PDA

View Full Version : Owners approve Bud's plan for All Star Game


Paulwny
01-16-2003, 03:17 PM
http://www.canoe.ca/Slam030116/mlb_own-ap.html

ScottySoxFan
01-16-2003, 04:20 PM
I really don't mind this plan at all.

It should at least provide for a more interesting game.

What happens if they run out of pitchers this year?

fuzzy_patters
01-16-2003, 04:37 PM
If they run out of pitchers, I propose the world series be held at a AAA park. That way Wrigley Field can get to host a World Series. :)

Daver
01-16-2003, 05:05 PM
Does this surprise anyone?

The owners are not going to admit to the general public that their self appointed leader is dumber than a bag of broken hammers.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-16-2003, 05:10 PM
Hey, if the all-star game is suppose to be meaningless, just hold it in Hawaii at the end of the year like the NFL does. Hold a big beach volleyball game before the event. The game will gather about as much interest, too.

Maybe now the managers will play the game like the other 162 they somehow manage not to run out of pitchers.

If anything they ought to do away with the stupid rule that every team automatically gets one player.

Irishsox1
01-16-2003, 05:16 PM
So let me guess this straight, if the NL wins the All Star game and the Sox win 105 games and face the Brewers who win the wild card with 87 games, then the Brewers get home field advantage in the World Series? This is the dumbest move I have ever seen. Was anyone really that upset that the All Star game ended in a tie? It's a stupid all star game, it's just for fun. Baseball totally over reacted to minor problem. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

LineShot
01-16-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
So let me guess this straight, if the NL wins the All Star game and the Sox win 105 games and face the Brewers who win the wild card with 87 games, then the Brewers get home field advantage in the World Series? This is the dumbest move I have ever seen. Was anyone really that upset that the All Star game ended in a tie? It's a stupid all star game, it's just for fun. Baseball totally over reacted to minor problem. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

I agree, giving the all star winner home field advantage is a ridiculous idea. HOw about a reasonable solution such as giving the team with the better record HFA in the Series? Two other leagues do this (NBA/NHL), rightly rewarding the league's best team. You could look back to the 2000 playoffs, for example, where the Yanks had the lowest number of wins of all 8 playoff teams, yet since it was the AL's turn to get HFA, the Mets, with a much better record get to start off in Yankee Stadium instead of shea! Who knows...maybe the Mets pull off an upset of the yanks!

kevingrt
01-16-2003, 06:17 PM
It's a stupid idea, and should never be implemented in the MLB or any other sport. I am happy to see though that the players will most likely say no to this deal!

PaleHoseGeorge
01-16-2003, 07:51 PM
It's a great idea and puts meaning back into what had become a meaningless game.

The way it used to be, a team that won 116 games had no guarantee of home-field advantage. Home field simply rotated between the two leagues each World Series. That's hardly "fair" either.

And please spare me the complaints preferring to give HFA to the team with the best record. It's bad enough we're awarding playoff spots to also-ran teams that played unbalanced schedules vs. other teams in different divisions. The '02 Twins must have been one of the softest 93-win teams in history beating up on the midgets of the AL Central. If you think that is "fair," you'll have to stretch it even further to award HFA between teams that likely didn't have a single opponent in common across 162 games.

Selig's rule IMPROVES the all-star game, and costs nothing to implement.

delben91
01-16-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by daver
Does this surprise anyone?

The owners are not going to admit to the general public that their self appointed leader is dumber than a bag of broken hammers.

How much dumber are broken hammers than intact hammers?

:)

Daver
01-16-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by delben91
How much dumber are broken hammers than intact hammers?

:)

They were dumb enough to get broke weren't they? :redneck

Daver
01-16-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It's a great idea and puts meaning back into what had become a meaningless game.

The way it used to be, a team that won 116 games had no guarantee of home-field advantage. Home field simply rotated between the two leagues each World Series. That's hardly "fair" either.

And please spare me the complaints preferring to give HFA to the team with the best record. It's bad enough we're awarding playoff spots to also-ran teams that played unbalanced schedules vs. other teams in different divisions. The '02 Twins must have been one of the softest 93-win teams in history beating up on the midgets of the AL Central. If you think that is "fair," you'll have to stretch it even further to award HFA between teams that likely didn't have a single opponent in common across 162 games.

Selig's rule IMPROVES the all-star game, and costs nothing to implement.

So basically you are saying that it is completely acceptable for some player for the Tampa Bay Devil Dogs,who is only on the All Star team because every team has to be represented,to get a seeing eye single in the bottom of the ninth inning to win the game for the AL when their is an NL team that won 105 games?

Sorry but that is flawed logic.

If the system that has been in place for 50 years isn't good enough fine,give HFA to the team with the best record,to base it on an exhibition game that involves players that probably have no business being in the All Star game in the first place is simply ludicrous.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-16-2003, 08:54 PM
So basically you are saying that it is completely acceptable for some player for the Tampa Bay Devil Dogs,who is only on the All Star team because every team has to be represented,to get a seeing eye single in the bottom of the ninth inning to win the game for the AL when their is an NL team that won 105 games?

No, what I'm saying is the Tampa Devil Dogs don't deserve ANYBODY on the team and I've stated so earlier in this thread.

Sorry but that is flawed logic.

Actually, it's a lot more logical than what you're advocating. To suggest a team with 105 wins in one league is better than another with only 100 wins in the other league is preposterous. They played two completely different schedules. In fact, there is a good chance they didn't have a single opponent in common.

Awarding HFA on such a basis is without foundation and has the additional fault of leaving the all-star game a meaningless exhibition. In other words, it solves nothing.

If the system that has been in place for 50 years isn't good enough fine,give HFA to the team with the best record,to base it on an exhibition game that involves players that probably have no business being in the All Star game in the first place is simply ludicrous.

This isn't the NFL. We're talking about a 162 game schedule here. HFA based on a meaningless comparision of W-L record is worse than awarding wild-card berths to teams playing unbalanced schedules. That's beyond illogical; it's insane.

Daver
01-16-2003, 09:14 PM
No, what I'm saying is the Tampa Devil Dogs don't deserve ANYBODY on the team and I've stated so earlier in this thread

But there is no language that says that not all teams will be represented.

Awarding HFA on such a basis is without foundation and has the additional fault of leaving the all-star game a meaningless exhibition. In other words, it solves nothing.

The All Star game is a meaningless exhibition,it always has been.

If they were to implement this rule you would see player contracts with added language against playing in the All-Star game,for fear of player injury.

This isn't the NFL. We're talking about a 162 game schedule here. HFA based on a meaningless comparision of W-L record is worse than awarding wild-card berths to teams playing unbalanced schedules. That's beyond illogical; it's insane.

What does the NFL have to do with this?

I stated that the system that has been in place for fifty years seems to work just fine,until Bud,in his infinate wisdom,:gulp decided to try and tinker with the status quo in a clear effort to raise his own public image.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-16-2003, 09:40 PM
But there is no language that says that not all teams will be represented.

There isn't, but there ought to be. The all-star game means something, so leaving some putz from the Devil Dogs at home shouldn't be too difficult. It's not like everyone in America, including the greater Tampa Bay area, doesn't already know that ballclub is filled with lousy ballplayers.

