Interleague

Great question Seajaw!  I am against any Interleague play except the World Series.  Mostly for all the reasons you listed above.  I would rather play more games against my own league.  That would at least be closer to a balanced schedule.  I just hate that part of the schedule.  To me, it seems more like exhibition games than real games. 

If they are going to keep doing this, they should at least try to get it right.  Why not reverse the DH rule?  Let AL fans see pitchers bat in their parks and NL fans see teh DH in their parks?  At least then there is a novelty about the games.  But, I'd rather just drop it as a bad idea.

Ya know, my feeling is that if they would make it a longer interleague stint than just the short period each year, they might attract more of the casual fans.

Baseball's kind of a little behind the others in this area.

Personally, since I'm kind of an old timer now I like it the way it was cuz that's what I grew
up with.

Jim

would like to see total realignment. I know Yanks REdsox is a rivalry but they play 18 times a season. Imagine if they only played 3 or six, it would still be a rivalry. Interleague sets up "perceived" rivalries like Marlins/Rays, or Phils.O's. I would like to see Phils play Angels or Mariners.

Hi Guys,

  I read and article one time regarding realignment of MLB as a whole. Make the divisions more regional to set up more rivalries. I would like to see that format implemented then trying to limit the amount of games that each team plays against each other. For me I love the Yankee vs Red Sox, Cardinals vs Cubs, Dodgers vs Giants, match ups. However if you throw in the Phillies, Mets, Orioles, etc it would help to add to that rivalry factor along the north east & other areas of the country. Place the Angels, Dodgers, Giants, Mariners, A's, &  Padres in one division. It could be set up however they decide to break it down for each region.The NFL changes teams playing against other divisions every year, you could do the same in baseball. One year the east vs the central, next the south, then the west, etc. As a baseball fan I would love the regional format. The more rivalaries the better IMHO. When you think about it the games that sell out in most cases are the rivalry games, that holds true for any sport.

Supposedly, the divisions do get rotated in Interleague every year, except that we seem to get the N.L. West two or three times as often as any other.

We've seen each of the N.L. East teams once (I think) here in 12 years!  That's because it's just one series between the clubs, and that one series might be on the road!  And some divisions have more teams, which means your club might not even play them all that year!

I don't know if I agree about realignment that would switch some teams from one league to the other.  Baseball is built much more around its traditions (yeah, I know...the Brewers).  More cheap gimmicks, we don't need.

I would support eliminating six franchises in order to get back down to 24, a more evenly-divisible number.  Even with three four-team divisions (plus the Wild Card, for postseason purposes), it makes for better balance.  I know, the MLBPA would never go for the job losses.  But, hey, it's a tough economy...

Who to cut, though?  Ya gotta keep the original franchises intact, even if a couple of them are having trouble.

The trouble with balance is that the next step up would be to 36 teams (two 18-team leagues, with three six-team divisions each).  We already have a tough time trying to keep 30 teams competitive!  And the more you add, the tougher it is to schedule, and to maintain a proper number of games between them.

At 24 teams, you'd be able to cut away just enough of the chaff to have a great crop!

I am not for interleague play and never have been.  I would accept it more if all the teams played each other every year like in the NHL or NBA.  They only rotate certain divisions because east and east will always match-up etc.  Other than A's-Giants, Mets-Yankees, and Cubs-Sox there really aren't that many compelling rivalries.  In fact, having the Cubs/Sox and Yankees/Mets play six times is unnecessary.

I would rather see those 16 or so games go back to each league.  Perhaps if I was in a one team town and did not get the opportunity to see all the teams on TV or in person I might feel differently.  But but since most of us could subscribe to various TV, Radio, and Internet packages the need for interleague play is not as urgent as it was after the strike and right before the McGwire-Sosa battle.

Part of the lore of baseball is imagination and debate.  Many of us used to wonder what it would be like to pit teams from the NL against the AL.  Sometimes the imagination turn out better than the real thing.

Let's do away with the long playoff games and keep the games under 3 hours and that would be good enough for this chap no matter who is fighting for the ring.

seajaw's point about Boston having an easier time this year is valid but on the other hand they might have had the same outcome if they had more chances against the Orioles and Blue Jays but that is what I prefer, just my two cents.

