The A's/Giants series in Oakland last weekend drew 158,152 fans, eclipsing the A's record for a 3 game series set last year against the Giants. Yankee and Red Sox games draw well in Oakland, but not that well.

As for playing those games in April or May, I actually like starting the season with a bunch of intradivision games. It sets up the season well.

The A's/Giants series in Oakland last weekend drew 158,152 fans, eclipsing the A's record for a 3 game series set last year against the Giants.

True, but my point was that they could have gotten nearly that many for a series against the Giants on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday night, while the July 4 weekend gate against just another opponent will almost certainly be a lot bigger than what that opponent will draw for a midweek series. Like Steve said, if it's an attendance booster, than why not use it to boost attendance when where it needs to be boosted?

Oy. When AND where... also, THEN (not than).

I agree about the July 4th weekend, but I don't think last weekend's series perpetuated any illusions about the bump in attendance.

I actually like starting the season with a bunch of intradivision games. It sets up the season well.

Well, I agree with this. All we need to do is get rid of all the interleague games in the middle of the season that corrupt any semblance of strength-of-schedule fairness, and we're getting somewhere!

Sure, the Giants/A's series drew great in Oakland last weekend. That's marvelous. But how much better did it draw than an equally-strongly-hyped summer weekend three-gamer against a division rival would have drawn? Did the A's sell 30,000 more tickets than they would have? Probably no more than that.

30,000 tickets is great, but on the scale of season-long attendance, 30,000 tickets is pretty trivial. I contend that 30,000 extra tickets is a pretty small gain to get from the cost of corrupting the integrity of the championship season.

The A's played the Angels at home last 4th of July weekend. They drew 113,600 fans, or 45,000 fewer than they drew for the Giants on a non-holiday weekend.

I don't think interleague play corrupts the integrity of the game itself, just the unfair scheduling. Even without interleague play, the unbalanced schedule makes the season easier for some teams to win the Wild Card.

I don't think last weekend's series perpetuated any illusions about the bump in attendance.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. In any case, Oakland didn't get any attendance boost from their weekend interleague series against the Pirates.

The A's played the Angels at home last 4th of July weekend. They drew 113,600 fans, or 45,000 fewer than they drew for the Giants on a non-holiday weekend.

And they only managed about 67,500 against the Angels for the midweek series they just completed, or 46,000 fewer than they did playng them last July 4 weekend. Again, my point is that they could have drawn 150,000 for midweek games against SF, and then played a division rival on the big weekend. That would have put them almost 120,000 tickets ahead, instead of 40,000.

Sure, the Giants/A's series drew great in Oakland last weekend. That's marvelous. But how much better did it draw than an equally-strongly-hyped summer weekend three-gamer against a division rival would have drawn? Did the A's sell 30,000 more tickets than they would have? Probably no more than that.

The cross-town series undoubtedly help attendance, as fans from both teams pack the stands.

But other than that, there's nothing special at all about interleague play in terms of drawing in fans.

And as a White Sox fan, I think that having an extra series or two against the Yankees and Red Sox would go a long way toward making up for not playing the Cubs.

And as a White Sox fan who lives on the West Coast, I would appreciate a couple more West Coast trips, but I know there's good reasons for not liking those.

I don't think interleague play corrupts the integrity of the game itself, just the unfair scheduling.

Well, sure, but unfair scheduling is a pretty important element of the season itself.

Even without interleague play, the unbalanced schedule makes the season easier for some teams to win the Wild Card.

But even if there were a completely balanced, non-interleague schedule, the existence of divisions makes it easier for some teams to win their division than others.

There's no perfect solution, obviously. It's a question of weighing alternatives. In my view, the disadvantages offered by interleague play outweigh the advantages.

Steve, I very much agreed with your revisionist history of MLB. If interleague play had existed since 1901 would the Braves be in Boston, the A's in Philadelphia, the Giants in New York, the Dodgers in Brooklyn and maybe even the Browns in St Louis? OK probably not the Browns. I'm wondering whether the irony is that interleague play -- of which you seem to disapprove -- might not have made things go more the way you'd (and I'd) have preferred.

I'm wondering whether the irony is that interleague play -- of which you seem to disapprove -- might not have made things go more the way you'd (and I'd) have preferred.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

In the old days, teams played a fair number of exhibition games during the season, the purpose of which was to draw big crowds, and they often did.

The Cubs and White Sox often played exhibitions in the old days, as did the Yankees and Mets in the 60s and 70s. The Giants and A's have played a 3-game pre-season weekend series in the Bay Area for years, that draws quite well. There is no need for official interleague play to have cross-town rivals play games that generate lots of fun and excitement (and revenue).

Interleague play undermines the tension and excitement of the World Series and the All-Star Game. It messes up the validity of the schedule of the regular season. I just don't buy the argument that its positives outweigh these negatives.

So Steve, You're saying if the Giants could draw 50K fans for 3 games per year and their share of the 50K fans the Yanks could draw to play them they would not have thought twice to give that up and move?

You're saying if the Giants could draw 50K fans for 3 games per year and their share of the 50K fans the Yanks could draw to play them they would not have thought twice to give that up and move?

I'm not quite sure I'm following you here, HK.

The decision of the Giants (and Dodgers) to move west was made on the basis of the fact that they reasoned they could make (a lot) more money being in a virgin, booming market on the West Coast. They were obviously right; their moving made all the sense in the world for them as a single franchise.

But the move didn't make sense for MLB as a whole. MLB could have captured the West Coast market revenue while keeping the New York market intact, so from the perspective of MLB as an institution, it would have made far more sense for the Giants and Dodgers to stay put, and for expansion teams to go into SF and LA.

I guess what you're saying is that if the Giants had 6 interleague games each year with the Yankees, they'd have been less inclined to move. My answer to that is, there was a lot more at stake than 6 games worth of revenue. It would still have made all the sense in the world for the Giants, in their self-interest, to move.

I guess that gets to one of my problems with interleague play: if indeed it does stimulate attendance, it only does so because it's a novelty, because there are only a handful of interleague games per year. Therefore, no matter how much attendance is increased in those games, it's only a small number of games -- so the overall increase in MLB attendance that ensues, if it does, is hardly substantial.

So they should have had more than six games? 12? 20? I doubt they would have sold fewer tickets than for a regular game. Interleague play is a novelty in most markets but not in two team (or three team) markets. Stanford-Cal never fails to draw -- even in baseball. Why would Yankees-Giants be any different?

So they should have had more than six games?

Well, then, if maximizing attendance is the overriding objective, then why not have the Giants, Dodgers, and Yankees play only each other, for 154 games? Why bother playing those duds in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh?

I think interleague play is a bad idea, on its merits. There is a cost in schedule integrity to playing interleague games, which is, theoretically, met or exceeded by the benefit of extra attendance in those games. But the irony is that the games are rare enough to not have a substantial impact on overall attendance, and if they weren't as rare, the notion of a true schedule and a true league would be dispensed with altogether.

But if there's one thing that could be argued it has going for it, it's that it's an attendance booster.

It's only an attendance booster when it's either (a) a rivalry game or (b) the Yankees are involved.

You need to compare apples to apples when doing the attendance check, of course. Because four of the six interleague series blocks are on weekends, when teams generally draw better than during the week, one would expect interleague attendance on average to be higher than intraleague attendance. You need to comapre midweek interleague to midweek intraleague, and weekend interleague to weekend intraleague. When you do that, the interleague advantage disappears except for the two situations I mentioned above.

-- MWE

"What do you tell the customer? That he can't have what he wants?" Selig asks from his office in Milwaukee.

Public opinion is something that officials like Selig can shape, not simply respond to meekly. "We read the surveys and gave the fans everything they wanted" is not, IMHO, wise, strong, visionary leadership.

Interleague play undermines the tension and excitement of the World Series and the All-Star Game.

I think interleague is bad in that it creates severely unfair schedules (much worse than unbalanced schedules, IMO), but I don't get this. I've never been able to understand how interleague detracts from the tension or excitement of the World Series. It's two teams playing for the world championship, for chrissakes! How does that need any additional excitement? For me, at least, interleague doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the World Series one bit.

Has anybody looked to see if the differing schedules from team-to-team within a division has actually made the difference as to which team makes the playoffs?

Not sure the best way to evaluate, but I'd be curious.

Has anybody looked to see if the differing schedules from team-to-team within a division has actually made the difference as to which team makes the playoffs?

Not sure the best way to evaluate, but I'd be curious.

I know there's the example of the 1999 Reds, who specifically requested 3 extra games with the Indians, then lost a 1-game playoff to the Mets after tying for the wild-card spot.

Has anybody looked to see if the differing schedules from team-to-team within a division has actually made the difference as to which team makes the playoffs?

Just been looking at Houston and the Cubs last year. They both played Rays, Yankees and Orioles. Cubs played White Sox home and away with a 3-3 record, Houston played Texas and won that 4-2. These games are the equivalent of each other as they are local rivalries.

Then we have the odd series out - Houston played Boston and lost 0-3, Cubs played Toronto and it finished 1-2. The Cubs finished one game ahead of the Astros. Without those series the teams would be level.

It's two teams playing for the world championship, for chrissakes! How does that need any additional excitement? For me, at least, interleague doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the World Series one bit.

One of the things that helped make the World Series the premier sporting event it was for so long was the fact that the two participants had not played each other in the regular season. This meant that the two teams were not as familiar with one another as the teams competing for the championship in other sports might be and that hint of mystery only added to the excitement. Now, with the advent of interleague play, there is always the chance that the two teams in the Series have already played six games against each other during the season. IMO baseball should focus on the things that made it unique in American sports and quit trying to copy the NFL and the NBA.

Does anyone remember the regular season games between the Lakers and Pistons?

How did the Braves do against the Yankees in 1999?

And in 2000, one can argue that the interleague matchups heightened the excitement for the Yankees-Mets World Series.

I think the issue of the teams in the World Series never seeing each other is not particularly compelling.

Now unbalanced scheduling is a whole other thing.

Steve Treder: ...the existence of divisions makes it easier for some teams to win their division than others.

I'm curious to know exactly what that statement means and how you would prove it.

A team with a .550 talent level who plays optimally in 162 games would finish with 89 wins. A .525 club, 85 wins.

If these teams are facing each other 18 times per season, the would play 144 games against other clubs, and the .550 team should win 79, the .525 club 76.

For the lesser team to prevail for the divison title they would need to go 11-7 against the stronger team, when [I think] the pythagorean suggests a record of 8-10.

But I'd still like to here Steve make his point.

Well, I think what he's saying is that teams/talet is not evenly distributed between the divisions. If the Yankees and Red Sox were in different divisions, then the Red Sox might have won more division titles.

Just been looking at Houston and the Cubs last year. They both played Rays, Yankees and Orioles. Cubs played White Sox home and away with a 3-3 record, Houston played Texas and won that 4-2. These games are the equivalent of each other as they are local rivalries.

Then we have the odd series out - Houston played Boston and lost 0-3, Cubs played Toronto and it finished 1-2. The Cubs finished one game ahead of the Astros. Without those series the teams would be level.

Except the Cubs had 6 games against the White Sox, who were a much better team than the Rangers last year, so that example doesn't hold up.

Personally, I'll take interleague play/no wild-card over a wild-card/no interleague play.

The greatest NCAA tournament game, IMHO, was the 1985 Villanova-Georgetown final, which was wonderful precisely because the Wildcats and Hoyas were in the same conference and had played each other throughout the regular season -- each team knew the other team's strengths and weaknesses, and matched each other shot for shot.

Except the Cubs had 6 games against the White Sox, who were a much better team than the Rangers last year, so that example doesn't hold up.

Au contraire. The point of interleague is to give marketable series between 'natural' rivals in two team places like Missouri, L.A., or Canada. So when the comparison comes down to Cubs v Astros, one has to accept that the Cubs are always going to have a series against the White Sox, and the Astros are always going to have a series against the Rangers. The odd series out are exactly as philistine identifies, and were a factor in deciding who was the NL Central champions. So 'Stros fans can blame Jimy AND they can blame Bud. Couldn't happen to two nicer guys! If only we could get Bowa involved, and we could have Curly, Larry, and Moe all over again.

I'm curious to know exactly what that statement means and how you would prove it.

What Sardonic said.

In a balanced-schedule league, it's entirely possible that Division A could have all 90+ win teams, and Division B could have no one over .500. Entirely possible. In a balanced-schedule league, the division categorization is utterly arbitrary.

So I could be in Division B and go 79-83 and be the Division Champ, and you could be in Division A and go 95-67 and finish 3rd.

What the unbalanced schedule brings to the table is the near-certain prohibition of outcomes like this.