Interleague play

[Jose Tartabul]

Its interleague time again, and every year I get more frustrated with it. Aside from removing some of the drama from the World Series and All Star Game, the leagues play by different rules. Furthermore, since neither the leagues nor divisions are aligned, it is blantantly unfair. A condending team can play a good team in the other league, while its rival can end up playing patsies.

I'm sure it is interesting for Chicago, New York, LA as those teams play their intercity rivals every year, but really, how many people are interested in seeing Pittsburg vs Kansas City or Colorodo vs Seattle?

Would anyone else like to see an end to this sham?

[Bukanier]

...but really, how many people are interested in seeing Pittsburg vs Kansas City or Colorodo vs Seattle?
Just as many as are interested in seeing Pittsburgh vs. Colorado and KC vs. Seattle. At best, it's something else, rare matchups and lineups, at worst, it's still baseball.

I would like to see a more balanced interleague schedule however, if that is mathematically possible.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I see we're still suffering from broken record syndrome about interleague play.

[Jose Tartabul]

I see we're still suffering from broken record syndrome about interleague play.

And I see that cliches are still popular with those who have nothing new to add

[Stumanji]

I'd much rather watch my Mariners play the Rockies than the Blue Jays. Or see them face off against the Diamondbacks instead of the Royals.

Why?

Because it's RARE.

I'm a Seattle Mariners fan. I'm not going to see a World Series any time soon. And I'm not wealthy enough to travel to Denver or San Francisco to see a National League team play in person.

The only way for me to witness these NL stars in person is to wait for Interleague play and catch them at the Safe.

For that reason, Interleague play is A-O-K. :thumbsup:

[bigtime39]

I'd much rather watch my Mariners play the Rockies than the Blue Jays. Or see them face off against the Diamondbacks instead of the Royals.

Why?

Because it's RARE.

I'm a Seattle Mariners fan. I'm not going to see a World Series any time soon. And I'm not wealthy enough to travel to Denver or San Francisco to see a National League team play in person.

The only way for me to witness these NL stars in person is to wait for Interleague play and catch them at the Safe.

For that reason, Interleague play is A-O-K. :thumbsup:


I think the answer to the interleague question will break down on geographical lines, at least to a point. In NY and Chicago, they're likely all for it. I'm against it, because a six-game home and home vs the Nationals means NOTHING to me as an Orioles fan. Posters like Stumanji, who don't have teams from the other league close by, will likely be mostly in favor.
I'd do away with interleague. But then again, I'd also do away with the unbalanced schedule.

[spark240]

I think the answer to the interleague question will break down on geographical lines, at least to a point. In NY and Chicago, they're likely all for it. I'm against it, because a six-game home and home vs the Nationals means NOTHING to me as an Orioles fan.

In fairness, a lot of people in the Maryland/DC area do like this one, and I'm certain the interest would be even higher if both teams were good. (The O's don't look too terrible in the standings at the moment, but I expect most folks are assuming that's a mirage.)

I'd do away with interleague. But then again, I'd also do away with the unbalanced schedule.

I'd cut back some on the interleague, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a few games for the geographical rivalries, and to give everybody a chance to see the other teams every few years.

The unbalanced schedule was long overdue (since the advent of divisions).

[metfan13]

Don't like interleague play. Until the AL gets back to playing real baseball, the match-ups don't work. Either the NL team needs to add a bench player to the line-up or the AL team needs to bench one fo their key offensive players.

Also, not fair that teams competing for first place within a division don't play the same schedule.

[west coast orange and black]

stumanji: Mariners - Rockies; Mariners - Diamondbacks .... Because it's RARE.

rarer still would be for these teams to meet in the world series.

the ice cream flavor known as novelty melted long ago.
ditch the interleague scheme.

[cardsfanatic]

I like inter-league and most of the changes Bud Selig has made to baseball. I feel the wildcard is good for baseball. I feel like IL play is as well. Now, if only the AS game would go back to being an exhibition I'd be pretty much fine with baseball as-is.

[SamtheBravesFan]

stumanji: Mariners - Rockies; Mariners - Diamondbacks .... Because it's RARE.

rarer still would be for these teams to meet in the world series.

the ice cream flavor known as novelty melted long ago.
ditch the interleague scheme.

You're sounding a little too much like lovethegame now. :P

[west coast orange and black]

i do not understand what "lovethegame" means, stbf.

