Feature Articles

Interleague Sham: How to Narrow the Gap By James Meyerriecks

Crying broke out throughout the East Coast this week when Met and Yankee fans realized that they'd have to square off against one of the better teams in baseball for the second time this season in interleague play, while other teams such as the Cardinals and White Sox got to face off against two of the worst teams in baseball for the second time. Could I possibly have any less sympathy for fans of the two teams? Absolutely not.

Interleague play for the 2006 season is almost over, and here's what we've learned to this point; The American League has a major advantage in interleague play. Through Friday, the American League leads the interleague matchup 139-85. Were they to lose the remaining 28 games on the dockett, they'd finish thirty games up on the National League in what has been the biggest trouncing in recent memory.

The losers here aren't the Mets or Yankees, but the Houston Astros, Washington Nationals, Philadelphia Phillies, and Florida Marlins. Why? Each of those four National League teams will play eighteen games against the American League when all is said and done, while their other twelve NL foes will have played just fifteen. Each team in the American League will play an NL foe eighteen times this season, which (it would seem) gives them a terrific opportunity to fatten up.

Before we get started with just how they can correct how unbalanced the two leagues are, I'd like to share a few interesting tidbits:

- The Kansas City Royals (26-52) were widely considered a team on the verge of challenging to be the worst the game has ever seen until a couple of weeks ago. While their resurgence happens to coincide with the fact that they recently made a rather large change in the front office, it's clear that's not the only thing. The Royals (17-44 against the American League) clinched that they would not finish with a record below .500 in interleague play with Friday's 7-5 win over the St. Louis Cardinals. They're now 9-7 against the National League and have two games remaining in St. Louis.

- Entering play Friday, only one team in the American League was assured of a losing record in interleague play (Anaheim - 5-10). Cleveland (6-9 entering Friday) joined them when Bob Wickman blew a four-run lead in the ninth inning against the Reds Friday night. Conversely, the National League had just three teams enter the weekend with a winning record (Colorado [9-3], Florida [8-7], San Francisco [8-7]), and only two were assured to have winning records in interleague play by the end of the weekend (San Francisco is done with interleague play).

- The four teams that would make the playoffs in the National League if the playoffs started today went a combined 22-34 against the American League.

While everyone and their mother has talked about how dominant the American League has been over their NL counterparts, I've yet to see many solutions offered as to how more parity can be created between the two leagues. Let's face it... this is nothing new. In fact, the American League was 136-116 against the National League last season (if you want to be picky, the NL led the all-time series 11,04-1,095 entering play this year). In the last two World Series, the AL has beaten the NL 8-0. Since 1997, the American League is 8-0-1 in the All-Star Game (which, laughably, will determine homefield advantage for the World Series again this season).

There are some solutions, though most purists won't want to hear about them. The first thing we need to determine, however, is whether this is a trend that's going to continue or simply an anomaly that has carried over for the past two seasons.

Will the problem correct itself without any changes being made?

While, traditionally, there have been periods in MLB (and all of sports... does anyone else remember the NFC dominance in the Super Bowl for nearly two decades?) where one league has completely dominated the other, this would appear to be different. Why? The rules aren't the same in each league. MLB either needs to step in and abolish the Designated Hitter OR they need to allow for the Designated Hitter in the National League.

It goes well beyond a simple cosmetic issue. In-game strategies are certainly affected depending upon whether the DH rule is in place or not, which is the most obvious factor that people notice. However, they should have little to no bearing on this discussion. When teams play in an American League park, there is a DH in place for both teams, while the reverse is strue in National League parks. Neither team has any legitimate advantage on the field because of the DH rule... or do they?

Find me a bench player on any National League team that's a quarter of the hitter that Jason Giambi, Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, Jonny Gomes (are you getting the point yet?), etc., are. I dare you! American League teams have built themselves differently because of the DH, which gives them a drastic advantage over their NL foes when they're playing at home. Rather than loading up their rosters with their eight primary position players and some quality (preferably above average) backups to pinch hit, the AL teams can focus more on loading up their nine starting spots and find a couple of late-inning defensive replacements to go along with a couple of other solid bench guys.