I'm glad that you are keeping the original teams intact.     I am planning a weekend visit to Pittsburgh next summer to see a few games in that beautiful park.     How would you pick the six?     I'd say Oakland but they are getting a new stadium.      So many of the teams are getting beautiful new parks and, with those, should show marked jumps in attendance.     The Florida teams would be two obvious choices if this is done before the Marlins' new park is built.    Washington and Baltimore are so close together that the Nats have destroyed those big crowds the O's got.     And, as you say, the MLBPA would never go for any of this and it seems like they run the show now.    I'm still surprised that the NL hasn't been pressured into adopting the DH.
As for interleague play I like it and, when married, went to lots of those games.     The Red Sox came to town and I got to see them.     It seems like we play Cleveland every year which is approprate.      Frankly I think that Bud Selig has done a great job as comissioner despite the whole steroid mess.    I loved those big homer years so I would be a hypocrite to be upset about that.     I did hate that huge head that Bonds grew, though.

I would like to see the DH gone but you are correct, if it eliminates jobs the MLBPA wont go for it. I would also like a shorter season, say 154 games so we dont play till Thanksgiving, but that would mean $$$lost so again it would not fly. I would also like to see the have nots get their chance to compete in an open market system, but that wont happen. Its easy to blame the Yanks, but they simply have the big guns, while most have pea shooters.

Bottom line is baseball is the most successful of the four majors, football included. It wont be changed. Yankee fan or not, them winning series will spark a flurry of trades and signings, and keep us interested all off season

Maybe a little off track (smack me down Seajaw) but I was contemplating almost what Seajaw said but for SOM - run a SOM league but get rid of some teams to make it more managable.  I was thinking about 1988 but a crisis hit baseball and only 16 teams were left - leftover guys go into a draft.  It might be a fun season to run; and fun to eliminate teams - I would do it based on attendance at the time.  That's the beauty of SOM, we can do all of what we are sugggesting;  its just that WE do it instead of  "real" baseball.

I wouldn't smack you down...
Try it out, and toss the results into Doubleday.

Based on attendance in that era, though, I'll say goodbye to my M's right now...

Bob,

As far as competitive balance is concerned, until revenue streams are balanced, or a hard cap is achieved, nothing will change.

It may sound unfair to the teams that have established that level of success, but it has to happen.

I wonder if there is a way to neutralize the revenue streams, and determine success based on per-dollar basis.  Sort of like the baseball-reference.com neutralized batting and pitching stats.

Who's getting the most bang per buck?

mrpuna,

I'd start with the Florida and Arizona teams.  They already get to see everyone during Spring Training.  That would also help to keep Spring Training special in its own way.

I'd drop the Nats (Washington has already had enough chances), but maybe split off some of the O's games to be played in D.C.  They'd have a double home field.

The Royals seem to be doing a pretty good job of taking themselves out of the competitive picture (sorry).

After that...the Padres, maybe.  California has enough other teams.  If the San Diego area is considered strong enough (and they already have the ballpark), put the A's there (they get the Original Franchise advantage over the Pads).  Solves two problems at once.

The only other option I see is the Jays.  I'd hate to see Canada lose their only remaining franchise, though.

N.L. East: Atlanta, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

N.L. Central: Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis

N.L. West: Colorado, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco

A.L. East: Baltimore, Boston, New York, Toronto

A.L. Central: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota

A.L. West: Anaheim, San Diego (A's), Seattle, Texas

Salary cap, dispersal draft in bottom-to-top order (by W/L record), I think we'd be in for a new age of greatness in Major League Baseball.

Teams with old stadiums would be only options...toronto, tampa   

Kansas City's ballpark is older either Skydome or the Trop.  The A's moving to San Diego would take care of that.  Having the O's split off some games to Washington keeps that park in play.

Arizona's park could still be used for college and Spring Training games.  Same for the parks in Florida.  And as sites for WBC games.

Still lots of possibilities. 

Very interesting response.    The Washington-Baltimore thing would probably leave fans of both teams unhappy.    San Diego has a brand new stadium and my sister, who went to a game there, says it's great.     Toronto really is doomed for failure due to the currency problem.    Have they started working on the A's new stadium yet?     The Florida teams are always on this list.    That would be a great stadium in Arizona that would be a shame to leave empty.     Frankly, at this point, you really can put the Pirates on this list as they make no effort to improve, only to make money.    But wouldn't the quality of the teams improve greatly unless it's left to an open market situation in which case the Yankees would only get better and better.     To me, the leveling of the playing field will require a cap and if it takes shutting down the game for a season so be it.     I watched very little of the World Series this year-I just can't take watching the Yankee All-Stars taking it to the Phillies.
One thing you can't do is just eliminate teams based on the age of their stadiums.     It would seem a shame to shut down the Dodgers or Royals for that when both of their stadiums are first-class facilites.

