The official 2008 MLB thread

[SackAttack]

Is this the part where the inning-ending double play ball gets hit at Uggla?

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by molson

The idea isn't that bad - it's increased the interest in these games and the players are clearly all playing much harder than they used to.

How hard is it to announce a contingency plan though? After 15 innings, it's a tie, and home field goes to the league that wins the most games in interleague play.

How about we just give home field to the team with the best record.

[Mike1409]

Slow pitch softball!!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

Anyone else have a bad feeling that the AL is going to pull this out this half-inning with all the talk of "what happens in the 16th or 17th with Kazmir" chatter?

Definitely. I suspect the fix might be in here - perhaps not officially, but Lidge is going to bail MLB out.

[Radii]

How hard is it to announce a contingency plan though? After 15 innings, it's a tie, and home field goes to the league that wins the most games in interleague play, or whatever.

Agreed. The only reasonable resolution IMO if there isn't a contingency plan already in place is that there must be a winner to this game and if one team is unable to field a pitcher then that team forfeits. That's not ideal, but if there was no pre-determined plan in place then there simply must be a winner declared.

And as it stands, this game isn't a disaster...this is the best All-Star game ever. Maybe in any sport.

For sure, I almost didn't watch the game, I'm really glad I did.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

The idea isn't that bad - it's increased the interest in these games and the players are clearly all playing much harder than they used to.

I think using an exhibition game to decide something important is far more objectionable than players not playing the All-Star game 100%. It'd be nice if guys cared a little more, but it was a huge overreaction. Frankly, it ain't the end of the world if you have to declare a tie in the ASG. Would seem preferable to potentially murdering some poor guy's arm.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by molson

Definitely. I suspect the fix might be in here - perhaps not officially, but Lidge is going to bail MLB out.

Lidge is getting an extra bonus check from the MLB to go with his normal All-Star team selection bonus.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

How about we just give home field to the team with the best record.

91 wins is worth more in the AL than 94 in the NL. So it doesn't really matter. And it just alternated by year prior to this All-Star thing. I don't remember people speaking out about it then.

[Jas_lov]

SAFE! It's finally over!

[kingfc22]

Damn! Selig you are a lucky bastard to get out of this one.

[samifan24]

Michael Young! Wow, what an exciting game!

[Radii]

Quoting myself from IRC chatter w/ a few other baseball fans.

FUCK
FUCK FUCKF CUK




Grats AL. Definitely one of the best all star games i've ever witnessed in any sport, possibly the best.

[kingnebwsu]

Wow! Great ending!

[LloydLungs]

I'm actually going to disagree, I really think the game wasn't that great -- it was just really long with a healthy dose of "Ohmigod-what-is-Selig-gonna-do" mixed in. Tons of squandered opportunities combined with the worst individual performance ever seen in an ASG (Uggla). It was definitely interesting, but I wouldn't call it great baseball.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I'm actually going to disagree, I really think the game wasn't that great -- it was just really long with a healthy dose of "Ohmigod-what-is-Selig-gonna-do" mixed in. Tons of squandered opportunities combined with the worst individual performance ever seen in an ASG (Uggla). It was definitely interesting, but I wouldn't call it great baseball.

What was your favorite All-Star game? None of them really have great baseball. Interesting is the best we can get.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I think using an exhibition game to decide something important is far more objectionable than players not playing the All-Star game 100%. It'd be nice if guys cared a little more, but it was a huge overreaction. Frankly, it ain't the end of the world if you have to declare a tie in the ASG. Would seem preferable to potentially murdering some poor guy's arm.

I'm not sure how using the All-Star game to decide homefield is more objectionable than the previous system - didn't it just rotate year to year?

JD Drew for MVP? Oh, there he has it. Fantastic turnaround. And even though Jeanne Zalasko is encouraging the NY fans to boo a Red Sox player, they just don't have the energy left.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

What was your favorite All-Star game?

Oh shoot, who knows? It's an exhibition. I think Bud gesturing wildly like a clueless moron in the tie game made me laugh the hardest, so I'll go with that one. This one's close though. I think we missed Bud gesturing like a clueless moron AGAIN by a half inning.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Clint Hurdle

We were communicating the whole time. They kept telling us the game would find a way to end.

