as we baseball fans enter the clutches of interleague play, the debate over the merit, worth, and viability of the idea is rekindled. interleague play presents us with an annual reassessment of whether or not american and national league teams should play one another during the regular season. espn hypes its matchups, runs a nationwide poll to see what fans think of the system, interleague play happens, and then it is forgotten until mid-may the following year. baseball fans, analysts, players, and officials all have and hold their convictions, and we hear the same regurgitated arguments for and against interleague play on an annual basis.
baseball purists will say that the only time one league should play the other comes in october, but i believe that this system provides all those involved with a positive and engaging environment that fosters competition. as a proponent of the idea, i have thought of five solid arguments for having interleague play, with the hope that these reasons, among others, will work to retain this current system, as well as disolve the yearly assessment of it.
1)entertaining matchups - the split of major league baseball into its two leagues is not done based on geography, economics, or any other measureable factor. this creates a situation wherein teams of similar status (whether it be revenue, spending, proximity, fan base, etc.) may be in opposite leagues. likewise, there is no rule preventing the trading of players from one league to the other, nor a similar rule preventing one team changing their league affiliation. interleague play brings all these factors to the forefront, and their resolution (and the intrigue associated with them) is realized in a concrete and tangible manner.
when the mets play the yankees, the cubs play the white sox, or the dodgers play the angels, it allows common debates amongst overlapping fan bases to come to fruition objectively within the confines of the diamond, rather than subjective attempts to solve these quandries in over drinks at a bar, the water cooler in the office, or steaks on a dinner table. similarly, when a high-profile player is traded to another league, it allows him to matchup against his former teammates and employers. given the volatility of free agency and trades in the current sports landscape, interleague play provides the player to prove his perhaps previously undervalued worth to his employers, or, in cases such as barry zito's debacle against the a's last week, the employers may feel final vindication in letting a player leave for a big payday or trading him away for more than his worth. finally, there are many matchups throughout history, whether during the regular season when teams were previously in the same league, or during a world series, that may be revisited through interleague play, since the odds of both teams with such a history meeting in october are slim. for example, when the a's play the dodgers, and a pinch hitter comes to the plate to face huston street in the 9th, anticipation o####ibsonesque moment instantly fills the air and excitement abounds.
2) evening of the playing field - as i mentioned (however, did not expand upon) in my first argument, teams with analogous economic climates oftentimes are in opposite leagues. these teams tend to come from similar geographic locations as well, since most are part of a two-team, one-city situations, such as new york, chicago, los angeles, and balimore/washington, d.c. given the size in both the area and population, as well as the economic prosperity of these cities, they are able to support two teams comfortably. even when taking into account the split of the fanbase and corresponding disposable incomes, the loyalties in terms of population and pocketbooks are more than most teams that have a city to themselves experience.
as i wrote in a previous posting, there is an absolute need for a salary cap in baseball to, among other positives, foster competition and level the playing field. while i still vehemently believe that to be the case, i will also argue that one of the very points used to argue against interleague play is actually a factor which enhances its value. detractors will say that it is unfairly scheduled, with traditionally better teams having to play against the best in the other league, thus skewing the strength of schedule in favor of the weaker teams. i counter with the idea that the majority of better teams come from bigger markets (since they spend more on personnel and amenities), so interleague play actually works to even the playing field, since these teams must play each other. without a salary cap, the mets and yankees can spend frivilously and recklessly since they have the revenue to support such activities. in kind, they must then play each other for two series each year during interleague play, which balances the powers in major league baseball. while larger market teams are playing their equally powerful rivals from across town, smaller market teams get a bit of a repreive in scheduling, usually playing teams with similar salaries, fan support, etc. while the yankees and mets slug it out, the devil rays then have a chance to make a run with a three game set against the marlins. while the schedule does favor the smaller market (and financially weaker) teams, it does help to counter the injustice that is baseball without a cap.
