SnakePit Round Table: Rivalries

We shift into off-season mode, where we’ll only be having one or two questions a week. This time, the main question was inspired by a post on Purple Row, discussing who was the Rockies’ rival, which came to the conclusion it was the D-backs. Let’s see if the SnakePit writers agree...

Do the D-backs have a “rival”. If so, who and why?

Spencer: I don’t think so. I think we could have one like the Rockies, but MLB doesn’t care to focus on mid-media teams. I think as fans of the less successful team, we want to claim a rival as good as LAD or SF or SD, but we just don’t have the history or success to claim that beyond a random season or two when we stumble into success (historically speaking). I think if this iteration of the team succeeds the way we all hope and Hazen, Hall and Kendrick expect, we can break into that upper tier of rivals. Mostly I expect we need to wait until expansion and new divisions to think about a main rival.

Preston: What constitutes a rival? Basically, there’s geographic proximity, or extreme dislike for a given place, or teams competing against each other routinely. Not being a resident of the Valley, I don’t really know if any of these factors is in place; sure, we hate the Dodgers, and Phoenix seems to strongly dislike LA, but it’s not reciprocated. And the Diamondbacks haven’t been consistent enough to be competing against the Dodgers or earn the hatred of Dodgers’ fans. No team is geographically close enough to be competing for many of the same fans.

There are a few potential rivalries, but it would take one or both teams being more consistently good. The Rockies and Padres are like us in that they don’t have a true rival, but the Padres have been punching above their weight in recent years, and the Rockies have famously never won the division. And I don’t think expansion is likely to help. No team is going to move into anything close to Diamondbacks’ territory. Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, and Portland seem the most likely sites for expansion. Our best hope for a rival might be the A’s completing the move to Las Vegas; they’d instantly become the closest team geographically, but given that there’d be four games a year and we likely wouldn’t be meeting in the World Series, it’s not very likely.

Essentially, we’ll get a rival when we consistently eliminate someone in the postseason, and that takes consistently getting there, and that’s something this franchise hasn’t done since Randy Johnson was doing his thing.

Sam: The thing to remember is the rivalries are only rarely symmetric. Usually rivalries work their way “up” the food chain. These days, I think the entire NL West considers the Dodgers their rivals, but no one is going to say that the Diamondbacks or Rockies are the Dodgers’ natural rival. (That’d be either the Padres based on proximity and recency – postseason meetings in 2020, 2022 and 2024 – or the Giants based on a longer view of history.)

Makakilo: One answer is that the Rockies and the Diamondbacks are rivals. Two reasons:

MLB has scheduled games between rivals from 16-18 May, 2025. The Rockies and the Diamondbacks are matched. This article (SB Nation site for the Rockies) formally named the Diamondbacks as their most bitter and intense rival.

My view differs. Although I expect to win or sweep every series against the Rockies, I have no enmity towards them and do not think of them as a rival.

The Texas Rangers could be a meaningful rival. Reasons follow:

The teams fight to win every game. Three of the last four series between the teams were sweeps (D-backs were swept once and Rangers were swept twice). The teams played in a World Series (the Rangers won). In 2023, the Diamondbacks record against the Rangers was 3-1, and the Diamondbacks barely made the playoffs. In 2024, the Diamondbacks record against the Rangers was 2-2, and the Diamondbacks fell 1 win short of the playoffs. In 2025 (while the Diamondbacks Window of Contention remains open), the teams play SIX games (11-13 August and 1-3 September). What will be at stake: Whether the Diamondbacks reach the playoffs.

DBacksEurope: Normally rivals develop naturally because of geographical proximity or ongoing importance of games. Being meaningless in your division for many years doesn’t help if the geographical proximity isn’t there. So, I conclude the Diamondbacks do not have a rival. The Rockies are a good potential one though, but in my case I like them too much to be considered a rival at any point in time. Maybe the Las Vegas Athletics will become an artificially MLB-promoted feud, like the Desert Series or something similar. I’m sure Las Vegas is able to sell that well.

Jim: This sent me down a rabbit hole. I’m most familiar with British football rivalries, which are frequently based on geographical proximity. But that doesn’t really exist here, outside of Chicago, New York and LA. Indeed, teams are basically barred from setting up anywhere close to each other. The Mariners don’t have anyone within 800 miles of them, and they are actually the furthest team in the majors from their divisional “rivals” in Texas. In contrast, imagine every team playing in North Carolina. Area-wise, that’s the situation in the English Premier League. London alone has seven teams, more than a third of all the franchises, in an area 1/15 that of Maricopa County.

There’s also greater history. The youngest teams in the EPL (Chelsea and Crystal Palace) were founded in 1905. They’re still older than 14 MLB franchises. These kinds of things tend to build over generations. Here, we are still barely seeing people “born and brought up” as Diamondbacks fans. On the other hand, at least MLB doesn’t have rivalries based on things like religion, which is nice. But I just don’t feel many US sporting rivalries can quite compete with what I’ve experienced in Britain. We may dislike the Dodgers, for a whole host of reasons, valid or not. But I would be hard pushed to say they deserve to be called our rivals.

James: The only team in Arizona with a real rivalry that goes both ways is the Suns. Technically speaking, the Cardinals have the oldest rivalry in the NFL with the Chicago Bears. However, that rivalry has lost most of its meaning in the decades since the Cardinals moved to the Valley. Once they finally got their stadium in Glendale, that pretty much put a nail in the rivalry’s coffin. The Diamondbacks fandom has a severe dislike of the Dodgers and most things associated with them, but going the other way, the Dodgers only barely recognize the Diamondbacks exist. Their massive rivalry goes back a few generations and is with the Giants.

The closest I would say the Diamondbacks have to a rivalry would be the Padres. When the Diamondbacks were first good, it was the Padres and Giants that AZ was trying to stave off. Now, the Padres are the team closest to AZ in the NL West in terms of both performance and geographic proximity. Beyond that, I actually agree with the folks over at our sister site, the Colorado Rockies are probably the “best fit” in terms of assigning a rivalry. They are relatively close when looking at MLB distances. They are an expansion team from the one before Arizona. There have been some epic battles between the teams. The Rockies, the one time they went to the World Series, did so by eliminating the Diamondbacks. Neither team has anyone else that pays them much mind, being regular residents of the lower half of the division.

Dano: I hear what everyone’s saying, and it is persuasive enough. A thing about rivalries, though, I think, in that they are essentially a visceral reaction to one particular team for fans. So yeah, in terms of year-on-year competitive balance and so forth, y’all are probably right, we don’t really have a rival. In terms of how it feels, however, FTD is definitely it. Partly because they’re the “best” team money can buy, partly because they and their fans have nothing but disrespect for us, when they notice us at all. Mostly, though, because they trespassed in our pool, and urinated in it, that one time. Not cool, and thus are rivalries born.

Who are you rooting for in the Championship Series?

Spencer: Cleveland and it’s not close. They are the only worthwhile story, have the longest drought in MLB, and the other teams just plain suck. So I expect the Yankees will get all sorts of calls in their favor as they did against KC. When Cleveland loses, I will stop scoreboard watching until spring.

Preston: Agreed with Spencer. It’s hard to care at all about the NLCS, given that it’s the Dodgers against the team that eliminated the Diamondbacks. Cleveland topped my list for who I’d like to see win at the beginning of the postseason, and they’re the only team left that I would enjoy seeing win.

Sam: I’m still always rooting against the Dodgers, and, as I said a previous week, for the Guardians, who haven’t won it all since 1948.

Makakilo: I’m rooting for the Mets and the Yankees, hoping they will meet in the World Series. My reason follows.

I read that Yogi Berra played for both the Mets and the Yankees. I confirmed it was true. Also, many players have done that.

I wondered, have any players played (or been on the roster to play) in the World Series for the Mets and in the World Series for the Yankees?

Yes! In 2000, Todd Zeile played in the World Series for the Mets. In 2003, Todd Zeile was on the roster to play in the World Series for the Yankees. Each time, his team lost the World Series.

An almost (one level short) player was David Cone. In 1988 he pitched in the NLCS for the Mets (they lost). In 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000, he pitched in the World Series for the Yankees.

Because I quickly and easily stumbled upon Todd Zeile and David Cone (on Baseball Reference website), I did not do an exhaustive search (there may be more players).

If these two teams played in the 2024 World Series, in future seasons there would be the potential to add players to that list!

DBacksEurope: Yankees and Mets, but if it turns out that Cleveland and Dodgers win, I wouldn’t mind. I have noticed that without the Diamondbacks I find the playoffs not that interesting and in general I am more invested in the regular season than in any postseason. Between the AL-series and NL-series I always care more for the NL because those are the teams I traditionally follow in baseball.

James: At this point, I’m left rooting for the Guardians. However, I am not holding my breath that they are going to beat the Yankees in a seven-game series. As much as it pains me to root for the Mets, I will be rooting for Dodger elimination. Frankly, I would rather watch Cleveland and the Yankees slug it out and be done. If the Yankees make it to the World Series (as I suspect they will) we get saddled with the incessant marketing of another Subway Series or the MLB wet dream of a Dodgers-Yankees series, harkening back to the glory days of the game.There is just something anti-climatic about watching the two biggest free-spending behemoths in the sport go at it for bragging rights.

Dano: I’m coming perilously close to finding myself in “a pox on all of their houses” territory. I’m definitely rooting for the Mets, because they’re the only ones left in the NL except for our rivals. In the AL, it’s gotta be Cleveland. In fact, it will be Cleveland all the way for me, should they make it through the Yankees. If not, well, then it depends on who wins the NLCS. If it winds up being CLE-anyone, I’m rooting for the Guardians. If the Mets beat FTD and we wind up with a Subway Series, I’ll hold my nose a bit and root for the boys from Queens. If FTD should win, and the Yankees should win, then I’ll hold my nose even more and root for New York, because I am and always will be ABD (Anyone But Doyers).

Jim: I’m largely on the Anyone But Dodgers train, and wouldn’t particularly mind the Mets. Their ballpark was the first I ever went to, and they were Mrs. SnakePit’s team when she was growing up in New York, so they’re cool. However, part of me, perversely, wants the Dodgers to win, thereby proving my point from last December, when I realized baseball is broken. But I’d rather be wrong: ABD it is.