[SamtheBravesFan]

i do not understand what "lovethegame" means, stbf.

He's a poster here on BBF that constantly talks in sentence fragments and prose just like you did there. ;)

[west coast orange and black]

^^
sentence fragments? :lookitup

[SamtheBravesFan]

^^
sentence fragments? :lookitup

Well, I think "Ditch the interleague scheme." is a sentence fragment. The first one was fine. :P

[west coast orange and black]

"you" is understood. no? "run!"

[whoisonit]

"you" is understood. no? "run!"

Proper gramatical structure, at least when attempted, and puntuation are more easily understood, thanks.

[Toy Boat]

The only time I care about interleague is when the Mets play the Yanks. If they can manage the schedule so that interleague is limited solely to rival games (Mets/Yanks, Cubs/Sox, etc.) then I'd be for that. Also I think that's the most realistic option since they'll never get rid of it totally.

[Urbanshocker13]

The only time I care about interleague is when the Mets play the Yanks. If they can manage the schedule so that interleague is limited solely to rival games (Mets/Yanks, Cubs/Sox, etc.) then I'd be for that. Also I think that's the most realistic option since they'll never get rid of it totally.

I have thought they should do this before, the only really good games are between the rivals, there has been only a couple of other entertaining interleague games like when the Giants came to the Bronx since they left New York and Bonds hit the moonshot into the upperdeck, besides that they mostly get in the way of division races.

[Old Sweater]

I like the interleague

Good 2-2 game between the Rockies and Twins right now

[DodgerBlue8188]

I wish they did it like the NFL. Of course this is harder because the divisions being different in amount of teams.

[SamtheBravesFan]

And I see that cliches are still popular with those who have nothing new to add

You're one to talk with such rehashed points. It's beginning to sound very much like the debate about the designated hitter. The same points are brought up over and over again. This is no different.

[bigtime39]

The only time I care about interleague is when the Mets play the Yanks. If they can manage the schedule so that interleague is limited solely to rival games (Mets/Yanks, Cubs/Sox, etc.) then I'd be for that. Also I think that's the most realistic option since they'll never get rid of it totally.

Yeah, because that won't screw up the schedule...at all.
If MLB was a 32-team, four divisions per league set up, interleague play on a rotating basis, without the annual "rivalry" games, would work. As it currently stands, it's simply a scheduling mess, and your proposal would make that mess worse. How are you going to set an AL East schedule on a "rivalry" basis, when Toronto and Boston have no natural geographic "rivals". Hell, the "Battle of the Beltway(s)" and the "Battle of Florida" are about as contrived as you can get.

[STLCards2]

I understand why many people do not like it, but for selfish reasons, I have very much enjoyed interleague play. I have gotten to see A-Rod, Jeter, Rivera, Clemens (before he went to the 'Stros), Manny, Ichiro, amung others in person at the park because of it. I hope it doesn't go anywhere.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

Interleague play is one of the best things to happen to baseball in a long time.

[Love The Game]

I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to interleague play. You will never have a completely balanced schedule so people need to stop whining about that. Any team can beat any other team at any given time. If that weren't true the Orioles would never beat the Red Sox. If anything, it is a true test of which teams are truly good--when you have to face an unfamiliar opponent, the real talent shows. True baseball fans want to see every different type of game possible.

[Toy Boat]

Yeah, because that won't screw up the schedule...at all.
If MLB was a 32-team, four divisions per league set up, interleague play on a rotating basis, without the annual "rivalry" games, would work. As it currently stands, it's simply a scheduling mess, and your proposal would make that mess worse. How are you going to set an AL East schedule on a "rivalry" basis, when Toronto and Boston have no natural geographic "rivals". Hell, the "Battle of the Beltway(s)" and the "Battle of Florida" are about as contrived as you can get.

Take a chill pill. In case you missed it I said "If they can manage the schedule so that interleague is limited solely to rival games (Mets/Yanks, Cubs/Sox, etc.) then I'd be for that." For the teams that don't have a natural rival I would just rotate their opponent every year. If the schedule makers can't make it work than so be it.

[Old Sweater]

Wins by League:
YEAR AL NL
1997 97 117
1998 114 110
1999 116 135
2000 136 115
2001 132 120
2002 123 129
2003 115 137
2004 126 125
2005 136 116
2006 154 98
2007 137 115
Totals 1,387 1,317


NL 2007

8 spot/.255 .325 .379
9 spot/.187 .241 .269

AL 2007

8 spot/.241 .301 .364
9spot/ .250 .302 .367


Pretty darn good even steven games if you ask me.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Pretty darn good even steven games if you ask me.

