Interleague Play in ’97 Gets Past First Base

Preparing for expansion to Phoenix and the Tampa Bay area in 1998, baseball’s executive council, meeting at a downtown hotel on Tuesday night, voted to recommend experimental use of interleague play in 1997.

The recommendation, requiring approval of 21 of 28 owners, will be discussed further in Thursday’s joint meeting of American and National League owners, but may not be voted on until a March owners meeting in Phoenix.

The process also requires approval of the Major League Baseball Players Assn., and that attempt may be undertaken before the March meeting, Bud Selig, the acting commissioner, suggested after an executive council meeting in which the interleague proposal received “aggressive and unanimous” support.

John Harrington, chief executive officer of the Boston Red Sox and co-architect of the interleague proposal as chairman of baseball’s schedule and format committee, cited popular reaction to the expanded division and playoff formats and said:

“There’s momentum for change, and this might spark a little more interest [among fans]. There’s no way to test it unless we try it on a moderate basis.”

Bill Giles, president of the Philadelphia Phillies, said 63% of fans polled in a recent survey supported interleague play.

“I don’t think there’s been an economic study, but my gut feeling is that interleague play will improve attendance, improve TV ratings and improve interest,” Giles said. “There’s definitely a few drawbacks, but when you weigh the pluses, I definitely think it would be exciting.”

New York Yankee owner George Steinbrenner, a member of the executive council, referred to interleague rivalries in Los Angeles, Chicago and his own home city when he said:

“I think it would have appeal to a lot of teams, particularly those in two-team markets. We have to look at anything that would make the game more attractive, and this is definitely one of them.”

Within the context of a 162-game schedule, this is the way it would work:

--Teams in five-team divisions would play 12 games with each team in their division, 11 games against each of the other teams in their league and 15 interleague games, or five series of three games each.

--Teams in four-team divisions, such as the Dodgers and Angels, would play 16 interleague games.

--The interleague games would involve geographical divisions: East vs. East, Central vs. Central and West vs. West.

--The designated hitter would be used in American League parks, but not in National League parks.

Said Dodger president Peter O’Malley: “I’m not sure our fans want it, but if they do, if it’s limited and professionally researched, I’m for it.”

However, O’Malley said he opposed use of the designated hitter in some parks, not others.

“You either have it or don’t have it,” O’Malley said. “I don’t think our fans ever want the DH. In polls I’ve seen, there’s little interest [in the DH] in National League cities.”

Said Angel manager Marcel Lachemann: “You’ve got to get the DH situation squared away first. That’s got to be part of the equation. The odds probably lean toward elimination of the DH, but from an entertainment standpoint, people want to see runs, and that’s what the DH brings.”

Aside from a possible conflict between the leagues over the designated hitter, which was initiated in 1973, its continued use or elimination becomes a significant chip for the union in collective bargaining talks with the owners.

Elimination of the designated hitter requires union approval. Unless given something in return, that approval is unlikely, because the union would consider it the loss of a job.

“The players would have a difficult time with that,” a union source said.

However, executive director Don Fehr expressed cautious support for interleague play.

Harrington said the union has “given us indication in the past” that it would approve the concept.

He added: “We also might be able to work out an arrangement [with the union] by which [the designated hitter] would be phased out over time.”

The proposal that goes to the full ownership on Thursday deals only with 1997.

If Phoenix and Tampa Bay are placed in different leagues for 1998, increasing each of those leagues to 15 teams, interleague play is a virtual necessity. There would have to be an interleague game almost every night, or one team in each league would be idle every night.

If both are placed in the same league, with the other league getting the two expansion teams tentatively scheduled to operate in 2000, the number of interleague games and how those games are scheduled would still be different than in ‘97, both Giles and Harrington said.

The owners have until Jan. 1 to decide on a 1998 alignment. Some current teams may change divisions and leagues when the two expansion teams debut, Giles said.

Meanwhile, the interleague issue produced the only action on the opening day of these abbreviated winter meetings.

General managers who have already shaped their 1996 rosters were left to ponder the impact of interleague play on the “integrity and mystique of the World Series,” as John Hart of the Cleveland Indians put it, the loss of run production if the DH goes down and the possible backlash from purists.

“I’m as much a purist and traditionalist as anyone,” Atlanta Brave General Manager John Schuerholz said, “but I’ve changed my opinion in regard to interleague play.

“I’ve seen how fans have reacted to and accepted the expanded division and playoff formats. I think there’s a momentum building and that interleague play will be exciting for the future of the game.”