armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan

About the Author

Tmutchell

More By Tmutchell

Mariners Brandon Morrow's Near No-Hitter Against the Yankees
5 votes, 1 comment
Indians' Cliff Lee Wins 20 - But So What?
4 votes, 6 comments
Tribes' Cliff Lee Wins 20 - But So What?
1 vote, 0 comments
View All

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

All Star Game Almost Another Tie, Needs More Incentive

by Tmutchell
created July 16, 2008, last edited August 06, 2008
11
Vote

Are they listening?   

Hello? 

Are the All-Star managers listening at all?   

"This One Counts."    

Or so we're told, and yet the managers continue to utilize their respective rosters as though their main concern is "to avoid stepping on anybody's toes", rather than "to win the damn game". 

Last night's contest, and epic, tension-filled, 15-inning record-breaker, featured 11 NL pitchers and 12 AL pitchers.  Every pitcher on each team was used. Boston skipper Terry Francona was supposedly checking with J.D. Drew to see if he could pitch in a pinch, though I'm sure nobody expected the second coming of Christy Mathewson. 

Rockies/NL All-Star manager Clint Hurdle was said to have asked David Wright the same question.  I wonder if he regretted not choosing Cardinals' outfielder Rick Ankiel for his roster, who at least has some experience as a pitcher in the majors, disastrous though it may have been.   

With the embarrassing 2002 " Kissing your Sister " All-Star Game not all that far off in the rear view mirror, Major League Baseball drives on as though nothing is wrong.  The managers were reminded that they're supposed ot be trying to win this thing, which seems to me like reminding an archer that his goal is to hit the target, not just use up all his arrows so he doesn't have to carry that heavy quiver all the way back to the storage shed.   

Nevertheless, to sweeten the pot, they decided that awarding home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star game would be enough.  Clearly, it's not.  Neither league's manager has been the same in consecutive years since before this rule was instituted in 2002, so it's tough to argue that this incentive has any meaning at all.  Clint Hurdle's team is clearly not going to repeat, as they currently sit near the bottom of the sad-sack NL West division.  What does he care who gets home field advantage?  He'll be watching the World Series from his couch, just like you and me. 

Most of the players in the game will not be in the World Series.  The Cubs had a record nine All Stars this year, yet they did not encompass even one third of the NL squad, so even if the team with the best record in the league gets to the World Series (which doesn't happen as often as you would hope or expect), well, their representatives can only do so much to assure that they get the advantage come October.  If they get there.   

Since they started the All Star game in 1933, there have been 11 contests that went into extra innings, out of 78 games played.  That's more than 14%, which is about a one-in-seven chance.  Given those odds, you'd think the managers would prepare better, leave themselves a little wiggle room.  Nope.  Instead, they use their starting pitcher for two innings, maybe just one, and rarely use anyone else for more than an inning or two, and then only when they start to sweat about the game going into extra innings.   

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that they should play this like a regular game, trying to get six or seven innings out of their starters.  That wouldn't be fair to anyone, especially the pitcher, who's not used to facing an entire lineup of world-class players.  Three innings is probably enough.  But then what's wrong with letting the next guy pitch three innings?  Then you can mix and match for the last two, assuming a regular 9-inning contest, and still have three or four pitchers left over in case of a tie after nine. 

There has never been a time when this game was managed like a real game, no matter what anyone tells you.  Right from the beginning, it was managed like an exhibition.  In fact, there have only been two games in All Star history in which one of the starters went more than three innings.  One of them was Hall-of-Famer Lefty Gomez, who went six (!) in 1935, a record that still stands.    

The other was Spud Chandler, who went four innings in 1942 against a WWII-depleted NL squad.  That team featured 2B Jimmy Brown (.256 with 1 homer), Aarky Vaughan (.277 with 2 homers), and SS Eddie Miller, who hit .243 that year with an adjusted OPS of 81, i.e. almost 20% below average.  Pete Reiser batted third, with a .310 average, 10 homers and 64 RBIs that year.  The backups weren't all that great, either: Billy Herman, Mickey Owen, Pee Wee Reese, Terry Moore, Willard Marshall, and someone named Danny Lithwhiler.  Not exactly threatening.   

