Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted June 29, 2003 For me it's Yes. Attendance is higher for interleague games, than intraleague games. Seeing the National League and American league play still intrigues me after 6 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Never liked it. Never will. There was always something magical about the World Series because you never quite knew what to expect because the two teams didn't face each other in the regular season. But I'm just one person with one vote... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrRant Report post Posted June 29, 2003 I'd like them to alternate park rules every season like I read in I believe an ESPN article. When the M's visit say Atlanta play with AL rules so the fans can get to see Edgar. It would be good and different for each set of fans to be able to watch NL/AL ball live I think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted June 29, 2003 I like Interlegue Play since it adds something... Sorry but I'd take Cincy/Cleveland over another series with the Brewers or Marlins or something... I just wish they take the ALL-STAR game stip and give it to the team that did better in Interleague... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted June 29, 2003 That wouldn't be a bad idea. The World Series argument never did anything for me. A good World Series is a good World Series. No matter how many times the two teams play or don't play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smues Report post Posted June 29, 2003 I love interleague play. Living in the Pacific North West if you're a fan of an NL team you're fucked without interleague play since the only team anywhere near by is Seattle. Thank god for itnerleague play and the Braves coming to town two weeks ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Will Scarlet Report post Posted June 29, 2003 I love it as well. It seems to be different from the regular baseball season. Plus, as someone who lives between two AL teams(Toronto/Detroit), it would be kind of cool to see an NL Team some time. Hell, I kind of regret not going to see the Tigers lose to the D-Backs, who are my favourite team. Ah well. I always seem to end up watching the Tigers and Blue Jays face each other every time I go to a baseball game. I have been to like 6 of them and the Tigers have lost every time. Anyway, I hope they keep interleague play around. The way things are going, it's not like the Tigers are going to the World Series in my lifetime as it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted June 29, 2003 Well, f*ck you all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CanadianChris Report post Posted June 29, 2003 I hate interleague play, especially the way they've structured it this year with the home-and-home "rivalry" series. The Blue Jays have to play 6 against the Expos, but the Yankees get the METS for 6? Fuck that noise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted June 29, 2003 I've never liked it. It takes away from the luster of the World Series. Since the home teams play by the rules they always use, the fans don't get to see anything they wouldn't ordinarily see, except some different guys on the visiting club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Interleague should remain to some degree. The Yankees should play the Mets, the Cubs should play the White Sox, and the Dodgers should play the Angels. Likewise with other regions, if the other team in the state/city is in the other league, sure, play some games. But I don't know if they should count for anything, and that's the dilemma for me. Personally, I think the win-loss record should only reflect games played against teams in your league. Keep interleague as just exhibition games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest redbaron51 Report post Posted June 30, 2003 inter-league? have i missed something here? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted June 30, 2003 I hate interleague play, especially the way they've structured it this year with the home-and-home "rivalry" series. The Blue Jays have to play 6 against the Expos, but the Yankees get the METS for 6? Fuck that noise. You can't assume anything. Everyone thought the Mariners had a cakewalk against San Diego and they lost 4 out of 6. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest phoenixrising Report post Posted June 30, 2003 I don't mind interleague. My only problem with it is that for every good series (Seattle/Atlanta) you get a bad one (San Diego/Detroit). Then again, you get series between bad teams within the leagues too so it's not much of a complaint. I like the idea of interleague record determining who gets home field in the Series. It should be a tie-breaker in case both teams have the same record - the first tie-breaker can be head to head record (if the teams played each other) followed by interleague record. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted June 30, 2003 I'm indifferent towards it. I mean, 3 of the last 4 baseball games I've been to have been interleague games (Expos vs. Boston [1997]and Baltimore [1998] in Montreal and Blue Jays vs. Montreal in Toronto [2000]), but the only game where interleague was the real draw was the Expos/Jays game, the other two just coincided with trips to Montreal. The only cool things that came out of were one of the plays in the Red Sox game was on TWIB and that I got to see Cal Ripken play during his streak. So yeah, I wouldn't shed a tear if they decided to do away with it, but I won't be picketing MLB offices demanding that they get rid of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JHawk Report post Posted June 30, 2003 My only gripe with interleague play is the haphazard way they schedule it. Mets vs. Yankees? Cool. Home and home? No. One series per season, just like everybody else. Although that leads into my biggest pet peeve about interleague: Mets vs. Yankees on ESPN on back-to-back Sundays? They do realize that some of us don't live in New York and thus don't give a shit, right? I say keep it, but give each division the same teams to play so that you don't get people like Steinbrenner throwing meaningless hissyfits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Mets vs. Yankees? Cool. Home and home? No. One series per season, just like everybody else. Although that leads into my biggest pet peeve about interleague: Mets vs. Yankees on ESPN on back-to-back Sundays? They do realize that some of us don't live in New York and thus don't give a shit, right? I say keep it, but give each division the same teams to play so that you don't get people like Steinbrenner throwing meaningless hissyfits. I agree about the TV. Especially since the Mets suck. They should of had the Cubs-White Sox last Sunday night, since they won't play night games at Comiskey. Whenever Steinbrenner speaks out it's partly because he's got a big head, and partly to fire up the team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted June 30, 2003 I concur about the tv. Every freakin' Saturday its the Yankees on Fox, and twice in a row on Sundays. The worst thing anout it is that I get the YES Network, adn thus could see the Yankees if I wanted anyway. This is why baseball's losing popularity. Lack of exposure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Regarding baseball on TV, is it in ESPN's agreement that they must show every team at least once a season? That's the only way I can fathom them showing a Pirates/Expos game last week (I think it was on ESPN2, though). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JHawk Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Regarding baseball on TV, is it in ESPN's agreement that they must show every team at least once a season? That's the only way I can fathom them showing a Pirates/Expos game last week (I think it was on ESPN2, though). That used to be the deal, but the Pirates-Expos game from earlier this week was the first time the Expos have aired on either ESPN in two or three seasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted June 30, 2003 I like it, but not the way they are doing it this year. Everyone in said division should be playing the same teams in the other said division. A's have to play the Giants 6 times, and the Mariners play the Padres 6 times. That alone could determine the race in the AL West. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Some Guy Report post Posted June 30, 2003 In fairness to ESPN they plan out the Sunday games before the season and the Mets didn't look to be as bad as they are now then. Piazza, Vaughn and whovere else weren't hurt then. I think they just hope to get Roger v. Piazza. But they should have an alternate game. I also kind of like the ESPN 2 games between relatively obscure teams (from my perspective on the East Coast), I get to see the Cards, Reds, Cubs, SF, LA, etc... In addition to seeing all of the Red Sox normal opponents on NESN. As far as inter-league play goes, I don't reall y like it. It's skewed in favor of the national league teams. They have pitchers who are at least used to hitting and bunting, the AL teams don't. The AL teams are built for AL play and might not have a regular PH and whatnot. The NL teams can always put there best bench guy in the line up and that makes them a better offense where as the AL teams field their normal squad at home. I think it was mildly interesting at first but it's run it's course. But it leads to even further inequality in opponents. The A's got a tough schedule and the Mariners got a pretty easy one, add that to the foolish unbalanced schedule and it fucks up not only the wild card races but also the division. The only way they could get IL play to be reasonably fair is through realignment and moving an NL team to the AL. Having 16 NL and 14 AL teams is stupid if you're going to do IL play and rotate the opponents. They should move Colorado to the AL West and Houston (or whatever NL Central team that's furtherest west) to the NL West, then you have 5 teams in each division and 15 in each league. Get rid of the "rivalry" shit altogether. Boston went from having Atlanta (a former Boston team like a million years ago) to Philly? or is it Fla? It's fucking stupid. How do the Mariners and SD have any conection besides they were the odd teams out in the LA/Ana, Oak/SF, and Texas/Hou pairings? I say get rid of it, but if they refuse at least make it closer to fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted June 30, 2003 As far as inter-league play goes, I don't reall y like it. It's skewed in favor of the national league teams. They have pitchers who are at least used to hitting and bunting, the AL teams don't. The AL teams are built for AL play and might not have a regular PH and whatnot. The NL teams can always put there best bench guy in the line up and that makes them a better offense where as the AL teams field their normal squad at home. I think it was mildly interesting at first but it's run it's course. But it leads to even further inequality in opponents. The A's got a tough schedule and the Mariners got a pretty easy one, add that to the foolish unbalanced schedule and it fucks up not only the wild card races but also the division. I actually think its the other way around. The AL teams are at an advantage because they can afford to pay a guy to DH all year. Its not worth it for the NL teams. I'm sure most AL DHs are better then the NL's best bench guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Some Guy Report post Posted June 30, 2003 True but look at Boston or Seatle or NYY, etc... Boston loses Millar or Ortiz, Seatle loses Edgar, NYY loses Gimabi or Johnson (if he were healthy). Every NL teams lsoes nothign in their parks and gains something on the road. For Boston to lose their #5 hitter or Seatle to lose their clean up guy is a big loss for 3-6 game in a row especially when he gets replaced by a pitcher who hasn't touched a bat since spring training. Somehow that whole having Pedro batting 9th and not having Ortiz/Millar batting 5/6 and stablizing the line up isn't a fair trade off. Ssmae goes for losing Edgar ouot of the 4 spot and having Moyer battign 9th. Where as the Cards can DH Pujols and put in better outfielder. That essentially give Pujols a day off and betters their defense and offense. I just used Pujols as an example but Edmonds might ahve been better. When the Cards came to Boston he had a bad hamstring and wouldn't have been able to play in the filed, they got to DH him and he hit 3 HRs in teh series. Anotehr thing, in the AL a team can better afford to carry 12 pitchers and 13 players which leaves the bench a man short in NL games. I think the record shows that through out the years of this the NL has won more games and there's your proof. As of last night it NL 136/AL 114. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted June 30, 2003 I think the easiest thing to say here is advantage goes to the home team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cartman Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Yes but the NL home team has a bigger advantage than an AL home team in those situations. Most AL teams lose a really important hitter in NL parks, while NL teams just throw out another bench guy in AL parks. Meaning the NL teams never lose their better hitters by not using a DH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted June 30, 2003 Perhaps, but consider what happens when the Cards visit Safeco. Edgar Martinez vs. Orlando Palmeiro? The Phillies used Tomas Perez is their Baltimore series as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HellSpawn Report post Posted July 1, 2003 Im with kkktookmybabyaway and Dr. Tom. I dont like interleagues games. They took off the magic of the World Series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rendclaw 0 Report post Posted July 1, 2003 I would make it a staple percentage of the season to be interleague, say like 25 of the games, split equally between home and away games. I love how some people say its ruining the sport.... baseball has to change and evolve if it going to keep fan interest. This isn't the 50s and 60s anymore. There are too many things out there to compete for the entertainment dollar. I like the classic rivalries thing, but that one works with a certain number of teams and like it or not, the Yankees are involved with most of them. I would just say out of that percentage of games that are interleague, if a team has a "classic rival", make a percentage of those games "rivalries", with the home team getting its respective league rules. This is a wake-up call to all the purists out there; interleague is probably going to expand though the years, because the benefits (ex: and Yankees/Dodgers series) outweigh the drawbacks (A Detroit/Milwaukee series). If it was up to me I would make sure that every teams played every other team at least once during the season, but that would be difficult if not impossible for 162 game season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
