Forum: base
Page 13342
Subject: Worst All-Star Game Ever!

  Posted by: YOUNGBUCK - [331381323] Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 00:48
all in favor say "I"!
 
1J
      Leader
      ID: 49346417
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 00:49 		actually this was one of the best all star games I've ever seen.


Fool.
 
2blue hen, almighty
      ID: 473133021
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 00:50 		I agree. It was a wonderful game with an unfortunate result that I do NOT blame on Bud Selig. He actually handled it well.
 
3YOUNGBUCK
      ID: 331381323
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 00:54 		Whats with the name calling J? And you guys wonder why I lash back....
 
4J
      Leader
      ID: 49346417
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 00:56 		You're right that was uncalled for, I apologize. But the fact that you said this was the "Worst All-Star Game Ever" was rather ignorant.
 
5The Left Wings
      ID: 760719
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 00:58 		Yeah, it was a good game. What do you want? An 11-2 blow out with no suspense towards the late innings? I'm happy I got an extra two innings out of it.
 
6YOUNGBUCK
      ID: 331381323
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 01:00 		iam entitled to my own opinion. right?
 
7stinkypuff
      ID: 20636610
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 01:21 		technically, it should be "All in favor say 'Aye.'"

But I say nay.
 
8wolfpackrules
      Donor
      ID: 39625101
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 01:29 		When did it become necessary for ALL players to play.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't always this way.

I agree the game was excellent, although the crowd sucked, but the ending was reprehensible, IMHO, but not BUD's fault.

 
9Matt G
      ID: 37722615
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 01:32 		I think it was a great game, you had your defense, you had your offense, and the tie doesn't taint it all that much, I understand what Torre, Brenly, and Bud say. But I have an idea to avoid this kind of situation in the future.

The main problems with the Allstar game are:
1. Manager's loading up with their own players
2. Players not getting playing time.
3. Running out of players.

First off you have your starters voted by the players, they obviously start, they should reasonably play 2 - 3 innings. This is a break and an exhibition. But when you have managers like brenly and Torre managing, they load up their players, pitchers like Kim should be saved for the end of the game, a player named BY Brenly if the game only goes 9, he doesn't play if it goes longer then its put on him and one of his players instead of another teams. Of course that is assuming that players from the managers are named when they possibly shouldn't be in the game... Thats my only thing, that or expand the rosters, either way people might not play.
 
10Madman
      ID: 21020124
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 02:00 		One unique feature about baseball is that the endings are frequently meaningful and interesting. When determining the quality of a game, the quality of the ending is one of the over-riding factors.

This game clearly had one of the worst endings of all-time. Thus, the assertion that it was one of the worst of all-time is at least defensible.

I still want to know why Brenly in the 9th inning thought that Selig would end the contest if asked. I will only excuse Selig's action if it is also clear that this result was not the planned contingency for an extra inning game of this sort. Brenly's comment obviously casts doubt on Selig's innocence on this score.
 
11Madman
      ID: 21020124
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 02:03 		I should also say that the ending reflects both the management's and player's willingness to take the fans for granted. The cavalier manner in which they treated this decision was shameful.
 
12KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 266182910
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 02:07 		Fans want to see all the players play. This has nothing to do with how many Yankees or Diamondbacks were on the teams, IMO. They all played and every player played. No matter if there were 30 Yankees/Diamondbacks or none, the managers still would have been running out of players by the end of the 11th, or very close to it. Besides not wanting to injure your own players, you sure don't want to injure someone else's players and catch the backlash from that.

Bud made the right call, IMO, and it was a good game overall. I do think it's a shame that they didn't award the newly renamed MVP award though. Seems they could have picked someone. Heck, give it to Vizquel for creating this whole situation. ;)

 
13blue hen, almighty
      ID: 473133021
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 02:45 		Yeah. Look at the WWE. They are always prepared.

1. Wrestlemania 18. The fans cheer Hulk Hogan. So what happens? They turn him into a good guy by the end of the match, and have a ready made feud with his former cronies, who attack him at the end of his match with The Rock.

2. Stone Cold walks out. The show goes on without Austin, who'd been scheduled to be in a high profile main event that night, and they pull it off.

Imagine if Bud Selig was walking to make the announcement, sees the fan reaction, turns around and says "I was about to cancel this game, but it appears to me that the fans want to see the game go on. Would you like to see the game go on?" And they go wild. And he says... "Well, American and National League All-Stars... PLAY BALL!" Would he still be your least favorite commisioner?
 
14The Left Wings
      ID: 760719
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 03:42 		In the world of wrestling, that would certainly make him a good guy. However, he would probably be grouped with guys like HHH, who are bad faces but good heels.
 
15Khahan
      ID: 3563157
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 08:08 		Ridiculous is my only thought.
Stopping the game because of the health of the players? How many of these players get a bonus for being elected to the All-star game?
They are paid to be there and play. They should be playing to win. I'd like to think that the All-star game is a contest of the best of the AL vs the best of the NL. Its been tough w/ fan voting to get that over the past years, but this decision just completely destroyed that. The Allstar game is nothing more than a joke.
The allstar game is supposed to be an honor for the players. If they are elected, they should expect to play the full game.
Where did this crap that every player must get in the game ever come from? That has always annoyed me.
Next, 5 SS from the AL? I thought the allstar game was for the best of the best? How is being the 3rd, 4th or 5th best at a position worthy of being elected to a game that is meant to honor the best?
Now they are talking expanding the rosters beyond 30 men? BS. 8 positional players, 4 pitchers and an 8-10 man bench.
I wanted so much to enjoy this Allstar game this year, but going into it I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the sportswriters. I did not read 1 positive thing about the game. All the articles focused on 'black clouds' hanging over the festivities. This break was a chance to ignore those clouds for 3 days. Instead they were pointed out.
Then the game starts and it was great in the beginning. Schilling was dominant. Torii Hunter had a catch that will be remember for a long time. Bonds home run in his next at bat was just crushed.
There were good individual moments to remember. Then Bud (and yes I blame him, though not him alone) comes in and let's this game end in a tie? Crap. That is all it is. The allstar game as a whole was ruined by that decision. Thankfully, we at least have those individual moments of greatness to remember.
 
16Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 19652912
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 08:37 		Khanan, the problem was the pitchers. You can't bring back a pitcher who has pitched and cooled down even if the rules allowed it. It had nothing to do with the positional players.

I agree both that it was a great game and that it should have ended in a tie. What I don't agree with is how they came to decide it and announce it.

-They should have talked this over at the end of the inning, not making Freddie Garcia throw 50 warm-up pitches waiting around. If the NL scored in the bottom of the inning they would have had no need to interrupt the game;

-They should have made the announcement at the end of the inning, not while they were playing. Again, wait to see if the NL scores before making the announcement.

