66 replies to this topic

[mabrowndog]

Tonight was made for a David Attenborough narration, for it marks the beginning of the annual mating ritual between leagues -- a beautiful intermingling of diverse peoples and shared cultures to some, an abhorrent agitation of racial tensions to others. Some teams get off easy, others get royally screwed. Which clubs fall into which group is always a matter of debate.

In terms of aggregate weighted 2010-to-date winning percentage of opponents, here's where AL clubs rank on this season's slate:

Obviously this method is inherently flawed. The forthcoming opponents themselves have, to date, played unevenly matched schedules in terms of both strength and home/road splits, which directly affects their W-L. The difficulty of the matchups will depend largely on how pitching rotations work out, any key injuries, and which players come in riding hot or cold streaks. There's also no adjustment for playing tough teams on the road or cupcakes at home. And this weekend's series represent only one-sixth of the interleague schedule, so these numbers will undoubtedly look a lot different by the time the remaining games begin on June 11.

Nonetheless the numbers are illuminating. The Sox clearly have the toughest row to hoe of any AL club. They begin by playing the team with the NL's best record, and there's really no disputing that the Phillies are presently playing the best baseball of any team in the senior circuit. Meanwhile the three clubs sitting above Boston in the AL East standings each get to face an NL cellar dweller this weekend, and all of them have obvious and rampant weaknesses visible to any objective viewers.

The Red Sox are still without two starting outfielders, could be without their starting shortstop, and their two best starting pitfchers won't see any work this weekend. Meanwhile the Phillies' lineup is healthy and they throw Halladay at them in the finale. The Yanks face Pelfrey and Santana, but they're matched up with their two best arms in Hughes and Sabathia. Tampa Bay goes up against Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez and Bud Norris. The Jays face Dan Haren, Edwin Jackson and rookie Billy Buckner. It should also go without saying that the loss of the DH slot this weekend puts the Sox at a far greater disadvantage than their division rivals.

The novelty of interleague play has worn off. It's no longer cute or unique, and the new car smell has dissipated. The Sox playing the Phillies for six games while the Yanks and Rays each get a vacation with a half-dozen against the Mets and Marlins respectively could have an enormous impact on the standings.

I'm not naive enough to believe for a minute that interleague play will ever go away. But the arbitrary and lopsided nature of the arrangement really sucks all the fun out of it for me. It's bad enough that intraleague schedules heavily skewed toward division foes unfairly shifts the competitive landscape. So yeah, you're damn right I'm going to bitch and whine like a colicky infant.

Now watch the Sox, Astros, D-Backs and Mets all pull off weekend sweeps to shut me up...

Edited by mabrowndog, 21 May 2010 - 01:17 PM.

[JMDurron]

Nonetheless the numbers are illuminating. The Sox clearly have the toughest row to hoe of any AL club. They begin by playing the team with the NL's best record, and there's really no disputing that the Phillies are presently playing the best baseball of any team in the senior circuit. Meanwhile the three clubs sitting above Boston in the AL East standings each get to face an NL cellar dweller this weekend, and all of them have obvious and rampant weaknesses visible to any objective viewers.

EDIT - Disregard, I'm a moron. I thought the Rays faced the Marlins this weekend, not the Astros, since the Red Sox and Yankees are facing their "natural" rivals as well. I should actually read the schedule next time before I post.

Edited by JMDurron, 21 May 2010 - 01:12 PM.

[redsahx]

This is a post I'm moving over from another thread because it's more relevent here.

Does anyone know if MLB has an actual specific formula for figuring these interleague schedules out, other than the fact that natural rivals will play each other 6 times?

One of the strange quirks in all of this is that for the 3rd time in 4 seasons, we will be playing Arizona. In 14 years of interleague play, we have only played the Chicago Cubs once, yet have played every other national league team, including every other team in the NL Central, at least twice, most more than that. The Cubs are also the ONLY team in interleague play to have never come to Fenway. We have visited every single NL team. We've been matched up with the NL Central 3 times off the top of my head (2003, 2005 and 2008) yet happened to skip the Cubs two out of those three years. Is this really just some random quirk based on the fact that the NL Central is screwed up with 6 teams? Or is there some reason MLB tries to keep the Cubs and Red Sox apart? Do they just consider these two teams big draws for everyone else in interleague play and therefore matching them up together is a waste? Wouldn't this be the type of matchup MLB would want to make sure happens whenever possible?

