leagues.

- Lack of rivalries. While there are a few geograhic rivalries (in NYC, Chicago, LA, SF Bay area), many teams have no 'natural' rivals (Toronto, Seattle, Arizona). Also, one could argue that the greater rivalries came from teams within the divisions (ie. Cubs-Cardinals, Yankees-Red Sox).

- Unbalanced schedule. Teams within a division play a different teams in Interleague play, which can be an advantage/disadvantage if one's opposition is a good or bad team.

[ May 20, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]

The upcoming subway series should once again bring a lot of drama, for sure. Emotions are running high as Willie Randolph is now competing against people he formerly helped coach http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/met...dlines-breaking.

Makes for some great baseball too!

LET'S GO YANKEES!

new york, new york!

enough said!

LET'S GO METS!

Well, it won't be the venerable Vin Scully, who promises to call the team from Orange County either "the Angels" or "the Anaheim Angels" & as I wrote in the Dodgers thread, Dodger Stadium's scoreboards still list them as "ANA" (instead of the official LAA.) One can buy Dodger blue t-shirts at the Stadium that read "Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles."

~Adam

Or how about the renewal of Canada's baseball rivalry.

The Toronto Blue Jays vs. the Montreal Expos of Washington DC.(Are they going to play a series between these two teams in San Juan this year as well....on Canada Day?)

Interleague is good for the natural rivalries that come out of it, yet for the rest of the games, they are just another set of games...no different than playing in your own league.

Ha! I might want to purchase one of these in August!

That would be fun, eh? But alas, they're playing at the end of June at RFK.

I like it and not just because the Marlins have the 5th best interleague record. It's good to set up the natural rivalries against each other, and I always enjoy watching teams I would not normally have a chance to see.

I'm for it - it adds an extra interest to certain games...and what does it hurt?? :confused:

Why is interleague starting so early this year? Wasn't it usually in June?

I vote "nay." Yeah, there's something interesting about the Indians playing the Reds et al, but who gives a shit about a Tigers/D'backs series? To me, this whole thing deflates any serious confrontation in the WS. If the Phillies and the O's should happen to meet in the WS (a stretch, I know), it ain't gonna be as special since they've met in friggin' May.

This just throws fans for a loop. Tonight I saw C.C. Sabathia batting, and for a moment that was incomprehensible. Good for him for hitting his first career HR, but my admittedly slow mind couldn't figure out at first why the man was batting in the first place. Yea, he got a hit in interleague. The point...???

It's all just a spectacle. Sure, maybe it's an illustrated fantasy to see an all Florida, or all Texas, or all Ohio, or all Chicago series, but wouldn't it be more special for it to be real in October? Interleague is LAME for denying fans a true matchup when it matters. Again, was anybody sweating a Mariners/Padres series? Who cares? Am I the only one who feels the '83 or '93 series wouldn't have been so f'ing bitterly disappointing if the Phils played the Jays and the O's in early summer? At least a bitter disappointment is something real, unlike the bullshit of a Twins/Brewers set.

Ramble On...

But a natural rivalry cannot be manufactured. Are the Marlins and the D'Rays rivals, or the 'Stros and the Rangers, just because they're in the same state? I don't think so. There's gotta be some history there. The Royals and Cards have '85 to fight about; Phils and O's, '83. Someone tell me the grudge between the Braves and Red Sox. It's all so calculated. Bleh.

I love Interleague Play. I especially loved seeing the clip of Sabathia hitting a home run! I just wish some of the NL pitchers practiced their batting a bit more. Roger Clemens came over the NL and at 42 knows how to get on base, yet there are other longtime NL pitchers who act as if they're Sandy Koufax in the batter's box, though they don't have Koufax's genius on the mound. (Pedro Martinez does, so I cut him some slack--but he flails away like he doesn't know the ball is coming.)

So the interleague games are another chance to put a burr to their asses and make them see that putting a bit more effort into their plate appearances can help their games. Hell, if Sabathia, who rarely bats, can hit a home run, can't some of the NL pitchers at least learn to bunt or sacrifice?

Watching the White Sox defeat the Cubs is worth every other game being played!

A lot of people say it hurts the division and wild card races because some teams get an unfair advantage -- for example, the White Sox have weak Colorado on the schedule, but the Twins don't.

Playing 17 times against your own division opponents, if it has to come down to an interleague match-up, you don't deserve to win. Take care of your business at home.