-Brenly and Torre should have made the announcement themselves to the fans, with a short explanation as to why. No one would have booed then.

This was an anomoly, and will probably not come up again for many years. No need to change anything as a result of this.

pd
 
17JeffG
      Sustainer
      ID: 40451227
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 08:47 		I think is was an entertaining game. Dissapointing is the result, and how they came about it. Fans paid $175 per ticket for this game and they deserve not to be blind sided by the way this game came out. But they did get their money's worth and then some. However, given the roster situations, there was no other alternative, and the decision was the only alternative they had. What were they to do, bring out batting practice pitchers, a tee, or a pitching machine?

This is a situation that should have been anticipated and a policy set up in advance. I do not buy Selig's quote "Obviously, in your wildest dreams, you would not have conceived that this game would end in a tie". What, the people who run baseball found it is so inconceiveable that a baseball game could go 11 innings?

For future years, make it clear that an all-star game will go no longer than 12 innings. Everyone will know the rules and managers can now handle the pitchers appropraitely.

Kind of illustrates how everything in running the game is a reaction to what happens instead of a pro-active approach to address issues before they come controversies. The steroid issue is the same thing, baseball reacting to a situation instead of addressing it behind the scenes quietly if management saw it was becoming an issue.
 
18Khahan
      ID: 3563157
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 08:59 		Ohh, and not to be completely down on this (because I still did enjoy many memorable moments), Jose Vidro had an awesome diving stop in the 2nd (3rd?) inning. I don't remember exactly which inning. I don't even remember who the batter was. But I remember him taking those steps, diving to the right of the field at full extension and getting a ball that looked like it was far out of his range to save a hit.
 
19Bandos
      ID: 35342718
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 09:17 		against Ichiro.
 
20blue hen, almighty
      ID: 473133021
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 09:21 		On the morning after, I've changed my mind a bit. I definitely think some prior planning would have been better, or at least a small amount of thought. If you're going to have a long man, as Torre obviously considered Freddy to be, don't make it the ace of the team you're hoping to beat in the playoffs. This is where you put Kenny Rogers onto the team instead of, say, Omar Vizquel, and then just hand him the ball at the start of the 10th. It's now his game to lose. I bet he takes that ball and runs with it. Six scoreless innings in the allstar game is better than anything else we can expect out of Rogers with the Rangers, and could be a career highlight (except for his perfect game, of course). I don't think any veteran pitcher on a non-contending team would mind such an assignment. Steve Parris. Scott Erickson. Chuck Finley. Paul Byrd! Mark Redman. Paul Wilson. Those guys would have been happy to represent the American League.

I do want to disagree with Khahan about the five shortstops. First of all, all five are very deserving, and having very good years. It makes much more sense to take Vizquel than Michael Young, for example. Second of all, shortstops are very versatile and wouldn't have much trouble playing other positions. With the quality of shortstops in the AL this year, I think having five on the team is fairly justifiable.
 
21Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 19652912
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 09:28 		I think you are right about the SS, bh. And Vizquel did a decent job at 2B for the last half of the game or so.

pd
 
22Skidawg
      ID: 2463489
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 09:35 		I was at the game, and although I am very disappointed in the outcome, I don't feel cheated. The last 2 nights of baseball "exhibition" were the greatest baseball I have ever seen.
 
23darkside
      Leader
      ID: 516203012
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 10:00 		Does anyone else read the title of this thread and think of the Comic Book Store Guy?

"Worst episode ever".
 
24Stuck in the Sixties
      Leader
      ID: 12451279
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 10:06 		Gotta agree with PD on this one. It's the way the ending was handled that was the problem. If Bud Lite or somebody had simply reminded the fans about the limitations on pitchers' arms and that the game is an exhibition just like spring training, then I think the fans would have been more accepting. But the barebones announcement, with no rationale given, pissed me off even though I already knew the reason. It was just one more way that baseball NEVER takes its fans into consideration. That's players, management, you name it.
 
25Flying Polack
      ID: 275541920
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 10:29 		Wow, Is it me or does everyone agree on this subject...you do not solve anything by adding more players to the rosters. all you add is more chaos for the managers..everybody is rushing everybody to get into the game..and by the time the 9th inning rolls around, each team will most likely only have a starting pitcher left, as in the case of last nite, because the managers feel the need to have EVERYBODY play...
 
26stinkypuff
      ID: 20636610
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 10:38 		LOL, Darkside.

Don't know if anybody mentioned this but ... suppose only one side had run out of pitchers? Let's say Brenly had one pitcher left. Would he agree to a tie to save Freddy Garcia's arm? I don't think so. Would Torre refuse to send hitters to the plate in the 12th because Freddy would have to pitch the bottom of the inning? Not likely.

They would have kept playing. They should have last night.
 
27Gman15
      Leader
      ID: 44961510
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 10:42 		How were they going to keep playing last night? There were no pitchers left. No one wants to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition game. I couldn't believe the fans' reaction at the end. They got to see 11 competitive innings from the world's best baseball players. Who really cares which team wins?
 
28ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 3948815
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 10:47 		After sleeping on it...the best solution...no need to expand rosters...Future allstar games are nine innings period. That way managers do not need to save any player for extra innings...managers can get every player in the game. The fans know before hand that the game will only go 9, win lose or draw. It is an exhibition game...it does not matter who wins...I think the most important thing as a fan is I want to see my hometown guys in the game at some point. Limiting it to 9 innings allows the managers to plan and not have to figure extra innings into any equation.
 
29Willix
      Sustainer
      ID: 354401513
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:01 		My sentiments exactly Chicago TRS!

Last night's game was great. Offense, defense, everyone played, and two extra innings. They should have made the announcement at the beginning of the inning though that this will be the final inning. I think a tie was appropriate for an exhibition.

Now let's start the second half!
 
30ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 3948815
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:02 		I can understand the fans reaction somewhat (first of all this was Wisconsin...noone has ever accused Wisconsin of being full of mensa members ;-)) I did get a good laugh when they started chanting "let them play, let them play".

The way it was announced was pathetic...Freddy Garcia is practically in his windup and some sterile PA guy is coming over the speakers saying the game will end if the NL does not score a run...with no explanation of why. It should not have been announced until the end of the inning and it should have been announced by the managers or commissioner with the explanation that there were no more pitchers left. It was also poor that the commissioner cannot stick around for two minutes after the game and talk to FOX and explain why it was cancelled. Why does he have to run off to the press conference? Take care of the television outlet that is paying big bucks to carry this game. It was also poor that they did not pick an MVP or coMVPs...there were deserving candidates Konerko-Miller.

I am in complete agreement that the game had to be called but the execution left a lot to be desired and was just another slap at the fans.

As a side note who was this idiot they had singing the national anthem...she not only butchers the song but doesn't know the words? Baseball could not come up with someone better than this goof??? Especially in this particular climate where the anthem means so much to everyone.
 
31Skidawg
      ID: 2463489
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:11 		C-TRS: Actually, the P.A. guy did announce the reason why the game was being called. I think he put it like "both teams have run out of pitchers" or something. The "let them play" bit was pretty classy because it replaced the 110 dBs of "Boos" Selig was getting. Believe me, I was one Boo-ing!

 
32Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:22 		I think it was a good game. It can't be great becauseof the ending but the non MVP award hurt it.
 
33darkside
      Leader
      ID: 516203012
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:39 		Anyone else think it's ironic that Bob 'Ben Davis is bush league' Brenly was involved in such an un-traditional move?

Given the circumstances, it had to end. But, it should never have gotten to that point. The fact that it did is absurd...as Rob Neyer said, this isn't little league. The all-star game is officially a joke.
 
34KTxGOD @ Work
      ID: 505421017
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:43 		Many of you don't think it's a necessity for all the players to play in the all star game. I disagree because I believe it's very important that everyone plays. Some fans are there to watch the stars from their team play and represent himself and his team and his town; not to sit on the bench. I would be mad if one of my favorite players, who gets into the all star game, only SITS throughout the game.

I also disliked the ending to the game, but it was a tough situation for everyone. But they should have been prepared for this... I like Schilling's idea on this (From ESPN article):

"I've got two solutions," Schilling said. "One, increase the rosters and just tell guys that some of them won't play unless the game goes extra innings. Or two, play nine innings no matter what. Tell everybody from the start. And then, if it's tied, each team picks one guy, and you decide it with a Home Run Derby. How great would THAT be?"
 
35Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 11:52 		I agreed it had to end under the circumstances but this was another embarrassing moment for MLB--then something they could control they dropped the ball on--the first ever Ted Williams MVP award.

Home Run Derby would have been fun at least. No one cares who wins really--just need a winner. There's no tying in baseball!!!
 
36YOUNGBUCK
      ID: 455522111
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 12:06 		they should have let other pitchers return. or have some kind of way of determining the winner.
 
37walk
      Leader
      ID: 65102616
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 12:37 		winner-schminner. as if. I more or less gave up watching these games 20 years ago. Ho-hum. However, there is clealy a high level of interest amongst the fans in the park, the fans watching on TV, and the fans here.

From what I have gleaned, the fans surely got their money's worth, an exciting game featuring many talented players. While Madman suggests that one critical attribute of determining the relative value of a game is the ending, I would disagree in that this game is more about fanfare and match-up's and less about who wins or loses. Ultimately, however, that's a personal choice, so whatever trips the fan's trigger.

It would appear that Selig could have handled it differently, that MLB could have anticipated it better, but in the grand scheme of things, it seems like a big "no biggie" to me. My guess is that fans booed because, well, when you're at a game of course you want to see it concluded -- especially if you've made the commitment to watch it (whether live or on TV). "Hey, if we're staying up late to watch, you're staying up laet to play."

Still, I found this thread to be more interesting than the 3 innings I gave the game yesterday (although I really enjoyed watching Torii's catch of Bond's would be HR). I need something on the line to keep my interest, and a game like this has little on the line. Curious, but not compelling, IMHO. As (my man!) Willix said, "let the second half begin!"

- walk
 
38blue hen, almighty
      ID: 473133021
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 12:44 		I still like the Vince McMahon angle. It's Bud's only hope at this point.

I also like that nine-inning thing. But I do feel that the game was not complete without a winner.

Did anyone else notice the Holds and Blown Saves in the boxscore?
 
39123
      ID: 30614812
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 12:45 		During the "make the decision during the middle of an inning" time last night, I kept saying to myself, "I hope Bud gets out there with a mic when the inning ends, explains the situation to the fans, then says the outcome will be decided by a Home Run Contest the same way a Soccer match can be ended with a shootout". That would have been a unique, exciting, and positive solution to a situation that was said to be "no-win". Sure, a baseball game should not be ended with a HR contest, but it would keep the pitchers healthy and the fans happy, and that is what it is all about.
 
40Sludge
      Sustainer
      ID: 54131712
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 12:50 		I'm all for the home run derby tie-breaker, and told my wife so last night while the commish and managers were discussing it in the middle of the 11th. At least the fans will have something to cheer for, some suspense-filled ending rather than the *yawn* letdown of last night. I'm not saying that Selig and the managers were wrong in not wanting to stretch their pitchers, but I think they shouldn't have let their thinking stay confined within the restrictions of the game itself. Look at what happened at last year's NASCAR "The Winston" as an example of bending the rules of the all-star event. "Selig! Step away from the box."

I also liked Showalter's idea (or stolen idea) of having some AAA all-star pitchers sitting on the benches for just this purpose. The MLB pitchers get used up, give a kid the chance to go up against the best hitters in the league. Everyone goes away happy, and we might get to see a star born right there. If he gets lit up, well, there are the best hitters in the league after all.

The worst travesty in my mind is that no co-mvp's were awarded. Name the award after Ted, then don't award it to anyone? Someone on ESPN (Boomer?) said that perhaps it's fitting that nobody in that game deserved to win an award named after Ted. Pure drivel.
 
41Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:05 		Good post, Walk. I share your sentiments, though I do enjoy the game as a novelty - much more than the NBA all star game or the Pro Bowl. Also, while I guess baseball could have been better prepared, has this potential contingency ever actually occurred to anyone here? It's never happened before, right? And I've certainly never thought about it. Has anyone ever read an article saying that the ASG should be set up to accomodate the unlikely chance that all the pitchers might be used up by the 11th inning? Now that it's happened, I'd like to see them hammer out something to prepare for it, should it happen again, but I don't see the point in blasting anyone for the decision that was made.

I totally disagree with Khahan post 15 on that they should be playing to win. Maybe I'm off on this, but like Walk says it's much more about fanfare and individual matchups. Curt Schilling telling ARod as he steps into the box that he's only gonna throw him fastballs is great novelty stuff, but it's not typical Schilling hard-nosed competition. The game itself is a novelty. IMO, the deciding a winner wasn't necessary for substance.
 
42Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:09 		youngbuck, you're nuts if you think it would be fine to bring pitchers back. Oh wait, let me take my arm out of ice so I can go throw again. Position players is one thing but pitchers is nuts.
 
43Sludge
      Sustainer
      ID: 54131712
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:12 		MITH -

Yes, it has occured to me. I root for the game to go into extra innings every year. Not because I want to watch 11 or 12 innings of the all-star game, but because I have a side to me that loves mayhem of this sort.
 
44Pilewort
      Donor
      ID: 47555287
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:14 		the all-star game just points to the general direction baseball is heading. New stadiums can't save baseball; it's doomed.