3) shows disparity between leagues - in every sport, there is a stronger league or conference. the nba's and nhl's western conference and the nfl's afc are both experiencing relative domination against their counterparts. while this balance of power shifts and teams from the weaker league or conference occassionally wins in the finals (i.e. the miami heat in 2006), there are noticeable trends in each sport. the way these trends can be objectively measured is through interleague play.
this is of great importance when analyzing statistics for historical significance, or for managerial or personell decisions. there is a longstanding tradition of pitchers succeeding during a switch from the american to national league, and subsequent failure if the switch is reversed. there are many reasons for this, including: smaller american league ballparks, the use of the dh on american league teams, and increased spending of american league teams (during the 2007 season, seven of the top ten spending teams were in the american league). when the red sox and blue jays acquired josh beckett and a.j. burnett, respectively, from florida, their eras and whips rose significantly in the following year. likewise, if a position player from the national league cannot field his position effectively, the option for dhing in the american league becomes a way to retain hitting ability while resting and focusing on offense. this is seen in mike piazza's move from san diego to oakland. also, hitters in the minor leagues who are dreadful in the field can be called up, or traded, to american league teams, like travis hafner of the indians. for these aforementioned reasons, among others, the relative success on the field for both teams and players must be analyzed according to the balance of power amonst the two leagues. in fact, it is my belief that the homefield advantage for the world series should be decided by interleague play records, rather than by the all-star game. it gives more players and teams a chance to make a difference over more games, and increasing the sample size to more data is key to making a solid decision in this matter.
4) small percentage of games breaks monotony - the entire interleague play schedule encompasses a total of four series, or twelve games, each year. that makes up only 13.5% of total games played by a team in a 162-game schedule. however, like a class taking two or three field trips in an academic year, or a businessman going on a few sales trips in a fiscal cycle, a small number of trips or experiences outside the daily routine can make a fairly significant positive impact on a person's mental and physical state. it may not seem like a series during interleague play is all that different from a regular intraleague series, but there are variations that create a more intriguing environment for those involved. oftentimes, media coverage and fan interest are heightened, and players are able to travel to cities, play in ballparks, and interact with players they might have otherwise been unable to do. one such example is a story from the atlanta journal-constitution over the weekend, naming several young atlanta braves players who were awestruck over the chance to play in historic fenway park. seasoned veterans who have been in the same league for their entire career also welcome the change, as was also evidenced from john smoltz's chance to pitch in fenway over the weekend during the same series. while a game or series may look the same across the board to us as fans, it is vitally important for the players to have a chance to experience some changes in their yearly routine.
5) excersizing managerial prowess/dh rule disparity - the designated hitter is only allowed in the american league, while national league pitchers must bat while they remain in the game. as i have also mentioned in a previous post, i believe the dh rule should be universalized between the leagues. however, interleague play does afford some interesting and exciting situations with regards to the dh rule.
primarily, it forces pitchers from the american league to bat, leading to some awkward and comical plate appearances. i personally feel that this makes games entertaining, as it allows these players to exhibit their hitting ability (or at the very least, no longer hide their inability). pitchers who were otherwise relegated solely to the mound and defense are now able to aid in their own cause offensively. however, this rule affords more than simple intrigue or comedy. it also forces managers to adapt to a new rule, and how they react in these instances showcases their ability as a manager to a greater extent. while its fairly easy to send hafner or david ortiz to the plate as a dh every game, eric wedge and terry francona must decide if their increased production at the plate is worth decreased efficiency in the field when playing in national league parks during interleague play. likewise, national league managers must decide whom on their team might benefit the most from hitting without fielding duties during series in american league ballparks. pinch hitting and fielding changes are much more scrutinized and important in these cases. it takes teams, players, and managers out of their element and comfort zone, and the decisions they make when faced with these obstacles provides an insight into their prowess as managers.
I can see why Chipper didnt want it. They cant beat the Bosox. I like it for all the reasons mentioned. Thanks to Angels, the Dodgers were slowed down. Also since the divisions play each team in their div so many times, it breaks the routine up. I believe its 18 times you play your div. Then a home and away series vs the rest of the div.
