Guest starvenger Report post Posted January 10, 2003 The actual column is here All-Star Game changes very possible By Hal Bodley, USA TODAY Major league owners, meeting next week in Scottsdale, Ariz., are expected to consider giving the league which wins the All-Star Game home-field advantage for the World Series, beginning this year. Commissioner Bud Selig will brief owners on his intent to raise the stakes for the annual game at an owners meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Scottsdale, Ariz. Most owners favor the home-field advantage twist. "I hope we vote on it (next week)," said Philadelphia Phillies chairman Bill Giles. "I've been a proponent of the concept for five or six years. It would increase the stakes. We have the only premier summer event, and it's been played too much like an exhibition game lately." (The Associated Press reported that Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said this week that Selig's plan doesn't require a vote by owners.) After last July's game ended in an 11-inning, 7-7 tie, Selig vowed to make changes to keep such a debacle from happening again. Selig is intent on restoring competitiveness to the exhibition between All-Stars from the American and National Leagues. Raising the stakes for the winning team would accomplish that. (Related item: 2002 All-Star Game index) "What we need to do is bring that game back to what Arch Ward meant it to be — the Midsummer Classic," said Selig. The first All-Star Game in 1933 was the brainchild of Ward, late sports editor of the Chicago Tribune. It was played in Chicago's Comiskey Park, site of the 2003 game on July 15. Consider: Teams with home-field advantage have won 22 of the last 34 World Series since divisional play was introduced in 1969. Currently, leagues alternate home-field advantage for the World Series. The 2003 best-of-seven Series is scheduled to open in the NL champion's park. Last July's All-Star Game, in Selig's hometown of Milwaukee, ended in a tie after both teams ran out of pitchers. Expanding rosters and holding at least two pitchers in reserve have also been proposed. Said Arizona Diamondbacks owner Jerry Colangelo: "(A change) makes sense. The managers would play harder to win. We don't want to see a repeat of what took place last year. It's important to take action that prevents it." Anaheim manager Mike Scioscia, who'll skipper the AL in the July game, believes a change is due. "The All-Star Game needs a little re-energizing," he said. "I'm all for anything that does that." Gene Orza, the players union No. 2 man, said players would have to approve. "I'm sure they have good reasons to consider it," he said. I don't see how changing a fun exhibition for MLB players will help baseball, but I guess that's why Bud is where he is and I'm not... Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oldschoolwrestling Report post Posted January 10, 2003 This is exactly what I thought they should have done but I'm sure there are other ways to do it. You figure the coaches of the allstar team are the coaches of the team with the best record so they are going to want to win and won't just pack it in to go home since they know that come World Series this could determine if they play at home 3 or 4 games. The other way I would want to see it done is the team with the best overall record getting it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted January 10, 2003 The problem with the All Star Game is too many players. Shuffling position players every 3 innings is ridiculous. Who the hell wants to see Ichiro taken out of the game in favor of Robert Fick? Or Mike Piazza leaving so we can be blessed with the presence of Damian Miller. I say cut rosters to 25 players, and end the every team must be represented rule. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted January 10, 2003 ... end the every team must be represented rule. Amen. I've been in favor of that for years. No one wants to see guys who only made it because they're the best player on a shitty team. The only team that should have to be represented is the home team, just to stir up local interest and encourage fans of that city to attend the game. I like the home-field advantage idea, too. Anything that makes the game more competitive is OK with me. Maybe if the managers have something to play for, they'll manage like they would in a real game and stop babying everyone in the name of an exhibition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch Report post Posted January 10, 2003 This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the negative press Bud got after that clusterfuck of an All-Star game which is good in this case but my only question is who gets the home field advantage if there is a tie at the end of the game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted January 10, 2003 I am sure that the managers will do a better job of rotation this year after last year's embarassment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted January 11, 2003 This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the negative press Bud got after that clusterfuck of an All-Star game which is good in this case but my only question is who gets the home field advantage if there is a tie at the end of the game? I'm surprised no one makes an issue of ties. If a similar situation arises in the future, this does nothing to address it, and in actuality makes it much worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted January 11, 2003 The whole home field advantage thing is kind of stupid in my eyes. I mean, why would someone from a team like Tampa or Milwaukee, who's respective teams are not going to likely be anywhere near the playoffs when the season ends, care whether a team that they don't play for gets home field advantage or not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest undisputedjericho Report post Posted January 11, 2003 Why not just leave the All-Star game alone, and let WS home field advatage go to the WS team with the better record? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Astro101 0 Report post Posted January 11, 2003 Because that would make too much sense. If they're going through with this, they should make it for next year's WS or something so the teams in the gutter wouldn't half ass it all for this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted January 11, 2003 They should just leave it as is. The All-Star Game should be competitive, but still it's an exhibition, and shouldn't carry that much weight on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted January 11, 2003 I have no problem with the tie. Bud made the only decision he could. What I do propose is that either it automatically ends after 9 innings (therefore it wouldn't outrage the fans like the sudden annoucement last year did) or they have a homerun derby similar to penalty shots in soccer (each team picks 5 guys, each guy gets either an out or homerun and the team with the most homeruns wins the game). It should stay an exhibition game. Making it mean something for the regular season would ruin the relaxed atmosphere of the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted January 12, 2003 I have no problem with the tie. Bud made the only decision he could. What I do propose is that either it automatically ends after 9 innings (therefore it wouldn't outrage the fans like the sudden annoucement last year did) or they have a homerun derby similar to penalty shots in soccer (each team picks 5 guys, each guy gets either an out or homerun and the team with the most homeruns wins the game). It should stay an exhibition game. Making it mean something for the regular season would ruin the relaxed atmosphere of the game. Ending with a homerun derby sure would kill the "they don't end baseball games with homerun derbies" side of the shootouts-in-the-NHL argument. Which is good. But actually using it? That's bad. Can't they just start from the top of the list for the extra innings? There's no tying in baseball, and I don't suppose there's sudden death either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted January 12, 2003 This is an exhibition game though so ties are allowed. Ties occur all the time in the Grapefruit League. It's not as if a homerun derby would decide the World Series. The All-Star Game is just a fun little game that is meant to entertain the fans, and a homerun derby to decide the game would do just that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest undisputedjericho Report post Posted January 12, 2003 How is it determined in football what team gets to wear their home uniforms in the Super Bowl? You could do that if it makes sense... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RevEvil Report post Posted January 12, 2003 How is it determined in football what team gets to wear their home uniforms in the Super Bowl? You could do that if it makes sense... The NFC team is the "home" team for odd-numbered SBs, while the AFC team is the "home" team for even-numbered Sbs. Basically, they have the same situation as baseball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted January 12, 2003 Don't like the home-field rule... Like the one-player-per-team adjustment... I say just because it's an All-Star game that doesn't mean everyone gets to play. Treat it like a real game, although I can see pitchers only going several innings at a time... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest undisputedjericho Report post Posted January 13, 2003 Thanks, I thought so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted January 14, 2003 None of this is necessary. The entire incident was one of the most overblown events in sports history. It was a tie, big deal. Why are people clamoring for the days of that jerk Pete Rose, ruining the career of Ray Fossee in a glorified exhibition game. Don't change anything, just tell the managers not to misuse their pitching staffs like they did last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch Report post Posted January 15, 2003 Bud wants to be loved so badly that it's just downright pathetic now. Letting Rose show up at two events along with trying to change the All-Star game around so "it will mean more" is just a desperate attempt at trying to bastardize the sport just so he can sleep well at night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kingpk Report post Posted January 17, 2003 I have no problem with the tie. Bud made the only decision he could. What I do propose is that either it automatically ends after 9 innings (therefore it wouldn't outrage the fans like the sudden annoucement last year did) or they have a homerun derby similar to penalty shots in soccer (each team picks 5 guys, each guy gets either an out or homerun and the team with the most homeruns wins the game). It should stay an exhibition game. Making it mean something for the regular season would ruin the relaxed atmosphere of the game. I've got an idea that combines both your ideas: The game ends automatically after 9 innings, but the winner of the Home Run Derby (the previous night) earns a "tiebreaker" run for his league. It only comes into play if there is a tie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