Baseball, as one pundit put it, is yesteryear--pictures painted by the announcer on the AM radio on a hot summer night. This was before the advent of TV. Football and basketball are the new sports for TV, and women's tennis, golf and even autoracing are the new wave. Where do you find the baseball news in the newspaper? On page 3, after you've read about tennis, golf and soccer.

This all-star game ending was completely foreseeable and could have been planned for. Tens of millions of wage earners plan their day around the viewing of this tradition, yet Selig and the players take it away. If you think johnnie lunchbucket cares one iota about some multi-million dollar pitcher having a tired arm this morning, you have all lost sight of reality.

Baseball is doomed, because of acts like this and because of the players' forthcoming strike. Baseball will NEVER again regain it's previous luster.

 
45St. Louis Psychos
      ID: 265402715
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:20 		Wow, first post in a long time for me. However,
I went to bed, or more likely fell asleep watching the end of the game. When I woke up this morning I was rather dissappointed to hear the game was called. I too like the idea of a HR derby at the end of 9 if it is tied, but it is a little late for that now.

As ChicagoTRS stated, I was more dissappointed in the National Anthem then any result the game produced. I am really surprised there isn't more talk about that. Whatever that was that sang the anthem was a horrible singer and didn't know the words!!?? Come on you are in front of millions of people to a song you have heard over and over, espcially lately! It it wasn't like she...I think...stumbled for the words she just blurted them right out like she knew exactly what she was doing.
Oh how baseball has gone to hell and what can be done to get Selig out of office. As I think he is the main contributing factor to baseball's downfall.
 
46Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:22 		Well I guess if you guys knew it was inevitable then you have some beef. Still, it never occurred to me and I've never seen, heard, read or heard of anyone ever raising this issue before.
 
47James K Polk
      ID: 13516513
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:24 		HR derby to decide a tie is a great idea. Have the managers pick their champions and then toss the BP pitches themselves. That would be a blast to watch. It would almost make fans root for a tie, just to see it happen. I know I would.
 
48Khahan
      ID: 3563157
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:25 		MITH, I agree wholeheartedly that it is nice to see some of the side drama's unfold. A-rod/Schilling was good this season. The Ripken/A-rod switch last year was one of the classiest things I've ever seen.
But to me, these things should not be the reason for the game. The reason for the game should be to see which league has the better players.
The stuff on side (like the Bonds/Hunter catch and pick up) are exciting and can/should help define each Allstar game as separate from ones of the past. But when you start looking at the game as a conglomeration of sub-plots between players, then to me, you are not looking at a game.
Cut down the number of bench players. Play the game to pit the best against the best, what other purpose does an All-star game have?
 
49Pilewort
      Donor
      ID: 47555287
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:34 		foresseable? how could it not be?

X percentage of all MLB games end tied after 9 innings.

When I was a kid, back in the '60s, I recall it being almost routine that not all players on the squad entered the game.

I blame everybody, from the owners, to the players, to the managers. The fans have been taken for granted (or made fools of) yet again.

How many undeserving Yankees were selected? How many pitchers came up with lame excuses to opt out? Why should a player expect to play during the first 9 innings, or at all, if chosen to the squad?

I wanted to see a shower of paper beer cups upon Selig. After all, he was in beer town.

And I guess I even blame the fans (any myself) for mindlessly catering to the demands of the players and owners.
 
50JeffG
      Sustainer
      ID: 40451227
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:36 		How can one NOT think of this as a possible scenario when in the pregame show it was even mentioned that Garcia and Padilla are being held back in case of extra innings. If the managers are by design holding back a pitcher, some one in the baseball brain trust should have at least had the foresight to think that the game could still be tied after two extra frames.

As for the National anthem, at least FOX televised it. They were at commercial during the Canadian anthem.

To respond to post #44 paragraph 2 about baseball being doomed. While I may agree that baseball no longer is the single biggest item in the sports pages compared to how it was mid-century, I do not necessarily think that the downward trend will continue (no matter how much owners and players try to mess it up), I still think that there is enough of a new fan base to sustain it, and it has many more compelling or memorable moments each year than many of the other mentioned sports.

One final thought. Had something memorable happened last night Rose-Fosse like (in terms of an exciting moment, not injury related) the big knock against an otherwise great game would have been that it happened at 12:30 AM on the east coast, just like many of last years memorable World Series moments. Because of tie-game-gate, no one even got on the these-games-end-too-late band wagon.

Worst game ever?? The game pretty much had everything. Had the game had a run scored in the 10th or 11th inning, people might now be calling this the best all star game ever.
 
51Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 13:45 		Khahan
See, the thing is that if you like the Schilling/ARod novelty/confrontation, then you can't also care about seeing who bests who, because all you'll be seeing is whether or not ARod can best Schillings fastball in 3 or more chances when he knows that that's all he's gonna see. What does that have to do with who's better? I'm sure you know that there's a lot more to Schilling's greatness than his fastball.

The ARod/Ripken switch is another great example, if you really want to see who has the best players, what is Ripken doing playing short?

Obviously, it's a matter of perception, but I'm content with not taking the game very seriously. I honestly always thought it was intended that way.
 
52mofw
      ID: 40617519
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 14:04 		I
 
53Augustana
      ID: 531020513
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 14:23 		I am a big Baseball fan, yet I have never got interested much in the allstar game. It doesn't really prove who is better in just one game. I think there is some fan appeal in watching the better players play against each other, but agian it never has interested me much.
 
54Khahan
      ID: 3563157
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 14:36 		Agreed MITH, in that this is a matter of perception.
I've got to agree with Pileworts views on this. Not that I remember the Allstar games of the '60's. Not even alive. But I hear stories and see replays and I would love to experience an All-star game like that just once.
 
55steve houpt
      ID: 32428300
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 14:43 		walk #37 - my sentiments exactly. To me, it seems like it stopped being a 'game' with free agency and inter league play. You watched three innings. Three more than me (although it was on the TV where I was playing darts). I didn't even know it ended in a tie. Just thought I missed a winning run.

As noted in 'memorable thread', maybe my non interrest has something to do with age. Watched enough ASG's (that I thought they were playing to win), where I thought it WAS A GAME, not just an exhibition or show.

I'd say it was worst ending to an AS 'show'. Sounds like acts 1-11 were pretty well 'written' though.

I'm not saying AS shows are bad. If that's what the fans want (looks that way), that's what they will get. I liked 'games' more. But baseball is not marketing to me anymore. They know they either already have me or not.

Anybody run over the catcher trying to score last night? Rose - Fosse will probably never happen again (maybe that's good).

First ASG 1933:

AL used 13 or 18 players (won 4-2).
- 8 position players,
- 9th inning defensive sub
- PH for a pitcher
- 3 pitchers (3 innings each)

NOTE: I did go to my first professional baseball game in 18 years Friday. Enjoyed it. Was Astro's (New Orleans) and D'Dacks (Tuscon) AAA teams.
 
