May 22, 2007

End Interleague Play

Sign The Petition!

Circulate widely: at your blog, in emails, on messageboards, etc.

38 comments:

Tom said...

But why?

9casey said...

Exactly, why?

I will sign a petition for either league to make a choice about the DH before ending interleagur play.

Jere said...

Would you guys just shut up and sign?:)

9casey said...

NEVER :)

Danie said...

I kinda like Interleague play... well, I like it if the Red Sox have an interleague year like last year, not like two years ago... :)

Sean said...

..no.

1). Online petitions have never done anything, ever.

2). Because of interleague play, I saw the Sox in Philadelphia 5 more times than I would have otherwise.

3). The Yankees have to play the Mets, while we typically play the Phillies. We're against this?

4). I get to see us dominate crappy NL teams about 20 times a year. It's far more fun than seeing the White Sox or Royals more often.

redsock said...

why

I guess you didn't actually read the thing.

L-girl said...

But why?

The reasons are on the petition. You can read it without signing it.

Online petitions have never done anything, ever.

Do much activism, Sean? I've been involved in a lot of online petitions. I've seen several of them bring about change.

I grant you this may do nothing. But I also know that complaining to each other will do nothing - where complaining to those in power might do something. I'll take that chance.

To not sign a petition because you believe (on what basis?) that online petitions don't do anything - that is just the depths of laziness and cynicism.

Because of interleague play, I saw the Sox in Philadelphia 5 more times than I would have otherwise.

And what's more important that you, anyway?

The Yankees have to play the Mets, while we typically play the Phillies. We're against this?

I'm for fairness.

If you don't care about fairness in general, at least realize that if it's not fair for one team today, it might not be fair for your team tomorrow. Like free speech, even about things one disagrees with.

Sign or don't sign, that's obviously a personal choice. But I would hope it would be because you support interleague play because it's better for baseball, not just you personally.

Sean said...

I believe it's good that people in different cities get to see different teams. I think it's great that Sox fans who live in Denver or Pittsburgh or Atlanta get to see the Sox every few years, instead of having to drive 5 hours. I think it adds excitement to baseball, even if it is at the expense of pure fairness.

Honestly, with the extremes of the baseball season, the unbalanced schedule doesn't bother me. At times last year we looked like garbage, and at other times we looked like the best team ever. It depends when you luck out and catch a team.

Forgive me if I think petitions don't work, but of all the hundreds of online petitions i've seen come down the pike, none of them even came close.

I mean, let's face it, if petitions really could make a difference, you and redsock would be living in the US now, right?

L-girl said...

I mean, let's face it, if petitions really could make a difference, you and redsock would be living in the US now, right?

I said that I've seen online petitions bring about changes, and I have.

I didn't say they could remake the United States into a completely different country. That's what it would have taken to keep us in the US.

My point is pretty simple. When something bothers you, I believe it is better to complain to the source of the problem than just whine to oneself and one's friends. Thus I am complaining to the source. Nothing more.

Jan said...

Read it, didn't agree with it.

If the "no-DH" rule puts the AL teams at such a disadvantage, then how come the Red Sox own at interleague play? And for that matter, if it puts the AL at a disadvantage, then why even have a World Series? You claim that its unfair, yet we are still willing to decide who the best team is using unfair standards? The petition definitely contradicts itself there.

On that note, I really don't think the World Series needs any help being unique. The two greatest teams in baseball fighting it out in a (usually) intense battle for the trophy? For me, the the coolness of the two teams being from separate leagues was always something of an after-thought.

While I agree that to an extent, the schedules do become unbalanced and hectic, I think the advantages of inter-league play VASTLY out-weigh the disadvantages.

Jere said...

You know what kills me? How interleague play is a blatant gimmick to get fans to come to the park. Yet a true fan doesn't need gimmicks to go see their own team play. Therefore, this is being done for that "other" type of fan. And those are the ones who love it. So they keep doing it.

redsock said...

