| 0 |
Subject: All-Star Discussion
Posted by: blue hen
- [472431014] Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 22:28
Most egregious error: Freddy Sanchez makes it as the NL's third second baseman. Over Kelly Johnson. Lame, Tony. Even Uggla would have been a better choice. Or take a third SS instead of a 2B. How about April's player of the month Jimmy Rollins? And maybe Ray Durham could have made this team?
Dmitri Young is Washington's rep. I guess we could call that a feel good story. He does deserve it.
Discuss. |
| 1 | Building 7
ID: 571192610
Sat, Jul 07, 2007, 19:24
|
Since they started this alleged home field advantage nonsense, there have been 10 World Series games at the loser of the All-Star game's homefield and 9 games at the winner's park. In other words, the loser of the All-Star game has had home field advantage. Yet, they're back at it again, hyping this game as all important because it will determine home field advantage in the World Series. And yet is has never happened.
|
| 2 | Electroman
ID: 73332719
Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 10:11
|
Sanchez is there because each team needs a rep right? Gorzelanny would have been a nice choice for the Bucs, seems to be having a nice season.
|
| 3 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 12:41
|
Snell > Gorzzy
Definitely a 3rd SS should've been taken over Sanchez.
I'm biased, but, Maine deserved the nod for the Smoltz replacement over Oswalt .
|
| 4 | Punk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:26
|
Who should have got the nod in the AL on their 5 person vote in?
|
| 5 | Tree
ID: 5663688
Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:36
|
In other words, the loser of the All-Star game has had home field advantage. Yet, they're back at it again, hyping this game as all important because it will determine home field advantage in the World Series. And yet is has never happened.
nice try, mr. contrary, but your argument that the All-Star game is the fault of this, rings false.
the fault, of course, is the World Series format, which has the silly 2-3-2 format.
it's also nothing more than a coincidence of bad timing that the World Series has failed to go seven games at least once in the last four years. Not since 1935 to 1939 has the World Series gone more than four years without at least one seven game series.
|
| 6 | holt
ID: 410511410
Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 06:45
|
was sanchez the only pirate to make the team? that's the only reason I can imagine him making it.
building7, I can't believe that anyone would seriously choose to play games 3,4 and 5 at home rather than 1,2,6, and 7. home field advantage in baseball has historically been around 54%. run a world series simulation 1000 times giving the home team a 54% chance to win and see which team wins the series more often. really, you don't need to run the simulation to know what the result will be.
|
| 7 | Building 7
ID: 571192610
Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 08:58
|
My point is that nobody knows who is going to have home field advantage in the next W.S. so these announcers should quit acting like they do. They seldom add the phrase....if it goes 7 games. And they never say...the loser of the All-Star game will home field advantage in the W.S. if it goes 5 games. Never.
Not since 1935 to 1939 has the World Series gone more than four years without at least one seven game series.
From 1992 to 1996 there were no 7 game series. And also from 1941-44 and 1948-51.
|
| 8 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 11:06
|
There have been 83 World Series since the Fall Classic has gone to a best of 7 format (no tie games).
33 were decided in 7 games. 39.76%
18 were decided in 6 games. 21.7%
16 were decided in 5 games. 19.27%
16 were decided in 4 games. 19.27%
Its an advantage.
|
| 9 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 11:13
|
My point is that nobody knows who is going to have home field advantage in the next W.S. so these announcers should quit acting like they do.
but your point isn't correct. the team scheduled to host the most games has the Home Field Advantage, absolutely.
this is true in every sport that has a "best-of" play-off system. it's why you ALWAYS hear announcers talking about a team "holding" home field advantage, or "losing" home field advantage.
|
| 10 | angryCHAIR
ID: 63471218
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 10:48
|
SHEF should be there!!!!
|
| 11 | Khahan
ID: 4862841
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 16:49
|
AL wins 9-7.
|
| 12 | holt
ID: 410511410
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:25
|
8-6 NL
down with the junior circuit.
|
| 13 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:30
|
10-7 NL
I can't believe this game is sponsored by Chevy. That f*()ging John Mellancamp song just won't die!!!! I can't stand it anymore!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 14 | Seward Norse
ID: 4852178
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:34
|
This is ooooour country....
AL 8-4
|
| 15 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:34
|
Best national anthem in years! Off to a good start.
|
| 16 | holt
ID: 410511410
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:37
|
omg - the &@#$&*^ mellencamp song. please god, save us.
apparently commercial makers have this theory that the more annoying a commercial is the more people will notice and remember it.
|
| 17 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:42
|
Am I wrong for actually wanting to see baseball? 8pm gametime my a$s!!!!!
|
| 18 | holt
ID: 410511410
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:48
|
lol - while waiting forever for the game to start, I am googling for more mellencamp hate to assure me that everything is ok in the universe. here's a good one:
At 2:08 PM, Anonymous said...
