Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries

Merger proposal

I don't see why we need separate articles for NL and interleague rivalries when they can be discussed on this page. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I put separate articles for the NL and interleague rivalries is because there are more article pages on the National League rivalries and there are a lot of interleague rivalries. Those are the reasons why I put separate articles. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support merge Separate articles are entirely unnecessary, the definition of content forks. They can easily be discussed in a single article. If all of the managers of all active teams can be rolled into, and summarized in, one article, then these articles are over-split. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly support merge. There's only one reason why I did separate articles. I used the articles on the NFL rivalries pages as the guide for this. You can see how long the articles on those rivalries are, particularly in the intraconference and intradivisional rivalries (i.e., Intradivisional rivalries in the American Football Conference, Intradivisional rivalries in the National Football Conference, Intraconference rivalries in the American Football Conference, Intraconference rivalries in the National Football Conference). Yes, there are a lot of rivalries, but the only reason why I felt that separate articles were necessary was because there are more articles on the National League and interleague rivalries and there's only one in the American League. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Support merge. There is a lot of new rivalries, such as Cubs/White Sox, Cards/Royals, Rays/Marlins, and Cards/Brewers that not been talked very much at all. Kimmy78 (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kimmy78, yes I would support merge. There are a lot of new rivalries. I have talked about them. The Cubs/White Sox, Rays/Marlins I talked about in the article about the interleague rivalries. There's only one reason why I created different articles: There are a lot of articles in the National League and Interleague rivalries, and there's only one in the American League. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 04;04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely merged

This article has been completely merged. I checked the articles on the rivalries in the NHL and the NBA as the guide on how to merge the other separate articles into this one. Please discuss other rivalries before adding it to this article. I don't think it's necessary to create an article on the rivalry between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Pittsburgh Pirates at this time, though the rivalry doesn't anymore exist, but you can discuss it if you prefer. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already created the article on the rivalry between the Phillies and the Pirates and working on it. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unimportant rivalries

How can brewers/cubs or astros/cardinals be on the same list as cubs/cardinals? Or Braves/Mets on the same page as Phillies/Mets? These three are all new rivalries (less than 20 years old) and are only rivals because of recent division realignment. They don't deserve to be on this list. Ultimahero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Brewers/Cubs is a geographical rivalry. Braves/Mets is due to division realignment. The Mets had been chasing the Braves for the division lead during the 1990s. Yes, they deserve to be on the list. – SNIyer12, (talk), 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Brewers/Cubs is also due to realignment. True, geography is involved as well, but the two teams weren't rivals until the most recent realignment. Were they rivals BEFORE the realignment? No, they weren't. So the most immediate cause of the rivalry is the fact that they were recently placed int he same division. And the rivalry is simply too young to be on this list. Braves/Mets is also due to realignment, as you would agree. Again, it's not old enough to be on this list. I'm giving you reasons why it doesn't belong; you're just asserting that it should be there. Why do these rivalries deserve to be on this list alongside the most historic rivalries in baseball history? Or why do they deserve to be on the list to the exclusion of any other division rivalry, such as Padres/Rockies, Pirates/Marlins, or Rangers/Mariners? You need to answer these questions before you put those back in. Ultimahero (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I notice that you have not even mentioned Astros/Cardinals and yet you continue to reinsert it into the article. Please give solid evidence for why it should be allowed. Ultimahero (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I put them in because there are articles on the rivalries. Also, before the two-division play, teams played each other frequently, playing 18 times a season. Also, the teams have played in the playoffs. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It DOES matter. You did not answer my questions. If you say that any rivalry can be placed on this list, then I expect you to write up something for every single rivalry in the history of baseball. That would be consistent. But obviously not every rivalry is a significant rivalry. So please explain how these are more significant than any other division rivalry. Ultimahero (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are articles on the rivalries between the Mets and the Braves, the Cubs and the Brewers, and the Astros and the Cardinals. You're not looking at the sections and see that there's an article. They are significant rivalries and deserve to be on the list. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, please do not be so bold as to tell me what I have or have not looked at. I think I'm more knowledgeable about that than you. I have seen the accompanying articles. However, that doesn't mean anything. Anyone could write a short article on any division rival. Does that automatically qualify them for being on this page? And just because these teams have articles does not automatically mean they deserve to be on this list. You have yet to explain why they are significant. Again, should every rivalry be allowed on this list? Or is there some other criteria? Please explain. Ultimahero (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This article explains some of the most intense rivalries. The rivalries removed warrant to be allowed on the list, as they are stated in this article and slideshow. [1] – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that Forbes is really qualified to determine which baseball rivalries are the "most intense". That's not their area of expertise. Finance is their strength, not baseball. The article looked promising at first because it claimed that ticket mark-up was one an important factor in determining which rivalries are heated. That made sense; if fans were willing to pay more then perhaps the games are more meaningful. However, if you'll notice their top ten list wasn't ranked according to the ticket mark-up. (For example, Cub/Cardinals ranked 6th and had a 14% mark-up. Yet both Pirates/Phillies [5th place] and White Sox/Indians [4th place] were ranked higher despite having no mark-up on their ticket prices.) Thus the big economic indicator that Forbes cited was apparently not a factor in this ranking. So it seems that this list was more a product of just some fan rather than any legitimate economic indicator. If I am misinterpreting the article then please tell me but I see no reason to give this list credence.(Also, even if Forbes did rank the teams according to mark-up that would be to ignore the possibility that the rivalry might only be meaningful to the fans of those two teams and could have zero national significance.)

