PDA

View Full Version : Interleague Flaws


Lip Man 1
06-27-2008, 12:30 PM
Great article, first rate looking at things and how they are impacting pennant races due to uneven scheduling:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

Lip

LITTLE NELL
06-27-2008, 12:53 PM
I've been a supporter of a balanced schedule for years. The way its set up right now is extremely unfair. Part of the problem is the AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 teams. It would most likely water down the product for awhile but both leagues should have 16 teams of 4 divisions each.
This format would allow playing your division opponents 20 times each for 60 games, playing the teams of the other 3 divisions in your league 6 times each for 72 games and playing teams from a division from the other league on a rotating basis 6 times for 24 games with a total of 156 games. NO ADVANTAGE TO ANY TEAM.

Jerko
06-27-2008, 12:53 PM
Why don't they just go back to doing what they did when interleague first started? All AL Central teams play all NL Central teams THREE times; same for the West vs. West, East vs. East. Every team hasn't even visited every park yet, which I thought was the main reason they stopped doing those original matchups in the first place. Either go back to the original plan, play everybody, or scrap it. But, if games like the one that starts in 3 hours keep selling out, and you can have cute little doubleheaders in NY today in 2 different parks, it will never change IMO.

DSpivack
06-27-2008, 01:04 PM
I've been a supporter of a balanced schedule for years. The way its set up right now is extremely unfair. Part of the problem is the AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 teams. It would most likely water down the product for awhile but both leagues should have 16 teams of 4 divisions each.
This format would allow playing your division opponents 20 times each for 60 games, playing the teams of the other 3 divisions in your league 6 times each for 72 games and playing teams from a division from the other league on a rotating basis 6 times for 24 games with a total of 156 games. NO ADVANTAGE TO ANY TEAM.

Two expansion teams?

LITTLE NELL
06-27-2008, 01:54 PM
Two expansion teams?
Yes.

TDog
06-27-2008, 02:02 PM
I've been a supporter of a balanced schedule for years. The way its set up right now is extremely unfair. Part of the problem is the AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 teams. It would most likely water down the product for awhile but both leagues should have 16 teams of 4 divisions each.
This format would allow playing your division opponents 20 times each for 60 games, playing the teams of the other 3 divisions in your league 6 times each for 72 games and playing teams from a division from the other league on a rotating basis 6 times for 24 games with a total of 156 games. NO ADVANTAGE TO ANY TEAM.

Technically, what you describe is an unbalanced schedule, which by definition would have teams playing more games against each team within the division and fewer games with teams outside the division.

I have no problem with an unbalanced schedule. If you are going to have divisions, the divisions have to mean something. When the American League had a balanced schedule, after the 1977 expansion, the divisions were arbitrary groupings with teams actually playing more games outside of their division (because they had one less opponent to play within their division).

The problem with the unbalanced schedule is the wild card, which four-division leagues would eliminate. Even if every team in a division has the same interleague schedule, the wild card competitors have vastly different schedules, both inter- and intraleague.

Technically, the National League could go to four divisions with the American League staying with the wild card format. In fact, it almost breaks out naturally and would have some advantages. The Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals and Reds are natural rivals. The Pirates and Phillies should be in the same division, and the Mets and Phillies are strong rivals. The Nats would round out the division. The Marlins, Braves and Astros would be natural rivals, but the Rockies would be the odd team out. The Giants, Dodgers, Padres and Diamondbacks seem to be naturals, Phoenix for years has had the sort of civic inferiority to Los Angeles and the Giants had their AAA team in Phoenix.

For years the American League played with a balanced schedule while the National League played with an unbalanced schedule. Now the National League has more teams. Having different division formats wouldn't be a severe departure as long as both leagues still had a two-tier playoff to decide who goes to the World Series.

That being said, I don't particularly like the concept of a wild card or any team that doesn't finish first making postseason play. I could do without interleague play, although it was nice to see the White Sox in San Francisco (and Giants fans didn't mind seeing their team going into Cleveland and win two out of three there).

