Though there's lots of great MLB action going on right now (and, despite a ton of injuries, my Braves are playing quite well), it seems all of the baseball-related news is focused on the potential for realignment. Recently, league officials revealed that the MLB is considering restructuring the league and divisional systems. Currently on the table: moving one team from the National League to the American League, removing the divisions and allowing the top four or five teams (regardless of geography) to head to the playoffs.
The argument against a system where both the American and National Leagues had fifteen teams was always about Interleague Play; with an odd number of teams in both leagues, Interleague would have to be scattered across the entire MLB season (to avoid two teams sitting idle for days at a time), and many fans and experts don't like the idea of teams ending the year with games against teams from the opposite league. This argument against a move is predicated on Interleague play being something "special" that should be reserved for a few select weekends during the middle of the season (such as this coming weekend, when Interleague play resumes).
At this point, though, how is Interleague play special? While Mets vs. Yankees and Cubs vs White Sox might be entertaining for those teams' fans, as a Braves fan Interleague means virtually nothing to me. The Braves playing the Angels or Tigers adds nothing over a game against the Pirates or Padres. While it is exciting to see the Braves play a divisional rival like the Mets or Phillies in late September, with an odd number of teams in the NL East Atlanta often closes the season against Colorado or Arizona anyway. Why would ending against Minnesota or Oakland be any different?
MLB has two choices when it comes to Interleague play, in my opinion. The first option is to scale it way back, restricting Interleague to one or two weekends a year to showcase geographic and historical rivalries. The second option is to keep Interleague as robust as it is, but at the same time stop pretending that it's some magical part of the season. Once fans get over treating Interleague as a novelty, we can embrace a logical fifteen-team-per-league system that spreads Interleague over the course of the season. This latter plan is more fair for all of the teams involved, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than any other option currently on the table.
4 comments:
Great post. Interleague means very little the majority of baseball markets. I'm hesitant to endorse realignment, though. Baseball, more than any other sport, has true divisional rivalries, and I'd hate to lose those. If there's an idea on the table that includes moving one NL central team to the AL West and retaining the divisions, I'm on board.
Would love that, Jason. What I'd really love is getting back to two divisions per league (East and West) either by expanding to two additional markets or contracting two. That would still preserve the real rivalries (Dodgers / Giants, Yankees / Red Sox, etc.). Not sure what the Central Division adds, really . . .
As long as the Braves aren't back in the West, I'm good with it.
Amen.
Post a Comment