Talk:Interleague play

1998 MLB expansion
The article incorrectly claims that interleague play became necessary in 1998 because expansion put 15 teams in each league. This is incorrect, as the 1998 expansion resulted in 14 AL teams and 16 NL teams. Only in 2013 will there be 15 teams in each league, which would truly necessitate interleague play. Ron Newman (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's definitely false, so I deleted it. It looks like they at least considered having 15 teams in each league beginning in 1998, if somebody wants to add anything about that. I don't know what, if anything, interleague play (which began in 1997) had to do with the 1998 expansion, but I assume the two weren't totally unrelated. Jwsinclair (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember a 15+15 alignment beiung discussed. A quick serarch turned up this:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970118&slug=2519336


 * It says in part:


 * "There are reports that the deal was sweetened for Tampa Bay to accept placement in the AL West. The Yankees and perhaps other teams were said to have traded interleague games in 1998. The Yankees reportedly allowed the Devil Rays to have their scheduled games against Florida and Atlanta - natural rivals for Tampa Bay - in exchange for the Devil Rays' games against the Dodgers and Giants. The Yankees believe the two former New York teams would be big draws."


 * That idea of opponent-trading may have mobilized opposition to the original plan. WHPratt (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of DH
I have removed the incorrect statement that the DH can be used for any player, but is usually used for the pitcher. That's not true under professional rules. That's a high-school rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.197.28 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it is true under professional rules, although it is never used. A team can use the DH to hit for any player or not at all, although as the pitcher is almost always the worst hitter on the club, he is, 99.9997% of the time, the one replaced by the DH. Frank Anchor Talk to me  (R-OH) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not according to Major League Baseball's rules. Other pro leagues might follow a different rule, but this article is about Major League Baseball. Scroll down this page to find the DH rule 1995hoo (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you're right, i was unaware that rule was changed. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Frank Anchor may be confusing designated hitter and pinch hitter. Pinch hitters may replace any player but most often in National League play replace the pitcher. I can't find any evidence that the designated-hitter rule ever applied to players other than pitchers. TheScotch (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

First Interleague Game
Quote: "The first interleague game took place on June 12, 1997, as the Texas Rangers hosted the San Francisco Giants at The Ballpark in Arlington . . . "

How did they let that happen?? The historic first game matched the transplanted New York Giants versus a transplanted expansion team in a suburb of a state that didn't even have major league baseball until 1962. Shouldn't the first game have involved "charter" cities and teams, say Boston and Philadelphia or Cincinnati and Cleveland? Or the Cubs and the White Sox? S.F. at Arlington, bah!WHPratt (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[Update:] Okay, so it turns out that the first interleague matchup predicted the World Series of 13 years later. It was, nevertheless, a bad choice! WHPratt (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Our coverage is also poor. 1997 Major League Baseball season says nothing more about the inaugural season for interleague play; only that SF visited Tex in the very first game on that date.
 * Re the interleague schedule this page says "each team used to play 18", evidently in reference to the 1999 to 2012 seasons when 252 = 14x18 games were scheduled. Were 214 games scheduled in 1997 and 224 in 1998? Or 224 = 14x16 both seasons with ten games not consummated in 1997? How were the teams matched in 1997? (Some detail probably belongs in the 1997 article rather than here.)
 * --P64 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * [continued] The 1997 Season at Retrosheet and its subpages show me at a glance that there were matching 14-team leagues in 1997. Teams in the two 4-team West divisions played 4x4=16 games against their interleague rivals. Teams in the four 5-team East and Central divisions played 5x3=15 games against their interleague rivals. The 1997 St Louis Cardinals, for instance, hosted Chicago Cleveland and Minnesota in three 3-game series; visited KC and Milwaukee in two 3-game series. West teams played 2 home and 2 away against each of 4 interleague foes.
 * Evidently all scheduled interleague games were consummated, 5x15=75 East, 5x15=75 Central, and 4x16=64 West. Total 214.


 * [continued] Evidently the West schedules involving eight teams inaugurated interleague play together on Thursday June 12, 1997. Arlington, Texas was first only because the other three Western hosts Anaheim Oakland & Seattle were geographically behind it in the Pacific time zone. (Retrosheet doesn't give start times with "Box+PBP" for each game; only "N" for night.)
 * Meanwhile the ten (twenty in both leagues) East and Central teams, having interleague schedules composed of 3-game series, waited for Friday, June 13, 1997, Saturday, and Sunday. It was the same 3- or 4-day weekend for all teams.
 * --P64 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun, June 12, 1997: "Interleague concept, reality stand ready for test of time": blah blah "the scheduling problems of 1997 apparently have become the catalyst for a movement toward an unbalanced schedule in 1998." "The interleague experiment only was approved for two seasons, so the Major League Baseball Players Association will have a lot to say about the configuration of the schedule in future years."

