BBTF.org/m/game_recaps : Verducci: The NL has got to win an All-Star Game sometime, right? Right?

Thursday, April 04, 2013

April 4, 2013 Omnichatter

(mlb.com)

posted on April 04, 2013 at 12:07 AM by Gamingboy to baseball, game recaps, omnichatter | 271 comment(s)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

1. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:30 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

1986-present: AL 20 NL 4
1960-1985: AL 3 NL 26

2. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:34 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I was going to say - what's the overall record when it comes to the All-Star Game? It's got to be close to .500, right?

3. Tom Nawrocki posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:35 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

What's frustrating about it, to me as an NL fan, is that every game but one in the "This Time It Counts" era could have easily gone either way. The AL won last night because of Carl Crawford and Curtis Granderson, two guys who could have easily been left off the team. And because Albert Pujols celebrated his official anointing as the best player in baseball by having a terrible game.

The AL's pythagorean WP since the tie in Milwaukee is .676. They should be winning two thirds of the All-Star games, not every single one.

4. SoSH U at work posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:36 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I do think the AL's current win streak does enhance the All-Star game. It's got to be starting to piss off the NLers (at least I hope so) and get them caring about the outcome much more than they would if the teams merely traded victories every other year. That certainly seemed to be the case when the NL was beating the AL's brains in for a quarter century.

5. Hang down your head, Tom Foley posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:37 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

1986-present: AL 20 NL 4
1960-1985: AL 3 NL 26

Pete Rose should be allowed to play again.

6. Greg Goosen at 30 posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:39 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

1933-1949 AL 12 NL 4

Should we say the AL is dominant because Derek Jeter is in the AL? Even when he doesn't make the team, his aura and mystique leads the junior circuit to victory? Or is that Susan Waldman's job?

Naw. it's just one of those things.

7. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:40 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Pete Rose should be allowed to play again.

Alternately the NL could start its best players rather than letting a bunch of homeriffic yahoos cram Yadier Molina into the starting lineup. The ASG is a joke and should be treated as such. If the AL wins 13 World Series in a row I'll start considering that an issue. Of course, if the AL were to play actual baseball that would help too.

8. SoSH U at work posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:42 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Oh, and as post 7 demonstrates, the other upside of the AL's dominance is it really irks the Sam H. types.

9. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:43 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I was going to say - what's the overall record when it comes to the All-Star Game? It's got to be close to .500, right?

NL leads 40-38-2

(amazing how MLB survived the tie in 1961 with nary a peep)

10. JJ1986 posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:44 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Sometime someone is going to stop dicking around and try to win. There's no reason Ryan Braun and Chase Utley and Albert Pujols can't play the whole game.

11. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:44 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Nevermind

12. SoSH U at work posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:51 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

(amazing how MLB survived the tie in 1961 with nary a peep)

The peeps were likely kept to a minimum due to it being the second all-star game of the year. Any of the older fans here want to fill me in on whether two all-star games seemed as dumb at the time as it does in retropect.

13. TomH posted on July 15, 2009 at 03:57 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

#3: much the same applied to the era when the NL won every year. Stuff happens. As an AL of the 70s I caught much grief. When I pointed out that the W.S., 4-7 games every year instead of one, was a better indicator of league strength, I got shouted down by NL boosters.

14. The District Attorney posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:01 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

On his pay site, Bill James describes a potential ASG revamp that would, among other things, cut the rosters down to 18. If you want them to play for real, I think you'd need to do something very similar to that. I don't see a situation arising in which each team has 33 All-Stars, but there's no pressure to get more than nine of them into the game. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

15. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:14 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Any of the older fans here want to fill me in on whether two all-star games seemed as dumb at the time as it does in retropect.

I liked it, but I was a baseball junky. Plus, it was one of the few sporting events in color and my next door neighbor had one of the earliest color TV sets. I don't remember hearing much at the time about it being overkill.

and the real reason there was no peeping about the 61 tie was that it was stopped due to rain after 9.

16. Steve Treder posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:22 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

On his pay site, Bill James describes a potential ASG revamp that would, among other things, cut the rosters down to 18. If you want them to play for real, I think you'd need to do something very similar to that.

Absolutely. Not only would it make the game a whole lot more compelling (hard to be much less compelling than it is now), but you'd also greatly increase the honor surrounding just making the team. It *should* be extremely exclusive; that should be the whole point.

17. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:28 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Hm. Cutting the rosters down to 18 would basically mean having zero bench players for either team.

18. salvomania posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:31 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Any of the older fans here want to fill me in on whether two all-star games seemed as dumb at the time as it does in retropect.

My recollection is that they played two for several years in order to help fund some kind of nascent players' association/pension fund...

19. BDC

posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:32 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

The wonder of it is that the ASG has displayed such apparently non-random streaks over the decades. The AL may have actually been the stronger league in the 30s and 40s, the NL in the 50s through 70s, and the AL again since 1997, but after all it's only one game, and no matter how small the rosters, pitchers aren't going to go more than an inning or two in a stint. How do teams develop winning streaks? I used to think that the NL teams that won so consistently from 1960 through the mid-1980s just had a better team approach to the game. They played like they were the same team, reunited year after year, Willie Mays passing the ethos along to Rose to Garvey, etc. And their managers took winning seriously, except for Whitey Herzog, who despised the game and lost all three that he managed.

But anymore, the rosters are huge, the managing is like shuffling a deck of Strat cards, big stars change leagues mid-career ... why does the AL keep winning every year? Random is a good explanation, methinks.

20. The District Attorney posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:32 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

18 = 18 on each team, not the total of both teams ;)

21. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:35 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

18 = 18 on each team, not the total of both teams ;)

Even still.

You need at least 8 pitchers on each team, so I guess you'd have one bench player, or two if there's no DH.

22. Shock posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:38 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Cut the roster to 18 and allow pitchers to be re-inserted if it goes to extras. Done.

23. RJ in TO posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:41 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Cut the roster to 18 and allow pitchers to be re-inserted if it goes to extras. Done.

Or just actually allow pitchers to go more than one inning. Let the starter go three. Let some of the other starters on the roster pitch two. Keep some of the relievers around for the 8th and 9th.

There's no reason why a team should need a 10 man staff for a single game.

24. JJ1986 posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:42 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I'd just cut it to 25. That's the number of players on an MLB team and it allows you to have 10-11 pitchers and still enough bench players to cover every position.

25. Steve Treder posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:46 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

You need at least 8 pitchers on each team,

You don't need that many, of course. But accepting that modern-day managers are going to churn thru pitchers at such a pace, you would certainly improve matters by having, say, 12 position players, for a total roster of 20. Especially if you use a DH (and if any game ever was perfect for the DH, it's the ASG), that would compel managers to start their best and go with their best, and still have a few extra guys on hand if needed.

26. Rusty Priske posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:47 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

You need at least 8 pitchers on each team, so I guess you'd have one bench player, or two if there's no DH.

You are assuming that while the position players woudl be played as if it were a normal game, the pitchers wouldn't.

Personally, I hate the idea. Keep it as is... just stop pretending it is more than an exhibition.

27. Nasty Nate posted on July 15, 2009 at 04:54 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

whats the point of sending all these players to the game if you dont get to see them play? (obviously you need some guys to not get in)

and with 15 teams a league, is it really less exclusive than the old days?

28. Steve Treder posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:03 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

and with 15 teams a league, is it really less exclusive than the old days?

Well, here's the thing: if you're only going to have one ASG, in order for it to be played in anything approaching a sincerely competitive manner, it has to become more exclusive than in the old days. The math is unavoidable.

The notion of "every team being represented" was perhaps acceptable in an 8-team league, but with every succeeding expansion it's become less so.

29. kthejoker posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:17 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

With the 18 player teams, do we still keep the one player per team rule? That means in the NL one team could have a maximum of 3 players on the team, or 2 teams could have 2 players.

You're guaranteed to have at least one player on each team who is less deserving than someone at their same position who has the bad luck to play on a team with Chase Utley or Roy Halladay.

EDIT: Maybe instead we could just choose the top players from each team, let the coaches fill out the last spots however they like, and everybody draws their position out of a hat.

30. Gamingboy posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:34 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

The notion of "every team being represented" was perhaps acceptable in an 8-team league, but with every succeeding expansion it's become less so.

The problem is though that there are some players that should definitely be represented but wouldn't be if the 'every team" rule were knocked out. Are you going to tell Adam Jones (a legitimate all-star so far) that he won't make the ASG because the Orioles stink? Or what if the Host City's team stinks? If Mudville is hosting and Casey is hurt, are you really gonna take the field without a single member of the nine either on it or on the bench?

Thought not.

31. Shooty is in the Trust Tree

posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:36 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Are you going to tell Adam Jones (a legitimate all-star so far) that he won't make the ASG because the Orioles stink?

If he's a legitimate all star what does Baltimore stinking have to do with anything?

32. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:40 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

They will never, ever get rid of the "at least one player per team" rule. Lots and lots of people tune in to see how the guys from their favorite team do, and for no other reason.

33. Johnny Two Screens posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:41 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

If you are cutting the number of players on a team, you have to cut the fan voting.

34. Steve Treder posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:42 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

The problem is though that there are some players that should definitely be represented but wouldn't be if the 'every team" rule were knocked out. Are you going to tell Adam Jones (a legitimate all-star so far) that he won't make the ASG because the Orioles stink? Or what if the Host City's team stinks? If Mudville is hosting and Casey is hurt, are you really gonna take the field without a single member of the nine either on it or on the bench?

Thought not.

Well, see, this perfectly represents the mode of thinking that is what I think undermines the power of the event: an undue concern with hurting anyone's feelings, be they of Adam Jones or the Host City or whomever.

If Adam Jones is indeed a "legitimate all-star" then he will make the very-difficult-to-make team. If he isn't, he won't. That's what he should be told, and that's what he should understand.

And the role of the Host City should be to host the All-Star Game, not to be given particular favor in the selection of the roster, if indeed the roster is determined by merit.

35. Bob T posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:44 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

You know, on Mudville, both Flynn and Blake were quite underrated.

36. Johnny Two Screens posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:44 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

There is a solid chance that next opening day, there will only be 2 active players who have won an All Star Game representing the NL.

Ozzie Smith was on the last NL team to win an all star game.

Ozzie Smith is 55 years old*

*thanks to kk in IRC for that tidbit.

37. The District Attorney posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:46 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

With the 18 player teams, do we still keep the one player per team rule?

Yeah. Each team would have a minimum of one, maximum of two representatives.

The concept, in a nutshell, is that each team's fans would vote for their own team's representatives. The managers would then put together the rosters, based on the requirement that certain numbers of players who finished 1st, "at least 2nd" and "at least 3rd" among their fanbases be included. (For his sample teams -- which, obviously, Bill had to make guesses about the fan voting results in order to put together -- he chose six AL pitchers, and five NL pitchers.)

We discussed the idea a bit before, and the main objection seemed to be that fans wouldn't vote for middle infielders or pitchers. I don't see at all why that should be the case.

It's all very air castle, though... MLB wouldn't like killing off the Internet voting, the union would probably have some objection to halving the number of All-Stars, etc.

38. Steve Treder posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:47 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Ozzie Smith was on the last NL team to win a world series.

I thought there was something about Jimmy Rollins that didn't look quite right last fall ...

39. bunyon posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:49 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

The teams should be composed thusly:

Previous season leader in:

Wins
Ks
WHIP
IP
Saves
ERA
SO
Games pitched

BA
OBP
SB
HR
2B
RBI
SLG

MVP
Cy Young
ROY

all make the team.

If a player "doubles" up. Say a player leads BA and RBI. If that player didn't win the Gold Glove at his position, then the GG winner comes too. If he did win the GG, the pennant winning manager selects another player. The pennant winning manager then fills out the lineup as needed (positions and whatnot) to 25.

The coaching staff is the entire coaching staff of the pennant winning team. None of this bringing a bunch of crappy managers.

40. JJ1986 posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:50 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

There is a solid chance that next opening day, there will only be 2 active players who have won an All Star Game representing the NL.

Chipper's one. Who's the other?

41. Repoz

posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:51 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

To "Muscles" Montrone who beat the liver-snaps out of me during a 60's AL/NL All-Star Game backroom bargument....

HA-HA-HA-FUCCKING-HA-HA-HA!

(he's not reading this because he was thrown off Suicide Bridge in the early 80's...and the world mourned)

42. SoSH U at work posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:56 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Chipper's one. Who's the other?

Sheffield? I know he is one, though I don't know if there's another player sj thinks is more likely to be playing next year.

43. Maxwn posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:56 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Chipper's one. Who's the other?

Chipper, Jason Kendall, John Smoltz, and Pedro Martinez were all on that 1996 team. I'd say there's a decent chance that its down to Chipper and Smoltz next year. Hell, it could be down to just Chipper. Although it's very possible Jason Kendall continues to stick in the bigs for a while longer.

44. Maxwn posted on July 15, 2009 at 05:57 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Also, Sheffield. I missed him.

45. Maxwn posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:00 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

TFA is clearly wrong about there only being three active players who were on the last NL winning team. I guess that was true a few weeks ago before Smoltz debuted, but that depends on your definition of active I guess. Either way, Chipper, Kendall, and Sheffield have been active all year. Smoltz is now, and Pedro might be before the end of the year.

46. Johnny Two Screens posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:00 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I was going to say Jason Kendall will probably hang around and Smoltz will retire. I guess there could be three.

You guys really think Sheffield is going to come back for peanuts next year?

47. Maxwn posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:08 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I was going to say Jason Kendall will probably hang around and Smoltz will retire. I guess there could be three.

You guys really think Sheffield is going to come back for peanuts next year?

I have no idea. Chipper strikes me as the only lock. I was kind of thinking Kendall might be done just because he clearly can no longer hit at all, but that never stopped Brad Ausmus or half the other backup catchers in the league, so he might stick around. The more I think about it, the more I think Smoltz will probably retire. I haven't followed him since he debuted this year, so I wasn't sure how well he was doing. Not so well it looks like. I have no idea what Pedro will do, but my money is on him not pitching next year.

48. Shooty is in the Trust Tree

posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:09 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

You guys really think Sheffield is going to come back for peanuts next year?

Bobo Would!

49. Kurt posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:13 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I don't get what the problem is that everyone's trying to fix. It's an exhibition game. I don't notice that the attendance or TV ratings are so bad that baseball has any incentive in dramatically revamping it. If the primary purpose of the game is to generate interest and discussion, it seems to be doing just fine the way it is.

50. Shock posted on July 15, 2009 at 06:16 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Chipper's one. Who's the other?

Is it Smoltz?

edit:
One day I will learn to refresh page before commenting. One day.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

/m/game_recaps

Thursday, April 04, 2013

April 4, 2013 Omnichatter

Reader Comments and Retorts

Game Recaps Think Factory