I don't think any of your reasons for including these rivalries have been valid. You argued that it "doesn't matter" how significant the rivalry was; you apparently believe that any rivalry should be allowed on this page. However, can't we say that every baseball team is the rival of every other baseball team in some general sense because they all compete against one another? According to your criteria, we should just make a list of all possible match-ups and that would be sufficient. But surely this page is dealing with rivalries that go beyond just the ordinary. A person who clicks on this page would most likely expect to see historic rivalries that carry the highest level of importance. So you must provide some criteria for which rivalries can make this page, which you have thus far refused to do.

Also, just because a fan created a Wikipedia entry on a particular rivalry doesn't automatically make that rivalry important enough to go on this list. Any fan could make any page for any teams. Surely this is not a serious standard. If I create a Padres/Blue Jays rivalry page will we link to that here? So please provide some objective criteria. Thank you. Ultimahero (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I know about the rivalries between the Braves and the Mets, Astros and Cardinals, and Brewers and Cubs. They are all important rivalries. Brewers and Cubs is because of the geographic proximity and the race in 2008 does show it. Braves and Mets is a big rivalry. The Mets often competed with the Braves for the division lead during the 1990s. They've had problems against them at Turner Field and Bobby Cox has played against the Mets often. These are some key points you need to understand. I don't want this to become an edit war and they are important rivalries. – SNIyer12, (talk), 01:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cubs/Brewers is not PRIMARILY geographic. It is primarily die to the realignment. Were they rivals BEFORE realignment? If not, then that proves that realignment is the single biggest factor that lead to a rivalry. I'm not saying that geography doesn't matter but simply that it's not the biggest factor. Mets/Braves were competitive during the 90's. But, again, the biggest reason they are rivals is due to realignment. The Braves/Mets article itself agrees with this. And you have not once defended Astros/Cardinals despite continuing to reinsert it. All of these rivalries are less than 20 years old. That can't constitute a major rivalry like the others on this page. It would help if you would provide some standard for what makes an important rivalry. Ultimahero (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cubs/Brewers IS PRIMARILY geographic. They were interleague rivals before realignment. Mets/Braves, both teams are still rivals. Their rivalry started in the 1969 NLCS. You think it's just due to realignment. The article on the Braves/Mets rivalry has information about the two teams fielding contenders during the 1990s. They both fielded contenders in 2005. Chipper Jones still plays for the Braves and has attacked at the Mets. They are major rivalries. – SNIyer12, (talk), 01:43 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that Cubs/Brewers were major rivals before realignment. The Mets/Braves page itself says that the rivalry didn't really start until they were in the same division, the 1969 NLCS aside. Again, what is your standard for determining which rivalries are major rivalries?Ultimahero (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mets-Braves