But that's looking at the big picture. The specific complaint is that one team in a division gets harder opponents and another team in the same division gets easier opponents. That's why people say it's unfair.

[Old Sweater]

But that's looking at the big picture. The specific complaint is that one team in a division gets harder opponents and another team in the same division gets easier opponents. That's why people say it's unfair.

Still debating a 20% flux.

Bad team .400 ball

Good team .600 ball

I don't mind the interleague as much as the Rockies having to face all the good pitching in the NL West 18 times a season as far as the unfair theory go's.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I don't mind the interleague as much as the Rockies having to face all the good pitching in the NL West 18 times a season as far as the unfair theory go's.

Point well taken. ;)

[Evangelion]

Still debating a 20% flux.

Bad team .400 ball

Good team .600 ball

I don't mind the interleague as much as the Rockies having to face all the good pitching in the NL West 18 times a season as far as the unfair theory go's.
Interleague only inbalance due to the fact that Rockies would play the Twins while the D-Backs would play the Royals. The inbalance comes from the fact the Rockies never face the Royals while the D-backs never face the Twins. The inbalance schedule against the division is balance in a sense since the Rockies will face their division rivals 18-20 times, just like the D-backs will. Both teams will play the same teams around the same amount of times.

It's irrelevant if the competition is good or bad. It's the fact that one team won't meet the other while another team in the division will meet that team you'll never face and vice versa.

[SwissRedSoxFan]

Interleague play is one of the best things to happen to baseball in a long time.

WORD!
Absolutely love it. Seeing Ryan Braun or Prince Fielder at Fenway. Last year we booed a guy named Barry Bonds out of Fenway.

I love it. I understand the difficulty but I love the fact to not playing Baltimore, NY or Tampa more, but different teams.

It makes it exciting.

[Great One]

I would like to see a more balanced interleague schedule however, if that is mathematically possible.

Agreed. I would like to see a list of the opponents that are in the coming years. The NFL's schedule is set up like this. This was set up in 2002 and stops at 2009. It would be nice if we would know ahead of time, say if the Pirates were playing the Red Sox at PNC in 2009, or when the Indians are coming to Washington to play the Nationals.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I'm a fan as well. Baseball overall needs to get the scheduling in order. They can do so while still keeping interleague in the picture. I wouldn't mind scaling it back a little (one home and one road series per team per year would be nice), but at the same time I still enjoy it. I got to see Juan Pierre steal some bases and Brad Penny pitch a good game last year, and this year I'm gonna see the Braves come to town, and maybe the Cubbies. Again, as a fan who will not see an NL team come to town for a long time in the WS, it's nice to see them a couple times a year.

[califangels72]

angels take two of three this weekend from the dodgers....sweeeeet! :clapping

[zahavasdad]

part of the problem is some natural rivariles rarely happen , but there is another "natural rival"

Here are some examples of rare fought rivals (Or could be rivals)


Red Sox - Mets
Yankees - Phillies
Phillies - Orioles
White Sox - Brewers
Indians - Pirates
Padres - Angels
Reds - White Sox
Braves - Rays

[spark240]

part of the problem is some natural rivariles rarely happen , but there is another "natural rival"

Here are some examples of rare fought rivals (Or could be rivals)

We did see all of those in the period when interleague was only by divisional geography (AL East vs. NL East, etc.)... but of course (many) people want to eventually see all possible matchups.

The fair solution is to move one NL team to the AL (creating equal divisions), and draw up schedules in three-year blocks, with teams in any given division getting equivalent cumulative schedules over the course of the three years.

[BoweryBoys]

To me Interleague play is a major bore and I live around LA California where it is Dodgers vs Angels. As far as I'm concerned the Dodgers Angels rivalry should have been left to the "freeway series" exhibition games.

I don't buy the because it is "rare" idea. Maybe ten years ago as a onetime special novelty but by now the novelty has worn off. Chalk it up as another unnecessary change of recent years, an over reaction to the strike which has long since out lived its temporary need and purpose. And please, no poor arguments that since fans attend the games that they must love it as if that makes it necessary. Fans love baseball on the field and would go to games whether there was IL play or not.