The difference extends beyond hitting, though. First, let's examine how it can affect the bullpen arms that teams carry. As of right now, four teams in the American League are carrying just eleven pitchers on their roster. In the National League, fifteen of sixteen teams are carrying at least twelve pitchers on their roster (actually, the Phillies currently have fourteen!). Why is this? Relief pitchers rarely bat in the National League. Sure; some of them enter games in double switches (more on that in a bit) so that they don't bat early in the order the next inning. This isn't always the case, however. Simply put, some NL teams have to carry an extra pitcher just because they have no choice but to remove their pitcher if they come up to the plate in a crucial situation.

Moving along, let's talk about the double switch, and how it can drastically hamper a team's lineup. For the most part (this is certainly not always the case, but...), players who aren't starters ride the pine for a reason: they aren't their team's best option, either in the batting order or in the field. In order to adequately execute a double switch, teams must focus on balance on the bench. In short, rather than having a handful of guys who have a terrific bat and another handful who have a terrific glove off the bench, NL teams have to have one (larger) handful of players who tend to be more adequate in both areas than terrific in one or the other.

To move even further beyond these differences, however, we must look at how teams draft and develop talent in each league. Teams in the American League can focus on drafting a player like Ortiz or Hafner, regardless of how big a defensive liability he's going to be. Teams in the National League that end up with such players rarely ever get them on the field. They either trade them to the American League (see Barton, Daric), or try to disguise them at first base or in a corner outfield spot (see Ward, Daryle or Wilson, Craig or [more recently] Barry Bonds) to bury their defensive shortcomings. While many of these players would see extensive playing time if there were a Designated Hitter in both leagues, they're stuck platooning or riding the bench because of their defensive shortcomings in the NL.

Am I saying I'm in favor of using the Designated Hitter in both leagues? Not necessarily. I actually prefer the strategy that needs to be used without the DH, and would almost prefer to see it abolished (try pulling the wool over the Union's eye on that one!), though it would never happen. The DH is better for the casual fan (who prefers action, aka a lot of runs), which is what baseball is more interested in anyway. MLB has always operated under the assumption that regardless of how it tampers with its rules and traditions, the diehard fans will keep coming back. The casual fan is their marker because they're the ones that will increase their income.

Therefore, my ruling would have to be in favor of adding the Designated Hitter in the National League. If the current system stays in place, the gap between the two leagues is more likely to widen than narrow.

Scheduling Issues/Realignment (Again!)

As if the baseball purists would ever allow the Designated Hitter to be added to the National League, let's move on to two things that would even further infuriate them: another realignment plan and more widescale interleague play. I mentioned at the top of the article how several teams' fans are crying about the schedule that they have to play in interleague, while I also pointed out that four teams in the National League (whose fans have strangely been very quiet about it) had to play three more interleague games than the rest of their leaguemates in a season where their league got flat-out dominated. This is not a scheduling snafu that will be fixed next season, as the unbalanced number of teams in each league (16 NL, 14 AL) is something that's going to constantly warrant it.

In order to fix this grievous error, baseball would have to do one of the following two things:

Option 1: Realign the league and divisional format to include three five-team divisions in each league AND allow for year-round interleague play

OR

Option 2: Abolish interleague play altogether

Let's start by examining the first option we've presented. For starters, we would have to pick a team from the National League (ideally, Milwaukee, who has only been in the league for a few short seasons and has developed less rivalries within their division/league) to move to the American League. At that point, one of the teams from the AL Central (possibly Kansas City, which would be the ideal geographic choice) would have to move to the AL West to align the league so that there were five teams in each division.

Note: There would be countless ways to achieve this. You could move an Arizona or Colorado (still two relatively young teams existence-wise) to the American League and put Houston in their place. For "natural rivalries", this might actually be more ideal, as a Texas-Houston and St. Louis-Kansas City matchup wouldn't interfere with divisional formatting.

The unfortunate factor that you would be looking at if you were to use a system like this is that the leagues would no longer be aligned with an even number of teams in each league. Simply put, a bye week in the NFL makes sense. Nights off in the NHL and NBA make sense as well. Three nights off in a row (as baseball traditionally operates with either two, three, or four game series) in baseball does not make sense, particularly when you're giving that three-day bye to one team in each league. For this reason, you have interleague play year-round.

Note: Again, MLB would never let this happen. Why? It would cut into their profits. Rather than going with a system that's more geared towards teams having a chance, they'll take the financial gains. For now, interleague play remains something that MLB fans think that they can't see everyday. Under my proposed scheduling, fans would still flock to interleague games more often because said opponent would only be in town once every two years, but.....

Schedules could be set as follows:

- Teams play each team in the other two divisions in their league six times (home & home three game series) (60 games)
- Teams play each team within their division fourteen times (home & home three game set and a home & home four game set) (56 games)
- Teams play each team in the opposite league three times, while playing their natural rivals in the opposite league four times (home & home two game series) (46 games)

Under this format, each team would play every team in the league the same amount of times with the exception of a natural rival who has no bearing on the pennant race one extra time each. In the opposite league, they would all play seven road series and seven home series. Of course, the first time that a team snuck out their division (by one game) based on the fact that their natural rival was a little weaker than one of the other team's, there would be dissent, but that's going to happen in any system.

Why would MLB never even think to do this? I'll give you a pair of reasons:

1. Tradition - The current leadership in MLB fought tooth and nail over bringing in their sample-size version of interleague play a decade ago, so you couldn't possibly imagine how difficult it would be to change the old guard's mind to use it on a full-time basis. Very rarely in hockey, football, or basketball do you hear the term "purist", which I've already used about a dozen times in this article. In baseball, however, it's a word that's used without a second thought all too often.

2. It would make far too much sense - Speaking of hockey, football, and basketball... All three of those sports' major professional leagues have interconference play year-round. Their scheduling is set, organized, and a bit more equivalent for each team in the league. Oh.... all three of those sports have the same rules in each conference as well, which I maintain is the biggest problem with baseball's current format.

Option 2

As stated above (similar to the DH), baseball certainly wouldn't even consider abolishing interleague play. You would think that the excitement of playing a geographic rival that isn't in your league might have died off after ten years, but it hasn't. Fans flock to interleague games like there's no tomorrow, which means that baseball will be keeping them in the fold.

In order to make it a more level playing field for all teams during the regular season, either cutting interleague play altogether (or using the above option) would seem to be a necessity. In one respect, the whining Mets fans are right. It's certainly not fair for them to play a perrenial playoff team six times while the St. Louis Cardinals get to play a perrenial doormat six times... not when homefield advantage in the playoffs could be determined by those games, at least.

More pressing than the races at the top of the leagues, however, are the races for the wildcard. You would hate to see an NL West team slip in as the wildcard based on the fact that they had an opportunity to beat up on the (current) worst division in baseball in the opposite league (though they haven't this season.... there is a possibility that Colorado, San Francisco, and San Diego will have the three best interleague records in the NL, though) while teams like Houston and Milwaukee had to face the best division in baseball.

This is why the new system in Option 1 would allot for one series against all of the teams in the opposite league. Of course, they still have the scheduling difference of playing more than twice the games against their divisional foes than they would against any other team, but that's a more natural difference. Just ask the NFL (6 of 16 games within your division) and NHL (32 of 82 games within your division), which play almost forty percent of their games within their division.

So how can MLB fix the disparity between the two leagues? It's simple. They make the rules consistent between them, make each league the same size, and organize it so that everyone's schedule is a little more similar. And now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to get back to the real world.

---