This rivalry didn't really being until the realignment of 1994. Even the Mets-Braves article agrees that the two teams being placed in the same division is what created the rivalry. Of these years since 1994, only 2 times have both teams been competitive in a way that goes beyond simple hatred for a divisional foe. These two seasons were 1999 and 2000. In 1994 neither team made the playoffs and the Braves finished 12.5 games ahead of New York. In 1995 Atlanta won the division, finishing 21 games ahead of New York. In 1996, the Braves won the division and finished 25 games ahead of the Mets. In 1997, the Braves won the division and finished 13 games ahead of the Mets. In 1998, the Braves won the division and finished 18 games ahead of New York. In 1999, both teams made the playoffs and battled in the NLCS. In 2000, both teams made the playoffs but did not play one another. In 2001, the Mets came in third in the division, 6 games behind the first place Braves. In 2002, the Atlanta finished 26.5 games ahead of the Mets and won the division. In 2003, the Braves finished 34.5 games ahead of the Mets and won the division. In 2004, the Braves finished 25 games ahead of the Mets and won the division. In 2005, Atlanta won the division and finished 7 games in front of the 4th place Mets. In 2006 the Mets won the division and finished 18 games ahead of 3rd place Atlanta. From 2007 to 2009 neither team made the playoffs. Finally, in 2010 the Braves won the wild-card and finished 12 games ahead of the 4th place Mets.

So only in 1999 and 2000 was there any real competition between the two teams. I'm not saying that two division rivals need to make the playoffs for it to have been a "competitive year", but in every other year they weren't even close. The Braves were crushing the Mets prior to 1999 and from 2001-2005. The one year the Mets won the division was a year Atlanta finished a distant third. And neither teams has had much success since 2006, save the Braves playoff appearance last year. So for a rivalry that is only entering it's 18th season (which is incredibly short for baseball), and has only had 2 competitive years, how can this be considered a significant rivalry?Ultimahero (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cubs-Brewers

The Cubs/Brewers rivalry is primarily a rivalry due to the Brewers switching leagues in 1998. Even the Brewers/Cubs page agrees with this fact. In 1998, the Cubs won the wild-card and finished 15.5 games ahead of the Brewers. In 1999, the Brewers and Cubs finished 5th and 6th respectively in the NL central. In 2000, the Brewers finished in 3rd place, 8 games ahead of last place Chicago. In 2001, the Cubs finished 3rd int he division, 20 games ahead of Milwaukee. In 2002, the Cubs and Brewers finished 5th and 6th respectively in the NL central. In 2003, the Cubs won the division and finished 20 games ahead of the last place Brewers. In 2004, the Cubs finished 3rd, 21.5 games ahead of last place Milwaukee. In 2005, the Brewers and Cubs finished in 3rd and 4th place respectively in the NL Central. In 2006, The Brewers and Cubs finished 4th and 6th respectively in the NL Central. In 2007, the Cubs won the division, narrowly edging out the Brewers by 2 games. In 2008, the Cubs won the division and the Brewers won the wild-card, although they did not meet int he playoffs. In 2009, the Cubs finished 2nd and the Brewers 3rd in the NL Central with both teams missing the playoffs. In 2010, the Brewers and Cubs finished 3rd and 5th respectively in the NL Central.

2007 and 2008 and the only seasons where these teams have been competitive in a way that affects baseball as a whole. The majority of their "rivalry" has been each team trying to avoid finishing in last place. For a rivalry that is entering it's 14th season (incredibly short for baseball), and has only had 2 competitive seasons, how do we call such a true rivalry?Ultimahero (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Astros-Cardinals

This is the one rivalry that has yet to be defended by proponents of the adding these 3 rivalries to the page. Ironically, though, I feel this has the most going for it. The rivalry didn't truly being until the 1994 division realignment. They have had 5 competitive seasons, compared to only 2 for Braves/Mets and Cubs/Brewers. In 1996 the Cardinals won the division with the Astros finishing only 6 games back. In 2001, both made the playoffs, although both were eliminated in the first round. In 2004, both made the playoffs and met in the NLCS. In 2005 both teams made the playoffs and again met int he NLCS. Finally, in 2006 the Cardinals won the division, finishing only 1.5 games ahead of Houston.