There is hope for you yet, my young apprentice.

I am also in favor of retaining Interleague play, but not in it's current form.

I echo the comments of Canmark and JIP above that mention the current interleague play leaves an unfair, unbalanced schedule. Even though this is a disadvantage to a certain rival of the Yankees, it is still unfair. I would prefer that each team plays 3 or 4 games against all the teams in a division, and rotate the divisions, similar to what the NFL does.

I also agree with JIP that the leagues should be balanced, 15 in each league. This would mean that there would be at least one interleague series going on during the whole season, which I don't have a problem with.

On the other hand, I like it that the differences between the AL and the NL are starting to fade. I think that the umpires shouldn't be separate league umpires. Both leagues should have consistent strike zones, etc.

Also, I'm in favor of having the NL get with the modern times and have the DH. Having the pitchers bat, and the exciting (insert sarcasm) strategies involving pinch hitting and switches is way overrated and frankly, silly IMO. If the NL wants to stay mired in the early 1900s and not have the DH, then I propose the following: For interleague games, each team gets to decide whether or not they want to play the DH, regardless of who is the home team. If one of these changes won't happen, then I'll be inclined to change my mind regarding interleague play.

[ May 23, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

I absolutely hate, hate, hate interleague play. My team is an American League team and should only play American League teams during the regular season. ...and I say this even though my Yankees have traditionally had a good record against the National League. I don't like playing without a Designated Hitter. I don't like the New York media making such a big deal over the series with the team in Flushing. The Yankees have more important rivalries to concentrate on, such as the red team in Massachusetts, the Orioles, and some of the better teams in the American League over the past few years, like the Angels and Twins. I don't like seeing old rivals like the Royals, White Sox, and Indians for only six games a season. If you want to play teams outside of your league, it should be done when you make the World Series. That's the way it used to be and I think it made baseball unique.

[ May 23, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Cattledog ]

The DH is a crutch. Every person taking the field should bat, and that includes the pitcher. Before the introduction of the awful DH rule, which was meant to gin up more interest, some pitchers actually knew how to handle themselves at the plate. And some still do, whether they've played in the NL or not. Roger Clemens, for example, takes batting seriously, as he should; Dontrelle Willis is a very good hitter; Jason Marquis knows his bat can help him win games; and as C.C. Sabathia demonstrated the other night, you can WIN a game for yourself if you do something more than just flail away, as my boo Pedro does (has he gotten a hit yet?).

There is no strategy with the DH. It's ridiculous. I still think it should be abolished in the AL, but now that interleague games exist, AL teams actually have to get rid of their crutch a few times a season and make all nine players contribute the entire game, instead of having a false 10th person stepping in to aid the pitcher.

The unbalanced schedule is problematic, as is the overstuffed central division in the NL, which penalizes its members. Milwaukee, belonging to Bud Selig, is the problem; I say move them back to the AL, though one thing they do is add another potential barrier for the Cubs either winning the division or the Wild Card.

Fantomas, the reasons you give for getting rid of the DH are the reasons why it should stay, and adopted by the National League. Pitchers are not regular players, and clearly their focus is pitching, and not batting, as opposed to the other eight positions.

Further, the crutch I see is that NL pitchers can usually rely on an easy out when they get to the number nine false batter in the lineup. Yes, there are certainly exceptions, but in general, pitchers are easy outs. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be these so-called "strategies" that NL managers deal with.

Maybe we should have a DH for catchers, then? They have to squat the whole game, they get bowled over a lot, etc. Their focus is calling the game. For that matter, maybe we should have DHs for every position. wink

I like interleague play, and I hope it stays. It's often the only chance I get to see some NL players like Bonds go up against the Yankees. The difference in rules does bother me, though. There's been so much written about the AL dropping the DH, but I think the whole game would benefit from the NL actually adopting the DH. I have no interest in seeing a pitcher come to bat, look at three fastballs and trudge back to the dugout. Sure, there's an occasional pitcher who can hold his own at the plate, but they're few and far between. Most pitchers rightly tailor their practice and workout regimen to focus on their pitching mechanics and stamina - it's their bread and butter, after all. We accept specialization as being an improvement in so many aspects of our lives today, I'm not sure why we should object to the improvements it brings about in baseball as well.

[ May 24, 2005, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]