[brs3]

It looks like MLB got rid of some of the 'natural' rivals, in particular the Sox/Braves matchups. Also, I don't understand why the AL East doesn't play all of the same opponents in IL play. I thought that's how it was supposed to go? AL East vs. NL West, and they cycle through. That's how it was for years.

[redsahx]

It looks like MLB got rid of some of the 'natural' rivals, in particular the Sox/Braves matchups. Also, I don't understand why the AL East doesn't play all of the same opponents in IL play. I thought that's how it was supposed to go? AL East vs. NL West, and they cycle through. That's how it was for years.

Yeah first we only played the NL East. Then in 2002 they started rotating the divisions. We also started playing the Phillies more instead of the Braves. Now suddenly it's turned into a complete mess. Originally the unbalanced aspect of interleague play was really only a problem when it came to the Wild Card. You pretty much had the same schedule as the rest of your division with the exception of one extra series with your designated natural rival. Now the schedules within the same divisions don't even come close to each other.

[mabrowndog]

It looks like MLB got rid of some of the 'natural' rivals, in particular the Sox/Braves matchups. Also, I don't understand why the AL East doesn't play all of the same opponents in IL play. I thought that's how it was supposed to go? AL East vs. NL West, and they cycle through. That's how it was for years.

Toronto lost their "natural" rival when the Expos moved. They're the only AL East team that doesn't play 6 games against an NL foe.

For comparison (though this thread is still intended for discussion of how I-L affects the Red Sox), here are the NL rankings:

.606 ARI
.578 HOU
.549 FLA
.541 ATL
.535 PHI
.530 LAD
.515 MIL
.514 NYM
.512 COL
.484 PIT
.473 SFG
.471 SDP
.459 STL
.446 CHC
.403 CIN
.399 WAS

The D-backs have to face every AL East team except Baltimore, plus the Tigers, and they're one of the NL clubs (along with the Braves, Pirates and Cardinals) that only plays 15 interleague games because of the 16/14 NL/AL split.

The Nats are burdened with playing the Orioles 6 times plus DET, CLE, CWS and KC.

[Al Zarilla]

It looks like MLB got rid of some of the 'natural' rivals, in particular the Sox/Braves matchups. Also, I don't understand why the AL East doesn't play all of the same opponents in IL play. I thought that's how it was supposed to go? AL East vs. NL West, and they cycle through. That's how it was for years.

So, the naturality of Sox - Braves was because the Braves used to be in Boston, but left town in 1952.

[cannonball 1729]

This is a post I'm moving over from another thread because it's more relevent here.

Does anyone know if MLB has an actual specific formula for figuring these interleague schedules out, other than the fact that natural rivals will play each other 6 times?

Since the start of the '04 season, the framework has supposed to have been:

1.) Besides natural rivals, the divisions rotate annually, so the Sox play NL West (this year), Central (next year), and East (2012) before returning to the West in 2013.
2.) Teams will play five opposite-league teams every year: one natural rival and four from the chosen division. Taking the example of the Sox playing the NL West, there are obviously five teams in the NL West, so the Sox will only play four of them plus the Phillies.
3.) If the Sox played a team at home the last time the two teams played, the Sox will play them on the road now and vice-versa. For example, the Sox played in SF in '04, home vs. the Giants in '07, and in SF again in '10.

One of the strange quirks in all of this is that for the 3rd time in 4 seasons, we will be playing Arizona.

The Diamondbacks are one of the weird ones. They don't have a natural rival, and since there are more NL teams than AL teams, the D-Backs usually get stuck playing another NL team (often Pittsburgh, I believe) during rivalry weekend, so they end up scrambling to take their rivalry games from random places. I believe that was why the Sox played them in '08 despite it being an NL Central year for the Sox. This is also why both the '07 and '08 Sox-D-Backs series were in Arizona; the second one didn't "count" toward the whole alternating venues thing.

In 14 years of interleague play, we have only played the Chicago Cubs once, yet have played every other national league team, including every other team in the NL Central, at least twice, most more than that. The Cubs are also the ONLY team in interleague play to have never come to Fenway. We have visited every single NL team. We've been matched up with the NL Central 3 times off the top of my head (2003, 2005 and 2008) yet happened to skip the Cubs two out of those three years. Is this really just some random quirk based on the fact that the NL Central is screwed up with 6 teams?