Brilliant Selig. Oh how I wish it kept going.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not sure how using the All-Star game to decide homefield is more objectionable than the previous system - didn't it just rotate year to year?

There really is no great way. It used to rotate because the two leagues played completely separate schedules. With interleague play, it seems to me like simply awarding homefield to the team with the best record would make the most sense. There is the potential of an NL team rolling up a huge record against inferior competition and getting homefield that way, but so be it. It sure beats an exhibition game deciding things.

[Radii]

Watching the press conference on ESPN, they asked Clint Hurdle if there was any communication about what would happen if the game got to the point that one team didn't have any more pitching available, and he said "we were communicated with, we were told the game would find a way to finish itself, and I'm fine with that, that's communication and we all knew that going in"

Not sure if he was serious or not but he said that Lidge maybe had another inning in him, maybe not, and David Wright was ready and willing to pitch.

[Radii]

doh, bishopmvp beat me to it

[Chief Rum]

Best idea I have heard was having best interleague record taking it. I didn't hear a contingency for it being an even record, but my contingency would be to have the interleague records of the four playoff teams from each league be the deciding factor. And if that's even, well, the AL gets it.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

Not sure if he was serious or not but he said that Lidge maybe had another inning in him, maybe not, and David Wright was ready and willing to pitch.

This is where I think we really missed out. We needed to see position players pitch in this one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

. It sure beats an exhibition game deciding things.

Is it really still an exhibition game if it "counts"? I don't know the answer to that.

It'd be interesting to see some manager go in there and just keep his starting pitcher in 7 innings, and keep his starters in the whole the game (though I'm not sure if you have have a better chance to win than if you just throw out closers every inning).

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it really still an exhibition game if it "counts"? I don't know the answer to that.

It's certainly treated like one, with mass substitutions mid-game and tons of pitchers used (even in a regular nine inning game).

Seems to me if you're going to put this much weight on it, you need to (a) take away fan voting, (b) take away the "every team represented" rule, and (c) have the managers treat it like any game, using their best players as long as they reasonably can.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by AP

Marlins second baseman Dan Uggla made three errors Tuesday night to set an All-Star game record.

Uggla, better known for his power stroke than his fielding, entered the game as a replacement for Philadelphia’s Chase Utley in the sixth and didn’t have a ball hit to him until the 10th inning when he missed Michael Young’s leadoff grounder. He made his second miscue one play later, mishandling and easy chance on Carlos Quentin’s groundball.

Uggla made amends, albeit shakily, when with a drawn-in infield and the bases loaded he corralled Russell Martin’s groundball and threw home for the forceout.

The record error came in the 13th when J.D. Drew’s bouncer took sharp hop and hit off his glove.

Nomar Garciaparra was the last player to make two errors—in the 2000 All-Star Game. Former Yankees second baseman Willie Randolph was the last player before Garciaparra to boot two.

This, folks, is why you don't write a news story ragging on someone for screwing up unless you have a sober copy editor.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

There really is no great way. It used to rotate because the two leagues played completely separate schedules. With interleague play, it seems to me like simply awarding homefield to the team with the best record would make the most sense. There is the potential of an NL team rolling up a huge record against inferior competition and getting homefield that way, but so be it. It sure beats an exhibition game deciding things.

I disagree. Potentially being the home team for 57% rather than 43% of the series if it goes 7 games seems like such a small matter I don't mind making the AS game a little more interesting. Picking whichever league wins more interleague games makes more sense IMO, but I don't really see it as a big deal, even as a fan of one of the favorites to make the WS.

Originally Posted by Francona's Press Conference

Q: How many pitches would you have planned to let Kazmir throw?

Francona: Oh, we were counting how long he was pitching in hours, not pitches.

I guess between him and Hurdle that confirms Bud had no plan.

Baseball Tonight blows - not only does nobody points out Navarro was actually safe at home in the 11th and beat the tag, but they give credit to Martin for blocking the plate and making a great tag? Ugh.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I disagree. Potentially being the home team for 57% rather than 43% of the series if it goes 7 games seems like such a small matter I don't mind making the AS game a little more interesting.

