Jump to content

Brewers Alts + Interleague Play = Great!


rmackman

Recommended Posts

58804bbb-82bc-4e10-9d1a-ebb82121a7fb.jpg

How neat does this look. It really looks like the old Brewers playing in the American League again. Unfortunately they lost in those jerseys to Minnesota...oh wait then it really is like being in the American League again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How neat does this look. It really looks like the old Brewers playing in the American League again. Unfortunately they lost in those jerseys to Minnesota...oh wait then it really is like being in the American League again!

It looks neat, and I like the Brewers' retro uniforms. But IMO, nothing involving interleague play is ever good. Too bad the Brewers can't go back to the AL, where they belong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was vehemently opposed to interleague play when it started, but I'm a convert. I have come to accept that the value of geographic rivals overrules the strike against tradition.

And as someone who was in Milwaukee when the decision was announced, who read about it by buying a Journal Sentinel from a box on Wisconsin Avenue, I'm very, very glad that they're in the NL. I miss some of the old rivals but prefer the new.

I can't tell you how glad I am that the Royals decided not to switch leagues....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBA - 82 games against 29 opponents

NFL - 16 games against a potential 31 opponents (actually usually 13)

NL (without interleague play) - 162 games against 15 opponents

AL (without interleague play) - 162 games against 13 opponents

Don't you see anything wrong with that? A little boring, yes? For the AL, that's an average of 12.46 games per opponent. Now for ESPN, that's great. They can show the Yankees and the Red Sox about 15 times. But really, non-interleague baseball is brutal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for ESPN, that's great. They can show the Yankees and the Red Sox about 15 times. But really, non-interleague baseball is brutal.

AL with interleague play: Yankees and Red Sox play each other 18-19 times per season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against it because it means that my Mets only get to make one trip to Wrigley, one trip to Chavez Ravine (though this year actually two!)--as many as Yankee Stadium and Comerica Park--are you kidding me? I also am against the unbalanced schedule. Six or Seven games against old NL East rivals Pittsburgh, Chicago, and St. Louis? Please. Hell, we don't even get to go to Cincinnati until September this time around.

And that's the problem. You're getting Mets-Yankees or Cubs-Chisox or Dodgers-Angels, but how about Colorado-Kansas City, or Toronto-Philly. Gimme a break. I'll take NL vs. NL for a full 162 any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's the problem. You're getting Mets-Yankees or Cubs-Chisox or Dodgers-Angels, but how about Colorado-Kansas City, or Toronto-Philly. Gimme a break. I'll take NL vs. NL for a full 162 any day.

Toronto-Philly actually has significance.....remember the 1993 World Series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBA - 82 games against 29 opponents

NFL - 16 games against a potential 31 opponents (actually usually 13)

NL (without interleague play) - 162 games against 15 opponents

AL (without interleague play) - 162 games against 13 opponents

Don't you see anything wrong with that? A little boring, yes? For the AL, that's an average of 12.46 games per opponent. Now for ESPN, that's great. They can show the Yankees and the Red Sox about 15 times. But really, non-interleague baseball is brutal.

Baseball is just different from other sports. To my knowledge, NBA has always had interconference play, and the NFL definitely had limited interconference play before the NFL-AFL merger and had interconference play from the beginning of the merger. But separate leagues, no interleague and no wild cards were baseball traditions for more than 100 years. And baseball hangs to its history more than other sports (which is good in some cases and bad in others). The reason separate leagues, no interleague and no wild cards were good was that your team was assured of playing the same schedule as its rivals. That way, you couldn't have playoff contenders with varying degrees of opponent difficulty. Now with interleague and the whacked-out divisional alignment, you have scheduling inequities all over the place.

I'm an Astros fan, and I just don't get any kick out of seeing the Astros play the Rangers. I don't have any interest in seeing them play the Royals, the Mariners, etc. They don't have any historical ties with these teams, no geographical tie in most cases and they're not in contention for the same postseason berths. And even in cases where there's more involved than geography (i.e. Blue Jays-Phillies), the reason they're significant has no bearing on today (neither team has a player that played in the '93 World Series). The exceptions are recent World Series matchups, but again, so what? The Tigers sweep of the Cards over the weekend really makes up for last year, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't like the current divisional setups (I prefer the pre-1993 alignments, bad geography and all), but I'd rather see the Astros play their divisional foes a lot more than non-divisional foes. And I wish the wild card would go away.

I also realize interleague and the wild card are here to stay because of the money involved. I'm just expressing a minority opinion, and I realize I'm not the fan MLB targets these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's the problem. You're getting Mets-Yankees or Cubs-Chisox or Dodgers-Angels, but how about Colorado-Kansas City, or Toronto-Philly. Gimme a break. I'll take NL vs. NL for a full 162 any day.

Toronto-Philly actually has significance.....remember the 1993 World Series.

It had significance - specifically in October of 1993. Now it's just a glorified exhibition against a team that you are not competing against for either a division title OR wild card. Outside of the occasional opportunity to get a star player from the other league to come to your park, it is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It had significance - specifically in October of 1993. Now it's just a glorified exhibition against a team that you are not competing against for either a division title OR wild card. Outside of the occasional opportunity to get a star player from the other league to come to your park, it is a waste of time.

Exactly.