So this rivalry has more competitive seasons than the other two (5 v.s 2 v.s 2), as well as having met in the NLCS in back to back years. Still, there are two things that keep me from saying this is a truly significant rivalry. First, it's only 18 years old. When you consider how old many of the other rivalries on this page are, some over a century, it seems insulting to add one that's been going on less than 20 years. Second, the Astros aren't even the Cardinals biggest rivals. The Cubs are. By definition this would be a secondary rivalry. That doesn't automatically disqualify it; the Giants are the Dodgers biggest rivals but that doesn't mean that Dodgers/Yankees or even Dodgers/Angels is a "small rivalry". But the difference is that Astros/Cardinals doesn't even seem to be close to Cardinals/Cubs, whereas at least Dodgers/Yankees isn't THAT far off of Giants/Dodgers. So I still don't think this rivalry belongs on the page, either. However, I'm more happy to listen to counter-argument for any of these three rivalries.Ultimahero (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since no one wanted to improve the main article, I redirected it to the page. – SNIyer12, (talk), 15:23 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Subway Series

I recommend we break up those rivalries into different sections. The Yankees-Giants rivalry should be moved to the "historic" section since it hasn't been really been a rivalry in over 50 years.Ultimahero (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There's already an 'historical' section, creating another historical section based off of the Subway Series is redundant. Giants-Yankees certainly belongs in the historical section because it's been over 50 years since they had a rivalry. And, since most inter-league rivalries are alphabetized, Mets-Yankees should fit into that. Dodgers-Yankees is the only question in my mind. I think it belongs at the top, since it's the oldest, and a lot of the history was between LA and NY so it doesn't fit under "Subway Series".Ultimahero (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why I proposed the rivalries to have a "Historical origins from Subway Series" for the NYY-LAD and NYY-SFG. The 2nd part of the section would be "Modern Subway Series" ie NYM-NYY. By splitting it up that way, we tell the reader the origins of the rivalry, but how it moved on too. Arnabdas (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But there's already a section about historical rivalries. To make a section about historical rivalries from the Subway Series is redundant. If we go your route we might as well do away with the "historical rivalries" section and put all of those teams in their own heading where the rivalry historically originated from.Ultimahero (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds vs. St. Louis Cardinals

Just recently, I saw a new rivalry page, titled Reds–Cardinals rivalry, which is about the Cincinnati Reds vs. St. Louis Cardinals. I tried to add a section on the rivalry, but Ultimahero removed it. The rivaly goes back to the late 1800's, but ended with the 1969 realignment, but started back again with the 1994 realignment. Also, the cities of Cincinnati and St. Louis are approximately 6-7 hours apart by car.

Does this rivalry should remain on the page? I feel so, as it has happened for a long time, but Ultimahero think it shouldn't be there. – SNIyer12, (talk), 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out with other rivalry pages, simply having a separate page for the rivalry does not automatically make it a significant rivalry. And on the Reds/Cardinals page I only see two notable instances between the two teams from 1892 (the first year they were both in the NL) and 1969 (the year divisions were introduced to the MLB). One is the 1964 season where the Reds finished 1 game behind the Cardinals for first place. The other was a fight that occurred in 1967. But there's no indication that the fight was due to a preexisting hatred between the two teams; it just seems to be one game that got out of hand. And it's not as if the two clubs were close in the standings that year; the Cardinals-Reds rivalry page says that the Reds were already falling out if contention by that point, and they finished 14.5 games back. So, from 1892-1968 (77 years by my count), they only had 1 competitive season. Then they were in different divisions from 1969 to 1993 and did not directly compete. In 1994, after realignment put them both in the NL Central, they've finished 1-2 in the standings only twice: in 2000 when the Cardinals finished 10 games ahead of Cincinnati, and 2010 when the Reds finished 5 games in front of St. Louis.

