|
  Follow us as each week as our best writers from around the Bloguin Network take aim at each other and square off on anything and everything baseball from "who was better, Mays or Mantle" to "Should MLB have a salary cap?"
Pick a side and agree or disagree. Take part in the debate by posting a comment giving your own opinion. There are no holds barred and nothing is held back in the "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate."
Today's Debaters are:
Bob Taylor, Fantasy Hurler
Rex Jaybels, i94Sports.com
Today's Topic is: Should the MLB All-Star Game have some meaning or just be an exhibition?
 The MLB All-Star Game SHOULD have some meaning
By Bob Taylor, Fantasy Hurler: Bob Taylor is a lifelong baseball fanatic, one-time newspaperman and current fantasy-league blogger. He founded Fantasy Hurler in February 2007 as an outlet to vent about the roto game he loves so much (but which drives him so terribly mad). If you look hard enough, you can find him writing elsewhere about movies, TV, videogames and comics. He also blogs about another endlessly aggravating game at Three Rivers Poker.
At one time, the Major League All-Star Game used to really mean something. With no interleague play, it was one of only two times during the season that league superiority could be established. So the players taking part cared about the outcome and played the game hard - sometimes almost too hard -- which in turn made it mandatory viewing for fans and gave it a reputation for being the best all-star exhibition of any of the professional sporting leagues.
Somewhere along the line, however, the passion to win the All-Star Game seemed to vacate the players chosen to participate in it. A variety of reasons accounted for the change. Free agency allowed players to travel back and forth between leagues, preventing them from strongly identifying themselves as a member of either. Spiraling paychecks meant players had more to lose if they suffered a career-altering injury during the game. Interleague series canceled out the game's uniqueness. And on the fan side of the equation, cable TV meant you were no longer stuck watching only your hometown team and offered plenty of opportunities to see players from the opposing league step up to the plate.
Over the years, the All-Star Game became less of a must-see event and more of a mildly interesting way to pass away a warm July evening. By the '90s, about the best entertainment fans could hope for was to see Larry Walker or John Kruk screwing around at home plate while Randy Johnson stepped to the mound.
Things bottomed out in 2002 when, by the 11th inning of a tie game, both managers had run out of rostered pitchers and MLB Commish Bud Selig ruled the game to be declared a tie. Fans were not amused. After all, if the players didn't care who won and the league front office didn't care who won, then why the hell should anyone else? A grumbling began to surface that the All-Star Game had lost its luster, its importance.
Selig went into reactionary mode - shocker, I know - and in 2003 the league's front office and players union put together a plan that would allow the MLB All-Star Game to reclaim its mojo. Home-field advantage in the World Series would be awarded to the game's victor, meaning that the game was no longer really an exhibition at all. The final score would actually matter. The plan wasn't exactly well-loved. The purists scoffed (as purists tend to do). Many labeled it a knee-jerk reaction to the tie game from a year before, and they were probably right.
But that doesn't mean the plan was a bad one.
In fact, one thing is for certain: As far as deciding World Series home-field advantage goes, the new plan was vastly superior to old one. Do you know how the advantage was decided up until 2002? If not, this may shock you. MLB thought the best way to award home-field advantage was just to alternate it from year to year. So, sorry, 1982 Milwaukee Brewers. It would have been nice if you guys would have had a shot at four games on your own turf, but the NL had that luxury the previous season. We feel bad for you, 1997 Cleveland Indians, but it's the National League's turn to host a game seven. Should have made the Series last year, suckers.
How did anyone ever think this was a good idea? And how is it possible nobody thought to come up with a more reasonable system for awarding home-field advantage until 2002 when Joe Torre and Bob Brenly realized that their All-Star bullpens were empty? Sure, there are other methods that would also have been an easy improvement. Home-field advantage could have been given to the team with the best regular-season record or even playoff record. But those methods come with their own problems, most notably the whole strength-of-schedule quandary. And they don't kill two birds with one stone, as the current rule does.
Having the All-Star Game determine home-field advantage is not only more fair than saying, "Well, it's the American League's turn this year," but it also ensures that outcome of the game matters once more. Players may never again play the game with the passion that they once did, but at least MLB execs realize the All-Star Game would be better served if they cared a little. With the new rule, they're forced to.
And, as long as the game counts, you can expect managers to actually manage their teams, rather than throwing pitchers and position players alike out there all willy-nilly, as they did in the years leading up to the 2002 debacle. Sure, they continue to burn through bench players at a fairly rapid clip and should probably allow their respective starters to go a bit longer than two innings. But my beloved Pittsburgh Pirates sent two representatives to the 2009 All-Star Game - Zach Duke and Freddy Sanchez. Neither got into the game. Was it because NL manager Charlie Manuel knew he stood a better chance of winning with the guys he already had on the field? Or was he saving players in case the game once more went into extra innings? I'd say it was probably both. (For the record there were 15 active All-Stars who never got off the bench in 2009.)
Making the All-Star Game count is also a win for those watching at home. A more competitively managed contest that the players actually have reason to care about will always make for a better baseball game. And Yankees fans think they're going to the Series every year, right? You just know they now pay a little more attention to the All-Star Game, hoping to see the American League come out on top once more, thus ensuring that extra home game.
Now, Rex is going to try to tell you that the game is just an exhibition and that no more importance should be placed on it. And, someday, he may get his wish, as the rule that ties the game to home-field advantage has to be re-approved by MLB and the players union every couple of years. But doing so would be a terrible mistake. Unless, that is, you don't think the MLB All-Star Game should be anything more than baseball's version of the friggin' NFL Pro Bowl. Me? I say let it continue to be something greater. - Bob Taylor, Fantasy Hurler
 The MLB All-Star Game should be an EXIBITION
By Rex Jaybels, i94Sports.com: i94sports.com provides in-depth coverage of Chicago and Milwaukee Sports (Bears, Cubs, White Sox, Packers, Brewers) and other interesting sports related tidbits.
Where do I begin with this one? Baseball's "Mid-Summer Classic" is anything but, and it's probably hard for any younger fan (define as you feel comfortable) to recall when it did actually mean something. In 2003 Bud Selig made a change in attempts to bring back the spirit of competition to the mid-season exhibition. Unfortunately he chose the wrong course of action.
In 2002, the All-Star Game was held in Milwaukee and it was the result of this game that led to that major change in what the result of the game would come to mean. When the 2002 game went in to extra innings both teams ran out of substitute players available to pitch in relief. It was at this point that Commissioner Selig (a Milwaukee native and former owner of the Brewers) declared the game to end in a tie. Fans and media alike were highly critical of this unsatisfying conclusion.
Bud's was forced to take action, and unfortunately the solution he and his constituency came up with was far more unsatisfying. Beginning in 2003 Selig and his cohorts determined that the game would decide which league would have home field advantage in the World Series.
While I concede that the previous way was not the best way, in my opinion, to determine home field advantage in the Fall Classic (it was rotated by league every other year until 2003), I still am unsure of what this decision did to rectify the matter at hand since even this new format does not provide a guarantee that a future game will not have the same outcome.
The idea was that the game would now have meaning, something Major League Baseball and Fox made sure to point out in their "This Time it Counts" campaign. The thought was that if the game meant something, the likelihood of this event occurring in the future would be lower and that it would also draw more fan interest.
Now the question that has been debated since is not whether it does or does not mean something, it's more about whether it should. I can answer that quite confidently with a "no."
History lesson
This isn't the first time this exhibition game has come under scrutiny. In 1947, fans were given the opportunity to vote on the eight starting position players. In 1957, fans of the Cincinnati Reds stuffed the ballot box, and elected a Red to every position except first base. Commissioner Ford Frick was forced to step in and removed two Reds from the lineup and as a response to this unfairness, fan voting was discontinued. At that point players, coaches, and managers were given the sole authority to elect starting position players, for the next 12 years.
As a result of this move, fan interest dropped to new lows and in 1970 fan balloting was re-introduced.
More history: until 2003 reserves and pitchers were chosen by the manager. Player voting was re-introduced in 2003 because the managers were criticized for picking players from their own team over more deserving players from other teams. This was particularly evident in 2002, when National League manager Bob Brenly selected his own catcher, Damian Miller, over the more deserving Paul Lo Duca; while American League manager Joe Torre selected his own third baseman, Robin Ventura, over the Oakland Athletics' Gold Glove and Silver Slugger-winning third baseman Eric Chavez.
Those changes make sense; the awarding of home field advantage to the league that wins the All-Star Game does not. I got a lot of problems with this format, and now you're gonna hear about ‘em (in my best Frank Costanza voice).
First off, the game is an exhibition, nothing more, nothing less. All-Star Game lore, if not you yourself, will always remember dearly the day when Carl Hubbell struck out five future Hall of Famers in a row in 1934, when Ted Williams hit a two-out, game-winning home run in Detroit in 1941, when Stan Musial hit a game-winning, 12th-inning home run in Milwaukee in 1955, and of course, when Pete Rose ran over Ray Fosse with the winning run in 1970. Is there any doubt that this moment in particular is what drives those in favor of this change? Sad to break the news people, but those days are long gone, and for a variety of reasons, some if which Bob himself pointed out.
Free agency has allowed players to bounce from league to league on a yearly basis. How can a player be expected to despise the "other league," as they did many years ago, when he likely will play for them at some point is his career, if he hasn't already? It's not pre-1959. Previous to 1959 interleague trading was not allowed and that was how such league pride was established. You wanted to beat "the others." There was something to prove, it was your one shot at bragging rights.
Now? Not so much.
In 1997 inter-league play was established, softening the rivalry even more. No longer was this the one and only time the two leagues would square off before the World Series, now teams from the AL and NL would play head-to-head for a couple of weeks during the regular season.
There simply isn't that desire to beat the other league like there was in years gone by, and that's okay. Trying to force it is not.
Fan Voting
There is also the business of the fan vote. You gotta love the fan vote. How can we expect this game to be taken as seriously as Bud would like us to when fans have a say in which players make (and possibly start) the team. A perfect example of this inherent flaw comes from last year,
"The Phillies went all-out to get [Shane] Victorino selected to his first All-Star game. He went door-to-door in South Philadelphia with Mayor Michael A. Nutter to campaign for votes on Monday. Three fans in their early 20s won a radio station promotion and sat in the press box lounge for 52 straight hours clicking nonstop on their computers for their favorite player. Fans in the ballpark and people listening to the game on radio or watching on television were constantly reminded to ‘Vote for Shane.'"
Whether Victorino deserved the honor or not is not the issue. If fans are allowed input in this process, are we even rewarding the most successful players for their efforts? And if we aren't allowing only the "cream-of-the-crop" to play in this exhibition, why is the outcome so important?
As a Cubs fan I'll be the first to raise an eye at Kosuke Fukudome's All-Star selection and starting nod in 2008, but as you know every team needs to be represented, and yes that even holds true for my 2009 Chicago Cubs. Good luck trying to find an All-Star on that roster. Oh they did? Ted Lilly? Well, kudos for keeping him on the bench with Bob's Pirates.
Game Management
We are told that this game now "counts," and obviously that is true, but why is it not managed that way?
Take this quote from Joe Maddon, coach of the 2009 AL All-Star team,
"The players are the show," Maddon said. "My basic job is to pretty much get out of the way."
Say it ain't so Joe. This one counts!
For many years, when the game was first introduced, if you weren't starting, there was no guarantee you would play. In the 1939 game, 23 players sat, never picking up a glove or a bat. In 1986, 12 players didn't see the field. In 1987 Dave Winfield played all 13 innings of the All-Star Game.
Winning was the key.
Yep, things are a little different these days. Did you know that only one National League player has had four at-bats during a nine-inning All-Star Game in the last nine years? In 2006 Carlos Beltran was given four chances to hit, it hasn't been done since for an NL player.
Pitchers are handled even more delicately. Did you know that Greg Maddux was the last pitcher to see more than two innings of action in an All-Star Game, in 1994?! A pitcher would throw three innings regularly, in fact it's the way things were done every year from 1933 to 1994; now two is the max. I'm not suggesting 6-7 innings, but is three too much to ask?
There are so many flaws with the system as it's currently constructed, from fan voting to too many players on the roster, which now stands at 33. It's a game with high stakes that is still managed like an exhibition.
If Bud really wants to bring back competition like the good ole days, then reduce the roster to just the MLB's top stars and let them battle it out for league "supremacy." If it's a game that means so much, then play it like you would a game of that nature.
Oh, and if you want my solution, I give you this. Just give the team that wins the most regular season games home field advantage. It's a long season; reward a team for their efforts. Who knows maybe things may not have turned out all that different over the past couple of years. P.S. they would not have, I did the research. - Rex Jaybels, i94Sports.com
For a complete archived list of all our debates please visit THE GREAT BLOGUIN DEBATE HOME PAGE
Have a Fantasy Football or Rotisserie baseball question? Want to know who to pick up, who to activate and who the hot prospects are? Listen to our weekly Fantasy Baseball 411 Podcasts and let Dr. Roto guide your team to a league championship.
Check out these other stories.....
 |