The All Star game is a meaningless exhibition,it always has been.

Umm... I thought the idea was to make it NOT a meaningless exhibition. Everyone whined when Selig called the last one a draw. Apparently it still has some value to the National Pastime.

If they were to implement this rule you would see player contracts with added language against playing in the All-Star game,for fear of player injury.

Great. They can catch the hell, probably from fans and sportswriters in their own town, for sitting it out. I would love to hear some ballplayer who already gets paid millions to play 162 games whine about playing one more in July. Their silly defense of such an attitude would truly be amusing.

What does the NFL have to do with this?

Your suggestion that W-L record should determine HFA is precisely how the NFL typically solves such issues. Of course the NFL only plays 16 games and entire seasons can lead to glory or disaster based on nothing more than one fumble or one blocked kick. In utter contrast, baseball plays 162 games, yet the A.L. champion and N.L. champion play a completely DIFFERENT set of opponents. You think its "fair" to award HFA based on that? Let's get real.

I stated that the system that has been in place for fifty years seems to work just fine,until Bud,in his infinate wisdom,:gulp decided to try and tinker with the status quo in a clear effort to raise his own public image.

I wouldn't be surprised to know Bud has ulterior motives to practically everything he does as commissioner. The last all-star game ended in a tie and the game sucked because nothing was at stake. Since ballplayers already play 162 games, playing one more for keeps is hardly a big strain. Besides, it's good for the popularity of the sport because there is something important riding on the outcome.

Daver
01-16-2003, 09:56 PM
There isn't, but there ought to be.

And until the language exists to make it so,you cannot hinge a world series on an exhibition game.

Umm... I thought the idea was to make it NOT a meaningless exhibition. Everyone whined when Selig called the last one a draw. Apparently it still has some value to the National Pastime.

I could see the reasoning behind calling it a draw,and most of the national media had no problem with it.

Great. They can catch the hell, probably from fans and sportswriters in their own town, for sitting it out. I would love to hear some ballplayer who already gets paid millions to play 162 games whine about playing one more in July. Their silly defense of such an attitude would truly be amusing.

The players won't catch hell,they sign the contract as dictated by the management of the team,if the clause is there they have no choice.

I wouldn't be surprised to know Bud has ulterior motives to practically everything he does as commissioner. The last all-star game ended in a tie and the game sucked because nothing was at stake. Since ballplayers already play 162 games, playing one more for keeps is hardly a big strain. Besides, it's good for the popularity of the sport because there is something important riding on the outcome.

The popularity of the sport is what is in Bud's best interest,at any cost,whether it makes sense or not. Bud has to to do something to improve his public image,cause every knows his popularity is lower than whale poop.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-16-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by daver
And until the language exists to make it so,you cannot hinge a world series on an exhibition game.

I could see the reasoning behind calling it a draw,and most of the national media had no problem with it.

The players won't catch hell,they sign the contract as dictated by the management of the team,if the clause is there they have no choice.

The popularity of the sport is what is in Bud's best interest,at any cost,whether it makes sense or not. Bud has to to do something to improve his public image,cause every knows his popularity is lower than whale poop.

Since the change has already been made, the point is moot. We'll just have to wait and see if the fans and media enjoy a meaningful all-star game more than the meaningless ones of the past 70 years. I think the answer is obvious. :cool:

Daver
01-16-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Since the change has already been made, the point is moot. We'll just have to wait and see if the fans and media enjoy a meaningful all-star game more than the meaningless ones of the past 70 years. I think the answer is obvious. :cool:

The change hasn't been made,it has to be approved by the MLBPA.

:)

TornLabrum
01-16-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It's a great idea and puts meaning back into what had become a meaningless game.

The way it used to be, a team that won 116 games had no guarantee of home-field advantage. Home field simply rotated between the two leagues each World Series. That's hardly "fair" either.

And please spare me the complaints preferring to give HFA to the team with the best record. It's bad enough we're awarding playoff spots to also-ran teams that played unbalanced schedules vs. other teams in different divisions. The '02 Twins must have been one of the softest 93-win teams in history beating up on the midgets of the AL Central. If you think that is "fair," you'll have to stretch it even further to award HFA between teams that likely didn't have a single opponent in common across 162 games.

Selig's rule IMPROVES the all-star game, and costs nothing to implement.

It's quite fair as long as the DH rule is applied to the AL park only as it now is. This means every other year, one team gets to play more games like their regular league games are played.

The whole Selig plan is just plain stupid.

Lip Man 1
01-17-2003, 12:09 AM
According to ESPN's SportsCenter, the MLBPA has serious concerns about the Selig plan. They also quoted Sandy Alomar Jr. as saying the proposal was "ludicrous."

Tim Kurkjian was brought in to discuss the idea. He said it wasn't a bad one nor a good one. In his opinion there are other ways to solve home field advantage principally awarding home field to the team with the best overall record.

He said the most serious objections would be a manager stacking the deck with his team in order to guarantee home field advantage (assuming his team was in contention for the league title), the fact that the fans vote the starting lineup and don't always do the best job and the potential for injury to a player on a team that's fighting another club in the same division for a post season berth.

Lip

kermittheefrog
01-17-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by daver
The change hasn't been made,it has to be approved by the MLBPA.

:)

I have a feeling the players are gonna shoot this one down, they don't seem to like it very much.

As for what the problem with the All-Star game is, I'd say interleague play. Before interleague play the AL and NL only matched up in the Series and the All-star game. Now we see AL vs. NL matchups all the time. It makes both the AS game and the Series loose some sparcle. But this is what Selig wanted all along, to blur the lines between the leagues. Anyone remember radical re-alignment proposals that had ridiculous suggestions such as the Sox and Cubs in the same division? Or were these just rumors after Interleague play was declared a success?

Right now Selig is making a weak attempt at fixing a problem he created.

Cheryl
01-17-2003, 07:52 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The all-star game means something,



This is where you lose me. It doesn't mean anything.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The all-star game means something,



This is where you lose me. It doesn't mean anything.

If having Game 7 of the World Series held at your team's home park is at stake, oh yes, the all-star game means something. Something important is at stake and the managers will be playing the game more like the other 162. To win, of course.

I fully expect the DH rule to only be used in A.L. ballparks, which of course raises the stakes even more. Getting to use your everyday lineup in Game 7 (while the other team must do with make-shift arrangements) is yet another incentive to win the all-star game.

This is going to be like a playoff game in the middle of the summer involving the game's best players. Why are so many of you so sour? This is a good thing.

Cheryl
01-17-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


This is going to be like a playoff game in the middle of the summer involving the game's best players. Why are so many of you so sour? This is a good thing.

You mean the game's most popular players. And a guy from the D Rays.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
You mean the game's most popular players. And a guy from the D Rays.

Personally, I prefer MLB leave the voting for starters with the fans and the reserves with the respective managers. There is plenty of talent to fill 25 slots, even after Cal Ripken gets a huge sentimental vote from a few million morons.

