PDA

View Full Version : More Proof That Selig Is an Idiot


TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 01:41 AM
So what would have happened if the AL hadn't won in the 15th? Do they risk a pitcher's career because "this time it counts"?

Bud Selig is an idiot.

WhiteSox5187
07-16-2008, 01:42 AM
While I wanted the AL to win I was kinda curious to see what would have happened. I think inevitably Bud would have caved under pressure and we'd have another tie.

KnightSox
07-16-2008, 01:47 AM
I highly doubt that Francona would have sent Kazmir back out, it would have been over. Bud would have to figure out who gets home field.

Nellie_Fox
07-16-2008, 01:49 AM
The real problem is putting all of these "one inning" pitchers on the team. This never used to happen because there was no such thing as a "one inning" pitcher; any of the pitchers on the AS team could have gone several innings.

nasox
07-16-2008, 01:52 AM
The real problem is putting all of these "one inning" pitchers on the team. This never used to happen because there was no such thing as a "one inning" pitcher; any of the pitchers on the AS team could have gone several innings.

But even then, with the starting pitcher going only two innings, a result like the near disaster of tonight was and will continue to be inevitable.

IlliniSox4Life
07-16-2008, 01:52 AM
The real problem is putting all of these "one inning" pitchers on the team. This never used to happen because there was no such thing as a "one inning" pitcher; any of the pitchers on the AS team could have gone several innings.

The real problem is the managers wanting to get everybody a chance to pitch, or as many as they can. Why should the starters only go 2 innings? Have them go 4. Why does K-Rod only get to pitch 1 out so Mariano can be put in during an inning? Francona should have had Mariano start the inning, who cares if he is brought in mid inning.

Nellie_Fox
07-16-2008, 01:55 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.

Rocky Soprano
07-16-2008, 01:58 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.

That's just it, seems like everyone has to play now.

nasox
07-16-2008, 01:58 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.

Exactly. Guys used to go 7 innings. I'm not saying we should have that, but come on, a starter could go 4 innings or so.

WhiteSox5187
07-16-2008, 01:59 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.
I was watching Mike and Mike the other day and they had Selig on and he said it all changed in '93 when the Orioles lone representative didn't get into the game so the fans started to boo. Wait, no, well, I thought he said '93 but surely Ripken would have been in that game...maybe it was '92. Point is one year the host city's lone rep was a pitcher and he didn't get into the game and the fans started to boo, so since then the managers tried to make sure that every pitcher got in and that resulted in the fiasco in '02. He said "I saw this coming for a long time..." which begs the question, why didn't he do anything?

voodoochile
07-16-2008, 02:10 AM
Exactly. Guys used to go 7 innings. I'm not saying we should have that, but come on, a starter could go 4 innings or so.

There is a rule that no pitcher is allowed to pitch more than 3 innings unless they revoked it. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

Kazmir and Webb are both starters so there were some long inning guys available late, but they both were burned out from long innings a few days ago and as has been pointed out, it's not fair to the team or the player to expect them to throw their season/career away so Bud can have meaning in his mid-summer break.

I like the idea of having the league with the better IL record getting the home field. If you're going to keep IL play, might as well have it mean something...

michned
07-16-2008, 02:16 AM
I was watching Mike and Mike the other day and they had Selig on and he said it all changed in '93 when the Orioles lone representative didn't get into the game so the fans started to boo. Wait, no, well, I thought he said '93 but surely Ripken would have been in that game...maybe it was '92. Point is one year the host city's lone rep was a pitcher and he didn't get into the game and the fans started to boo, so since then the managers tried to make sure that every pitcher got in and that resulted in the fiasco in '02. He said "I saw this coming for a long time..." which begs the question, why didn't he do anything?

If MLB and Fox want to continue to "make the game count," why not just have a reserve squad of four pitchers and a catcher. They can be introduced with the rest of the team and everything but they are not active unless the game goes to extras (or some other trigger point). Have those guys be starters who haven't pitched for a few days so they can go a few innings each.

Nellie_Fox
07-16-2008, 02:17 AM
If MLB and Fox want to continue to "make the game count," why not just have a reserve squad of four pitchers and a catcher. They can be introduced with the rest of the team and everything but they are not active unless the game goes to extras (or some other trigger point). Have those guys be starters who haven't pitched for a few days so they can go a few innings each.
Just stop picking four or five closers. Too many guys who can't go more than one inning.

BadBobbyJenks
07-16-2008, 02:20 AM
1. Take 3 closers and the rest starting pitchers.
2. Stop using starters for one inning.
3. Save at least one starter for extras.
4. Pitchers who pitch on Sunday get replaced


None of these are Bud's fault.

KnightSox
07-16-2008, 02:22 AM
Cap the game at nine innings.

All players see field time.

In the event of a tie, the team with the best record gets homefield (the way it should be) and its done.

TDog
07-16-2008, 02:22 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.

Exactly. Bud Selig isn't the idiot. (In any case, this is not an argument for his idiocy.) The managers knew the rules and they didn't seem to care. Francona did a lousy job of managing by burning up his bullpen. In 1935 (long before I was born), Lefty Gomez started and pitched six innings in the AL's win. I believe only two pitchers appeared for the American League in the game. Thereafter, pitchers were limited to three innings. The starters almost always pitched three innings, if they pitched well, when I was a kid.

It was a great game. It wasn't going to end in a tie. The reason it went 15 innings was because there was great non-Uggla defense being played. The game went into extra innings because of clutch hitting by the American League.

People questioned whether the players would play like the game meant something just because it would decide homefield advantage. Really, they did. The only problem was that the managers tried to have it both ways. Even in the days when the game allegedly didn't mean anything, Sparky Anderson would never have run out of pitchers.

NSFWSoxFan
07-16-2008, 02:24 AM
This was actually the first time in a long time (since 2003 at the Cell) that I've bothered to watch the complete game. Sorry but it didn't hold my interest. Although I usually enjoy low-scoring pitchers' duels, this thing of bringing on someone new every inning really puts the hitters at a disadvantage.

TDog
07-16-2008, 02:25 AM
Cap the game at nine innings.

All players see field time.

In the event of a tie, the team with the best record gets homefield (the way it should be) and its done.

That is just about the most arbitrary and capricious way to determine homefield advantage yet proposed.

nasox
07-16-2008, 02:52 AM
I was stretching the truth to say pitchers used to go 7 (I honestly thought that somebody went 7 back in 34 or 35), but yeah, I understand that Francona deserves some if not most of the blame. But that doesn't completely pardon Selig. Some sort of measure needs to be put into place to ensure that this near disaster doesn't happen again.

eastchicagosoxfan
07-16-2008, 06:06 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.

At some point in the 1970's the All Star game became something similiar to a Little League game.

TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 06:36 AM
I guess it boils down to this: Which is more important: Making sure your pitchers aren't blown out in an exhibition game (in which the starting position players are chosen by fans but which for some stupid reason determines home field advantage in the World Series) or saving those pitchers for the pennant race?

When I was a kid, at least the first two pitchers went three innings each unless they got bombed. However, back then starting pitchers threw more innings per game and were generally in four-man rotations. Nowadays pitchers pitch an average of a couple of innings less per game and are in five-man rotations, meaning they pitch a lot fewer innings than back olden days.

Pitchers are also much larger financial investments these days. Did you see the graphic last night that something like forty-two players in the ASG were making at least what Yankee Stadium cost to build in 1923? Here's another way of looking at it. Billy Pierce at the peak of his career made $40,000 per year. Teams have a lot more invested in these guys than they did when they were used three or more innings.

In addition to that these pitchers are on a strict regimen on their off-days. Several of the pitchers on both squads were pitching on the days where they normally throw. Some weren't. Those who weren't (espeically those who pitched Sunday) are at risk.

So, some of you propose, just don't put anyone on the teams who pitched on Sunday? Sure, leave off some of the best pitchers for baseball's second greatest spectacle! That makes a helluva lot of sense! Okay, then don't let them pitch Sunday, some suggest. Sure, that makes sense. Don't pitch your all-star pitcher because he's needed in an exhibition game. That makes even less sense. Some of these teams are in a pennant race.

No, the stupid idea is still making the All-Star Game count for something. And that was Bud Selig's idea.

nysox35
07-16-2008, 06:41 AM
No, the stupid idea is still making the All-Star Game count for something. And that was Bud Selig's idea.

But, THIS TIME, IT COUNTS!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
:D:

JUribe1989
07-16-2008, 06:45 AM
So what would have happened if the AL hadn't won in the 15th? Do they risk a pitcher's career because "this time it counts"?

Bud Selig is an idiot.