These are not the 1930s with only 16 teams without the huge daily TV exposure and special cable channel packages, etc. The days of the Yankees going to some non MLB town somewhere for an exhibition game to give the people the treat of getting to see MLB with Ruth and Gehrig are long over. And even so the only "treat" as for someone seeing it in person at the park is for those in close proximity of one of the 30 MLB cities of today. I see no need or valid reason today for glorified exhibition games during the season.

The single biggest reason that I think IL play is a joke though is how it messes up the two league's schedules as to games against opponents in their own league. I used to love and look forward to (twice) each season driving down to San Diego to take in all (6 games) there each year between my Cardinals and the Padres. To me the idea that some teams within the same league now play each other a total of only 6 times a year, 3 and 3, so that teams can play series against teams that are not even in the same league is just plain stupid.

If IL must be, then contain it to just 6-8 games a year that DO NOT count in the standings, 3-4 home and 3-4 road. the other 154-156 games against same league opponents would be the only ones to count in the standings but player stats could count for all total games played. Either that or just realign MLB the way the NFL did in 1970. Far be it of Bud Selig though to actually have an orderly and organized system for scheduling in MLB that makes real sense.

[BoweryBoys]

I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to interleague play. You will never have a completely balanced schedule so people need to stop whining about that. Any team can beat any other team at any given time. If that weren't true the Orioles would never beat the Red Sox. If anything, it is a true test of which teams are truly good--when you have to face an unfamiliar opponent, the real talent shows. True baseball fans want to see every different type of game possible.

Because it is stupid, idiotic and most of all totally unnecessary. Worst then that it completely messes up scheduling and causes a situation where teams play other teams that are not even in the same league as often as they play some teams in their own league. The way that MLB handles IL play is one of the stupidest things that Selig has ever done to the game and he has done some woppers. If they want interleague then realign like the NFL in 1970, they could even add two last new expansion teams and have MLB with 16 team National and American Conferences. Then they could have Mets and Yankees or Dodgers and Yankees play all want with a regular scheduling system that makes more sense.

[Great One]

We did see all of those in the period when interleague was only by divisional geography (AL East vs. NL East, etc.)... but of course (many) people want to eventually see all possible matchups.

The fair solution is to move one NL team to the AL (creating equal divisions), and draw up schedules in three-year blocks, with teams in any given division getting equivalent cumulative schedules over the course of the three years.

This idea was actually bought up when Arizona and Tampa Bay entered the league. They saw that each league would have 15 teams and that there was at least one guaranteed interleague matchup. The league said, no, we don't want that. That was why Milwaukee was switched from the American to the National League so that this would be prevented.

The only was to make it balanced is to create two more teams to play in the AL, then create 4 divisions with 3 teams. But that is for another debate at another time.

[spark240]

As far as I'm concerned the Dodgers Angels rivalry should have been left to the "freeway series" exhibition games.

Nobody takes exhibition games seriously anymore.

The single biggest reason that I think IL play is a joke though is how it messes up the two league's schedules as to games against opponents in their own league. I used to love and look forward to (twice) each season driving down to San Diego to take in all (6 games) there each year between my Cardinals and the Padres. To me the idea that some teams within the same league now play each other a total of only 6 times a year, 3 and 3, so that teams can play series against teams that are not even in the same league is just plain stupid.

You're getting interleague play mixed up with the unbalanced divisional schedule. Obviously both are factors in writing the schedule, but neither is necessarily dependent on the other. We could have an unbalanced divisional schedule with no interleague play, or we could have interleague play with an otherwise balanced schedule. Either or both could be written more easily with balanced divisions, that is, the same number of teams in each.

[spark240]

This idea was actually bought up when Arizona and Tampa Bay entered the league. They saw that each league would have 15 teams and that there was at least one guaranteed interleague matchup. The league said, no, we don't want that. That was why Milwaukee was switched from the American to the National League so that this would be prevented.

I know, and that was a mistake.

The argument was, with an odd number of teams in each league, we'd "have to" have one interleague matchup each day of the season. Of course, that's not true, since there's no need to have every team in action every day, and indeed we don't have every team playing every day anyway.

Somehow, it was thought better to have all the interleague games come in clusters, so that the Indians would be playing the Reds on the same day the Yankees were playing the Mets, and so on. I would rather see the "rivalry," or novelty, matchups spread over the year, so that each one might potentially serve as an item of broader national interest. As it is, they all come at once, and we mostly don't have the chance to get into the stories of fights where we don't already have a dog.

