Why I Don't Like Interleague Play

This weekend marks the start of interleague play in Major League Baseball, which typically comes with a rash of pros and cons rants and arguments why it is good and bad for the game.

Putting it bluntly, I do not like the idea of interleague play during the regular season. It takes away from the mystique of the All-Star Game and in some ways the World Series. I understand that the numbers indicate why interleague play is good for baseball based on attendance figures.

I understand the idea that you may get to see players in your home town that you would not typically see, such as the New York Yankees visiting San Diego or the Cubs going to Seattle. I understand that in some areas interleague is welcomed with open arms.

But just because I understand it does not mean I have to like it.

Call me stubborn, a purist, or cranky but I dream of a day when the Phillies played more games against the Chicago Cubs and Los Angeles Dodgers than they do against the Toronto Blue Jays. Why would I want to see the Kansas City Royals when I can get a couple more games against Albert Pujols and the Cardinals?

In the 2009 baseball season, the Phillies will play five games against the Cardinals and six against the Blue Jays. Sure the Blue Jays appear to be a good team right now, currently sitting in first place in the AL East, but what if the season comes down to the final weekend and the Phillies and Cardinals are battling for a playoff spot?

This is where the balance of power comes in to question.

My belief is that each league should be separate, thus having teams compete against themselves for a chance to make the playoffs. When the Phillies have to play 15 games against a handful of opponents from a division with 20+ wins, and the Cardinals are playing a division with three teams currently under .500, how is that fair? Absolutely not.

Of course this scenario affects Wild Card teams the most.

Should you plan to beat the schedule that is front of you? Yes. There are no excuses for losing games on your schedule, no matter who you face, but baseball should address this concern.

For starters there are more teams in the National League so not ever team has to deal with interleague. Sometimes that inter-league schedule plays a role in the playoff spots. Take 2007 for example.

In 2007, the Colorado Rockies made an improbable late season run to the playoffs by sweeping their way through the National League Division and Championship Series'. Eventually they were taken out by the Boston Red Sox.

What helped the Rockies earn that last Wild Card spot? A one game playoff against the San Diego Padres. Both teams tied with the same record at the end of the season and had to play a one game playoff. The Rockies and Padres, both in the NL West, actually played a different slate of interleague games.

The Padres faced the Mariners for six games (one home series and one away) while the Rockies played the entire AL East division. The Rockies went 10-8 in interleague play and the Padres went 6-9 in fewer interleague games.

Meanwhile the New York Mets finished one game short of forcing a three way tie for the NL Wild Card spot, let alone the NL East division crown. The Mets also played fewer interleague games than the Rockies, going 8-7 against the New York Yankees (in a home and a road series), Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, and Oakland A's.

That is an assortment of teams from each division, each with a winning record. If the Mets had just played a National League schedule perhaps they would have made the playoffs and avoided the title of choke artists. We will never know.

Of course, I do not feel bad for the Mets, or the Padres. Nor do I really have sympathy for the 2005 Phillies who missed the wild card by one game and went 7-8 in interleague play against the Red Sox, Mariners, A's, Rangers and Orioles, while the Houston Astros had the same inter league record against Orioles, Royals, Blue Jays, and Rangers.

Another aspect that I do not like about inter-league baseball is the idea of "natural rivals". I understand the term "natural rival" being used when describing the Mets and Yankees, the Orioles and Nationals (talk about a pillow fight), and the Rays and Marlins.

But I will never understand how baseball can tell me that the Phillies and Blue Jays are inter league rivals. Why? Because they played in the 1993 World Series? Because their spring training complexes are close? Because the Phillies once used the term Blue Jays for a season in the 1940's? Maybe there is some logic to that actually.

But that is certainly not the case when someone tries to explain to me how the San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners are interleague rivals. Clearly baseball ran out of quality interleague pairings like Cubs-White Sox, Giants-A's, Dodgers-Angels, Reds-Indians, and Royals-Cardinals.

I would be able to enjoy interleague play if it didn't last so long. If I were running the show I would cut it down to two, maybe three series a season. We don't need 15 games, or in some cases 18!

Instead, if interleague isn't going anywhere (and it sure doesn't seem like it is, much like college football's BCS formula—another rant, another time, another place) then why not designate one full week to it.

Nothing more, nothing less. Start it up on Monday and run through to next Sunday with interleague matchups. And no more of this rotating division schedule stuff either.

The Mets and Yankees play two series and to split it up the Yankees play the Phillies while the Mets play the Red Sox. Make it as regional as possible. Pretend you are sorting all of the teams in baseball into mini divisions.

I have more on this plan, but I'll wait until the long stretch of interleague play to roll that out. Besides, I have already said more than I originally planned.

Follow Macho Row on Twitter.