Are you a fan of interleague?

[ELCABALLO45]

Yes? No? Why not? Discuss

[sbrylski]

Not a fan, though I'm thrilled to see us play at Fenway. It should be in the WS though, that's all.

 

The AL and NL are two separate leagues, who's respective champions match up to see who's the best club in the "world," hence the name. Interleague wrecks that, and wrecks the character of the individual leagues.

[RU Rah Rah]

Yes, a fan. Gives fans a chance to occasionally see different teams rather than the same old, same old.

[pebadger]

I'd be a bigger fan if the suits could figure out a way to balance the schedule. That means getting rid of the every-year "natural rivalry" games, but I can live with that as many of the "natural rivalrys" are nothing of the kind. Since those games seem to be, in MLB's eyes, one of the prime reasons for even having IL play, I know it won't happen.

[Invader3K]

Yes, I like it. There is not much point to the artificial divide between the two leagues anymore. I wouldn't mind seeing interleague expanded even further, to be honest. I don't feel it takes away from the special-ness of the World Series at all.

 

Frankly, it sometimes gets old seeing the Brewers play teams like the Pirates and Reds, seemingly constantly throughout the season. I would love to see them play, for example, the White Sox, who I believe they haven't even played once since moving to the NL. The "natural rival" thing could probably be dropped, too.

[Diskono]

Not a fan, though I'm thrilled to see us play at Fenway. It should be in the WS though, that's all.

 

The AL and NL are two separate leagues, who's respective champions match up to see who's the best club in the "world," hence the name. Interleague wrecks that, and wrecks the character of the individual leagues.

Exactly what I came here to say. The separation of the two leagues is one of the little things that I really enjoy about baseball.

[naivin]

I don't like or dislike it - just the next set of games on the schedule. The NFL (and NBA for that matter) have been doing it for years and nobody says a word - where each NFC division meets up with one AFC division and they rotate the match-ups each season. Not sure why such a big deal is made of it in baseball. I'm assuming a large percentage of the complainers do so simply because it came to be under Selig's leadership.

[hawing]

It's interesting to see a few AL teams per year - probably because most of the AL used to be the Brewers' regular opponents - but it's not like interleague play was the magic bullet that rekindled my interest in baseball.

 

Like some other posters, I don't consider the 'natural rival' to be critical. Every year I smirk when seeing some of the matchups between teams whose rivalry is clearly manufactured by MLB and not at all natural. I'd trade the home and home series with Minnesota for more interleague variety, but in the wide world of baseball, I suspect that puts me in the minority.

[PlayerHader]

I like it and I wouldn't mind seeing designated games in which the DH is used at NL stadiums and the pitcher bats at AL stadiums during the games.

[NeedMoreFans]

I like it, but I wish they could change it around a bit. If they keep the "natural rival" games, I think it should be one series per year, alternating between cities rather than two series per year. I also would like it if they could rotate divisions like the NFL does (I realize this is not possible due to the unbalanced divisions). Plus, why haven't the Brewers played the White Sox in 10 years?

[jhart05]

The only thing I don't like about it is, and this is only a very minor issue, it cuts down on the games they play against non-division opponents in the NL.

 

Like Philly. The Crew only got them for two games here and only play them 6 times total this year.

 

Other than that, I like seeing a Boston, or a Detroit, every few years.

 

You shouldn't play more than one series against the same team thou. Like the Crew and Twins, they should alternate home and home.

[Tbadder]

I really don't like it.

 

1) It creates even more imbalance in the schedule

2) The DH is ridiculous. I mean it is a serious joke that almost wrecks the game.

3) AL players are usually more boring, fat guys who only hit homers (I know, I know..I'm gonna get killed for this one)

4) I think it takes away from the All-Star game

[Invader3K]

1) It creates even more imbalance in the schedule

2) The DH is ridiculous. I mean it is a serious joke that almost wrecks the game.

3) AL players are usually more boring, fat guys who only hit homers (I know, I know..I'm gonna get killed for this one)

4) I think it takes away from the All-Star game

I have to say I disagree with every single thing you wrote.

1) The schedule is always going to be unbalanced no matter what. Some teams are going to have tougher opponents at the end of the year, while some will have an arguable cake walk. A few more or less games against teams from the other league won't fix this.

 

2) You could argue that having pitchers attempt to hit is a serious joke, as well. For every Carlos Zambrano there are a dozen Ben Sheets in that batter's box. I think the current system of one league having the DH and one without is fine, though.

 

3) Ichiro says "konichiwa!" You basically admitted you were wrong and over generalizing on that one, though.

 

4) I think most of the point of the All-Star game is having all these great players working together on each team, even more so than having the AL and NL against each other, so I really don't feel it takes away from one special game out of the year. The All-Star Game in MLB is clearly the only all star game in major sports that really means anything, so I don't think interleague play has really affected it.

 

I think most people against it are just romanticizing the old days, or like someone else said, pretty much opposed to any of the changes Bud "the devil's hand maiden" Selig have made. My take is, why shouldn't I as someone who lives near an NL team's city have a chance to see guys like Vlad Guerrero and Derek Jeter play in person once in a while, without having to make a plane trip out of state, or hope that my team somehow faces them in the World Series? The whole notion of this divide between the two leagues seems really antiquated, IMHO. It's not like they're two separate entities operating independently of each other, really.

