Inter-League Play

[Mike Wooldridge]

Do You Like Inter-League Play During The ML Baseball Season?

[Shea Zellweger]

Even in years like this, when the Mets go 9-3 to lead the league in IL, I'm still not a fan...

[Mike Wooldridge]

Even in years like this, when the Mets go 9-3 to lead the league in IL, I'm still not a fan...
Why not, Shea?

[Shea Zellweger]

Why not, Shea?

IMHO, it takes some of the mystique out of the world series. The interleague "season," if it's okay to call it that, gives viewers a pretty good idea of what teams are likely to be successful against the other league, and pretty strong statistical evidence for which league has the upper hand in general. The "which league is better" debate has been quashed to some extent, because most people are now content to base their answer on the results of interleague play... I just don't like it :)

[Ryan Scott]

I'd rather they not do it, but there's a number of other things they need to deal with before they worry about inter-league play. I don't mind some of the rivalry series, but who really wants to see Arizona play Kansas City?

[Jeff Scott]

I like it, but I can't stand it when they try to create rivalries like Boston/Atlanta. Boston/Mets isn't even a rivalry. But I do like to see National league teams from time to time. One of the most fun baseball experiences I've had was going to see the Red Sox play in San Francisco in 2004. Pedro came up to bat with the bases loaded. He made an out (I think it was a K), and the Sox lost. I don't think I'm making a very good case for inter-league play seeing as Ortiz at DH with the bases loaded in 2004 was a dream scenario.

While I do like it, I won't be upset if they drop it. But like you said, Ryan, there are soooooooo many other things I'd like to see fixed first.

[Shea Zellweger]

I like it, but I can't stand it when they try to create rivalries like Boston/Atlanta. Boston/Mets isn't even a rivalry. But I do like to see National league teams from time to time. One of the most fun baseball experiences I've had was going to see the Red Sox play in San Francisco in 2004. Pedro came up to bat with the bases loaded. He made an out (I think it was a K), and the Sox lost.

I saw Pedro pitch for the Mets in Atlanta. Atlanta won 3-2, but Pedro had a 2 RBI double... I realize this has nothing to do with the thread, but it seemed like a good time to bring it up :).

[Jim Franklin]

Only the National League plays real baseball. Let the pitchers hit and perhaps they could work on their hitting so that they can make a more reliable contribution in that area. On our new edition of the Boise Hawks, Cub affiliate, is a pitcher who during his college career has averaged between .350 and .400 batting and I am excited to see this kind of pitcher play the game as it should be played. But if he continues that kind of hitting he will probably go the way of one, George Herman Ruth so that he would be hitting on a day to day basis rather than every 4th or 5th day.

[Shea Zellweger]

Only the National League plays real baseball. Let the pitchers hit and perhaps they could work on their hitting so that they can make a more reliable contribution in that area. On our new edition of the Boise Hawks, Cub affiliate, is a pitcher who during his college career has averaged between .350 and .400 batting and I am excited to see this kind of pitcher play the game as it should be played. But if he continues that kind of hitting he will probably go the way of one, George Herman Ruth so that he would be hitting on a day to day basis rather than every 4th or 5th day.

He's in the Cubs' organization, so if he pitches well, they'll let him be another Zambrano.

[Jim Poteet]

Only the National League plays real baseball. Let the pitchers hit and perhaps they could work on their hitting so that they can make a more reliable contribution in that area. On our new edition of the Boise Hawks, Cub affiliate, is a pitcher who during his college career has averaged between .350 and .400 batting and I am excited to see this kind of pitcher play the game as it should be played. But if he continues that kind of hitting he will probably go the way of one, George Herman Ruth so that he would be hitting on a day to day basis rather than every 4th or 5th day.

If what you say is true - what is the name of the game the American League plays? Unreal baseball!

[Shea Zellweger]

If what you say is true - what is the name of the game the American League plays? Unreal baseball!

Junior Circuit Baseball, of course.

[Diane Likens]

ANY baseball game is a good game.

[Jim Franklin]

Coach, it might be junior high ball.

[Jim Poteet]

Coach, it might be junior high ball.

Franklin,

You never cease to amaze me. You never let the facts get in the way of your opinion.:) I am a National League fan, just like you. However, the american League has been much stronger over the last decade +. I believe the AL has won 11 All Star games in a row. And the AL has won more than their share of the World Series.

