| 0 |
Subject: All star game to determine WS home field
Posted by: JeffG
- Sustainer [40451227] Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 10:50
ESPN.com story
Bud Selig is going to tell owners next week that he is planning to have the all star game determine which league gets the home field for the World Series. This somehow does not need ratification from the owners or players union.
Public opinion seems to be 2-1 for this. I am against.
My reasons:
- Fans vote for the starters. Lets see, Yankees are 10 games in first in July, let me fill out that NL Ballot. :)
- Based on when the pitchers play the week before, some are not even availible to throw more than an inning in the all-star game.
- Is there a contingency if the game ends in a tie, does it go to the home run derby winner's league.
This is a far flung as his proposal in the mid 90's that the World Series be entirely played in a pre-determined neutral warm weather stadium.
I know rotating the league who gets games 1,2,6, and 7 every year is just as arbitrary. I just don't see the benefit. It is another gimmick that not going to increase interest for those otherwise ambivolous. |
| 1 | Caper
ID: 1223648
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 10:52
|
Kinda funny, ironic and pathetic coming off a tie this year isn't it.
|
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 10:54
|
I believe the intended beneift is to try to get the All Star managers to manage more competetively.
|
| 3 | KevinL
Donor
ID: 48222515
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 10:55
|
I like this idea. Anything that makes the game more of a competition and less of a showcase is good. Having something to play for should make the game a little more serious at least.
|
| 4 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 10:56
|
I like it. Sure, it's a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that works. I think it will restore a little interest and pride into what was rapidly becoming just another lame pro exhibtion game. There's certainly no harm done since the previous method for determing home field was completely random anyway.
|
| 5 | Khahan
ID: 3511431012
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:08
|
Definitely all for it. I think the Allstar game should be a competitive event between the 2 leagues. Not a promo show for the popular players to rub each others jock itch.
Yes, there will be drawbacks, but there are going to be drawbacks in any system used.
I think the potential good outweighs the drawbacks in this case. I also think this had better be just the 1st step in a series of changes to make the Allstar game more competitive.
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:11
|
While there might be some people who start voting for scrubs in the other league, I don't think this will materially effect the end results. I like the idea since it gives some meaning to the game.
Of course, I'd advocate a Bud Selig dunking tank for the same reason.
pd
|
| 7 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:16
|
As much as I detest Selig for any number of good reasons - i do appreciate that he hasn't been shy about making sensible changes in baseball like interleague play, wild card format and now, this.
|
| 8 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 589301110
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:22
|
I tentatively like it, but will we be seeing material changes in the use (or non-use) of bench players?
It will make it more compelling, at any rate.
|
| 9 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:23
|
Why should the All-Star game have any meaning? It's an exhibition. None of the other sports' All-Star games mean anything. Why should this one? What other changes in the All-Star game might this foster? Letting Pedro pitch 7 innings? Cutting out the 1 per team rule? Who knows? The AL and NL managers will have an incentive to pick and play their own players more than usual, provided they are in the hunt. Why would I even bother to put in the Tigers' or Royals' token player when a) they were usually the worst players on the team b) they still don't care about winning or losing.
I hate the current way of "deciding" homefield though. I think homefield should go to the team with the better regular season record, provided they are both division champs or wild cards. Division champ gets homefield over wild card, regardless of record.
One result I'm positive will come out of this is a huge ratings boost, at least in the first All-Star game after this is enacted.
|
| 10 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:30
|
Why would managers have more of an incentive to pick and play their own players more than usual, weather they are in the hunt or not? I think they'd be more likely to pick out player that better round out the team from a competetive standpoint. Torre (if he were the manager this year) would be less likely to take Bernie Williams as his 5th OF over someone else who didn't get voted in and is tearing up the league. Managers will be more likely to let their stud pitchers go 2 or 3 innings, as was the case before the game became nothing more than a novelty.
|
| 11 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:40
|
Why? Cause Bernie Williams is going to be playing to get home field. A player on a team firmly out of contention won't have the same desire. You know what you're gonna get out of your guy. Who knows what performance you'll get out of a marginally better player playing with potentially little effort? Is it worth the risk?
|
| 12 | JeffG
Sustainer
ID: 40451227
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:47
|
Hypothetially lets say the Angels are quite a bit out of the playoff hunt in July, Scioscia would still likely decide that he still rather give his own players the nod over someone else, as all all-star managers do. And he still would manage the game to his best I am sure, but with less incentive to his own team than his rivals.
I guess if they do this, they should then eliminate the one player per team requirement, they need to set pitching guidelines, and the managers should be able to pluck the sentimental position starters out very early. So the managers do not now need to get every player in, they can reduce the all star roster back to 25 players.
Whats next? They will have to decide who gets to host the all star game based on some other on the field criteria - like who won the last World Series?
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Fri, Jan 10, 2003, 11:56
|
Managers are going to look at their own players regardless of whether the game has any meaning. They know these guys better, and they know how good they are (after all, they got them to the WS just the year before). This will not change because the game has some meaning now.
Jeff, you are arguing that, in some cases, the manager might not go all out because their team might not gain the advantage if they win. This is a wash, since they do not gain anything right now anyway. In other words, your point that there is no new incentive if a manager is out of the playoff hunt by the ASB both ignores the fact that there would be an incentive for the vast majority of times (in which a manager still has a chance), the fact that managers still want to win even exhibitions, and that managers would rather a team from their league win it than the other.