56Jazz Dreamers
      ID: 576481014
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 14:52 		I can understand them calling the game, but I was a little surprised they didn't go out for one more inning. I think Padilla and Garcia could have handled one more inning of pitching. It would have been nice if it were Halladay and not Garcia who was the AL's last pitcher, but one more inning was not unreasonable to ask for. Last I checked, none of the hundreds of previous pitchers who threw three innings in the All-Star game had their arms fall off.
 
57walk
      Leader
      ID: 65102616
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 15:05 		Gotta love it when "the source" agrees with ya. Well, steve, to be honest, I was watching the game while reading a book and then promptly fell asleep.

I then woke up and turned off the game to give my sole attention the book ("If Chins could Kill: Confessions of a B-Movie Actor," by Bruce Campbell). I would watch Evil Dead or Evil Dead II anyday over the all-star game!

;-)
walk
 
58Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 15:07 		I'll swallow your soul!
 
59Willix
      Sustainer
      ID: 354401513
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 15:15 		Funny Walk, my man! I surfed around some during the game, and found the Miss Fitness pageant on ESPN. T & A can always trump the All Star game in my book. ;-)
 
60MyDodgers
      ID: 27416170
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 15:54 		I enjoyed the game, great plays, a rocket home run..That is what I was looking for, who wins or loses seems beside the point of just watching the best play. The game is meaninless in the grand scheme of the season so why should the score of this meaningless game matter. Had the NL won we would have diehard AL fans giving excuses or 'reasons' why it happened or that it just didnt matter and vice versa. They had valid reasons for the actions and now can make allowances for it in the future since they have not to this point.
 
61Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 15:56 		ROFL Willix!

I was working out at the gym watching the ASG and my wife asked me if I watched the Fitness show at all on one of the 9 TVs and I said no. Man was I stupid. The Baseball ASG is by far my favorite. I really don't care about the others and have never watched the Pro Bowl. But I wish I'd have fallen asleep now. Maybe Torii Hunter should have the MVP as at least he stopped a run from scoring!
 
62Tree
      ID: 599393013
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 16:32 		to me, this was one of the best all-star games in my 33 years, with clearly the worst ending...

padilla and garcia are both STARTERS in their respective leagues. if they went 2 innings every time out, they wouldnt be starters for long. they could definitely have gone a few more innings...

there are no ties in baseball....

Tree

 
63The Left Wings
      ID: 760719
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 16:48 		No, Tree, they won't go for long because their main jobs are to start for their respective teams, and their managers don't want to send them back to Seattle and Philly with two dead arms. They are supposed to start in a couple of days, you know.
 
64Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 19652912
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 16:52 		Actually, Tree, it's not unusual for baseball exhibition games to end without a winner. Probably 5-10 games each spring are called without one team ahead.

pd
 
65YOUNGBUCK
      ID: 455522111
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 16:57 		all iam trying to say is there should have been some kind of winner in this.........

also garcia said he could go more innings, so they should have asked the pitchers if they wanted to continue. and if they wanted to quit then that would be game.
 
66rockafellerskank
      Sustainer
      ID: 306261010
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 16:58 		I heard someone stole the baseball so they had to quit.
 
67James K Polk
      ID: 13516513
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 17:34 		LOL!
 
68kev
      ID: 11438306
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 17:39 		They should have just had Robin Yount and Ozzie Smith come in and pitch. They arent playing for anything.
 
69The Left Wings
      ID: 760719
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 17:44 		Of course Garcia could go more innings. It's just that he won't be able to go on, say tomorrow or Friday, if his team needs him to start. By starting a few days late, he could start one fewer game, and you certainly want your ace pitcher to start as many games as possible.
As Brenly said, three innings are the most a pitcher should pitch in an all-star game.
 
70rockafellerskank
      Sustainer
      ID: 456181014
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 18:02 		I think Tom sums it up well.....


The Milwaukee Embarrassment
by Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated

Baseball got the travesty it deserved in Milwaukee on Tuesday night, the worst All-Star Game ever staged. You keep treating the contest like a glorified spring training exhibition and that's exactly what you wind up with, the major difference being that fans were gouged to the tune of $175 a pop for a competition not played to completion in a city that lacks the ambiance and the hotel rooms of Cactus League towns.

Only in baseball and only in Milwaukee could a sport's premier event end up with angry fans pelting the playing field with garbage and chanting "Fans Strike!" in a publically financed stadium in the commissioner's own backyard. "He was shaking, literally shaking," said one baseball source near Bud Selig while the 11th and final inning failed to break a 7-7 tie.

Let's get one thing straight: Selig made the absolute right call in ending the game after the 11th inning. NL manager Bob Brenly floated the idea of a mini home run derby to break the deadlock -- a diamond version of a shootout -- to Selig. AL manager Joe Torre said he never considered telling pitcher Freddy Garcia to groove hittable fastballs to make a tie-breaking run possible.

"They're competitors," Torre said. "You can't tell them not to compete. And how is a rigged ending good for the fans?"

Selig could not risk an injury to Garcia or Vicente Padilla, the NL pitcher who Brenly said was incapable of pitching a third inning. The real problem, however, lies with baseball allowing itself to be painted into such an awkward corner.

"They tried to get everybody into the game," Selig said of the two managers. "That's the objective of the game."

Bratwurst, Bud. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If baseball cared less about turning the All-Star Game into some democratic softball funfest at the annual company picnic and cared more about playing the best players -- the players the fans really want to see -- in a competitive environment that actually resembles a real game (basically, where we were only 15 years ago) then baseball would not have found itself in the Milwaukee Embarrassment.

"It does have to be evaluated," Selig admitted, regarding the use of players.

See, baseball has been devaluing the All-Star Game for years, so much so that FOX would trade it to ESPN for the Home Run Derby in a heartbeat. Interleague play has helped kill the game because we've seen many of the batter-pitcher matchups before. The players don't care. Many of them skip the event entirely or keep the engines running on their timeshare jets while gracing the fans with an actual at-bat or two. Check out the All-Star dugouts after the fifth inning. Empty. The biggest stars --- the ones the fans vote to see -- scram after three or four innings. If the stars don't stick around, why should we? So we get All-Star Games such as the Milwaukee Embarrassment in which fans get to see Randy Winn come to the plate more often than Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa. Did you stay up for that Winn-Mike Remlinger smackdown in the seventh inning?

It's ironic enough that baseball names the All-Star Game MVP Award after Ted Williams and then decides not to award it. But there is also this: Williams once said the highlight of his career was his 14th-inning homer to win the 1941 midsummer classic. The way the game is played now Williams would have touched down on the tarmac with his posse in time to watch the 14th inning on a television in his limo on his way to the ESPYs.