I don't like John Cougwhure's Meloncamp's song "This Is Are Country" for hundreds of reasons. Here are a few. One: he simply ripped off Woodie Guthrie. This Land Is Our Land. Two. He's too stupid to know. Three. He sold out and rockers shouldn't sell out to GM. Four. He can't say the word "our." He sings this is are country. Or this is R country, which would make a better jingle for Toys R Us. Five. He purposely was late coming out to play during the World Series. He did that on purpose. Six. He fanticizes that he has helped farmers. Seven. The song is a worn song that derives from other, better songs and isn't really the least bit original. Eight. If he didn't say "are" instead of "our" it would be tolerable.
|
| 19 | Seward Norse
ID: 4852178
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 20:51
|
Still no baseball...
|
| 20 | Great One
ID: 201155199
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 22:09
|
I didn't even know who Woody Guthrie was until I watched a Mellencamp interview and he spoke so passionately about him... you'd think he was his hero or something :)
"Jim Crow," among the album's most arresting songs, takes on racism-with the help of the legendary folksinger and political activist Joan Baez. Also guesting notably, on "Our Country," and numerous other tracks is Little Big Town, the young country vocal group that had been his opening act when Mellencamp starting performing the song in concert last year.
Mellencamp cited "Masters of War" when asked what music had swayed him toward his own political activism, as well as the songs of Woody Guthrie. Such influences were strongly manifested in his last album, Trouble No More, which was released in 2003 and was his first album containing all cover material, primarily the deep blues of Robert Johnson and Willie Dixon but also including songs by Hoagy Carmichael, Lucinda Williams, and his avowed hero Guthrie.
In fact, as a child growing up in Seymour, Indiana, Mellencamp (who was born October 7, 1951) listened to his parents' Guthrie recordings. Long afterwards, he appeared on the Folkways: A Vision Shared-A Tribute to Woody Guthrie & Leadbelly album with the likes of Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen; he also received the Huntington's Disease Society of America's 2003 Woody Guthrie Award for his embodiment of Guthrie's ideals.
|
| 21 | xpdurmind
ID: 48312323
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 22:15
|
1st inside the park HR in baseball history.
|
| 22 | xpdurmind
ID: 48312323
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 22:16
|
In an All star game...of course :)
|
| 23 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 00:17
|
How can you not let Pujols pinch hit in the 9th with the bases loaded? Rowand is a bum!!!! LaRussa sucks.
Oh well, at least it was a good finish...damn AL.
|
| 24 | The Left Wings
ID: 3305462
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 00:48
|
There have been 83 World Series since the Fall Classic has gone to a best of 7 format (no tie games).
33 were decided in 7 games. 39.76%
18 were decided in 6 games. 21.7%
16 were decided in 5 games. 19.27%
16 were decided in 4 games. 19.27%
Its an advantage.
Advantage for the losers, right?
In the 2-3-2 format, unless the series goes to 7 games, the home team never gets the advantage.
When a series is decided by 4 or 6 games, each team plays the same number of games at home and on the road. And if it's decided in 5 games, the road team has the advantage.
The only "home team advantage" that could be argued is the psychological factor of the the "home team" going up 2-0 in the first two games. If the "home team" loses just one of the first two games -- which happens all the time -- they are screwed with the next three on the road.
Game 5 on the road is really the problem here. It is this game that determines the real advantage.
2-2-1-1-1 is always the better way to go, unless the "home team" voluntarily gives up the real advantage in exchange for more sleep.
|
| 25 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 00:57
|
If the team with "home field advantage" wins all its home games, they cannot lose the series. (Period)
The majority of world series as seen above have been decided in 6 or 7 games...both would be at the home of the "home field advantage" team.
Of those series that went 4 or 5 games...how many times did the team without "home field advantage" win those series'?
|
| 26 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 09:34
|
I've made my points. Glad to see someone else is catching on. I did not watch much of the game, but I'm fairly confident that no mention was made of the fact that last year the loser of the All-star game had home field advantage in the W.S.
Of the 33 game 7's in the W.S.; the home team has won 17 and lost 16. So even if thay make it to a game 7, it does not appear to be much of an advantage.
|
| 27 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 09:47
|
I'll concede that the 2-3-2 format can possibly produce more road games than home if the series goes exactly 5 games. Having home field also means batting last. I would imagine that historic data does show that the home team has a slight statistical edge, probably not significant.
That being said, I'm sure given the choice with the 2-3-2 format most if not all of the teams would rather select the book ends than the middle.