No matter how small a matter it may seem to be, you're still affecting your *championship series* based on the results of an exhibition. It just seems like a doofy idea to me, something more fitting for a gimmick league like the XFL or Arena ball (sorry Pumpy). Three World Series since 1987 have been decided solely by the home-road split, so it's not completely inconsequential, especially this season where road teams have been pathetic.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Radii

and David Wright was ready and willing to pitch.

As a huge Mets fan David Wright is my favorite player ever and there is no way I want to see that.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it really still an exhibition game if it "counts"? I don't know the answer to that.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/07121955.shtml

Have the games play out like that and then MAYBE I'm ok with it counting. Start randomly pulling starting pitchers after 2 innings and being worried about running out of pitchers as early as the 10th or 11th inning, and maybe you bring enough back to the game that I won't consider it a mockery of the game to let the all star game have such consequences.

Actually, for completeness:

1. Get rid of fan voting.
2. Extend the break by a day on each side so that there are fewer pitchers unavailable
3. Let league representatives pick the teams in their entirety.
4. Everyone goes into the game with the understanding that if Halladay throws a complete game shutout then maybe no one else gets to pitch

I think given those parameters it might be ok to decide home field based on the all star game.


As much fun as this game was to watch, the decision to make an all-star game have the consequences it does is probably the worst decision I've seen one of the big 3 sports leagues in the US make in my lifetime. There was nothing at all wrong with the old alternating system, this change wasn't put in place because people had a problem with home field in the world series, it was put in place because of an unpopular ending to an all-star game. Solving a once in a lifetime problem with an exhibition game in the middle of the season in this fashion is just horrible to me. All the other suggestions I've seen in this thread tonight on how home field could be decided are better, from using interleague play results to flipping a coin. Either make it completely random and arbitrary, or base it on something that actually occurs in the regular season, this in between "lets add a consequence to an exhibition game without otherwise changing the exhibition game in any way" horseshit is terrible.

[Mike1409]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I disagree. Potentially being the home team for 57% rather than 43% of the series if it goes 7 games seems like such a small matter I don't mind making the AS game a little more interesting. Picking whichever league wins more interleague games makes more sense IMO, but I don't really see it as a big deal, even as a fan of one of the favorites to make the WS.I guess between him and Hurdle that confirms Bud had no plan.

Listened to Selig on Mike and Mike yesterday. He tried to justify givng the home field advantage to the All Star winner because they have trouble reserving hotel rooms in the postseason on short notice!!!

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Baseball Tonight blows - not only does nobody points out Navarro was actually safe at home in the 11th and beat the tag, but they give credit to Martin for blocking the plate and making a great tag? Ugh.

totally agree. that last play was much closer than the other ones.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/07121955.shtml

Have the games play out like that and then MAYBE I'm ok with it counting. Start randomly pulling starting pitchers after 2 innings and being worried about running out of pitchers as early as the 10th or 11th inning, and maybe you bring enough back to the game that I won't consider it a mockery of the game to let the all star game have such consequences.

Actually, for completeness:

1. Get rid of fan voting.
2. Extend the break by a day on each side so that there are fewer pitchers unavailable
3. Let league representatives pick the teams in their entirety.
4. Everyone goes into the game with the understanding that if Halladay throws a complete game shutout then maybe no one else gets to pitch

I think given those parameters it might be ok to decide home field based on the all star game.


As much fun as this game was to watch, the decision to make an all-star game have the consequences it does is probably the worst decision I've seen one of the big 3 sports leagues in the US make in my lifetime. There was nothing at all wrong with the old alternating system, this change wasn't put in place because people had a problem with home field in the world series, it was put in place because of an unpopular ending to an all-star game. Solving a once in a lifetime problem with an exhibition game in the middle of the season in this fashion is just horrible to me. All the other suggestions I've seen in this thread tonight on how home field could be decided are better, from using interleague play results to flipping a coin. Either make it completely random and arbitrary, or base it on something that actually occurs in the regular season, this in between "lets add a consequence to an exhibition game without otherwise changing the exhibition game in any way" horseshit is terrible.

While I like a lot of what you have to say here, just to be technical, the AS game determining homefield in the WS was not just about the tie issue, but also about flagging interest in the AS game and players not giving their all. So removing that could have more effect than just on what happens with the WS homefield.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/07121955.shtml

Have the games play out like that and then MAYBE I'm ok with it counting. Start randomly pulling starting pitchers after 2 innings and being worried about running out of pitchers as early as the 10th or 11th inning, and maybe you bring enough back to the game that I won't consider it a mockery of the game to let the all star game have such consequences.

Actually, for completeness:

1. Get rid of fan voting.
2. Extend the break by a day on each side so that there are fewer pitchers unavailable
3. Let league representatives pick the teams in their entirety.
4. Everyone goes into the game with the understanding that if Halladay throws a complete game shutout then maybe no one else gets to pitch

I think given those parameters it might be ok to decide home field based on the all star game.


As much fun as this game was to watch, the decision to make an all-star game have the consequences it does is probably the worst decision I've seen one of the big 3 sports leagues in the US make in my lifetime. There was nothing at all wrong with the old alternating system, this change wasn't put in place because people had a problem with home field in the world series, it was put in place because of an unpopular ending to an all-star game. Solving a once in a lifetime problem with an exhibition game in the middle of the season in this fashion is just horrible to me. All the other suggestions I've seen in this thread tonight on how home field could be decided are better, from using interleague play results to flipping a coin. Either make it completely random and arbitrary, or base it on something that actually occurs in the regular season, this in between "lets add a consequence to an exhibition game without otherwise changing the exhibition game in any way" horseshit is terrible.

I guess what I don't get is - what's the downside? I understand that it could be offensive to purists, but what's the specific downside? Who cares how the teams are picked? How is it really worse than flipping a coin, or deciding home field based on late season games against teams that have absolutely nothing to play for.

It's an odd decision to do it this way, but there's really nothing negative about it (other than the generic purist that idea that it's just bad).

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess what I don't get is - what's the downside? I understand that it could be offensive to purists, but what's the specific downside? Who cares how the teams are picked? How is it really worse than flipping a coin, or deciding home field based on late season games against teams that have absolutely nothing to play for.

If you let interleague record decide it, all those games are played before the AS break where presumably everyone is still going full tilt. It would be nice to attempt to decide homefield on merit. Might not work out smoothly every year, but almost anything seems preferable to this idea. I guess the downside is that it just feels farcical. I don't know if I would call that a purist view (though I do cop to being a purist in general).

[Lathum]

you stay classy Yankee fans

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/allsta...ory?id=3491135

Papelbon's pregnant wife reportedly felt threatened
ESPN.com news services


Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon blamed the New York media for creating a firestorm that resulted in his pregnant wife being threatened on Tuesday.



Papelbon

MLB.com reported that during a red carpet parade for the All-Star Game that went down Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, Papelbon and his wife Ashley were bombarded by insults from fans.

"I feel like I needed to be in a bullet-proof car," Papelbon said, according to the Web site. "My wife is pregnant and she's getting her life threatened. It's stupid."

Papelbon had said that he would welcome closing out the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium even though its the home field of Mariano Rivera.

"I've said from the very beginning, since two days ago, and talked to Tito [Red Sox manager Terry Francona] about it, I said, 'I want Mariano to close.' I understand what it's about to pay your dues in this game and what it's about to put in your time," Papelbon said, according to the Web site. "If you were to ask me, of course I wanted to close. That's my competitive nature."

Papelbon said he was shocked when he saw a New York Daily News headline that read "PAPELBUM! Red Sox reliever says he, not Mariano, should close tonight's All-Star Game."

"That was an easy headline for that [newspaper] to say, 'Yeah, Papelbon said he wants to close.' Yeah, of course I do," Papelbon said, according to the site. "That's my competitive nature. But I'm stepping away and saying I don't need to close."

Papelbon told MLB.com that he was so disturbed by the parade incident that he didn't even care if he pitched on Tuesday.

"Your family gets involved like that and you're trying to enjoy an experience with your family, and you have a wife who's pregnant who doesn't feel safe riding in a red-carpet event, you know what I mean? How would you feel?" Papelbon said, according to MLB.com.

Papelbon did pitch and received a harsh welcome when he entered in the All-Star Game in the eighth inning.

The crowd of 55,632 chanted "Overrated" with Papelbon on the mound, and sounded almost pleased when he allowed Adrian Gonzalez's go-ahead sacrifice fly.

