PDA

View Full Version : Idea for all-star managers


downstairs
07-12-2007, 03:41 PM
After the Tony LaRussa issue, and other issues with managers "saving players for the regular season"... I got to thinking.

Why not have a non-manager manage each team during the all star game? Maybe give them incentive to win, too (money, something, I don't know).

Maybe an old-time, retired manager? Hall of famer? Minor League manager? Some special personality like an announcer (the key being, of course, that they're not associated with a team, so that may not work).

That way, they'd play the game like it really means something. Sure, you gotta get a lot of players in there- but they're all all-stars.

How much you want to bet that Albert would have been in there in the 7th... if not earlier... and played a ton of innings?

MeteorsSox4367
07-12-2007, 03:55 PM
After the Tony LaRussa issue, and other issues with managers "saving players for the regular season"... I got to thinking.

Why not have a non-manager manage each team during the all star game? Maybe give them incentive to win, too (money, something, I don't know).

Maybe an old-time, retired manager? Hall of famer? Minor League manager?

How about Bevington?

Domeshot17
07-12-2007, 04:09 PM
I just never liked the idea of a manager getting to control his rival players. It most likely will never happen, but what would stop Leyland from throwing Jenks 8 innings. One day something dumb like that will happen, leaving a pitcher in too long, putting a player out of position

southside rocks
07-12-2007, 04:12 PM
Dude, I'm available ...
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:mOzChKOK5P8eHM:http://www.autographedtoyou.com/celebpics/dusty_baker5.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.autographedtoyou.com/celebpics/dusty_baker5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/sleeplessinseattle/Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim/27864&h=360&w=288&sz=110&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=mOzChKOK5P8eHM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddusty%2Bbaker%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10% 26hl%3Den)

voodoochile
07-12-2007, 04:14 PM
I just never liked the idea of a manager getting to control his rival players. It most likely will never happen, but what would stop Leyland from throwing Jenks 8 innings. One day something dumb like that will happen, leaving a pitcher in too long, putting a player out of position

Well, there's a 3-inning limit on pitchers in the AS game, so your example cannot happen.

Domeshot17
07-12-2007, 04:42 PM
Well, there's a 3-inning limit on pitchers in the AS game, so your example cannot happen.

Good call completely forgot about that sorry

TDog
07-12-2007, 06:10 PM
For what it's worth, Bob Gibson hated pitching in All-Star games.

There is a balance between getting players into the game and playing to win. Before there was a three-inning limit on pitchers in the All-Star Game, Lefty Gomez pitched six and Mel Harder three in the 1935 All-Star Game that the American League obviously wanted to win. The next year, Gomez pitched the first three and Harder finished, but the runs allowed in the middle three by Schoolboy Rowe proved the difference in the NL win. Even three innings was too much pithing for Dizzy Dean, whose effectiveness was diminished by a line drive that broke one of his toes in the 1937 All-Star Game.

This year, as in 2005, Tony LaRussa had incentive to win the game, coming off a World Series in which he didn't have the home-field advantage. He didn't snub a player from another team in sending up Rowand to hit. He passed over one of his own players. Aaron Rowand is having a great season. If he is pulled for a pinch-hitter and the the NL loses, LaRussa made a bad move no matter who he put up to hit. If the NL doesn't tie the game in the ninth, LaRussa will get blamed for the moves no matter who he sends up to hit.

If the fans had voted Albert Puljos to start, this wouldn't be an issue. He probably would have come out after the third inning.

thomas35forever
07-12-2007, 08:27 PM
Bad idea in my opinion.

WhiteSoxJunkie
07-12-2007, 08:37 PM
Haven't they done something similar with coaches that weren't managing? I remember in 2001 Tommy Lasorda was the 3rd base coach (he was hit by a flying bat). And that game was in Seattle so it's not like it was LA and they decided to honor him.

Gavin
07-13-2007, 12:47 AM
This year, it counts!

Does it though?

Apparently they used to play two games... at least that's what my dad told me.

Nellie_Fox
07-13-2007, 01:08 AM
Apparently they used to play two games... at least that's what my dad told me.They only did that for a few years in the late 50's, early 60's. It didn't last long.

soxfanreggie
07-13-2007, 01:14 AM
Hmmm...3 inning limit...doe that mean if it goes like...20 innings, they will start bringing in fielder to pitch. You have to figure if it goes extras, you've already used a bunch of pitchers. I don't think it would ever go that far, but it would be interesting to see.

chaerulez
07-13-2007, 01:19 AM
For what it's worth, Bob Gibson hated pitching in All-Star games.

There is a balance between getting players into the game and playing to win. Before there was a three-inning limit on pitchers in the All-Star Game, Lefty Gomez pitched six and Mel Harder three in the 1935 All-Star Game that the American League obviously wanted to win. The next year, Gomez pitched the first three and Harder finished, but the runs allowed in the middle three by line drive that broke one of his toes in the 1937 All-Star Game.

This year, as in 2005, Tony LaRussa had incentive to win the game, coming off a World Series in which he didn't have the home-field advantage. He Schoolboy Rowe proved the difference in the NL win. Even three innings was too much pithing for Dizzy Dean, whose effectiveness was diminished by a didn't snub a player from another team in sending up Rowand to hit. He passed over one of his own players. Aaron Rowand is having a great season. If he is pulled for a pinch-hitter and the the NL loses, LaRussa made a bad move no matter who he put up to hit. If the NL doesn't tie the game in the ninth, LaRussa will get blamed for the moves no matter who he sends up to hit.

If the fans had voted Albert Puljos to start, this wouldn't be an issue. He probably would have come out after the third inning.

Well even back to the 60's and 70's the ASG was still a pride thing. Those teams truly wanted to win to maintain that the league they played for was the best. Now with more trades and free agency there isn't that much league pride anymore.

Nellie_Fox
07-13-2007, 02:10 AM
Well even back to the 60's and 70's the ASG was still a pride thing. Those teams truly wanted to win to maintain that the league they played for was the best. Now with more trades and free agency there isn't that much league pride anymore.The rivalry was so strong that Bob Feller said that he would refuse to sign an autograph unless he could use a blue-ink pen. American League baseballs had the printing and league president's signature in blue, National League in black. Feller would only sign in blue because that was the American League color.

TDog
07-13-2007, 02:18 AM
The rivalry was so strong that Bob Feller said that he would refuse to sign an autograph unless he could use a blue-ink pen. American League baseballs had the printing and league president's signature in blue, National League in black. Feller would only sign in blue because that was the American League color.

When I met Bob Feller about 15 years ago, he wouldn't sign an autograph unless you gave him $25.

That doesn't diminish your point, though.

Railsplitter
07-13-2007, 10:30 AM
Better to let a guy sit then to run out of players.