[BrewCrewForever]

I'm pretty neutral on it. Doesn't get me overly excited and I'm not against it because it breaks "tradition". I am however excited to see the Brewers get to play at the great Fenway Park. I would love to see us go in there and win the series and see Gagne get a few saves. Red Sox Nation would probably explode with anger if that happened.

[ttsather]

I enjoy it. I appreciate the distinctiveness of the two leagues and the intrigue that comes with the All-Star Game and the World Series, but it's great to be able to see just a couple different teams each year especially when it's tough for me to afford to get to any AL park to see games (w/ time, money considerations, etc.)

 

For me as a baseball fan it adds a little more interest and still regularly fulfills "What if?" scenarios (as evidenced by how excited I and others are to see the Brewers play at Fenway), and in seeing the team in person it makes the whole of Major League Baseball just a little more accessible.

[joepepsi]

I like it just fine. I think it's cool the Orioles are coming to Milwaukee. At this point they'll probably sweep the Brewers. I like that the Brewers are playing in Fenway this weekend. It gives a chance for a tiny market team to get some big market East Coast exposure. Even if the Red Sox do sweep them.

 

The only issue I have is when contending teams in a division don't play the same caliber of teams in interleague. The Cubs, who already seem to have the easiest schedule in baseball this Spring, are playing the Pirates at home this weekend. While the Brewers are in Fenway. And the Cubs never play the Red Sox this year.

 

As for the DH, I think it's important to consider the NL effectively uses the DH most games after the 6th inning. They just call it "Pinch Hitter" over here. To paraphrase Sparky Anderson, it's not like the double switch is rocket science anyway.

[And That]

Yes? No? Why not? Discuss

What do you think?

 

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I love it. They do it just enough to keep it special and not overdo it. It adds a little extra interest and seeing a series like the Brewers at Fenway or the Yanks coming to Milwaukee is awesome. As far as unbalanced schedule, it's fairly minimal over a 162 game sked. I like the rivalry series too. It probably means more to New Yorkers or Chicagoans, but the Twins series is fun. If anything it adds to the all-star game because now I know who some of the AL guys are. It also is great for Brewers fans that grew up as AL fans. Playing the old AL East rivals brings back fond memories of the best time to be a Brewers fan...until NOW!!!

[Glennron]

The natural rivals thing is kind of a joke. I know it's cool to see NY/NY, Chi/Chi etc., but I'm pretty sure Detroit and Arizona are "rivals." It's weird that there's no real set rotation for teams you play. I remember a few years ago you'd play teams from a certain division, but now it just seems like they pick random teams.

[Ennder]

I'm not a huge fan though I enjoy watching the Brewers player in AL parks since I don't have to watch pitchers pretend they can hit. Can't wait until the NL gets the DH.

[cubfan1126]

The only issue I have is when contending teams in a division don't play the same caliber of teams in interleague. The Cubs, who already seem to have the easiest schedule in baseball this Spring, are playing the Pirates at home this weekend. While the Brewers are in Fenway. And the Cubs never play the Red Sox this year.

I knew somebody would bring this up. Back in 2005 when we were also thought to have a contending team (turned out we didn't) we had the Red Sox and Yankees while the contending Astros had neither. In 2004 when the NLC played the ALW two teams from the NLC played each other as the NL series during Interleague play. Our two series that year were against the Astros and Cardinals while each of them got to play one of the lesser teams in the division for their second series. Also we haven't had a series against the Royals at all since 2001 while the Cards get to play them twice every year. Yeah, this year we have it a little softer (maybe not with TB playing well) but in the long run it balances out.

 

And Yes, I like it.

 

The only thing I don't like about it is that each year 12 NL teams have to play against each other during the interleague series (2 for each of the 6 sets of dates) We have been 1 of the 4 to play all 6 dates only once. A rotational system should be used.

[davego]

From just my perspective, I sort of like it. Especially when the 'Crew gets the "old AL East" teams. For me that is kind of fun.

[Mike2k33]

We've played the White Sox a few times in interleague. That was back when the NL Central would always play the AL Central. It's been a few years though.

 

 

I like it, but I'd like to see them take one of the "rival" series away and throw in another team from the division we're playing.

 

 

Thanks to interleague play we've played every team in MLB and the only team we've never seen in Milwaukee is Tampa Bay.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm neutral on inter-league play. It's 'fun', I guess. What I really loathe is the way the playoffs got re-structured. I hate the idea of small sample serieseseses deciding the 'champion'. While it's been neato to have stories like the Angels, Cardinals, Rockies, etc., the whole point of playing the large(ish) sample of 162 games is to weed out as much flukey stuff as possible... sorry for veering OT.

[MickeyDavis]

I could do without the Twins every year. Then we'd get to see an additional two AL teams instead. The Twins weren't even in our division in the AL, they've never been our "rivals" other than they are in the next state. So are the White Sox and Tigers. Keep the rivalry games for teams that have real rivals (Cubs/Sox, Yankees/Mets).