That’s a good question, but I don’t know. It was a while ago, and I doubt they’d get into those kinds of technical details.
Darlin’, they haven’t played at Candlestick for years. Your brain must have gotten soft from all that sun at Dodger’s games (or maybe it was the white wine and brie). 
See? See?
That’s why I’m in love.
Mmmmmm… a baseball fan.
As Im post this, I am not very far from you at all. (I’m in the hell that is Brea, Ca)
I love the Dodgers and the Angels. The Dodgers for tradition, the Angels because they won me over. It’s a fun team to watch and root for. And their park makes Dodger stadium look like a toilet. And I consider Dodger Stadium a shrine.
It’s true that the Dodger/Evil Scum Dog rivalry is a great one. But 19 games year? That’s a bit much. I have loved seeing some AL teams come in to LA. Particularly the Rangers, A’s, Red Sox and Yankees. Some good fodder for a budding rivalry. But the unbalanced schedule favors marginal teams in weak divisions. Their records can be inflated by playing a rash of games against twinkies. (weak teams, not the Twins)
What can I say? I like inter-league play. I like being able to see the stars I watch on ESPN come to my town. I like seeing Gagne strike out Manny!
I think the teams with the 4 best records in each league should go to the playoffs (after a balanced schedule, of course). No more ‘division winner’ and ‘wildcard’.
The All-Star game should have no relevence to any game that counts. And only outstanding players should go. Some teams do not have outstanding players and should not be represented.
** sigh **
Guess that’s just one more thing that’s wrong with baseball today. Tearing down an institution with nary a thought to the fact that they’re rendering a screamingly funny joke obsolete.
I swear, every day these guys find a new way of treating baseball as though it’s supposed to be about making scads of money, when it’s REALLY supposed to be an American religious ritual, offering spiritual nourishment to the jaded and weary.
What is with you? You seem to think that only the old can be good. There’s been a lot of stuff that lasted for generations that really sucked. And there has been stuff that was good that new innovations have made better.
Ballparks cannot last forever. They become obsolete. They tore down some historic parks because they had become pits by the ravages of time and change.
Some of the new parks are true things of beauty. Like the new parks in Detroit, Philly, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, and yes, San Francicso. And some damned exciting ball is being played there. (well, not so much Pittsburgh)
Do not get stuck in yesterday, my friend. You’ll miss out on some cool stuff today.
Smile when you say that, boy.
I’d rather be an Evil Scum Dog than a Dodger–some things are just too vile to be loved.
They didn’t tear down Candlestick, the 49er’s play there and it is a very fine football stadium. P\Just as part of the charm of baseballis that they will not play in the rain, part of the charm of football is that they do play in the rain and the mud and that fans will pay big bucks for the honor of watching them in the rain.
Well, it did ,ake for some interesting ‘routine’ fly balls. 
Marley23:
Well, no offense, but those kinds of technical details would be the whole point, in this case. 
If interleague play draws no better than similarly situated intraleague play, it’s disingenuous and/or ignorant of the media to claim that interleague play has been a success because of attendance.
There’s no offense to be taken. Either ESPN didn’t account for those details, or I don’t remember what they said. Not my fault either way. 
Disingenous implies that they’re fudging the facts, which isn’t necessarily the case even if they didn’t take the other things into account. Anyway, having been at a Yankees-Mets game, I think the excitement over the rivalries alone is enough to justify interleague play.
Put me down for the anti-Bud, anti-interleague play, Montreal got hosed coalition. While having Cleveland play the Reds and/or the Pirates isn’t bad, having Cleveland play the Astros and Rockies instead of playng multiple series against the Yankees, Orioles, Red Sox, Blue Jays and Angels isn’t worth it. I’d rather the Indians play the Angels than the Dodgers, and the Yankees than the Mets, and the Blue Jays instead of where ever Montreal is playing their home games right now. I dislike the unfairness of the schedule and I dislike wild card playoff teams because they devalue the pennant race.
On the subject of the wild card: I realize that some people like it, because it offers a chance for their team to make the playoffs when that would otherwise be impossible. And that can be a good thing, when you look at the dominance of the Yankees for instance. When the two best records in a league come from the same division, it seems an injustice to leave one of them out because they have the poor luck to play in the same division with the other great team.
But that’s what we’ve done ever since the introduction of divisions. Heck, even the league system has that risk. If the two best records in baseball come from the American League, why are both of those not going to the World Series? Well, because that’s not how it works.
The problems I have with the wild card are:
-
It introduces the LDS, a 5-game series where a team’s accomplishments over 162 games can be rendered meaningless. Especially given the tight scheduling that some teams have to do with pitching rotations if they are in a division race (or wild card race) at the end of the season, luck can play a fairly large role in the outcome – more so than usual.
-
It eliminates the drama and tension of the pennant race. At this point in the season, how many division races are in doubt? Here’s what I see right now:
AL East - Yankees lead Red Sox by 7.5 games
AL Central - Twins lead Indians by 5 games
AL West - A’s lead Rangers by .5 games and Angels by 1.5 games
NL East - Braves lead Marlins by 8.5 games
NL Central - Cardinals lead Cubs by 13.5 games
NL West - Dodgers lead Giants by 4.5 games
With the exception of the NL Central, none of these are forgone conclusions, although some of them are getting there. And the AL West is a fun, exciting place to be.
But let’s look at the Wild Card standings:
AL Wild Card:
Red Sox –
Rangers –
Angels 1
Indians 6.5
White Sox 7.5
NL Wild Card:
Giants
Cubs .5
Padres 1.5
Marlins 6
Astros 6.5
Do the Red Sox, Rangers, Angels and Indians have more incentive to try to win their division or to try to get into the wild card? If interleague play is about introducing rivalries to the game, why do we have more incentive for the Red Sox to beat the Rangers down the stretch than to beat the Yankees?
[QUOTE=Marley23… Anyway, having been at a Yankees-Mets game, I think the excitement over the rivalries alone is enough to justify interleague play.[/QUOTE]
But interleague play focusing on rivalries is really unfair.
Mets winning percentage over the last 5 years:
2002 .466
2001 .506
2000 .580
1999 .595
1998 .543
Yankees winning percentage over the same span:
2002 .640
2001 .594
2000 .540
1999 .605
1998 .704
If you’re the Mets and you’re interested in winning your division instead of simply maximizing revenue, do you want to add 6 games a year against one of the best teams in baseball? Do you want to do that when the Marlins are adding 6 games against the AAA-riffic Devil Rays?
I’m curious.
Can you give me a reason why MLB would lie about something like that? What would be in it for them?
I mean they know better than anyone that games in certain points of the season draw better than games at other points. Surely they would have accounted for that.
I’m aware the Mets haven’t been very good lately, though they were in the World Series only a few years ago. The point is that the rivalry is intense. The fans like it and pack the games. Is that “simply maximizing revenue,” or is it part of the game? The damn thing exists to be entertaining, and I don’t think the integrity of the game is compromised at all. I would say not everybody’s schedule works out evenly anyway, and you play the hand you’re dealt.
I’ll agree that interleague paly CAN be entertaining sometimes, but for the most part, not. Case in point are my Brewers. Being in The AL only a few years ago, it’s kind of fun to see them battle the old AL Central teams. And a NY/NY series can be fun for NYC. But in it’s present format, there are just too many games outside the respective leagues.
I said it before and I’m sticking to it. Teams should play almost every game in the League they are assigned. It not only increases the chances of upsetting a pennant run in a menaingful way, but helps foster better rivalries than “crosstown” rivalries. Anyone want to geuss why the Cubs/Brewers games pull more fans than a White Sox/Brewers series?
I’d prefer holding an AL team as a rival because they’re playing for the World Series title, rather than a geographic contest.
Oh, and since I haven’t said it in awhile, Fuck Selig.
Short version:
What’s in it for them? They look good.
Because if attendance goes up, they made a good decision. Part of the reason these guys own baseball teams is to get attention, and they don’t want to get attention for being guys who make bad decisions.
Longer version:
(analysis and theorizing follow; I do not know these things as facts)
What interleague play does from an MLB-as-a-business standpoint is let the owners collectively manage revenue a bit better. Yankees games draw really well, wherever they play. So a couple of NL teams get a revenue boost for those games. Of course, somebody has to play the Devil Rays and sells no tickets (because, hey who buys tickets to exhibition games?), so you need a way to do more than just move money around, you need to make more.
The idea was that the interleague games would be new and interesting and sell tickets, and that rivalries would form where there are none – earlier in this thread, someone posted a reasonable set of rivalries that could develop. But they have yet to do so, and attendance is flat vs. in-league games at the same time of year, day of the week and place in the standings.
So, they can either back off this decision and do something else, or they can stick it out, invest in it and hope it works in a year or two. When you have a project going that you think is important, you say good things about it instead of bad things. Thus, even when there is no good news if you look at it critically, the superficially good news (attendance is up at interleague games ) vs. the more fully examind one (attendance is up if you compare the same day, but since last year’s Thursday day game against the Blue Jays isn’t really the same as a Saturday evening game against the Cardinals, despite the birdiness of the opponents).