Yesterday, Tom Verducci of SI was interviewed by Charlie Steiner of Baseball Beat (XM Radio channel 175, "MLB Home Plate"), and in the course of their conversation, the excitement and tension in this year's 15 inning All-Star game came up, and Verducci (originally a detractor of "This time it counts", by his own admission) pointed to the excitement in extra innings not only evident in the stands but also in the dugouts (where even players who had been replaced were still on pins and needles on the top step of the dugout) as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that "This time it counts" is successful, and anyone who still doubts this is living in an alternate universe and doesn't know it. He might as well have used that famous line that is now regularly used with respect to the Wild Card: "The debate is over."
I found Cook delivers gutsy, memorable effort to be an excellent recap of those tense extra innings. Even better was Tenth inning provides All-Star drama. It is certainly thrilling to read how Miguel Tejada's play for the final out in the bottom of the 10th nearly brought down the house.
It is of course noteworthy that what brought down the house was not the AL (the home team) winning (in fact, this play was one of many that threatened to prolong the game past the endurance levels of both managers and probably many of the fans there), but simply a fantastic play. Let me underscore that again: a play that did not resolve this game that now "Counts!" I wonder if there's an object lesson there ....
At any rate, my response to Tom Verducci would be: I'm not going to seriously argue that Home Field advantage in the World Series hanging in the balance may have heightened the drama last Tuesday at Yankee Stadium. After all, if the players and the managers believe it makes a difference, then it effectively does. I would only mention that famous logical fallacy Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because the game was terribly exciting after Bud Selig made this "tweak" in the All-Star game, does not prove cause-and-effect. More importantly, it does not prove that this "tweak" was necessary to make the players try that hard to win. Surely there are still old time fans alive who can remember when the players went all out to win the All-Star game at a time when the game had zero impact on the post-season.
However, that has never been my argument against this gimmick, though I still question how big a deal it really is, since home field advantage only matters if the World Series reaches the 7th game.
My argument is this: what is so wrong about treating this game like the exhibition game that it is??? To approach it from the opposite end, it is still obvious that this game is still basically an exhibition game when Terry Francona inserts his 3rd pitcher to begin the 4th inning of a scoreless game, and replaced Alex Rodriguez with Joe Crede at about the same time (and I'm a White Sox fan so I loved seeing Crede in there so early). If A-Rod had somewhere else to be later in the evening, then maybe there should be some way to replace him from the start (If the game really matters, then players should be able to adjust their schedules around that game, don't you think?). And if a pitcher is only allowed to pitch one inning, then maybe he should be replaced too. After all, if the game really matters, then everyone on the team should show up ready to play for real, not with a list of exemptions a mile long.
Obviously this is still pretty much an exhibition game. To take what is pretty much an exhibition game and translate it into Home Field advantage in the World Series is illogical.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
I want my All-Star game back
Every year, Kyle Whelliston goes into a self-imposed exile, avoiding at all costs any mention of the Super Bowl, trying his best to live his life as if that particular game does not exist. I had thoughts of doing the same thing this year with the All-Star game, but I was not up to the challenge. I settled for abstaining from watching or listening to it, but I still had to follow the game with MLB Gameday.
Yes, I want my All-Star game back. You know -- back when it was an exhibition game and everyone recognized this unassailable fact. "This time it counts" has kind of ruined it for me. I confess the one reason why I did follow the game on-line as mentioned is because I wanted to see if the NL could somehow win the game for a change. Alternatively, I was fascinated to find out what method to which the NL would resort to blow this particular All-Star game.
When the game reached midnight and went into extra innings, I shut off my computer and went to sleep, dreaming of the game still ending in a tie. I was hoping to wake up the next morning to find out they were still playing. I would have laughed for a good five minutes.
1. Has anyone considered that to assign home-field advantage to the World Series based on the outcome of a game where one league has the home-field advantage is asinine?
2. When Bud "Darth Vader" Selig has to send foot soldiers down to each clubhouse in extra innings, saying, "Guys? You see that padlock on the clubhouse door? You're not getting out of here until one of you wins. You're here for the duration," you know the war has already been lost. You can't force people to play an exhibition game as if it is a one-game playoff for the final postseason slot if they don't naturally want to play it that way. Terry Francona used his third pitcher in the 4th inning (of a scoreless game) and took A-Rod out of the game in that same inning. You don't do things like that if the primary objective is to win the game.