Probably. Plus, the Sox got sucked into the D-Backs quirky setup in 2008, which eliminated one NL Central matchup.

Edit: I think one of the things that end up screwing everything up is the above-noted fact that originally, most teams had two natural rivals unless they had one big one (like the New York or Chicago teams). For many teams, they've dropped one of the rivals to make the other rivalry more of a rivalry (like the Sox-Braves or Phillies-Blue Jays being 86ed in favor of two Sox-Phils series) but haven't come up with replacements for the teams who were dropped, leading to a bit of a mess in trying to fill natural rival games.

That said, I have no idea why the Yankees are playing the Phillies this year

Edited by cannonball 1729, 21 May 2010 - 02:49 PM.

[Harry Hooper]

That said, I have no idea why the Yankees are playing the Phillies this year

I'll guess it's a ploy for television ratings via a World Series rematch.

[glennhoffmania]

As Remy mentioned last night (I think), it's ridiculous that Boston plays Philly more than they play MN this year. IL sucks in almost every possible way. With so many games in a season, either do it right and make it balanced at least within each division, or don't do it at all. There's no reason why a team should be able to play a shit team 6 times a year solely based on "natural rivalries." On the other hand, if you asked 100 baseball fans who the Sox' natural rival should be, other than the Yankees, would 10 of them say Philly?

[Infield Infidel]

Agree with glenn. You can pretty much blame the "Natural rivals" thing on Yanks and Mets getting pissy about potentially not having a home and home the first year of rotating divisions. It wasn't that way when interleague started. Back then there were only 16 IL games instead of 18 they have now. It's become a mess at this point.

What I think would be better is, if they have to do natural rivals, give each team a two-game home series, so they play 4 games instead of 6.

[Pumpsie]

I loathe interleague play. The only reason it was instituted was because of greed, and now, that the novelty has worn off, that's not even an argument. It cheapens the integrity of the game even further than the unbalanced schedule does.

The unbalanced schedule makes the races for the two WC spots unfair because the teams competing across divisions play different schedules. Interleague play makes ALL the playoff races unfair because everyone ends up playing different schedules.

Furthermore, interleague play takes a lot of the pizzazz out of the World Series and the AS Game. They become less interesting, especially if the teams have already met.

If it were up to me, there would be balanced schedules in both leagues and no interleague play. If you have to have interleague play, because the Mets and Yankees would have a hissy fit, then you limit it to four games only, with the natural rivals only playing two games at each club's field. That's it.

But it's not up to me. It's up to the morons who run MLB.

[Lose Remerswaal]

I loathe interleague play. The only reason it was instituted was because of greed, and now, that the novelty has worn off, that's not even an argument. It cheapens the integrity of the game even further than the unbalanced schedule does.

If you asked the Nationals last year, the Reds in 2008, or the D-backs in 2007, they'd all disagree with you. The Sox may have been their only sellouts all year.

[sfip]

Yeah it really sucked when Dave Roberts got to bat as a visitor in Fenway for the Giants. It will suck again when Manny will get to this year for the Dodgers.

You won't hear a complaint from me about Interleague play. I'll get to go to a Red Sox game locally today because of it. I've been able to do this quite a few times over the years. It will also give Sox fans a chance to see the Sox at AT&T Park this year.

MLB schedules are already unbalanced even without Interleague play. The only times people bitch about unfairness of the schedule is when it's their team getting screwed. A lot of people here made fun of SiaS, not that I'd ever criticize that , when he bitched about the same thing years ago back when the Mets were contenders and half of the Sox natural rival games were against the Marlins.

[OttoC]

I don't lime inter-league play now and I didn't like it when it was announced. I think it detracts from the All-Star Game and the World Series and it plays havoc with playing with stats.. If I had my druthers, there would be two separate 8-team leagues and no wild cards. Think of the talent available if 14 teams disappeared.

However, that is not practical. Not only would there be a tremendous uproar from the cities losing clubs, the shock wavies through the minor league system would probably have a serious impact on Major League Baseball's popularity.

Perhaps a simpler move would be to add two teams and divide MLB into four 8-team leagues that only played within their league. With four leagues, there could be some sort of round-robin tournament to determine the champion. The probe with two leagues and inter-divisional play is scheduling. If there are two 8-team divisions, you have seven opponents in your own division but eight opponents in the other division and it is hard to devide a schedule that allows a team to play each of its divisional opponents home-and-home equally while allowing THE same for inter-divisional opponents.

What would seem to make sense would be to move one National League team to the American League and have two leagues with three 5-team divisions each. They could then play a 156-game schedule with inter-divisional play. A team could play each division rival 24 times (eight 3-game series split home-and-home). They would meet each inter-divisional rival six times (split home-and-home). The numbers would work out as
(4 x 24) + (5 x 6) + (5 x 6) = 96 + 30 +30 = 156. At the end of the regular season, there could either be a round-robin play-off among the division winners in each league to see who goes to the World Series or use a wild-card to even out the pairings. No inter-league play nut although the schedule is unbalances, it is fair in providing each team plays the other equally home-and-home.

[Zupcic Fan]

I agree with all the criticisms on here about interleague play, but I still like it. I love watching the excitement generated by the Met/Yankee series, and I assume the same thing happens with the Cubs/White Sox, and maybe even Giants/A's and Dodgers/Angels for all I know.
But certainly the criticisms are valid. What I don't get, though, is why some people characterize the powers that be in baseball as being idiots, morons, etc for creating this inequitable situation that so many people just happen to enjoy in certain cities.
I mean the sport is loaded with all kinds of unfairnesses, the main one being that they have a situation where the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and a few other teams can spend the amount of money they spend compared to everyone else, not to mention that teams like the Blue Jays and Orioles always will have to play these gigantic spenders 19 times a year.
So it's not equitable every year, and so the Red Sox got screwed this year by playing harder teams. Big deal. I've enjoyed these Phillies games. I can live with the inequity. Baseball is not doing anything crazy or idiotic or ridiculous by making it happen. The fact that some of you don't like it, even if your reasons make sense, doesn't, by definition, make it ridiculous.
I remember when I went to see the Sox play in Colorado. I was amazed by how many people living in Denver but originally from New England were so excited about that series. One restaurant owner even gave me free food because I had my Sox jacket on. I thought it was great, really fun. Didn't really care about the inequity. If the Red Sox lose the playoffs by one game because of it, maybe next year they'll win by one game because of it. I'll survive it.

Edited by Zupcic Fan, 23 May 2010 - 08:08 AM.

[joyofsox]

I loathe interleague play. The only reason it was instituted was because of greed, and now, that the novelty has worn off, that's not even an argument. It cheapens the integrity of the game even further than the unbalanced schedule does.

The unbalanced schedule makes the races for the two WC spots unfair because the teams competing across divisions play different schedules. Interleague play makes ALL the playoff races unfair because everyone ends up playing different schedules.

Furthermore, interleague play takes a lot of the pizzazz out of the World Series and the AS Game. They become less interesting, especially if the teams have already met.

If it were up to me, there would be balanced schedules in both leagues and no interleague play. ...

I agree with everything here, but the worst thing about interleague is that, suddenly, the teams play by different rules.

[seantoo]

I agree with all the criticisms on here about interleague play, but I still like it. I love watching the excitement generated by the Met/Yankee series, and I assume the same thing happens with the Cubs/White Sox, and maybe even Giants/A's and Dodgers/Angels for all I know.
But certainly the criticisms are valid. What I don't get, though, is why some people characterize the powers that be in baseball as being idiots, morons, etc for creating this inequitable situation that so many people just happen to enjoy in certain cities.
I mean the sport is loaded with all kinds of unfairnesses, the main one being that they have a situation where the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and a few other teams can spend the amount of money they spend compared to everyone else, not to mention that teams like the Blue Jays and Orioles always will have to play these gigantic spenders 19 times a year.
So it's not equitable every year, and so the Red Sox got screwed this year by playing harder teams. Big deal. I've enjoyed these Phillies games. I can live with the inequity. Baseball is not doing anything crazy or idiotic or ridiculous by making it happen. The fact that some of you don't like it, even if your reasons make sense, doesn't, by definition, make it ridiculous.
I remember when I went to see the Sox play in Colorado. I was amazed by how many people living in Denver but originally from New England were so excited about that series. One restaurant owner even gave me free food because I had my Sox jacket on. I thought it was great, really fun. Didn't really care about the inequity. If the Red Sox lose the playoffs by one game because of it, maybe next year they'll win by one game because of it. I'll survive it.

Zupic, I fail to see your logic here. You're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the interleague format as it presently set up is fine because the game itself is unfair so that makes it okay. In other words 2 wrongs make it right?

Interleague play or rather the concept of it is great but in the traditional MLB way the way it is executed is tragically flawed.
Contrived rivalries would only be seen twice in a six year span. The Yankees playing the Mets every-year had to be a George Costanza idea.

I love baseball however it is as if Corky (from Life Goes on) was in charge. You can always count on baseball to come up with some half assed idea. The NFL runs circles around baseball in the way the game is run. Why not follow the NFL's lead, and apply logic here? The AL East should play for example the NL East for two straight years with one series against team X at your home ballpark and the next year you'd play them on the road or vice-versa. Each AL East team would play each NL East team for one series. The AL East would then play for example the NL Central for two straight years and again have one year be at home and the next be on the road, finally the AL East would oppose the NL West in the same format. If you'd like to see a team from the other league play in your home ballpark you have one chance in six years which would certainly keep the interest high.

Edited by seantoo, 23 May 2010 - 04:39 PM.

[Zupcic Fan]

SeanToo: No, that's not what I meant. Sorry. I'm saying that i agree with all the reasons people give why it isn't fair, but I like it because of the excitement it creates in so many cities, and the opportunity it gives so many transplanted fans to see the Sox or the yankees or whoever every once in awhile.
The inequity thing doesn't bother me that much. There are plenty of inequities. And none of them really upset me. I live with the yankees payroll, and I live with this. That doesn't mean to me that the powers that be have done something awful or stupid. I can see exactly why they did it. My guess is that far more fans like the excitement of many of these situations far more than they care about the fact that some teams therefore have to play harder games than other teams. And I agree with them. I'm really looking forward to the Met/Yankee game tonight. I'd be looking forward to the Sox game too, but Wakefield against halliday? Well, so it goes.

[Archer1979]

The problem with interleague play is that it is simply about the money. This "natural rivalry" thing is contrived for a good portion of the league. If they're going to do it, at least make it like the NFL where its balanced for at least the division. By the way, I'm really glad that MLB wised up to the fact that Atlanta was not a "natural rival" for Boston just in time for them to hit the downward slope and replace them with Philly just as they have become a premier team in the league.

The other thing that I would do, since inter-league play is here to stay, is switch the DH-rule. Have the DH in the NL parks and pitchers hit in the AL parks. Mix it up for the fans.


Rant over.

[Pumpsie]

If you asked the Nationals last year, the Reds in 2008, or the D-backs in 2007, they'd all disagree with you. The Sox may have been their only sellouts all year.

And that's balanced off by AL teams playing the Pirates and Astros instead of their AL rivals and AL teams like the A's and ChiSox losing Red Sox games because of interleague play.

The stats I've seen (and this was a few years ago now) showed that the money advantage generated by playing teams from the other league has subsided over the years. The Yankees and Sox are always going to play to big houses, no matter if they're playing in Arizona or Oakland and the Royals are always going to attract small crowds, whether those crowds are in Baltimore or Washington DC.

So, money, which is the WORST possible reason to do ANYTHING, has now gone from being the ONLY reason to have interleague play to not a very compelling one anymore. I think the time is coming to have a discussion about a reduced form of interleague play, composed of a home and home series with one's "natural" rival only.

A good step in this direction would be to have some sports journalist analyze how interleague play has distorted the playoff situation and actually, on occasion, has elevated a team to their league's playoffs which had a worse record against the teams in its own league than the team they beat out....which is ludicrous.

[cannonball 1729]

What would seem to make sense would be to move one National League team to the American League and have two leagues with three 5-team divisions each.

So, if we've got 15 teams in each league and no interleague play...are we having two teams have an off-day every day, or are we allowing split squad games? Because 15 is an odd number.

[OttoC]

So, if we've got 15 teams in each league and no interleague play...are we having two teams have an off-day every day, or are we allowing split squad games? Because 15 is an odd number.

Yeah, you have a point (it was very early in the morning). It's doable but it would play havoc with scheduling games for weekends and holidays. I guess the best solution is four 8-team leagues with a 154-game schedule and no interplay.

[Spacemans Bong]

Yeah, you have a point (it was very early in the morning). It's doable but it would play havoc with scheduling games for weekends and holidays. I guess the best solution is four 8-team leagues with a 154-game schedule and no interplay.

Four eight team regional leagues would be an awful idea for baseball. That effectively damns baseball to a regional sport. There is now virtually no motivation for people in the Northeast to care about baseball beyond Pittsburgh or wherever.

[Rasputin]

So, if we've got 15 teams in each league and no interleague play...are we having two teams have an off-day every day, or are we allowing split squad games? Because 15 is an odd number.

Yes, every month and a half a team gets a three day break. That's about three of them a year for each team plus the All Star Break. I am pretty sure the players would be completely and totally up for it as would I.

And I'm kinda thinking you could take the opportunity of doing this to schedule some doubleheaders to make it possible and shrink the calendar a bit. The three day breaks would drive me batshit but would, I think be a good thing.

[HriniakPosterChild]

Four eight team regional leagues would be an awful idea for baseball. That effectively damns baseball to a regional sport. There is now virtually no motivation for people in the Northeast to care about baseball beyond Pittsburgh or wherever.

I think there's a certain appeal to eight teams per league, no divisions, and no interleague play. But I'm all for keeping the DH. NL "thinking man's baseball" just sucks to watch.

[Max Power]

I love baseball however it is as if Corky (from Life Goes on) was in charge. You can always count on baseball to come up with some half assed idea. The NFL runs circles around baseball in the way the game is run. Why not follow the NFL's lead, and apply logic here?

You mean the NFL where 20% of the schedule is different for teams in the same division? That's not the league you should be looking at for fairness of schedule.

[BucketOBalls]

Four eight team regional leagues would be an awful idea for baseball. That effectively damns baseball to a regional sport. There is now virtually no motivation for people in the Northeast to care about baseball beyond Pittsburgh or wherever.

Conversely, just say "screw divisions" and have every team play each other. (you could do a 2 game home-and-home series with every team and have a few left over to player your division/league if you wanted). That would remove a lot of the SoS junk and would make things more interesting because you everyone would get to see everyone. Then just take the top 4 teams per league and be done with it. Revenue wise it would probably balance out, as teams that lose matches with teams that draw well within their division would get matchups with good drawing teams outside it.

[Rasputin]

Hey, you know if you just shared all revenues regardless it wouldn't matter as much.

I think the prime complaint is the combination of the unbalanced schedule with the wild card. If you made it four divisions in each league or two with the top two advanving then you eliminate a lot of that kind of thing.

But here's the reality...most people don't care and even those of us who do care don't care much.

[geoduck no quahog]

What's really bullshit is the canard about "natural rivalry" or "seeing teams I don't get to see".

Rivalries are built from history, not proximity. If I'm right, the Yankees/Dodgers rivalry from '47 to '56 had more to do with meeting 6 times in the World Series and less to do with being two boroughs apart. It's as if Lakers/Celtics doesn't count because the Lakers are so far away.

Interleague play is anti-historical. It's worth waiting 50 years to see a Cleveland/Cincinnati or White Sox/Cubs matchup happen as a super "natural" (World Series) event...not a contrived event.

If you want to see the Diamondbacks play...go visit Arizona. It's more interesting that way.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Rivalries are built from history, not proximity. If I'm right, the Yankees/Dodgers rivalry from '47 to '56 had more to do with meeting 6 times in the World Series and less to do with being two boroughs apart. It's as if Lakers/Celtics doesn't count because the Lakers are so far away.

Exactly. The great rivalries in U.S. sports are all about great teams facing each other over and over again, not about geography. USC-Notre Dame, Cowboys-Redskins, Celtics-Lakers. Ohio State and Michigan are rivals, not Ohio State and Indiana.

And even with the less contrived natural rivalries, are they losing their novelty? It was widely reported that the Mets had to give away a lot of tickets to fill up Citifield this weekend. Excellent seats were available for purchase on the Mets website in the middle of last week.

[johnmd20]

And even with the less contrived natural rivalries, are they losing their novelty? It was widely reported that the Mets had to give away a lot of tickets to fill up Citifield this weekend. Excellent seats were available for purchase on the Mets website in the middle of last week.

Yes, they were available, I can attest to that. I had a client looking for tickets to the game on Friday night and I bought them for face value on the Mets' website on Tuesday. There were seats available all over the ball park. No 5-10 game package required, like it used to be.

Then again, that also has a lot to do with the fact that the Mets aren't playing fantastically and it has more to do with the fact that even face value tickets are really, really overpriced.

[seantoo]

You mean the NFL where 20% of the schedule is different for teams in the same division? That's not the league you should be looking at for fairness of schedule.

Max aka Homer you missed the point, 'Doh'. The NFL applies logic to most of the new rules and regulations that it has and Baseball frequently does not. That is regardless however to the example at hand and the title of the thread. I gave a specific example of how to correct the problem that was a (IMHO) a great idea poorly executed.

[Infield Infidel]

You mean the NFL where 20% of the schedule is different for teams in the same division? That's not the league you should be looking at for fairness of schedule.

It's actually 12.5 % (2/16), but let's not let facts get in the way. and even those two games have fairness in mind in that you play the two games are against teams that finished in the same place as you in other divisions (1st plays 1st, 2d plays 2d, etc.)

[Max Power]

It's actually 12.5 % (2/16), but let's not let facts get in the way. and even those two games have fairness in mind in that you play the two games are against teams that finished in the same place as you in other divisions (1st plays 1st, 2d plays 2d, etc.)

It was late and I miscounted. I thought it was three. Still, it's 12.5%. We're arguing about 9 games in a baseball season, which is 5.5%. I'd prefer interleague schedules to be identical for teams in the same division, too, but it's really not that big a deal.

[EP Sox Fan]

Joe Sheehan hates on interleague.

Pretty good breakdown on the pitfalls of the interleague schedule. One of the things that really jumps out at you is the Charmin soft schedule the Rays enjoy.

[Toe Nash]

I was amazed by how many people living in Denver but originally from New England were so excited about that series.

It's cool for Sox or Yankees fans in Colorado when the Sox or Yankees play there, but that's because there are Sox / Yanks fans everywhere. Is it cool when the Royals play at Colorado? Do all the displaced KC people in Denver come out? Of course not, because the Royals aren't any good.

If people in Colorado want to see the Red Sox, they can take a trip to Oakland or Seattle when the Sox play there. It's not like Denver doesn't have an airport.

[Zupcic Fan]

I ain't buying the argument that the Yankee Mets rivalry, or Cubs/White Sox is offset by the Houston/Kansas City games, etc.
That's true but has nothing to do with Interleague play. Nobody in Houston is flocking to see them play the Pirates either, i would guess, especaially 19 times. It has nothing to do with Interleague play. people in Houston aren't excited because their team sucks. And I got to watch a really fun Met/Yankee series and a really good Sox/Phillies series. Worth it for me.
And you can scream all you want. Just because of yahoos like me, they ain't gonna change a thing. You can count on it while you are devising all your inequity charts and making your proposals.

[Spacemans Bong]

What's really bullshit is the canard about "natural rivalry" or "seeing teams I don't get to see".

Rivalries are built from history, not proximity. If I'm right, the Yankees/Dodgers rivalry from '47 to '56 had more to do with meeting 6 times in the World Series and less to do with being two boroughs apart. It's as if Lakers/Celtics doesn't count because the Lakers are so far away.

Interleague play is anti-historical. It's worth waiting 50 years to see a Cleveland/Cincinnati or White Sox/Cubs matchup happen as a super "natural" (World Series) event...not a contrived event.

If you want to see the Diamondbacks play...go visit Arizona. It's more interesting that way.

Proximity definitely helps. Baseball has three legendary rivalries and they're all proximate. Yankees-Red Sox, Giants-Dodgers, Cubs-Cardinals. In all three cases you have seriously overlapping fan bases and regional conflicts. Of course they've got some history to build it up, but virtually all non-proximate baseball rivalries are transient things. Nobody really thinks the Dodgers and Yankees have a rivalry now. The Mets and Cardinals had a hellacious rivalry in the 80s but in the 2006 NLCS nobody was really talking about it. The Mets-Braves rivalry will die when Chipper retires. The Red Sox have had some nice little skirmishes with the A's over the years but when the A's or Red Sox stink it's not a big rivalry anymore.

I'm not a fan of interleague. The A's-Giants series was a big deal, but the preseason Bay Bridge Series between the A's and Giants were played at near regular season intensity and there's nothing stopping that happening again. But let's not act like there's no rivalry between teams in the same city and sometimes the same state and that has no impact on what defines a rivalry.