Nearly all the talk after the Milwaukee Embarrassment from Selig and the managers was about protecting the players. Nobody wanted to talk about protecting the interests of the fans. Let's face it, the game has become a meaningless blur of substitutions because nobody cares who wins or loses any more, the name of the game is pampering the players. At least three elite All-Stars, for instance, threatened to pull out of all events if baseball didn't meet their ridiculous whims, such as, in the case of two elite players, granting field access to members of their entourage.

Managers are most guilty of stripping the competition from the game. Apparently breaking a sweat is no longer permitted in All-Star games. The players' association is likely to file a grievance if anybody dares to use a pitcher for three innings, for instance. Got to get Johnny Anonymous from the Devil Rays an inning of work, people.

"If players start to think they're not going to get into the game, then why come at all?" asked Yankees third baseman Robin Ventura.

Hey, Mike Williams should be fetching coffee for John Smoltz at the All-Star Game, not enjoying some sense of entitlement to playing time.

Selig talked after the Milwaukee Embarrassment about expanding the rosters with more position players and pitchers. Huge mistake. Sure, shoehorn a few more players into the game until it looks like the cast of Ben Hur. Adding a pitcher or two is fine enough. To really fix the All-Star Game, here is what else needs to be done.


Get rid of the archaic rule that every team must be represented. People who don't deserve to be All-Stars basically cut the line of guys who do only because of this stupid rule. Magglio Ordonez, Eric Chavez and Jim Thome, for instance, were robbed of spots this year. It's time to ditch the rule, with one exception: the host city must have one representative.

Instruct managers to play the best players longer. Give the fans' favorites more at-bats. The constant substitutions must stop, especially with pitchers. Starters Roger Clemens and Dwight Gooden each pitched three innings in their 1986 duel. Only one of the past 28 starting All-Star pitchers has pitched three innings (Greg Maddux, 1994). On Tuesday night Brenly used as many pitchers through eight innings (eight) as both teams did in the entire 1971 All-Star Game. As recently as 1980-'88, nine of the 18 starting pitchers lasted at least three innings.
The rise of relief pitchers has hurt how long starters last in the game. Brenly, for instance, picked seven relievers among his 10 pitchers. (Starters Tom Glavine, Matt Morris and Randy Johnson all bailed from the team.) Relievers aren't trained to (gasp!) pitch two innings at a time.


Put something on the line. It used to be league pride, a forgotten concept. How about home field advantage for the World Series? Might players stick around if they knew a win might mean playing Game 7 of the World Series in their home park? If Benito Santiago had singled home Mike Lowell in the 11th inning Tuesday, would anybody have been there to come running out of the dugout to greet the winning run?

Keep the game out of Milwaukee. It's a fine, friendly city, but let's be honest. The only reason the game was held in Milwaukee was because Selig helped use it as a chip toward getting taxpayers to help build him a new park. When asked about future sites at a news conference Tuesday, Selig had the nerve to mention only one criteria for selection: adequate hotel space. Milwaukee might be equipped to host porcelain bathroom fixture conventions, but an All-Star Game? Forget it. The city was so eager to show the world its sophistication that it housed the international media contingent 15 miles away from downtown in roadside suburban hotels.
Many of the festivities were as disastrous as the game. Rain gushed from multiple leaks in the roof during the Home Run Derby. The annual All-Star Gala for players, media, special guests and corporate sponsors was scheduled at an outdoor venue -- with no tents rented. A vicious thunderstorm turned the party into a sad joke, with rain soaking the chafing dishes and guests alike. The annual postgame party was unlike anything since the days of Marge Schott: brats, chips and cookies. You know it's a lowbrow event when the catering is taken care of by left field bleachers surplus.

And so it came down to this: The commissioner of baseball, tighter than a brat casing, sitting there in his orange polka dot tie like some Dr. Seuss character waiting for a Cat in the Hat to save the day, a leaky, taxpayer-funded roof over his head, a near riot going on in the stands, and most of the best players in the game long gone from the premises. David Stern, Paul Tagliabue and Gary Bettman must have fallen off their couches with laughter, if they stayed up that late. (OK, OK, and Donald Fehr, too.)

Once upon a time the baseball All-Star Game was the best of its kind in sports. It was the only place, other than a World Series, to see if Johnny Bench could hit Catfish Hunter, or Reggie Jackson could hit Tom Seaver. It was the place to see if the National League really was better than the American League. Pete Rose cared enough to run into Ray Fosse. Ted Williams played the whole game.

Now the NBA All-Star Game is a better showcase. So they don't play much defense. At least Kobe Bryant is going to be on the floor in the fourth quarter trying to win.

Winning doesn't matter any more in the baseball All-Star Game. What matters is getting everyone playing time. What matters is getting the marquee players out of the game as quickly as possible. What matters is getting them on their jets before the fans realize they've been had. The Milwaukee Embarrassment should not have been a surprise. Baseball has been asking for it.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers the baseball beat for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send a question to his Baseball Mailbag

 
71Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 18:12 		That was very well written.

At least people aren't as focused on steroids and the labor dispute for a day. ;)
 
72YOUNGBUCK
      ID: 455522111
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 18:26 		rfs your really immature.
 
73Rogue's Strikers
      ID: 45629103
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 18:39 		Nice glass house you live in Yongbuk. rfs, here's your rock...
 
74stinkypuff
      ID: 566333119
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 18:58 		As long as they insist on using the "everybody gets to play" rule from Little League, why not go all the way and let batters hit off the tee? Think about it. Pitchers wouldn't get tired, hitters wouldn't have to worry about getting beaned -- and the winning manager could take his team out for ice cream. Problem solved.
 
75Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 2065918
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 19:51 		I don't like the article at all. I remember growing up in the 70's in Cleveland, hoping that Gary Alexander or whoever was the Cleveland representative would get in the game. Don't we already have enough of the strong teams represented? Really--take away the "each team represented" rule (which makes what, like 2 or 3 difficult decisions per manager, tops?) and many fans will tune out. Watching "your" All-Star mix it up is a weak team fan's dream.

This doesn't mean that all the pitchers have to play. Verducci makes no distinction between position players and pitchers. Last night if there were another pitcher for each team available, they could have gone another three innings if necessary (probably not necessary given the teams that were out there would probably score).

I don't condone players leaving the scene early (should be a rule that they stay on the bench), but Ventura is right that more players would skip if they thought they were going to the ASG just to sit on the bench. Isn't it already a problem that players are skipping? Why turn on the taps?

On one hand you can't tell the players to be more competitive and on the other tell them fewer of them will be playing at all. Competitive dugout cheering?

If the game ended with a win this would have been considered a great ASG, despite Verducci's bitching about players not trying harder. Rose v Fosse is not the competitive level we should be striving for. The ASG is as much a celebration of the game with the fans (who voted in the starters, after all) as it is a game.