But if you take out inter-league, you can add more games with other division teams. Plus, the inter-league model of promoting natural, geographic rivalrys fails when Boston plays Atlanta and the Phillies play Toronto. Or what about the Pirates playing the Diamondbacks?
It was a great gimmick to get some fans back into the game but it has run its course.
I for one like Inter league play, it's great to see the in town teams like Yanks and Mets or W Socks and Cubs play.
Plus it gives ESPN something else to promote other than the next thrilling Yankee v Red Sock match up(sarcasm)
In case you didn't know it this post has a link on the foxsports home page. Congrats!
Chipper never said he did not like Interleague Play. He stated that it was unfair for the Braves and the Mets to have to play the Red Sox and Yanks while the Marlins play the Devil Rays 6 times a year.
As for the Braves inability to beat the Red Sox in Interleague play I suggest you look at the Braves-Red Sox record since Interleague Play started. The Sox have won the series the last two years, but the Braves have a 6 game overall lead and have done especially well at Fenway Park. The Sox won 2 of 3 in Boston, but come south in June for 3 more.
Also, there are at least 15 interleague games per team and in some cases 18, not 12 games. I suggest one series per year with the so called "Rivalry" teams alternating home and home schedules. Then 3 more series with each team playing teams from the same Division. For example, Braves play "rival" Red Sox, Angels, Twins and Devil Rays and the Mets play the Yanks, As, Indians and Orioles. That type scheduling would better balance the level of competition without eliminating interleague play.
dantheman - thanks for the comment. i also understand why chipper said what he did, since the braves drew the bosox for interleague play. however, like i mentioned in my original post (and you pointed out with the angels and dodgers), these are all big-market, big-spending teams, so the playing field is evened out in lieu of a salary cap. it does help break up the routine, so i completely agree.
teeoff - i disagree that it has run its course. baseball is a long season, and i argue that this break from routine is necessary each and every year to keep fans engaged. some teams don't have natural geographic rivals, since they may be the only team in their state or region. regardless, the matchups are often intriguing and, at the very least, new and untested. thanks for the comment.
miracle - completely agree. i'm sick of the yanks-bosox hype as well. i love seeing the cross-town matchups even though i don't reside in a city. thanks for the heads up about the front page. its always nice to have that as an accomplishment. thanks for the comment.
Arguing against interleague based on being a baseball purist is completely ill-informed and just plain inaccurate.
Once upon a time, baseball players were not paid. They also did not wear gloves to catch the ball. Fielders also threw the ball at the runner to get him out. And the pitcher lobbed the ball to the batter underhand, simply to get the action started.
Purism in baseball died more than 140 years ago. Time for all you so-called purists to get over yourselves.
I figured I would throw my two cents in on a couple of points from the article, as the last time I read your argument for a salary cap, I kept quiet because of all of the comments on the board. Things seem a little more manageable, so allow me to throw my hat into the ring.
-Should baseball have had a salary cap in place before salaries rose to the heights they are now? Without question. For baseball to be able to institute one now would be nearly impossible, however. You can look at every other sport and see its benefits, but football was able to impose it before salaries went through the roof, basketball's salary cap is for all intents and purposes meaningless as 95% of the league is over the "cap" anyway, and instituing a salary cap cost the NHL an entire season and has caused it to sink into irrelevance.
The problem with baseball is not the have's who are spending, it's the have not's who aren't. If you look at the list of teams year after year who make the most money on the bottom line, it's not the Yankees and the Red Sox, but teams like the Pirates. Why, you ask? Because the revenue sharing system is flawed. It was put in place so that teams would take the money given them by the Yankees and SPEND IT on players. What these teams are doing essentially is pocketing the money and it goes straight to their bottom line. That's not revenue sharing, that's a welfare check.
A salary cap would have been the best solution, but it's now an impossibility. Don't blame the Yankees, blame the system...
...apparently this only lets you add a certain amount of characters.
