The Voices of Reason: The MLB All-Star Break
by Various Authors

This week, we're introducing a new feature to the magazine that we're calling "The Voices of Reason."  What we've done is asked a number of our readers and writers to tackle a couple of timely issues, and then we've taken their thoughts and compiled them into a single article.  This week, the questions revolve around Major League Baseball's All-Star Game and Home Run Hitting Contest.  Without further ado, we present The Voices of Reason.

1.  What suggestions do you have to make the Home Run hitting contest more interesting?

Mike Daniels, The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim fan—Instead of just having a Home Run hitting contest, have a skills competition like the NHL.  Have outfielders have to hit a target at home plate.  Have stolen base kings clock their time from first to second.  Have pitchers have to hit four targets on a backstop.  That would be a lot more fun to watch.

The Home Run contest itself is a good thing, though I'm not crazy about the gold balls.  If any tweaking needs to be done, have less outs and have the players compete in more rounds, totaling their home runs.  Some would say, "Well no one would have caught Bobby Abreu this year."  Maybe, but give more players the chance to be the king.

Mark May, St. Louis Cardinals fan—Let's assume that there is some hope of saving the home run contest.  In truth, there is almost nothing they could do that would compel me to watch it.  I never have watched an All Star home run contest.  It is like watching batting practice.  Boring!!  There is an assumption that watching someone hit a home run is exciting.  I can think of at least a half dozen plays in baseball that I think are more exciting:

1) Inside the park home run
2) Triple
3) Steal home
4) Steal third
5) Sac fly, close play at home
6) Suicide squeeze

There is nothing on the line except for bragging rights.  There may be a cash prize for the winner, but it is so small compared to the player salaries as to be insignificant.  I feel the same way about the Home Run contest as I do about the Skins Game in golf.  Blah.

The only thing that would get my interest is the same suggestion I make for the Skins Game—have the players put up their own money.  If the contestants each had $25K or $50K on the line, it would be much more dramatic and compelling.  The players would take it more seriously and I would too.

Oliver Butterick, baseball affiliation undisclosed—There are so many ways that the Home Run contest could be improved.  Here are a few ways that it could be improved, modeled after other events in the same genre:

1. “Three-Point Shootout” style—Sluggers get one minute to hit as many home runs as they can.

2. “Slam Dunk Contest” style—Sluggers are given points for style and difficulty.  For instance, they could hit back to back homers from opposite sides of the plate or hit a homer off a tee while blindfolded.

3. “NHL Skills Competition” style—Any or all of the following can be used:

Jeff Lewis, San Francisco Giants fan—Based on a home run hitting contest that I hosted for the 2004 Weekend O’ Fun, I’ve found that allowing fellow competitors to block home runs with brightly colored pool noodles adds a great deal of interest to the contest, particularly because the pool-noodle wielders had to stand on a pronounced grade, above the heads of the batter and pitcher.  While I realize that this may not be feasible for MLB—although I would love to see Andruw Jones roaming the outfield with a twenty-foot-tall pool noodle—I still have a few minor suggestions to make:

a) Continue to select participants by country. I loved watching poor Jason Bay hit zero HRs and let down Canada, and Hee Seop Choi platoon his way into the contest.

b) Carry over the point totals from the first round to the second round.

c) In the third and final round, the finalists start from scratch, but the player with the most home runs from the previous two rounds gets one additional “out” for each three home runs that he bettered his opponent by.  This would still provide tension in the final round, but would give the leader some credit for excellence in preceding rounds.  Example: In the 2005 Home Run Contest, Bobby Abreu hit thirty HRs prior to the final round, while fellow finalist Ivan Rodriguez hit fifteen.  I believe Abreu should have been awarded five additional outs in the final round.

d) Change the final ball of each round to a softball, which is worth three points for a home run.

e) Take the mike away from Chris Berman.

2.  Do you agree or disagree with the All-Star Game determining home
field advantage for the World Series, and why?  If not, what other
suggestions would you have for making the All-Star Game relevant?