LITTLE NELL
06-27-2008, 02:32 PM
Technically, what you describe is an unbalanced schedule, which by definition would have teams playing more games against each team within the division and fewer games with teams outside the division.

I have no problem with an unbalanced schedule. If you are going to have divisions, the divisions have to mean something. When the American League had a balanced schedule, after the 1977 expansion, the divisions were arbitrary groupings with teams actually playing more games outside of their division (because they had one less opponent to play within their division).

The problem with the unbalanced schedule is the wild card, which four-division leagues would eliminate. Even if every team in a division has the same interleague schedule, the wild card competitors have vastly different schedules, both inter- and intraleague.

Technically, the National League could go to four divisions with the American League staying with the wild card format. In fact, it almost breaks out naturally and would have some advantages. The Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals and Reds are natural rivals. The Pirates and Phillies should be in the same division, and the Mets and Phillies are strong rivals. The Nats would round out the division. The Marlins, Braves and Astros would be natural rivals, but the Rockies would be the odd team out. The Giants, Dodgers, Padres and Diamondbacks seem to be naturals, Phoenix for years has had the sort of civic inferiority to Los Angeles and the Giants had their AAA team in Phoenix.

For years the American League played with a balanced schedule while the National League played with an unbalanced schedule. Now the National League has more teams. Having different division formats wouldn't be a severe departure as long as both leagues still had a two-tier playoff to decide who goes to the World Series.

That being said, I don't particularly like the concept of a wild card or any team that doesn't finish first making postseason play. I could do without interleague play, although it was nice to see the White Sox in San Francisco (and Giants fans didn't mind seeing their team going into Cleveland and win two out of three there).
When I say a balanced schedule I would want the Sox to play the same teams as our division rivals the same amount of times. That is fair, what we have now is a joke. Its like a 6 furlong horse race, except some of the horses have to race 7 furlongs.

FloridaTigers
06-27-2008, 02:49 PM
I don't want losses against San Diego or the Dodgers as a reason one team wins the division by one game. I'd rather do away with interleague play. I don't want NL teams interferring and changing the outcomes of AL races and vice versa. Interleague is stupid, and should end, but its here to stay unfortunately.

Smokey Burg
06-27-2008, 03:11 PM
I have never been a fan of the currently structured inter-league play. Jerko, you hit the nail on the head. As long as some of these match-ups produce sold-out ball parks, Bud $elig will make sure that the "small market" teams get their cut of the action and gimmicks like this will go on. Maybe I'm getting cynical but every time I hear $elig say anything about making changes that will create more fan interest, I know it will cost me more at the ballpark.

Parrothead
06-27-2008, 03:35 PM
I've been a supporter of a balanced schedule for years. The way its set up right now is extremely unfair. Part of the problem is the AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 teams. It would most likely water down the product for awhile but both leagues should have 16 teams of 4 divisions each.
This format would allow playing your division opponents 20 times each for 60 games, playing the teams of the other 3 divisions in your league 6 times each for 72 games and playing teams from a division from the other league on a rotating basis 6 times for 24 games with a total of 156 games. NO ADVANTAGE TO ANY TEAM.

Move one team to the National league and have an interleague game every day.

Iwritecode
06-27-2008, 03:52 PM
Move one team to the National league and have an interleague game every day.

I've always thought this. Move the Brewers back to the AL and let all 30 teams play each other at least once throughout the year.

WSox597
06-27-2008, 08:08 PM
I've always thought this. Move the Brewers back to the AL and let all 30 teams play each other at least once throughout the year.

I like it, but they have a job to do this year first. :D:

Nellie_Fox
06-28-2008, 01:16 AM
Do away with inter-league. Period.

ComiskeyBrewer
06-28-2008, 02:00 AM
I've always thought this. Move the Brewers back to the AL and let all 30 teams play each other at least once throughout the year.

No thanks, we prefer the NL.

