Confession - I'm not all that enamored of the All-Star Game
I'm old enough to remember a time when baseball on television consisted solely of the NBC Game of the Week on Saturday, selected Dodger road games (including all games in San Francisco), the post-season, and the All-Star Game. The only time the leagues met competitively was for the World Series. There was no 24-hour sports station, Baseball Tonight, MLB Network, games on internet. In a time like that, the All-Star Game was a true event, the stars of the game, many of whom you might rarely see on TV, let alone in person.
But now baseball telecasts exist for nearly every game, highlight shows abound, and you can find at least a clip of a few plays of every game on mlb.com. The serious fan can get his eyeful of any player in any league at any time. Add to that interleague play, providing another venue to see matchups between the leagues. Already this season we've seen Josh Beckett take on the Phillies bats and fail, the Dodgers and Angels face each other, and, not surprisingly, the Mets vs. the Yankees on Fox's national broadcast. There is no novelty to NL vs. AL anymore.
Despite losing the appeal of rare opportunity, at least I could watch high caliber players in fantasy-league type lineups compete against each other in a spirited but friendly exhibition of the best MLB had to offer. The fact the game was an exhibition allowed the players to focus on the individual matchups - batter vs. pitcher, battery vs. stolen base king - but also allowed them to drop the game faces in between. It was an atmosphere where all the players (except for Pete Rose) looked like they were having fun playing the game they played as boys.
In a desperate knee-jerk reaction to an All-Star Game that ended in a tie (so what?), Bud Selig and crew decided that home-field advantage for the World Series should be decided by that season's former interleague exhibition game. This is simply asinine and makes me angry enough to distract from my enjoyment of the game. Having something so crucial as World Series home field advantage - made more important by the DH/noDH rule enforced by home team's league rules - decided in a game that is impossible to manage purely to win and has some meaning for only a handful of players whose teams are realistic post-season contenders is simply a ridiculous concept. The participants in the contest are, at best, minor stakeholders in the prize to be bestowed. Dumb.
It also seems to me that the rule forcing the All-Stars to include at least one player from every team is contradictory to the goal of making the game count for something. If there's a meaningful prize at stake, then the leagues should pick the best players irrespective of team affiliation. No Oakland A's representative this year? Too bad; the AL has a better chance to win with more Red Sox, Yankees, or whoever on their team.
The fault is probably more mine than baseball's anyway. These little things add up and just grate against me, providing too much irritation for my curmudgeonly self to ignore and they gnaw away at me all game long. The All-Star Game just isn't must see TV anymore for me, and I'd just as soon ignore it as watch it these days. These days I'm now able to follow baseball more closely and intensely than ever before, so the All-Star break might be a welcome respite from baseball mid-summer.
I suppose I should propose some solutions for the All-Star Game, although my suggestions are actually quite simple:
- Make it an exhibition game, the outcome having no bearing on anything else.
- Remove the every team has a representative rule; just pick the top studs in each league.
- Relax the roster limit, why not five more players to choose from? More stars!
- Fire Bud Selig.
One of the great All-Star moments of all time, in any sport, was Magic Johnson participating in the NBA All-Star game after he was HIV positive and not even on the Lakers active roster. If Bud Selig was commissioner of the NBA instead of David Stern, that moment would have never happened due to various rules and the fact that it wasn't wholly an exhibition game.
0 recs |
21 comments
Comments
Disagree
I think the fact that the game DOES count for something makes it more interesting. It gives the players something to compete for. I was losing interest in the All Star game before the Home Field Advantage thing. But I do agree with you on one point. Fire Bud Selig. Somebody, pleeeeeeez!!
by ckenneweg on Jun 15, 2009 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Before the game counted
The players had no problem competing at a high level in the game. These men generally have a lot of pride. The pitchers want to get outs, the batters want to get hits, the fielders want to get hits. The game has always been competitive in the moment. The only role that has changed significantly is the manager’s. Now he has to manage to win, instead of maximizing the number of players he gets into the game. If the manager is seriously trying to win, you should see LESS of the All-Stars entering the game than ever before. Other first basemen may be good, but if you’re trying to win, Albert Pujols plays the entire damn game.
by David Young on Jun 16, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used to love the All-Star game, and it still holds some appeal, but I don’t have the same fervor I used to have.
I like the every team rule, because my main reason for watching is to see Dodgers play. I wouldn’t be as interested if there were no Dodgers to root for.