Having to grow up around fuck head Yankee fans I believe evey word of this.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Radii

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/07121955.shtml

Have the games play out like that and then MAYBE I'm ok with it counting. Start randomly pulling starting pitchers after 2 innings and being worried about running out of pitchers as early as the 10th or 11th inning, and maybe you bring enough back to the game that I won't consider it a mockery of the game to let the all star game have such consequences.

Actually, for completeness:

1. Get rid of fan voting.
2. Extend the break by a day on each side so that there are fewer pitchers unavailable
3. Let league representatives pick the teams in their entirety.
4. Everyone goes into the game with the understanding that if Halladay throws a complete game shutout then maybe no one else gets to pitch

I think given those parameters it might be ok to decide home field based on the all star game.

FWIW, I actually agree with most of this, and I'd rather see the AS game played that way. But still,

As much fun as this game was to watch, the decision to make an all-star game have the consequences it does is probably the worst decision I've seen one of the big 3 sports leagues in the US make in my lifetime.

Holy overreaction Batman! The decision directly prior that called a game a tie was infinitely worse and more embarassing for the sport, and neither are the worst decisions in the last decade for baseball alone.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

While I like a lot of what you have to say here, just to be technical, the AS game determining homefield in the WS was not just about the tie issue, but also about flagging interest in the AS game and players not giving their all. So removing that could have more effect than just on what happens with the WS homefield.

That's definitely true, my overriding intent was to point out that you're fucking with the world series to improve an exhibition. That seems backwards.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But still,Holy overreaction Batman! The decision directly prior that called a game a tie was infinitely worse and more embarrassing for the sport, and neither are the worst decisions in the last decade for baseball alone.

I actually put some thought into my comment about that being the worst decision by a major sport in my lifetime before I typed it out, intentionally leaving out hockey and making sure there was nothing obvious to me that could top it. The things the NFL does that are annoying lead to the "no fun league" stuff, but nothing that impacts competition, perhaps some incidents around the USFL or Al Davis could compete, but I think the NFL has done very well there.

The NBA again has been filled with positives since the mid-late 70s, which would be the arbitrary 'during my lifetime', while I no longer enjoy the NBA I'm not sure i could think of a decision by the league that impacts competition this Donaghy situation gets a lot worse real fast.


The decision to end the all star game in a tie a few years ago was only an embarrassment because of how Selig handled it, and to me any decision not direction involving the primary competition in the league can possibly compare. The all star game, while fun, was not at the time relevant to anything that happened before or after that one day, so you can really only screw up that decision to a certain point. The one thing that is worse in reflection to me is the "looking the other way" with regards to steroids for as long as MLB apparently did, so I'll drop it to 2nd worst for now

i think its safe to say that if you did make a list of the worst decisions made by the major sports in the last 30 years, Selig would dominate the list

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess what I don't get is - what's the downside? I understand that it could be offensive to purists, but what's the specific downside? Who cares how the teams are picked? How is it really worse than flipping a coin, or deciding home field based on late season games against teams that have absolutely nothing to play for.

It's an odd decision to do it this way, but there's really nothing negative about it (other than the generic purist that idea that it's just bad).

Basically I think that the way the entire thing is handled should be a huge embarrassment to baseball. All you can really say now that is different from 10 years ago is that "the players are trying harder to win." The fact that you can make a rule change to allow your all-star game to decide who gets home field advantage in your league's championship series, but not do anything else at all to change your league's all star game, just makes everyone involved look like asses. The fans don't care about home field advantage when picking the starters, that's a 100% popularity contest. The managers of both teams both clearly stated that it is of equal importance to get everyone in the game as it was to win the game, so they're only half-heartedly trying to win their league home field advantage. The rules aren't even clearly thought out, as we're discussing as early as the 9th and 10th inning whether MLB even has a contingency plan in place, and no one, anywhere, has an answer to that question, not the announcers in the game, nor sportswriters who make a living covering baseball every day, and where is the commissioner to explain the situation? Sitting in his own box looking bored by the whole thing.

Basically the entire thing comes across like MLB half-heartedly threw in a rule that adds significant consequences to the all-star game, and just hopes that things sort themselves out from there. Bad decision, bad handling of the decision when it was first made, just a big black eye on the entire league in my opinion.

As I said in a previous post, home field advantage is either arbitrarily handled, or its not. Putting rules in place to make it so home field advantage is decided on the field, but then half-assing those rules once you've put them in place, is yet another in a long line of Selig embarrassments, but since this one directly effects the championship of your sport, it gets elevated up towards the top of the list IMO.

[Karlifornia]

I would like to go on record as saying that I like the all-star game determining the home-field advantage in the World Series. This is a game. If we don't want any zaniness at all, then why don't we just have robots for umpires. Hell, why don't we just have robots play the actual games. Whoever designs the best robot team wins, and then there is no controversy. I realize that the all-star game is labeled an "exhibition", and that it doesn't mean as much since interleague play started. Still, it's the only chance we get to see nobody but the best players go up against each other. Usually, the teams that are in contention for the World Series send quite a few players to these games. So you have many players that do have a reason to play hard, as opposed to before when it was just missed out family time.

I think these all-star games have been much more competitive in the past few years. Maybe I'm psychosomatic, but I think it's a positive to sprinkle in a little extra something. It makes it unique and quirky to me. Maybe nobody else finds these things endearing.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Radii

I actually put some thought into my comment about that being the worst decision by a major sport in my lifetime before I typed it out, intentionally leaving out hockey and making sure there was nothing obvious to me that could top it. The things the NFL does that are annoying lead to the "no fun league" stuff, but nothing that impacts competition, perhaps some incidents around the USFL or Al Davis could compete, but I think the NFL has done very well there.

The NBA again has been filled with positives since the mid-late 70s, which would be the arbitrary 'during my lifetime', while I no longer enjoy the NBA I'm not sure i could think of a decision by the league that impacts competition this Donaghy situation gets a lot worse real fast.

The decision to end the all star game in a tie a few years ago was only an embarrassment because of how Selig handled it, and to me any decision not direction involving the primary competition in the league can possibly compare. The all star game, while fun, was not at the time relevant to anything that happened before or after that one day, so you can really only screw up that decision to a certain point. The one thing that is worse in reflection to me is the "looking the other way" with regards to steroids for as long as MLB apparently did, so I'll drop it to 2nd worst for now

i think its safe to say that if you did make a list of the worst decisions made by the major sports in the last 30 years, Selig would dominate the list

Just off the top of my head, the MLB has its unwillingness to react to the Steroid scandal, exemplified with the Bonds asterisk, the decision to put World Series games so late at night it lost young fans, THE STRIKE, its handling of the Expos fiasco, the decision to nearly sue fantasy baseball players out of existence, and an umpires union that keeps on the worst in the league. The NFL has its own strike, the moving of multiple franchises by greedy owners, particularly Irsay and the Colts and its refusal to come down hard on teams (SF, Den) that violated the salary cap to win Super Bowls, and I think we can also throw the handling of the Patriots incident last year up there although maybe we blame the media. The NBA's mostly deal with referees, but there are numerous manifestations. First allowing the league to become unwatchable in the early-mid 90's, then depending on your perception having either such slanted refereeing it was blatantly obvious the NBA was helping big markets to win, or at best having such poor refereeing the public perceived the games were rigged. Then of course, the actual rigging by Donaghy (and possibly his accomplice). Throw in allowing Seattle to be moved even when the fans supported it too and a strike of its own.

I can see the argument that goodwill of fans, and thus the movement of franchises/poor TV decisions doesn't have an effect on competition, but I'd argue it's a lot worse for the long-term health than who has home-field advantage, especially when that advantage was previously arbitrarily awarded and is for at most 1 game out of 175+. Nevertheless, you still end up with many more egregious decisions, from the NBA making its games unwatchable via poor emphasis on rule-enforcement, to the NFL allowing certain teams willing to break the rules advantages to MLB allowing players willing to break rules advantages, to all 3 cancelling portions of its seasons and I don't see how you can think that poorly of this minute decision.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

If we don't want any zaniness at all, then why don't we just have robots for umpires. Hell, why don't we just have robots play the actual games.

"And once again, the MIT Stephen Hawkings beat the Cal Tech Transformers 167-9 in a mercy rule game"

SI

[Logan]

I fell asleep in the 12th or 13th, so maybe someone mentioned it later on...