3. The game used to count 30 or 40 years ago. It doesn't anymore. Get over it, Bud. When at least half your pitching staff arrives at the game with little notes pinned to their uniforms: "Dear Mr. Manager, please do not use my pitcher for more than 1 inning or more than 25 pitches, whichever comes first. Thanks very much, signed, Mr. Pitching coach", you can't possibly manage as if your primary objective is to win the game. Face it, the days when you could use each pitcher for 3 innings and guys like Willie Mays could play 15 innings are gone. You can't get them back.
4. It's a baseball game. The fundamental objective is to score more runs than the other team. If any player can't at least treat the game that way, they don't belong there in the first place. That said, there's really no reason to try to reinforce that imperative with band-aid measures like "This time it counts!" Of course Francona and Hurdle wanted to win the game, and so frankly do all the players involved in the game. But there simply are other concerns to be attended to as well, and you're never going to make winning at all costs the theme of this exhibition. So, why pretend to heighten the importance of the outcome -- beyond just the joy of winning the game all by itself?
5. While we're at it, tell me this: Why is it the utter end of the world if the game does end in a tie???? I mean, I get that this is no ordinary exhibition game (ordinary exhibition games end in a tie all the time, every year, by the way, and nobody cares). Sure, it's on the national stage, and it is a little embarrassing. But a catastrophe of biblical proportions?? I don't get that. If you're that ashamed of the 2002 All-Star game, there are things you can tweak about the rules of the All-Star game itself (somebody a long time ago suggested allowing a catcher that has been replaced return to the game in extra innings if necessary), without resorting to this nonsense about home-field advantage in the WS. That's an incentive where none is really needed. What are needed are some special rules that facilitate managing this special game to a desirable conclusion without altering the basic flavor of the game.
6. Billy Ripken was interviewed on MLB Home Plate (XM channel 175) and pinpointed something else that must change: we have to have contingency plans for all these players that show up with this or that restriction on their usage. He didn't make any concrete suggestions, but if a guy is not ready to go a reasonable amount in the game, there ought to be a way to say, "Ya know, come on up and soak up the atmosphere, enjoy your introduction, tip your hat to the fans, enjoy the parade, you earned it, but we're gonna put you on the disabled list for this game and bring someone else up for this game that can go longer so we're not so hamstrung."
7. Billy's interviewer had the temerity to ask if the excitement of this year's game was significantly enhanced by "This time it counts!" Essentially, Billy's response was: "Are you kidding me???" Well put, Billy. If you can't find yourself with one foot on the top step of the dugout feeling the tension while Aaron Cook gets out of a bases-loaded-no-outs situation in the bottom of the 9th, you're not a baseball player. If you are sitting in the stands in that moment feeling the least bit bored, you're not a baseball fan. "This time it counts!" adds absolutely nothing to the excitement that is inherent in the sport itself.
My goal next year is to pull a Kyle Whelliston for real this time: No voting, and completely ignoring baseball for 3 days in July. I don't know if I can pull it off, but Bud, if you're reading this and want me back as a fan of this game, give me my All-Star game back.
Yes, I want my All-Star game back. You know -- back when it was an exhibition game and everyone recognized this unassailable fact. "This time it counts" has kind of ruined it for me. I confess the one reason why I did follow the game on-line as mentioned is because I wanted to see if the NL could somehow win the game for a change. Alternatively, I was fascinated to find out what method to which the NL would resort to blow this particular All-Star game.
When the game reached midnight and went into extra innings, I shut off my computer and went to sleep, dreaming of the game still ending in a tie. I was hoping to wake up the next morning to find out they were still playing. I would have laughed for a good five minutes.
1. Has anyone considered that to assign home-field advantage to the World Series based on the outcome of a game where one league has the home-field advantage is asinine?
2. When Bud "Darth Vader" Selig has to send foot soldiers down to each clubhouse in extra innings, saying, "Guys? You see that padlock on the clubhouse door? You're not getting out of here until one of you wins. You're here for the duration," you know the war has already been lost. You can't force people to play an exhibition game as if it is a one-game playoff for the final postseason slot if they don't naturally want to play it that way. Terry Francona used his third pitcher in the 4th inning (of a scoreless game) and took A-Rod out of the game in that same inning. You don't do things like that if the primary objective is to win the game.
