I know it has its detractors but I actually like it, mainly because it allows fans to see teams they might not get to .. for example, tonight we're going up to see the Orioles play the Dodgers (the 2nd best looking team in MLB, behind my forlorn but beloved Brew Crew).

Other games I'm looking forward to are the:
Diamondbacks v. Red Sox (preview of the World Series??);
Florida v. Minnesota (the Contraction Series);
The New Yorks papers are, of course, hyping the Yankees v. Giants (first meeting since 1962 World Series);
the rematch of the 1985 Cardinals v. Royals World Series.

I like the concept of interleague play, but I think overall its a bust. Some problems:

1) Not all teams have a natural rival in the other league. And some regional rivalries are just yawners. Mets-Yanks, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels, Giants-A's, Indians-Reds, Royals-Cards, Astros-Rangers are all intriguing, especially to their fans. But are fans dying to see Blue Jays-Expos or Marlins-Devil Rays? And a whole bunch of other teams don't have a combatant in the opposite league. I guess the Tigers or Twins can have the Brewers, and maybe the Phils vs either the Orioles or Red Sox, but the Rockies, Padres, Diamondbacks, Pirates, Mariners and Braves don't have a playmate. Perhaps use a bit more imagiantion when making the matchups. World Series rematches from classic series like Yanks-Dodgers or Twins-Braves.

2) Watching AL pitchers hit is just not fun.

3) I know I'd be pissed if my team missed out on the playoffs because they played tougher teams from the other league. It would really be unfair for a division title or wild card berth to come down to one game against Schilling or Pedro when the other team is up against the Brewers or Devil Rays.

All that said, there are aspects I like. Potential World Series previews like Yanks-Giants or DBacks-BoSox are pretty exciting. And who wouldn't pay to see Schilling and Martinez face off tomorrow? And AL fans getting to see Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa while NL fans can see Alex Rodriguez or Ichiro can only be a good thing.

I like interleague games despite the obvious inequities. I get to watch the Giants play the Yankees on TV at 4pm PST this afternoon and then I'm off to Oakland to see luscious Mark Mulder pitch against the Astros. Without interleague play, these games would never happen.

I like interleague play, but, as with a lot of other things, MLB always seems to pee on good ideas. ESPN has an article on upcoming matchups, and some of the oddities with this year's schedule. Do we really need 6 games of Yankees-Mets, Blue Jays-Expos, Dodgers-Angels, etc? Three games for the "natural" rivalries each season is enough. And I don't care that the Braves franchise started in Boston, Braves-Red Sox just isn't happening as a natural rivalry. The Yanks aren't playing the Dodgers; the Red Sox don't play the Giants - huh?? How are the Braves playing AL teams from all three divisions?

That said, there are some series to look forward to. I want to see how the homer-happy Yanks do in Coors Field, for instance. And it really is good to have some the Western teams that I rarely see on television come East. I just wish that MLB could even out the schedules for all teams, as much as having one 16-team league and one 14-team league will allow. (Contraction, anyone?)

From today's Phila. Daily News:

[quote]ARE YOU READY for some Padres-Devil Rays?

How 'bout some Brewers-Athletics? Or Tigers-Marlins? Or Royals-Expos?

Yes, here we go again with our annual curmudgeon's eye view of interleague play, which begins today and will soon infest a ballpark near you.

We'll concede that it's exciting when the Yankees and Mets hook up. White Sox vs. Cubs is a blast for people who live in Chicago and when the Angels play the Dodgers it's really cool, dude.

The problem with the argument in favor of the concept is that those marquee matchups are the exception rather than the rule. And we're also willing to allow for home-and-home natural rivalries across league lines.

It already has been pointed out over and over how, in a sport that also uses a wild card, there is something basically unfair about having teams competing for the same playoff spot playing different schedules. The resurgent Rockies, for example, are the only team that will play all six 2001 division champions.

Another problem, though, is that it doesn't really accomplish what it's supposed to.

Consider: Sammy Sosa and the Cubs will play at Veterans Stadium only twice this year, one game less than the Orioles will be in town. That might not have been so bad when Cal Ripken Jr. was still playing. Melvin Mora, Jeff Conine and Chris Singleton probably won't have quite the same tonic effect on attendance.

Pirates-Angels. Expos-Tigers. Blue Jays-Diamondbacks. Reds-Rangers.

Are you ready?

Interleague play is an idea whose time has come.

And gone.

---

It's true. Interleague play isn't fair. Nor are unbalanced intraleague schedules... And I agree they could both stand some tweaking... but who said life was fair? (certainly not Royals fans)

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly from the Philly Daily News:
Brewers-Athletics? Or Tigers-Marlins? Or Royals-Expos?

---

Actually these match-ups are just as exciting -- or boring -- as, say, Brewers-Pirates ... Tigers-Rangers ... or Royals-Orioles.

The excitement is gonna vary year-to-year -- look at the serendipity of having the Yankees v. Giants and Red Sox v. Arizona ... and the argument is just a gratuitous bashing of teams who are down on their luck this year.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

I should have this on a macro, I've typed it here so many times: Eliminate the NL & AL, get rid of the DH and realign along geographic lines in to 4 divisions. Seed 'em by record for the playoffs and the 2 winners play in the WS. Simplicity itself.

Angels v. Dodgers should be interesting this year as the Angels are playing good ball. Of course, it's depressing to go to the Ed and have more Dodger fans than Angel fans, but oh well. I'm going to the series at Dodger Stadium next weekend (a 10 minute drive from my apt.) and I'll take in one of the games in Anaheim at the end of the month.

I've been bitching about interleague play all week. Why are the Yankees playing the Mets more this year than the Twins? What exactly is the point of a Blue Jays/Rockies series? Why are the Yankees playing the Giants and D'Backs in June when they haven't seen the Tigers, Indians, Royals, Rangers or Angels yet? Isn't it odd that the Mets play the Indians before the Yankees do? Instead of playing meaningless games with the Padres, why don't the Yankees have a rematch with the Twins (a team they're not going to play again this season)? While this series with the D'Backs is fun, wouldn't it have been more exciting if their first meeting this year was in the postseason?

Good column by Joe Sheehan at espn.com about how the varying interleague schedules may cost contenders who have to play stronger teams... the Mets and Dodgers seem to have the toughest opponents.

Didn't the Cincinnati Reds miss out on a play-off spot a couple of years ago, back when the Cleveland Indians were really really good, because they wanted extra inter-league games against their Ohio rivals?

Inter-league play is a cancer on America. (Although, if it results in the St Louis Cardinals getting extra games against the forever-to-be pathetic K.C. Royals, then it's a good thing.)

Saw the St. Louis Cards vs. M's yesterday. Pujols and Bud Smith are nice. And Ichiro's teammate from the Blue Wave in Japan, So Taguchi.

Phila is playing my Indians today - the Phillies are fun to look at - HOT DAMN ! Burrell, Lee, Lieberthal ...With the departure of Brady A. and Russ Branyan my eyes have nothing to look at on the tribe i'm even starting to look at the coaches and bat boy