Very good points about the stadiums.  Dodger Stadium is a classic ballpark, and Kaufmann Stadium is also beautiful, and has some good history in the Royals' 40-years.

Splitting games between Washington and Baltimore might not be too bad, though.  They are close enough, considering people sometimes travel much farther to get to a game.  I've been up and down the I-95 corridor plenty of times (I was stationed in a Navy Recruting Office in Philly for three years, and our "area" covered all the way down to DC).

And what do we make of MLB playing some games at the start of the year in Japan, and the NFL playing at least one a season in London?  All the major sports are thinking globally, to a degree, so a one-hour drive can't be seen as too much of a problem.

In Seattle, the Mariners draw visitors from Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia and even farther.  That area extends even farther for people making vacation trips from Montana and even Alaska (not to mention Japan!).

We agree on the cap, so that would help Pittsburgh, as would a bottom-up dispersal draft of the disbanded franchises.  Another taste of winning might bring some of the embittered fans back.  The money is there.  The Steelers still draw, as do the Pens.

We need to reestablish the rivalry in that Cincy-Pitt corridor.  Reds-Pirates back in the '70's was always good.

Growing up it was about an hour drive to the games so I agree that that is not a problem.     A dispersal draft would have to help the Pirates unless they avoided drafting anyone making too much money.    You are right about the other sports here-I believe the Penguins have something like 3,000 people on a waiting list for season tickets in the new arena being built.     The Steelers, of course, sell out every game.     The prices for Penguins tickets are so rediculous that I can't believe that people pay out all that money for what amounts to an 82 game exhibition season.
My favorite Pirates-Reds story is the night that Doc Ellis wanted to prove to the Reds that the Bucs weren't afraid of them.     His plan was to go out and hit every batter in the Reds' lineup.    He got the first three and then Tony Perez dodged four pitches at which point Danny Murtaugh went out and got him.    I was listening to that game and found out years later what the story was.
My favorite interleague story is a game that my ex and I attended against the Indians.    We were on the end of a row in the row in front of 4 Indians fans sat at the other end of the next row.     One of the fans who made frequent trips in and out of his seat would jump down into our row and then excuse himself on his way past.     This got old really fast as he could exit his own row by getting past his three friends.     My ex finally had had it and said the next time he came by she was not going to excuse him.    Well, here he comes again.     My ex told him no when he tried to excuse himself and she meant it.    I didn't like the way he was looking at us and then when I stood up he made his way back up to his seat and we didn't see him the rest of the night,    

Dock raiding the "meds" again?
Of course, a lot of the football/hockey pricing is the shorter seasons.  It's the same with the NBA.  When you have 81 games on your home schedule, that will keep some of the demand down.

The Pirates have such a beautiful park, it's a crime that it doesn't get more exposure.  Something needs to happen to recapture the fan base.  There is too much great history in that franchise.

In general, baseball markets its history and traditions better than any other major sport.  There's a disconnect in Pittsburgh, though, that has to be fixed.

I'm actually surprised that they draw as well as they do now.     They have a terrible team and any player who starts doing well near their arbitration year is quickly traded for "prospects".      It's mostly families now who come to get whatever they are giving away that game.    Sundays are kids days and they have activities for the kids outside the stadium..
That being said, what disturbs me more than anything is the lack of baseball talk in the stands.    I remember at Forbes Field and Three Rivers that you usually overheard baseball being discussed and being welcomed into those conversations.     I hear none of that at PNC Park.    It's a family outing and treated as such.    I went by myself one Sunday and had a woman give me a free ticket as I bargained with a scalper.    I didn't want to intrude on them so I took an unoccupied seat a few rows up.     As the game went on I realized that the person two seats down from me was also alone.    We started making comments on the game and I realized how much I miss that.     That is what the Pirates have to do-get baseball fans out to the park to fill in the empty seats.     What a joy that would be!