Interleague Play

[BaltimoreFan]

Personally I think it'd be best to just have one of the NL teams switch to the AL. Then you'd have 5 teams in each division. The problem is that there would have to be at least one interleague match-up every series. However I don't think that would be such a horrible/hard thing to do.

Your plan is better than the current system, but you'd still have the mess of uneven divisions.

This wouldn't bother me, playing Interleague games in April and September. It's not like a Braves-Mariners matchup counts differently in the standings just because of the month the game's played in.

If we're gonna keep this up (interleague), I would really rather go this way as well (six five team divisions). I'm typically a traditionalist, but one of the things that I've grown sick of is the constant complaining that "my team has to play the Yankees and Boston, and yours only has to play the Rays and Baltimore." (Of course, that turned around a bit this year, but that's not the point...). Also, the whole four teams in the AL West, vs. six in the NL Central thing. Perhaps it's just time for a completely ballanced schedule?

The only thing, is that you would likely have to either eliminate the DH, or institute full time DH in the NL (since they would use it so often). I know I wouldn't be a fan of a NL with the DH...

Moose

I don't think every team has to play each other, rather that every team in the division plays the same schedule. Your division would be matched up with another and you'd play your rival (with even divisions everyone would have a "rival" even if it doesn't make alot of sense). Then everyone would play everywhere within 6 seasons. The schedules wouldn't be exact, but the only differences between divisional teams would be 3 games vs. your rival and home or away vs. interleague teams. Not a huge difference if you ask me.

I wish every team could have that one home and home "rivalry" series. Unfortunately I really only see two options for the Pirates and both already have "interleague rivals." First, of course, is Cleveland. Long time ongoing feud between the two towns. From Cleveland, it takes about half the time to get to Pittsburgh than it does to get to Cincinnati.

Second would be Baltimore. The two cities share a very similar history, both very tradition blue collar towns that have reinvented themselves as medical research centers.. They have met in the World Series twice within recent memory ('71 and '79) and the two towns already hate each other immensely because of the Steelers and Ravens rivalry.

Yea, it kinda sucks for Pittsburgh. You have two great match-ups but both have more "logical" match ups. It reminds me of Maryland football. There are a number of teams that could make for great rivalrys, Navy, West Virginia, Penn State, Virginia. But all of them already have bigger rivalries with other schools. I guess they'll have to hope Towson's football team will one day grow big enough to compete with them.

[HedleyLamarr]

The only thing, is that you would likely have to either eliminate the DH, or institute full time DH in the NL (since they would use it so often). I know I wouldn't be a fan of a NL with the DH...

MLB will never abort the DH now that it has been accepted and established in the AL. Utilizing the DH in the National League needs to be adressed, especially if they are going to continue with interleague play.

For example, if the Cubs and Red Sox do battle at Fenway, the Red Sox would naturally use David Ortiz ... Yet, the Cubs would have call on a player like backup infielder Mike Fontenot for DH duties?? Yeah, that's fair!

Of course, there is this equilizer for the NL: Their starting pitchers are used to batting and aren't as much of a liability at the plate as an AL pitcher would most likely be. And the AL team loses one of their top hitters since they actually have to play the field in the NL parks......unless they're willing to suffer with the poorer defensive skills these DH's have. Cleveland sat Hafner for the 3-game series earlier this season, and Boston has had Ortiz or Youkilis or Lowell sit on the bench for a game when they visited a NL park in the past. Anaheim most likely had one of these four sitting on the bench when they visited an NL park: Guerrero, Hunter, Anderson, Matthews Jr..

There's no way in hell MLB ever allows the National League to adopt the DH.....

[njmeadowlanders]

Yeah I too am sick of a Mets-Rockies or Mets-Astros matchup when the rest of the league is interleague. I understand that it doesn't happen as much as it does in the NL central with the 6 teams and all, but it seems like the Mets face one of those central teams every year around this time (though it's a West matchup @ COL in our 3rd separate west coast swing in less than a month--they DO go to LAA after that...). Either do it evenly or not at all....

[NJTank]

Heres a Radical Interleague Idea (Not for use in the World Series)

As long as the DH (hopefully one day it will be gone for good) is still in the AL only, during Interleague play they should use the DH in NL parks, and no DH in AL parks, so fans get a unique taste when they see the teams from the other league.

So we can see a pitcher bat at Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park or the SkyDome.

[njmeadowlanders]

Heres a Radical Interleague Idea (Not for use in the World Series)

As long as the DH (hopefully one day it will be gone for good) is still in the AL only, during Interleague play they should use the DH in NL parks, and no DH in AL parks, so fans get a unique taste when they see the teams from the other league.

So we can see a pitcher bat at Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park or the SkyDome.

I like it...