Fun fact: The other five innings of that game were all pitched by Detroit's Al Denton, who went 7-13 on the year.  Another fun fact: The Cardinals' Mort Cooper started (and lost) the game, throwing to his brother and St. Louis teammate, Walker.  That's the only combo of All-Star brothers who didn't play the same position, and they did it twice (1943, too).   

Anyway, back to my point: There is no reason to think that the managers should try to get 6 or 7 innings from an All-Star starting pitcher.  It's never happened before, and it shouldn't now.  But three or four is hardly unreasonable.  As the teams went into extra innings last night, Terry Francona had to look past

  • Joe Saunders (averaging 6.7 IP/start with a 3.20 ERA),
  • Roy Halladay (7.6 IP/GS, 2.71 ERA),
  • Ervin Santana (6.8 IP/GS, 3.34 ERA) and
  • Justin Duchscherer (6.8, 1.82)

Why?  Because he had already used them.  For one inning each. 

Halladay, who had three days of rest and who averages 107 pitches per start, threw nine pitches.  Nine. 

> "Thanks, Roy.  Nice effort.  No, that's OK, we don't need to win.  Go take a shower.  Well, even if you didn't get sweaty."

 After six years of this home-field-advantage-in-the-World-Series silliness, it's obvious that something has to be done.  My proposal is as follows:

Go back to what motivates people: Money. 

Back in the day, the players used to really try hard to win this thing for two reasons.  One of them was that they had a sense of league pride, something that has essentially disappeared with the advent of free agency.  But the other was money.  Players got a bonus for winning the All Star game, and since their salaries were not so exorbitant, that bonus actually meant something.  Let's get back to that. 

Major League Baseball probably already makes a killing at the All Star Game, but they could be making even more.  StubHub was selling bleacher tickets for over $1000 apiece yesterday, so imagine what box seats would be worth!  Players get bonuses for being selected to the All-Star Game, which are written into their contracts.  Let's do away with those, or at least limit them, so that the real money can be doled out to those who actually win the game, not just those who play. 

Maybe a $500,000 bonus for each player on the winning team?  That's $15 million, but hey, that's pocket change for a $4 billion industry like MLB.  If they sell tickets at an average of $500 apiece, that's $27.5 million right there, just for filling Yankee Stadium!  And that doesn't include concessions, television rights, advertising, Home-Run Derby revenues, or any of the other things that MLB does to squeeze every last nickel out of the American Consumer. 

Better yet, since it's really the manager who's the problem, not the players, give a $5 million bonus to the manager of the team that wins.  Maybe an extra mil to each of his coaches.  That's an incentive, since most managers don't make anywhere near that much money.  Sure, it's kind of mercenary, but heck, these guys are professionals.  They're not doing it for free now.  Let's motivate them where we know they'll feel it: In the wallet. 

 


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
KelsdadAll-Star
54 days ago
Score 0+-
After the top of the 15th inning, Francona asked Kazmir if he could go one more, to which Kaz said yes. If you were watching the game, there was a shot of Francona down in the tunnel leading to the clubhouse, he was talking to a couple of guys from the ML office, telling them he would not pitch Kazmir after the 16th and he had no one else.

Whether or not Hurdle asked Wright to pitch an inning or not, or if they were asking beer vendors if they could throw is a moot point, if the game was still tied after the 16th inning, it would have been over, tie or not.

ML managers have two responsibilities at the game..get as many players into the game as possible, and to not get anyone hurt.

Notice "winning" the game isn't one of the two responsibilities.
Permalink | Reply
CheezerMajor Leaguer
54 days ago
Score 2+-
I say set the maximum at 14 innings (1.5 x 9) and if it ends in a tie, it ends in a tie. Make the game meaningless. Decide home field advantage by giving it to the league (or team) with the better record in interleague play.
Permalink | Reply
Cougar2000All-American
45 days ago
Score 0+-
Cheezer, you hit the nail on the head!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
54 days ago
Score 0+-
" Decide home field advantage by giving it to the league (or team) with the better record in interleague play"

That's a less viable option than the All-Star game.

