Source: MLB considering changing natural interleague rivalries

[WildcatFan]

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/stor...es-sources-say

With the Houston Astros moving to the American League West next season and the leagues becoming balanced at 15 teams apiece, natural rivals throughout baseball no longer will be guaranteed six games a season and home-and-home series, the sources said.

I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks of this. I've been a Reds fan in Kentucky for almost 20 years, and the Indians series has never excited me like maybe it does for Ohioans.

[MikeThierry]

I love this. I hate, for example, the Cardinals playing the Royals every single year. With a lot of Cards fans, that series is always like a "meh" series to us. It allows teams to play more teams that they never see. It's still shocking to me that the Cards have only played the Yankees once or twice since interleague started. Those two teams have faced each other like 5 or 6 times in World Series play. The same is true with the Red Sox. I'm tired of seeing the same teams over and over every year.

[Ghosts of 1990]

I would be cool with playing different teams more often. Not always the Indians 9 or so times a year.

[Sea Ray]

I don't need to see any American League team every year. I'm not a fan of the "natural rivalry" stuff. It'd mean more if we only played the Indian once every 3 yrs

[Reds Fanatic]

I think it is a good idea to split it up and not play certain teams more than others just due to "natural rivalries'. The problem with the natural rivalries is some teams get matched up with a weak natural rival where other teams in their division without a natural rival end up with tougher matchups. So in fairness it really should be more split up. I also think it is necessary anyway as starting next year there will be some interleague series going on throughout the year because of having 15 teams in each league.

[The Voice of IH]

As a Cincinnatian living in Akron, I like the Cincinnati playing the Indians often. But I am probably in the minority.

[Danny Serafini]

The Indians series area easily the most interesting to me each year. I'd rather play six games against them than have some random series against the A's or Royals in their place.

[dougdirt]

Sign me up as someone who wants to play the Royals instead of just about anyone else.

[757690]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

I love this. I hate, for example, the Cardinals playing the Royals every single year. With a lot of Cards fans, that series is always like a "meh" series to us. It allows teams to play more teams that they never see. It's still shocking to me that the Cards have only played the Yankees once or twice since interleague started. Those two teams have faced each other like 5 or 6 times in World Series play. The same is true with the Red Sox. I'm tired of seeing the same teams over and over every year.

I would love it if the new natural rival of the Cardinals were the Yankees or the Rangers.

Up to now, Cardinals were basically given a 3-5 game lead over the rest of the division every year because they played the hapless Royals so many times every year.

[smith288]

I like the Cle-Cin series. My bro inlaw is an Indians fan so it's been fun lately.

[Plus Plus]

I always have a bet going with my friends in Cleveland over who will hold the cherished Ohio Cup. I like the rivalry.

[RANDY IN INDY]

I don't like inter-league play. If I want to watch American league teams, they are readily available on TV. I think it has taken away from the World Series and All-Star game. It's a big "meh" for me.

[Vottomatic]

1. Eliminate inter-league play
2. Eliminate divisions in each league
3. Each team in the AL plays the same schedule, same amount of games against each team in the AL.
4. Same with the NL.
5. Best record of the top 4 or 5 teams in each league make the playoffs.

That's how it should be.

[REDREAD]

I'm really not a fan of this whole idea of having 15 teams in each league.
Even though it's going to be almost impossible to get rid of interleague play, it was nice to have it every day.

Since we are stuck with it however, I see no reason to have more than one Indians series per year. I agree with others, interleague play is already unfair enough. Why should the Reds/Cards be able to fatten up their record this year against weak natural rivals?

If we didn't play the Indians two series in 1999, we might've made the playoffs. No guarantee, but the Royals would've been an easier opponent. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think John Allen started this by trading our Royals series for another series with the Indians.

[FlightRick]

I'm a fan of anything that helps make things a little more balanced. And this is a start.

But how about blowing up the whole notion of "rotating divisional scheduling," and schedule interleague opponents based on the previous year's standings? I think the NFL does something like this. Basically: if you finish in 2nd place in 2012, you play all 3 2nd place finishers from the 3 divisions in the opposite league in 2013 (and also the fourth interleague series against your "natural" rival).

If the natural rival and one of the other opponents are the same, so be it: in this case, the parity should only add to the intensity of the rivalry. To my mind, that'd be more "fair," and I think it would also lead to the formation of new rivalries if teams on equal footing end up being thrown together in back-to-back years; familiarity breeds contempt, afterall.

The downside: small market teams are no longer guaranteed visits from big market teams. Pittsburgh won't get the boost in ticket sales that comes with hosting the Yankees every 6 years. So I acknowledge there will be some *****ing and moaning if you pushed for this model. But to me, it'd be worth pushing for.

I do wonder if 12 interleague games per team is enough, though, now that there will have to be at least 1 interleague series going on at all times. I aced my math SAT, but I have neither the time nor the motivation to try to figure out the least possible number of interleague games required by next season's re-alignment. I like 12, though, not just because it fits my "play your 3 equivalent opponents in the other league, plus your rival" model, but because it reduces the overall impact of interleague on intra-league, which is something I like.

Plus, the other scheduling math works out so easy that even I can do it in my head: 15 games against your 4 division foes (a mix of 2-, 3-, and 4-game series), 9 games against the other 10 teams in your league (three 3-game series), and four 3-game interleague series (as discussed above). That's 15x4=60, 9x10=90, and 4x3=12, for a total of 162 games.

As a bonus, some of the wacky imbalance (where you play 18 games against in-division foes, but only 6 against other in-league teams) is mitigated, which I think makes sense now that you've added a 2nd wild card, which is an intra-LEAGUE prize not an intra-division one.

But I digress. It's just an idea I've been kicking around for a while, and now that I've finally put it into words, I've put it into 1250 words, which is probably too many....


Rick