The All-Popularity Game
Debates about baseball's All-Star Game trap me like a glue strip. I can't help myself. I can feel another unnerved blog post coming on.--------------
Issue 1) Should the league that wins the All-Star Game continue to get home-field advantage for the World Series?
I had no problem with this policy when it was originally implemented and I still don't. Nobody has more league pride that I do, as a fan, and it used to infuriate me when the starters would be in their street clothes by the 7th inning. We continue to hear arguments about how ridiculously random it is to have something potentially so meaningful decided by an exhibition game, especially when probably 90% or more of the participants in the exhibition will not be in the championship.
OK, I feel like I've already written this a thousand times: but you can't get more random than the previous system. That's right, for almost 100 years, home-field advantage between the two leagues was decided by alternating seasons, and nobody ever complained about it. In 1985, the Cardinals won 101 regular-season games, the Kansas City Royals won 91. Yet the Royals had home-field advantage for the Series because the Cardinals had the misfortune of getting to the World Series in an odd-numbered year. How is that any less arbitrary than the way it is now? At least with the All-Star Game today, the Cardinals (or whomever is destined to win the NL pennant-- I have no inside information) have a chance to get three or four players into the game and help to dictate who has the home field in a Championship Game 7. Hell, there hasn't even been a Game 7 in the World Series since 2002 yet we endure almost as much hot air over this issue than we do about steroids.
The big problem, of course, is that the field managers still don't get it. This time, it counts. What is it about that All-Star Game marketing phrase that repels gray matter? It's not an exhibition. It stopped being one when they upped the stakes. The exhibition is the night before with the home run derby and all the theatrics that accompany that. The All-Star Game is for winnin'. This means: best players play, and play the whole game if they have to. Some guys get named to the team, but don't get to play. Dem's the breaks. All-World Stan Musial hit a game-winning home run in the 1955 game in the 12th inning. The return of such a scenario is what the Commissioner had in mind when he was forced to mandate effort by players and managers after the tie-game debacle in Milwaukee. And don't tell me that it would cause more injuries. You get injured more frequently from going half-ass than you do from going all-out. The game does-- and should-- count. When it's over, you want to be able to tell the guys from the other league to take their designated hitter and go suck on it.
Issue 2) Should fans continue to choose the starting position players for the game?
Yes. ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski says "it isn't the All-Popularity Game, it's the All-Star Game," yet Wojciechowski should stop by the website Answers.com, which defines "star" as "outstanding or famous, especially in performing something," confirming that it actually does mean "All-Popularity Game." Wojciechowski suggests a commissioner-selected panel that includes the likes of baseball Hall-of-Famers, the Baseball Writers Association of America (of which he is presumably a member), along with a Bob Costas and/or George Will. What I guess he's promoting then is a system in which only famous fans get to vote. He's against All-Star players, but in favor of All-Star fans.
Annual debates are inherent, but I think the proletarians, despite the dirt under their fingernails, do a pretty great job of selecting the starters-- at least as good as the players and managers do in their selection of the pitchers and the reserves. Players and managers play favorites and carry just as many grudges into their voting as fans do. The managers select the Gold Glove recipients every year, and in 1999, they gave one to Rafael Palmeiro at first base though he played only 28 games at the position that year.
Issue 3) Should Washington Nationals rookie ace Stephen Strasburg be named to the National League team?
Of course not. He's been heavily-hyped, of course, and something impressive so far, but he has started only four games. If he's going to be as good as his publicist promises, he'll have plenty of other opportunities to pitch in the All-Star Game. If his career is going to take a Mark Prior-like turn for the worst, then he definitely doesn't belong in this year's game. Some have argued that Washington baseball fans have not had much besides Strasburg to get excited about the last few years, but how about this for excitement? They were given their own Major League Baseball team in 2005, and one was uprooted from Montreal so that they could have one.
The All-Star Game is Tuesday, July 13th, in Anaheim. Online voting ends Thursday night at midnight. Remember to back the top National Leaguers... and the worst American Leaguers. This year it counts.
posted by CM @ 7:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home