[BoweryBoys]

Nobody takes exhibition games seriously anymore.



You're getting interleague play mixed up with the unbalanced divisional schedule. Obviously both are factors in writing the schedule, but neither is necessarily dependent on the other. We could have an unbalanced divisional schedule with no interleague play, or we could have interleague play with an otherwise balanced schedule. Either or both could be written more easily with balanced divisions, that is, the same number of teams in each.

No really I'm not and its apples and oranges. The point is that if there was no interleague play, which is a completely unnecessary gimick, then it would be easier for schedule makers to concentrate on as balanced and equitable a schedule, with all games within the same league, as possible. Never before in the decades of the game's history, at least since 1901, have teams within the same league played each other only a little as six times a year. Interleague play is the (SOLE) cause of this. I do not believe for a moment that if not for interleague play that schedule makers couldn't come up with a better system, even with the three division leagues and uneven number of teams between leagues. If they just fixed the leagues into 3 equal divisions of 5 teams each it would be even easier. They could have just added 2 games to the schedule also and teams could easily play as many as 16 games a year against divisional opponents and 10 games a year against non divisional teams. Why don't they do something simple and easy like that thay makes sense? Simple they decided the game as it was sucked and needed "changes" to bring in the casual fans.

[spark240]

The point is that if there was no interleague play, which is a completely unnecessary gimick, then it would be easier for schedule makers to concentrate on as balanced and equitable a schedule, with all games within the same league, as possible.

I am against a balanced schedule, with or without interleague play. With a balanced schedule, it doesn't make sense to have divisions and playoffs; or conversely, with divisions and playoffs (which everybody loves, as far as I can see), it doesn't make sense to have a balanced schedule.

Never before in the decades of the game's history, at least since 1901, have teams within the same league played each other only a little as six times a year. Interleague play is the (SOLE) cause of this.

You don't think having 14 or 16 teams (in three divisions) in a league, instead of eight (with no divisions) has anything to do with it?

I do not believe for a moment that if not for interleague play that schedule makers couldn't come up with a better system, even with the three division leagues and uneven number of teams between leagues. If they just fixed the leagues into 3 equal divisions of 5 teams each it would be even easier.

I agree that the schedules could be better, and I've already said that equal-sized divisions would make it easier to make the schedules better.

We may disagree about what a "better" schedule would be.

Why don't they do something simple and easy like that thay makes sense? Simple they decided the game as it was sucked and needed "changes" to bring in the casual fans.

While I agree that the current regime in MLB has done a lot of things that seem to be based on an assumption that baseball is boring and needs jazzing up, in fairness it must be said that some of those who like interleague play are more than casual fans.

[BoweryBoys]

The fact remains that whether a majority of people like or dislike interleague play, it is still reality that it is totally unnecessary. To argue otherwise is a form of admitting that something was "wrong" with MLB that needed "fixing" and that IL play was a "great fix". I don't buy that at all. It is clear that it is simply a gimmick that was started to "spice up" the game and many think it is a great thing that did just that. Then those people must think the game needed "spicing up".

Now is it a successful gimmick, maybe and I suppose that could be argued from both sides but there is no getting around the fact that it was never needed in the first place. Please try and convince me that MLB would have died a slow painful death without IL play...you can't. So the only real honest debate is whether one is for it or against it, likes it or doesn't. Fact remains it is a gimmick any way you want to define it and a thing done in hopes of getting even more fans to spend money on MLB. Try and convince me that the powers of MLB started it for any other reason and really thought the game would die out without it...yeah right! Just because people like it doesn't mean it was a necessary change to make. None, zero, of the changes that Selig has made to MLB were necessary for the survival of the game. To believe otherwise is to give the game discredit and feel that it was never really as great a game as Selig has now made it. That type thinking also gives Selig way too much credit. You can't have it both ways. You can think that Selig's changes have made it a "better game" but then you have to be honest an state that the game needed to "become better". I don't buy that idea for a moment.

Interleague play is a bore and waste of time. I will start to follow the season again when the season starts up again after IL play is finished.

[BoweryBoys]

I am against a balanced schedule, with or without interleague play. With a balanced schedule, it doesn't make sense to have divisions and playoffs; or conversely, with divisions and playoffs (which everybody loves, as far as I can see), it doesn't make sense to have a balanced schedule.



You don't think having 14 or 16 teams (in three divisions) in a league, instead of eight (with no divisions) has anything to do with it?



