Interleague play kicked off last weekend, so we’ve brought our writers together to discuss the once dreaded idea and how it has progressed since the first regular season AL vs NL battle in 1997. In case you were wondering, the AL leads the NL 1829-1673 in all-time interleague play. So, what is the best interleague series? Has it been a success? Does it need any changes? These are the questions that we posed in our 3 Strikes Roundtable this week. Time to ring ’em up!
Strike 1: What is your favorite Interleague Series? Is it a crosstown/crossstate rivalry, or something we see once every 80 years like the Cubs playing at the Red Sox?
Garrett Wilson: As an Angel fan, I do still get up for the Freeway Series with the Dodgers, but as a general baseball fan, not a whole lot of this interleague nonsense really floats my boat anymore. Having the Cubs and Red Sox play for the first time in eons was fun for a second, but those storylines are going to run dry soon too, so I can’t say I am much in favor of interleague continuing in its current form for much longer.
Pat Lackey: I’ll play the humbug. I don’t have a favorite interleague series. My favorite team, the Pirates, gets hosed every year. They almost always get the extra non-interleague series and they usually don’t get to play the only team that anyone would possibly consider their interleague rival (the Indians). There’s almost never anything for a Pirate fan to look forward to during interleague play; it’s just a chance for the American League to beat up on the Pirates.
Mark Smith: I don’t know if I have a “favorite” interleague series, but that’s not because I don’t like Interleague play. The interstate rivalries are cool, but if I had to choose, I just like to see the best of each league go up against each other.
Matt Yoder: I don’t have a “favorite” Interleague series per se, but the novelty of seeing the Cubs play at Fenway for the first time in 80 some years was special. There are so few things in baseball these days that are unique or mystical and the Cubs playing in Fenway was one of them. Otherwise, the rivalry series like Cubs/White Sox, Mets/Yankees, and Dodgers/Angels are some of the marquee meetings of the year in the sport.
Brian Packey: My favorite over the past four years has become when the Tigers go to Atlanta, for selfish reasons, because then I get to attend my favorite team’s games. Seriously, can I say any interleague series the Tigers play? The Tigers are 64-29 playing the NL during the regular season since 2006. Of course, I’ve seen nine of those games (a series in Pittsburgh in addition to the two in Atlanta) and they’re just 4-5. Outside of the Tigers, I don’t really have a favorite, although I do enjoy seeing the Cubs playing at Fenway or vice versa.
Joe Lucia: Interleague isn’t a huge deal to me anymore. All of the interesting matchups have happened, and the jist of things is essentially “watch these crazy awful AL pitchers hit!”
Strike 2: On a scale of 1 to 10, what has been the success of Interleague Play?
Mark: I think it’s probably about an 8 or 9. Attendance goes way up during those games, so it seems to be a hit with fans. Those who oppose it are really vocal about it, whereas I think those who go to the games either like it or just go for the novelty of it. Their support shows up in the attendance numbers, which I think trumps the criticism fairly handily.
Joe: I’d put it at about a 7. It worked real well at first, but now, the novelty is so worn off that the games don’t feel special at all.
Packey: The American League.
Garrett: I’d give it an 8. I do believe hardcore baseball fans have had an ass-full of interleague by now, but the TV ratings and attendance figures strongly suggest that more casual fans absolutely eat it up. Even if all of the media focus on interleague isn’t of the positive variety, it always gets plenty of play on SportsCenter and on that new fangled internets thingy. And generating more fan interest was always the ultimate goal, wasn’t it? Sure, it made for a somewhat non-level playing field due to disparate schedules amongst teams in the same division, but revenue will always trump fairness of competition.
Pat: I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea, I just think it’s a terribly applied one. So … three?
Matt: I’ll give it a 7.4. The idea was met with much resistance at first, but after looking back over more than a decade of interleague play, it’s been an overall great thing for baseball. Look at the interest that some of the rivalry series have produced in the big markets especially. I think we all regret meetings like Astros/Blue Jays, but the impact of interleague play has been a net positive. It gives us something different to look forward to each season that breaks the (at times) long monotony of the baseball regular season.
Strike 3: If you were the commish and supreme ruler of baseball, what would you do with interleague play? Would you make any changes?
Packey: First – there are always going to be people who have complaints. The NFL does a pretty good job of making it relatively fair, but there are still complaints about when those games are scheduled and turnover in talent the next season. The MLB could go that route, while still trying to keep the rivalry games, and it might be better, but grumblings are inevitable. Ultimately, teams need to stop complaining, just sack up, and win. You’re an NL team complaining about getting the snot knocked out of you twice a year by the Rangers? Well, don’t lose 5 out of 7 to the Nationals and we’ll talk.
Joe: For the love of god, fixed schedules within the divisions. How is it fair that the Mets get the Yankees every year, while the Nationals get the Orioles? It’s nonsense.
Matt: I think something needs to be done to address competitive balance. There are too many times where teams get breaks going up against weaker teams in a division while other teams play traditionally stronger ones. For instance, the Cubs play the Yankees & Red Sox while the Cardinals play the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays. Seems fair. Seriously, what sense does that make?? What if MLB took a page from the NFL’s book and matched up division winners, 2nd place, etc. on down and kept one rivalry series for each team. Then, you would have to have the last placed NL Central and NL West team square off to even things out. At least it would be more balanced.
Pat: The problem is that interleague play exists so that the Yankees can play the Mets and the Cubs can play the White Sox twice a year. Baseball has literally put some of the teams ahead of the rest of the pack in interleague play; as a result the schedules get unbalanced and the smaller teams get completely screwed. The only way to really have interleague play is to rotate the divisions the way the NFL does, but the league obviously has no interest in that because it’d lose the ability to sell its marquee matchups on a yearly basis. So … just leave it the way it is. Nothing’s going to happen to it anyway.
Mark: If I could make changes, I’d probably even it out a bit. Either everyone plays at one series against each of the other league’s teams or do what Pat said and do it NFL stye and stick to it. Otherwise, I can’t think of much else you can really do to it.
Garrett: You mean I’m not the Supreme Overlord of Baseball? What I would do is drastically cut back on the amount of interleague action. I’d love to put the kibosh on interleague altogether, but some of the natural rivalry series have become immensely popular and heated and I am never against strong rivalries. That is the only part I would keep, just two three-game series against the designated “natural” rival. The only wrinkle I would add is to rotate some of those rivalries amongst the teams that don’t have a real or compelling “natural” foe. (sorry, fans of the epic Mariners-Padres battles over the years).
