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.