OTOH, I would not require the managers to pick at least one ballplayer from each team. Instead, the requirement would be at least one ballplayer from each team be represented in the other competitions the day before the all-star game, like homerun derby, or a future stars game. The NBA has implemented a similar all-star festivity with great success. The handful of Devil Dog fans can root for their guy vs. Shammy in HR derby.

:shammy
"You want a meaningless all-star game? I'm your man!"

The all-star game ought to mean something or there simply isn't a need to play it anymore. After all the whining following last summer's tied game, I would think playing this game to win would be a welcomed change.

It's a good change, Cheryl. Trust me on this. :smile:

Cheryl
01-17-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Personally, I prefer MLB leave the voting for starters with the fans and the reserves with the respective managers. There is plenty of talent to fill 25 slots, even after Cal Ripken gets a huge sentimental vote from a few million morons.

Until you or I are named baseball commissioner and put these rules into effect, the game is meaningless.


The all-star game ought to mean something or there simply isn't a need to play it anymore. After all the whining following last summer's tied game, I would think playing this game to win would be a welcomed change.

It's a good change, Cheryl. Trust me on this. :smile: [/B]

See above. It's meaningless the way it is staffed and played now. Giving the winning LEAGUE home field advantage for the TEAM that represents it in the Series cheapens the Series. It doesn't make the ASG any more interesting.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Until you or I are named baseball commissioner and put these rules into effect, the game is meaningless.

See above. It's meaningless the way it is staffed and played now. Giving the winning LEAGUE home field advantage for the TEAM that represents it in the Series cheapens the Series. It doesn't make the ASG any more interesting.

Actually, under the old rules, the LEAGUE was getting home-field advantage on a rotating basis. You can't get more arbitrary or cheap than that. That's a huge advantage assigned for no good reason at all. The new plan fixes this problem.

Assigning HFA by W-L record is what would truly be meaningless. Not only are you trying to compare two teams that played completely different schedules, in most instances they won't have a single opponent in common, either. Talk about apples and oranges...

As for whether the ASG is not interesting after implementing this change, we'll just have to wait and see. However, I guarantee the fans of the eventual league champion that plays Game 7 on the road will feel differently than you do. :cool:

idseer
01-17-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It's a great idea and puts meaning back into what had become a meaningless game.



it IS a meaningless game! it's an EXHIBITION!

it was never meant to have a bearing on major league baseball!

it's a stupid idea, created by stupid people. how anyone could think it's clever or smart to affect the actual major league baseball season with a random exhibition game is beyond belief.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by idseer
it IS a meaningless game! it's an EXHIBITION!

it was never meant to have a bearing on major league baseball!

it's a stupid idea, created by stupid people. how anyone could think it's clever or smart to affect the actual major league baseball season with a random exhibition game is beyond belief.

Careful now. All this name-calling is about to hurt my feelings. :smile:

But seriously, if you are right and the game "was never meant to have a bearing on major league baseball," your beef is not with me, but instead with all those fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee last July.

If the game "IS a meaningless game" and nothing more than "an EXHIBITION," nothing like what happened at the last ASG would ever have occured. Instead, after 11 innings, everybody would have gotten in their cars, driven home, and gone to bed. The next morning, they would all be back at work at the Briggs & Stratton plant doing what they do on any other pleasant summer day in Milwaukee--talk endlessly about the Packers, of course. :smile:

The fact is the ASG is NOT a meaningless exhibition to the fans. It's only MLB that has made it meaningless by the rules they enforce. Bravo to Selig and the owners for solving this problem!

:gulp:

voodoochile
01-17-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Careful now. All this name-calling is about to hurt my feelings. :smile:

But seriously, if you are right and the game "was never meant to have a bearing on major league baseball," your beef is not with me, but instead with all those fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee last July.

If the game "IS a meaningless game" and nothing more than "an EXHIBITION," nothing like what happened at the last ASG would ever have occured. Instead, after 11 innings, everybody would have gotten in their cars, driven home, and gone to bed. The next morning, they would all be back at work at the Briggs & Stratton plant doing what they do on any other pleasant summer day in Milwaukee--talk endlessly about the Packers, of course. :smile:

The fact is the ASG is NOT a meaningless exhibition to the fans. It's only MLB that has made it meaningless by the rules they enforce. Bravo to Selig and the owners for solving this problem!

:gulp:

Just because the fans don't want to pay $200/head to watch a baseball game end in a tie (?!??!??!) doesn't mean those same fans want to see the ASG decide HFA in the WS. It's not meaningless from a bragging perspective or from an entertainment perspective, but this is a whole different issue...

Paulwny
01-17-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It's only MLB that has made it meaningless by the rules they enforce. Bravo to Selig and the owners for solving this problem!


Agree, It's been a long time since I've watched an entire ASG. If it's passed by the player's union I'll look at the game differently.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Just because the fans don't want to pay $200/head to watch a baseball game end in a tie (?!??!??!) doesn't mean those same fans want to see the ASG decide HFA in the WS. It's not meaningless from a bragging perspective or from an entertainment perspective, but this is a whole different issue...

What are you getting at here? Do you think MLB should only charge $10 per ticket and let everyone pay to watch Shammy swing from his heels for three straight hours? That ain't gonna happen.

In fact, for them to charge $200 per ticket, MLB needs to offer more than a meaningless exhibition. All the trash littering the field in Milwaukee ought to make this obvious.

idseer
01-17-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Careful now. All this name-calling is about to hurt my feelings. :smile:

But seriously, if you are right and the game "was never meant to have a bearing on major league baseball," your beef is not with me, but instead with all those fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee last July.

If the game "IS a meaningless game" and nothing more than "an EXHIBITION," nothing like what happened at the last ASG would ever have occured. Instead, after 11 innings, everybody would have gotten in their cars, driven home, and gone to bed. The next morning, they would all be back at work at the Briggs & Stratton plant doing what they do on any other pleasant summer day in Milwaukee--talk endlessly about the Packers, of course. :smile:

The fact is the ASG is NOT a meaningless exhibition to the fans. It's only MLB that has made it meaningless by the rules they enforce. Bravo to Selig and the owners for solving this problem!

:gulp:

let's keep things in the proper context. the game is meaningless ... relative to the baseball season.

the game has a meaning of it's own, however. as much as any game has a meaning. league bragging rights for one.

but, for example would you consider spring training having a bearing on the world series? just because it involves playing baseball? of course not!

you seem to think switching home field from year to year is arbitrary and it may be to an extent. but it's the ONLY solution that's fair. as you say, you shouldn't go by record alone, they don't play each other.
i've never seen a complaint that there's a problem with the every other year solution. only an idiot (bud) would tamper with that simply to try and save face from his idiocy of last years all star game.
they are different animals, george, and shouldn't be in the same cage!

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by idseer
let's keep things in the proper context. the game is meaningless ... relative to the baseball season.

the game has a meaning of it's own, however. as much as any game has a meaning. league bragging rights for one.

but, for example would you consider spring training having a bearing on the world series? just because it involves playing baseball? of course not!

you seem to think switching home field from year to year is arbitrary and it may be to an extent. but it's the ONLY solution that's fair. as you say, you shouldn't go by record alone, they don't play each other.
i've never seen a complaint that there's a problem with the every other year solution. only an idiot (bud) would tamper with that simply to try and save face from his idiocy of last years all star game.
they are different animals, george, and shouldn't be in the same cage!

