PDA

View Full Version : Is playing the Indians 2x in interleague every year stupid?



WMR
05-22-2009, 02:47 PM
Putting aside the interleague vs. no interleague argument for a moment, any "heat" that might have existed between these two teams is now nonexistent in my opinion.

There is no rivalry; they just happen to share the same state ...

If we're going to have interleague, I'd just as soon see more teams rather than the Cleveland Indians every year.

Jpup
05-22-2009, 03:09 PM
yes, it's stupid, but I'm sure it makes both teams some money.

*BaseClogger*
05-22-2009, 03:10 PM
Personally, I think it should only be one series per year. This would give us the opportunity to see one different team and it would make the home to home swing every other year more meaningful, likely increasing the drama and attendance...

westofyou
05-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Forced regional rivalries are tired. If they must do inter league then I'd prefer a random generator that picked the match ups and teams played the other leagues rules in their home park.

bucksfan2
05-22-2009, 03:15 PM
I like it!

There is a pretty good rivalry between the Reds and Indians fans. The series generates interest across all of Ohio and is a revenue generator for both cities. IMO it makes sense for the Reds to play the Indians twice instead of just once and having to play the Royals.

Unassisted
05-22-2009, 03:23 PM
The rivalry doesn't mean much in southwest Ohio, which is about as close to Nashville and Chicago as it is to Cleveland. But it makes sense in central Ohio, where you find plenty of fans of each Ohio team.

Since interleague play was Bud Selig's brainchild, I doubt there will be any consideration of reducing the amount of it for as long as he's at the helm of MLB.

Chip R
05-22-2009, 03:27 PM
The bloom is definitely off the rose as far as this series goes. Back in the late 90s and early 00s, this series sold out all the time. Of course this was mainly because of Tribe fans who came down here to see the Indians play because the Jake was always sold out.

TheNext44
05-22-2009, 03:36 PM
I would love to see interleague play reduced to three series each year rather than the current five. I have no problem with two with Cleveland each year, and then one with a random team. But one with Cleveland and two with random teams would be fine as well.

Five series not only is overkill, and makes interleague play become boring fast, it also screws up the schedule. Are the Reds really making that much more money playing KC and the White Sox, that it justifies missing games against Mets, Phillies and Dodgers?

RANDY IN INDY
05-22-2009, 03:49 PM
Get rid of inter-league play. Play a more balanced schedule in the NL. I get sick of seeing the Reds playing the NL Central, as well.

Jpup
05-22-2009, 04:19 PM
Get rid of inter-league play. Play a more balanced schedule in the NL. I get sick of seeing the Reds playing the NL Central, as well.

truer words were never spoken.

blumj
05-22-2009, 05:11 PM
Putting aside the interleague vs. no interleague argument for a moment, any "heat" that might have existed between these two teams is now nonexistent in my opinion.

There is no rivalry; they just happen to share the same state ...

If we're going to have interleague, I'd just as soon see more teams rather than the Cleveland Indians every year.
It seems to work better with the East teams to make it flexible, other than the NYs.

Red in Chicago
05-22-2009, 06:18 PM
Get rid of inter-league play. Play a more balanced schedule in the NL. I get sick of seeing the Reds playing the NL Central, as well.

Couldn't agree more. I grew up hating the Dodgers. Now, we never play them...although, that's probably a good thing ;)

I don't mind playing teams within our division a bit more than other clubs, but it seems like they could work something out so it wasn't so redundant.

Strikes Out Looking
05-22-2009, 09:25 PM
It is stupid, but unfortunately it's Bud Selig's world and we only live in it.

remdog
05-22-2009, 09:57 PM
Get rid of inter-league play. Play a more balanced schedule in the NL. I get sick of seeing the Reds playing the NL Central, as well.

Agree completely.

Having said that, since we are currently stuck with Pud's grand-child, I will say that, as having lived in both Ohio cities and followed both teams, playing the Indians twice is a lot more interesting for me than the Reds playing a series with, say, the Seattle Mariners.

Back to what Randy wrote: overall, I'd rather see the Reds play the Dodgers, Pads, D-backs more often than this interleague junk.

Rem

mth123
05-22-2009, 09:59 PM
Get rid of inter-league play. Play a more balanced schedule in the NL. I get sick of seeing the Reds playing the NL Central, as well.

