The Rockies took 2 out of 3 against the Washington Nationals before MLB took a break for the All Star Game festivities in Kansas City. The Rockies lone representative, CarGo, participated in both the home run derby and started the All Star game at DH. Unfortunately, his underwhelming performance (4 homers and a first round exit followed by an 0-2 performance) served as a nation-wide reminder of the Rockies’ futility. The Tony LaRussa-led NL won the lopsided affair 8-0 and, as a result, the NL representative in the World Series will have home field advantage regardless of record. This week, we take our own break from the Rockies and discuss the All Star game format and player selection criteria.
1. Is it good for baseball that the All Star game “counts” and dictates home field advantage for the World Series?
Brendan: No. The whole saga is a gross over reaction to a tie ball game during an exhibition 10 years ago. These things happen all the time in spring training and no one demands that changes be made. With the addition of a second wild card team for each league, new emphasis is put on winning the division and “finishing” the season. Baseball is one of the few sports where home field is not only a comfort, but a strategic advantage as well. The teams with the best records deserve to be rewarded for their stellar play. Indeed, a superior record is good enough to earn a team home field advantage for the first two rounds of the playoffs, but suddenly, in the championship round it no longer matters? Ridiculous (as is the old method of taking turns – lame). The All Star game was fun before the infamous tie game and subsequent “This One Counts” garbage, which is what it’s all about in the first place. The fact that an exhibition game has such an impact on who is crowned champion is laughable and needs to stop.
Kevin: Yeah I guess. It clearly drums up more enthusiasm for the All Star game, even if it is an incredibly flawed idea. I for one pay more attention to the All Star game now that “it counts.” Granted, it’s meaningless for Rockies fans at this point, but it creates more enthusiasm within the general public, so in that sense it’s good for baseball.
Ned: The All Star game does not matter. The fact that Bud Selig has tried to inject some degree of importance into the ASG by the World Series home field advantage ploy shows again that the ability to sell cars does not make one fit to be the Commissioner of Baseball. Fan selection of the starters, with unlimited internet voting, renders selection as a starter close to meaningless. It has become a popularity contest decided by the ignorant and the biased. If MLB wants the ASG to have integrity, then the participants should be selected by the players and managers who actually do have informed opinions on which guys are truly having all-star years.
2. Should every team continue to have an All Star representative?
Brendan: Yes. One of the great features of the All Star game is that it is a showcase for smaller market (usually losing) teams to display their best player. True, there may be one or two players who probably shouldn’t be there, but for the most part every team has at least one worthy candidate even if he is not a household name. When I tune in for the All Star game, I want the opportunity to watch the Rockies’ representative do well (remember Aaron Cook and Matt Holliday in 2008?) and thrive on a national stage where everyone can appreciate what we get to see day in and day out. Without the mandatory inclusion from every team, I fear the Rockies players would often be left out of the fun as the same old Derek Jeters and David Ortizes of the world trot out there year after year while the smaller market players toil away in anonymity.
Kevin: Absolutely not. This rule is more in line with the exhibition nature of the All Star game. So long as home field advantage for the World Series is on the line, the leagues should be allowed to choose their players so as to field their best teams. This logic also means that fan voting should be banned, which I am completely fine with. The best argument against giving the vote to fans/average voters is a five minute conversation with the average fan/voter. Under the current situation, MLB and Bud Selig are having their cake and eating it, too. On the other hand, if the All Star game is played only as an exhibition, I don’t care what creepy ideas Bud Selig comes up with to select all stars.
Ned: Absolutely not. The sole reason for this goofy rule is to encourage interest in the game from fans of those teams who do not otherwise have a true all-star. If the players and the managers selected the ASG participants, then fans from around the entire two leagues would have a legitimate interest in watching the best play the best. Requiring each team to have at least one representative on the ASG roster is nothing but a misguided attempt to toss a mollifying sop to fans who would otherwise be too parochial to watch the best MLB has to offer.
3. Does the NL need to adopt the DH?
Brendan: Absolutely yes. I love the strategic aspect to the pitcher in the lineup as much as the next fan, but the NL teams are at a competitive disadvantage without the DH. The fact that the two leagues in the same sport play by different rules is cute, but it has become antiquated. In the NFL, it would be like if the AFC did not have a two-point conversion while the NFC did, but when the two played each other they just used the home team’s rules. Expansion of interleague play requires a unified rulebook and the DH is not going away anytime soon, so the NL needs to grin and bear it. Additionally, NL clubs are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with free agents because they do not have the option of sliding an aging slugger into a DH role. Prince Fielder’s contract is a prime example: NL teams simply could not take the risk on a 9 year deal worth over $200 for a player who may not have a position in 4 years. A small piece of baseball will die when the DH is instituted across the board, but it is going to happen eventually.
Kevin: Yes, it’s more fun and it would help to close the gap between the National and American leagues. Maybe I am no longer a baseball “purist” for supporting the DH, but the fact of the matter is that it has been and always will be more fun to watch David Ortiz hit (or Albert Belle) than it is to watch Drew Pomeranz hit. The argument that it’s more fun to watch a well executed bunt or a goofy pitcher swing is founded in a deep state of denial about the joys of the DH. The DH also makes the game more fun for the average viewer, and if the league wants to attempt to attract new fans, it has to make the game more entertaining. Homeruns > bunts. Lastly, it gives the AL an advantage over the NL because AL teams actually invest full resources into the position, whereas the NL does not, and this is why we see NL teams trotting out fourth outfielders for a DH while the AL trots out the likes of Edgar Martinez – advantage American League.
Ned: No. While the DH is fun to watch occasionally, I am strongly in favor of not adopting the DH in the National League. Most opponents of the DL focus on the managerial strategies, such as the double switch, which the DH removes from of the game. But the DH also takes significant pitching strategy out of the game. Do you walk the 8th batter to get to the pitcher’s spot with a man on second and two outs? How devastating is it for the pitcher to issue a walk to the opposing pitcher who is hitting under .200? And, what impact does running the bases have on a pitcher who does manage to get on base? All these considerations and more are lost with the DH. I understand the desire for more offense which one more big bopper provides. But I personally enjoy second-guessing the manager, and many of the second-guessing opportunities are lost when the DH is used.
Have a different take? Let us know in the comments below.
Got an idea for a future 3U3D discussion? Email us at BlakeStBulletin@gmail.com
Loading ...
Loading tweets...
5 comments
Bucket
July 14, 2012 at 9:33 AM (UTC -6)
“More fun” by having the DH? Not a chance! “Closing the gap” with the AL. You think the DH would do that? How about salary caps like all the other pro sports have? That way Steinbrenner, et al, can’t try to buy themselves a pennant every year because they have more money than anybody…”luxury taxes” haven’t done a damn thing to stop that!
Maybe basball should be more like football and have an offensive team and a defensive team…that way everybody gets to play…just like pee wee league.
BA Baracus
July 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM (UTC -6)
It’s funny how absurd something like the DH sounds when it is taken to an extreme, in other words if a little DH is good for the game, why not a lot of DH, which would be essentially an offensive and defensive team or basically free substitution. That would not be better for the game. The DH is like putting just a little bit of dog poop in a good batch of brownies, the little bit of poo turns the whole batch into crap. Pitchers need to play with no DH in college and the minors, then they would be able to retain their ability to hit at least a little bit in the majors. Pitchers in the majors probably had .600+ batting averages in little league, legion and high school since they were likely the best athletes on those teams, it does however take maintenance and practice to hit.
Kevin Giles
July 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM (UTC -6)
Baseball clearly needs a salary cap, but the effect would be more to level the playing field among the entire MLB rather than make the NL more competitive with the AL. Among teams with plus $100 million payrolls, the AL usually has one or two more than the NL. But, when looking at the top half of spenders, the NL has had 8 of the 15 top payrolls since 2006. So yeah, the AL spends more at the top, but the NL still has money and spends it. A salary cap will give teams like Oakland, San Diego, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh a better chance.
The biggest difference between the two leagues is front office management. In 2010 the Cubs and Mets both had top five payrolls of $147 and $134, and they finished a collective 16 games below 500. Meanwhile, the Yankees and Red Sox, who spent $206 and $162, finished a collective 44 games above 500.
Bottom line, the NL teams with money are typically run by half-wits, while AL teams with money have a better idea about how to field a good team.
Scott
July 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM (UTC -6)
A salary cap is a complete farce. All it does is let owners put more money in their pocket while providing an excuse…”Well, we hit the cap. Can’t spend any more”.
Baseball is the only major sport without a cap, and it has more different champions and fewer “dynasty” teams than the rest do. It’s fine how it is. The playoffs in the NFL and NBA look almost identical every year….so what has that cap done? Not a thing.
As for the DH, I can see the arguments for it…personally, I wish we were talking about the AL dropping it instead of the NL adding it, though.
The ASG…I just flat don’t care. It doesn’t interest me in any way at all, and really never has.
Pete
July 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM (UTC -6)
The ASG is an exibition and means nothing to anyone. The players don’t care who wins, most of them aren’t going to get to the WS anyway. The proceeds go to the players retirement fund, nobody plays hard enough to get hurt, inter-league play is a better indicator of which league is playing better, managers are just trying to get everyone into the game, strategy doesn’t exist. It is totally irrelavent today. There was a time when it was the only way to get to see the best players on smaller, less competetive teams, Ichiro from Seattle, Tony Gwynn from San Diego, etc…. but now there are a zillion ways to get broadcasts of all those games and players, so the ASG doesn’t really have a purpose. Let it be.
The DH is here to stay because it has permeated down into amatuer ball. Every player in the majors today came up thru a system that included the DH, every one. It has made bad, pathetic hitting pitchers even worse. Once they turn pro or play a good college program, they never swing a bat again. Very, very few of them are decent hitters and more and more of them can’t even bunt anymore. Remember when Tracy mismanaged the game and ran out of position players? Alex White was sent up to the plate in the ninth with the bases loaded and NOBODY out. We were two runs down and a decent bunt brings in a run and moves the tying run over to third while avoiding the DP. But wait…..?? He can’t bunt cause he has been on DH teams in the minors, so he is under orders to not swing!! Pathetic! We will never go back to the NL model of no DH, but man are the pitchers getting worse and worse over time.