If the "no-DH" rule puts the AL teams at such a disadvantage, then how come the Red Sox own at interleague play?

You might want to check the facts:

1997: 6-9
1998: 9-7
1999: 6-12
2000: 9-9
2001: 10-8
2002: 5-13
2003: 11-7
2004: 9-9
2005: 12-6
2006: 16-2

Even with the huge boost from last year, that's a 93-82 mark. In the 9 years before 2006, the Sox were 77-80. That's not "owning" anything.

You claim that its unfair, yet we are still willing to decide who the best team is using unfair standards? The petition definitely contradicts itself there.

I can't speak for Laura, but:

I HATE THE DH!!!! Get rid of it yesterday! Two different sets of rules for the most important games of the year? That's batshit insane.

Sean said...

What I don't like, personally, is 1/9th (roughly) of the at bats each year going to people who simply cannot hit. There may be increased strategy in the NL, but I don't think you should have to take a pitcher out in the 6th, when he's cruising, because you have 2 on in a close game.

The pitchers should pitch, and the hitters should hit. If a pitcher can't hit, and the vast majority of them cannot, then why make them do so?

Why not mandate that a middle infielder pitch the 7th inning each game?

Sean said...

and laura, you clearly don't like anything I write, so for the good of everyone, why don't you please just ignore me? I'm really sorry that I offend or annoy you with everything I post here, so just let it go. I'll do likewise.

This isn't too ludicrous a proposition, right?

redsock said...

Sean: If you post a comment, someone might reply to it. She might disagree with you or he might call BS on what you're saying. That's the chance you take.

If Selig had any guts, he'd have gone whole hog and scraped the leagues and realigned the divisions.

I might not agree with him, but it would be more right than the piecemeal shit he's done like interleague. (Mets, Yankees AND Sox in the same divison = fun! DH would still be a problem, though.)

There has been talk of a hitter for the pitcher since the 1910s. Still doesn't make it right. It is wrong.

Wrong like warm beer, power ballads and Republicans.

Sean said...

I don't care if someone replies, but when the person replying is obviously very offended at everything I type, and takes whatever I write way too seriously, maybe he/she should just ignore it?

About the DH, you can see how people wouldn't be thrilled with a pitcher batting when there are countless all-stick, no-glove players who could be in that position. Plus, on teams unlike the Sox and Indians, it gives players a chance to rest without losing their bat, instead of wasting money with them on the bench.

If anything, the NL should give in. just because the DH didn't evolve with baseball doesn't mean it's a negative. Last year, of pitchers who received 25 or more ABs, only one was about a .700 OPS, 4 over .600, 12 over .500. What's interesting about a sub-Neifi hitter coming to the plate so often?

Jere said...

I love the DH, because, A. I was brought up with it, and never even watched the NL, and B. pitchers are basically an automatic out, and so it makes sense the way the game is today.

However, I'm all for the end of babying pitchers--they should be throwing complete games, on two days rest maximum, and on top of that, hitting. They all were the best hitters on their high school teams, right? Make them hit again. Once they get back on pace with everyone else, which could take decades, I guess, then scrap the DH.

For now, though, I couldn't imagine a Red Sox lineup with a pitcher who doesn't know how to hit instead of David Ortiz.

But screw interleague play.

evan said...

I'm a huge fan of watching becket hit homers. sorry.

L-girl said...

This isn't too ludicrous a proposition, right?

Wrong. :)

I don't care if someone replies, but when the person replying is obviously very offended at everything I type

As I have told you several times before, nothing you said has ever offended me. I simply disagree with you.

If you don't like that, try writing something I agree with.

L-girl said...

How interleague play is a blatant gimmick to get fans to come to the park. Yet a true fan doesn't need gimmicks to go see their own team play. Therefore, this is being done for that "other" type of fan. And those are the ones who love it. So they keep doing it.

Jere, that's a great point. Baseball has done a lot of things to cater to the occasional fan. It's the serious, diehard fan they should be more concerned with - we're their bread and butter.

L-girl said...

Re the DH, I always hated it, but at the risk of Allan changing the locks on our front door, I now have mixed feelings about it.

I've started to think that having the pitcher bat is a anachronism from another era, like woolen uniforms or no batting helmets.

Really, I'd prefer to see the pitcher bat, but but as Woti said (on the petition), I'd gladly go either way, DH or no DH, to see the whole sport have one set of rules.

I think having two sets of rules is completely ridiculous.

But the argument for or against interleague play is separate for the argument for or against the DH.

Jere said...

Evan: Josh Beckett's career average is .149. You want that in our lineup? If you want a novelty act, watch wrestling or something.

Of course it's a fun thing to see your pitcher who doesn't normally bat hit a home run, be on the bases in his jacket, etc. But that's what exhibition games and the All-Star Game (well, not any more, due to another shitty gimmick) are for.

It would be cool to see Johnny Pesky hit a home run off Roger Clemens, but I'm not gonna put him in our lineup in September! Yet I'd pay to see Pesky bat against Roger in some type of wacky fun-fest that didn't count in the standings.

Jeffrey said...

Have to admit, I was a fan of interleague for the reasons stated (seeing different teams, something new and different), but the petition makes a pretty compelling argument against interleague. The real question for those considering the petition is: how much of a baseball purist are you? I can't help but think that it IS a good thing for fans to get a chance to see teams they normally wouldn't. It's also not such a bad thing to clear the schedule of what would be more KC games. Also, in football, AFC teams play NFC teams throughout the season (and yes, I do realize that a 17 game season and a 162 game season are totally different, but still...) Gonna take some thinking on this one!

Woti-woti said...

I think there are some areas of agreement here:

1. The DH and interleague play are two separate issues.

2. The simple argument for a uniform DH rule is simply uniformity on a major, major rule, and that is a good thing.

3. As long as there are 30 MLB teams split into 2 leagues, I think most people agree that the old 8-team league system of no play-offs is a bad thing. Splitting each league into Divisions, with each having a leader, makes sense. So are 2 Divisions of 7 teams and 8 teams respectively good for the game? From a business perspective, definitely not, since the 3-Division, Wild Card format creates plenty of late season competition for the WC.

4. As long as you have the Wild Card, from a competitive standpoint it is essential that every team competing for the last playoff spot have the same schedule. Interleague play makes this impossible and inevitably introduces a 'strength of schedule' factor that favours somebody (albeit randomly). You have to bring back the balanced sked.

5. As a Boston fan, I could not care less about New York or Chicago contrived rivalries. There are counter-balancing KC-Col. or Seattle-SD games that make no business or competitive sense.

6. Wake up Bud. There are countless ways to sell your friggin' gear without this cheap trick.

L-girl said...

Jeffrey, thanks for considering it.

Woti, I agree with you. I don't think there's universal agreement on the wild card, though.

L-girl said...

Woti, by any chance, are you a mediator?

Woti-woti said...

L-girl, no, I wouldn't make a very good mediator. Face-to-face, my penchant for sarcasm (or 'theatre of the absurd' humour) always rules.

redsock said...

The very first sentence in the Rules:

"1.01
Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires."

The DH is against current MLB rules.

Give Flo a glove.

Jere said...

Jeffrey--the AFC and NFC play by the same rules. Again, very important. And when you play the NFC, you're playing just the four teams that everybody else in your division plays, no special "rivalry" games. (And--at least back when I followed the NFL--they make it even more fair by taking the previous year's record into consideration when making the schedule. If you finish last, I think you play all the other last place teams.) (Okay, I looked it up--they stopped that in '02, but they still take record into consideration for 2 games a year. Out of 16, though, that's 12.5 percent, as opposed to 0 in baseball. I think. Just how do they determine which team in your interleague division you "skip," if necessary (due to more teams in one division than the other)? I've never thought to check.)

Jere said...

"nine players each,"

There are only nine on the field at any given time, and nine in the lineup. There just happens to be one player in the field replaced by another player in the lineup. Like how you've got players replacing other players all the time. If it was strictly nine on nine, you'd have the same pitcher going every day and no backup players. Hmmm, kind of like in 1871. Like I said, I'm fine with this concept--suck it up, pitch every game, every inning, you wusses.

But with David in the field, where would we put Youk??

UUbuntu said...

With regard to baseball, I tend to be a purist, but I can (and do) accept change. After 30 years, I've come to peace with the DH rule (though I like the fact that one league plays without it), and I've learned to accept interleague play. (I'm still annoyed by the wild card system).

I read and signed the petition, but I hold little optimism. I see baseball moving in the same direction as other professional sports -- mascots/cheerleaders, "promoted" rivalries, marketed spontaneity, packaging. And based on the overall ticket sales around the league (compared with 30 years ago), the stuff works. When you can market "Monster Seats" and sell them at $200 a pop for seats out in left field, 400 feet from home plate, you're doing things right. You make money. The games becomes entertainment, and not sport.

After almost 30 years of being professional basketball fans, I (and my family) gave up on the Celtics (and the NBA as a whole) last year. Not when they started losing (hey, losing's a part of sport), but when the Celtics finally brought in cheerleaders (2 weeks after Red's death) and continued to package the games as "events", where the game itself is a smaller part of the whole entertainment "experience". Baseball's not there yet, but that seems to be the trend in all professional sports (except soccer).

UUbuntu said...

On the DH, one of my all time favs said this in 1974:

"The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws." - Rick Wise

I had the pleasure of watching him (on TV) pitch a no-hitter and hit 2 home runs IN THE SAME GAME in 1973. As I recall, he was 1 walk away from a perfect game.

I've always felt that treating pitchers as if they're playing a different game devalues the pitchers' ability to help themselves out in the batters box.

But the DH isn't going away. It looks as popular as ever. Just not to us purists.

Jere said...

U-- Your comments remind me of what a good job the current Sox ownership has done. First of all, Monster Seats are $140 each, not $200. The closest ones are 310 feet away from home plate (only the absolute furthest ones from the plate are about 400 feet away), and standing room up there are 30 bucks each. These for possibly the most unique angle of a major league park there is.

Yes, pro sports are going that way, with the mascots and it becoming an "event" rather than a "game," but, again, at least in Boston, they're doing their best to keep Fenway as it's always been, while, of course, trying to make as much money possible. So far, they've kept the team very competitive, and improved everyone's Fenway experience. (Except for grandstand 4-8, but, hey, if you're silly enough to buy those...)

You don't see gimmicks like "laser light pen day" at Fenway, because Red Sox fans, even in this entertainment culture, still mainly go to root on the team, not to see cheerleaders, have the scoreboard explode and tell them when to cheer, win fabulous prizes, etc.

So we got that goin' for us.

L-girl said...

None of us are actually purists. That would be impossible. Baseball has always been changing. What era would we consider pure? Whatever era that is, it was different than previous eras.

We all accept change, we have to. But that doesn't mean we like all the changes, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't make our feelings known.

L-girl said...

Jere, very true. It's a big part of what drew me to the team.

(Some announcer on a national broadcast said the Monster seats are $200, now everyone repeats it...)

L-girl said...

Jere - and anyone else who reads baseball blogs - if you could circulate the petition link, I'd be most grateful. We especially need non-Sox blogs to post it.

Jeffrey said...

As usual, good points Red Sock. Obviously I didn't think the football analogy all the way through before I blurted out that comment. I guess I'm somewhat of a purist-lite when it comes to baseball. It would be nice to hold the pitchers to the same standards of the position players - for several reasons. This, however is plain and simple not going to happen (remember RJ taking swings? or Pedro?). One the other hand, I like the fact that pitchers have to work for every out in the AL where they face a complete lineup.

Thanks for the thought provoking post!