Verducci should stop worrying about whether someone won and examine his own need for competition in all things.

pd
 
76The Left Wings
      ID: 28851619
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 20:24 		One thing I know for sure: that the reporters should live in roadside suburban hotels 15 miles away from downtown.
 
77steve houpt
      ID: 32428300
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 20:31 		I remember growing up in the late 50's and 60's in Philadelphia. The Phillies had to have players on the All Star team (minimum of one). Actually had a few good ones. Ashburn, Roberts, Allen. Johnny Callison won 64 game with ? 3 run homer. But I watched to see the NL kick the AL's a$$. I was a National League fan. If the NL had a better chance with the Phillies rooting them on from the bench, oh well, get some better players Philadelphia. I wanted to see Aaron, Mays, etc. IT'S WAS AN ALL STAR GAME.

But all of that is gone. You show me an all star lineup from the 60's and I can tell you which team the players played for (and might be able to guess the year if you didn't tell me).

You show me a combined starting line up from a game in the 90's at random and I might be able to get the the league for about half of them. Which team was paying them that year, a little harder.

Baseball is a different game all around. No, it's just a business. So, the All Star is just another part of that business venture. Winning isn't everything. It's how much money you can make.

Good or bad. Who knows. The fan will decide (or corporate sponsors, or the TV sponsors).
 
78stinkypuff
      ID: 566333119
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 20:34 		he probably overindulged in the "brats, chips and cookies" and had to take it out on somebody.
 
79Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 2065918
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 20:52 		:)
 
80Ref
      ID: 121135289
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 21:17 		Just a thought...what would happen in the World Series or even a reg. season game if they went say 16 or 17 innings or so and ran out of players? Wouldn't they have to make someone in the field pitch and go with 8 players and every time that person's turn came up there would be an out? Not saying they should go to that extreme for an ASG, but that would be more rare than a ASG simply going 12.
 
81Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 33637100
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 21:30 		Ref, the managers do not attempt to use all their players in 9 innings; certainly not their pitchers.

This whole thing is self-correcting. You better believe that for the forseeable future in the ASG there will be a couple of pitchers who haven't even warmed up by the time the 9th rolls around.

pd
 
82Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 3711402623
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 22:10 		I guess a lot of what he says makes sense if you agree that the game should be more competetive. Maybe you guys are right about that, I always felt it was a bit trivial and treating it as such seems to make it more fun. But that's me and since appeal value is a matter of opinion, there's no sense in me bothering to try and counter him there, even though he and I disagree on that.

However, there are just a few things he writes that are pretty off base or otherwise just completly pointless in there, regardless of your opinion.

"Milwaukee Embarrassment"

...in a city that lacks the ambiance and the hotel rooms of Cactus League towns.

...and only in Milwaukee could a sport's premier event end up..blah blah bla

That stuff is added for no reason other than to be a jerk. Does he hate Selig so much that he has to take a cheap shot at his whole city? Completly pointless, arrogant.

[If baseball]...cared more about playing the best players -- the players the fans really want to see...

He knows damn well that the players the fans want to see are never all of the best among the league. You need go no further than (I'm guessing with relative confidence) every single all-star roster elected by the fans for proof. He's trying to sneak by us the false notion that since the fans elect the best players to the game, they are expressing that they want to see a competeive contest. Lots of the other things he says have merit, but applying that logic with any degree of honesty actually works against him, if anything. Regardless, he's faking an argument under false pretenses, and he's not even good or slick about it.

Put something on the line. It used to be league pride, a forgotten concept. How about home field advantage for the World Series?

Riiiiiiiight. Boston fans watching their team trailing the Yankees in a tight division race will be happy to trust Joe Torre with Pedro Martinez in his hands and visions of home field advantage in 3 months?

Keep the game out of Milwaukee. It's a fine, friendly city, but let's be honest... Milwaukee might be equipped to host porcelain bathroom fixture conventions, but an All-Star Game? Forget it. The city was so eager to show the world its sophistication that it housed the international media contingent 15 miles away from downtown in roadside suburban hotels.

Man, why does he hate that town so much? No, no, I said it's a fine, friendly city. I know you did, Tom.
Really, what does he want? It's a small market town. Was Pittsburgh any better? I've never been to either city, but is it set up that much better to handle the press corps for an event the size of the ASG than Milwaukee? What about Cincy? Should ample hotel accomodations for the press be a mandatory prerequisite for a city to qualify for the All Star Game? But it's the fans that are being cheated, right? What if one of those small market teams gets to the playoffs, Tom? He'll bitch about his 45min commute to work at the World Series in another article about how the fans got screwed, I guess.
 
83The Left Wings
      ID: 28851619
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 22:13 		Ref, the game is forfeited if you can't put 9 players on the field. As of those 20-inning games, yes they did have to play until there's a winner. The poor last pitcher will have to pitch for a long long time, unless they decide to have the starter for the next day warm up and pitch ahead of time and skip a start.
 
84stinkypuff
      ID: 566333119
      Wed, Jul 10, 2002, 22:25 		Good question, ref. Never heard of it happening in an MLB game, but it must have happened to some pro team at some point. Or maybe not. In the legendary longest game in baseball history (33 innings) the AAA Pawtucket Red Sox used only 11 hitters and 8 pitchers. Rochester used 16 hitters and 6 pitchers (although the losing pitcher wasn't on the team until the game was completed two months after it started).
 
85Madman
      ID: 21020124
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 02:00 		More Random Thoughts:

1) I remember the 1983 All-Star game vividly. Watch those guys on the AL team react after Fred Lynn's HR. They wanted that game bad. Pride was on the line.

2) I think the biggest issue with the 11-inning game isn't with Selig's decision. It's with the fact that a single moment in time encapsulated all that has gone wrong with the All-Star game -- and baseball to some extent -- over the past 20 years.

On top of the obvious issues that have been touched upon above by many -- which are indeed critical -- It was a shocking revelation about just how selfish the players and management have both become.

Walk talked about playing games without meaning; PD has made between this game and spring training games. The fact that we no longer see the difference between those things and the All-Star game is a direct result of incredibly selfish actions. We, the fans, have had our pockets picked.

Once upon a time, games had meaning because of the effort people put in; now players claim that they will only put out effort in games with meaning. Prior to the 1990's players with pride put effort into even the All-Star game, thereby giving it special meaning. After the 1990's, players have it all backwards.

PD is correct in his analogy between the ASG and ST; but that is the problem, not an excuse. The All-Star Game has become a total joke, one of which puts yet another dent into an already failing national past-time.

And, less than 24 hours after Bud Selig's unprecedented decision to terminate the All-Star game without refunds or meaningful apologies, he threatens that two teams aren't going to make it through the season because they aren't going to have the money.

Is there no shame left in baseball? Or is the greed and corruption so pervasive that anything goes? Players not willing to give a decent effort; owners scamming for every buck. It's time America got rid of our national past-time and took our pride back.
 
86KYCAT
      Donor
      ID: 37649415
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 09:00 		"There's no TYING in Baseball!"
 
87Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 11:07 		If handled correctly, 30 players should be plenty.

The 1967 All-Star Game went 15 innings, with Tony Perez of the Cincinnati Reds homering to give the NL a 2-1 victory. Despite having only 25 players on his roster, NL manager Walter Alston looked at his bullpen after the ninth inning and still had Mike Cuellar, Don Drysdale and Tom Seaver available. Sitting around for AL manager Hank Bauer was Catfish Hunter, who entered in the 11th and served up Perez's home run in the 15th.
 
88slug
      Donor
      ID: 555102417
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 12:50 		Shouldn't the roster size be smaller? That way the chosen players will have to play longer and you still have ample innings to get everybody in the game. One problem with this is that you'll have even more players snubbed.

IMO, the managers should not be allowed to choose the remaining roster. Maybe a committee of each leagues managers can make the decision.

Just a few thoughts I had that I don't think have been addressed yet.
 
90Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 14:16 		Let's not make one of the leagues look bad. Yeah that's it. We are so even and equal that we should just tie to prove it!
 
91Pilewort
      Donor
      ID: 47555287
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 14:20 		I can hear Torre before the game, giving his pep talk to the AL All-Star squad:

"Ted Williams meant a lot to the game of baseball and a lot to the American League. You, Nomar, have the weight of Ted's spirit on your shoulders today, as does this entire team. Now let's go out and tie one for the Gipper."
 
92blue hen, almighty
      ID: 473133021
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 14:42
"Get rid of the archaic rule that every team must be represented. People who don't deserve to be All-Stars basically cut the line of guys who do only because of this stupid rule. Magglio Ordonez, Eric Chavez and Jim Thome, for instance, were robbed of spots this year. It's time to ditch the rule, with one exception: the host city must have one representative."

I disagree wholeheartedly. I know there aren't many Devil Rays fans, but I'm sure they loved having Winn in the game. I definitely hung on every Jimmy Rollins' at-bat. This is a MUST to keep fans of bad teams.

 
93Silver Streak
      ID: 251141412
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:21 		....and Randy Winn played pretty good in that game too. Makes you wonder if he would have been a valid all-star surrounded by better teammates.
 
94Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:24 		it does?
 
95Silver Streak
      ID: 251141412
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:24 		Before you all freak out, yes I live in Tampa Bay.
 
96beastiemiked
      ID: 17414316
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:27 		I clung myself to the TV hoping they would show the lone St.Louis rep riding the pine.
 
97Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:31 		Just saying, everyone is going on about what a travesty it is that the game is taken so non-chalantly(sp?). Besides, it is only one game, after all. Not dissing Winn, mind you, I wouldn't say he isn't the real deal or whatever, just that one ASG performance isn't any kind of a guage.
 
98walk
      Leader
      ID: 214581016
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:39 		Sorry, I do not know how to quickly create hyperlinks. Below are 3 URLs from 3 interesting articles on this "event" (non-event, IMO) from today's NY Times. Jack Curry offers many options for preventing this in the future (all arguably tenable or dumb) while the others focus more on the bigger pitcure of how the recent all-star )non)-result is just one more sign of how this particular sport is going way downhill (a la mr. houpt):

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/sports/baseball/11STAR.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/sports/baseball/11BASE.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/sports/baseball/11RHOD.html

- walk
 
99KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 266182910
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:40 		3 of the AL's 7 runs were scored and 1 driven in by sole-representatives, who likely wouldn't have been there without the rule: Fick, Winn, and Batista.

In addition:
• Winn was one of only 3 players in the game to hit a double and had one of the AL's 3 SB's.

• Fick also had one of the AL's 3 SB's and scored the game-tying run.

• Batista's RBI came with 2 outs in the top of the 7th.

Looking at the box score, at least for the AL, the "have to be represented" guys did a lot more for the team than a lot of the guys voted to start, who were a combined 4-for-17, with 8 K's.

 
100James K Polk
      ID: 13516513
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:43 		walk link #1

walk link #2

walk link #C

Walk, you might want to check out the little "Click here to create and insert a link" line right below the text entry box. It's really easy to use.
 
101Silver Streak
      ID: 251141412
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:55 		KKB: I'm glad you got my point....and I wasn't saying Randy Winn is the 2nd coming of Vlad Guerrero, but it is possible he is as good offensively as Junior Spivey, Shea Hillenbrand and others who have FAR superior teammates around them. Just a thought.....
 
102Khahan
      ID: 586521115
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 15:58 		KKB, all those stats about the lone rep's driving in/scoring runs for the AL is nice..but which pitchers did they score off of? Which NL defensive bests were out there fielding when this happened?
 
103rockafellerskank
      Sustainer
      ID: 576311110
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 16:00 		If reserves Winn, Fick, and Batista did all that, what would the regulars have done? Better? I think so.
 
104walk
      Leader
      ID: 214581016
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 16:00 		Thanks, Prez. You're right, pretty do-able!

:-)
walk
 
105Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 19652912
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 16:01 		KKB: 4 of 7. Vizquel's triple in the eighth tied up the game.

pd
 
106KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 266182910
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 17:32 		Khahan, Perez, Gagne, Remlinger (2), Kim (2), and Nen gave up the NL runs. Not exactly the easiest of guys to score off of. Defense? Not sure, but that would lead one to believe that the NL could do the same and yet they only scored 2 runs in the last 5 innings of the game, both off of a great closer in Sasaki. Looking at both lineups, I wouldn't discount the results of Winn, Fick, Batista, or Vizquel. Not one bit.

rfs, the Starters and the non-starter "stars" barely did anything. What makes you think that other reserves would do any better? Even the non-starter stars didn't do much. Between Winn, Fick, Batista, and Vizquel, there were 3 runs and 2 RBI. That leaves just 4 runs and 5 RBI for the other 17 "stars".

 
107BoSoxFan9
      ID: 215441721
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 22:34 		I apologize for not reading in this forum more often, but can somebody clue me in about all of the stolen basketball jokes?
 
108rockafellerskank
      Sustainer
      ID: 456181014
      Thu, Jul 11, 2002, 22:38 		YOUNGBUCK's stolen basketball yarn....
 
109Madman
      ID: 21020124
      Fri, Jul 12, 2002, 03:46 		When did this story of Padilla having trouble warming up before the 10th get started?

The reason I'm asking is that Brenly was asked in the bottom of the 10th how long Padilla could go, and he said something like "3 innings, but only because he threw so few pitches in the 10th."

Did Brenly lie to us? Or did he tell a fib to the Commish to protect his behind? Or did he not find out about the status of Padilla until sometime during the top of the 11th?