Brewers Alts + Interleague Play = Great!

[EatSleepJeep]

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!

Those days were great.

Twins Brewcrew was always the highlight of my summer

Vaughn's Valley in the old County Stadium

Rollie Fingers and his red convertible

Road tripping through Chicago, Kenosha, Appleton, Milwaukee, Wausau and just watching baseball wherever we could.

[njmeadowlanders]

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?

Well I did it that way because for years the Cubs and Cardinals were in the NL East. I moved Atlanta out of the West because of not only a major geographical correction, but also because there are two teams (Colorado and Arizona) that fit in better and joined the NL after Atlanta left the West. Between Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, its not really as big a deal georaphically as Atlanta in the west was. Cincy always was in the west as well--maybe you can sacrifice a St. Louis return to the east and put Cincy there instead if you'd like though...It's just how I'd do it if I were in charge, that's all...

[deliver2david]

I understand that those with strong geographic rivals may like interleague play, but for a Tigers fan it kind of sucks. Without lucking out and drawing St. Louis to make it a little interesting this year, it pretty much is nothing special. I'd much rather see them having more games against A.L. East teams since I still wish Detroit was in the East.

As for the Brew Crew, they look sharp even if there are too many pinstripes in that pic.

[hecticbro]

I can't understand why people don't like interleague play. Why shouldn't every team in the league get to play each other at least one series a season? I mean, come on, they've got pleeeenty of games to divide up as it is and two teams in the same CITY shouldn't have to go a century without playing each other and giving the town the excitement of a rivalry.

[marlinfan]

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.

How many times has a Wild Card winner finished with more wins than a Division winner? Lots of times.

[McCall]

I can't understand why people don't like interleague play. Why shouldn't every team in the league get to play each other at least one series a season? I mean, come on, they've got pleeeenty of games to divide up as it is and two teams in the same CITY shouldn't have to go a century without playing each other and giving the town the excitement of a rivalry.

It makes the World Series more exciting, having two teams play each other who don't usually do during the regular season. They may not know (to an extent, due to technology and scouting these days) much about the other team because they haven't played them yet. Makes for a better game. Plus it was just the tradition of baseball, keeping the two leagues seperate.

That being said, I have nothing against Interleague Play, as long as it's kep the way it is. 4 series or so, all at once and not spread out. Also, not playing every team every year. They play a home and away series against their "geographical" rivals from the opposing league and then a few series against teams from annually rotating divisions. As long as they don't end up overdoing it, I'm fine with it. Now, if only we could eliminate the "Homefield Advantage for the World Series" from the All-Star Game...

[illwauk]

Well I did it that way because for years the Cubs and Cardinals were in the NL East. I moved Atlanta out of the West because of not only a major geographical correction, but also because there are two teams (Colorado and Arizona) that fit in better and joined the NL after Atlanta left the West. Between Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, its not really as big a deal georaphically as Atlanta in the west was. Cincy always was in the west as well--maybe you can sacrifice a St. Louis return to the east and put Cincy there instead if you'd like though...It's just how I'd do it if I were in charge, that's all...

I agree, it doesn't really matter where you put Milwaukee or Chicago. I'm assuming you drew up the alignments to assure Chicago and St. Louis would be in the same division, which I definetly understand. But then by default you've grouped Milwaukee and Cincy. So seeing as how Cincy is in the Eastern time zone, it'd make more sense to put them (and Milwaukee) in the east.

[nwtrailtrekker]

φ○±=↓-┘♀₧╜↨l☻-±♂

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

I can't understand why people don't like interleague play. Why shouldn't every team in the league get to play each other at least one series a season? I mean, come on, they've got pleeeenty of games to divide up as it is and two teams in the same CITY shouldn't have to go a century without playing each other and giving the town the excitement of a rivalry.

baseball purists are stuck in the past, like most people who vote republican.

[njmeadowlanders]

"baseball purists are stuck in the past, like most people who vote republican."

At least you didn't say ALL....otherwise I'd have to object to that one...

[DEAD!]

I can't understand why people don't like interleague play. Why shouldn't every team in the league get to play each other at least one series a season? I mean, come on, they've got pleeeenty of games to divide up as it is and two teams in the same CITY shouldn't have to go a century without playing each other and giving the town the excitement of a rivalry.

baseball purists are stuck in the past, like most people who vote republican.

... and I suppose most people who vote Democrat would love to see those "Turn Ahead the Clock" uniforms?

[McCall]

I can't understand why people don't like interleague play. Why shouldn't every team in the league get to play each other at least one series a season? I mean, come on, they've got pleeeenty of games to divide up as it is and two teams in the same CITY shouldn't have to go a century without playing each other and giving the town the excitement of a rivalry.

baseball purists are stuck in the past, like most people who vote republican.

Ha.

Well, if that's your theory, I guess that's the group I proudly fall into.

[Gothamite]

Sorry, pal.

I'm both a baseball traditionalist and a Socialist.

Pop psychology 4, reality 4,955,265,695,586.

[Jamikel]

Why did the Brewers switch leagues, anyway?

[Gothamite]

They needed the leagues to each have an even number of teams to facilitate interleague play.

Before 1997, each league had fourteen teams. The Diamondbacks and Devil Rays made fifteen in each, which would have meant too many off-days during interleague play.

The Royals were given first chance to move to the NL, but they elected to remain. I've never really understood why, given the natural division rivalry they would have had with St. Louis. They decided to stay pat, and the Brewers got next crack (the Twins were third in line).

[jkrdevil]

Why didn't both expansion teams go into the same league like years past such as 1993 and 1977?

[Gothamite]

Don't know.

I would hazard a guess that when the franchises were announced in early 1995, interleague play wasn't really on the table.

Without it, there's no reason not to have 15-team leagues.

[njmeadowlanders]

Don't know.

I would hazard a guess that when the franchises were announced in early 1995, interleague play wasn't really on the table.

Without it, there's no reason not to have 15-team leagues.

As was mentioned, 15 teams in each league would require at least one interleague series behing held at all times throughout the season--something that was unwanted.

As for why TB and ARZ weren't both admitted to either league, I feel that because the NL received two new teams in 1993 that they didn't need two more expansion teams....

[Bronxmet]

I would really like the see the Yankees play the Dodgers each year rather than having two series with the Mets. That series received a positive response in 2004 when the Yanks went to Chavez Ravine.

As for the Brewers going to the NL, the Diamondbacks were going to be in the AL West, but Jerry Colangelo argued that Arizona had more connections with NL West cities.

[Gothamite]

You're right, of course - wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote that.

I wonder if the merging of the leagues had something to do with it? It was perhaps the first time that the two leagues operated as one entity, when in the past they each had control over their own operations. Maybe? I don't know.

I would really like to know why Arizona was promised a spot in the NL, other than the owner really wanted it to build regional rivalries. Obviously MLB really wanted into the Arizona market....