I see no reason to overhaul the selection system for the sole purpose of forcing lethargic managers to try to win.
pd
|
| 14 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 08:25
|
personally, i think adding this little incentive to the game is key - the ASG has become boring - more boring than any other ASG in any other league - even MLS!
but in this case, TWEAK the selection process. the game is mostly for the fans, so continue to let the fans choose the starters -
however...
i think the following changes should be made:
1. let the fans choose 2 pitchers - a starter, and a reliever. these guys will be held out of the game, unless the game goes into extra innings.
2. instead of just the STARTERS getting voted in, let the starters, plus the next top 5 vote getters in automatically (as long as they're not all from the same position - i.e. you can't have five first basemen)...this adds to the number of players the fans elected, and reduces the chances of a manager loading a squad up with his players at the expense of a more deserving player..
just my two shekels,
Tree
|
| 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1010341818
Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 09:14
|
If the fans vote for two pitchers, they will vote for Pedro Martinez and Mariano Rivera, or whoever the dominant reliever and starter are that year. To keep the two pitchers who are most popular with the fans out of the game unless there are extra innings isn't a good idea. I don't believe the masses could be expected to pick the leagues 5th best starter and 5th best reliever for this purpose.
I do like the of keeping reserve players for this purpose. Why not just let two more pitchers get voted into the game. Just take the next two highest vote getters after what would have been the last player elected. Or, simply designate the last two pitchers (the two elected with fewest fan votes) to extra-inning contingency duty.
|
| 16 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 331038201
Sat, Jan 11, 2003, 16:31
|
Making the roster is the thing. Playing or not playing in the game doesn't much matter. I'm more happy to see a Phillie get introduced, even if he doesn't play.
I REALLY like this idea. Bravo, Bud.
|
| 17 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Thu, Jan 16, 2003, 01:27
|
If you worry about the managers so much, why not let the manager with the best record at some cutoff date manage the all-star game instead of the managers from the previous year's World Series?
How about the players? If I'm Nomar, I might semi-intentionally strike out all the time (well, like twice) just to screw the Yankees from having home-field advantange. Or Shawn Green to screw the Giants or DBacks, if they are still that good.
|
| 18 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 11:59
|
I like Tree's idea [14] about letting the fans elect two pitchers who would only be eligible to pitch in extra innings. This election should take place after the regular pitching selections are announced, so that they would taken from the pool of pitchers that would otherwise not be included.
|
| 19 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 12:51
|
The All-Star game is an exhibition and has always been reasonably successful.
If we change to deciding home-field advantage, is baseball really going to let the fans decide who plays?
Also, the only thing that needs to be tinkered with is the way the players are used. Leave the starters in a bit longer so that a game like last year's isn't possible. Manage more effectively.
But the key point is that an exhibition game should NEVER be allowed to have an effect on the real season.
To me, this smells like something cooked up by TV in order to boost ratings.
|
| 20 | Tree, also @ work
ID: 599393013
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 13:04
|
Sixties - nice in theory, but a reality is that every single exhibition game can, and does, have an effect on the real season.
simple example - Spring Training game. Jason Giambi and Alfonso Soriano are both chasing a blooper just over their heads. they crash into each other - Soriano breaks his leg, and Giambi breaks an arm and a shoulder.
exhibition game - SERIOUS effect on the real season.
peace,
Tree
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:41
|
Tree, that's not an exhibition, that's my baseball fantasy!
|
| 22 | Tree, also @ work
ID: 599393013
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:54
|
well, that makes two of us! LOL
|
| 23 | Khahan
ID: 586521115
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:57
|
That a great fantasy, and I share in it with you, PermDude.
Tree, there is more to it than that. If we make the Allstar game winner get homefield advantage, then its an exhibition game that DOES have an effect on non-exhibition games. Every year, every game, every time. No questions asked. It goes beyond the simple 'part of playing the game' threats that every player faces.
Now, i personally think it is a good idea and a good thing. I want to see a real competitive baseball game.
As for the comment about not letting the fans decide, I'm all for that, too. There should be a 3 tier system to picking players.
Fans get their votes: top vote 5 vote getters at each position gets in to the next round. Then the players get to vote on those top 5. Top 2-3? vote getters based on player votes actually get to the allstar game.
Then managers get to pick the actual starters.
Ok, there would need to be some tweaks in there. But the general concept is definitely better than what we have now.
Now, we have the favorite players going, not necessarily the best players.
Now we have a position like SS stacked 4 deep in 1 league. Compared to the #1 and #2 player at a position, should 3rd and 4th best even get represented? Solves that debate altogether. Each spot gets a set # of players.
Fan favorites still have a solid shot of going, even in an off year. But they may not necessarily start if they are having an off year. Meanwhile, that nobody who is having a breakout year and might not otherwise be recognized (came in 4th or 5th in voting) has a decent shot at being rewarded for his good season and getting to start the allstar game.
The system needs major changes all around. Maybe I don't have the best proposal, but it is certainly better than what we have now.
I just hope taht making the allstar game mean something IS the start of those overhauls.
|
| 24 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 18:08
|
Why would having the game mean something prevent games from going to extra innings? It'll only mean that the players have to play as long as it takes to get a winner.
To make a quick winner, they should take out an outfielder and an infielder on the defense. Keep the same lineup, but two players becomes DHs. That'll make them score runs quickly. This is like hockey when OTs are 4-on-4. It'll work.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|