If Detroit played San Diego, who would care? (1984) When Oakland visits the Mets next month (1973) so what? Just because two teams played in the WS years ago doesn't mean squat. If you want to make a case for Detroit-St. Louis this year, it's one thing--but to go back even a handfull of years nevermind 10, 25, or 50, or whatever it is, so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's the problem. You're getting Mets-Yankees or Cubs-Chisox or Dodgers-Angels, but how about Colorado-Kansas City, or Toronto-Philly. Gimme a break. I'll take NL vs. NL for a full 162 any day.

Toronto-Philly actually has significance.....remember the 1993 World Series.

It had significance - specifically in October of 1993. Now it's just a glorified exhibition against a team that you are not competing against for either a division title OR wild card. Outside of the occasional opportunity to get a star player from the other league to come to your park, it is a waste of time.

Exactly. It has as much significance as the Phils annually seeking revenge on the Orioles for what they did back in '83... not to mention, there's always the hotly contested "Who's the Boss of the Mid-Atlantic Stretch of I-95" bragging rights that get folks all lathered up.

Enough is enough. For the few teams with geographic rivals (NYC, LA, Chicago... calling the Beltway, Texas and Florida teams rivals is a MIGHTY stretch), there are dozens without rivals, and we're left with contrived "rivalries" over absolutely nothing. The novelty has run its course, it's time to let the leagues play amongst themselves, and I will happily wait for 4-7 games of interleague play in October that actually mean something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the current divisional setups (I prefer the pre-1993 alignments, bad geography and all), but I'd rather see the Astros play their divisional foes a lot more than non-divisional foes. And I wish the wild card would go away.

When it comes to this, I'd rather see two divisions in each league (for the sake of geography, you can do things like trade Atlanta to the east from the west b/c teams like Colorado and Arizona now exist and you know they're not contracting any time soon) and have the two division winners, and next best 2 -- regardless of division -- be wildcards -- because they're not getting rid of that. You could have:

NL East: ATL, CHC, FLA, NYM, PIT, PHI, STL, WAS

NL West: ARI, CIN, COL, HOU, LA, MIL, SD, SF

AL East: BAL, BOS, CLE, DET, NYY, TB, TOR

AL West: CHW, KC, LAA, MIN, OAK, SEA, TEX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would much rather get rid of Interleague Play than the Wild Card.

I could eliminate IL in a heartbeat, but the Wild Card gives us many more meaningful games late in the season.

And gives us a second-place team as a World Series winner (see 1997, '02-04). Why should a team ('04-05 Cards) have to play a team ('04-05 Astros) it beat by 13 and 11 games in the regular season, respectively, again in the playoffs? I know there are other examples from other leagues and then you can point to college sports and try to shoot the argument to hell. But I've never understood why a team should be able to claim No. 1 in any sport if it's not No. 1 in its own division in the regular season.

I know the whole "meaningful games" argument. And I know wild cards are there because of the money expanded playoffs generate. And I know, it's not gonna change, and I know I'm in the minority. But it's still not right.

I apologizing for helping this thread get off uniform topics. Interleague and the wild card are just two extremely big pet peeves of mine. No excuse, though, for turning this into a non-uniform/logo topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was vehemently opposed to interleague play when it started, but I'm a convert. I have come to accept that the value of geographic rivals overrules the strike against tradition.

And as someone who was in Milwaukee when the decision was announced, who read about it by buying a Journal Sentinel from a box on Wisconsin Avenue, I'm very, very glad that they're in the NL. I miss some of the old rivals but prefer the new.

I can't tell you how glad I am that the Royals decided not to switch leagues....

Same here. Not just that, but I never realized how much I prefer the NL style of ball (even though it just barely exists anymore). I went to an O's-Angels game in B-More last year and actually spent most of the 7th/8th innings sending text messages cuz I was almost bored (ALMOST:D) with the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against it because it means that my Mets only get to make one trip to Wrigley, one trip to Chavez Ravine (though this year actually two!)--as many as Yankee Stadium and Comerica Park--are you kidding me? I also am against the unbalanced schedule. Six or Seven games against old NL East rivals Pittsburgh, Chicago, and St. Louis? Please. Hell, we don't even get to go to Cincinnati until September this time around.

And that's the problem. You're getting Mets-Yankees or Cubs-Chisox or Dodgers-Angels, but how about Colorado-Kansas City, or Toronto-Philly. Gimme a break. I'll take NL vs. NL for a full 162 any day.

My problem with interleague is the stupid opponents some of the teams get. This year, the Brewers play the Twins and Royals. The White Sox have the Cubs and Pirates. Now the first one for each I can see. But when have Milwaukee and Kansas City (and Chicago and Pittsburgh) been rivals for ANYTHING? Wouldn't it make sense for the Brewers to play their biggest former AL rival? True indeed, that means a Royals-Pirates matchup, but one stupid pairing is better than two.

I don't like the current divisional setups (I prefer the pre-1993 alignments, bad geography and all), but I'd rather see the Astros play their divisional foes a lot more than non-divisional foes. And I wish the wild card would go away.

When it comes to this, I'd rather see two divisions in each league (for the sake of geography, you can do things like trade Atlanta to the east from the west b/c teams like Colorado and Arizona now exist and you know they're not contracting any time soon) and have the two division winners, and next best 2 -- regardless of division -- be wildcards -- because they're not getting rid of that. You could have:

NL East: ATL, CHC, FLA, NYM, PIT, PHI, STL, WAS

NL West: ARI, CIN, COL, HOU, LA, MIL, SD, SF

Wouldn't it make more sense to have Milwaukee and Cincy in the east and Chicago and St. Louis in the west?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.