Well, not exactly Interleague schedules: Cubs: 3 vs CHW, 3 at CHW, 3 vs SEA, 3 at TEX Brewers: 3 vs MIN, 3 at MIN, 3 at TEX, 3 at DET, 3 vs KC Cardinals: 3 at DET, 3 vs LAA, 3 at KC, 3 vs KC, 3 at OAK Astros: 3 vs TEX, 3 at TEX, 3 at CHW, 3 vs OAK, 3 vs SEA, 3 at LAA Cubs: 9 vs mediocre (CHW, SEA), 3 vs bad (TEX) Brewers: 3 vs very good (DET), 6 vs mediocre (MIN), 6 vs bad (TEX, KC) Cardinals: 3 vs very good (DET), 6 vs good (LAA, OAK), 6 vs bad (KC) Astros: 6 vs good (LAA, OAK), 6 vs mediocre (CHW, SEA), 6 vs bad (TEX) Based on this, the Cardinals actually have the toughest interleague schedule with 9 games against good teams. Their schedule just appears easier because they have 6 against the worst AL team. The Cubs probably have the easiest schedule out of all the teams with no true good teams on their schedule. Note: Even though both are 2 games over .500, I classified the A's as good but the White Sox as mediocre because of each teams RS/RA differential. I don't mind classifying Oakland as good, but I still think the White Sox will finish at least a bit above .500 so I don't classify them as mediocre. The Cubs still have only 3 games against a truly bad AL team, compared with 6 for everyone else in the division. I understand the fascination with these natural rivalries, but I don't agree that KC should be St. Louis' natural rival. There's nothing there; KC hasn't been up to it since the '80s. They should be playing someone else, or rotating until they find an actual worthy rivalry.