Freely available, contemporary newspaper articles are easy to find by general web search, at least in Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. --P64 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Blue Jays Rival
> Since the Montreal Expos were located to Washington D.C, the Blue Jays do not have an annual rival.

When the Expos moved to DC, the Orioles went from the Phillies to the Nationals, and the Blue Jays went from the Expos to the Phillies. The Jays and Phillies were, at the time, the last opponent each had faced in the World Series. The Jays and Phillies have played each other every year since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.172.164 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And, conicidentally, the Phillies once changed their team nickname to "Blue Jays" in the 1940s,long before Totonto had a team. The name change was ignored by the public and eventually reversed.WHPratt (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 New York Mets
The 2007 New York Mets are the first, and only team to date, to play every post-season team from the season before during the regular season. They played at Detroit. They hosted Oakland and Minnesota. They also played a home and away series with the crosstown New York Yankees. The Mets went 8-7 in these games and played an extra series against the Dodgers in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.104.253 (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading sentence
"Before the 1997 season, teams in the American League and National League did not meet during the regular season. AL/NL matchups only occurred during spring training, the All-Star Game, other exhibition games such as the Hall of Fame Game in Cooperstown, New York, and the World Series. "

This sentence should be rewritten. Someone unfamiliar with baseball might think the WS is an exhibition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.245.21 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Effect on standings
I could not find a place in the article which answers the question: Do results from interleague games affect the standings of the teams and their chances of reaching the World Series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.243.117 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

expand request
Japanese probaseball also have interleague match. also Korean probaseball had interleague play in 1999, 2000. But this article only cover mbl interleague --정과 (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the international baseball leagues' interleague play should be covered on the same page. If these other interleague games are notable (I am only familiar with MLB as far as season structure goes), then separate pages could be created.  This page could be moved to "Interleague play (MLB)" and the "Interleague play" page would become a disambiguation page.  But this page should be specific to the interleague play used in MLB.  Frank Anchor Talk 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Frank.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

An additional "con" argument
(I'm not sure of the best way to word this, but ... .) With interleague play, each league is no longer a closed system wherein wins and losses must necessarily balance. Should either league win a solid majority of the contests this serves to take a significant number of wins "out of" the other league. (For example, in 2006 the A.L. was +56, and in 2008 they were +46.) With an extreme imbalance, one league could have ten or more sub-.500 teams, and at least one division winner with a losing record. WHPratt (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Daily updating
Now that there will be an interleague game or games on most days throughout the season, I'm thinking we should keep the table (and specifically the row indicating the 2013 wins by league) updated on a daily basis, just like an ordinary standing or statistic table, what do y'all think? --96.32.138.125 (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete 2014 Interleague Schedule
The 2014 master schedule is out. For those who are interested in which interleague opponents teams will be playing, I took the time to complie a chart.

Whether that is good enough for inclusion to the article itself is open to debate.

Being a baseball purist I used "Anaheim" instead of "Los Angeles" given the two locations are 60 miles apart and the fact the owner's recent free acquisitions have not been able to prevent the team's decline over recent years.

I also wrote "Washington DC" to distinguish between the State of Washington and the nation's capital.

It's still 2013, but it's never too early to start planning for next year.

2014 August 5–6, etc
Seven interleague games were scheduled and played for each of the last two days, Tue-Wed Aug 5-6 (as we say). The Boston Globe and perhaps other newspapers who share a service show 7 again today but that is a mistake, exchanging the Chicago White Sox and Cubs; there are 5 series today.

Today Thu Aug 7 four teams have the day off, whereas everyone played yesterday. If you are interested in the details of the transition: The four teams off today are the visiting teams from the four games listed at the top of the MLB Schedule at Google; select "Yesterday" (but contents advance daily). Namely Padres, Rays, Rangers, Braves. Their four yesterday-hosts face each other today, namely Twins@Athletics and WhiteSox@Mariners. Two of those four completed series were interleague, Padres@Twins and Braves@Mariners, and the other five of yesterday's 7 interleague series continue today.

I suppose but haven't checked that today's interleague games are all third games of 3-game series while Padres@Twins and Braves@Mariners on Aug 5-6 played half of their "two two-game series against the remaining team" in their designated divisions. At a glance it appears Twins@Athletics and WhiteSox@Mariners are the only new series beginning today. I guess but haven't checked that these may be 4-game 'halves' of the 'sevens' in "6 or 7 games against each of 10 intraleague opponents". Perhaps everyone else will initiate a 3-game series tomorrow.