Yes. Forward this to Bud.

HokieRed
05-22-2009, 10:04 PM
Glad to hear some other people feel the way I do about the overload of games against the NL Central. I grew up watching us play the Dodgers, Giants, Phillies, Braves etc. Some of those better rivalries than anything we ever had with the Central teams (actually our best rivalry there, IMO, was with Pittsburgh and there's not much left to that since we've both been so bad). Dodgers were probably the best rivalry but we also had some fierce years with the Giants when Craig was the mgr. Now we hardly see those teams.

Yachtzee
05-22-2009, 10:38 PM
I think the reason why there isn't much heat in the Reds-Indians rivalry is because a lot of people have the Reds as their NL favorite and the Indians as their AL favorite. The separate leagues and the fact that the Reds and Indians have never met in the World Series has kept things relatively friendly. Even regular season games have the feeling of a friendly exhibition.

Edit: I agree with the notion that we need more games v. the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, et. al. That would make the season far more interesting. It would also balance things out to make the wild card race more equitable.

Heath
05-22-2009, 11:12 PM
I don't get how they figure out the schedule, but somehow not playing Detroit this year makes no sense at all.

I think they should play Cleveland and Detroit one series a year and rotate everyone else through if they have to play Interleague games. I'm with WOY, random generate those other series.

WebScorpion
05-23-2009, 02:01 AM
My main beef with the procedure is that we get 6 preset games against Cleveland, who usually field a pretty solid team, while the Cardinals get 6 preset games with Kansas City, who rarely ever field a competitive team. It doesn't seem quite fair to know you're probably 3-6 games behind the Cardinals every season just because of scheduling. :thumbdown

Caveat Emperor
05-23-2009, 02:49 AM
Sad as it is to say -- the Reds have been so bad for so long that it's hard for anyone to take them seriously as a "rival" -- even within the NL Central.

IslandRed
05-23-2009, 10:56 AM
Glad to hear some other people feel the way I do about the overload of games against the NL Central.

Same here. The repetitiveness of the unbalanced schedule annoys me as the season goes on. Interleague play, whatever I thought of it when it was proposed, has ended up not annoying me at all.

Unassisted
05-23-2009, 11:42 AM
Yes. Forward this to Bud.You might as well include a request for him to give up one of his children. He's as likely to do that as he is to give up this component of his legacy as commissioner.

macro
05-23-2009, 05:40 PM
If interleague is here to stay, then put 15 teams in each league, have two teams playing interleague every day, and bring some symmetry back to the divisions and the schedules. I've never understood why interleague had to be "everyone, all at once, and during prescribed periods" anyway.

If you had six divisions of five teams each, the schedule could look like this:


3 games against four different interleague teams = 12 games
9 games against the ten teams in the other two divisions in your own league = 90 games
15 games against each of the four other teams in division = 60 games


Since each team would play 12 interleage games, a total of 180 interleague games would be played throughout MLB during the season, or roughly one per day.

4256 Hits
05-23-2009, 09:12 PM
If interleague is here to stay, then put 15 teams in each league, have two teams playing interleague every day, and bring some symmetry back to the divisions and the schedules. I've never understood why interleague had to be "everyone, all at once, and during prescribed periods" anyway.

If you had six divisions of five teams each, the schedule could look like this:


3 games against four different interleague teams = 12 games
9 games against the ten teams in the other two divisions in your own league = 90 games
15 games against each of the four other teams in division = 60 games


Since each team would play 12 interleage games, a total of 180 interleague games would be played throughout MLB during the season, or roughly one per day.


:thumbup::beerme::thumbup:

fisch11
05-25-2009, 12:31 AM
I like interleague only for the 2 series vs. the Indians. It allows fans (especially in Central Ohio) to talk trash. Other than the Indians though, I don't care for interleague. I think if States have 2 baseball teams (or more) they should at least play once.

Yachtzee
05-25-2009, 11:00 AM
I like interleague only for the 2 series vs. the Indians. It allows fans (especially in Central Ohio) to talk trash. Other than the Indians though, I don't care for interleague. I think if States have 2 baseball teams (or more) they should at least play once.

I don't know anyone who talks trash about this series. Most people I know like both teams, but prefer one to the other.