Historically, the two leagues never played one another except in the World Series and the all-star game. With the addition of inter-league play, that has changed. League bragging rights are now measured by which league won the most IL games, not just the all-star game.

The all-star game needs a role. If it is reduced to a meaningless exhibition (as it truly has become since 1997), then there really isn't much point in having a game at all. Like I said before, just have Shammy swing from his heels for 3 hours.

Paulwny
01-17-2003, 11:17 AM
The biggest reason for giving the ASG some meaning are the tv ratings which continue to drop. At 11pm, on the east coast, the game is turned off.

idseer
01-17-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


The all-star game needs a role. If it is reduced to a meaningless exhibition (as it truly has become since 1997), then there really isn't much point in having a game at all. Like I said before, just have Shammy swing from his heels for 3 hours.

the all star game HAS a role. to exhibit the best players in the game to fans who never get the chance to see them all. it's why they change cities every year. you say it hasn't meant anything since 1997? what did it mean in 1933? was there a point to playing it then?
it's NEVER meant anymore than what it was created for, and it shouldn't, in my strong opinion. it's not played by the same rules, it's not a selection of only the best players, they're managed by managers who usually would have a conflict of interest in how it would be played, you'd have certain team fans that would be cheated out of seeing THEIR hero's play because winning would become the only point.
i'm telling you george ... it would be to baseball's detriment if this change occurs.

idseer
01-17-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The biggest reason for giving the ASG some meaning are the tv ratings which continue to drop. At 11pm, on the east coast, the game is turned off.

and SCREW tv ratings! why should tv ratings have a bearing on how the game is played?

they thought 2 AS games in a season would be great for tv ratings too. see how long that lasted?

Paulwny
01-17-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by idseer
and SCREW tv ratings! why should tv ratings have a bearing on how the game is played?

they thought 2 AS games in a season would be great for tv ratings too. see how long that lasted?

TV rules all sports. If ratings continue to drop the game will end up on the Family Channel.
I believe the 2nd asg was played to shore up the players pension fund. It was never intended to be permanent.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
TV rules all sports. If ratings continue to drop the game will end up on the Family Channel.

I believe the 2nd asg was played to shore up the players pension fund. It was never intended to be permanent.

Yes, two all-star games were played simply to get the players' pension fund started. "Screw the TV ratings" is precisely how baseball ended up with playoff games on Family Channel, too. Now that MLB plays inter-league games, the ASG's old meaning has been stolen. Without change it surely would have end up on Family Channel, too.

Personally, I feel baseball is better off being watched by an audience larger than that which fits inside a phone booth. Of course I could be wrong.

:gulp:

voodoochile
01-17-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What are you getting at here? Do you think MLB should only charge $10 per ticket and let everyone pay to watch Shammy swing from his heels for three straight hours? That ain't gonna happen.

In fact, for them to charge $200 per ticket, MLB needs to offer more than a meaningless exhibition. All the trash littering the field in Milwaukee ought to make this obvious.

No, the price is okay - especially when it includes all the other festivities. That trash was because the game ended in a tie. No one wants a tie - less so in baseball which is NEVER supposed to end in a tie.

Don't confuse fans passion to be entertained (including the concept of one team actually winning) by a meaningless exhibition with their desire to make it MORE than a meaningless exhibition.

Wonder what the polls are saying about whether the fans like this idea or not...

moochpuppy
01-17-2003, 11:57 AM
Both the old rule (rotating years between AL and NL) and the new rule (the league that wins the All-star game) are completely idiotic. Why not just give home field to the team in the world series with the best record? DUH!!

Here's to baseball for dimishing their regular season games even more than they are. The braintrust in major league baseball is non-existent.


:jauron

"And you guys think I don't know what I'm doing?"

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
No, the price is okay - especially when it includes all the other festivities. That trash was because the game ended in a tie. No one wants a tie - less so in baseball which is NEVER supposed to end in a tie.

Don't confuse fans passion to be entertained (including the concept of one team actually winning) by a meaningless exhibition with their desire to make it MORE than a meaningless exhibition.

Wonder what the polls are saying about whether the fans like this idea or not...

YES! And meaningless exhibitions end in ties all the time. Look no further than spring training games in Arizona and Florida for proof.

But the all-star game isn't a meaningless exhibition. The fans want it to mean something. That's been my point all along. Thankfully, Selig and the owners recognize this, too. How uncharacteristic of them to actually DO SOMETHING to fix it!

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
Both the old rule (rotating years between AL and NL) and the new rule (the league that wins the All-star game) are completely idiotic. Why not just give home field to the team in the world series with the best record? DUH!!

Here's to baseball for dimishing their regular season games even more than they are. The braintrust in major league baseball is non-existent.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges by looking at W-L records between the two league champions. Not only do these teams play entirely different schedules, they probably don't have a single opponent in common, either. Talk about idiotic!

This isn't about cheapening the regular season. It has no effect on the regular season at all. This is about bringing meaning to what had become a meaningless exhibition. Assigning HFA in an arbitrary way (rotating year to year) is what is really stupid. That's a huge advantage neither league champion was earning.

Iwritecode
01-17-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
YES! And meaningless exhibitions end in ties all the time. Look no further than spring training games in Arizona and Florida for proof.

But the all-star game isn't a meaningless exhibition. The fans want it to mean something. That's been my point all along. Thankfully, Selig and the owners recognize this, too. How uncharacteristic of them to actually DO SOMETHING to fix it!

Actually, they haven't done a single thing to fix the problem. What happens if this year's ASG ends in a tie? Don't tell me it can't happen because it's still entirely possible. The game could go 100 innings without a winner. It's highly unlikely but still possible. Baseball is unlike any other major american sport in that it has no time limit. What they need to do is take the possibility out entirely. Like have a home-run derby or something like that after so many innings. Even that isn't the best idea but it's better than what Bud came up with...

voodoochile
01-17-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
YES! And meaningless exhibitions end in ties all the time. Look no further than spring training games in Arizona and Florida for proof.

But the all-star game isn't a meaningless exhibition. The fans want it to mean something. That's been my point all along. Thankfully, Selig and the owners recognize this, too. How uncharacteristic of them to actually DO SOMETHING to fix it!

Again, we are not communicating well. The game is only a meaningless exhibition because of what it means to the standings, records, etc. It is not a meaningless exhibition to the fans who want to see the stars come out and play each other. They want to watch ShamME launch rocket shots and Randy Johnson throw behind John Kruk's head.

They want the pagentry and joy of a feel good party in the middle of the season before the pennant race heats up - at least I do. That is enough. It doesn't have to have meaning beyond the actual moment/game itself for it to be a huge fan favorite.