Here's an idea, how about alternating years? It worked fine for the first 95 years.....
Permalink | Reply
CheezerMajor Leaguer
53 days ago
Score 1+-
I'd like to here more about why you feel the results of interleague play to be not viable as a solution. Please elaborate.
Permalink
CheezerMajor Leaguer
53 days ago
Score 0+-
here=hear
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
53 days ago
Score 1+-
The sample size is too small, the interleague schedule isn't fair to each team, it's less sensible to put something so important on scheduled games outside your league. Interleague play has unfairly impacted pennant races, having it impact the World Series homefield is not wise.
Permalink
CheezerMajor Leaguer
53 days ago
Score 0+-
Fair enough. I was just trying to come up with something a little less arbitrary than whether it's an odd or even year.
Permalink
Taytay 24All-American
54 days ago
Score 2+-
I agree with Kelsdad. I'm as competitive as anyone, but I just didn't really find the 2002 tie to be that big of a deal. In fact, I think the current "meaning" attached to the All Star game even more distasteful. People can deny facts if they want, but it is an exhibition game. It does not count, no matter what the promotional material says. Sure, it should be an honest competition, but more importantly, fans of all teams want to see their guy(s) pitch or take an at-bat. If that results in a tie on the odd occasion, why is that a big deal?
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Hall of Famer
54 days ago
Score 0+-
Well the point of making it count wasn't really so the game wouldn't end in a tie. The goal was to ensure players would try...if nothing else, last night's game was compelling, which is a rarity in all-star exhibitions. At the ASG, you want to see the best competing, not dicking around...
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
54 days ago
Score 2+-
It's an exhibition game, dicking around is the point. Take away the World Series aspect, and who gives a fack? Players will always compete to win, it will be more like a spring training game than a regular season game. Have fun first, put on a good BP show, sign a bucketload of autographs, and go home.

Winning and losing is irrelevant.

At least it should be.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Hall of Famer
54 days ago
Score 2+-
I care...i want to see them play...hard. Players won't always compete to win, remember the games in the 90s...they were just lame fanfests where every player was up there trying to go deep (Dan Uggla)... at least in spring training, you're trying for some reason or another...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
54 days ago
Score 4+-
The players will always play "hard", for the pride of the league. But they're not going to crash into walls, or slide hard to break up a double play. The worst thing that can happen is for a player to get seriously hurt and miss the second half, when his team is in the pennant race.

In the old days, guys played hard 162 games a season because a World Series check was more than they made during the season. Obviously, nowadays that's not the case, but the prestige of playing in and possibly winning the World Series and getting the ring far outweighs winning an AllStar game and getting an AllStar ring.

In 1968, Harmon Killebrew broke his arm in a collision at first base in the All-Star game and missed the rest of the season. The Twins were five games out at the break, and finished the season seven games behind. His loss didn't mean much in terms of wins and losses, but, as you know, a five, or even seven, game deficit at the break is not alot.
Permalink | Reply
Cougar2000All-American
45 days ago
Score 0+-
Good point, Kels. Remember Ray Fosse? His career was never the same after Pete Rose ran into him.
Permalink
TmutchellWaterboy
53 days ago
Score 0+-
The MLB All Star game is a lot more of a competition than the games in the othe rmajor sports. Sure, it's an exhibition. Nobody's debating that it's not. But American baseball simply does not end in a tie, not in a game with any meaning. It's understood that Spring Training games are just that: Training.

But the All Star Game should have a winner, each and every year. Or, at the very least, we should not be flirting with a possible tie because the managers are treating it like a spring training game.

While I don't think the "league pride" mentioned by Kelsdad really exists anymore, I do think that the players do their best, or very close to it.

ML managers have two responsibilities at the game..get as many players into the game as possible, and to not get anyone hurt.

Notice "winning" the game isn't one of the two responsibilities.

Of course it is! That's the whole point! You're supposed to play to win. It's not the only concern, but it ought to be a little higher on the priority list than making sure that the handfuls of remaining fans in Miami or Kansas City aren't offended that Dan Uggla or Joakim Soria didn't get to play.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
53 days ago
Score 0+-
Soria didn't play because he was injured.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
53 days ago
Score 0+-
Won loss records in spring training are meaningless, there are other things going on far more important. Same with the All-Star game. Terry Francona feels a little better this morning than Clint Hurdle does, although I doubt he slept any better. Adding the WS home advantage made winning the game more important, at the same time it was Selig's give back to baseball for calling the '02 game a tie.
Permalink | Reply
TmutchellWaterboy
53 days ago
Score 1+-
Soria pitched an inning and two thirds, but that's not the point. The point is that we shouldn't be worrying about that. We should be worrying about winning the game first, and only then whether or not we can find an opportunity for people to play. And the ridiculous idea of awarding WS HF advantage to the ASG winner wasn't a "give back" by Selig, some kind of apology. It was an effort to save face, because he looked like a fool for letting the tie happen in the first place. He was trying to avoid looking like a fool in the future, because fans will quickly lose interest in the ASG if they think it might end in such an unacceptable fashion. Disgruntled fans don't buy tickets and souvenirs and stuff, and if that happens, Selig's out of a job.
Permalink | Reply
Cougar2000All-American
45 days ago
Score 0+-
True. Remember that fans vote with their wallets.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
53 days ago
Score 0+-
What the hell was I thinking? Sheesh...

