1. The All-Star Game should count for something. Wrong! I started paying attention to the All-Star Game in 1997, my first year as a baseball fan. I'm a National League guy, all the way. I don't really know why; I guess it's because the Rockies are in the NL. Oh, and since the pitchers have to bat, they're real men, unlike the pansies in the AL. (I was thinking about that the other day, though...what if the batter got a free swing at the pitcher every time he was beaned? Seems fair. Would we still think of Roger "100% commitment, 20% of the time" Clemens as a tough guy?)
Anyway, I watched just about every game, I think, for the next few years, and the NL lost every time. Just depressing. It's never fun being the only human alive who takes something seriously. So in 2002, the managers used up all their pitchers (see No. 2) and the game went into extra innings, so Bud Selig decided just to end the game with a tie. I was pretty annoyed, but was heartened by the news that it wouldn't happen again, now that home-field advantage in the World Series was on the line.
Well, I don't really watch the games any more, so I guess it didn't matter. And, oh yeah, the NL still never wins.
(As for home field advantage in the World Series, MLB should just grow up and give it to the team with more wins. However, they seem more concerned with giving both teams (both leagues, really) an even shot. If that's the goal, there's an easy solution. Personally, I think the big edge in the postseason isn't home-field; it's getting the chance to line up your pitching staff, especially if the other team doesn't get to do that. So they should just give teams more days off before they start the Series.)
2. Everyone should play. You know, I'm over that 2002 game by now, but why did they have to rush through all the pitchers anyway? Who cares if some reliever from the Pirates gets to throw to one batter? (And on the other hand, if you do have to use everyone for some reason...isn't it cool to watch a game where the shortstop gets to pitch? It's those quirky, really unlikely things that lend baseball so much of its charm, so why ignore them?)
3. Being selected for the game is irrelevant. Also wrong! It is irrelevant for most of the players, yes. But All-Star selections and appearances are one of those easily-recited stats that always get brought up in Hall of Fame debates. Thus, it can be important for a guy whose career makes him a borderline candidate. It probably shouldn't be, but it is, so snub discussions are actually valuable in certain instances.
4. It's a crime that every team has to send a player. Man, what is everyone's problem with this? Baseball makes a slightly-silly rule just so the kids growing up in, I don't know, Denver, can have a rooting interest. Is that really so awful? Besides, it's the lone guy from some crappy team who usually ends up being the spare and not playing. Also, he gets mocked on ESPN for a couple weeks. Like it's his fault his teammates suck!
4 comments:
the NL is the superior league for many reasons.
1. its real basebal.
2. as you indicated, yes, the pitchers do hit.
3. this means, that it is much more strategic because you then have to think about the ramifications of pinch hitting for him, if your pitcher is throwing well, but is in a position where you need a more proficient batter.
having the pitcher in the hitting line up adds a little flair to the game that really makes it much more fun for elitists/purists to watch the game.
that being said, just because you're right doesn't mean you'll win. seems like the AL always wins..
I don't watch the All-Star game in any sport, and baseball is no different. It has always struck me as MLB's version of fantasy baseball before there was fantasy baseball - like, what would happen if we put every guy hitting over .300 on the same team? And having World Series home field advantage ride on the outcome is such a stupid idea that only Bud Selig could think of it.
But what really bothers me about MLB is interleague play - not that they have it, but that they need a special rule to authorize it. Seriously, what other professional sports league would arbitrarily divide itself in half based on nothing more than historical happenstance? I say let all the teams play each other all the time - there are more than enough games - and drive Peter Gammons and every one else who makes a living speculating who would win in a seven-game series between the Marlins and Angels into a productive sector of the economy.
Though I was being sarcastic, I do agree with you whole-heartedly, Dävid. Double switches are pretty cool. Sort of gives it that soccer flavor, where substitutions really count for a lot. Couldn't you teach a monkey to manage in the AL?
John, that's exactly what I meant when I said MLB wants both leagues to have a fair shot in the World Series. Why the freak are the AL and the NL still separate entities? It's just absurd. Then again, the worse question is, what kind of sport could ever have fans that don't want to see teams play each other? I don't know if anyone's still upset by interleague play, but it was a big deal when it started...
ok, follow me on this-wouldn't it be more interesting it baseball divided up by countries or something of that nature for the all-star game? When the NHL did that it made the game a little more exciting, and there was a little more pride involved--right now the Yankees produced a lot of all stars and aren't looking like a playoff team, so why try at the all star game, so the Red Sox can have home field advantage?
by the way Mike I don't like you pot shots at Roger Clemens--how many players are dedicated enough to baseball that they would throw at their own children? The Griffeys, the Ripkins, the Bells, the Boones? No
Post a Comment