Hitmenof77
06-28-2008, 03:28 AM
Every year when interleague play starts, somebody is bitching and crying about interleague. Well this is what? the 12th year of interleague play. It's here to stay so just shut the **** up and deal with it.

Seriously it gets so tiresome.

Nellie_Fox
06-28-2008, 03:46 AM
Every year when interleague play starts, somebody is bitching and crying about interleague. Well this is what? the 12th year of interleague play. It's here to stay so just shut the **** up and deal with it.

Seriously it gets so tiresome.So I'm not entitled to an opinion? Twelve years out of over a hundred that both leagues have existed is the end of the world? Interleague play sucks, and I don't intend to shut the **** up.

jcw218
06-28-2008, 03:59 AM
If interleague play is going to stick around, how about tweaking the rules a bit and using the VISITING TEAMS rules, ie DH at National League parks and no DH at the American League parks?

jcw218
06-28-2008, 04:09 AM
This got me thinking about how many times had the Sox played the national league teams. here is what I've found out. last played in parenthesis

ATL - 6 (2004)
NYM - 3 (2002) at the Cell
FLA - 6 (2007)
PHI - 9 (2007)
WAS - 6 (2004) as Mon
CHC - 66 (2008)
PIT - 14 (2008)
CIN - 11 (2006)
HOU - 18 (2007)
STL - 18 (2006)
MIL - 12 (2001)
SF - 6 (2008)
COL - 6 (2008)
ARI - 6 (2005)
LAD - 9 (2008)
SD - 6 (2005)

RadioheadRocks
06-28-2008, 04:32 AM
I honestly did not think I'd like interleague play when it was first proposed but I'll actually say I do enjoy it. I'm also big into seeing the Sox on the road (working in the airline industry has its privileges!) and I've enjoyed seeing our guys playing in parks I never would have imagined them playing before interleague happened. Sure it's not perfect, but what in life is?

whitesox901
06-28-2008, 04:56 AM
I find it ironic that the NL has the advantage yet still losses. At home the NL plays with their normal lineup, and the AL team has adjust, and when there at the road, they have the regular line up, plus an extra bat.

FarWestChicago
06-28-2008, 08:09 AM
Do away with inter-league. Period.This is the correct solution. I know the Flubsessed love inter-league. However, it's a blight on baseball and needs to be stopped.

:tool

I'm not stopping inter-league. I'm a fan of tie games!

FarWestChicago
06-28-2008, 08:10 AM
Every year when interleague play starts, somebody is bitching and crying about interleague. Well this is what? the 12th year of interleague play. It's here to stay so just shut the **** up and deal with it.

Seriously it gets so tiresome.You shut the **** up. You are the walking definition of tiresome. And the fact you can't see inter-league blows means you aren't the most observant individual in the world, too.

hawkjt
06-28-2008, 09:41 AM
Why the heck havent the sox played the Brewers since 2001?

Again, I think they should alter the schedule to have the sox play the cubs 3 times,brewers 3 times each year as regional rivalries...and the twins can play the brewers 3 and the cubs 3...a little regional tourny.

TDog
06-28-2008, 01:20 PM
This is the correct solution. I know the Flubsessed love inter-league. However, it's a blight on baseball and needs to be stopped. ...

For years I've believed that about major league baseball in the state of Minnesota, and when baseball announced it would stop it, the announcement proved a cruel tease.

I had more fun seeing the Sox play the Giants in San Francisco that I have ever had seeing the Sox play the A's. Come to think of it, I have been to three Sox games this year -- two in San Francisco and one in Chicago -- and I saw the Sox win three games against National League teams. Still, there is a randomness to interleague play with teams having different schedules. The Twins have feasted. The Sox have had trouble with two teams that make up half their interleague schedule (although the Rockies did take two of three from the Twins in May during the weekend the Sox moved into first place).

If your team is a serious contender, interleague play is tiresome. The Cubs lost two out of three to Baltimore and were swept in Tampa Bay (where the Sox went 3-4 this season). The Cubs, with the best record in the National League, have a losing record against the American League. Most National League teams do. But if you're a Reds fan, playing the Indians isn't tiresome. Sweeping the Indians in May may prove a season highlight.