Chip R
05-25-2009, 01:49 PM
I know one thing, they should stop making these games Premium games because there's about as much interest in these games as there are for Brewers games.

fearofpopvol1
05-25-2009, 02:16 PM
If the Indians stink and the Reds are good, then yes, it's a great idea.

WVRed
05-25-2009, 02:56 PM
Agree completely.

Having said that, since we are currently stuck with Pud's grand-child, I will say that, as having lived in both Ohio cities and followed both teams, playing the Indians twice is a lot more interesting for me than the Reds playing a series with, say, the Seattle Mariners.

Back to what Randy wrote: overall, I'd rather see the Reds play the Dodgers, Pads, D-backs more often than this interleague junk.

Rem

The complaint to that will be "more trips to the west coast, makes it hard on the players" etc.

In all honesty though, ignoring the Battle of Ohio, there are some pretty nice interleague rivalries that are geographically similar.

Mets vs Yankees
Marlins vs Rays
Nats vs Orioles
Cubs vs White Sox
Astros vs Rangers
Brewers vs Twins
Cardinals vs Royals
Reds vs Indians

My idea would be to scrap interleague except for these series and play a more balanced NL schedule to make up for it. You could have the Reds and Indians play once or twice a year and then play teams within the division.

Of course, I think people got more excited when we played the Red Sox or Yankees during interleague anyways.

REDREAD
05-26-2009, 11:33 AM
Get rid of inter-league play. Play a more balanced schedule in the NL. I get sick of seeing the Reds playing the NL Central, as well.

Yeah, the unbalanced schedule has really gotten old. I don't really enjoy seeing the Reds play the Pirates for what seems like 80 games.

Not to mention, it gives teams weaker divisions an easier path to the wild card.

REDREAD
05-26-2009, 11:35 AM
My main beef with the procedure is that we get 6 preset games against Cleveland, who usually field a pretty solid team, while the Cardinals get 6 preset games with Kansas City, who rarely ever field a competitive team. It doesn't seem quite fair to know you're probably 3-6 games behind the Cardinals every season just because of scheduling. :thumbdown

Thank John Allen for starting that idea.. He was the one that approached Bud with trading for two series vs the Indians.

HeatherC1212
05-26-2009, 11:43 AM
My main beef with the procedure is that we get 6 preset games against Cleveland, who usually field a pretty solid team, while the Cardinals get 6 preset games with Kansas City, who rarely ever field a competitive team. It doesn't seem quite fair to know you're probably 3-6 games behind the Cardinals every season just because of scheduling. :thumbdown

The Cards may have their hands full with KC this year. That's not too bad of a team they have right now so I'm intrigued to see what happens with that series this season. :eek:

You're right though.....it doesn't seem fair when you look at the overall schedule over the past few years and for that it gets a big :thumbdown from me.

Danny Serafini
05-26-2009, 01:45 PM
The only interleague series I really care about is against the Indians. I'd much rather watch a second Indians series than see the Rangers or someone like that, I find those types of interleague series pointless. But then again I like the unbalanced schedule as well, so maybe I'm the oddball.

westofyou
07-01-2009, 09:52 AM
Came across this tidbit

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3370:inside-mlb-attendance-interleague-2009&catid=56:ticket-watch&Itemid=136



The National League/American League match-ups drew an average of 33,351, down 6.66 percent from the 2008 record average of 35,573. Average attendance for the season was also down from 2007’s Interleague average attendance mark of 34,905, or down 4.66 percent. 2009 will mark the first time in three consecutive seasons that record attendance was not reached for Interleague Play.
The 2009 Interleague average is 16.1 percent higher than this season’s current intraleague average of 28,727 per game.
Since its inception in 1997, Interleague Play has drawn 12.0 percent more fans than intraleague games; Interleague Play has averaged 33,260 fans per game, compared to the intraleague average of 29,706 fans per game during the same span.

Tony Cloninger
07-01-2009, 10:30 AM
IT stinks and it has always stunk.....it will never be something i agree with. But just like pants that look like pj's...bad beards...and music being played before each hitter comes up ....it's what the people like/want so it does not matter what i think.

The Silent Baseball Majority

GAC
07-01-2009, 10:37 AM
I can't stand inter-league play period!