Mark May—I disagree with the All Star Game determining home field advantage.  The only fair, impartial way to assign home field advantage is to alternate leagues each year.  Selig and the owners created the home field advantage incentive to try to make the game more relevant.  In my opinion, they were just putting lipstick on a pig.

There is just not the tension and rivalry between the National and American leagues anymore.  Heck, the Dodgers-Giants or Yankees-Red Sox is a better, more interesting rivalry than National vs. American.  The All Star game has devolved into the same as the NBA or NFL all star games—an exhibition.  I would like to watch to see a game where the players cared about winning, where some bragging rights were on the line.  So my suggestion is to change the format from National vs. American to US vs. non-US.  Do the same thing as the NHL did; that means removing the requirement that every team be represented (which would be a positive development).

One other thing: Fox has got to STOP using its sports programming to promote its other TV shows and movies.  I will continue to tune out Fox as long as they care more about cross-promotion than the game itself.  Maybe the viewers would enjoy the game more if the network treated it like a game instead of a sideshow.

Mike Daniels—Relevance to the All-Star Game?  Why?  I'm not sure an All-Star Game has to have a purpose other than showcasing the sport's talent at that point in time.  Unless a pitcher is going to be allowed to throw a complete game (and that is not going to be allowed in an exhibition game), there is no way home field advantage should be decided by the game's outcome.

Take a page from the NBA or NHL rulebook—home field advantage throughout the playoffs should be decided by the best record.  The team's efforts all season should be rewarded.  In fact, here's a crazy idea: move the All-Star Game until after the season like the NFL Pro Bowl.  That way the game rewards players for an entire season and there's not the concern of injuries.

Jeff Lewis—This past week, I made the mistake of listening to sports talk radio, where I heard a barrage of complaints about the current system of determining home field advantage, mostly insinuating that it could unfairly affect the outcome of the World Series.

That’s hooey, I say—when baseball switched to an unbalanced schedule, with interleague games, Bud Selig & Co. made a firm commitment to inequity.  Because teams in different divisions play vastly different schedules, comparing a 90-72 team in the NL West and NL East is meaningless, only nominally better than the college football BCS.

Even within a division, schedules differ.  (Is it fair that the Mets have to play the Yankees every year, while the Marlins skate by with the Devil Rays?)  The most commonly proposed solution to the home field advantage problem is to give the advantage to the team with the Major’s best record.  I find this just as arbitrary as using the All-Star Game as a benchmark.  Personally, I like to see home field advantage rotate between leagues, as in the past.

On the other hand, like many fans, I’m put off by the revolving-door substitutions and general apathy of players towards the All-Star Game.  While it is nice for most of the players to get into the game, the constant lineup overhauls lack meaning in a sporting sense.

I would fix this by expanding the number of position players selected to the game so that each league fields three lineups, which each playing three innings.  This would show the depth of each league’s talent and create a more cohesive game, as well as limit the number of undeserving All-Star snubs.

As for relevance, I would award the winning team an additional home game in the next season’s “cross-town series,” so that if the AL wins the All-Star Game, the Devil Rays get to host the Marlins four times, while Florida gets the Rays for just two games (instead of three and three).  This puts money in the winning league’s pockets, gets the league’s fans an advantage in the fight for cross-town bragging rights, and lets its players sit in their locker room recliners for an extra night.

Oliver Butterick—What does the World Series have to do with the All-Star Game???  Well, World Series managers get the honor of leading the two squads in the mid-summer classic.  Does that mean that the All-Star Game should have some relevance in the World Series?  Not at all.  What if this means that the All-Star Game will then be essentially pointless?  Join the club, I say.  This type of event is an exhibition of the best players in the sport, not an actual sporting event in and of itself.

The problem is that people see baseball players playing baseball and they make the mistake of thinking that they’re actually "Playing Baseball."  It’s just entertainment.  The only reason the game needs to have relevance is so that Vegas bookmakers can come to a consensus on the line.  I say, take a few days off from the sports book, or just bet on the WNBA.

To submit a topic for The Voices of Reason, or to be added to the VoR Shout Out List, send an e-mail to martell@babblog.com.

|

 

© Copyright Babblog and the Respective Authors, 2004-06
Web Design and Graphics by Jeff Lewis.