Baseball

Inter-league play should be abolished.

It's a gimmick and could have the potential of harming pennant races.

Who is it that decides whom the Phillies and the Mets are going to play in Interleague play?

How fair would it be to either team if one or the other were scheduled to play a bottom-feeder and the other team a top contender?...And either the Mets or the Phillies were to win their respective divisions by a margin decided from Interleague Play....

I say abolish Interleague Play and schedule MORE games with inter-division teams to be a fairer way of determining the pennant winner.

The All-Star Game has lost a bit of it's pomp and circumstance because of Interleague Play.

As far as the winning League being a determing factor of home-field advantage for the World Series, I think that practice should be abolished also.

The All-Star game was brought into being, in part, as a circus act for the fans. Since when are fans the experts at who is playing at an All-Star level? Since the onset of fan-voting, It has become a veritable popularity contest.

World Series home field advantage should be decided by the team with the highest winning percentage.

and do away with artificial turf and the designated hitter and domed stadiums. Have more weekday games and more doubleheaders.

The all-star game as world series determiner? Another stupid idea.

Having Billy Wagner pitch in it.

Declare the All Star Game a pure exhibition of 9 innings. No matter what, it ends after 9 innings. Either one side wins and the other loses, or it's a tie. What's the big deal if it's a tie? It's just an exhibition game. We don't count spring training wins and losses.
The Professor

First, let me say that I agree that they should get rid of the rule that allows the All-star game to determine the WS home team.

Just to play Devil's advocate here, though...
If interleague play creates unfairnesses in scheduling (which I agree, it does) that might allow a weaker team to get a playoff spot ONLY because they had a weaker interleague matchup, doesn't awarding the home field in the WS to the team with the best record have the same unfairness? The Cubs are 1/2 game behind the Angles for winning percentage, but they don't play the same schedule. If one league it weaker, then it's winner will have more games against lesser opponents, and it results essentially the same situation. Of course in one case, the consequences are greater (missing the playoffs altogether or at least a WC instead of DIV championship) than in the other (losing home field), but it's really the same basic issue.

I would suggest that (if you keep interleague play, which like it or not, probably isn't going away) it would be better to determine the WS home team by the total interleague record of all teams. The team in the "stronger" division gets home field, since their champion had presumably a harder schedule.

In any case, the AL has had home field since 2002. That year, it went to 7 games and the home team won. Since then, the only one WS has gone even 6 games (won by the road team Marlins in 2003) and for the others, home field didn't seem to play a big role with three sweeps and the Tigers only winning one game against the road team Cardinals in 2006.

play the Yankees in recent years in both NY and SF.

And watching the Giants play the Red Sox in both BOS and SF.

Now, it'll be fun watching Tampa in the future, and of course, we always get pumped up against the A's.

I think a majority of fans, if it were put to a vote, would continue supporting the system the way it is.

Set a weekend aside in the summer for interleague play and the proceeds go to a local charity and the games don't count. This could be done in lieu of an all star game. Each team would be a hometeam every other year. I know the money pockets won't go for it but I don't like interleague games messing with the standings.

multi-million dollar investments risking injury in a series of inner-league exhibition games?

Inner-league has been 'messing with the standings,' (in your words), for how many years now? And I have yet to hear any of the teams edged out of the playoffs complain they were screwed.

There are 162 games in a season. These inner-league match ups are a drop in the bucket. And if there is concern that they'll radically affect the standings, maybe it'll give teams more incentive to try harder against teams in their own divisions during the first half of the season when they generally coast.

The fans like seeing Mets-Yankees, White Sox-Cubs, Angels-Dodgers, Giants-A's, Royals-Cardinals, (and I would argue, Red Sox-Phillies), etc.

Are we going to start breaking down that it's not fair a specific wild card team gets in because their over all divisional match-ups were easier than the team that was edged out?

Will either the Mets, Phillies or Brewers (whichever team doesn't make the wild card) complain that the Dodgers shouldn't be in the playoffs because they had an easier division, loading up on the Giants, Padres and Rockies?

Are we going to analyze which teams played in retractable roof stadiums, and thus dry fields, versus teams that had to play on wet, sloppy fields after 90 minute rain delays in games lasting until after midnight?

I'll tell you what...if I start hearing the players and teams complain about inner-league so drastically affecting the final standings outcome, maybe I'll be more apt to changing my mind. However, I think it makes things more interesting.

I'd rather see the Giants host the Angels for three games next season, instead of playing an extra three boring games against the Padres or Rockies. Even if the Angels are far more dangerous.

the matchup would be Orioles-Phillies. I'll continue to think outside the box. And I don't place much credence in the injury argument. Its better they get injured in a "real" game? Lets just do away with the American League.

not "inner-league" as I've been writing. :blush:

And I stand corrected. Orioles-Phillies ... even though, WTF isn't it Orioles-Nationals? :crazy:

Anyway, of course it's better they get injured in a regular games versus an exhibition game that doesn't mean anything.

Don't take out your anger with Ed Hochuli on interleague play and the American League!!11! :P

You know you are an idiot for many other reasons. That bonds insanity you're sticking with. Now thats just sad.

I have found peace with Hochuli's crime however I find no reason that the American League should exist anywhere in the universe.

contention that Mike Schmidt is a greater power hitter than Barry. :crazy:

As well as your feeling that the American League should be abolished.

are you making stuff up again? I never mentioned "power hitter" relative to Schmidt, I said he was the greatest home run hitter ever, which he is. And bonds "power" came from the tip of a needle. And next Saturday 27 September is Schmidt's 59th birthday, certainly a holiday for all baseball fans.

Go ahead try to convince me that the American League should exist.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Oh my ribs. :rofl:

I will say because of the fact players move around between leagues so frequently -- unlike the past -- there's really no true National or American League.

I just don't understand why you're so adamant about abolishing the AL.

And why should National League fans get to decide this? What about the feelings of American League fans who want to abolish the NL.

Now where does that put us?

Who the fuck cares about the "feelings" of American League Fans? What the fuck do you think this format is, a democracy.

Greatest Home Run Hitter Ever has nothing to do with statistics. Stats are for drug abusers.

You have been sniffing too much base line chalk at Citizens Bank Park.

Too bad Parche's no longer with us to open the bar.

teams play in person once in a while.

If MLB had balls (no pun intended) they'd let the fans decide.

Agree totally with deciding home-field advantage in the World Series by highest winning percentage. Keep the All-Star game as exhibition.

And dump the designated hitter.

winning percentage also.

Don't like the All-Star game deciding it.

As for the DH, I think A.L. fans like it, so . . .

in that it extends the careers of older players.

But the game is so much more INTERESTING when played without it.

DH bandwagon.

I like watching offense.

regional rivalries.

I don't care if the Mets EVER play the Rockies, Padres, Giants EVER again.

When the Brewers switched to the NL, Selig said it was the first of several major changes to the divisions. Nothing else happened, though.

Phillies did, and the Phillies didn't play the Yankees like the Mets did.

like the NFL how your 'reward' for winning the division is a harder schedule.

But this isn't inter-league play's fault.

Why exactly have my Cards been scheduled to go to Detroit for 3 years in a row?

I detest interleague. And the DH. (Even though I love David Ortiz.)

with 30 or so teams that play now. Why not play each team 5 or 6 times a year. That way everyone plays each other the same amount of times. Everyone gets to see teams like the Yankees (or whoever) in their own stadium each year.

Peace