Besides, I still think there is too much opportunity for one guy to take out his grudge on an opposing player/team by serving up a gopher ball or "losing one in the lights" and thus cost the opponent a chance to have HFA. You don't think some players from Boston would love to stick it to the Yankees?

idseer
01-17-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually, they haven't done a single thing to fix the problem. What happens if this year's ASG ends in a tie? Don't tell me it can't happen because it's still entirely possible. The game could go 100 innings without a winner. It's highly unlikely but still possible. Baseball is unlike any other major american sport in that it has no time limit. What they need to do is take the possibility out entirely. Like have a home-run derby or something like that after so many innings. Even that isn't the best idea but it's better than what Bud came up with...

or just draw straws.

the best solution is to leave it alone and stop over-reacting to one stupid AS game that both managers and bud the dud
messed up.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually, they haven't done a single thing to fix the problem. What happens if this year's ASG ends in a tie? Don't tell me it can't happen because it's still entirely possible. The game could go 100 innings without a winner. It's highly unlikely but still possible. Baseball is unlike any other major american sport in that it has no time limit. What they need to do is take the possibility out entirely. Like have a home-run derby or something like that after so many innings. Even that isn't the best idea but it's better than what Bud came up with...

I would LOVVVVVVE to see the all-star game picked up after 14 innings on the following evening. Talk about ratings! This would become one of the truly epic baseball games in the history of the sport, right up there with Larson's no-hitter and "The Giants Win the Pennant! The Giants Win the Pennant!" Nobody would have a beef with playing in THAT game.

For guys who play on lousy teams (a pair of ballclubs from a city in the Midwest come to mind), this would almost certainly be the highlight of their ENTIRE career.

Believe me, what you're concerned about is NOT a problem. It's an opportunity .

moochpuppy
01-17-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You're trying to compare apples and oranges by looking at W-L records between the two league champions. Not only do these teams play entirely different schedules, they probably don't have a single opponent in common, either. Talk about idiotic!

This isn't about cheapening the regular season. It has no effect on the regular season at all. This is about bringing meaning to what had become a meaningless exhibition. Assigning HFA in an arbitrary way (rotating year to year) is what is really stupid. That's a huge advantage neither league champion was earning.

They would have common opponents if they are both playing each others division in interleague play. Why should a team that dominates their league during the regular season with say 101 wins lose out to a team with 90 wins based on it's league's All-stars?? That makes no sense.

Not to mention that players take the All-Star game as a recreation game, kind of like a celebrity softball game. Why on earth would some of these players go all out in a game and risk injury and sacrifice the rest of his season and perhaps his teams season? Also, if a certain player has an incentive laden contract, why would he risk injury for his league to have homefield advantage of one game and not be able to meet his goals for the season (I'm not saying this last scenario is right but you know some players are going to be like that).

This decision has solved nothing.

Cheryl
01-17-2003, 12:56 PM
The fans want it to mean something.

Not this one. I don't mind the break between season halves, but I don't care, have never cared, will (probably) never care about the all popularity game.

moochpuppy
01-17-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Not this one. I don't mind the break between season halves, but I don't care, have never cared, will (probably) never care about the all popularity game.

I can't even remember the last one I watched. Maybe 1983, last time at Comiskey. I'll watch it this season only because it's again at Comiskey.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 01:06 PM
They would have common opponents if they are both playing each others division in interleague play. Why should a team that dominates their league during the regular season with say 101 wins lose out to a team with 90 wins based on it's league's All-stars?? That makes no sense.

Umm... two out of three divisions don't play one another. Furthermore, the leagues themselves play entirely different schedules. How can you possibly determine which team is superior? You might as well assign HFA to the team that had the better AAA affiliate. They play a schedule in separate leagues, too.

Not to mention that players take the All-Star game as a recreation game, kind of like a celebrity softball game. Why on earth would some of these players go all out in a game and risk injury and sacrifice the rest of his season and perhaps his teams season?

Well sure, if nothing is at stake (and nothing has been since 1997), why wouldn't the players treat it like a recreation game? The fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee didn't see it that way.

Also, if a certain player has an incentive laden contract, why would he risk injury for his league to have homefield advantage of one game and not be able to meet his goals for the season (I'm not saying this last scenario is right but you know some players are going to be like that

Players who choose to sit the game out get what they deserve. I remember Frank Thomas getting raked over the coals pretty badly simply for leaving an ASG early. Imagine the hell he would catch if the game had meaning!

This decision has solved nothing.

Actually, doing nothing solves nothing. A game that certainly was destined for the Family Channel has been spared and given a whole new lease on life. Why any baseball fan would complain about this isn't clear to me.

WinningUgly!
01-17-2003, 01:12 PM
It's nice to see Bud trying to put some meaning into the All Star game, but that's just not what it is intended for. It's about letting the fans see some combination of the best/most popular players (stars) in the game.

I would say awarding World Series HFA to the league with the better overall record in interleague play makes a hell of a lot more sense. This way, at least it is based on regular season games.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
It's nice to see Bud trying to put some meaning into the All Star game, but that's just not what it is intended for. It's about letting the fans see some combination of the best/most popular players (stars) in the game.

I would say awarding World Series HFA to the league with the better overall record in interleague play makes a hell of a lot more sense. This way, at least it is based on regular season games.

Not to dispute your reasoning, but how does any of this help the all-star game? More specifically, how would you prevent the ASG from ending up on the Family Channel? There is little doubt that is precisely where it was going to end up. The last bit of meaning had already been drawn from it once MLB started playing inter-league games.

Selig and the owners have addressed the problem. As a fan, I see the value of their solution.

LineShot
01-17-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by idseer
or just draw straws.

the best solution is to leave it alone and stop over-reacting to one stupid AS game that both managers and bud the dud
messed up.

Amen, last year's tie was most likely a once-in-a-lifetime anomaly that obviously wasn't handled well since the situation had never come up before! Can't we all relax about this? Come off it about all this "the game needs to mean something..." "the players don't care..." talk. Ok, what happens if this year's ASG gets rained out? (it's happened before I believe) Then what? Flip a coin?
I know baseball's popularity is going down relative to the other sports, but these are the ideas of a desperate man trying to salvage his "legacy".

idseer
01-17-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

... Well sure, if nothing is at stake (and nothing has been since 1997), ...

what am i missing here? what was at stake in the all star game in 1997 .... or an previous year?

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
I can't even remember the last one I watched. Maybe 1983, last time at Comiskey. I'll watch it this season only because it's again at Comiskey.

Fair enough. After years of watching meaningless all-star games, you and Cheryl have soured on even watching meaningful ones. Your beef isn't with the new ASG arrangement. You're simply holding a grudge from the previous format.

It's a shame baseball didn't act sooner to prevent fans like you from abandoning what should have been a great mid-summer event.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by idseer
what am i missing here? what was at stake in the all star game in 1997 .... or an previous year?

Before 1997, the only time the A.L. and N.L. met was the all-star game and the World Series. That's what made the ASG unique and "the mid-summer classic." It was played for league bragging rights.

Inter-league games changed that. Now the newpapers publish the W-L record between the leagues. Bragging rights go to the winner of that competition. A single ASG can never compete for relevance against the 400+ inter-league games played each summer.

:shammy
"Wha choo meen? Da fans, they luv to see me hit da jorons!"

:)

Iwritecode
01-17-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I would LOVVVVVVE to see the all-star game picked up after 14 innings on the following evening. Talk about ratings! This would become one of the truly epic baseball games in the history of the sport, right up there with Larson's no-hitter and "The Giants Win the Pennant! The Giants Win the Pennant!" Nobody would have a beef with playing in THAT game.

For guys who play on lousy teams (a pair of ballclubs from a city in the Midwest come to mind), this would almost certainly be the highlight of their ENTIRE career.

Believe me, what you're concerned about is NOT a problem. It's an opportunity .

Then why didn't they do that last year then?

Iwritecode
01-17-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Before 1997, the only time the A.L. and N.L. met was the all-star game and the World Series. That's what made the ASG unique and "the mid-summer classic." It was played for league bragging rights.

Inter-league games changed that. Now the newpapers publish the W-L record between the leagues. Bragging rights go to the winner of that competition. A single ASG can never compete for relevance against the 400+ inter-league games played each summer.


I don't think inter-league play makes the ASG meaningless. That's like saying the NBA all-star game is meaningless because everyone plays everyone else at least once. Personally, I don't know why baseball doesn't do this. The though of playing Cleveland, KC, Detroit and Minnesota 80+ times this year and the Yankees only once is rather boring IMO. The other way we would at least get a true measure of how good the team really is...

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by LineShot
...Ok, what happens if this year's ASG gets rained out? (it's happened before I believe) Then what? Flip a coin?
I know baseball's popularity is going down relative to the other sports, but these are the ideas of a desperate man trying to salvage his "legacy".

Oh, for crying out loud! Rainouts do occur, you know. It's never ruined the season to deal with them. God gave you a brain. Try using it.

Here are four possible solutions I can think of right off the top of my head.

1. Play the frickin' game the next day. It's always an off day.
2. Two consecutive rainouts in the middle of July, the hottest driest month of the year? Play the game the day after that, and push back any regular season games till later in the season.
3. Play the game in the rain. I've seen it done practically every May at Comiskey in far colder temperatures.
4. Cancel the all-star game, refund all the money, and award HFA to the league that hit the most homeruns in the previous day's homerun derby.

I'm betting a million dollars the owners figure out a solution without ever implementing option #4.

:)

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Then why didn't they do that last year then?

Beats me. I don't disagree with others who think Selig is a dope. He missed a golden opportunity to make a truly memorable all-star game.

Union work rules is the best excuse I can imagine for Selig's actions.

WinningUgly!
01-17-2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Not to dispute your reasoning, but how does any of this help the all-star game? More specifically, how would you prevent the ASG from ending up on the Family Channel? There is little doubt that is precisely where it was going to end up. The last bit of meaning had already been drawn from it once MLB started playing inter-league games.

Selig and the owners have addressed the problem. As a fan, I see the value of their solution.

I'm not sure what can be done to juice up the All Star Game enough to boost ratings...Land mines in the outfield? :D:

I just don't like the idea of the outcome of a meaningless exhibition game effecting any team's chances in the post season. The World Series is the ultimate goal. Bud & Co. should be more worried about what the right way is to award WS HFA. Having undeserving guys like Robert Fick, etc. playing a role in determining it is just wrong. Next we'll be having Divisional All Star games to see who gets HFA in the early rounds of the postseason.

Cheryl
01-17-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Fair enough. After years of watching meaningless all-star games, you and Cheryl have soured on even watching meaningful ones. Your beef isn't with the new ASG arrangement. You're simply holding a grudge from the previous format.

It's a shame baseball didn't act sooner to prevent fans like you from abandoning what should have been a great mid-summer event.

To clarify---I can't tell you the last time I watched an all start game. Maybe never. It's not interesting. It wasn't interesting when people who knew something picked the teams, it's less interesting now fans pick 'em.

voodoochile
01-17-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
To clarify---I can't tell you the last time I watched an all start game. Maybe never. It's not interesting. It wasn't interesting when people who knew something picked the teams, it's less interesting now fans pick 'em.

I also don't think this will punch up the ratings that much. The game won't necessarily become more intense, because half the guys on the field won't give a crap (there team floundering along in the bottom half of their division). In addition, I don't think Joe Public is going to pay more attention to the game, merely the outcome. They'll read about it at the breakfast table the next day and say, "Oh, the NL gets HFA in the WS, okay." Only the diehards will care and they already watch the game.

Might be a blip more interest, but it isn't suddenly going to turn the ASG into a ratings monster and the potential problems, IMO outweigh the potential gain...

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Again, we are not communicating well.

To the contrary, I think we're communicating great! :smile:

The game is only a meaningless exhibition because of what it means to the standings, records, etc. It is not a meaningless exhibition to the fans who want to see the stars come out and play each other. They want to watch ShamME launch rocket shots and Randy Johnson throw behind John Kruk's head.

I agree. In fact, everyone in Milwaukee was having a great time right up until Selig called the game a tie. Obviously that's a key ingredient missed that the fans were expecting.

They want the pagentry and joy of a feel good party in the middle of the season before the pennant race heats up - at least I do. That is enough. It doesn't have to have meaning beyond the actual moment/game itself for it to be a huge fan favorite.

Well, I can only say that several thousand fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee would beg to differ on your point of view.

Besides, I still think there is too much opportunity for one guy to take out his grudge on an opposing player/team by serving up a gopher ball or "losing one in the lights" and thus cost the opponent a chance to have HFA. You don't think some players from Boston would love to stick it to the Yankees?

I think you greatly underestimate the competitive nature of these athletes. They got to the big leagues by making themselves into the very best at what they do. Having been selected for the honor of playing in the ASG, I don't for a minute believe anyone on the field would deliberately make themselves into the game's goat simply to stick it to another team that may or may not become the league champion. Remember--the ASG is played 3 months BEFORE the first of three rounds of playoffs.

I don't believe anybody playing in last year's ASG had any clue the Angels would be eventual champions, nor do I think they would tank the game just to get even with another team they thought might win it. If anything, there is far greater opportunity for teams or players tanking games during the regular season when most teams are already playing meaningless games by the time August 1 rolls around.

:shammy
"My teammates are playing meaningless games far earlier than that. May 1 is about right, but that's no problem for me. Hitting zingers is all I'm about anyway."

:hitless
"I always play to win. I set a fielding record that will probably stand forever. And my momma loves me, too."

:)

voodoochile
01-17-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
...
Well, I can only say that several thousand fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee would beg to differ on your point of view.
...


I'd have been throwing crap right along with them - doesn't mean I want to see the game have meaning beyond that game itself, merely means I want that game to have a winner like ALL baseball games do...

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I also don't think this will punch up the ratings that much. The game won't necessarily become more intense, because half the guys on the field won't give a crap (there team floundering along in the bottom half of their division). In addition, I don't think Joe Public is going to pay more attention to the game, merely the outcome. They'll read about it at the breakfast table the next day and say, "Oh, the NL gets HFA in the WS, okay." Only the diehards will care and they already watch the game.

Might be a blip more interest, but it isn't suddenly going to turn the ASG into a ratings monster and the potential problems, IMO outweigh the potential gain...

The real difference will be how the managers use the ballplayers. Rather than simply try to get everyone into the game (aka, a meaningless exhibition), they'll make moves in hopes of improving their chances to win.