But we've won both series with the Indians and need all the help we can get. :D

BCubb2003
07-01-2009, 10:54 AM
I can't stand inter-league play period!

But we've won both series with the Indians and need all the help we can get. :D

Yes. It's lost its novelty, and I can understand the twinge of frustration when your interleague partner is having a good year, but it's always been a dubious argument that "It's no fair that we're not good enough to beat the Indians." After all, Cleveland's not exactly a glamorous big market team. They were just smartly run for several years in the recent past.

_Sir_Charles_
07-01-2009, 11:56 AM
I would love to see the END of interleague play. Don't care for it, never cared for it. It eliminates some of the uniqueness of the All Star Game and the World Series in my eyes.

Roy Tucker
07-01-2009, 12:33 PM
Some interleague play I like, some I don't. The whole rival thing is worn out. Rivals spring out of nails-close I-hate-your-guts competition. It can't be scheduled.

If its going to be done, I'd like it to be a one series home, one series away thing with the woy random team thing. It would be a little special then.

Chip R
07-01-2009, 12:59 PM
Some interleague play I like, some I don't. The whole rival thing is worn out. Rivals spring out of nails-close I-hate-your-guts competition. It can't be scheduled.

If its going to be done, I'd like it to be a one series home, one series away thing with the woy random team thing. It would be a little special then.


You can't have one without the other, though. Everyone would love to have the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox come to their park to play IL games but someone's got to play the Nats and Royals.

GAC
07-01-2009, 05:44 PM
It eliminates some of the uniqueness of the All Star Game and the World Series in my eyes.

I think that's it for a lot of folks - the uniqueness.

Chip R
07-01-2009, 05:50 PM
I think that's it for a lot of folks - the uniqueness.


But people don't get worked up about it when other sports do it. Bengals fans are OK playing the Cowboys. Cavs fans don't have a problem playing the Lakers and Blue Jacket fans don't fret about playing the Rangers.

westofyou
07-01-2009, 08:41 PM
But people don't get worked up about it when other sports do it. Bengals fans are OK playing the Cowboys. Cavs fans don't have a problem playing the Lakers and Blue Jacket fans don't fret about playing the Rangers.

They are all in the same league, and in most cases have always been... same rules too.

Mario-Rijo
07-01-2009, 08:47 PM
But people don't get worked up about it when other sports do it. Bengals fans are OK playing the Cowboys. Cavs fans don't have a problem playing the Lakers and Blue Jacket fans don't fret about playing the Rangers.

The NFL does have a rotation though as far as non-conference opponents go.

westofyou
07-01-2009, 08:59 PM
The NFL does have a rotation though as far as non-conference opponents go.

And all three of the 60's 70's leagues that were sucked into the fold didn't bring their leagues rules with them... for just the games in their home city.

Spitball
07-01-2009, 09:02 PM
Thank John Allen for starting that idea.. He was the one that approached Bud with trading for two series vs the Indians.

Anyone remember Richard Hand on the old Cincy.com board? He was this obnoxious poster who was always getting into it with one poster after another when he wasn't spamming his website, the Little Red Wagon?

Well, back in 1999 he went off on a several rants that trading for the two series versus the Indians would cost the Reds the playoffs. He went so far as to guarantee it would cost the Reds the playoffs. Well, I have never admitted it before, but he was correct. The Reds ended up tied for the Wild Card and lost the playoff to the Mets. If they had kept the games with (I believe) the White Sox, they may have taken the Wild Card right out.

Now, no one else ever mentioned it, and Richard Hand had his feelings hurt and left the board long before the season was over. Thank goodness because no one would have wanted to hear him brag on himself and his Little Red Wagon.

westofyou
07-01-2009, 09:12 PM
Anyone remember Richard Hand on the old Cincy.com board? He was this obnoxious poster who was always getting into it with one poster after another when he wasn't spamming his website, the Little Red Wagon?


Who doesn't remember their first kiss, or first beer? First love, first ball game, first home run?

Does anyone remember Richard Hand???

Who doesn't remember their first internet megalomaniac?

Chip R
07-01-2009, 10:05 PM
They are all in the same league, and in most cases have always been... same rules too.


So are the Indians and Reds. Calling them leagues or conferences is just semantics. All it is is just hoary tradition. Personally, I'd rather not have it and with a few exceptions the bloom is off the rose but I'm not going to get worked up about it.

AmarilloRed
07-01-2009, 10:26 PM
I think interleague would work a lot better if they would rotate the teams on a regular basis. Have the Reds play Cleveland one year, Boston another, and so forth. I don't think any good can be served by having teams play the same interleague teams year after year.

westofyou
07-01-2009, 10:35 PM
So are the Indians and Reds.
No, they play under different rules and aside from an occasional central vs central match up they don't play the same teams, that's not the same league.

What if the NBA West had 3 pointers but the East didn't?

Chip R
07-01-2009, 11:03 PM
No, they play under different rules and aside from an occasional central vs central match up they don't play the same teams, that's not the same league.

What if the NBA West had 3 pointers but the East didn't?


Big deal. Except for the DH, it's basically the same game. Bases are 90 feet apart, 60'6" to home. The Bengals don't play the same NFC teams as the Patriots do and no one cares.

westofyou
07-01-2009, 11:07 PM
Big deal. Except for the DH, it's basically the same game. Bases are 90 feet apart, 60'6" to home. The Bengals don't play the same NFC teams as the Patriots do and no one cares.

DH, different game.

So different that it drives a different game down the street after the 6th inning, I see it.. even if the bases are still 90 feet apart.

Spitball
07-01-2009, 11:16 PM
Who doesn't remember their first kiss, or first beer? First love, first ball game, first home run?

Does anyone remember Richard Hand???

Who doesn't remember their first internet megalomaniac?

:lol:

Chip R
07-02-2009, 12:16 AM
DH, different game.

So different that it drives a different game down the street after the 6th inning, I see it.. even if the bases are still 90 feet apart.


Same game though. In the other sports the playing area's standardized where all the field dimensions in baseball are different.

westofyou
07-02-2009, 12:27 AM
Same game though. In the other sports the playing area's standardized where all the field dimensions in baseball are different.

And in other sports the defense don't hold the ball when play starts, but I digress. ;)

GAC
07-02-2009, 06:13 AM
Maybe we need George to decipher the differences between baseball and football ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_yq4L3M_I

Roy Tucker
07-02-2009, 08:52 AM
Inter-league play will stay as long as Bud is commish. It's his baby and he's proud of it.

DH is a bad idea (MHO) but I'm afraid its here to stay too. I can't envision any realistic scenarios where the AL would get rid of it.

BCubb2003
07-02-2009, 09:07 AM
If they're going to have interleague play, they should really do it, with Japanese leagues, or cricket, or Calvinball.

westofyou
07-02-2009, 09:39 PM
Interleague Attendance Nonsense

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/2/935648/interleague-attendance-nonsense


I've often seen articles and blog entries online about how great interleague is for attendance. And then some numbers get quoted that confirm that. From 2000-2008, the average interleague game had an attendance of 33,284 and all other games 29,981. That is +11%! Wow, interleague play is a GREAT thing for the teams/owners.

Well, not quite true. The distribution of games isn't the same. 66% of the interleague games in the sample were Friday through Sunday, compared to just 45% for the non-interleague games. I ran the attendance figures by day of week and got the following:



Mon +3.3%
Tue +6.7%
Wed +6.0%
Thu +3.3%
Fri +7.2%
Sat +7.1%
Sun +9.2%

If they had the same distribution of days of week, I come up with an expected attendance of 31913 per game; this nearly cuts the edge in half!

But, then the distribution on the calendar is also not the same; 87% of the interleague games were in June or July, while it was about 17% per month for the others.

Using just June and July the weekend distribution was still similar, 64% vs 44%; here are the attendance numbers by day of week for just those two months:

Mon +2.0%
Tue -0.9%
Wed -3.2%
Thu -4.9%
Fri +0.6%
Sat +2.6%
Sun +6.3%

Again, if they had the same distribution of days of week, I come up with an expected attendance of 31719 per game; this puts the two groups almost exactly even [Interleague +0.4%].

I'm going to restate that- if the interleague games weren't lumped onto Friday, Saturday and Sunday, there would be practically no difference in attendance [about 1000 total extra tickets per team per year, maybe 100 per game].

As the next pass I'll try and identify particular series that may outperform the rest [Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels, etc]