The Forums: The MLB All Star Game
The 2009 MLB All Star Game
As the the 2009 version of the Midsummer Classic kicks off with Monday night's Home Run Derby we at BTeamBombers thought it was a good idea to have discussion about baseball's mid-season showcase and the question of if the game should decide home field advantage in the World Series. Please tell us what you think and amaze us with your brilliant sports minds. ...First, we'll let the BTB writers have a go at the ASG.
Chris Cwik:
Let's face it, the All Star game is pretty ridiculous. The entire premise that "This time it counts" is so misguided that I don't even know where to begin. Can't we just allow the team with the best record to have home field advantage in the World Series? Would this really be a travesty? I just don't get it. The All Star game doesn't matter, the players don't take it as seriously as they used to, and no one really cares about the results. However if you, as a fan, can appreciate the fun nuances of the game, then watching the All Star game can become an enjoyable experience.
I actually like the fact that one player from each team gets selected to the team. As expected, this leads to some terrible players getting into the game. Who can't appreciate someone announcing "First-baseman, Albert Pujols...Second baseman, Chase Utley...and pitching Ryan Franklin." Sometimes, you even find yourself rooting for the guy who just doesn't belong there. This isn't to take anything away from Ryan Franklin, but this just screams luck and career year to me. Anyway, sit down with some friends, grab a beer, and enjoy the All Star game. Root for the underdogs. Just don't get too carried away when the AL destroys the NL again...it's really not a big deal.
-Cwik
Sean Heffernan:
After the Roger Clemens debacle in the 2004 All Star Game in which the now disgraced pitcher let down the National League by giving up six runs in the first inning it became clear that having the ASG decide home field advantage in the World Series was a flawed idea. The rule came to fruition after the 2002 Midsummer Classic in Milwaukee where Commish Bud Selig called the game after 11 innings do to both teams running out players. Not only does the World Series rule not solve the problem of a tie game, it now short changes the team with the better record in the World Series. I say scrap the rule. Let the All Star Game just be entertainment and not a major factor in a team winning a championship.
Now for the tie breaker problem. I purpose that if the game is tied after nine innings that each team chooses two players to compete in a home run derby to decide the game. The opposing teams could even have outfielders try to rob the hitters if you want to make even more interesting. People love the actual Home Run Derby. All I remember from last year's All Star Game was Josh Hamilton's performance the night before the game in the derby. If the game doesn't end in a tie then you don't have to worry about it, but if it does with my idea you have a brief, entertaining way to end a game that in purpose is to put a show on for the public. Whadya say sports fans?
-Sean_Hef
Matt Montgomery:
As we approach Tuesday night and MLB’s 50th All-Star Game, it’s hard to say what this game really means, because, after all, everyone has a different perspective from this game. MLB Commissioner Bud Selig wants the two leagues to battle it out to justify his idea of the winning team’s league receives home field advantage in the World Series. The managers, Joe Maddon of the AL and Charlie Manuel of the NL, are just as interested in winning the game as they are in playing as many people on their roster. Agents just want their players to be selected to the team to receive contract bonuses. The fans want to see an exciting game and the players just want to have fun. Also, are these All Stars filled with “league pride”? In this day and age of free agency, trades and free flowing of personel from league to league how can you expect that a majority of these players care about which league they represent? So why would the players care if their side wins except for the few players that actually have a shot at going? There are too many mixed messages to the fans, players and managers about the ASG’s purpose. For instance, if this game matters so much, then why are the rosters so large, why does each team get represented and most importantly, why do managers treat it like an exhibition game? I think it is pretty clear that the way the All Star Game is set up, with fans voting in starters and managers trying to play everyone that it shouldn’t be the decider in something as important as home field advantage in the World Series.
The All Star Game is supposed to be about the fans. Let baseball fans see their favorite players on the same stage and enjoy it for what it is, an exhibition game. Stop worrying and fussing about who did or didn’t make it, or why Zach Duke is chosen as an All Star, because the roster selection system is so flawed that you are never going to get the “best” players anyway. If you want the game to really matter, then you don’t have managers, players and fans select the teams, you would need to have a committee choose rosters and that seems a waste of time. All in all, just sit back, enjoy the game, take from it what you will and realize that under this commissioner, this one will count at least until he dies or when he retires in 2012, whichever happens first.
-Monty