3. The game used to count 30 or 40 years ago. It doesn't anymore. Get over it, Bud. When at least half your pitching staff arrives at the game with little notes pinned to their uniforms: "Dear Mr. Manager, please do not use my pitcher for more than 1 inning or more than 25 pitches, whichever comes first. Thanks very much, signed, Mr. Pitching coach", you can't possibly manage as if your primary objective is to win the game. Face it, the days when you could use each pitcher for 3 innings and guys like Willie Mays could play 15 innings are gone. You can't get them back.
4. It's a baseball game. The fundamental objective is to score more runs than the other team. If any player can't at least treat the game that way, they don't belong there in the first place. That said, there's really no reason to try to reinforce that imperative with band-aid measures like "This time it counts!" Of course Francona and Hurdle wanted to win the game, and so frankly do all the players involved in the game. But there simply are other concerns to be attended to as well, and you're never going to make winning at all costs the theme of this exhibition. So, why pretend to heighten the importance of the outcome -- beyond just the joy of winning the game all by itself?
5. While we're at it, tell me this: Why is it the utter end of the world if the game does end in a tie???? I mean, I get that this is no ordinary exhibition game (ordinary exhibition games end in a tie all the time, every year, by the way, and nobody cares). Sure, it's on the national stage, and it is a little embarrassing. But a catastrophe of biblical proportions?? I don't get that. If you're that ashamed of the 2002 All-Star game, there are things you can tweak about the rules of the All-Star game itself (somebody a long time ago suggested allowing a catcher that has been replaced return to the game in extra innings if necessary), without resorting to this nonsense about home-field advantage in the WS. That's an incentive where none is really needed. What are needed are some special rules that facilitate managing this special game to a desirable conclusion without altering the basic flavor of the game.
6. Billy Ripken was interviewed on MLB Home Plate (XM channel 175) and pinpointed something else that must change: we have to have contingency plans for all these players that show up with this or that restriction on their usage. He didn't make any concrete suggestions, but if a guy is not ready to go a reasonable amount in the game, there ought to be a way to say, "Ya know, come on up and soak up the atmosphere, enjoy your introduction, tip your hat to the fans, enjoy the parade, you earned it, but we're gonna put you on the disabled list for this game and bring someone else up for this game that can go longer so we're not so hamstrung."
7. Billy's interviewer had the temerity to ask if the excitement of this year's game was significantly enhanced by "This time it counts!" Essentially, Billy's response was: "Are you kidding me???" Well put, Billy. If you can't find yourself with one foot on the top step of the dugout feeling the tension while Aaron Cook gets out of a bases-loaded-no-outs situation in the bottom of the 9th, you're not a baseball player. If you are sitting in the stands in that moment feeling the least bit bored, you're not a baseball fan. "This time it counts!" adds absolutely nothing to the excitement that is inherent in the sport itself.
My goal next year is to pull a Kyle Whelliston for real this time: No voting, and completely ignoring baseball for 3 days in July. I don't know if I can pull it off, but Bud, if you're reading this and want me back as a fan of this game, give me my All-Star game back.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Requiem for adverbs
"This team is doing things different than they used to ..."
"He's throwing the ball pretty good right now ..."
How often have I heard statements like these recently?
I can only guess one of two things has happened: (1) the adverbs are on strike, (2) the adjectives banded together and started dressing up like adverbs and nobody noticed the difference.
I need to point out a couple of things: (1) In my experience, the main culprits have not been athletes, for whom fluent communication is not necessarily what they are supposed to major in, but rather the play-by-play announcers and sports analysts (for whom fluent communication is what they are supposed to major in), (2) these statements I'm hearing are coming from people for whom English is their first language.
I was just watching the highlights for tonight's MLB games, and George Grande, "a 39-year veteran of the broadcasting business" and currently the TV voice of the Cincinnati Reds, announced Jerry Hairston's 3rd inning home run, "He hit it pretty good to left..."
George, try this with me: "He hit it pretty well to left..." He announced Griffey's walk-off home run the same way.
Now, I certainly do not expect George, or anyone else calling a home run to double-check a grammar manual while the home run ball flies out of the park and the moment of excitement is gone forever. Obviously, fluent communication is something you learn ahead of time so that it becomes second nature, even in the heat of the moment. I'm thinking that the sports journalism community as a whole has been skipping the lessons on adverbs for some time now.
Maybe we need Tom Lehrer to come out of retirement and help us with his L-Y song:
"You're wearing your squeaky shoes
And right there taking a snooze
Is a tiger, so how do you walk on by?..."
I can just hear a sports announcer answer: "real quiet-like." Ugh. I actually can easily imagine hearing George Grande or John Rooney or Karl Ravech not only using an adjective to describe the verb "walk", but compounding the offense by using the adjective "real" to describe the adjective-masquerading-as-an-adverb "quiet" (the "-like" is added as an unconscious admission that "quiet" is the wrong form to use).
"He's throwing the ball pretty good right now ..."
How often have I heard statements like these recently?
I can only guess one of two things has happened: (1) the adverbs are on strike, (2) the adjectives banded together and started dressing up like adverbs and nobody noticed the difference.
I need to point out a couple of things: (1) In my experience, the main culprits have not been athletes, for whom fluent communication is not necessarily what they are supposed to major in, but rather the play-by-play announcers and sports analysts (for whom fluent communication is what they are supposed to major in), (2) these statements I'm hearing are coming from people for whom English is their first language.
I was just watching the highlights for tonight's MLB games, and George Grande, "a 39-year veteran of the broadcasting business" and currently the TV voice of the Cincinnati Reds, announced Jerry Hairston's 3rd inning home run, "He hit it pretty good to left..."
George, try this with me: "He hit it pretty well to left..." He announced Griffey's walk-off home run the same way.
Now, I certainly do not expect George, or anyone else calling a home run to double-check a grammar manual while the home run ball flies out of the park and the moment of excitement is gone forever. Obviously, fluent communication is something you learn ahead of time so that it becomes second nature, even in the heat of the moment. I'm thinking that the sports journalism community as a whole has been skipping the lessons on adverbs for some time now.
Maybe we need Tom Lehrer to come out of retirement and help us with his L-Y song:
"You're wearing your squeaky shoes
And right there taking a snooze
Is a tiger, so how do you walk on by?..."
I can just hear a sports announcer answer: "real quiet-like." Ugh. I actually can easily imagine hearing George Grande or John Rooney or Karl Ravech not only using an adjective to describe the verb "walk", but compounding the offense by using the adjective "real" to describe the adjective-masquerading-as-an-adverb "quiet" (the "-like" is added as an unconscious admission that "quiet" is the wrong form to use).
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Live Blogging and the NCAA
Now I understand why press row at a College basketball game generally doesn't have an internet connection.
The web info game (The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, North Dakota) reports that live blogging at NCAA events is a serious issue that they are trying to deal with, meaning they are trying to prohibit.
A fantasy of mine as a blogger for fans of The Summit League (formerly the Mid-Continent Conference) and now for fans of The Horizon League, which Valparaiso University is now a part of, has been to be able to blog a conference tournament courtside. I never seriously tried to pursue this because it seemed like a pipe-dream that I had no right to expect to be fulfilled. I just thought it would be neat. As it is, I have settled for posting my observations from my hotel room each night.
At the same time, I have often noticed that the in-game scores of other games that play-by-play announcers relay during timeouts of the game they are doing are sometimes way behind where those games actually are, and in this age of the internet, I have wondered why that would be, since someone at the corresponding radio station should be able to keep up with other games better than that. Now I wonder if the above article explains in some sense why this would be so. I have been told that they get scores via phone hookups to the other schools in the conference, and the time it takes for the score to travel from the control room to courtside, plus the time it takes to reach a timeout so there is a chance to pass on those scores might well explain the disparity. It appears that they don't have an internet connection courtside, so they can't just directly check for updates. At the time, this seemed backward, but the above article presents some plausible reasons for this.
The web info game (The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, North Dakota) reports that live blogging at NCAA events is a serious issue that they are trying to deal with, meaning they are trying to prohibit.
A fantasy of mine as a blogger for fans of The Summit League (formerly the Mid-Continent Conference) and now for fans of The Horizon League, which Valparaiso University is now a part of, has been to be able to blog a conference tournament courtside. I never seriously tried to pursue this because it seemed like a pipe-dream that I had no right to expect to be fulfilled. I just thought it would be neat. As it is, I have settled for posting my observations from my hotel room each night.
At the same time, I have often noticed that the in-game scores of other games that play-by-play announcers relay during timeouts of the game they are doing are sometimes way behind where those games actually are, and in this age of the internet, I have wondered why that would be, since someone at the corresponding radio station should be able to keep up with other games better than that. Now I wonder if the above article explains in some sense why this would be so. I have been told that they get scores via phone hookups to the other schools in the conference, and the time it takes for the score to travel from the control room to courtside, plus the time it takes to reach a timeout so there is a chance to pass on those scores might well explain the disparity. It appears that they don't have an internet connection courtside, so they can't just directly check for updates. At the time, this seemed backward, but the above article presents some plausible reasons for this.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
It used to matter tons more than it will ever count in the future
To continue the thought, something else occurred to me. Interestingly enough, it was prior to the elimination of the reserve clause when the players truly played the All-Star game like it mattered. But long before "This time it counts", it stopped mattering as much as it used to. "This time it counts" is a cheap way to try to regain what has been lost forever.
Which is not to say that it was qualitatively better back then. Maybe it's wrong for this game to matter so much, and maybe player freedom (free agency) has helped bring about that change.
What it shows is that you can't take an exhibition game and manufacture it's importance. For mixed reasons, the game result used to be the most important thing simply for pride's sake. Now it no longer is, and to think you can replace that with some gimmick like home field advantage for game 7 of the WS is preposterous, sort of like the Wild Card...
Which is not to say that it was qualitatively better back then. Maybe it's wrong for this game to matter so much, and maybe player freedom (free agency) has helped bring about that change.
What it shows is that you can't take an exhibition game and manufacture it's importance. For mixed reasons, the game result used to be the most important thing simply for pride's sake. Now it no longer is, and to think you can replace that with some gimmick like home field advantage for game 7 of the WS is preposterous, sort of like the Wild Card...
"This time it counts" is a joke.
Red Schoendienst remains the last Cardinal manager to win an All-Star game, beating Mayo Smith's AL squad, 9-3 on July 23rd, 1969 at RFK stadium, home of the brand new expansion Washington Senators.
Whitey Herzog was 0 for 3 in a Cardinal uniform, and now Tony LaRussa is 0-2. Of course, in the 80's Herzog was almost the lone NL manager to lose in the MidSummer Classic, joined only by Tommy Lasorda in 1989. Tony LaRussa, on the other hand, is just one of 9 NL managers in the past 11 years to lose this game: Bobby Cox, Jim Leyland, Bruce Bochy, Bobby Valentine, Bob Brenly, Felipe Alou, Jack McKeon, and Phil Garner all failed to win, with only Bob Brenly being spared the loss in that fateful 2002 game that has now given us "This time it counts!"
Really?
1. The only way it counts for anything is if there is a WS game 7. Just for the record, 2002 was the last time the WS went the full 7 games, and "This time it counts" didn't start until 2003. The Marlins and the Cardinals won without it, and in fact, the Marlins had the same number of home games as the Yankees, and the Cardinals had 3 home games to the Tigers' 2. The White Sox and the Red Sox had it and didn't need it; they both swept in 4. So, in practice, the All-Star game result has meant zilch so far.
2. Joe Buck, among others, keeps babbling about how it has changed the way the game is managed. "What we've noticed in talking to managers who have a reason to try and win and gain home-field advantage in the World Series -- whether it's [AL manager Jim] Leyland this year, and I think it's farfetched with [NL manager Tony] La Russa -- for the guys doing the game, it makes it more fun and interesting because there is strategy involved. Because of roster moves that have more to do with strategy. We like it. It's something that has added to our conversation during the course of the game. It's been debated for years now. It enhances it." Tim McCarver chimes in with "It affects the managers more than the players. It's farfetched to think if Carl Crawford is batting with two out and a man on second base in the ninth, he's saying, 'Let's win this for David Ortiz, so the Red Sox can win home-field advantage.' That's not the case. But for the manager, that is the case. I think Tony and Jim will be playing to win, and prior to this format, I don't think they played to win. First and foremost, thoughts were on playing to get guys into the game."
Hogwash. Apparently neither one of them was paying attention when Jim Leyland said that winning was not the most important thing. By some accounts, ARod didn't score because he decided not to pull a Pete Rose and crash into the catcher at home plate, though the AL ended up winning anyway. LaRussa held Albert Pujols back in case the game went into extra innings so that he wouldn't run out of position players.
If it really counted, he probably wouldn't have hesitated to pinch-hit Pujols in the 9th or sooner for someone, and then figured out the defensive alignment if it came to that later. He would have played for the win in the 9th and made do in extra innings with whatever was left.
The truth is, for some time now, winning has taken a back seat to showmanship and satisfying the wishes of individual teams. Whitey Herzog in 1983 at least said so openly: I don't care about winning, I care about giving everyone a chance to play. He was probably exaggerating his indifference a bit, but the truth is, today's All-Star manager has a roster of players who often come with notes from their team saying, "Don't play my guy" or "My pitcher only goes 1 inning." The starters aren't chosen by the managers unless the leading vote getter has to bow out with an injury. There are all kinds of considerations besides winning involved here. Jim Leyland purposely placed his 3 Tiger starters at the bottom of the order to dispel any suggestion of favoritism and asked his own right fielder Ordonez to move to left instead of Vlad Guerrero. It's not that these moves were ridiculous. It's simply that he had higher concerns than simply winning the game.
The truth is, this game is still an exhibition, and nobody really acts like it counts all that much. To suggest that it is a very important game in the middle of a given season is the height of stupidity. Deep down inside, nobody truly believes it.
Whitey Herzog was 0 for 3 in a Cardinal uniform, and now Tony LaRussa is 0-2. Of course, in the 80's Herzog was almost the lone NL manager to lose in the MidSummer Classic, joined only by Tommy Lasorda in 1989. Tony LaRussa, on the other hand, is just one of 9 NL managers in the past 11 years to lose this game: Bobby Cox, Jim Leyland, Bruce Bochy, Bobby Valentine, Bob Brenly, Felipe Alou, Jack McKeon, and Phil Garner all failed to win, with only Bob Brenly being spared the loss in that fateful 2002 game that has now given us "This time it counts!"
Really?
1. The only way it counts for anything is if there is a WS game 7. Just for the record, 2002 was the last time the WS went the full 7 games, and "This time it counts" didn't start until 2003. The Marlins and the Cardinals won without it, and in fact, the Marlins had the same number of home games as the Yankees, and the Cardinals had 3 home games to the Tigers' 2. The White Sox and the Red Sox had it and didn't need it; they both swept in 4. So, in practice, the All-Star game result has meant zilch so far.
2. Joe Buck, among others, keeps babbling about how it has changed the way the game is managed. "What we've noticed in talking to managers who have a reason to try and win and gain home-field advantage in the World Series -- whether it's [AL manager Jim] Leyland this year, and I think it's farfetched with [NL manager Tony] La Russa -- for the guys doing the game, it makes it more fun and interesting because there is strategy involved. Because of roster moves that have more to do with strategy. We like it. It's something that has added to our conversation during the course of the game. It's been debated for years now. It enhances it." Tim McCarver chimes in with "It affects the managers more than the players. It's farfetched to think if Carl Crawford is batting with two out and a man on second base in the ninth, he's saying, 'Let's win this for David Ortiz, so the Red Sox can win home-field advantage.' That's not the case. But for the manager, that is the case. I think Tony and Jim will be playing to win, and prior to this format, I don't think they played to win. First and foremost, thoughts were on playing to get guys into the game."
Hogwash. Apparently neither one of them was paying attention when Jim Leyland said that winning was not the most important thing. By some accounts, ARod didn't score because he decided not to pull a Pete Rose and crash into the catcher at home plate, though the AL ended up winning anyway. LaRussa held Albert Pujols back in case the game went into extra innings so that he wouldn't run out of position players.
If it really counted, he probably wouldn't have hesitated to pinch-hit Pujols in the 9th or sooner for someone, and then figured out the defensive alignment if it came to that later. He would have played for the win in the 9th and made do in extra innings with whatever was left.
The truth is, for some time now, winning has taken a back seat to showmanship and satisfying the wishes of individual teams. Whitey Herzog in 1983 at least said so openly: I don't care about winning, I care about giving everyone a chance to play. He was probably exaggerating his indifference a bit, but the truth is, today's All-Star manager has a roster of players who often come with notes from their team saying, "Don't play my guy" or "My pitcher only goes 1 inning." The starters aren't chosen by the managers unless the leading vote getter has to bow out with an injury. There are all kinds of considerations besides winning involved here. Jim Leyland purposely placed his 3 Tiger starters at the bottom of the order to dispel any suggestion of favoritism and asked his own right fielder Ordonez to move to left instead of Vlad Guerrero. It's not that these moves were ridiculous. It's simply that he had higher concerns than simply winning the game.
The truth is, this game is still an exhibition, and nobody really acts like it counts all that much. To suggest that it is a very important game in the middle of a given season is the height of stupidity. Deep down inside, nobody truly believes it.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Introduction
This Blog will contain my thoughts on a variety of subjects, including NCAA Basketball, Major League Baseball, peace in the Middle East, US Politics and foreign policy, Christian theology and preaching, and other topics that reveal themselves to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