I agree that the schedules could be better, and I've already said that equal-sized divisions would make it easier to make the schedules better.

We may disagree about what a "better" schedule would be.



While I agree that the current regime in MLB has done a lot of things that seem to be based on an assumption that baseball is boring and needs jazzing up, in fairness it must be said that some of those who like interleague play are more than casual fans.

Bottom-line is that two 15 team leagues with three 5 team divisions, 164 games with 16 against division opponents and 10 against non-division opponents would be a lot better then the total disorganized mess of the schedule that interleague play is and it would still satisfy those who do not like a balanced schedule and want teams to play more games against division opponents then not.

Just about anything would be better then the scheduling mess that is IL play. Why don't they just call MLB the NFL?

[Jose Tartabul]

To me Interleague play is a major bore and I live around LA California where it is Dodgers vs Angels. As far as I'm concerned the Dodgers Angels rivalry should have been left to the "freeway series" exhibition games.

I don't buy the because it is "rare" idea. Maybe ten years ago as a onetime special novelty but by now the novelty has worn off. Chalk it up as another unnecessary change of recent years, an over reaction to the strike which has long since out lived its temporary need and purpose. And please, no poor arguments that since fans attend the games that they must love it as if that makes it necessary. Fans love baseball on the field and would go to games whether there was IL play or not.

These are not the 1930s with only 16 teams without the huge daily TV exposure and special cable channel packages, etc. The days of the Yankees going to some non MLB town somewhere for an exhibition game to give the people the treat of getting to see MLB with Ruth and Gehrig are long over. And even so the only "treat" as for someone seeing it in person at the park is for those in close proximity of one of the 30 MLB cities of today. I see no need or valid reason today for glorified exhibition games during the season.

The single biggest reason that I think IL play is a joke though is how it messes up the two league's schedules as to games against opponents in their own league. I used to love and look forward to (twice) each season driving down to San Diego to take in all (6 games) there each year between my Cardinals and the Padres. To me the idea that some teams within the same league now play each other a total of only 6 times a year, 3 and 3, so that teams can play series against teams that are not even in the same league is just plain stupid.

If IL must be, then contain it to just 6-8 games a year that DO NOT count in the standings, 3-4 home and 3-4 road. the other 154-156 games against same league opponents would be the only ones to count in the standings but player stats could count for all total games played. Either that or just realign MLB the way the NFL did in 1970. Far be it of Bud Selig though to actually have an orderly and organized system for scheduling in MLB that makes real sense.


Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said :applaud:

[west coast orange and black]

stlcards2: I understand why many people do not like it, but for selfish reasons, I have very much enjoyed interleague play. I have gotten to see A-Rod, Jeter, Rivera, Clemens, Manny, Ichiro...

kudos for admitting your selfishness, stl.
but, what of the fans who can not attend games? who are not as fortunate?

[west coast orange and black]

ltg: I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to interleague play.

i am strongly against interleague, and it has nothing to do with the schedule, balanced or otherwise.
it does, however, have everything to do with the fact that teams primarily build their rosters to compete in their own division and secondly to compete against probable division winners so that they can advance through the playoffs.
teams do not get assembled to compete against teams in the facing league. if so then all 30 would compete at all times under the same rules, which speaks to my biggest gripe: baseball oughtta be played under the same rules.

True baseball fans want to see every different type of game possible.

"true"? what does that mean?
at candlestick and mays field in the city, and a score of other fields nationwide i have seen more than a thousand non-interleague games played with "every different type of game possible"... and enjoyed 'em.

[Stumanji]

I don't buy the because it is "rare" idea. Maybe ten years ago as a onetime special novelty but by now the novelty has worn off.

I didn't mean to imply that the idea of an NL team playing an AL team is rare... I meant to say that the match-ups are rare. Once every few seasons I'll get to see the Reds or Marlins or Mets play at Safeco Field. I'm in Washington (state), guys... I don't have the luxury of multiple teams a few hours down the road.

Colorado fans can relate as well... though KC and Texas are closer to them than Colorado and San Francisco are to us Mariner fans.

And please, no poor arguments that since fans attend the games that they must love it as if that makes it necessary. Fans love baseball on the field and would go to games whether there was IL play or not.

Yeah... fans of BASEBALL go to any game to see baseball. But, what percentage of a 40,000 person crowd would that be? 10%? 15%? Some people aren't there for just the baseball.