Why Jim Leyland Is Wrong About Interleague Play

According to Detroit Tigers manager Jim Leyland, interleague play ought to be abolished. He says it puts American League teams like his at a disadvantage because he can't use his designated hitter in National League parks.

Whine Whine Whine. Complain Complain Complain.

In the first place it couldn't be too much of a disadvantage because the American League has dominated interleague play in recent years.

Secondly, the National League is at the same disadvantage in reverse at AL parks. They have no players whose only job is to hit, so they have to ad-lib in AL parks the same way NL teams have to ad-lib in AL parks.

I was watching the Orioles-Yankees game on TV last night and Orioles announcers Gary Thorne and Mike Flannagan were agreeing with Leyland. They pointed out that some teams did very well in interleague play while others did quite poorly—suggesting it is somehow unfair.

If anything it makes it more fair. You have to be able to beat teams from both leagues to be successful.

Besides all that, interleague play is just plain fun, with teams from the same city playing each other and all (Mets-Yankees. Cubs-White Sox. Angels-Dodgers). It even produces fun rivalries between neighboring cities like San Francisco-Oakland and Washington-Baltimore. Interleague games draw the most excitement and the biggest crowds of any regular season games.

I think there should be more interleague play. I get tired of seeing the same teams play each other all the time. I vote to subtract some of those repetitive intra-divisional games and replace them with more interleague games.