I too hate the DH all together (but it'll never be gone b/c of the MLBPA), but if they insist, I like this...

[OMMF]

Personally I think it'd be best to just have one of the NL teams switch to the AL. Then you'd have 5 teams in each division. The problem is that there would have to be at least one interleague match-up every series. However I don't think that would be such a horrible/hard thing to do.

Maybe this it a little off-topic, but one thing that has bothered me for the longest time has been the 6-team National League Central and the 4-team American League West.

For ten years now, NL Central teams have had to to compete against five other squads for a division crown and a playoff spot, when at the same time the AL West winner only has to finish ahead of three teams to qualify for post-season play. I can't say I really agree with or understand this logic at all. Perhaps Selig and MLB should have thought this over before expanding to 30 teams in 1998, thus giving us this ridiculous 16 and 14 team layout.

A win is a win. If you had to beat out 7 or 8 teams, it would still require you to win as many games as possible. In the end, every team plays 162 games and it's up to you, no matter how many teams are in your division, to be the best.

[Hat Boy]

during Interleague play they should use the DH in NL parks, and no DH in AL parks

A gimmick within a gimmick.

If you have to try to drum up interest with stuff like this, it only proves the point that inter-league play has run its course.

[NJTank]

Well it has run its course I think it causes more problems with scheduling and its not worth it any more

[Mac the Knife]

My opinion (FWIW) is that MLB needs to go ahead, bite the bullet and realign into six, 5-team divisions, either moving the Brewers back to the AL or by moving Houston and placing them in the AL West.

Then you could have a balanced 162-game schedule:

- Each team plays the 4 other teams in its division 21 times each, for 84 games;

- Each team plays the 10 other teams (5 from the other two divisions) in its league 6 times each (3 home, 3 away), for 60 games; and

- Each team plays the 5 teams from a division of the other league (rotating between divisions annually) 6 times each (3 home, 3 away), for 18 games.

The novelty of interleague play is over, so why not just go ahead and fully integrate it?

[OMMF]

My opinion (FWIW) is that MLB needs to go ahead, bite the bullet and realign into six, 5-team divisions, either moving the Brewers back to the AL or by moving Houston and placing them in the AL West.

Then you could have a balanced 162-game schedule:

- Each team plays the 4 other teams in its division 21 times each, for 84 games;

- Each team plays the 10 other teams (5 from the other two divisions) in its league 6 times each (3 home, 3 away), for 60 games; and

- Each team plays the 5 teams from a division of the other league (rotating between divisions annually) 6 times each (3 home, 3 away), for 18 games.

The novelty of interleague play is over, so why not just go ahead and fully integrate it?

Except 5x6 is 30, not 18. You have a 174 game schedule there.

[TBGKon]

My opinion (FWIW) is that MLB needs to go ahead, bite the bullet and realign into six, 5-team divisions, either moving the Brewers back to the AL or by moving Houston and placing them in the AL West.

Then you could have a balanced 162-game schedule:

- Each team plays the 4 other teams in its division 21 times each, for 84 games;

- Each team plays the 10 other teams (5 from the other two divisions) in its league 6 times each (3 home, 3 away), for 60 games; and

- Each team plays the 5 teams from a division of the other league (rotating between divisions annually) 6 times each (3 home, 3 away), for 18 games.

The novelty of interleague play is over, so why not just go ahead and fully integrate it?

Except 5x6 is 30, not 18. You have a 174 game schedule there.

True, I'd cut back on the in-divisional games from 21 to 18 to get back to the standard 162 game season.

[WJMorris3]

How about this then?

First, move the Astros to the NL West and the Diamondbacks to the AL West.

You play your division 18 times each. 4 x 18 = 72.

The other 10 teams in the league, 6 times each. 10 x 6 = 60.

Play the 5 teams in the division directly across 3 times each. 5 x 3 = 15.

Play the five teams in a rotating division 3 times each. 5 x 3 = 15.

The rotation would be as follows:

Year 1: NL East v AL East, NL Central v AL West, NL West v AL Central.

Year 2: NL East v AL West, NL Central v AL Central, NL West v AL East.

Year 3: NL East v AL Central, NL Central v AL East, NL West v AL West.

You would play the teams in the division directly across for four series every three years, two home and two away. You would play the other teams one series every three years, and alternate it home and away. 162 game schedule.

Now, if they'd only adopt taking two wild cards per league and set it up as a 3-7-7-7 format.

[Jigga]

STOP IT! PLEASE!

[LC]

How about this then?

First, move the Astros to the NL West and the Diamondbacks to the AL West.

You play your division 18 times each. 4 x 18 = 72.

The other 10 teams in the league, 6 times each. 10 x 6 = 60.

Play the 5 teams in the division directly across 3 times each. 5 x 3 = 15.

Play the five teams in a rotating division 3 times each. 5 x 3 = 15.

The rotation would be as follows:

Year 1: NL East v AL East, NL Central v AL West, NL West v AL Central.

Year 2: NL East v AL West, NL Central v AL Central, NL West v AL East.

Year 3: NL East v AL Central, NL Central v AL East, NL West v AL West.

You would play the teams in the division directly across for four series every three years, two home and two away. You would play the other teams one series every three years, and alternate it home and away. 162 game schedule.

Now, if they'd only adopt taking two wild cards per league and set it up as a 3-7-7-7 format.

Moving the DBacks out of the NL West? That makes a pretty weak division.

[PeytonManningRocks]

I'd rather they go the NFL route and expand two more teams (Portland and Charlotte maybe?) and have 8 four-team divisions. For interleague, each division would play one other division (four three-game series), and that would be it. No "rivalry" weekend unless it's in the typical rotation. As for playoffs, I'd have 5 teams in each league (four division winners plus one wildcard) with the wildcard and worst division winner playing a one-game playoff and the top 3 teams automatically going on to the LDS.

[BigEd76]

I can't remember Texas playing here, which boggles me because the Braves have played a few times in Texas.....

2003 (June 3-5, swept the series)

Here's the list of regular season matchups that will still be missing after this month:

Atlanta @ Kansas City

Chicago Cubs @ Boston

Chicago Cubs @ Oakland

Chicago White Sox @ N.Y. Mets

Cincinnati @ Baltimore

Cleveland @ Philadelphia

Houston @ Toronto

L.A. Angels @ Chicago Cubs

L.A. Dodgers @ N.Y. Yankees

Milwaukee @ N.Y. Yankees (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

Milwaukee @ Seattle (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

Minnesota @ Atlanta

Oakland @ Milwaukee (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

St. Louis @ Baltimore

St. Louis @ L.A. Angels

San Diego @ Toronto

Tampa Bay @ L.A. Dodgers

Tampa Bay @ Milwaukee

Texas @ Milwaukee (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

Texas @ St. Louis

Washington @ Cleveland

[NJTank]

I can't remember Texas playing here, which boggles me because the Braves have played a few times in Texas.....

2003 (June 3-5, swept the series)

Here's the list of regular season matchups that will still be missing after this month:

Atlanta @ Kansas City

Chicago Cubs @ Boston

Chicago Cubs @ Oakland

Chicago White Sox @ N.Y. Mets

Cincinnati @ Baltimore

Cleveland @ Philadelphia

Houston @ Toronto

L.A. Angels @ Chicago Cubs

L.A. Dodgers @ N.Y. Yankees

Milwaukee @ N.Y. Yankees (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

Milwaukee @ Seattle (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

Minnesota @ Atlanta

Oakland @ Milwaukee (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

St. Louis @ Baltimore

St. Louis @ L.A. Angels

San Diego @ Toronto

Tampa Bay @ L.A. Dodgers

Tampa Bay @ Milwaukee

Texas @ Milwaukee (* since the Brewers' move to the National League)

Texas @ St. Louis

Washington @ Cleveland

LA @ Yankees wow some how it seems wrong the Dodgers never made it to Yankee Stadium

[Luigi74]

Personally I think it'd be best to just have one of the NL teams switch to the AL. Then you'd have 5 teams in each division. The problem is that there would have to be at least one interleague match-up every series. However I don't think that would be such a horrible/hard thing to do.

Maybe this it a little off-topic, but one thing that has bothered me for the longest time has been the 6-team National League Central and the 4-team American League West.

For ten years now, NL Central teams have had to to compete against five other squads for a division crown and a playoff spot, when at the same time the AL West winner only has to finish ahead of three teams to qualify for post-season play. I can't say I really agree with or understand this logic at all. Perhaps Selig and MLB should have thought this over before expanding to 30 teams in 1998, thus giving us this ridiculous 16 and 14 team layout.

Bud wanted the Brewers in the same division as the Cubs because he knew those games in Milwaukee would sell-out, the Pirates ended up in the Central because MLB wanted the Braves in the same division as the Mets back when the division was created in 1994.

[ZapRowsdower8]

Bud wanted the Brewers in the same division as the Cubs because he knew those games in Milwaukee would sell-out, the Pirates ended up in the Central because MLB wanted the Braves in the same division as the Mets back when the division was created in 1994.

I get the Brewers with the Cubs, but why put the Braves with the Mets back then? They had never been in the same division before. What was the rational?

[TBGKon]

For those that wonder why some matchups have not happened yet, the reason is most likely because that before the 2002 season the matchups were always East v. East, Central v. Central, and West v. West. Beginning in 2002, MLB rotated divisions.