So everyone complains when they call it a tie in Milwaukee in 2002, then when they make the rosters larger thus enabling us to have a 15 inning game, people still complain. This thread is proof that people will hate Bud Selig regardless of if every single thing goes right in any MLB event. He did literally nothing wrong, I defy one person to name a single thing that went wrong in the All Star Game that had to do with Bud Selig. You can't have it both ways, either they keep the rosters this large and there are no ties or they keep them small and there are ties.

Railsplitter
07-16-2008, 07:20 AM
In 1980, Steve Stone pitched three perfect innings to start the All Star Game. That wasn't unusual back in the day. Uness the starter got lit up (i.e. Jim Palmer, 1977) he pitched the first three inning. Reggie Jackson's famous 1971 ASG homer came pinch hitting for starter Vida Blue in the bottom of the thrid inning.

Parrothead
07-16-2008, 07:20 AM
So what would have happened if the AL hadn't won in the 15th? Do they risk a pitcher's career because "this time it counts"?

Bud Selig is an idiot.

I like it that the game counts. it is just as good of a way to determine home field as switching every year.

Railsplitter
07-16-2008, 07:24 AM
So everyone complains when they call it a tie in Milwaukee in 2002, then when they make the rosters larger thus enabling us to have a 15 inning game, people still complain. This thread is proof that people will hate Bud Selig regardless of if every single thing goes right in any MLB event. He did literally nothing wrong, I defy one person to name a single thing that went wrong in the All Star Game that had to do with Bud Selig. You can't have it both ways, either they keep the rosters this large and there are no ties or they keep them small and there are ties.
Selig wasn't the one who ran out of players, it was the managers, Joe Torre and Bob Brenly. Why they never got flack over this I'll never know.

DumpJerry
07-16-2008, 07:46 AM
Yes, Selig is an idiot. As someone on ESPN1000 pointed out last night, Selig is excellent at raising revenue for MLB and the teams, but a train wreck at the non-revenue generating stuff (like ASG "counting" and the steroid era allegations). Since money talks and **** walks, Selig is the owners' golden boy.

I heard a discussion on The Score yesterday to alternative methods for picking the homefield advantage in the World Series. One caller said the obvious-team with the best record in the regular season gets games one and two of the Series. The radio hosts said that MLB said this is not workable because people have to make travel plans ahead of time to see their team on the road in the Series and would not be able to do so because they won't know until early October if/where they are going. This is a total cop-out because the NBA and NHL operate this way and nobody complain about the travel uncertainty.

Selig really should ride off into the sunset. The revenue generating methods he has used can be implemented by anyone with any modicum of business sense. However, if he keeps making boneheaded decisions like this, the revenue will start to dry up as the casual fan goes elsewhere. Us hardcore fans are not enough by ourselves to keep MLB solvent.

RKMeibalane
07-16-2008, 07:49 AM
I was watching Mike and Mike the other day and they had Selig on and he said it all changed in '93 when the Orioles lone representative didn't get into the game so the fans started to boo. Wait, no, well, I thought he said '93 but surely Ripken would have been in that game...maybe it was '92. Point is one year the host city's lone rep was a pitcher and he didn't get into the game and the fans started to boo, so since then the managers tried to make sure that every pitcher got in and that resulted in the fiasco in '02. He said "I saw this coming for a long time..." which begs the question, why didn't he do anything?

I have the 1993 game on tape. Here's what happened:

Yes, Cal Ripken Jr. was a member of the team. He was elected the starting shortstop. Mike Mussina was also on the team. Mark Langston and Terry Mulholland were the game's starting pitchers. Kirby Puckett was the game's MVP. The AL won the game easily, by the score of 9-3.

Cito Gaston was the American League's manager. Although the AL had the game in-hand, he elected to bring in his closer, Duane Ward, to work the ninth inning. Mike Mussina was availible in the bullpen, and Orioles fans started chanting, "We want Mike!" Understandable, given that the game was being played in Camden Yards.

However, Gaston chose not to bring Mussina in the game, and fans booed an American League victory because they didn't have the chance to watch their team's ace pitch.

I'm not certain what Selig was saying about Mussina being the Orioles lone representative, because as I mentioned, Ripken was also there. Selig was either lying or didn't have his facts straight. Either way, baseball needs to dump this clown and get a real commissioner.

RKMeibalane
07-16-2008, 07:51 AM
I like it that the game counts. it is just as good of a way to determine home field as switching every year.

I hope you forgot the teal. Good gawd.

Frontman
07-16-2008, 08:03 AM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the first two pitchers going three innings each, leaving plenty of pitchers available, all of whom could go three or more innings if needed. They never ran out of pitchers in the past.

Oh, and some guys didn't get into the game. Boo hoo.

That's the BS of "this time it counts" versus "this is for the fans and the enjoyment." If its a fan spectacle; it shouldn't count. Its fun to see your favorite players get into the game (and Scott Boras owes the production crew big time, since Crede kept being shown in the dugout over and over) but when you manage a ball team with everyone should get in/get an at-bat, you get into a sticky situation.

Also, if players are hurt or pitched on the Sunday before the game, honor them as being All-Stars and get someone else on that roster. If Kazmir would of been Buehrle (check that, Contreras pitched on Sunday) and had gone over one hundred pitches; as a Sox fan I wouldn't want him anywhere near the field in uniform. Send another pitcher to represent the Sox; preferably a long-relief guy so the Sox rotation is left alone thank you very much.

cws05champ
07-16-2008, 08:22 AM
Yes, Selig is an idiot. As someone on ESPN1000 pointed out last night, Selig is excellent at raising revenue for MLB and the teams, but a train wreck at the non-revenue generating stuff (like ASG "counting" and the steroid era allegations). Since money talks and **** walks, Selig is the owners' golden boy.

I heard a discussion on The Score yesterday to alternative methods for picking the homefield advantage in the World Series. One caller said the obvious-team with the best record in the regular season gets games one and two of the Series. The radio hosts said that MLB said this is not workable because people have to make travel plans ahead of time to see their team on the road in the Series and would not be able to do so because they won't know until early October if/where they are going. This is a total cop-out because the NBA and NHL operate this way and nobody complain about the travel uncertainty.
I heard this same excuse from Selig on M&M in the morning. It's BS!! With the wild card in play now usually down to the last week of the season, the playoff teams are not determined until late in the season now anyways.

So you make plans for 4 different cities of either the AL or NL based on who wins the ASG or make plans for all the teams in the playoffs anyways because there still will be home and road games.

Oblong
07-16-2008, 08:32 AM
I heard this same excuse from Selig on M&M in the morning. It's BS!! With the wild card in play now usually down to the last week of the season, the playoff teams are not determined until late in the season now anyways.

So you make plans for 4 different cities of either the AL or NL based on who wins the ASG or make plans for all the teams in the playoffs anyways because there still will be home and road games.

Exactly. In 2006 I didn't know until the last possible moment, the final out of the last game on Sunday, whether I was going to a game on Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon, or Friday and Saturday evening/night.

Maybe the World Series is different due to all the media and prep involved but the NBA and NHL seem to be able to handle it at the last minute. Most of the stadiums in the league are baseball only so not much schedule conflict potential.

If they insist they can't do it another way then either go back to alternating every year or use interleage play record. The ASG is an exhibition and should be treated as such. If we didn't get that tie game in 2002 we wouldn't even be having a discussion. "This time it counts" was a direct reaction to his embarassment.

oeo
07-16-2008, 08:50 AM
The real problem is putting all of these "one inning" pitchers on the team. This never used to happen because there was no such thing as a "one inning" pitcher; any of the pitchers on the AS team could have gone several innings.

Exactly. And Webb/Kazmir should have been replaced if they couldn't pitch in the game. What the hell is the point of being on the roster if you can't play?

I'm not a big fan of Selig, but I do think the All Star Game counting is good for the game. Just look at the ballgame we got to see last night for evidence. The roster rules still need some changes, and maybe they should even be expanded, but all-in-all I think it's good that the All Star Game means something.

Besides, this wasn't Selig's fault. Look to the ****ty umpiring once again, who blew two calls in the 11th. If those are not blown, the game is over there and no one is even talking about Webb/Kazmir.

soxfanatlanta
07-16-2008, 08:51 AM
Selig really should ride off into the sunset. The revenue generating methods he has used can be implemented by anyone with any modicum of business sense. However, if he keeps making boneheaded decisions like this, the revenue will start to dry up as the casual fan goes elsewhere. Us hardcore fans are not enough by ourselves to keep MLB solvent.

Do you really think that fringe fans will walk away from the game because of an all star game? Use that same logic on the NFL's pro-bowl and let me know what you think the results would be.

Saying he has little business sense is just silly. If it's so damn easy to take a sport that was way behind the NFL in revenue at the start of his his tenure, and turn it into a $6 billion juggernaut, then how come it wasn't done before? Your disdain for him is hampering your ability to read a spreadsheet.

I don't like Selig either, but the owners have $6 BILLION reasons to love him; he ain't leaving anytime soon.

ondafarm
07-16-2008, 08:52 AM
You needed proof that Bud Selig is an idiot?


Really?

anewman35
07-16-2008, 08:57 AM
The radio hosts said that MLB said this is not workable because people have to make travel plans ahead of time to see their team on the road in the Series and would not be able to do so because they won't know until early October if/where they are going. This is a total cop-out because the NBA and NHL operate this way and nobody complain about the travel uncertainty.

It's not "people", it's reporters and the media, and they need to have thousands and thousands of hotel rooms. From what I've read, the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals don't have nearly as much of a media presnse as the World Series does.

tebman
07-16-2008, 09:16 AM
Yes, Selig is an idiot.

:yup: :thumbsup:

I heard a discussion on The Score yesterday to alternative methods for picking the homefield advantage in the World Series. One caller said the obvious-team with the best record in the regular season gets games one and two of the Series. The radio hosts said that MLB said this is not workable because people have to make travel plans ahead of time to see their team on the road in the Series and would not be able to do so because they won't know until early October if/where they are going. This is a total cop-out because the NBA and NHL operate this way and nobody complain about the travel uncertainty.

Selig and his handlers are full of peat moss. Travel plans disrupted, indeed. Can't they come up with a story better than that?

The reason this home-field-advantage thing started, of course, was that it was a promotional angle for the Fox network. The carnival barkers who run that network can never get enough drama or tension in their programs, no matter how artificial. That's why the LOUD audio, the BRIGHT colors, the nostril-level closeups, the gopher-cam, the bases wired for sound, and all the rest. As long as Fox is paying huge money for the rights, this is what we get.

I remember hearing Bill Veeck saying years ago that he worried about TV's creeping influence on baseball: the schedule (ASG game started at nearly 9:00 in New York), the promotion of larger-market teams over others (ESPN's Red Sox & Yankee love), and decisions on who plays based on how camera-friendly the players are (Jeter). As with so many things, Veeck was prophetic.

I'm not naive and I know that MLB has always been a business. But how far can they go trying to grow revenue? Pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered.

Hitmen77
07-16-2008, 09:20 AM
Cap the game at nine innings.

All players see field time.

In the event of a tie, the team with the best record gets homefield (the way it should be) and its done.

I disagree. If the Mets are NL champs and win 95 games by feasting on weak NL teams and the Sox are AL champs and win 94 by having to beat teams like NYY, Boston, LAA, Minnesota, etc., I don't like the idea of the Mets getting home field over the Sox.

I think home field should be decided by league with best IL record.

Hitmen77
07-16-2008, 09:26 AM
I was watching Mike and Mike the other day and they had Selig on and he said it all changed in '93 when the Orioles lone representative didn't get into the game so the fans started to boo. Wait, no, well, I thought he said '93 but surely Ripken would have been in that game...maybe it was '92. Point is one year the host city's lone rep was a pitcher and he didn't get into the game and the fans started to boo, so since then the managers tried to make sure that every pitcher got in and that resulted in the fiasco in '02. He said "I saw this coming for a long time..." which begs the question, why didn't he do anything?

So just because of one instance where Cito Gaston was a dick and didn't let a hometown pitcher in a game where he had a huge lead, Selig thinks we now must make sure every player gets in every game no matter how much that screws things up for extra innings.

I'm glad the Comiss is such a nuanced thinker and doesn't just make blanket policy decisions that make no sense based on one specific incident. :rolleyes:

SOXPHILE
07-16-2008, 09:26 AM
So everyone complains when they call it a tie in Milwaukee in 2002, then when they make the rosters larger thus enabling us to have a 15 inning game, people still complain. This thread is proof that people will hate Bud Selig regardless of if every single thing goes right in any MLB event. He did literally nothing wrong, I defy one person to name a single thing that went wrong in the All Star Game that had to do with Bud Selig. You can't have it both ways, either they keep the rosters this large and there are no ties or they keep them small and there are ties.


The only ones who complained and were really pissed about the 2002 game ending in a tie are the truly baseball stupid. Yeah, it kind of sucked, the fans in Milwaukee were booing, etc. Boo Hoo. People in the stands do the same thing when a spring training game ends tied after 10 innings. It's an exhibition game. The All Star Game is and was meant to be a fun little mid summer break for the fans and players. People get to see guys that play against each other all year long, playing together on the same team against the other league. That's all. Until Who's Your Bud decided that he MUST have resolution to a meaningless exhibition, and decided that IT MUST COUNT ! Bud Selig sucks. He's the worst commissioner in all four pro sports leagues.

Carolina Kenny
07-16-2008, 09:28 AM
So what would have happened if the AL hadn't won in the 15th? Do they risk a pitcher's career because "this time it counts"?

Bud Selig is an idiot.

I agree. The All-Star was and should be an Exhibition. Now its a hybrid of a exhibition that counts for something. Its mixing apples and oranges.

Carolina Kenny
07-16-2008, 09:30 AM
I disagree. If the Mets are NL champs and win 95 games by feasting on weak NL teams and the Sox are AL champs and win 94 by having to beat teams like NYY, Boston, LAA, Minnesota, etc., I don't like the idea of the Mets getting home field over the Sox.

I think home field should be decided by league with best IL record.

This is an interesting idea, which perhaps could give more meaning to inter-leauge play. That being said, I don't like interleague play and the whole schedule and alignment of teams and divisions is more stupidity.

cws05champ
07-16-2008, 09:45 AM
It's not "people", it's reporters and the media, and they need to have thousands and thousands of hotel rooms. From what I've read, the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals don't have nearly as much of a media presnse as the World Series does.
Yes, but they need to plan for this with four teams already. If they did it by best record they would just have to block out hotels and such for 7 team's cities the same way they do with the 4 teams right now. It should not be a resource issue because baseball is bringing in $$ hand over fist.

downstairs
07-16-2008, 09:45 AM
This is an interesting idea, which perhaps could give more meaning to inter-leauge play. That being said, I don't like interleague play and the whole schedule and alignment of teams and divisions is more stupidity.

This is exactly what I've been arguing forever. It makes all the sense in the world, and I've yet to find another system that's better.

Each team's record is obviously meaningless- and often the opposite of who is the better team (when the AL is strong, they beat each other up, records tend towards 500, etc.)

This also makes every team in baseball have a little say in the matter. And, it adds a little something to the inevitable Pit vs. Sea matchups.

Oh, and it restores the All-star game to what it should be: an exibition.

white sox bill
07-16-2008, 09:48 AM
Isn't baseball attendance at all time high? Aren't teams profit margins also at a high? Sure Buds not perfect, made some mistakes. I doubt he will find a cure for cancer or stop a war.

Hell I'd hire him to run one of my business's!

downstairs
07-16-2008, 09:54 AM
First of all, why not extend the number of pitchers on the roster? Why does it have to mirror a MLB roster? Maybe have 3-4 on each team that can only be used if all others run out, and have them get in with something like the last man vote thing they do.

Now, last night: what's wrong with doing what has always been done in crazy-long games... have a position player pitch. That's baseball, its a strategy that's used from time to time (I remember Eddie Murray and Fernando Valenzuela trading off between 1st and pitcher in a real long Dodgers game).

TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 10:00 AM
Exactly. And Webb/Kazmir should have been replaced if they couldn't pitch in the game. What the hell is the point of being on the roster if you can't play?

What's the point of calling it an all-star game if the all-star pitchers aren't playing because they pitched on Sunday and have been replaced by lesser players?

ode to veeck
07-16-2008, 10:01 AM
We just watched perhaps the greatest all-star game ever played and all we get this morning is a an overanalyzing sports press and a WSI thread full of whining. Sure Selig's an idiot, but as Farm pointed out, anyone with a half-assed brain already knows that. Yes, guys who pitched Sunday had to work, but nobody was overworked (other than Uggla at 2nd ;-), and as the Rockies manager pointed out in post game comments they woulda found a way to finish the game, even with the final bench players pitching if needed. For the record, the MLB exhibition is by far the best of any sport, and last night put on one fantastic show. I don't mind that it counts, and certainly the players and coaches thoroughly enjoyed the game last night as well. Leave good enough things alone.

TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 10:05 AM
First of all, why not extend the number of pitchers on the roster? Why does it have to mirror a MLB roster? Maybe have 3-4 on each team that can only be used if all others run out, and have them get in with something like the last man vote thing they do.

Now, last night: what's wrong with doing what has always been done in crazy-long games... have a position player pitch. That's baseball, its a strategy that's used from time to time (I remember Eddie Murray and Fernando Valenzuela trading off between 1st and pitcher in a real long Dodgers game).

They were out of players on the bench to replace a position player who would possibly pitch.

turners56
07-16-2008, 10:21 AM
So what would have happened if the AL hadn't won in the 15th? Do they risk a pitcher's career because "this time it counts"?

Bud Selig is an idiot.

David Wright and J.D. Drew would of pitched, apparently.

pierzynski07
07-16-2008, 10:29 AM
They were out of players on the bench to replace a position player who would possibly pitch.
Then you move the current pitcher to a position, and have that position player pitch.

Rocky Soprano
07-16-2008, 10:32 AM
We just watched perhaps the greatest all-star game ever played and all we get this morning is a an overanalyzing sports press and a WSI thread full of whining. Sure Selig's an idiot, but as Farm pointed out, anyone with a half-assed brain already knows that. Yes, guys who pitched Sunday had to work, but nobody was overworked (other than Uggla at 2nd ;-), and as the Rockies manager pointed out in post game comments they woulda found a way to finish the game, even with the final bench players pitching if needed. For the record, the MLB exhibition is by far the best of any sport, and last night put on one fantastic show. I don't mind that it counts, and certainly the players and coaches thoroughly enjoyed the game last night as well. Leave good enough things alone.

Very well said.

Carolina Kenny
07-16-2008, 10:35 AM
We just watched perhaps the greatest all-star game ever played and all we get this morning is a an overanalyzing sports press and a WSI thread full of whining. Sure Selig's an idiot, but as Farm pointed out, anyone with a half-assed brain already knows that. Yes, guys who pitched Sunday had to work, but nobody was overworked (other than Uggla at 2nd ;-), and as the Rockies manager pointed out in post game comments they woulda found a way to finish the game, even with the final bench players pitching if needed. For the record, the MLB exhibition is by far the best of any sport, and last night put on one fantastic show. I don't mind that it counts, and certainly the players and coaches thoroughly enjoyed the game last night as well. Leave good enough things alone.

I'm happy for you that you were able to watch the game. How about all the kids and people that could not stay up until (12:30 CST)?

I would have loved to watch the whole "greatest" game ever played to see TCQ go 0-4 but sleep and my job is more important to me than this trumped up fiasco.

Flight #24
07-16-2008, 10:41 AM
JUribe said it best: People bitched & moaned about Selig when there was a tie, then when he alters things to help avoid ties, they bitch & moan again. The lesson, as always, people are going to bitch & moan about something regardless.

For the record, I'm not for it being "meaningful". It's an exhibition, and by the nature of it you can't make the players go all out and take it seriously because of the injury factor. But when the media drums up a significant portion of the fan base into a tizzy about it being an exhibition/tie, then the blame for changes made because of that goes back on the media/idiot fans more than on the guys who react. Sure, it would be nice to say "just say ****-em and keep it an exhibition", but this is a business operated for fans so that's impractical IMO.

RTI_SoxFan
07-16-2008, 11:01 AM
I don't have an issue with the game counting... but if it is going to count, here is my concern that I didn't hear anyone else mention (at least in part).

The fans vote the starters. Well, by the time the game is over or in the final innings, we've got guys like Joakim Soria and Guzman in there determining the fate of the game. Yes, they are all-stars, but let's be real... who would you rather have in the game at that point? Allow the fans to vote but perhaps scale it back a bit or something? I'm sure all the contenders in the NL (Cubs included) were really happy that Dan Uggla was in there basically ruining there chances for homefield in the WS (of course, no way they make it). Maybe let the fans vote for the reserves once the players and coaches vote for the starters? I don't know?

Ok, I'll stop now but you get my point.

Frontman
07-16-2008, 11:07 AM
JUribe said it best: People bitched & moaned about Selig when there was a tie, then when he alters things to help avoid ties, they bitch & moan again. The lesson, as always, people are going to bitch & moan about something regardless.

For the record, I'm not for it being "meaningful". It's an exhibition, and by the nature of it you can't make the players go all out and take it seriously because of the injury factor. But when the media drums up a significant portion of the fan base into a tizzy about it being an exhibition/tie, then the blame for changes made because of that goes back on the media/idiot fans more than on the guys who react. Sure, it would be nice to say "just say ****-em and keep it an exhibition", but this is a business operated for fans so that's impractical IMO.

See, I didn't complain about it being a tie; as it was an exhibition game. Now that it "counts" it needs to have a winner. I had no problem with the All Star Game being a tie; as its just was meant to give the season and its players a break halfway through.

When you now have a manager having to make decisions (and second guessing them) due to his roster and what it would mean in 3 days to teams competing against his own team; its a horrid situation that should be avoided.

Simply put, let the team with the best record stand for home field advantage, and let this go back to just being about giving the fans a good show and let them have a good time.

Carolina Kenny
07-16-2008, 11:07 AM
An open suggestion to Bud Light.

Just cancel this stupid game and add four more days of interleague play to the schedule.

More revenue for the owners!!

hawkjt
07-16-2008, 11:10 AM
Sorry, but I think Selig has done a decent job as commissioner.
It has been a turbulent time for MLB since the strike in 94 and baseball is now back in a golden age almost.
In the end, the health and prosperity of the game is all that counts.
I like the All Star game much more than in the past now.
I do think players are way more into it than in the past.
Selig is not perfect but Jesus Christ himself would get ripped to shreds in that job.

Like Bowie Kuhn was some kind of genius.

white sox bill
07-16-2008, 11:11 AM
JUribe said it best: People bitched & moaned about Selig when there was a tie, then when he alters things to help avoid ties, they bitch & moan again. The lesson, as always, people are going to bitch & moan about something regardless.

For the record, I'm not for it being "meaningful". It's an exhibition, and by the nature of it you can't make the players go all out and take it seriously because of the injury factor. But when the media drums up a significant portion of the fan base into a tizzy about it being an exhibition/tie, then the blame for changes made because of that goes back on the media/idiot fans more than on the guys who react. Sure, it would be nice to say "just say ****-em and keep it an exhibition", but this is a business operated for fans so that's impractical IMO.

Absolutly, whoever replaces Bud will get bitched at too. Its human nature and the "inn" thing to do. Can't please some people...

Frontman
07-16-2008, 11:11 AM
An open suggestion to Bud Light.

Just cancel this stupid game and add four more days of interleague play to the schedule.

More revenue for the owners!!

Please; for the love of all that is holy, no. Because if they did add four more, you know there will be some pinheads pushing for the 'Crosstown Classic' *shudder* to go five games at each stadium.

DeadMoney
07-16-2008, 11:15 AM
They were out of players on the bench to replace a position player who would possibly pitch.

Then you move the current pitcher to a position, and have that position player pitch.

It's not even that difficult.

Move Longoria/Wright out of the DH spot to pitcher or another position (and that person to P), and the problem is solved.

Carolina Kenny
07-16-2008, 11:25 AM
Please; for the love of all that is holy, no. Because if they did add four more, you know there will be some pinheads pushing for the 'Crosstown Classic' *shudder* to go five games at each stadium.

Lets make the game really count. The winning league gets to have ALL the games at their home park. Make it a All Star Series and have it be the best 3 out of 5.

Iwritecode
07-16-2008, 11:31 AM
JUribe said it best: People bitched & moaned about Selig when there was a tie, then when he alters things to help avoid ties, they bitch & moan again. The lesson, as always, people are going to bitch & moan about something regardless.

"Help avoid ties" are the key words there. With baseball's rule that a pitcher cannot return to the game once he's taken out, there is really no way guarantee a tie won't happen without have position players start to pitch.

thedudeabides
07-16-2008, 11:31 AM
It's not even that difficult.

Move Longoria/Wright out of the DH spot to pitcher or another position (and that person to P), and the problem is solved.

Francona said he would have moved Kazmir to a position and was asking players who could pitch. Problem is, Kazmir is lefty so would have to go to the outfield or 1B. This is a great scenario seeing him blowing out a knee or something, or better yet a position player hurting their arm pitching in an all-star game. Bud sent word down to the managers that the game would not end in a tie.

These managers were in a very tough spot, because the game counts. They managed to stretch their pitching out to 15 innings and got all position players in. You really can't expect them to plan on 15 innings using other teams players. Francona already had to stretch out Sherril and put in Kazmir who wasn't suppose to pitch.

This whole system is ridiculous. In a sick way, I was hoping someone would get hurt or the game would have went 19 innings, just to show how big of a mockery this really was.

The excuse best record has too many logistics problems is a joke. They run a multi-billion dollar organization. Pay someone to figure it out. Or go to best record in interleague. How many guys were on the field in the end that may even be in the world series?

Iwritecode
07-16-2008, 11:32 AM
I defy one person to name a single thing that went wrong in the All Star Game that had to do with Bud Selig.

See below.

No, the stupid idea is still making the All-Star Game count for something. And that was Bud Selig's idea.

EuroSox35
07-16-2008, 11:35 AM
I think Francona is an idiot (not a complete idiot, but in this capacity), he's managing for 9 innings, playing the 'let's get everyone in!' game. Everyone will take their shot at Bud, but I'm guessing those same people all watched the game, meaning some interest, even though they want to take every chance they get to rip him. I'm guessing he will add some more reserve players or something, but I didn't see a problem with a tie when the game meant nothing, and I don't see a problem with them playing when the game does (you can ridicule 'this time it counts', but we've seen how big home field is throughout the season, it DOES mean something)

thedudeabides
07-16-2008, 11:44 AM
I think Francona is an idiot (not a complete idiot, but in this capacity), he's managing for 9 innings, playing the 'let's get everyone in!' game. Everyone will take their shot at Bud, but I'm guessing those same people all watched the game, meaning some interest, even though they want to take every chance they get to rip him. I'm guessing he will add some more reserve players or something, but I didn't see a problem with a tie when the game meant nothing, and I don't see a problem with them playing when the game does (you can ridicule 'this time it counts', but we've seen how big home field is throughout the season, it DOES mean something)

Exactly, so why trivialize a 162 game season with the outcome of an exhibition game. Especially considering just a couple of players who played in the game will even be in the world series. The final outcome had Michael Young hitting a sac fly off of Lidge, scoring Morneau off of a throw from Corey Hart. What's the odds those players are in the World Series?

the1tab
07-16-2008, 11:49 AM
The MLB All Star Game about 15 years ago ran into the same issue that the Olympic basketball team had issues with in the last couple Summer games:

There was a time in this country when professional athletes thought about more than themselves and respected the game and the fans. Back in the day, guys like Pete Rose busted a$$ in the All Star Game because they respected what the Game stood for: it was the best playing against the best. You were representing your team, your city, your league and yourself.

Then players started thinking (and being told by their agents) "Why risk injury or being tired in the 2nd half for a game that means nothing?" So players started taking a pass on the game and it became a less attractive event to viewers and fans. Apparently they got the same memo ARod did about participating in the last Home Run Derby ever at his home stadium. He can go play in traffic as far as I'm concerned, and take his little girlfriend Madonna with him.

So Bud Selig did something, ANYTHING to try to resurrect the glory of the Mid Summer Classic by making it mean something to the players.

The problem is, as long as you force the managers to take someone from every team, your going to have guys on the roster (Carlos Guillen, Joakim Soria, Carlos Marmol) that no manager would ever want to use in a game that matters. You also have managers that don't want to get boo'd and want everyone to get a piece of the action. So a starter like Ryan Dempster comes in for one inning, looks INCREDIBLE striking out three guys and hitting 97 on the gun, and then he gets to sit down as we go extra innings. And KRod going 1 batter? Idiots... Clint played it very well with Aaron Cook, who should have been the MVP (had the NL actually won a game) for carrying them thru extras.

If it's gonna matter, drop the rest of the rules, expand the rosters by a player or two and let the players vote in who they actually think deserves to be there, not a token from every franchise whether they deserve it or not.

DeadMoney
07-16-2008, 11:53 AM
Francona said he would have moved Kazmir to a position and was asking players who could pitch. Problem is, Kazmir is lefty so would have to go to the outfield or 1B. This is a great scenario seeing him blowing out a knee or something, or better yet a position player hurting their arm pitching in an all-star game. Bud sent word down to the managers that the game would not end in a tie.

I really have no idea why Francona would've done that. With Guillen at 3B, it left him the possibility that he could drop Longoria in at 3B and have Guillen go to any IF or corner OF position, as needed. I also know that Francona said he thought he might give Drew the chance to pitch if it came to that. In that situation, Longoria to 3B, Guillen to RF, Drew to P ... no more DH in the line-up.

Plus, as soon as Kazmir gets in the game as a fielder, wouldn't he have to bat anyway? Which would mean that Longoria would have to come out (and the pitcher bat). Unless, it still left him Longoria at DH and Kazmir not hitting ... which, would leave him one guy JUST in case someone got hurt. But seriously, as soon as a position player gets in to pitch, it's not like the game's going to drag on much longer!

And, my suggestion fits within the rule that if a DH replaces a fielder - in the field - (and the fielder comes out of the game), that the pitcher must bat, because the pitcher would be batting if he was put in after playing a position already.

areilly
07-16-2008, 12:02 PM
There was a time in this country when professional athletes thought about more than themselves and respected the game and the fans. Back in the day, guys like Pete Rose busted a$$ in the All Star Game because they respected what the Game stood for: it was the best playing against the best. You were representing your team, your city, your league and yourself.

Pete Rose crushing Ray Fosse - the same Ray Fosse who, along with Mrs. Fosse, dined with their good friends the Roses the night before - had less to do with busting ass and more to do with simply being an ass. If showboating in an exhibition game isn't thinking about yourself, I don't know what is.

the1tab
07-16-2008, 12:06 PM
Pete Rose bowling over Ray Fosse - the same Ray Fosse who, along with Mrs. Fosse, dined with their good friends the Roses the night before - had less to do with busting ass and more to do with simply being an ass. If showboating in an exhibition game isn't thinking about yourself, I don't know what is.

OK. So me referring to Pete Rose as an example of giving an effort in the All Star game was apparently out of place because he's an ass who ran a guy over after mooching a free meal.

before Selig forced relevance on this game, 6 years ago, do you think someone would climb the wall to make an out the way Bo Jackson did? Do you think anyone would have cared the way guys like Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Cal Ripken, Andre Dawson, Gary Carter or any of the other class acts of the game did?

Does this get my point across about there being more of a character issue w/ the players not caring than with the game becoming stale?

Sorry I referred to Rose... I forgot he ruined everything...

areilly
07-16-2008, 12:19 PM
before Selig forced relevance on this game, 6 years ago, do you think someone would climb the wall to make an out the way Bo Jackson did? Do you think anyone would have cared the way guys like Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Cal Ripken, Andre Dawson, Gary Carter or any of the other class acts of the game did?

Your post is confusing - are you saying the current rules enforce that kind of play, or that they've quashed it? I can't say definitively either way, but I also think it's dismissive to assume that most players these days are selfish jackasses. By the same token, it's just as dismissive to assume that most players from 10/15/20/30 years ago were all hardcore, game-before-fame tough guys, as though Reggie Jackson, Jose Canseco and Sammy Sosa weren't All-Stars, either.

thedudeabides
07-16-2008, 12:20 PM
I really have no idea why Francona would've done that. With Guillen at 3B, it left him the possibility that he could drop Longoria in at 3B and have Guillen go to any IF or corner OF position, as needed. I also know that Francona said he thought he might give Drew the chance to pitch if it came to that. In that situation, Longoria to 3B, Guillen to RF, Drew to P ... no more DH in the line-up.

Plus, as soon as Kazmir gets in the game as a fielder, wouldn't he have to bat anyway? Which would mean that Longoria would have to come out (and the pitcher bat). Unless, it still left him Longoria at DH and Kazmir not hitting ... which, would leave him one guy JUST in case someone got hurt. But seriously, as soon as a position player gets in to pitch, it's not like the game's going to drag on much longer!

And, my suggestion fits within the rule that if a DH replaces a fielder - in the field - (and the fielder comes out of the game), that the pitcher must bat, because the pitcher would be batting if he was put in after playing a position already.

Who plays RF? I think he was completely out of players. They had nobody to replace Kazmir with. And yes, Kazmir would have had to bat.

A previous poster mentioned how Hurdle played it smart with Cook. Well, he did but he had the luxury of that being his own player and him fortunately having the rest to pitch three innings. He probably wouldn't have pitched him three innings had it been another teams player and he would also have been in Franconas position.

tstrike2000
07-16-2008, 12:25 PM
And we don't even need more proof that Selig is a moron. I could tell that when he couldn't even read a prepared statement when Ricky Henderson broke Lou Brock's stolen base record.

pierzynski07
07-16-2008, 12:28 PM
I think Francona is an idiot (not a complete idiot, but in this capacity), he's managing for 9 innings, playing the 'let's get everyone in!' game. Everyone will take their shot at Bud, but I'm guessing those same people all watched the game, meaning some interest, even though they want to take every chance they get to rip him. I'm guessing he will add some more reserve players or something, but I didn't see a problem with a tie when the game meant nothing, and I don't see a problem with them playing when the game does (you can ridicule 'this time it counts', but we've seen how big home field is throughout the season, it DOES mean something)
You're suppost to manage for nine innings. You don't worry about extras until you reach extras.

slavko
07-16-2008, 12:34 PM
And we don't even need more proof that Selig is a moron. I could tell that when he couldn't even read a prepared statement when Ricky Henderson broke Lou Brock's stolen base record.

Being inarticulate doesn't necessarily mean someone's a moron, even if they look like one. The importance of this game could be measured by the number of people left in the stands at game's end.

We can safely say that the system's broken.

itsnotrequired
07-16-2008, 12:38 PM
We can safely say that the system's broken.

i wonder how baseball will ever survive...

:rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
07-16-2008, 12:45 PM
Torn:

You're right. Bud Selig is an idiot. I wonder how many people were actually still up at 2AM in the East watching this farce?

White Sox 51:

The Orioles player in question was Mike Mussina I believe.

Lip

Daver
07-16-2008, 12:47 PM
Torn:

You're right. Bud Selig is an idiot. I wonder how many people were actually still up at 2AM in the East watching this farce?



An idiot that has managed to make himself the most powerful commissioner the game has ever had.

itsnotrequired
07-16-2008, 12:50 PM
An idiot that has managed to make himself the most powerful commissioner the game has ever had.

Word on the street is that the owners hate him. They got bumped into a higher tax bracket because he made them too much money.

DeadMoney
07-16-2008, 01:05 PM
Who plays RF? I think he was completely out of players. They had nobody to replace Kazmir with. And yes, Kazmir would have had to bat.

A previous poster mentioned how Hurdle played it smart with Cook. Well, he did but he had the luxury of that being his own player and him fortunately having the rest to pitch three innings. He probably wouldn't have pitched him three innings had it been another teams player and he would also have been in Franconas position.

I know they had no one left to pitch. My point is IF they were forced to put a position player 'in' to pitch, why did Francona have to leave Kazmir in; because he really didn't have to (remember, they still had a DH in the game):
- Drew (forced) in to pitch
- Longoria FROM DH to 3B
- Guillen from 3B to RF
- Kazmir out

If he left Kazmir in to play:
- Drew (forced) in to pitch
- Kazmir to RF
Who bats then? Does Longoria stay in at DH (and Kazmir still doesn't bat), or is Longoria forced out at this point? And, if Longoria IS forced out, what's the point of leaving Kazmir in the game!? Not to mention that, as I've said, the game would be over shortly after putting a position player in to pitch, so why would you even think about 'saving' a guy (Longoria) for a possible injury to someone else?

doublem23
07-16-2008, 01:26 PM
Being inarticulate doesn't necessarily mean someone's a moron, even if they look like one. The importance of this game could be measured by the number of people left in the stands at game's end.

It was 2 AM local time.

Parrothead
07-16-2008, 01:51 PM
I hope you forgot the teal. Good gawd.

No teal intended. yes, it is stupid the way they do it but to me it makes the game more interesting. Apparently, they don't want to give home field to the team with the best record. I think the winner of interleague play whould have home field. I have always thought switching home field every year was dumb too.

Also, the game should start earlier.

SOXPHILE
07-16-2008, 02:00 PM
An idiot that has managed to make himself the most powerful commissioner the game has ever had.

He was one of the group of owners who stripped the last actual "commissioner" of any power it had and forced him to step aside. Selig was then placed into the position by these same owners, including Reinsdorf. All this "power" he has is drawn from that same little circle of friends. An owner is the commissioner, obvious conflict of interest. He is the most powerful, but he didn't do it on his own. For whatever reason, the other owners made him "The Chosen One".

itsnotrequired
07-16-2008, 02:05 PM
He was one of the group of owners who stripped the last actual "commissioner" of any power it had and forced him to step aside. Selig was then placed into the position by these same owners, including Reinsdorf. All this "power" he has is drawn from that same little circle of friends. An owner is the commissioner, obvious conflict of interest. He is the most powerful, but he didn't do it on his own. For whatever reason, the other owners made him "The Chosen One".

That's why Selig was "acting commisioner" for all those years. He had to sell his interests in the Brewers to become a "real" commisioner.

The commisioner has always worked for the owners. The owners can strip/add powers as they wish.

palehozenychicty
07-16-2008, 02:13 PM
It was 2 AM local time.


That is the most insane thing about it, that he bends over for Fox to start the game this late. It should start no later than 7 p.m. Eastern Time, and I know that prime-time viewing is the 8:00-10:00 slot. But this is insane.

SOXPHILE
07-16-2008, 02:14 PM
That's why Selig was "acting commisioner" for all those years. He had to sell his interests in the Brewers to become a "real" commisioner.

The commisioner has always worked for the owners. The owners can strip/add powers as they wish.


Yeah, he sold them to his daughter. Weren't there whispers about this guy being investigated for fraud after the Brewers moved into Miller Park ? He promised that if allowed to use public money to build his stadium, that he would make every effor to field a competative team. Then, they just did a bunch of salary dumps and fielded a bunch of crappy teams who's payrolls were well under the MLB average.

itsnotrequired
07-16-2008, 02:17 PM
Yeah, he sold them to his daughter. Weren't there whispers about this guy being investigated for fraud after the Brewers moved into Miller Park ? He promised that if allowed to use public money to build his stadium, that he would make every effor to field a competative team. Then, they just did a bunch of salary dumps and fielded a bunch of crappy teams who's payrolls were well under the MLB average.

And I believe his daughter has sold her interests as well.

Stadium public finance deals involving potential fraud? Unheard of!

Flight #24
07-16-2008, 02:17 PM
See, I didn't complain about it being a tie; as it was an exhibition game. Now that it "counts" it needs to have a winner. I had no problem with the All Star Game being a tie; as its just was meant to give the season and its players a break halfway through.

When you now have a manager having to make decisions (and second guessing them) due to his roster and what it would mean in 3 days to teams competing against his own team; its a horrid situation that should be avoided.

Simply put, let the team with the best record stand for home field advantage, and let this go back to just being about giving the fans a good show and let them have a good time.

You're one of the smarter fans. Unfortunately, also a minority and not among those with media power. Even when it didn't count and ended in a tie, that was supposedly all Bud's fault and a travesty according to idiotic conventional wisdom.

STRETCH!!!
07-16-2008, 02:24 PM
Managers pick 13 pitchers.

Managers pick 9 pitchers to pitch 9 innings - each pitcher gets one inning.

Managers pick 2 pitchers to come in relief of one of the "starting 9" if one of the starting 9 gets hurt or gets shelled.

Managers pick 2 pitchers that cannot be used unless the game goes into extra innings, and these pitchers need to ready to pitch 100+A pitches if necessary.

A game that goes 18 innings ends in a tie, and the home field advantage goes to the league that didn't win the all-star game last year.

Additional Advantages: The country would get to see more pitchers (e.g., Danks), more pitchers would get the honor of making the team, the teams in the pennant races would be less adversely impacted, and the position spots would be more likely to go to deserving players because the additional of pitchers would relieve the stress resulting from the "every team's gotta have somebody on the all-star team" rule.

Disadvantages: We'd see less of the top quality pitchers because they'd only go 1 inning instead of 2-3 innings. But, that's a relatively small price to pay.

Brilliant solution, no? Bud Selig's salary is rightfully mine!

Daver
07-16-2008, 02:34 PM
He was one of the group of owners who stripped the last actual "commissioner" of any power it had and forced him to step aside. Selig was then placed into the position by these same owners, including Reinsdorf. All this "power" he has is drawn from that same little circle of friends. An owner is the commissioner, obvious conflict of interest. He is the most powerful, but he didn't do it on his own. For whatever reason, the other owners made him "The Chosen One".

The owners did not destroy the umpires union and replace it with one that answers directly to his office, Selig did that.

The owners did not do away with the league presidents, Selig did because they were a threat to his absolute power.

The owners do not have a say in how the money from the luxury tax is distributed, it is done at Bud's sole discretion.

Yes Selig works for the owners, every commissioner does, but to say that they are responsible for the power he wields is not an accurate statement.

SoxSpeed22
07-16-2008, 02:35 PM
In the game thread yesterday, I mentioned that home-field should be determined by combining the records of the 4 playoff teams in each league, the best record wins home-field advantage in the world series. Teams are rewarded for playing all 162 games and doing well.
As for the all-star game, this is a fan's game, it might as well play like a little-league game. 32 men should be enough with 14 available pitchers. Starting pitchers should also be required to go 2 innings.

thedudeabides
07-16-2008, 03:32 PM
I know they had no one left to pitch. My point is IF they were forced to put a position player 'in' to pitch, why did Francona have to leave Kazmir in; because he really didn't have to (remember, they still had a DH in the game):
- Drew (forced) in to pitch
- Longoria FROM DH to 3B
- Guillen from 3B to RF
- Kazmir out

If he left Kazmir in to play:
- Drew (forced) in to pitch
- Kazmir to RF
Who bats then? Does Longoria stay in at DH (and Kazmir still doesn't bat), or is Longoria forced out at this point? And, if Longoria IS forced out, what's the point of leaving Kazmir in the game!? Not to mention that, as I've said, the game would be over shortly after putting a position player in to pitch, so why would you even think about 'saving' a guy (Longoria) for a possible injury to someone else?

I'm really not sure, I was just going by what Francona said. To be honest I've never seen that scenario before. I don't know what the rule is about a DH coming off the bench onto the field, I have only seen it in injury or pinch hitting situations. Maybe, Francona just hadn't put it together yet, although he seems like a pretty good manager, or he new the rules and had to keep Kazmir in the game? I really don't know.

My point was just that the managers are in tough positions as its set up and I think the whole thing is ridiculous and it almost blew up in Bud's face again yesterday.

TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 03:33 PM
It's not even that difficult.

Move Longoria/Wright out of the DH spot to pitcher or another position (and that person to P), and the problem is solved.

Great way to have home field advantage for the World Series determined: by position players pitching!

TDog
07-16-2008, 03:43 PM
...

Simply put, let the team with the best record stand for home field advantage, and let this go back to just being about giving the fans a good show and let them have a good time.

This is idea is far more stupid than making the All-Star Game count for something. The best record is arbitrary if you are comparing teams withing different divisions. Compare teams in different leagues and it becomes arbitrary and capricious.

The Cubs have a better record than the White Sox. Who would have homefield advantage if the Sox and Cubs met in a World Series? Would it be the team that went 0-3 in St. Petersburg or the team that went 3-4 in St. Petersburg? Would it be the team that went 3-0 against the Giants or the team that went 4-3 against the Giants? Would it be the team that went 3-0 against Pittsburgh or the team that went 9-3 against Pittsburgh with six more games against the Pirates on the schedule?

You are better off flipping a coin.

Ode was right. He expressed my feelings as well as anyone could.

That was a great game. Fans cared about the outcome. Players cared about the outcome, although Dan Uggla had a bad night. There was clutch hitting, clutch defense and clutch pitching. It was great baseball.

As long as I have been following baseball, since the late 1960s, people have been saying the All-Star Game is a meaningless exhibition. Some people have anyway. The people following the league that loses, just as the exhibition Crosstown Classic meant more to Sox fans than Cubs fans. And people really didn't care the year it ended in a tie. The baseball All-Star Game has always meant more than analogous games of other sports. It's why Pete Rose went through Ray Fosse in 1970 (although I have always wondered if he might have had a grand or two riding on the game). People have always watched the game because they care about the outcome.

Of course it upset casual fans when the game ended in a tie. It didn't upset me because I grew up believing it was an exhibition as the National League won every year. I didn't watch the game because I had to go into work at 4 a.m., and I was resigned to believing it was an exhibition game. It exposed the fact that baseball didn't believe the game meant anything. Now it does.

The managers managed badly, without question. They made mistakes I hope managers don't make in the future. There could be some improvements to player selection, not so much with position players, but with pitchers. The teams would be better off if the pitchers could be picked closer to the game -- accounting for slumps and rest. If pitching on Sunday means not making the All-Star team, All-Star pitchers won't be pitching on Sunday. I knew when Lincecum was named to the team that he wouldn't pitch. I thought the Giants would shut him down, though. I didn't know he would get sick.

There would be people here on this White Sox board who would be upset if the National League had won in nine because of the ramifications (possibly taking the homefield advantage away from the White Sox or giving it to the Cubs). I don't know if this game will mean anything to the White Sox or Cubs. Chances are it won't. And even if it did, homefield advantage probably only sets up the better team to win their championship on the road.

But people cared about the outcome of the game. Even people rooting for the losing team couldn't rationalize that the game didn't mean something. And far from being a fiasco, it was a great game.

Lip Man 1
07-16-2008, 03:58 PM
T-Dog:

If this game is going to count for something then you pick the best players from the first half of the season by computer ranking only...not the popular ones, not the ones who happen to play in a major market, not the ones that some idiot fans decided to vote for five thousand times, not the ones because every team has to be represented.

If it's going to count ,then you don't select players on a lifetime achievement award basis.

This game has become a farce and a popularity contest and Proud To Be Your Bud who has absolutely zero backbone caved in yet again to an entity namely Fox television.

But what do you expect from a used car salesman?

Lip

itsnotrequired
07-16-2008, 04:22 PM
This game has become a farce and a popularity contest and Proud To Be Your Bud who has absolutely zero backbone caved in yet again to an entity namely Fox television.

:rolling:

Oh, for the simpler days when the ASG represented all things great and stood for everything right and just with the world!

Its a freakin' exhibition game.:whiner:

TDog
07-16-2008, 04:35 PM
T-Dog:

If this game is going to count for something then you pick the best players from the first half of the season by computer ranking only...not the popular ones, not the ones who happen to play in a major market, not the ones that some idiot fans decided to vote for five thousand times, not the ones because every team has to be represented.

If it's going to count ,then you don't select players on a lifetime achievement award basis.

This game has become a farce and a popularity contest and Proud To Be Your Bud who has absolutely zero backbone caved in yet again to an entity namely Fox television.

But what do you expect from a used car salesman?

Lip

Really, I disagree with that. Managers could do a better job picking pitchers in the league than a computer could. Fukudome (I'm sure he has a first name, but if I have ever heard it, I doubt I could spell it) had no business playing for the National League team, but if he looks bad, maybe it justifiably embarrasses the fans that voted him in. I haven't checked, but maybe the computers pick Dan Uggla.

This argument has been going on since 1970 (when some fans wrote in Mickey Mantle when voting was returned to the fans, not having understood that Mickey Mantle retired before the 1969 season). When you cheer for up-and-coming stars, the lifetime achievement guys seem frustrating, but the up-and-comers are often the ones who replace the players the fans vote in, educating the casual fan. In 1970, Luis Aparicio benefited from the lifetime achievement vote, and he played the entire game, going 0-for-6. He was having his best offensive year, so he might not be the best example, but Earl Weaver, wanted Aparicio in the game at the end.

There is plenty of room on the team for deserving position players, even with fans voting in a few who don't belong.

TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 04:52 PM
:rolling:

Oh, for the simpler days when the ASG represented all things great and stood for everything right and just with the world!

Its a freakin' exhibition game.:whiner:

But it's an exhibition game that counts!

BadBobbyJenks
07-16-2008, 05:27 PM
It is really sad that we had an unbelievable game last night and all people want to talk about is Bud being an idiot for things that DID NOT happen. No position players came in to pitch.

Is the all star game the best way to decide home field advantage, absolutely not, but that game meant something last night. The managers did not do their jobs last night and again that is not Bud's fault.



And :rolleyes: to the what about the children! If I was still a little kid my dad would have had me next to him on the couch watching it until the game finished.

RTI_SoxFan
07-16-2008, 05:29 PM
How about this scenario... a best of 3 in the following (whichever leagues wins 2 of 3 gets home field in the WS):

Winner of All Star game
Winner of IL
Best Record

Therefore, the All Star game still counts but the 162 game season and IL play are still huge factors.

Get Bud on the phone.

hawkjt
07-16-2008, 05:42 PM
It is really sad that we had an unbelievable game last night and all people want to talk about is Bud being an idiot for things that DID NOT happen. No position players came in to pitch.

Is the all star game the best way to decide home field advantage, absolutely not, but that game meant something last night. The managers did not do their jobs last night and again that is not Bud's fault.



And :rolleyes: to the what about the children! If I was still a little kid my dad would have had me next to him on the couch watching it until the game finished.

I agree, it seems like a herd mentality out there that seems to hate Selig for breathing and take it out on this all-star concept. If you like pure baseball, that was one heckuva entertaining nite. Isn't that the intent?
I really think due to peer pressure, the players try very hard and care more than in the past. And that is cool. None of this leaving the park in the third innning business.

TDog
07-16-2008, 06:06 PM
How about this scenario... a best of 3 in the following (whichever leagues wins 2 of 3 gets home field in the WS):

Winner of All Star game
Winner of IL
Best Record

Therefore, the All Star game still counts but the 162 game season and IL play are still huge factors.

Get Bud on the phone.

Replace best record with a coin toss and your suggestion wiould have more merit.

FarWestChicago
07-16-2008, 07:07 PM
Hell I'd hire him to run one of my business's!One of your what? :scratch:

the1tab
07-16-2008, 09:40 PM
Here's an idea: rather than use the All Star Game to determine home field advantage in the World Series, why not award it to the league that wins more games during the interleague schedule of all of Major League Baseball? Whichever league wins more games that count against the standings gets to host the Fall Classic.

Selig would probably think the team with the best Spring Training ERA should host the Series, because those games matter, too...

Lip Man 1
07-16-2008, 09:55 PM
T-Dog:

The fans can vote in all the 1927 Yankees or the 1975 Reds for all I care AS LONG AS THE GAME DOESN'T COUNT FOR SQUAT.

Since it apparently does count for something, then sentimentality has no place in it, in my opinion.

The BEST players from the first half of the season at each position go...period.

If you are a baseball fan you'll watch this farce whether or not you voted right?

Lip

Daver
07-16-2008, 10:12 PM
T-Dog:

The fans can vote in all the 1927 Yankees or the 1975 Reds for all I care AS LONG AS THE GAME DOESN'T COUNT FOR SQUAT.

Since it apparently does count for something, then sentimentality has no place in it, in my opinion.

The BEST players from the first half of the season at each position go...period.

If you are a baseball fan you'll watch this farce whether or not you voted right?

Lip

No actually I won't.

I haven't watched the ASG in years.

TornLabrum
07-16-2008, 10:35 PM
No actually I won't.

I haven't watched the ASG in years.

The only reason I've watched them for the past 12 years is so I can do a report in the WCSF newsletter about how our players did.

itsnotrequired
07-16-2008, 11:59 PM
But it's an exhibition game that counts!

[goofballl]Even more a reason to demonstrate how the game has been destroyed![/some old douche]

TDog
07-17-2008, 01:43 AM
T-Dog:

The fans can vote in all the 1927 Yankees or the 1975 Reds for all I care AS LONG AS THE GAME DOESN'T COUNT FOR SQUAT.

Since it apparently does count for something, then sentimentality has no place in it, in my opinion.

The BEST players from the first half of the season at each position go...period.

If you are a baseball fan you'll watch this farce whether or not you voted right?

Lip

There were years, decades in fact, when I didn't watch the All-Star Game. In those years I believed the game was a meaningless exhibition. I watched the game Tuesday night. I don't know if I would have watched the game if the game didn't count, but the fact of the matter is that it was a great game. The fans originally voted in the players (some of the '27 Yankees were gone by 1933, but Ruth and Gehrig were still around) and the game certainly meant something to the players and the fans.

There are enough checks and balances in roster selection that when fans make stupid selections, such as Fukudome, there are better players who can come in and take their place. Fan voting is just as likely to leave off the best players as computer rankings. Computer rankings didn't put Aparicio in the Hall of Fame. And 20-somethings who live for that stuff tell me Aparicio doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. As for not recognizing players having great first-halves, there is something to be said for the all-star spots going to great players and not players who have had a couple of good months.

Anyway, it's not like you're seating Congress. The fan vote is just selecting about a third of each team. The pitchers play the biggest role in deciding who wins the game, and the fans don't vote for them.

Iwritecode
07-17-2008, 09:49 AM
How about this scenario... a best of 3 in the following (whichever leagues wins 2 of 3 gets home field in the WS):

Winner of All Star game
Winner of IL
Best Record

Therefore, the All Star game still counts but the 162 game season and IL play are still huge factors.

Get Bud on the phone.

So what happens when the NL wins the AS game, the AL has a better IL record and both teams in the WS have the same record? :?:

Flight #24
07-17-2008, 10:33 AM
T-Dog:

If this game is going to count for something then you pick the best players from the first half of the season by computer ranking only...not the popular ones, not the ones who happen to play in a major market, not the ones that some idiot fans decided to vote for five thousand times, not the ones because every team has to be represented.

If it's going to count ,then you don't select players on a lifetime achievement award basis.

Lip


:thud:
Lip advocating a BP-style selection of all-stars because it counts? Beware - the Cubs may actually win the WS because hell is apparently serving snow cones!:o:

There is no way to ensure that the best players go. Because defining "best" is pretty damn subjective in terms of the criteria you use. There is also no way, in any sport/game to make sure that you don't a)have injuries and b)don't have to push players beyond their usual "limits" if the game goes extras.

So the choices are: leave it an exhibition (and select WS homefield in another fairly arbitrary way), or "make it count" and have it mean something which ensures no ties. "The good of the game" is like "best player" - a pretty subjective concept. That choice rightly, is up to the fans, and while it may be the large, idiotic segment that decided after being egged on by the similarly idiotic media, that's what happened. Bud responding to a significant portion of baseball's fan base isn't idiotic even if you don't adhere to that belief. It's like those who'd say the commish is spineless because he won't eliminate the DH in the AL.

AZChiSoxFan
07-18-2008, 10:38 AM
I realize that it's fashionable to rip on Selig, however, I'm not afraid to say that I like Bud and think he's done a good job. He added the WC which made Sep baseball much more interesting to follow. After the 1994 strike, he and Don Fehr have combined to oversee labor peace in the game. He's also brought in limited revenue sharing, which is perfect because it provides some help to the lesser teams, yet still allows teams to spend as much as they want.

I really think that if he said the sky was blue, there would be ions of people calling him an idiot for saying that. The AS game in Milwaukee ended in a tie and people ripped him for it (like it was his fault). So, he came up with a solution and people ripped him for that. What do you want? Oh, that's right. You want to rip him, regardless of what he does. The AS game the other night in NYC was the most exciting one I have ever watched. Now, if the game had no implications, there's no way I would have stayed up to watch it and I wouldn't have cared who won. So, I like what he did with the AS game.

Finally, I love how people even rip him for something that didn't even happen. "Well, what if position players had to pitch?" So now Selig even gets ripped for fictitious events. Beautiful.

RTI_SoxFan
07-18-2008, 10:48 AM
So what happens when the NL wins the AS game, the AL has a better IL record and both teams in the WS have the same record? :?:

Fight to the death?

FarWestChicago
07-18-2008, 07:14 PM
I realize that it's fashionable to rip on Selig, however, I'm not afraid to say that I like Bud and think he's done a good job.I think it's safe to assume you are too young to have ever seen a real commissioner. :smile:

RKMeibalane
07-18-2008, 07:18 PM
So what happens when the NL wins the AS game, the AL has a better IL record and both teams in the WS have the same record? :?:

Use another category as the tie-breaker.

Nellie_Fox
07-19-2008, 02:11 AM
He added the WC which made Sep baseball much more interesting to follow.The wild card still sucks. It's a 162 game season; everybody plays everybody else. If you can't win your division, get out your golf clubs. It's not like football where they only play 16 games, and the schedules are wildly different.

The wild card in baseball is only about making more money.

TornLabrum
07-19-2008, 08:15 AM
The wild card still sucks. It's a 162 game season; everybody plays everybody else. If you can't win your division, get out your golf clubs. It's not like football where they only play 16 games, and the schedules are wildly different.

The wild card in baseball is only about making more money.

So what do you propose? Does the team with the best record in the league get a bye the first round?

PatK
07-19-2008, 08:24 AM
The wild card still sucks. It's a 162 game season; everybody plays everybody else. If you can't win your division, get out your golf clubs. It's not like football where they only play 16 games, and the schedules are wildly different.

The wild card in baseball is only about making more money.

I disagree somewhat because some divisions are noticeably weaker than others.

Nellie_Fox
07-20-2008, 01:33 AM
So what do you propose? Does the team with the best record in the league get a bye the first round?Two divisions.

Daver
07-20-2008, 11:29 AM
So what do you propose? Does the team with the best record in the league get a bye the first round?

Do away with divisions too, win the most games in your league, go to the world series. It worked just fine like that for decades.

TornLabrum
07-20-2008, 12:15 PM
Do away with divisions too, win the most games in your league, go to the world series. It worked just fine like that for decades.

Can you imagine what the attendance would be for the fans in the bottom half of a league? The NL tried a twelve team league in the 1890s. For many reasons, including half the teams being out of the race by June 1, it was a miserable failure. (Yes, I know about syndicate ownership and all of that stuff, but the bloated league size was one big reason for the league's mess.)

FedEx227
07-20-2008, 12:49 PM
Do away with divisions too, win the most games in your league, go to the world series. It worked just fine like that for decades.

You destroy the modern business of baseball with this method. League-wide attendance would absolutely plummet if 12 teams in each league knew they had no chance of sniffing the postseason.