Thursday, July 3, 2014
SLOW DRIP UPDATE: 2014 INTERLEAGUE PLAY (THRU JUNE)
The AL remains in the lead, and it looks like much of it is due to the fact that the vagaries of the random schedule are providing them a slight edge in "quality of opponent." They've played 11 fewer games against teams with .500+ records, and their current margin (through games of July 3) is entirely explained by this "QoO" phenomenon.
The AL is also doing better in low-scoring games: they're 34-27 in games where the total number of runs scored is six or less.
The NL has a slight lead in one-run games (30-27 in those).
In smaller samples, the AL has a notable lead in extra-inning games (14-8). With respect to these types of games, it's odd to note that 2013 showed a huge spike in extra-inning interleague games. There were 39 such games last season, easily the highest total since the beginning of interleague play. (The NL made a late run at the AL last year in part due to their 24-15 mark in "EI-IL" games. To which you are cordially invited to say "EI-EI-O.")
We ran out of boxes for the June graph, so couldn't give you a tally for the month as part of the above info--as it turns out, it was a virtual dead heat: the AL eked out a 32-31 advantage for the month.
July isn't quite the kindest month in terms of interleague play--our old buddy T.S. Eliot would be dismayed to know that April wins those honors, at least in 2014, with the fewest interleague games of any month (37, as opposed to July's 39).
Of course, we should really add the All-Star Game to the list of interleague games, now, shouldn't we? Particularly since there are still approximately 45% of you out there who still prefer that it be the only interleague game.
There's an acronym, though, that describes the likelihood of interleague play being abolished. Since it is a profanity, however, we will simply refer to it in its abbreviated form...
Now, oddly enough, the good folks at Acronym Finder don't have this one in their database. They have 83 other possible acronyms, mind you, but not this one. And, given their squeaky-geeky clean predilections (consider that one of their definitions for FU is, um, "Forget You" (as they say, the "polite" form), you know that your chances of finding it there are identical to the likelihood expressed in the phrase itself.