I still have a VHS copy of that 1992 NBA All-Star Game. I was crying at the end of that game. It still gives me chills to watch. I love it!
by Eric Stephen on Jun 15, 2009 11:23 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Our Strat-O-Matic league actually held an All-Star game party where we watched the game and played our league’s All-Star game between innings.
I can’t even imagine an ASG viewing party now.
by David Young on Jun 16, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on the every team rule
Makes sure fans of all teams have someone to root for.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 18, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still find the every team rule contradictory to making the game “count.” I could live with it if the game went back to pure exhibition status.
by David Young on Jun 18, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
It really hardly counts. It only ends up mattering to two teams, and even then only if they go to a 7th game, which is fairly unlikely. The odds that selecting a slightly worse player for the all-star game to get all teams in,volved, and then that player (or players) is the difference in the game, then the World Series goes seven games, and then that the homefield advantage makes the difference in the game seem astronomically low. I’d rather just enjoy the All-Star game for what it is.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 18, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that it matter only for the 7th game
With DH playing in AL parks but not NL parks, having up to four games – and the first two – without the DH is a significant disadvantage for the AL teams who build their rosters with a DH in mind. The opposite holds for the NL who are at a significant disadvantage in the AL park – up to four games with Juan Pierre as DH is all the Dodgers gain, but the AL gets their behemoth DH back. The odds of the home team winning the first two game are better than for the road team, and if you can do that, you only have to win one on the road to be no worse off than having to win one of two at home to end it. Home field advantage for the WS is too important to be at the mercy of an exhibition game.
Of course the premise of my post is that already do not enjoy the All-Star game for what it currently is.
by David Young on Jun 18, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most DH's aren't behemoths
If you look at the average DH’s slash lines they actually don’t hit that well.
But I can’t really argue with you, there are some advantages to it, your right. It’s just not enough for me to really care too much, but if that bothers you obviously that’s your opinion. I like the All-Star game and I don’t feel cheated by the playoff format so I don’t really mind either way.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 20, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto, even the crying
I hated Karl Malone at the time.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Jun 16, 2009 7:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah me too. It was hard for me to adjust when they signed Malone as a free agent.
by David Young on Jun 16, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one bright spot of 2004
was that Malone (and Payton) didn’t get a ring :)
by Eric Stephen on Jun 16, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they need to take away the fan vote
Alfonso Soriano is a few hundred votes away from starting the ASG with his .229 average.
by mattpeters on Jun 17, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought about the selection process but I didn’t have a concrete proposal for how to change it, but I do think a fan vote needs a role in it. Maybe the fan vote should be weighted with something else so a fan winner isn’t automatically in, or maybe the fan vote guarantees a spot on the team, but not a start.
by David Young on Jun 17, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the fans should decide
Whoever people want to watch should be in the game.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 18, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same comment as above – then it shouldn’t “count”.
by David Young on Jun 18, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just disagree
Which side gets an advantage if both teams have to play by the rule? (having all teams represented)
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 18, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but
Almost all teams have an All-Star caliber player anyways.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 20, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the All-Star game for many reasons.
1) The fan vote is retarded because fans are retarded. They vote for the big names and not necessarily the players who deserve to be in the game. I’m sick of this Red Sox/Yankees hybrid roster vs Cubs/Rest of NL bullshit. I really am. Please MLB, take our rights away or at least limit us to 1 vote!
2) I don’t like the fact that the all-star game decides home field advantage for the World Series. A 100 win team could end up missing out on home field against an 82 win team because their league lost the all-star game. If I were a player, I wouldn’t want (potentially) the outcome of my season determined by players who I don’t normally play with and players who may not even care because they play for a really shitty team that is already out of the race. Give the TEAM a chance to determine its own fate. Don’t put their fate in the hands of others. In my eyes, it’s not fair. Also, I think making the all-star game mean something makes it more boring because we have all these low scoring games. I want to see 15-12 slugfests because the pitchers aren’t really trying. That would be more exciting. Last year’s all-star game was one of the most boring baseball games I have ever witnessed.
Well….I said I have many reasons but I guess I only have 2. But I think they are pretty damn good reasons.
/end rant.
"F it, let's pitch." - Ervin Santana
by Chzburger Jones on Jun 17, 2009 6:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