But would it have killed Buck or McCarver to say, "If Kazmir is basically unavailable, why wasn't he recognized as an All Star and then replaced with someone who is?"

I seem to remember "availability" being an issue last year with even more guys not being able to pitch...give them their nod so they can collect their bonus, but give these teams a full complete roster.

[Logan]

And I agree with (I believe) the majority...the game loses its sense of "this is so important" when the best players are removed en masse by the 4th inning and the pitching situation works the complete opposite of every other real game.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I would like to go on record as saying that I like the all-star game determining the home-field advantage in the World Series. This is a game. If we don't want any zaniness at all, then why don't we just have robots for umpires. Hell, why don't we just have robots play the actual games. Whoever designs the best robot team wins, and then there is no controversy. I realize that the all-star game is labeled an "exhibition", and that it doesn't mean as much since interleague play started. Still, it's the only chance we get to see nobody but the best players go up against each other. Usually, the teams that are in contention for the World Series send quite a few players to these games. So you have many players that do have a reason to play hard, as opposed to before when it was just missed out family time.

I think these all-star games have been much more competitive in the past few years. Maybe I'm psychosomatic, but I think it's a positive to sprinkle in a little extra something. It makes it unique and quirky to me. Maybe nobody else finds these things endearing.

I think that's what it comes down to, how seriously someone takes a sporting event.

Any way that you decide home field advantage is really arbitrary.

1. Alternating years
2. Interleague Play results (Arbitary because you have Pirates v. Mariners, etc, counting towards something that neither team gives a shit about)
3. Record (While there's some schedule overlap, its very limited, and again you're putting weight on meanigless games)
4. All Star Game Results
5. Coin Toss

One of those is clearly the most fun, because it puts the determination in a single, televised event. It's the most fun, nobody can come up with a real negative, and its no more arbitrary than any other way.

I also don't see that its a negative that the manager tries to empty the rosters. There's practical reasons for that, and it really doesn't impact the already-arbitrary nature of a single baseball game. A team dosn't have a better or worse chance to win a single game because you put a new All-Star shortstop in in the 4th inning. Yes, a manager in the regular season doesn't manage like that but he also doesn't have a bench full of All-Stars and a bullpen full of closers. Similarly, a team doesn't have a better or worse chance to win a game because the fans voted in Ichiro instead of whatever streaky outfielder had a better first few months to the season.

Nobody's trying to say this is a merit-based thing - that the AL had the better team last night, so they should have homefield advantage. The selecting of players is somewhat arbitrary, the managing styles are somewhat arbitary, the result of the game is completely random - it's a gimmick that really doesn't effect anything in any way except adding interest to a game (which it has).

There's no reason they can't say 15 innings is the max or whatever, that would help managers manage their roster accordingly.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Radii

Not sure if he was serious or not but he said that Lidge maybe had another inning in him, maybe not, and David Wright was ready and willing to pitch.

His apparent counterpart? MVP JD Drew

Originally Posted by http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar08/news/story?id=3491418

"Another couple of innings, and he would have pitched," Francona said.

Pitched? As in, gone to the mound?

"As [the situation] started to come to fruition," Drew said, "I was a little bit nervous."

For good reason, since Francona was serious: Drew would have been asked to take the mound for the American League. Luckily for Francona, Drew and the entire Red Sox organization, it never came to that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

His apparent counterpart? MVP JD Drew

Interesting - I guess that's all he could do, throw his own guy out there rather than chose someone else's (though I think the idea that someone could be injured in that situation is highly overated).

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by molson

Interesting - I guess that's all he could do, throw his own guy out there rather than chose someone else's (though I think the idea that someone could be injured in that situation is highly overated).

I think Drew has been mentioned in this role even with the red sox if the situation arose for them.

[ISiddiqui]

Man, an inning (and that's really all it'd end up being, IMO) of Wright vs. Drew would be AWESOME!

[Radii]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

THE STRIKE, its handling of the Expos fiasco,

gotta give you credit here, you're right, and Strikes weren't on my radar when I was thinking it through. I don't agree with many of the other things you listed but you're absolutely right about some of the big ones at the top.