Selfishly, as a White Sox fan, I would like to see the Sox make two trips to San Francisco every year and skip the trip to Oakland. Realistically, I could do without the distraction of interleague play and enjoy (or suffer through) the pennant race.

bridgeportcopper
06-28-2008, 01:35 PM
How is it that the Sox have played Cincy 11 times and Pitt 14 times? I thought these interleague were all 3 game series and if Miss Jurisica taught me division correctly in grade school, neither 11 or 14 is divisible by 3???

sox1970
06-28-2008, 01:55 PM
If interleague play is going to stick around, how about tweaking the rules a bit and using the VISITING TEAMS rules, ie DH at National League parks and no DH at the American League parks?

I hate interleague, but a nice tweak would be to play the middle game of each series with the opposite rules. This would at least keep the DH in the lineup on a fairly regular basis. To sit your DH for 6-9 straight games isn't good.

Another couple tweaks to interleague I would like to see is to spread it out over the whole season. Play one series a month so it's not so concentrated. If your team has a bunch of injuries in June, you really could get buried quick.

Another thing--play one series with the Cubs per year. A home and home 4 games series per year would be fun. In fact, they're talking about that on the radio right now.

ComiskeyBrewer
06-28-2008, 02:33 PM
Why the heck havent the sox played the Brewers since 2001?

Again, I think they should alter the schedule to have the sox play the cubs 3 times,brewers 3 times each year as regional rivalries...and the twins can play the brewers 3 and the cubs 3...a little regional tourny.

This would be the way i would do it as well. I tire of playing the twins 6 times a year. I'd much rather 3 of those games be vs the White Sox.

Dibbs
06-28-2008, 03:45 PM
I would like to see interleague wiped off the schedule. It has run its course.

As far as expansion goes....that is the worst idea anyone could possibly come up with. I would be in favor of contracting a couple teams.

Frater Perdurabo
06-28-2008, 03:54 PM
I like interleague play overall.

I do not like the inequities.

So fix the inequities.

Adopt the DH for all teams. Move the Houston Astros to the AL West.

Have everybody play everybody every year and play interleague games throughout the year. Make interleague series four-game sets, alternating home and away each year (with one opponent being two two-game series to equalize home and away games). 60 total games.

Within leagues, play six games against each opponent. 84 games.

That's 144 total games. That's more than enough for a full season.

jcw218
06-28-2008, 04:21 PM
How is it that the Sox have played Cincy 11 times and Pitt 14 times? I thought these interleague were all 3 game series and if Miss Jurisica taught me division correctly in grade school, neither 11 or 14 is divisible by 3???

In the 1998, the Sox played two game series against Cincy and Pitt.

whitesox901
06-28-2008, 05:27 PM
I would like to see interleague wiped off the schedule.

:cool:

Lukin13
06-28-2008, 08:20 PM
As long as the schedule is unbalanced

and

The leagues use different rules

Interleague sucks.


Either

A. Make the rules the same for both leagues year round, and balance out the schedule.
B. Make it only one three game "rival" series per year to limit the flaws.
C. Do away with interleague.


Every year this crap makes me sick.

DSpivack
06-28-2008, 08:29 PM
As long as interleague does exist, how about basing homefield advantage in the Series off of total win-loss record between the leagues? Too crazy of an idea?

PatK
06-28-2008, 09:20 PM
As long as interleague does exist, how about basing homefield advantage in the Series off of total win-loss record between the leagues? Too crazy of an idea?

I'd take that instead of the current All-Star winner format.

Only if they had the schedules balanced, though.

sox1970
06-28-2008, 09:23 PM
As long as interleague does exist, how about basing homefield advantage in the Series off of total win-loss record between the leagues? Too crazy of an idea?

Anything makes more sense than what they do now.

Of course the only fair thing to do is to alternate it year-to-year like our forefathers had it in the first place.

At least give it to the highest seed to make it to the series.