[Scott Sherwood]

It is too lucrative to ever go away, but I don't like how it imbalances the schedule. Almost every year division rivals competing for a spot in the playoffs are either helped or hurt by their interleague schedule being easier or harder than their rivals. If each team in the NL central had the same interleague schedule as the other teams in the NL central, I would be more in favor of it. For example, this year the NL Central may play interleague games against the AL West (which would actually expand interleague play). So, the Cubs would only play their big crosstown rival once every 3 years, but then the owners could jack up prices even more for that series than they do now. It would balance the schedule and make the competition for the playoffs much more pure.

[Jeff Scott]

Coach, it might be junior high ball.


It is too lucrative to ever go away, but I don't like how it imbalances the schedule. Almost every year division rivals competing for a spot in the playoffs are either helped or hurt by their interleague schedule being easier or harder than their rivals. If each team in the NL central had the same interleague schedule as the other teams in the NL central, I would be more in favor of it. For example, this year the NL Central may play interleague games against the AL West (which would actually expand interleague play). So, the Cubs would only play their big crosstown rival once every 3 years, but then the owners could jack up prices even more for that series than they do now. It would balance the schedule and make the competition for the playoffs much more pure.

I would really like to agree with Jim. However, there are two problems. My favorite team is the Red Sox. David Ortiz is the DH for the Red Sox, and they definitely wouldn't have won the World Series in 04' and '07 without him. They likely wouldn't have won it either year with him playing 1st base.

I will disagree about the Junior Circuit comment. When the National League can beat the American League in anything, with some sort of regularity, maybe I'll buy the description. But I understand why you feel that way Jim, and as I said, I would like to agree with you. I just can't.

[Kevin Rector]

I don't like inter-league play and would like it to go away. Oh, and the American League is clearly superior and has been for many years.

[Shea Zellweger]

I would really like to agree with Jim. However, there are two problems. My favorite team is the Red Sox. David Ortiz is the DH for the Red Sox, and they definitely wouldn't have won the World Series in 04' and '07 without him. They likely wouldn't have won it either year with him playing 1st base.

I will disagree about the Junior Circuit comment. When the National League can beat the American League in anything, with some sort of regularity, maybe I'll buy the description. But I understand why you feel that way Jim, and as I said, I would like to agree with you. I just can't.

The "Junior Circuit" actually refers to the fact that the National League is the older of the two. I do think the DH makes the game a little easier, but it's not as though the teams play by different rules while facing one another, so I don't think it gives one or the other an advantage.

In the last 10 years, the AL is 6-4 in the world series. I would not call that a particularly dominant decade, even when acknowledging that the AL won their series more "convincingly." the 10 years before that, the AL was 6-3, with the Yankee threepeat accounting for half of those wins (not discounting that, just not sure that the dominance of one team can be equated to one league being better). Prior to 1990, it's a pretty cyclical comparison, with the teams exchanging dominance. The reason the AL has received more credit in recent years is its overall record in interleague play. As much as I understand the argument, I am not entirely convinced, since it seems like some sub-par teams are very successful in interleague play, while some very good teams struggle.

[Shea Zellweger]

I believe the AL has won 11 All Star games in a row.

Lies!! How could we forget the 2002 tie, and "this time, it counts"?

[Jeff Scott]

The "Junior Circuit" actually refers to the fact that the National League is the older of the two. I do think the DH makes the game a little easier, but it's not as though the teams play by different rules while facing one another, so I don't think it gives one or the other an advantage.

In the last 10 years, the AL is 6-4 in the world series. I would not call that a particularly dominant decade, even when acknowledging that the AL won their series more "convincingly." the 10 years before that, the AL was 6-3, with the Yankee threepeat accounting for half of those wins (not discounting that, just not sure that the dominance of one team can be equated to one league being better). Prior to 1990, it's a pretty cyclical comparison, with the teams exchanging dominance. The reason the AL has received more credit in recent years is its overall record in interleague play. As much as I understand the argument, I am not entirely convinced, since it seems like some sub-par teams are very successful in interleague play, while some very good teams struggle.

Perhaps the NL is the older of the two, but I don't think that was what he was implying.

Some would argue that the All-Star game and the World Series are not very good indicators of which league is "better." The ASG is an exhibition, and even though "it counts" it really doesn't and I don't think we'll see any Pete Rose-like collisions at the plate any more. The WS can be won by a mediocre, hot team. Like the '06 Cardinals. Therefore, the inter-league play might be a better indicator of which League is "better."


Also--------> :horse:

[Shea Zellweger]

Perhaps the NL is the older of the two, but I don't think that was what he was implying.


Can't speak for others, but since I had said it earlier in this conversation (somewhat jokingly at that), I figured I'd explain my context :)

[Shea Zellweger]

Some food for thought...
At the end of Interleague play, the AL finished 16 games over .500. The margin is closing.
Houston and Pittsburg combined to go 20 games under .500, posting the 2 worst IL records at -9 and -11, respectively. The rest of the NL combined for 4 over.
Final Divisional rankings for interleague:
1) AL West- +12
2) NL East- +4
2) AL Central- +4
4) AL East- 0
5) NL West- -5
6) NL Central- -15

I find it interesting that the best division in baseball (AL East) is in the bottom 50% in Interleague play. IMHO, that points to my previous statement that successful IL teams are not always the same group as successful teams in general.

[Steven Martinez]

Oh the NazNet crash strikes again. I already proved how the NL actually was a better league statistically across the board using the last two years as evidence. If you eliminate the stats for the DH and the 9th spot in the NL (pitchers and the occasional pinch hitter) the NL actually has better numbers as a whole and I believe I calculated that the average and OPS per position was better in 6 out of the 8 positions for the NL.

[Ryan Scott]

Some food for thought...
At the end of Interleague play, the AL finished 16 games over .500. The margin is closing.
Houston and Pittsburg combined to go 20 games under .500, posting the 2 worst IL records at -9 and -11, respectively. The rest of the NL combined for 4 over.
Final Divisional rankings for interleague:
1) AL West- +12
2) NL East- +4
2) AL Central- +4
4) AL East- 0
5) NL West- -5
6) NL Central- -15

I find it interesting that the best division in baseball (AL East) is in the bottom 50% in Interleague play. IMHO, that points to my previous statement that successful IL teams are not always the same group as successful teams in general.

What's Baltimore's interleague record? I'm guessing they bring the whole division down.

[Shea Zellweger]

What's Baltimore's interleague record? I'm guessing they bring the whole division down.

nope. Toronto, Tampa, and Baltimore are tied at 7-11. New York was 11-7, and Boston was 13-5.

But, if we're going to bring up teams that bring groups down, the Astros and Pirates were 3-12 and 2-13, respectively. Those are far and away the two worst interleague records (Washington and Cleveland tied at 5-13 for third worst).

[Jeff Scott]

Can't speak for others, but since I had said it earlier in this conversation (somewhat jokingly at that), I figured I'd explain my context :)

I goofed. Sorry about that.

[Jeff Scott]

Oh the NazNet crash strikes again. I already proved how the NL actually was a better league statistically across the board using the last two years as evidence. If you eliminate the stats for the DH and the 9th spot in the NL (pitchers and the occasional pinch hitter) the NL actually has better numbers as a whole and I believe I calculated that the average and OPS per position was better in 6 out of the 8 positions for the NL.

Yeah, but can you really just pull out a couple of positions and decide which is better? I mean, it's not like those two spots in the line-up aren't there. I'm guessing your calculations actually caused the NN crash!

What happens to pitching stats if you pull out the DH and pitcher hitters?

[Steven Martinez]

Yeah, but can you really just pull out a couple of positions and decide which is better? I mean, it's not like those two spots in the line-up aren't there. I'm guessing your calculations actually caused the NN crash!

What happens to pitching stats if you pull out the DH and pitcher hitters?

The method of calculation was quite simple. According to the statistics, the AL was slightly better in terms of offensive production. However, when you removed the DH the AL actually drops quite significantly in terms of offensive production. In other words as far as position players (catcher through Right Field) the NL actual was the better offensive league in terms of position players. I no longer have the exact figures since I did them by hand. However, just using a ball park figure, when you have a DH, you are replacing a hitter who has an average of .125 with someone who has an average of .280. The OPS was something like sub .500 for pitchers and .775 for the DH.
When most people argue about the better league it is usually based on offensive production. Even when debating pitchers the argument will shift toward the AL because of the perceived better hitting.
However, going by VORP, so far this year the top 5 pitchers are in the NL and 9 out of the top 15 are in the NL. Last year 9 out of the top 15 pitchers where in the NL. The AL did have the top 3 pitchers but Greinke's year looks like a once in a lifetime kind of year and Roy Halladay moved to the NL. Halladay is current third again this year while Greinke is currently 65th. Felix Hernadez who finished 2nd is currently 15th. So it depends on how you want to look at it as far as who has the best pitching.