Maybe everyone is just getting caught up in the literal definition of 'advantage'. The team representing the league that wins the all-star game gets to open the World Series with the first two at home, gets the last two games at home if it goes that far, and does not have to make more than one road trip.
Lets call it 'home field convenience'.
|
| 28 | The Left Wings
ID: 3305462
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 21:01
|
You know, the team that is up 3-2 after game 5 probably would want game 6 at home too... 2-2-2-1 anybody? In order to get an extra home game, they'd play game 7 on the road. It doesn't seem that unfair to me. =P
|
| 29 | Razor
ID: 36632717
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 21:06
|
"This time...it counts!"
I would like to see one game that counts where Albert Pujols does not pinch hit with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth.
|
| 30 | Seward Norse
ID: 4852178
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 21:54
|
I very strongly feel that MLB NEEDS to get rid of the "this time it counts" slogan ASAP. I can't stand it.
|
| 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 296341119
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 22:01
|
Maybe play the first five games 3-2, then the rest of the games (if needed) at a neutral site.
|
| 32 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 22:22
|
I can just imagine the 'excitement' produced by a group of indifferent Rockies fans as the A's take on the Mets in Coors for Game 7 of the WS... ;)
Baseball is one of the sports where home-field advantage seems less significant. In hockey, whenever the opposing team has the puck the local fans are booing as loud as they can. The road team knows they're on the road, and they don't feel much support. In baseball though, in the 9th inning of a close game, the fans are on their feet and both the pitcher and the batter are feeling the intensity. Its not like the fans can both boo the pitcher and cheer the batter at the same time... There's one level of intensity and all the players on both side feel it.
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
ID: 296341119
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 22:46
|
I can just imagine the 'excitement' produced by a group of indifferent Rockies fans as the A's take on the Mets in Coors for Game 7 of the WS... ;)
Just like the blase fans at each Super Bowl or Final Four Championship?
|
| 34 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 00:31
|
I hate the neutral site idea (usually combined with making the WS a best of 9). It gets legs every once in a while but I hate the thought. I'm afraid one of these times it is going to get support. The WS is already priced too high for the loyal fans, don't add air fare and hotel expenses to the process. Yes, it would rake in money for the league, players, and agents, but turn the World Series into another one of the corporate events that the average fan would never be able to get in to.
Agents propose 9-game World Series with games 1 and 2 at neutral sites
|
| 35 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 17:26
|
I'd keep it at 7 and have 1 and 2 neutral. Given the fanfare those games usually have anyway, I'm ok with it.
|
| 36 | holt
ID: 410511410
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 21:10
|
i don't like the neutral site thing at all. I didn't realize there was a problem with the world series the way it is. why mess with it?
|
| 37 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Jul 13, 2007, 14:52
|
I only caught the 8th and 9th innings, which were revealing. When Soriano smashed that tater opposite field, the NL had life, but you couldn't tell from their dugout. Hey, you guys have lost NINE of these in a row, things were looking bleak, then BAM, you are within one, yet you sit on your hands and ho, hum. LAME! Why should the fans care about the game if the players are bored and listless?
Leaving Pujols on the bench when Aaron Rowland, who shouldn't even be there, bats with the game on the line was ridiculous. If I was suckered into paying $350 for a pair of nosebleeds to watch this game, I would be furious.
|
| 38 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Mon, Jun 30, 2008, 15:45
|
The 2008 All-Star game and HR Derby are in the Bronx this year. Of course, voting indicates there will be quite a few Red Sox in the starting AL lineup (Ramirez, Ortiz, Youkilis, Pedroia, Varitek), and of course Francona is managing the AL team to further irritate the Yankee crowd. Hopefully Mauer and Kinsler can overtake C and 2B from Red Sox so there is a little better balance with ARod and Jeter. Hamilton and Ichiro round out the AL voting leaders that are not Yankees or Red Sox (What no Rays starting?). The NL voting leaders are currently Berkman, Utley, Chipper, H.Ramirez, Soto, Soriano, Griffey and Fukudome.
There should be a good all star buzz this year because of the venue. I heard that there will be close to 50 current hall-of-famers that will be part of the pre-game ceremony.
|
| 39 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, Oct 28, 2011, 14:52
|
After nine years and over 10,000 false claims, the league that won the All-Star game will finally play more games at home in the World Series.
|
| 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Fri, Oct 28, 2011, 16:20
|
Home field advantage also means the series opens at home for a team, and 5 of the previous 8 years have had the team with home field advantage take the series.
The other three years were teams that were clearly better than their opponents and overcame the home field advantage the old fashioned way--they were a lot better.
|
| 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: All-Star Discussion
|