LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
 [ 12 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

All-Star Game Conundrum

Author Message
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#1

Posted: July 10, 2007, 12:27 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 738
Over the last couple of weeks or so after listening to all the talking heads and fans talk about the All-Star game and its significance left me with one perplexing question. When the All-Star game in 2002 ended in a tie, why did so many people care when the general consensus is that the All-Star game doesn't mean anything? Because if people were, and still are, all up in arms because the game ended in a tie, then obviously people care about the outcome, which contradicts what seems to be the feelings from most fans.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#2

Posted: July 10, 2007, 12:44 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5105
The thing that surprises me the most is that people hate the "This time it counts." I much prefer this to the old arbitrary system.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#3

Posted: July 10, 2007, 1:41 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 3045
I was at the 2002 All-Star tie, and it was a really weird experience. It just sort of felt like the players quit on the fans and the sport. It was weird having no ending and no celebration because the game was so riveting since the lead kept changing. It's like watching a good movie and then not being allowed to see the climactic ending. Especially when you waited for three years to host the event and there was so much hype and build up all for nothing.

I know people that took the week off and traveled to Milwaukee to attend all the events. Many of them were furious and felt so cheated.

I think many people don't want the All-Star game to count but still want some kind of ending. I personally like that it counts, but I know I am probably in the minority. It makes the game so much more interesting with something at stake in my opinion.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#4

Posted: July 10, 2007, 2:19 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2968
I like that it counts to an extent, but on the other hand, it's dumb when a Royals pitcher strikes out a Reds hitter to clinch the win. I'd rather that the game decided something different related to interleague, but I don't know what's plausible.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#5

Posted: July 10, 2007, 5:45 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1485
That whole All Star week in Milwaukee was pretty amazing, excluding the (non) ending. The homerun derby was one of the best ever. Hopefully by the time we get another one there will be a beer mug in left field.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  All-Star Game Conundrum
#6

Posted: July 11, 2007, 12:09 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2512
Location: Section 104
I always follow the ASG. In '02 instead of watching on free TV, I paid $1000 to the Brewers for 2 seats in the second deck of the bleachers. And at the end of what could have been the best ASG ever, the Millionares and Billionares decided they were tired of performing for a game that didn't count and were just going to quit. If the game didn't mean that much, then why did I have to pay more than the $10 those seats cost for a game that "counted"?

I don't mind that the ASG now "means something". It's better than the way they've decided the home field advantage for the first 100 WS.

The poster previously known as Robin19, now @RFCoder
EA Sports...It's in the game...until we arbitrarily decide to shut off the server.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#7

Posted: July 11, 2007, 12:15 AM Post
Posts: 2020
People like to complain about Bud Selig. It really isn't any more complicated than that. The guy could cure cancer, and be criticized for it.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#8

Posted: July 11, 2007, 1:28 AM Post
Posts: 1827
Actually, people mostly complain about Bud Selig when Bud Selig does bad things. IMHO, he has done many bad things: running the Brewers into the ground, turning the Commissioner's Office from a somewhat independent entity into an arm of the owners, failing to get any kind of handle on the steroid problem, presiding over the dismantling of the Expos and the Loria ownership shuffle, hiring Sal Bando . . . well, that's unfair; I should really only count "running the Brewers into the ground" once.

Bud has also done at least one really great thing -- bringing the Brewers to Milwaukee. He deserves great credit for that, and I think he has gotten loads of it over the years. The problem is that he did that a long time ago; over the past 15 years, he has very little about which to brag and much for which to atone.

Still, I'll always raise a glass to him for his good works in 1970. If he ever cures cancer, I will certainly praise him for that too. Heck, it would almost make up for Bando.

Greg.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#9

Posted: July 11, 2007, 1:43 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5014
I too was at the All Star game in 2002. I enjoyed it. I saw the stars play, it was fun, and I was completely shocked as I was driving home and listening to talk radio and hearing all the outrage. I didn't get it then. I don't get it now. It's an exhibition game (or at least was). It didn't count. Why is it so important that there is a final outcome? The managers try to get everyone in the game so that the fans get to see their players. Yet, everyone is outraged when they run out of players. Would you rather see them run a pitcher (maybe a pitcher on your favorite team) into the ground for the sake of having a meaningless outcome?

Has putting a "meaning" on it changed the way that managers make substitutions? I don't think so. What if the NL had tied up the game last night and it went into 12 or 13 innings. How many pitchers were left?

I think fans have to decide what they want. Do they want all star teams with representatives from each team with the expectation that the manager will get everyone in the game at some point (by the way, did you see that Pujols was upset he didn't get in?), or do you want to see a roster of 25 that is managed just like any other game during the season?

This is not Shea Vucinich


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#10

Posted: July 11, 2007, 2:37 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1713
I don't like what it counts for, but I never liked that home field advantage in the WS alternated between Leagues either.

Best record should get you home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Just like in all of our other major sports.

You play 162 games. You end up with the best record in baseball, and if you make the WS, you might be on the road for 4 of the 7 games. That's B.S. I don't know, I'd be a little ticked off.

I really don't care if either team wins the All-Star game. It's an exhibition. A tie is fine by me. Have them play 9 innings, get everyone in the game, and be done with it. I don't see why it has to "count" for anything.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#11

Posted: July 11, 2007, 2:42 AM Post
Posts: 4509
Has putting a "meaning" on it changed the way that managers make substitutions? I don't think so. What if the NL had tied up the game last night and it went into 12 or 13 innings. How many pitchers were left?

Actually I think it has. They had pitchers left. If you read the article on Pujols being angry at not getting in the game it even mentions LaRussa kept him in reserve because he wasnted to be covered ifthe game went into extra innings.

I'm like others who didn't understand the "outrage" of a tie in an game that doesn't count. It didn't make any sense other than people love to hate Bud. Especially since it wasn't his fault to begin with.

There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  All-Star Game Conundrum
#12

Posted: July 11, 2007, 2:46 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1713
Actually I'm positive the game always meant something to at least 90% of the players. We all know most of these guys have huge egos. Winning the All-Star game, means bragging rights for whichever League wins it.

You don't think it bothers alot of those NL players that they haven't won in what, 10 or 11 years now?

Why does it have to mean anything else?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 [ 12 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bjkrautk, Brew4U, clancyphile, djoctagone, mrn1ceguy, rickh150, RightFieldCoder and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test