[Jeff Scott]

The method of calculation was quite simple. According to the statistics, the AL was slightly better in terms of offensive production. However, when you removed the DH the AL actually drops quite significantly in terms of offensive production. In other words as far as position players (catcher through Right Field) the NL actual was the better offensive league in terms of position players. I no longer have the exact figures since I did them by hand. However, just using a ball park figure, when you have a DH, you are replacing a hitter who has an average of .125 with someone who has an average of .280. The OPS was something like sub .500 for pitchers and .775 for the DH.
When most people argue about the better league it is usually based on offensive production. Even when debating pitchers the argument will shift toward the AL because of the perceived better hitting.
However, going by VORP, so far this year the top 5 pitchers are in the NL and 9 out of the top 15 are in the NL. Last year 9 out of the top 15 pitchers where in the NL. The AL did have the top 3 pitchers but Greinke's year looks like a once in a lifetime kind of year and Roy Halladay moved to the NL. Halladay is current third again this year while Greinke is currently 65th. Felix Hernadez who finished 2nd is currently 15th. So it depends on how you want to look at it as far as who has the best pitching.

I'm not disagreeing with your math. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that when you take the best offensive player out of the AL lineups, and take the worst offensive offensive player out of the NL lineups, that the remaining 8 NL players are better than the remaining AL players. That doesn't sound like the NL being better across the board, it sounds like the NL being better without the best offensive AL player and the worst offensive NL player. I think the closest fair comparison would be to see how AL teams fared in NL ball parks. But I'm still not sure it's a fair comparison. I don't really think they're is one.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm not disagreeing with your math. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that when you take the best offensive player out of the AL lineups, and take the worst offensive offensive player out of the NL lineups, that the remaining 8 NL players are better than the remaining AL players. That doesn't sound like the NL being better across the board, it sounds like the NL being better without the best offensive AL player and the worst offensive NL player. I think the closest fair comparison would be to see how AL teams fared in NL ball parks. But I'm still not sure it's a fair comparison. I don't really think they're is one.

The DH is not universally the best offensive player, he is usually the best option from among those who were not selected to play the field. Some DH are their team's best offensive player, some are a defensive liability, and some are just the "best of the rest." Among those who are the best offensive player, several would not get regular playing time in the NL because of their defensive ineptitude. There are currently only two players listed as their team's DH among the 50 best offensive players in the AL, so your reference to them as the "best offensive player" seems more than a little off-base. However, I don't see how it's anything close to an unfair comparison. The AL teams have already removed their worst offensive player by the use of the DH. Steve's claim was that the NL position players are, on average, more productive than the AL position players, effectively neutralizing the DH-Pitcher difference. It's a very logical approach, and probably the closest thing to a fair comparison we could offer.

[Jeff Scott]

The DH is not universally the best offensive player, he is usually the best option from among those who were not selected to play the field. Some DH are their team's best offensive player, some are a defensive liability, and some are just the "best of the rest." Among those who are the best offensive player, several would not get regular playing time in the NL because of their defensive ineptitude. There are currently only two players listed as their team's DH among the 50 best offensive players in the AL, so your reference to them as the "best offensive player" seems more than a little off-base. However, I don't see how it's anything close to an unfair comparison. The AL teams have already removed their worst offensive player by the use of the DH. Steve's claim was that the NL position players are, on average, more productive than the AL position players, effectively neutralizing the DH-Pitcher difference. It's a very logical approach, and probably the closest thing to a fair comparison we could offer.

Good point. However, I stand by my "no fair comparison." They're really isn't. Perhaps closest thing, but it's flawed. It is logical, but as long as there are different rules in each league, there won't be a fair way to compare leagues.

My response also clearly shows my Red Sox/big market team bias. While Ortiz is not the best offensive threat on the Sox now, he clearly once was second only to Manny Ramirez, and I was thinking of his type of DH in my reasoning. Other teams can't or won't afford to have a roster with a DH like Ortiz. But I'm reminded that the Sox got lucky with him. He wasn't expected to produce like he has. Perhaps if other DHs used PEDs my point would be more valid!:smilies1722: