'Duk of Big League Stew comments on ten interleague matchups that should become annual.
- Dodgers vs. Yankees
- Brewers vs. White Sox
- Giants vs. Angels
- Cubs vs. Tigers
- Phillies vs. Red Sox
- Cardinals vs. Twins
- Pirates vs. Indians
- Nationals vs. Blue Jays
- Rockies vs. Royals
- Orioles vs. Mets
Some of these would be fun to watch. Philadelphia and Boston fans are perhaps the most loyal, vocal, drunken, and altogether annoying fan bases in the country. Pirates and Indians fans, of course, would show up in Brady Quinn and Ben Roethlisberger jerseys. '
Duk's punishment for the loser of the Colorado/KC series hits especially close to home (literally):
"The Royals and Cardinals participate in the Battle of I-70, but the highway also unites these two teams. Loser will be forced to bus back through eastern Colorado/western Kansas, without a doubt the most boring stretch of highway in our great Union."
4 comments:
I'm still not sure how I feel about interleague ball. At first I was horrified, being a purist and all. Later on I began to dig the logical regional rivalries, as you described and listed them here. There's also the added statistical geek pleasure of interleague stats. Betcha already knew that Ken Griffey, Jr is the all-time leader in home runs hit in interleague games.
All in all, it's not been the worst thing in the world. The logical thing to do would be to just have the regional rivalries, but then that could end up being a real detriment or advantage depending on who we're talking about. That is, even though many thousands more fans would pay to watch Cleveland-Pittsburgh than Cleveland-Florida, if you get rid of the rotating teams and just do Cleveland-Pittsburgh every year, it could conceivably be highly advantageous to the Indians, who would get to beat up on the Pirates every year. Meanwhile, perhaps the Yankees would get a bloody nose playing their regional rival, the Mets (or even the Phillies, who are also pretty good these days).
Anyway, just a few musings. All in all, I find interleague mildly amusing, but I'd rather go back to the old days because playing interleague during the regular season in my opinion takes away some of the mystique and drama of the REAL interleague series, The World Series.
Thanks for your thoughts. I completely agree with you, "I'd rather go back to the old days because playing interleague during the regular season in my opinion takes away some of the mystique and drama of the REAL interleague series, The World Series."
To be honest, I even have problems with the playoff system. It rewards the team that is hot, not the team with the best record over the 162 game season. I think it takes away from the beauty and integrity of the long season.
You have a very good blog here, deaner, BTW. I really like the American Midwest emphasis of the media links. Hal McCoy is one of the greatest contemporary baseball journalists. I really like listening to him and the other writers when they come on the Reds broadcasts. (I really don't care for Marty Brennaman at all, however. While he is technically a good broadcaster, he is just about the most arrogant individual I've ever come across.)
Anyway, you have a good thing here, and I'm surprised there's not more traffic. I'm guessing your blog is fairly new?
PS You're right about the playoff system. Many times the wildcard team is the one that gets on a late run and is hot heading into the playoffs, as opposed to the team that is most consistent over the long haul. That said, I find it a very interesting dynamic to see which style of baseball will prevail: the marathon runner or the sprinter. Of course, all baseball teams are fundamentally marathon runners, but some are more like sprinters than others. So, I find that clash in styles interesting, even though it probably does somewhat devalue the teams that are most consistent over the 162 game schedule.
Post a Comment