Interleague Play(And the Entire Schedule)

[KennyRock]

Maybe it's just me, but I think MLB needs to remember that Interleague Play began as a novelty and has sunken into being just another part of the season. I've said many times throughout the year, Interleague play is my favorite part of the baseball schedule. It's my favorite, mind you, but not the best. The best, in my mind, is the month of September consisting of almost nothing but divisional games.

That said, I think some big strides can be made in improving Interleague Play, and adding some more parity to the baseball schedule.

For one, I'd like to see Interleague play confined to the end of June/beginning of July. I think it should begin on the third Friday of June, and last up until the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game is, in essence, a big interleague game. Why not have Interleague Play as the novelty act leading up to the ASG and the halfway-point of the year, before we start anew and go into the pennant races of July, August and September? I'll use this year's schedule as an example:

April - Regular Season Begins

Friday, June 24th - Interleague Friday (Start Interleague Series I)

Monday June 27 or Tuesday, June 28 (Start Interleague Series II)

Friday, June 29 (Start Interleague Series III)

Monday July 2 or Tuesday July 3 (Start Interleague Series(IV)

Friday July 5 (Start Interleague Series V)

Monday July 8 - OFF DAY

Tuesday July 9 - All-Star Game

Wednesday July 10 - OFF DAY

Thursday July 11 - Regular Season Resumes

So, to begin with, teams only play 15 Interleague games max(the NL Central will play 12). I think IL play should be freed up, as well. I think it adds to the novelty if natural rivals only play once a year. Also, setting a division against a division cold in stone never works. Why not have each team on a loose rotation of teams it plays? For example, the Baltimore Orioles will draw(in addition to the Nationals once a year) the Cubs, Marlins, Padres and Rockies. Next year, in addition to Washington again, they'll play Houston, Milwuakee, Atlanta and Los Angeles. And then maybe play Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco and Philadelphia. And so on. The NL Central will use the five Interleague slots to play divisional games as neccessary. Four teams will need to be taken from the other two NL divisions to complete those matchups, so make sure those 10 other NL teams rotate over a five year period(which works out perfectly). This way, you ensure the NL teams always play 12 or 15, and the AL always plays 15. Right now, these are three different possible amounts of IL games for NL teams, this cuts it down to two.

I'd also like to see a balance in divisional/league play. Here's my plan.

AL East(Each Team)

20 Games(3-3-4-3-3-4) against Divisional Opponent(x4) = 80

15 Games(3-3-3-3-3) against National League = 15

67 Games against rest of AL(At least a 3 home and 3 away with each team) = 67

AL Central(Each Team)

20 Games(3-3-4-3-3-4) against Divisional Opponent(x4) = 80

15 Games(3-3-3-3-3) against National League = 15

67 Games against rest of AL(At least a 3 home and 3 away with each team) = 67

AL West

26 Games(3-3-3-4-3-3-3-4) against Divisional Opponent(x3) = 78

15 Games(3-3-3-3-3) against National League = 15

69 Games against rest of AL(At least a 3 home and 3 away with each team) = 69

NL East(Each Team)

20 Games(3-3-4-3-3-4) against Divisional Opponent(x4) = 80

12 or 15 Games against American League = 12 or 15

70 or 67 Games against rest of NL(At least a 3 home and 3 away with each team) - 70 or 67

NL Central(Each Team)

18 Games(3-3-3-3-3-3) against Divisional Opponent(x5) = 90

12 Interleague Games = 12

60 Games against Rest of NL(3 Home and Away with Each Team)

NL West(Each Team)

20 Games(3-3-4-3-3-4) against Divisional Opponent(x4) = 80

12 or 15 Games against American League = 12 or 15

70 or 67 Games against rest of NL(At least a 3 home and 3 away with each team) - 70 or 67

What are your thoughts? Deep down, I know the only way both League and Interleague play to be balanced is to make the number of AL and NL teams even, both as an even number and even to each other. But, we have to work with the current state of affairs. Do you want to see more divisional play? Or, would you rather a team played more against the rest of its league? Do you think Interleague Play should be limited? Enlarged? I know it's been debated here and there, but I've never seen an all out topic on the MLB schedule - at least not recently. All thoughts are welcomed...