--P64 (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

1997 interleague schedule
Last hour I added several notes above,, primarily concerning the inaugural 1997 schedule. --P64 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2013 and later
After the 2012-2013 rearrangement into six 5-team divisions, 2015 will only complete a first cycle for each division thru all three divisions in the other league. I wonder whether or not we should write the current sections of this article in terms of a continuing cycle, where 2016 will match 2013, and so on.

Anyway, we now say regarding the favored rivalries, "the two teams play four games, two at home and two away (prior to 2013, there were six games between the two team". Checking 2015 for a few teams only, I find I don't know how the latter matches or differs from the schedule for AL teams in 2012 and some previous seasons ("prior to 2013" but see the preceding section). --P64 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2013 and 2014 (as we say): 4 game svs favored rival; 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 16 vs five teams in the paired division
 * 2015: 6 vs favored rival; 4 + 4 + 3 + 3 = 14 vs four other teams in the paired division

Red Sox rivals
When interleague play began, the Boston Red Sox and the Atlanta Braves were natural rivals because the Braves had been based in Boston until moving to Milwaukee in 1954. The current arrangement (the Red Sox and Blue Jays being split between the Braves and the Phillies) happened after the move of the Expos to Washington (becoming the Nationals) because that move broke up two previous pairs: Phillies-Orioles and Expos-Blue Jays. Nationals-Orioles was a given but that left no good pairings for the Phillies and Blue Jays, so the league settled on the current arrangement as the best of a bad lot.

The Phillies would probably be best paired with the Yankees were it not for the fact that Yankees-Mets is a lock; Red Sox-Phillies has no particular justification. There really isn't anybody to pair the Blue Jays with now that they are the only Canadian team. Mdulcey (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

natural rivalry pairings in 2015
There is no explanation in the article for a deviation away from typical natural rivalry pairings in MLB’s west divisions for 2015. According to the article, the Mariners and Padres are natural rivals every season. Also, since 2015 is an odd year, the Rockies should be paired with the Astros and the D-backs with the rangers. However, from Jul 10-12, said Rangers hosted the Padres in a three game series, and, later this year, they are scheduled to play another three game series in San Diego (Aug 31-Sept 2). As a result, the Padres only face their so-called natural rival, the mariners, four times in 2015 (May 12-13 and Jun 30-Jul 1). As for the Mariners, they are playing two three game series with the Rockies, one at Coors Field (Aug 3-5) and one at Safeco (Sept 11-13). That leaves the last pairing to be occupied by Astros and D-Backs, who are supposed to be natural rivals in even years.

I cannot find any explanation for why these pairings changed. I assume it is because these “natural” rivalries in the West are not very natural at all and MLb deviated from the norm because they could. However, that is just an assumption. I cannot find any explanation for this change anywhere, and I wonder if anyone can provide further clarification for the rationale behind it. --Goon42 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Word of warning by the way: In another context, selection of "Veteran" candidates for annual Hall of Fame induction, arrangements have been changed with bewildering frequency --a new three-year or four-year cycle "established" but revised before it is completed even once. Vaguely I recall that the World Baseball Classic was established as a triennial or quadrennial event and promptly revised. Virtually nothing is at stake in the interleague component of the MLB season schedule; our investment in its explanation may be greater than any investment within the industry.


 * Previously I investigated the interleague schedules for 1997 and 2013–2014 only (two and three sections up). I don't know how frequently any of the norms, such as 6-game series with favored rivals, were actually met during the intervening years. ... Referring to Retrosheet team-season pages for San Diego prior to 2013 (eg, The 2010 San Diego Padres; navigate via 'PREV' and 'NEXT'), I find that San Diego–Seattle played only 3 games in 2004 and 2002; 4 games in 1998 and 1997; 6 games in the other 12 seasons.
 * --P64 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those Retrosheet team-season pages (eg, 2002; navigate via 'PREV' and 'NEXT') show that San Diego, NL West, played these numbers of interleague games by AL division annually from 1997 to 2015(?).


 * In section Interleague play, we show NL West vs. AL East and Central alternately 2002 to 2005, but San Diego played 3 (bold in table) games with Central teams in 2002 and 2004, and also played only 3 games with favored rival Seattle (bottom row) in those two seasons. We show NL West vs. AL East, Central, and West in a three-year cycle from 2006 to present, but San Diego played 3 games with East teams in 2007 and 2010.--while playing the usual 6 games with favored rival Seattle. -P64 2015-07-16
 * Perhaps our summary abstracts from similar anomalies for most or all teams. --P64 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more likely, East vs. East games may fit the summary pattern without anomaly, as the two East divisions equally have five teams from 1997. I plan to chart one East team—Boston, because I know of its anomalous 3-game series with San Diego in 2011 (bold in table). --P64 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see why there would have been scheduling anomalies in seasons preceding 2013. However, as of 2013, each division now has five teams. This natural rivalry shift is the only anomaly I have detected since the beginning of that 2013 season.

There needs to be a change to the Con on IL play. The NL is ALWAYS at an advantage: Every team has X dollars to spend. (Let's just ignore market sizes for this purpose) They spend it specifically to win. Each league does this differently and the same. Both leagues spend money to win the most games with the rules they play the most. There, both the AL and NL are similar. And yet, it is done differently. The NL spends it on 8 batters, a bench, and a pitching staff. The AL team does all that as well but also has to spend money on a DH, something that the NL does not have to do. That means the NL team should in theory have a stronger 8/bench/staff than the AL counterpart since they do not have to spend any money on a DH. That's an advantage.
 * Not familiar with how to do this Mpaniak (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC) mpaniak

Now when the NL team is at home do they gain or lose anything in IL play? Nope. What about the AL? They lose a piece of their lineup which gets replaces by a "no-hit" pitcher. Advantage NL.

Now when the AL team is home do they gain or lose anything in IL play? Nope. What about the NL? They lose a weak hitting pitcher and replace them with one of their bench players. Advantage is to the NL. They get a better lineup.

Mpaniak (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC) mpaniak Goon42 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Split rivalries
note - this section has errors which need corrected; for example, Seattle and Colorado did not play in 2019, an odd-numbered year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.62.211.190 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Central rivalries swapped in adjusted 2020 schedule
When the schedule was changed in 2020 to the corresponding inter-league division (along with same division only intra-league play) the Reds and Tigers met for 6 games and the Indians/Pirates are doing the same while the Indian vs. Reds met for 4 games (two in each city back to back) and the Tigers vs. Pirates only played 3 games (in Pittsburgh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceee1 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Permanent or not?
Are the rivalry pairings the MLB assigned permanent or not? I feel they are since the provisions of the new schedule are that the 3-game series that are played between non-rivals rotate venues between seasons. 131.247.224.20 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I provided a source to state they aren't permanent, but we might not know for certain until 2025 (as the 2024 pairings could easily be a home/away reversal of 2023).  O.N.R.  (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * For both 2023 and 2024 seasons, there are 4 games between Atlanta and Boston, as can be seen in the 2 games in the 1st half of the 2023 season + 2 games in the 2nd half of the 2023 season & 4 games in the 1st half of 2024. Therefore, the same can be said with Philadelphia and Toronto. The same can be said with Colorado and Houston, as can be seen in the 2 games in the 1st half of the 2023 season + 2 games in the 2nd half of the 2023 season & 4 games in the 1st half of 2024. Therefore, the same can be said with Arizona and Texas. As it seems, the split rivalry era has ended for these 8 teams. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 03:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said before, we won't know until the 2025 schedule is released. Had the odd/even rotation remained intact, home games would be imbalanced; however, absent evidence split rivalries are dead, they can switch every two years instead of every year. No reliable source has stated that split rivalries are dead, because it's possible that even Major League Baseball themselves don't yet know what they're doing for 2025.  O.N.R.  (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems that they are indeed dead, as nobody has changed rivals in the newly announced 2025 schedule. Rk2021 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like we now know for certain, as the 2025 schedule was announced and nobody changed rivals. Rk2021 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding a section for interleague World Series matchups
With the Arizona vs. Texas matchup this year, this is the second World Series to feature formal interleague rivals (the previous being the 2000 New York Yankees/Mets World Series). Before this, there were 17 informal interleague World Series matchups, mostly intra-city matchups, in addition to the 1985 intra-state Kansas City Royals/St. Louis Cardinals and 1989 Oakland Athletics/San Francisco Giants Bay Area matchup. Nobody would seriously consider the California intra-state matchups of 1974 Oakland Athletics/Los Angeles Dodgers, 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers/Oakland Athletics, or 2002 Anaheim Angels/San Francisco Giants as an interleague rivalry, since each team already has their corresponding local rivalry (Giants/Athletics & Dodgers/Angels), so I have not included those 3 on the table below. The table I put together (mostly co-opted from List of World Series champions) contains all interleague rival World Series matchups, formal and informal.

The two formal World Series of 2000 & 2023 should definitely be included somewhere in the article, but should the 17 informal rivalries be included as well?

Spesh531<b style="color:#58AF3A">(talk</b>, <b style="color:#AF3A58">contrib.</b>, <b style="color:#ADADAD">ext.)</b> 15:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Legend
 * The 1922 World Series each included one tied game.
 * The 1921 World Series was in a best-of-nine format (carried by the first team to win five games).