Printer-friendly

July 17, 2008

All-Star Sabotage

Looking Forward to 2009

by Matt Meyers

In the wake of what some are calling the greatest All-Star Game ever, I realize it’s probably unpopular to criticize the Midsummer Classic. As of now, it seems the only aspect of the game subject to any admonishment is the fact that both teams almost ran out of pitchers. Even though you can take both managers to task for not asking some of their pitchers to throw an additional inning here or there, you can’t really blame the All-Star Game format for the shortage of arms, because as we learned with the Mariners’ recent Jamie Burke experiment, managing a bullpen in a 15-inning affair can be a tricky proposition.

Before I go any further, I’d like to make it clear that I found this year’s All-Star Game riveting. Unfortunately, it highlighted what makes this game so flawed, and it goes beyond the fact that David Wright and J.D. Drew were being considered as emergency pitchers. Fortunately for all of us, I have a solution for said flaws, and it lies in the hands of our democracy.

The real problem with the All-Star Game began in 2003, when Bud Selig and Co. turned what was traditionally an exhibition into a “meaningful game” by awarding home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that won the All-Star Game. This was a reaction to the 2002 game ending in a 7-7 tie after both squads ran out of players, and the powers that be deemed the public relations hit that came with that unsatisfying result to be so destructive that something had to be done to make the game relevant again. Unfortunately, this created an identity crisis that the All-Star Game has been dealing with ever since, as it tries to simultaneously be both a legitimate competition and an exhibition. As we learned in Rocky IV when Drago killed Apollo in what was supposed to be an exhibition bout, this is never a good idea.

Though there are ways of choosing home-field advantage that would be more equitable, such as giving it to the team with the best overall record or to the league with the better record in interleague play, I've never had a problem with the idea of spicing up the All-Star Game by giving it value beyond bragging rights. However, if the game is going to have tangible value, then play it likes it does. This means putting the best lineup on the field and playing that group the entire game if necessary (and certainly not removing the best player in the game in the middle of the fourth inning, as Terry Francona did this year). This also means only making changes when strategy dictates. I realize this wouldn't be so easy for pitchers, but MLB could easily implement pitch-limit rules similar to those used in the World Baseball Classic that would maintain the integrity of the competition.

The current format allows the fans to pick the starters for the game, which is ideal for an exhibition because fans can choose who they want to see. But if you're going to attach something as significant as home-field advantage in the World Series to the contest, it becomes a farce when you let the fans and players select most of the participants, insist every team must be represented, and create a situation in which the managers feel the need to play it like a Little League game and make sure that everyone on both teams get into the game. This was never more evident on Tuesday night than when many of the players on the field when the game was on the line were either fluke All-Stars (Ryan Ludwick), unexplainable All-Stars (Miguel Tejada), or my-team-has-no-chance All-Stars (George Sherrill).