So how can this be called a rivalry at all, let alone a consistently heated rivalry? Not only should this not be included on the the MLB Rivalries page, I think that the Reds-Cardinals page should be deleted.Ultimahero (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrosheet coverage

See "Regional Postseason Series" at Retrosheet. These "regional series" were official—sanctioned by Baseball. They exclude preseason (none sanctioned), mid-season (none sanctioned), and unsanctioned postseason games matching the same teams.

Timespans and counts. for the 32 series covered

• Boston Red Sox–;New York Giants 1909 (1)
• Cleveland–Pittsburgh 1913 only (1)
• Cleveland–;Cincinnati 1910–1917 (3)
• Boston AL–NL (0)
• Philadelphia AL–NL (0)
• St. Louis AL–NL 1917 only (1)
• New York AL–NL 1910–1914 (2)
• Chicago AL–NL 1905–1942 (24)

--P64 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what I'm seeing. Are these rivalries?Ultimahero (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference to Retrosheet coverage of official postseason series played beside the World Series from 1905 to 1942. Presumably all but the first one or two should be included in Wikipedia coverage of MLB rivalries. Games are not rivalries, only one aspect of rivalries. No other aspect of rivalries is much covered here yet; indeed, there is a tendency to equate rivalries with interleague games beginning 1997. --P64 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. This shows certain postseason series between teams that aren't the World Series. But other than Cubs/White Sox, the others are just a stray series here and there. So I don't understand what you are saying should be included. I agree that the Inter-league stuff is overplayed, but a stray series between the Giants and Red Sox doesn't make a rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He is not proposing making a new rivalry, but including these games into the already existing rivalry articles. Arnabdas (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AL Central

I think we could put some of the AL Central teams on here. Twins/White Sox and Indians/Tigers have long histories. However, I'm not incredibly knowledgeable on any of those, so I'd like it if anyone with more expertise could offer an opinion.Ultimahero (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason arises as to the Reds-Cardinals...not enough reliable sources documenting the long history. Arnabdas (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with your comparison. Reds-Cardinals were in separate divisions from 1969 to 1994. Twins/White Sox were always in the AL West until realignment moved them both to the Central. Same goes for Indians/Tigers in the East. These may not be enough to substantiate them as heated rivalries, but your analogy doesn't fit.Ultimahero (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I do think you're right that there's just not enough history there. All of those teams have been around a long time but they never really established any ongoing competition. Too bad.Ultimahero (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore/Washington

Why does this rivalry belong? It's existed only since 2005, a mere 6 years, and both teams haven't been any good during that stretch. So why include it?Ultimahero (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

MLB considers this a "natural" rivalry. Arnabdas (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please give some sources for that.Ultimahero (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reds/Dodgers

I think Dodgers and Reds might fit well under the "Historical Rivalries". They were two of the most competitive teams during the 70's and 80's, as they often fought for the NL West. They had close 1/2 finishes in 1961 (Reds by 4), 1973 (Reds by 3.5), 1974 (Dodgers by 4), 1978 (Dodgers by 2.5), 1981 (Dodgers by .5 in the first half), 1985 (Dodgers by 5.5), 1988 (Dodgers by 7), and 1990 (Reds by 5). They've also had multiple 1/2 finishes that weren't as close: 1940 (Reds by 12), 1970 (Reds by 14.5), 1975 (Reds by 20), 1976 (Reds by 10), and 1977 (Dodgers by 10). They also played in the 1995 NLDS with the Reds sweeping. Finally, in 1988 Tom Browning threw a perfect game against the Dodgers. Anyone have any thoughts?Ultimahero (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marlins/Rays

Similar to several of the others, this seems an extremely artificial "rivalry", created by MLB out of whole cloth just to allow them to add to their list of annual home and away rivalries. There is no natural or historical rivalry here. As far as geographical rivalry is concerned, the Tampa area and south Florida (Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach) are not close (4-5 or more hours apart by car) and (as a life-long resident of south Florida, I can assure that) residents in the 2 areas don't consider themselves rivals - in fact, the other area is rarely considered at all, and when thought of, not in an adversarial way. Should there be a category for (or at least comment about) the "non-rivalry rivalries"? (Not sure what you would use for sources, but then there are no sources that demonstrate that this is a "real" rivalry rather than one invented by MLB.)108.74.28.81 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)