In any event, the only solution at this point is to impose a salary floor. The revenue sharing structure can be changed so that more teams at the top are contributing to the pot and the teams at the bottom have more money to spend. The salary floor MAKES them spend this money on players instead of putting it directly into their back pockets. The system will take a few years to prove worthy as no one rebuilds overnight, but the combination of good draft picks and more money to spend on free agency eventually will allow the teams who are well managed to improve.
-On another note, the last three Stanley Cup champions have come from the Eastern Conference...Ottawa just may make it four...food for thought : )-
Wow brother...you are like a cigarette butt on this. "ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!"
I started to read a blog about inter-league play and found myself being jumped around from city economics to inner-city matchups to the NBA and finally to the dh rule. Very interesting read and you bring ups some good points...but I's left wondering how you feel about inter-league play?
I am split on it. I like to see the St. Louis Cardinals and the New York Mets come into Detroit. I like the chance to go down and watch Puhols or David Wright. I want the chance to watch Tom Glavine pitch.
Yet, on the other hand...there is alway the argument of matchups. Some teams have a harder road to #### when they are matched up with better teams or better divisions. It could be the difference in a team making or not making the post season. I guess we just say...it is what it is.
05081950 - i agree. i never mentioned chipper's comments in my blog, and the braves do have a winning record against the red sox in interleague play. it was comments like his (and other fans) that prompted me to write this post. as i said originally, in lieu of a salary cap, the mets and braves playing the sox and yanks does well to even the playing field for smaller market teams. i do see your point about scheduling being fair to some teams (especially since i assume you're a braves fan), but the way it is now makes sense to me. however, as long as interleague play isn't eliminated, it can take whatever form fans would like. thanks for the comment.
cameraeye - completely agree. "purists" in any sport call label themselves as such, but are not true "purists" in the most basic sense of the term. they should be called "regressives" or "anti-progressives" instead. that baseball has to go through the dh and interleague play argument (and yet still doesn't have instant replay, even for homeruns) is absurd. completely agree and thanks for commenting.
drkanter - thanks for commenting about past postings - good to know that people check the vast archives. i appreciate that you agree with me in principle about a salary cap being good for baseball, as it is with the other 3 major sports (albeit with some glitches).
i understand that instituting a cap now would be near impossible, but if you look back on the comments on my original post, some bloggers and i worked out various systems to slowly work a cap into baseball. smaller market teams like the pirates, marlins, and royals do pocket the money to make a profit, but you can't force them not to. instituting a ceiling AND a floor (as you suggested) might be the way to go. this is why mark cuban should own an mlb team.
i don't think i ever blamed the yankees for their spending. they work within the confines of the system in place and do what it takes to win each year. i personally don't like the system, and hence don't really care for baseball, but i don't blame fans of any one team for that.
anyway, thanks for the comment and feel free to continue the dialogue.
i always try to bring in as much "off-field" analysis as is possible to make a point (in this case, city economics, inner-city matchups, and the nba). i am glad you appreciate my attempt and found it interesting. so much is regurgitated on espn, that i wanted to stray from the pack.
i can see your two sides of the interleague play coin. when it comes down to it, as i said in my original post, it excites the fans, and even if the schedules are a bit imbalanced one way or the other, it constitutes such a small % of games (12 - 15 of 162) that a good team should be able to overcome it on the way to the pennant.
plus, most teams have hard and easy matchups in interleague play. your tigers, as an example, had the cardinals in the first series (easy), then the mets (hard), then the brewers (hard), then the phillies (easy). most of these things even out in the end, and it provides enough excitement to justify its worth i believe. thanks for the comment.
i am an avid steelers, timberwolves, and tarheels fan, as well as KG, Griffey, Tiger, and Hines Ward fanatic. i am a recent college grad who has entered the real world, but who has not completely forgotten my dream of being an owner, superagent, or sports beat writer. although my life path will most probably not lead me to one of these destinations, i do have the undying itch to write about and debate both past and current sports topics. this arena affords me the ability to scratch.