[sfip]

Some of what we got to see just this weekend thanks to IL play (yeah I know it sucks what happened to Buchholz):
Halladay facing the Blue Jays for the 1st time.
Santana facing the Twins for the 1st time.
Torre facing the Yankees for the 1st time.
The Uptons facing each other in the majors for the 1st time.
The Red Sox facing Lincecum today for the 1st time, a few days after seeing Jimenez for the 1st time in the regular season.
White Sox/Cubs, Rangers/Astros, Indians/Reds, Nats/O's, Cardinals/Royals to add local interest.

Edited by sfip, 27 June 2010 - 04:38 PM.

[mabrowndog]

The Sox have lost 2 of their 3 best pitchers to injuries directly related to the scourge of interleague play. None of the above "feel good" moments can come close to making up for that.

[Foulkey Reese]

The 13-5 record was nice though.

[SMU_Sox]

The Sox have lost 2 of their 3 best pitchers to injuries directly related to the scourge of interleague play. None of the above "feel good" moments can come close to making up for that.

And don't forget Wang in 2008.

I know it would be unfair to the NL but I'd feel a lot better about interleague play if all games were AL rules. I love the matchups. Lincecum vs Lester? Great. Sox vs Phillies? Could have been classic. I don't think Selig will do anything to make it easier for AL pitchers though (not that he can do all that much anyway without outright favoring the AL).

[TomRicardo]

Joe Sheehan hates on interleague.

Pretty good breakdown on the pitfalls of the interleague schedule. One of the things that really jumps out at you is the Charmin soft schedule the Rays enjoy.

That Charmin soft schedule murdered the Rays.

[Trautwein's Degree]

The Sox have lost 2 of their 3 best pitchers to injuries directly related to the scourge of interleague play. None of the above "feel good" moments can come close to making up for that.

You're right, all of the major injuries sustained by the Red Sox, with the exception Vaughn Eshelman (lit hands on fire while warming baby bottle with candle), Paxton Crawford (fell out of bad on to a glass causing him to lose 2 pints of blood) and Curt Schilling (buffet) were incurred while playing or as a consequence of playing baseball.

By your logic, Pedroia's foot would be fine today if he went into the family tire business. Feel good moments be damned.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 28 June 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[RingoOSU]

I think though, something could be said about AL pitchers never being properly trained to run the base paths, or hit, without injuring themselves. It just doesn't seem to be something the AL teams will focus on for 9 games a year. Just a theory though.

[Trautwein's Degree]

I think though, something could be said about AL pitchers never being properly trained to run the base paths, or hit, without injuring themselves. It just doesn't seem to be something the AL teams will focus on for 9 games a year. Just a theory though.

Buchholz was an accomplished college hitter. Many pitchers were successful at other positions in both high school in college. Running from first to second isn't exactly rocket science. His injury was flukey. It could have happened with him covering first base.

Correlation does not always equal causation. cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 28 June 2010 - 11:37 AM.

[mabrowndog]

You're right, all of the major injuries sustained by the Red Sox, with the exception Vaughn Eshelman (lit hands on fire while warming baby bottle with candle), Paxton Crawford (fell out of bad on to a glass causing him to lose 2 pints of blood) and Curt Schilling (buffet) were incurred while playing or as a consequence of playing baseball.

By your logic, Pedroia's foot would be fine today if he went into the family tire business. Feel good moments be damned.

Way to obfuscate my argument -- your law degree at work!

If AL pitchers regularly batted and ran the bases, I'd have no issue with the injuries that occurred to Beckett and Buchholz. But since both were hurt doing something they do not regularly train for or participate in, my case against interleague play under the current set of rules remains iron-clad and beyond refute.

[rembrat]

The Sox have lost 2 of their 3 best pitchers to injuries directly related to the scourge of interleague play. None of the above "feel good" moments can come close to making up for that.

Clay Buchholz and who?

Edited by rembrat, 28 June 2010 - 11:36 AM.

[RingoOSU]

Buchholz was an accomplished college hitter. Many pitchers were successful at other positions in both high school in college. Running from first to second isn't exactly rocket science. His injury was flukey. It could have happened with him covering first base.

Really?
http://www.thebaseba...-Buchholz.shtml