Skip to main content

All-Star Game misconceptions

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!

Comments

David said…
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..
John said…
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.
Mike said…
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...
Anonymous said…
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

Popular posts from this blog

The Top Dozen Pro Quarterbacks

With the NFL season over, it’s time for year two of my annual quarterback rankings . Actually, last year the list was of quarterbacks I’d take over Jake Plummer. Since such a list this year would be at least a novella, I’ve changed it to the top twelve quarterbacks. This list is intended to be the best quarterbacks as of today and/or next season. Thus, it won’t correspond perfectly with, say, my list of the best young quarterbacks . Vince Young’s completion percentage, for example, will count against him more here. That said, some predictions are still involved. (For example, will Jake Delhomme and Ben Roethlisberger bounce back?) The winners: 12. Philip Rivers, San Diego. Rivers may deserve a higher spot on this list. I’m just trying not to get too carried away. On the plus side, he’s on a fine team (if they have coaches next year) and has a fantastic arm. On the downside, he’s young and was nothing special in the playoffs. So there’s a chance he won’t be quite so good next year, tho...

The Mitchell Report

It came out today, and you may have already looked at it. If not, you can download it as a pdf all over the place, including from ESPN.com . Anyway, the big name named in it was Roger Clemens. That's what we've been waiting all this time for? I don't even know what to say, because this is like the least-surprising report of all time. I hate the gotcha crap that goes on when stuff like this happens. You know, the know-it-alls who say how obvious it was that Clemens had been cheating for years—hey, just look at his age! (Did these people say this so confidently  before Clemens was named? No. And have they ever heard of Nolan Ryan?) But seriously. He's huge, he put really big numbers for a really long time, and he's considered this super-intense jerk—basically, he's Barry Bonds on the mound. Setting aside the moral issues of steroid use (and believe me, I'm against it), I was hoping for some entertainment out of today's revelations, and I was sorely dis...

Who cares?

So we finally got done with the NBA playoffs after nearly two months of stretched-out play, and tomorrow's the draft. I really couldn't care less. I'm so burned out on the sport. Sadly, there's nothing else going on worth mentioning, so we might as well get into it. (Yes, baseball, Pugs, but I haven't really started following that this year yet, sorry.) Would the NFL hold its draft five days after the Super Bowl? Of course not, and not just because the league doesn't want to distract from the highlight of its annual calendar, the Pro Bowl. Of course, the NBA's situation is a little different. College play ended two and a half months ago, and the teams want to get draftees ready for the all-important summer league play (because the kind of guys that need the summer league always end up players). Not that when college basketball is over is relevant, anyway-the league is overrun by a bunch of high school players "just months removed from their prom" (...