[Epiphanic]

When interleague play graced the baseball world in 1997, I loved it. But know, I'm against it. My dad says that if they do interleague play, every team should play every other team. Now, I agree with him. Given that MLB would never do such a thing, and I would hate it if they did. In my mind, I think that interleague play takes away from those rare events that occur only once a year, the ASG and World Series. Why was the WS created? To see which league was better. That's what's great about it. These two teams never would play each other if not for that. Interleague play takes away some of the "magic" of the World Series. The fact that the leagues are uneven makes scheduling difficult, and the AL is not expanding to 16 teams as well.

KennyRock, you made a great post. Logical and a plan to boot. It's a great idea and would work really well. I'm personally against interleague play in general. Along with the idea that the ASG should determine home field in the WS. Either alternate like before or give home field to the team with the best record.

But enough unsupported rants...I just threw my two cents in the pond. Carry on.

[Intimidator85]

Overall, I think baseball does interleague play very well, but there are a few things to work on. This is just a guess on my part, but I think they schedule the interleague games in June in order to attract attention back to baseball, as the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals are going on at that time. I'd take the idea a bit further by splitting up interleague play into two segments. I'd play 9 (or six, in some cases) games in June and schedule the other 6-9 in early September, beginning on Labor Day weekend. Like June, the September games will put attention back on baseball while football season is beginning. Baseball used Red Sox-Yankees for this purpose on the first NFL weekend this year, but interleague play can help baseball generate more great matchups.

Also, the frequency in which opponents appear on the schedule is fine. If the Cubs and Red Sox played each other every year, the matchup would lose its appeal nationally. The regional matchups are fine because they'll never lose their appeal locally and is good for attendance. For the other matchups, rarity is a good thing and it gets people to buy tickets, knowing the visiting team won't be back for four years or so.

[OnWis97]

I wish interleague was like the NFL. Just match up the divisions. No need to have Yanks/Mets every year. Do it every three years (every six at Yankee and every six at shea) and it will be thrilling when it happens.

Seeing teh same teams continue to play each otehr is BORING. Balance it and make sure the mets don't have to play the Yanks twice a year while the Marlins get Tampa twice a year (and other unfair examples). Until it is more balanced, it hurts the integrity of the races.

[rockchalk]

I do like the regional stuff, but I get upset when they aren't even. Granted, when the Cubs have to play the White Sox 6 times a year, and the Cards get the Royals 6 times a year, things don't exactly work out evenly from a competitive standpoint, but it's still fun.

[Cujo]

I hope I'm not getting too off-topic here, but what I don't understand, and probably never will, is why MLB has both an AL and NL MVP, Cy Young winners, etc., especially now that there is interleague play. Why is there not just one MVP, one Cy Young, and one Rookie of the Year for the entire league??? You don't see the NHL Eastern and Western Conference Hart Award winner, or the NBA Northwestern Division 6th Man of the Year.

[worst. jersey. ever.]

since all you guys seem to love interleague play, maybe I should talk about how much I hate it. I stop watching baseball during interleague, with the possible acception of catching a Red Sox-Braves game on Fox or ESPN or something. living in New York, the subway series is what I get. everyone creamed themselves over the subway series when they started doing it, but how crappy did that make the Mets-Yankees world series in 2000? if that had happened before interleague it would have been one of the coolest world series ever, but since they'd seen eachother 6 times that year- which turned it into a major snoozefest. (except when Clemens threw the bat at Piazza, that was rather entertaining). Not only that, but baseball used to be so cool, it was the only professional sport with two seperate leagues considered on an equal playing field, now with interleague play they are becoming less and less seperate. what's next, realignment? I understand that the subway series games and white sox-cubs games are big draws for attendance so the owners love it, but as a purist, I say F the owners, they've ruined the game enough as it is. don't get me started on the DH and free agency.

[The_Admiral]

I'd like to see interleague scaled way back, maybe just to regional rivals and a pair of series for teams that don't have a real regional rival.

[VitaminD]

I'd like to see it eliminated. The novelty has worn off. It's become a gimmick.

Growing up in a National League city, I grew to love the NL-style of play, with pitchers that hit and double switches to the seeming difference in strike zones and pitching philosophies (offspeed-heavy v. fastball-heavy). With satellite, the internet and 24-hour sports channels, I can get my fill of the Mariners and Angels and other teams from the other coast in the other league whenever I want. Give me more games against the teams that my Phillies will have to outcompete to get into the World Series. 3 games against the Rangers doesn't do anything for me.