The difference in the quality of play ought to be obvious to practically anyone. Even casual football fans can see the difference between watching the Pro Bowl and the Super Bowl (to cite just one example).

Let's wait to see if your prediction about continued declines in TV ratings holds true. Fox was a huge supporter of the move, and it's their business to know what drives TV ratings. :cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I'd have been throwing crap right along with them - doesn't mean I want to see the game have meaning beyond that game itself, merely means I want that game to have a winner like ALL baseball games do...

Have you ever attended a spring training game in Arizona or Florida? Did you throw trash and call sports blab radio stations for days afterwards complaining about the tie you just witnessed?

:)

idseer
01-17-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



I think you greatly underestimate the competitive nature of these athletes. They got to the big leagues by making themselves into the very best at what they do. Having been selected for the honor of playing in the ASG, I don't for a minute believe anyone on the field would deliberately make themselves into the game's goat simply to stick it to another team that may or may not become the league champion. Remember--the ASG is played 3 months BEFORE the first of three rounds of playoffs.


this is the only part of this subject i agree with you on. i don't believe the individual players see the yankee/boston competition quite the same as the fans do, and i doubt they would take the chance of dogging it or hurting their own numbers.

that being said ... it's STILL a stupid idea.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by idseer
...that being said ... it's STILL a stupid idea.

id, I'm glad I brought you around to my way of thinking! :D:

idseer
01-17-2003, 04:51 PM
i've tried posting a poll about this but i must be doing something wrong.
how about someone doing so so we can see what the opinions are about this?

vegyrex
01-17-2003, 05:18 PM
I don't like this plan at all. It seems more logical to have the team with the best record have HFA.
But who said Selig and logic go to together. :smile:

Daver
01-17-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex

But who said Selig and logic go to together.

Calling Bud Selig an idiot would be an insult to idiots world wide.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex
I don't like this plan at all. It seems more logical to have the team with the best record have HFA.

I covered this exact point at least four times in this thread. There is NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER in awarding HFA based on comparing two incomparable W-L records. Please re-read.

The A.L. champion and the N.L. champion play in different leagues against different opponents. You would have better luck comparing the superior merits of an apple versus an orange. It's specious and without foundation to draw such conclusions.

gogosoxgogo
01-17-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I covered this exact point at least four times in this thread. There is NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER in awarding HFA based on comparing two incomparable W-L records. Please re-read.

The A.L. champion and the N.L. champion play in different leagues against different opponents. You would have better luck comparing the superior merits of an apple versus an orange. It's specious and without foundation to draw such conclusions.

You should just create a new thread and stick it with this point. I'm getting tired of reading it as I know you are of typing it. :D:

idseer
01-17-2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I covered this exact point at least four times in this thread. There is NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER in awarding HFA based on comparing two incomparable W-L records. Please re-read.

The A.L. champion and the N.L. champion play in different leagues against different opponents. You would have better luck comparing the superior merits of an apple versus an orange. It's specious and without foundation to draw such conclusions.

oh please! the orange beats the apple all to hell. everyone knows this. :cool:

Daver
01-17-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by idseer
oh please! the orange beats the apple all to hell. everyone knows this. :cool:

Why is it always apples and oranges?

Why can't it be pears and apricots?


:)

Iwritecode
01-17-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree. In fact, everyone in Milwaukee was having a great time right up until Selig called the game a tie. Obviously that's a key ingredient missed that the fans were expecting.

Well, I can only say that several thousand fans throwing trash on the field in Milwaukee would beg to differ on your point of view.


George, you're missing the big picture here. Everyone was having a good time until they realized that Bud was there. Then they started throwing garbage at him. Just because some of it landed on the field is secondary. You didn't really expect all that garbage to make it all the way across the field did you?

BTW, I still stand by my opinion that yes, maybe the managers will play the game differently (like not trying to get every single player in the game) and play to win but the problem that a tie is still possible still exists. They really need to take away that possiblity altogether somehow...

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by daver
Why is it always apples and oranges?

Why can't it be pears and apricots?


Or for that matter, estrus scent and urine scent?

:)

Lip Man 1
01-17-2003, 11:23 PM
I stop caring about the All Star Game a VERY long time ago because it is nothing but a popularity contest.

When the best players, regardless of team affiliation go and when the fans are held to a "one person -one vote" only rule, then I'll give a damn again.

When teams hand out stacks of ballots to fans imploring them to vote a hundred times (or three thousand times like that goofball who did that for Nomar) that's wrong.

Lip

ode to veeck
01-18-2003, 08:25 AM
PHG: This isn't the NFL. We're talking about a 162 game schedule here. HFA based on a meaningless comparision of W-L record is worse than awarding wild-card berths to teams playing unbalanced schedules.That's beyond illogical; it's insane.

But then again, this is baseball, and Bud Selig is baseball's Don King in broken hammer clothing

Paulwny
01-18-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
I'm not sure what can be done to juice up the All Star Game enough to boost ratings...Land mines in the outfield? :D:


Yankmee fans, especially in NYC, will keep viewing the game after 11pm. They'll assume that the outcome effects the yankmees ws sched.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-18-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
BTW, I still stand by my opinion that yes, maybe the managers will play the game differently (like not trying to get every single player in the game) and play to win but the problem that a tie is still possible still exists. They really need to take away that possiblity altogether somehow...

Now that MLB has agreed to make the all-star game more than a meaningless exhibition, they need to address a lot of questions that weren't important enough to worry about when the game was strictly for league bragging rights.

Tied games should not be a problem. Treat ASG ties like any other meaningful game. Play until you have a winner. If necessary, pick up the game the next day (it's always an off day). If you want, let the manager re-cycle players every 11 innings. The game will not end in a tie.

Please note, Selig's options in Milwaukee last year were limited specifically because the game was meaningless. To keep playing would simply tire the players and push back everyone's timetable to rejoin their teams. There was no reason for dragging it out.

BUT NOW THERE IS A REASON! A huge advantage in the World Series is at stake. Not only do you get to play four games at home, you force your opponent to get by with a makeshift lineup they didn't use during the regular season. Remember--the DH only gets used in A.L. ballparks. This is probably the biggest reason HFA is so important in the World Series. Not only do you get to play in a familiar venue, the rules of the game favor your team, too!

The managers and ballplayers know that HFA is worth playing for. Fans will get an all-star game worth watching for the full effort they give to winning the game.

Problem solved, IWC!

:gulp:

Daver
01-18-2003, 08:00 PM
Even if the MLBPA doesn't vote it down,which I am sure they will,the whole plan will get dropped the minute a player suffers a career ending injury from playing in the All-Star game.

Plain and simple it is a dumb and poorly thought out idea designed not to help baseball,but to help The Spineless Wonder try to increase his public image,which at the moment remains lower than whale poop.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-18-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by daver
Even if the MLBPA doesn't vote it down,which I am sure they will,the whole plan will get dropped the minute a player suffers a career ending injury from playing in the All-Star game.

Plain and simple it is a dumb and poorly thought out idea designed not to help baseball,but to help The Spineless Wonder try to increase his public image,which at the moment remains lower than whale poop.

MLBPA chief Don Fehr has been quoted as not nearly so down on the idea as you and others have characterized. In fact, he admits they've been talking about such an arrangement for several years. Tom Glavine has whined, but given his team's lousy performances in October, he's hardly a disinterested bystander. As for Sandy Alomar, Jr.'s opinion, trust me when I say he's got nothing to worry about.

:gulp:

Dadawg_77
01-19-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
In fact, there is a good chance they didn't have a single opponent in common.

There is accutally 100% chance that they have a common opponent. Just there isn't enough game to base anything on.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-19-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
There is accutally 100% chance that they have a common opponent. Just there isn't enough game to base anything on.

2 out of 3 divisions don't play each other. For example, the '02 Sox missed all the N.L. teams (except the Flubs) that play in the Central and West divisions.

Yes, the Sox played the N.L. East, and the N.L. East played the N.L. Central and West, but what is the point of measuring this? We're hearing arguments for awarding HFA based directly on each champion's W-L record. That's NOT what you're talking about.

idseer
01-19-2003, 05:09 PM
i don't think a THING should be changed!

however, in my opinion, giving home field advantage to the team with the best record beats out giving it to the all star game winner just about 20 to 1!

having no common opponents is not nearly so outragious as you try to make it appear. all baseball talent comes from the same place. the best teams in the nl would also be the best teams in the al and vice versa.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-19-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i don't think a THING should be changed!

however, in my opinion, giving home field advantage to the team with the best record beats out giving it to the all star game winner just about 20 to 1!

having no common opponents is not nearly so outragious as you try to make it appear. all baseball talent comes from the same place. the best teams in the nl would also be the best teams in the al and vice versa.

Not to argue your logic, but how would you KNOW one team deserves HFA over the other? As it is, MLB is awarding playoff spots to wild-card teams that "won" the right playing schedules vastly different to other deserving teams in their own league . Now you want to stretch this even further to teams that play in completely different leagues, too?

Thankfully, this isn't going to happen. Let the league earn HFA for its champion. At least its based on objective results and not a fairytale.

idseer
01-19-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Not to argue your logic, but how would you KNOW one team deserves HFA over the other? As it is, MLB is awarding playoff spots to wild-card teams that "won" the right playing schedules vastly different to other deserving teams in their own league . Now you want to stretch this even further to teams that play in completely different leagues, too?

Thankfully, this isn't going to happen. Let the league earn HFA for its champion. At least its based on objective results and not a fairytale.

you ask, how do you know one deserves it over the other?
i ask, how does one game comprised of players MOSTLY not in the world series make you more deserving? it's ludicrous to think THAT might be a more valuable indicator than the best won/loss record in an entire season.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-19-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by idseer
you ask, how do you know one deserves it over the other?
i ask, how does one game comprised of players MOSTLY not in the world series make you more deserving? it's ludicrous to think THAT might be a more valuable indicator than the best won/loss record in an entire season.

Look, it's the LEAGUE that controls HFA, not the team. It's been like this since the World Series began 100 years ago. The LEAGUE received HFA which is a huge advantage now that the DH is only used in A.L. ballparks. The LEAGUE received this advantage for no good reason besides it was simply their turn in rotation.

Sure, comparing W-L records within your own league is very valuable. However, it is far, far from being an absolute measure. That's because even within leagues, every team plays certain teams more than others. It's an unbalanced schedule, and we're simply taking on faith that the second-place team in the East division isn't a better team than the West's runner-up. NOBODY KNOWS who the best wild-card team is. We can't know. The games were never played.

If you choose to believe you know which team, playing an unbalanced schedule, comprised largely of mutually exclusive opponents, has earned the right to HFA, more power to you. You have no foundation for such an assumption besides blind faith in a W-L record that by definition cannot be measured equally. Furthermore, it's NEVER been done this way in 100 years of baseball. That's because the LEAGUE earned HFA, not the team. Under Selig's plan, the LEAGUE will still earn HFA, but now they'll actually DO SOMETHING to earn it, not just get it served to them on a silver platter.

I think it's time we stop and recognize who here is truly making the radical assumptions. It's not me.

idseer
01-19-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Look, it's the LEAGUE that controls HFA, not the team. It's been like this since the World Series began 100 years ago. The LEAGUE received HFA which is a huge advantage now that the DH is only used in A.L. ballparks. The LEAGUE received this advantage for no good reason besides it was simply their turn in rotation.

Sure, comparing W-L records within your own league is very valuable. However, it is far, far from being an absolute measure. That's because even within leagues, every team plays certain teams more than others. It's an unbalanced schedule, and we're simply taking on faith that the second-place team in the East division isn't a better team than the West's runner-up. NOBODY KNOWS who the best wild-card team is. We can't know. The games were never played.

If you choose to believe you know which team, playing an unbalanced schedule, comprised largely of mutually exclusive opponents, has earned the right to HFA, more power to you. You have no foundation for such an assumption besides blind faith in a W-L record that by definition cannot be measured equally. Furthermore, it's NEVER been done this way in 100 years of baseball. That's because the LEAGUE earned HFA, not the team. Under Selig's plan, the LEAGUE will still earn HFA, but now they'll actually DO SOMETHING to earn it, not just get it served to them on a silver platter.

I think it's time we stop and recognize who here is truly making the radical assumptions. It's not me.

i'm not making any assumptions. as i stated numerous times, i think they shouldn't do anything different than what they've been doing. i only said it made more sense to go by won & loss record (at least that's something tangible) than an exhibition game. alternating may not be perfect but it's a heck of a lot better than that! even after all the hoopla the nfl goes thru to decide playoff spots ... the last resort is a flip of the coin. and i think that makes sense.
admitting there is no good way (because of playing schedules, dh, etc.) to decide, it only makes sense that it comes down to alternating leagues.

obviously we're not going to agree here so ....... let's just :gulp:

PaleHoseGeorge
01-19-2003, 09:53 PM
i'm not making any assumptions. as i stated numerous times, i think they shouldn't do anything different than what they've been doing. i only said it made more sense to go by won & loss record (at least that's something tangible) than an exhibition game. alternating may not be perfect but it's a heck of a lot better than that! even after all the hoopla the nfl goes thru to decide playoff spots ... the last resort is a flip of the coin. and i think that makes sense.

I suppose a coin flip would be fine, but the results wouldn't be any different (in the long run) than simply rotating it between leagues year to year. However characterizing the new all-star game as "an exhibition" simply isn't correct anymore. From now on it will be played to win. Personally, I think it's pretty exciting. We've never seen anything quite like it before.

admitting there is no good way (because of playing schedules, dh, etc.) to decide, it only makes sense that it comes down to alternating leagues.

If MLB were to stick with the status quo, the all-star game would continue to fade and eventually end up extinct or on the Family Channel. At least under Selig's plan, the league earns its HFA and the all-star game becomes a relevant event to watch again.

obviously we're not going to agree here so ....... let's just :gulp:

I've got a head start on you!

:gulp: :gulp:

idseer
01-20-2003, 11:54 AM
a post from the espn boards:

"If they wanted to play for something meaningful in the All-Star game, they should set up a Bud Selig Dunk Tank, with the winning team getting the tosses."


i think this is a fair tradeoff. :D: