9/28 @ Orioles

[Station 13]

Tazawa hasn't been reliable for awhile. Can't trust him in hi leverage situations. Dempster should get a shot at setup.

 

Did you just volunteer Dempster for set up role?

[User Name]

This scheduling this year has really produced some ridiculous results. It doesn't matter any more, but the Yankees finishing against Houston and Detroit against the Marlins? What ********.

 

The funny thing is that Miami is cleaning Detroit's clock. Not exactly how you wanna finish the season.

[Navafan29]

.600 winning percentage, best record in baseball, and momentum are at stake tommorrow. I really want this win.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

This scheduling this year has really produced some ridiculous results. It doesn't matter any more, but the Yankees finishing against Houston and Detroit against the Marlins? What ********.

Year-round interleague is so bad. Instead of Houston switching leagues to make Texas' life easier (because, you know, they were really struggling on the heels of those two WS appearances), interleague should been bumped up from 18 games to 30, with 18 of those 30 games coming against a team's designated natural rival, effectively creating another division opponent. That way, an actual rivalry has some room to develop and it doesn't feel like a midsummer exhibition series. And the Rangers still get those 18 games against the Astros without the league switch.

 

There are still issues with that, like the fact that at least half of the matchups created would be inconsequential. Mets/Yankees, A's/Giants, Cubs/White Sox, Angels/Dodgers, O's/Nats, Guardians/Reds, Rangers/Astros, Rays/Marlins, and Royals/Cardinals are the only ones that have any geographic relevance, while we'd have 18 fruitless games against the Phillies or Braves or whoever our NR is, not much intrigue there. And of course there's the strength of schedule problems it creates (although still not as egregious as the NFL, and they make it work), and the fact that there's two extra NL teams to account for in all this (maybe make the D'Backs and Rockies play each other an extra 18 times, that'd be funny). But it's cleaner than what's going on now, no?

[Palodios]

Year-round interleague is so bad. Instead of Houston switching leagues to make Texas' life easier (because, you know, they were really struggling on the heels of those two WS appearances), interleague should been bumped up from 18 games to 30, with 18 of those 30 games coming against a team's designated natural rival, effectively creating another division opponent. That way, an actual rivalry has some room to develop and it doesn't feel like a midsummer exhibition series. And the Rangers still get those 18 games against the Astros without the league switch.

 

There are still issues with that, like the fact that at least half of the matchups created would be inconsequential. Mets/Yankees, A's/Giants, Cubs/White Sox, Angels/Dodgers, O's/Nats, Guardians/Reds, Rangers/Astros, Rays/Marlins, and Royals/Cardinals are the only ones that have any geographic relevance, while we'd have 18 fruitless games against the Phillies or Braves or whoever our NR is, not much intrigue there. And of course there's the strength of schedule problems it creates (although still not as egregious as the NFL, and they make it work), and the fact that there's two extra NL teams to account for in all this (maybe make the D'Backs and Rockies play each other an extra 18 times, that'd be funny). But it's cleaner than what's going on now, no?

 

If the Yankees faced the Mets 12 more times every year, you might as well hand them the AL East on a silver platter every year. The correct way to handle interleague play is to give each division the same opponents for the same amount of games every year. If that means more/less interleague play, I don't care either way, but parity is more important than anything else.

[mvp 78]

If the Yankees faced the Mets 12 more times every year, you might as well hand them the AL East on a silver platter every year. The correct way to handle interleague play is to give each division the same opponents for the same amount of games every year. If that means more/less interleague play, I don't care either way, but parity is more important than anything else.

Except that the Mets aren't always a s*** show.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Interleague shouldn't even exist if flawless competitive balance is top priority, but Bud Selig certainly doesn't believe in that. The intent of it (I think) was to create new rivalries and to a lesser extent introduce a bit of novelty, but it didn't do a very good job at the first one. You have to admit my system works better to that end.

 

I guess you could help the cause a teeny bit by stacking these games earlier in the season so that the Yankees aren't getting freebies during the stretch run.

[Thunder]

If the Yankees faced the Mets 12 more times every year, you might as well hand them the AL East on a silver platter every year. The correct way to handle interleague play is to give each division the same opponents for the same amount of games every year. If that means more/less interleague play, I don't care either way, but parity is more important than anything else.

 

Keep in mind that the Mets swept them in 4 games this year.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

His point is still valid though. Imagine last year if the Yankees had 12 more against the Mets while the Orioles had 12 more against the Nats. Or the Rangers got to kick the Astros around 12 more times while Oakland gets stuck the Giants. Things probably would've turned out a bit differently.

 

I'm just spitballing ways to make interleague more engaging instead of it just being an annoying sideshow. There's no way to do it while keeping optimal competitive balance, but the current system isn't great in that regard either.