Well, we’ve finished the first session of interleague play in 2011. Eh.

I am only moderately enthusiastic about interleague play. Not that it’s a bad idea, but there is too much of it. I think the standings in a division race become less meaningful when teams play 5 or 6 series against the other league. Others have pointed out that teams don’t necessarily prepare as well for interleague games, which (in theory) drags down the quality of the games themselves. Why spend much effort to scout a team that you’ll only have 3 games with and won’t see again for years?

Then there is the strength-of-schedule problem. As things stand, interleague matchups that aren’t based on rivalries are instead based on rotating which divisions play each other. Because not all divisions have the same number of teams, and not all divisions have the same overall strength, there are cases where teams in strong divisions play lower-caliber opponents from the other league and thereby pad their records. And because interleague schedules are seldom equivalent across all teams in a division, there can be cases where teams competing for a division title face unequal levels of interleague opposition.

The main point of interleague play has always been to generate fan interest. So I think interleague play should be cut back, and focused on the series that fans will want to see. That means trying to produce good games, as well as bringing out local rivalries. The division rotation scheme is partly about getting every team to play every other team at least occasionally. While this is a nice idea, it also means a lot of less interesting matchups are generated. It’s obviously a good draw to see the Cubs face the White Sox, but the Astros against the Blue Jays? Is that really special?

Here’s a proposal: let’s generate interleague matchups by the following rules. We’re aiming for each team to play 4 to 6 interleague series per year, which is a modest reduction from the 5 to 6 currently scheduled.

1) Pairs of teams which share the same metro area will continue to play home-and-home each year. That means Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels, Giants-A’s, and Nats-Orioles. (Total: 10 series.)

2) Teams not in the same metro area, but close enough to each other that you can reasonably drive from one park to the other on a Saturday afternoon will play a series every year, alternating hosts (if possible) from year to year. I think this gives the following pairs: Padres-Angels, Pirates-Indians, Phils-Orioles, Phils-Yanks, Cardinals-Royals, Reds-Indians, Marlins-Rays, Astros-Rangers, and – stretching slightly – Brewers-Twins. (Total: 9 series.)

3) Here’s the strength-of-schedule part: we’ll add matchups based not on divisions, but on the previous year’s standings. Last year’s division winners will play one series against each division winner from the other league, and last year’s second place teams will play one series against each second place team from the other league. (This adds up to 12 series, but drop any duplicates with the pairs from rules 1 and 2 – if the Mets and Yankees both finished second, they still play just two series.)

4) If not scheduled to meet because of rules 1-3, last year’s World Series teams get a rematch series. If the schedule permits, the team which lost the World Series hosts.

5) Fill out the interleague schedule by allowing teams with less than 4 interleague series scheduled to pick opponents from the other league, as long as the opponent has less than 4 series already scheduled. This would probably be best done with a kind of draft scheme, where the teams with the fewest series scheduled by rules 1-4 would choose first. It should be organized so that the team choosing will get to host the chosen team as often as possible. If 4 series seems too few, make it 5. As long as the schedule permits, teams may decline to choose, but may not decline being chosen.

6) If any team is scheduled for more than 6 interleague series, they must drop one (their choice). This is really an edge case, I think.

Obviously, I haven’t filled in all the details, but I think an arrangement like this would make interleague play more exciting for the fans and better for competitive balance. Because of rule 3, in particular, teams that do well will play more interleague games, but aside from the local derbies they will also face tougher interleague competition. There is no attempt to have all teams play the same number of series – instead, the point is to get the best matchups, and the games that fans will most want to attend.

Keys: baseball