Inter-League Play

[CHIP72]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I have a stupid question, appropriate for All Star Week.

Instead of awarding WS home field to the ASG winner, why not award it to the team with the best record in Inter-league play? So the team that gets the advantage actually earns it themselves.

I think interleague games are actually slightly less important than games within your own league. Within your league, if you lose, another team in your league also gains a game on you. But if you lose an interleague game, there is not necessarily the consequence of another team gaining on you in the standings. In an interleague game, you do not gain or lose a full game in the standings against your competitor.

I've said this was one of the better options ever since Selig came up with the stupid idea of having an exhibition game decide World Series home field advantage. IMO, there are 3 options of making interleague play determine HFA in the World Series (listed in personal order of preference):

1) Allow team in league that "wins" interleague play gain HFA in World Series. This year, that would mean the American League team would get World Series HFA because the AL won more games in interleague play.

2) Allow team that has better interleague record between the two World Series participants to get HFA in World Series. The logistics of doing this are more challenging, because you wouldn't know who would get HFA in the World Series until the matchup was set, but it would make each team's individual interleague games more meaningful.

3) If the two World Series participants played each other in the regular season, the team that won the season series gets HFA in the World Series. I personally don't like this because of the very small sample size of games (usually 3 games), but it would put a premium on head-to-head results between World Series contenders.

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Instead of awarding WS home field to the ASG winner, why not award it to the team with the best record in Inter-league play? So the team that gets the advantage actually earns it themselves.

That would be better than the current system, though not as good as getting rid of interleague play.

Wasn't the home-park reward started because of the time the All-Star game ended in a tie? MLB (or someone) wanted the game to be played as if it mattered, rather than just as an exhibition. I think it's kind of like telling schoolchildren, "You aren't focused enough at recess, so we're going to start grading it."

[neil0311]

I detest inter-league play. In my humble opinion it reduces the special nature of the World Series, especially if the two teams met earlier in the season. Batters have seen pitchers and vice versa. It creates a situation where the two leagues are no longer separate leagues, more like the NFL.

I also am not a fan of the two different sets of rules between the two leagues. Whether you love or hate the DH rule, it's been part of the AL play for 40 years. How do you build and train a team when you now have to play a substantial number of games where you either can't use your DH and your pitchers have to hit, or you now have to insert a DH into your lineup. How do you build a team to meet both sets of rules?

I wish they would eliminate inter-league play completely, but given that probably won't ever happen, they need to establish one set of rules for both leagues. While I think the DH makes much more sense, I would even settle for the pitcher hitting in both leagues, if they can agree on one set of rules. It would probably have to be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period (with the minor leagues changing immediately), but something needs to be done. The current abortion cannot continue.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I detest inter-league play. In my humble opinion it reduces the special nature of the World Series, especially if the two teams met earlier in the season. Batters have seen pitchers and vice versa. It creates a situation where the two leagues are no longer separate leagues, more like the NFL.

If you think it looks like the NFL now, wait a few more years. Mister B.S. (Bud Selig) got his foot in the doorway to radical realignment when inter-league play first began. The door opened slightly when the number of games was increased from 214 to 224 and again with the increase to 252. Next year it will open considerably with at least one inter-league game every day. When the radical realignment has taken place, I think that around half of the teams will be playoff eligible regardless of their records. And everybody will have a DH.

[swbrotha100]

Originally Posted by sll3454

That would be better than the current system, though not as good as getting rid of interleague play.

Wasn't the home-park reward started because of the time the All-Star game ended in a tie? MLB (or someone) wanted the game to be played as if it mattered, rather than just as an exhibition. I think it's kind of like telling schoolchildren, "You aren't focused enough at recess, so we're going to start grading it."

Yes. 2002 game ended in a tie in Milwaukee. Current ASG format has been in place since 2003.

[John23]

I don't like interleague play at all. Call me old school, old fashioned. but it was better when the NL played the NL, AL played AL. Then met in the World Series.

-As to why it only happens in baseball? Not the NBA or NHL. It was one of the quirks of the game. Much like how the fields are different. Should every field be the exact same dimension? Same foul territory? Should every outfield wall be the same?

The AL and NL have different cultures, more so than the Eastern Conference, Western Conference in the NBA. I think the AL is more offensive oriented with the DH rule. I.e. prolonging the career of Paul Molitor, Harold Baines almost got to 3,000 hits as a DH (2,800). The DH rule has had a lot of ramifications in the AL for the past 40 years.

-There's some good cross town rivalries created....i.e. Mets and Yankees. But there were already good NL and AL rivalries. Dodgers, Giants. That's better than Dodgers, some small market AL team.

-The scheduling seems flukey. The Dodgers have never played in Yankee Stadium in 16 years?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by John23

The scheduling seems flukey. The Dodgers have never played in Yankee Stadium in 16 years?

That's the more practical side of why the current inter-league sucks. Playing the east in either league is much more difficult than playing the west, while travel may be a factor to one set of teams and not another. The schedules are not balanced nor are they equitable. Reducing in-division play or in-league play to add more inter-league games is just wrong in my opinion.

Many times the inter-league play does nothing but throw off the rotation and hitters, as pitchers who hit better or have been in the other league are shuffled to start certain games, while DH's and other position players are moved around in the order to accommodate the pitcher or DH.

[filihok]

Originally Posted by John23

I don't like interleague play at all. Call me old school, old fashioned. but it was better when the NL played the NL, AL played AL.

I disagree. When I lived in an NL only city (Washington DC. Yeah, I could go to Baltimore but...) I liked the opportunity to see American League teams and players.

I don't like this increased interleague play, and I really don't like that it likely bodes for the end of pitcher's hitting.