As interleague play in baseball starts up again this weekend ("The Rivalries: Part II"), we get to see clearly the disparity in the rivalries we are presented with. Sure, everybody loves the Subway Series and the North vs. South side of Chicago. But Kansas City vs. Colorado? C'mon.
Yes, a lot has been written and said about this. Some have suggested scrapping interleague play entirely, especially the "purists". (We know that's never going to happen, because it's a success both in the ratings and at the box office.) There's also the problem of having some teams having less interleague games because of having 16 teams in the NL and 14 in the AL. So, how to have a consistent system across the board where every team has a rivalry that they can count on and sink their teeth into? I think I've got a simple solution - on paper at least.
Okay, let's start off by listing the give-ins. There are nine natural regional rivalries:
New York – New York
Chicago – Chicago
Cincinnati – Cleveland
St. Louis – Kansas City
Houston – Texas
San Francisco – Oakland
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
Washington – Baltimore
Florida – Tampa Bay
Most of these have been maintained (although not all due to some of the issues above). Now that leaves 12 teams, and let's see if we can't naturally align them.
From a strict geographic point-of-view the following would make the most sense:
Pittsburgh – Toronto (Cross Lake Erie)
Philadelphia – Boston (Just take I-95)
Atlanta – Detroit (Just take I-75)
Milwaukee – Minnesota (Just take I-94)
San Diego – Seattle (Just take I-5)
Arizona – Colorado (They're diagonally adjacent states)
But the first six are neither close enough nor far enough to and from each other that you can easily pair any two if you can find more compelling reasons for a "rivalry". Same thing for the latter six. So are there more natural and compelling "rivalries"? Indeed...
Atlanta – Boston seems to be the most obvious, because of the "Braves" angle. Some have argued that the "Braves" used to be in Milwaukee too, so why not Atlanta – Milwaukee. Well, for one, the franchise started in Boston, not Milwaukee. And they were still in Boston when they first became the "Braves" in 1912 and were also in Boston when they became the "Braves" for good in 1941. The connection there is much stronger. So, no more Philadelphia vs. Boston or Atlanta vs. Baltimore. Let's stick with the natural "Braves" rivalry!
Speaking of Philadelphia, the most obvious rivalry for them (at least to me) would be against Toronto. Toronto you say? Well, now that Montreal is gone, it leaves them without their most natural regional rivalry. But Philadelphia – Toronto are fairly close, and there's more to it than that. Toronto's most recent World Series was against the Phillies, and there have also been some good playoff meetings recently between the two cities in the NBA and the NHL. A little bit weak? Okay, how about this somewhat obscure fact? The Phillies were actually called the "Blue Jays" for 2 seasons before 1945 when they became the "Phillies" for good. So clearly we've got a natural "Blue Jays" rivalry!
That leaves Pittsburgh – Detroit on the Eastern side of the country, two of the teams with the longest histories in the league. In fact, fans of the teams can debate on which of the two teams-who-have-been-in-the-same-city-and-had-the-same-team-name-for-the-longest is the best! The Pirates have been in Pittsburgh since 1891 and the Tigers in Detroit since 1901.
Now to the Western side, San Diego – Seattle has been the rivalry of choice by the league for these two cities, and I can't really argue with that. San Diego is the "odd city out" in California, and Seattle's the lonely city in the Northwest. But they do have some things in common. They're both on the Pacific coast, both very close to international borders; Mexico and Canada, respectively, and they both start with the letter S...
Next, Arizona – Minnesota has a nice ring to it, not to mention the similarities in team colors. 'Zona vs. 'Sota. 'Nuff said.
Lastly, and this may be the most natural rivalry of all, Milwaukee – Colorado. Why's that you ask? Beer! You've got Miller vs. Coors. Whose city is the better beer producer. And if there's one thing that associates well with baseball fans at ballgames, it's the brew! (Remember what Homer said when he attended a game during his month without beer and was the only one not drinking: "I never realized how boring this game is." Of course, we don't really believe that... do we?)
But here's the key. Although both of those teams are in the NL, we can make it a pseudo interleague rivalry, by making the Brewers the designated AL team. They came from the AL at the last expansion anyway, so they shouldn't have a problem with that. Or, they can alternate between being the designated AL team. With the air up there in Colorado and the scores that are usually put up at the ballpark, you'd think they were in the AL anyway.
So there you have it. Natural rivalries across the board. Who can argue with that? (Feel free to argue with it.)
Yes, a lot has been written and said about this. Some have suggested scrapping interleague play entirely, especially the "purists". (We know that's never going to happen, because it's a success both in the ratings and at the box office.) There's also the problem of having some teams having less interleague games because of having 16 teams in the NL and 14 in the AL. So, how to have a consistent system across the board where every team has a rivalry that they can count on and sink their teeth into? I think I've got a simple solution - on paper at least.
Okay, let's start off by listing the give-ins. There are nine natural regional rivalries:
New York – New York
Chicago – Chicago
Cincinnati – Cleveland
St. Louis – Kansas City
Houston – Texas
San Francisco – Oakland
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
Washington – Baltimore
Florida – Tampa Bay
Most of these have been maintained (although not all due to some of the issues above). Now that leaves 12 teams, and let's see if we can't naturally align them.
From a strict geographic point-of-view the following would make the most sense:
Pittsburgh – Toronto (Cross Lake Erie)
Philadelphia – Boston (Just take I-95)
Atlanta – Detroit (Just take I-75)
Milwaukee – Minnesota (Just take I-94)
San Diego – Seattle (Just take I-5)
Arizona – Colorado (They're diagonally adjacent states)
But the first six are neither close enough nor far enough to and from each other that you can easily pair any two if you can find more compelling reasons for a "rivalry". Same thing for the latter six. So are there more natural and compelling "rivalries"? Indeed...
Atlanta – Boston seems to be the most obvious, because of the "Braves" angle. Some have argued that the "Braves" used to be in Milwaukee too, so why not Atlanta – Milwaukee. Well, for one, the franchise started in Boston, not Milwaukee. And they were still in Boston when they first became the "Braves" in 1912 and were also in Boston when they became the "Braves" for good in 1941. The connection there is much stronger. So, no more Philadelphia vs. Boston or Atlanta vs. Baltimore. Let's stick with the natural "Braves" rivalry!
Speaking of Philadelphia, the most obvious rivalry for them (at least to me) would be against Toronto. Toronto you say? Well, now that Montreal is gone, it leaves them without their most natural regional rivalry. But Philadelphia – Toronto are fairly close, and there's more to it than that. Toronto's most recent World Series was against the Phillies, and there have also been some good playoff meetings recently between the two cities in the NBA and the NHL. A little bit weak? Okay, how about this somewhat obscure fact? The Phillies were actually called the "Blue Jays" for 2 seasons before 1945 when they became the "Phillies" for good. So clearly we've got a natural "Blue Jays" rivalry!
That leaves Pittsburgh – Detroit on the Eastern side of the country, two of the teams with the longest histories in the league. In fact, fans of the teams can debate on which of the two teams-who-have-been-in-the-same-city-and-had-the-same-team-name-for-the-longest is the best! The Pirates have been in Pittsburgh since 1891 and the Tigers in Detroit since 1901.
Now to the Western side, San Diego – Seattle has been the rivalry of choice by the league for these two cities, and I can't really argue with that. San Diego is the "odd city out" in California, and Seattle's the lonely city in the Northwest. But they do have some things in common. They're both on the Pacific coast, both very close to international borders; Mexico and Canada, respectively, and they both start with the letter S...
Next, Arizona – Minnesota has a nice ring to it, not to mention the similarities in team colors. 'Zona vs. 'Sota. 'Nuff said.
Lastly, and this may be the most natural rivalry of all, Milwaukee – Colorado. Why's that you ask? Beer! You've got Miller vs. Coors. Whose city is the better beer producer. And if there's one thing that associates well with baseball fans at ballgames, it's the brew! (Remember what Homer said when he attended a game during his month without beer and was the only one not drinking: "I never realized how boring this game is." Of course, we don't really believe that... do we?)
But here's the key. Although both of those teams are in the NL, we can make it a pseudo interleague rivalry, by making the Brewers the designated AL team. They came from the AL at the last expansion anyway, so they shouldn't have a problem with that. Or, they can alternate between being the designated AL team. With the air up there in Colorado and the scores that are usually put up at the ballpark, you'd think they were in the AL anyway.
So there you have it. Natural rivalries across the board. Who can argue with that? (Feel free to argue with it.)
No comments:
Post a Comment