In advance of the Mets/Yankees series this weekend, the players and managers seem to be saying to the fans, “Yeah, enjoy this, you uncultured sloths, but know that we, the players and managers, hate it. But we’re going to do it anyway, for you, so you better fucking enjoy it.”
Carlos Delgado says it’s “a pain.” Joe Torre says it “screws up the rest of the schedule.” I don’t get it… maybe one of you can help me understand it. I don’t know why it’s a pain, and I don’t know why it screws up the rest of the schedule. They were going to be playing baseball anyway, right? It’s not like this was going to be vacation time for them, but now they have to play the Mets. I don’t know why it’s a pain… I really don’t, someone help me out. It’s not like when the Mets play the Yankees, they have to play them at Australian Rules Football. It’s still baseball, I think.
I thought interleague play was a hit… I dunno. I thought people liked it. When did this change?
HuangKong
I think fans like it, but players don’t.
May 19, 2006 at 6:40 am
Rob
I think it just forces teams to “waste” their time preparing their 25-inch thick “Money Ball” binders to play a team they won’t see again until – if the Lord’s willing and the cork isn’t found – the World Series.
Instead of preparing for a division rival or fellow N/AL foe, they have to study players, pitches, tendencies, rythmns, crotch grabs and dugout comforts. Then, after that series, throw all that information away and forget it.
Of course, they could simply wing it, but that would be too entertaining and interesting …
May 19, 2006 at 7:51 am
hkuszak
its all because those pusssy AL pitchers will actually have to stand in the batter’s box. Bitches.
May 19, 2006 at 8:12 am
unc_samurai
The problem comes in the scheduling. Two teams in the same division won’t play the same teams, not like the NFL. You might play the top teams in the opposing league, and your pennant rival gets to play nothing but cellar dwellers. You don’t get the same opportunities the other team does, and what might have been a solid divisional lead in september turns into a neck and neck race, all because you had to play the Yankees and Red Sox and your divisonal opponent got the Royals and the Devil Rays.
May 19, 2006 at 9:29 am
Garthmeister J.
And MJD throws in an Aussie Rules Football reference! As an Australian who plays Aussie Rules here in the US, I give you a standing ovation.
No, seriously. We play Aussie Rules here. There’s a bunch of teams all over the joint, and we get together to play a National tournament once a year. This time it’s in Vegas. Vegas baby, Vegas.
Check it out at http://www.usfooty.com
May 19, 2006 at 9:48 am
Bish
Nail on the head, samurai. As a Mets fan, it sucks that they have to play the Yankees 6 times per year, while Philly gets Tampa Bay. Plus? the gimmick has run its course. Enough already.
May 19, 2006 at 10:25 am
nirwin
Um…Philly gets Boston, which actually pisses me off as a Braves fan, as they stole our interleague rival by whining incessantly about how they needed a money-making interleague rival. And instead of telling them to go suck on it, MLB actually did what they wanted! Yes, you heard me…I would rather play Boston in an extra series than a cellar dweller. It’s far more exciting, and it’s just three extra games, people. Quit being pussies. And the Phillies can bite my ass!
Anyway, yes, Philly plays Tampa Bay in one series, but so do you and everyone else in the division this year. This year, interleague play is relatively equitable, as teams play the division that corresponds with theirs in the other league.
May 19, 2006 at 10:55 am
Bish
Admittedly, I threw up an example without research. My point was that in alternating years, when playing teams from otehr divisions, like Oakland and Texas, the Mets still have to play the Yankees.
What do I know, I still hate the fucking DH!
May 19, 2006 at 11:03 am
nirwin
Yes, when going against other divisions, then it becomes kind of iffy.
May 19, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Sebben
Here’s the problem. When interleague started, I (as well as other fans) were under the impression that the division you’d play would rotate every two years. For example, I’m a Cards fan. For two years, every team in the NL Central would play the AL Central, alternating the home and away games each season. For the next two seasons, the NL Central would play the AL East followed by the next two seasons playing the AL West. Then, you start over.
This would mean that every 6 seasons, each team would play every team in the other league once at home and once away. This would also mean that if, as a fan, you could only watch games in your home park, you’d could still see every A/NL team play there every 6 years.
I think that this would’ve kept the novelty alive longer that it has/did as well as keep the scheduling fair since every team in your division would be playing the same teams.
Instead, MLB keeps cramming this “rivalry” crap down our throats. I can’t speak for Chicago, NY, LA, or the Bay area (metropolitan areas with two teams), but me and most Cardinal fans I know could care less about the Royals and would rather play the Yankees or Red Sox or even the Devil Rays per the rotating idea I mentioned above than always having to play in the I-70 series to cater to a rivalry that doesn’t exist. The Cards rivalry will always be the Cubs (and to a lesser extent the Astros [greatly heightened because of the last two seasons] and the Braves and Mets [going back to the Cards NL East days]).
Sorry, if this was a bit long-winded and rambling, but I thought I’d add my two cents.
May 19, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Sebben
Before anyone calls me out, I just remembered that the Braves used to be NL West back in the day (The Cards played them in the 82 NLCS). But still, that rivalry will always be bigger among Cardinal fans than a Cards/Royals rivalry will ever be. I’m just saying.
May 19, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Shobs
What a bunch of titfuckers!
May 22, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Bouj
UNC is right about why the teams complain about the unevenness of the scheduling. However, the NFL schedule isn’t “balanced”. Each team gets 2 games against teams that finish in the corresponding place in the standings that they did (i.e. the division winners play each other). Indy will play Cincinnati and Denver as their 2 “standings-based” games (they get the entire AFC East). The Texans get Oakland and Cleveland instead.
The only league that can argue having anything resembling true scheduling equity is the NBA, but unless every team plays every other team in the league the exact same number of times, it doesn’t matter.
And there is some rotation with the interleague opponents. Every team has a designated team that they face 6 times, and then they get somthing like 4 other opponents. There has been some rotation with that. The Astros played some AL West teams last year, and the y got the AL East a few years back. The problem is that there hasn’t been any consistentcy with the rotation. Maybe Bud should try fixing that.
May 23, 2006 at 10:57 am