Give back, save face, no matter how you word it, it has the same meaning.

One more inning, this game would have ended in a tie. Then what?
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
53 days ago
Score 0+-
And you're right about the "league pride" thing, and we can thank interleague play for that. And realistically, league pride comes from winning the World Series, not from an exhibition game.
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #1
53 days ago
Score 0+-
If Interleague play is too small of a sample size, then what about the All-Star game? Personally I would like home field advantage to go the team that had the best record in the regular season. Best record works for the NHL and NBA. Works for the early playoff rounds in the MLB and NFL. Tickets typically don't go on sale until both teams are decided anyway. Maybe making the Interleague record count for something make them more interesting. Then again this new rule for home field advantage means nothing to me as a fan which is the real reason "it counts." They just wanted more people watching the game. Part of it was that the players took it lightly so why should the fans care. I've only watched 3 All-star games and 2 were before this rule. Why? Because the players I wanted to see were in it.
Permalink | Reply
Cougar2000All-American
45 days ago
Score 0+-
Money is the straw that stirs the drink. Let's not forget where that money comes from, the fans... the people that buy the tickets, the uniforms, the cable/Direct TV, et al. There was some talk about taking the fan ballot away... BAD IDEA! If MLB learned nothing else about the strike of 1994, it was that you don't bite the hand that's feeding you. As for homefield advantage, I would really rather use interleague play than the All Star game... those games count, the All Star Game, as wonderful as it is, doesn't. It's like asking your friend if you should date Cindy Crawford or Halle Berry. Fox needs to learn that or they should give the game up and let ESPN carry it.
Permalink | Reply
TmutchellWaterboy
32 days ago
Score 0+-
"Money is the straw that stirs the drink." Funny, I thought that was Reggie Jackson. Well, Reggie and Thurman, bbut really Munson doesn't enter into it.
Permalink
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free
Categories: Opinions | Opinions by User Tmutchell | July 16, 2008 | July 2008 | Baseball Opinions | MLB Opinions | New York Yankees Opinions | New York Mets Opinions | Philadelphia Phillies Opinions | Milwaukee Brewers Opinions | Boston Red Sox Opinions | Chicago Cubs Opinions | Detroit Tigers Opinions | San Francisco Giants Opinions

Don't Miss

NFL Week 1 Notes
Is the FIA fixing Formula One?
2008 NFL Tarot Preview by Sports Shaman
The Sports Brief's UFC 88 Predictions
Run Down from the Run Down

In the News

Hey ArmchairGM users! Want to help the admins update this news section? Click here to help us out.

Comments of the Day

2 Talk to the spirits.
2 there is a bit of irony in belichick taking brady of the injury...
2 If either Toro Rosso had put on inters they might have wo...
2 The consensus I glean from much of the internet is that the bes...
2 Cleveland"s Defensive Line ain"t exactly stud-filled....
1 wow styles you called it on the Patiots getting the t...
1 Karma"s a bitch, huh?
1 This was a terrible decision. Hamilton was forced to cut...
1 I reckon that Hamilton would have made the corner if Rai...
1 The problem is whilst they managed to make the champi...

Play the Quiz Game

Oklahoma won the 1972 Orange Bowl, but the NCAA called for them to forfeit. This team did not accept the forfeit:

New Articles

Knowshon Moreno May Be Coming to a Billboard Near You, Joey Harrington Style
Brady Bummer
Racing Roundup September 7, 2008
Favre Outduels Pennington to Beat the Dolphins 20-14
Bumbling CONTROL Secrets: Can KAOS win?

Retrieved from "http://www.armchairgm.com/Article:All_Star_Game_Almost_Another_Tie%2C_Needs_More_Incentive"

This page was last modified 14:26, 16 July 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise