MLB Poll: Do you like Interleague Play?

2011-03-28 6:38 pm
Personally, I dont. I wish they would save AL vs NL matchups for the All Star game and World Series. Both are still great to watch but I feel it waters down the AL vs NL comradery for the fan.

回答 (12)

2011-03-28 8:41 pm
✔ 最佳答案
I did when it originally began, but don't like it any more. You'd be better off keeping the games within your own league.
2011-03-29 2:21 am
Not a lot. It takes up too much of the schedule, and can (and has) influenced playoff berthings (which is annoying, since the cross-league team has no stake or interest in the outcome), it is FAR too hyped (and then only the headliner series, which hardly need the promotion), and it isn't even produced correctly.

Visitor rules should apply, so NL home fans can see designated hitters, and AL home fans can watch their pitchers bat (which is the type of baseball they typically do NOT get to see).

And, the entire season series result should be used -- or at least, be used instead of the outcome of the All-Star Game -- to determine which league hosts Game 1 of the later World Series. C'mon, let interleague play do some heavier lifting.
2011-03-29 4:56 am
No, I don't like the Interleague Play that much.
2011-03-29 2:46 am
I think its a good idea to have interleave play. Though, I don't like that it's unfair because some teams play a team a lot and other teams don't, which might make it tougher or easier for that team. A solution might be playing every team in your division from the other league every year. For example, the Rockies would play the Rangers, Mariners, Angels, and Athletics every year. But the bad thing about this would be that the Rockies (I'm keeping them as the example) would NEVER play the Twins, Yankees, Royals, Red Sox, etc.
2011-03-29 2:36 am
I enjoy it, only because it lets me watch my team play against teams that they normally don't play against.

To be honest, I'd rather have a schedule that consisted of all teams playing one another an equal number of times... Maybe additional games for division rivalries. But to have a randomly selected opponent form the other league seems a little unfair. I mean, what if one team's interleague schedule consisted of the Pirates, Nationals, and Astros? Or the Mariners, Orioles, and Royals?
2011-03-29 2:25 am
NO!!! It makes the schedule unbalanced, and therefore unfair.

Sarge
2011-03-29 2:18 am
I agree with you completely. Interleague play means that the Red Sox only see some AL opponents in a home and away series. The real natural rival of the Boston Red Sox is not the Atlanta Braves, who left Boston in 1952, but the New York Yankees.
2011-03-29 2:15 am
i love it....i love it when my Braves play a team like the Red Sox because they really dont like each other...last year they almost got into fight...
2011-03-29 1:59 am
It's not so bad an idea, but it's not being done very well. First, it's not a season withing a season but two seasons withing a season. Kinda lame, that. Also, besides city match ups and lame things like the Braves playing the Red Sox because the Braves once were in Boston, all kinds of rivalries -- historic and present -- are overlooked. Make the season within a season one block of games, make more interesting match ups (LCS losers playing for unofficial 3rd place from the year before, for example) and it could be interesting. As it is now, they might as well give it up.
2011-03-29 1:42 am
I could do without it, especially since I'm a Cardinals fan and we play the Royals every year, for KC fans its a rivalry, for STL fans not so much.


收錄日期: 2021-05-01 13:37:17
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110328103858AAC7X6c

檢視 Wayback Machine 備份