If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(cbs)   16 MLB players bow out of All Star Game and are replaced by alternates.. 2011 All Star Game now the new Pro Bowl   (cbssports.com) divider line 48
    More: Fail, Major League Baseball, MLB All-Star Game, Pro Bowl, Scott Rolen, Pablo Sandoval, Placido Polanco, Justin Verlander, Joe Maddon  
•       •       •

2342 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Jul 2011 at 3:31 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-07-11 03:35:42 AM  
Having the All-Star game in the middle of the season never made sense to me. You want to have the best pitchers in the game put on a show and waste one of their slots in the rotation?
 
2011-07-11 03:44:27 AM  
How many of these fellas are boycotting like they said?

/See also: Arizona SB 1070
//DNRTFA
 
2011-07-11 03:46:11 AM  

lacrossestar83: How many of these fellas are boycotting like they said?

/See also: Arizona SB 1070
//DNRTFA


None. Cowards.
 
2011-07-11 04:16:26 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Having the All-Star game in the middle of the season never made sense to me. You want to have the best pitchers in the game put on a show and waste one of their slots in the rotation?


To me, I don't understand why pitching one inning (or less!) in the All-Star Game would preclude a starter from making their next scheduled start. Even for a pitcher starting on the Sunday before and the Friday after the All-Star Game, is it really a big problem to throw an inning on Tuesday?

As-is, apparently there's an actual rule that says someone who pitches on Sunday can't pitch in the all-star game, which is strange to me - it seems to me like the pitcher and the manager should be able to decide for themselves whether they can pitch or not. The AL's two 12-game winners won't be at the All-Star Game.
 
2011-07-11 04:21:32 AM  

Flappyhead: None. Cowards.


I think the next question is can you tell the difference. We now live in a world where Miguel Montero is asked to play in the All-Star Game.
 
2011-07-11 04:26:26 AM  

Flappyhead: Cowards.


timeslikethose.files.wordpress.com

"You want to investigate my courage? Do you? Find out! FIND OUT!"

ral315: The AL's two 12-game winners won't be at the All-Star Game.


There's only one 12-game winner in the AL, just like there's only one 13-game winner.
 
2011-07-11 05:17:48 AM  
This is BS. Selig needs to get his head out of his ass and tell these a-holes they have to go to the game anyway. The All-Star game is so easy to fix and they've screwed it up royally.
 
2011-07-11 05:47:45 AM  

ral315: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Having the All-Star game in the middle of the season never made sense to me. You want to have the best pitchers in the game put on a show and waste one of their slots in the rotation?

To me, I don't understand why pitching one inning (or less!) in the All-Star Game would preclude a starter from making their next scheduled start. Even for a pitcher starting on the Sunday before and the Friday after the All-Star Game, is it really a big problem to throw an inning on Tuesday?

As-is, apparently there's an actual rule that says someone who pitches on Sunday can't pitch in the all-star game, which is strange to me - it seems to me like the pitcher and the manager should be able to decide for themselves whether they can pitch or not. The AL's two 12-game winners won't be at the All-Star Game.


I'm ok with this rule. It was put in place because of a rash of situations where a guy would pitch on Sunday, go to the All Star game, then tell the manager. "Hey, I pitched 2 days ago, I love being an All Star, but I can't actually pitch on Tuesday"

If you are going to go to the game and take a roster spot, then you should be available to play in the game.
 
2011-07-11 06:01:54 AM  
Having this decide home field advantage in the WS really makes sense still doesn't it?
 
2011-07-11 06:12:12 AM  

ghall3: Having this decide home field advantage in the WS really makes sense still doesn't it?


Bud Selig is a terrible commissioner and the people who agree with him are idiots ruining baseball.
 
2011-07-11 06:39:23 AM  

ghall3: Having this decide home field advantage in the WS really makes sense still doesn't it?


Never liked this idea myself. Why MLB just can't let the team with the better record have home field have the home field advantage? You do that in the ALCS/NLCS.
 
2011-07-11 07:11:44 AM  
Just end it already. No one really cares that much.

The All Star Game is a function of a by-gone era. There was a time when, as a baseball fan, I could have lived my entire life without seeing certain players play. Depending on where I lived, my only interaction with an Ernie Banks or Ted Williams might have been via a box score or some columnists story.

That's not the case anymore, obviously. Sure, the game still has a bit of novelty value and will draw a decent rating, but does anyone really care that much about it? If they just ditched the game totally, gave teams the 2-3 days to let them reset their rotations, and continued on with the season, is that really going to upset anyone? Besides over 50 baseball writers that is?
 
2011-07-11 07:19:54 AM  

Kuoxasar: ghall3: Having this decide home field advantage in the WS really makes sense still doesn't it?

Bud Selig is a terrible commissioner and the people who agree with him are idiots ruining baseball.


He's made some good decisions. The wild card, for one. This, however, is a level of idiocy at which Bud Selig excels too often, negating some of the better moves he has made.
 
2011-07-11 07:35:11 AM  
News flash to CBSSports -- Polanco hasn't played in the past three games with some sort of back injury.
 
2011-07-11 08:03:24 AM  

Gosling: Flappyhead: None. Cowards.

I think the next question is can you tell the difference. We now live in a world where Miguel Montero is asked to play in the All-Star Game.


yep, this. And, as much as I loves me some Scott Rolen, he's batting .241 w/little power and he has been promoted from spectator to also ran to back up to starter over the last four days.
 
2011-07-11 08:09:39 AM  

Nabb1: Kuoxasar: ghall3: Having this decide home field advantage in the WS really makes sense still doesn't it?

Bud Selig is a terrible commissioner and the people who agree with him are idiots ruining baseball.

He's made some good decisions. The wild card, for one. This, however, is a level of idiocy at which Bud Selig excels too often, negating some of the better moves he has made.


Part of the blame is the goddamned fans. I didn't really feel any sense of loss or sadness that the All Star game ended in a tie back in 2001(2?). The only stink I could see about it was that he had to make the call then. I think it could be in the rules that it ends after 10 innings, or have a shootout type situation after 10*. I would say after all pitchers are used up, but I could see some TLR type using all his pitchers in an inning after getting a 2 run lead.

Maybe each team has it's own home run derby type pitcher and have a 10 pitch round. Maybe require at least two batters per squad sharing 5 pitches each.
 
2011-07-11 08:14:01 AM  

ral315: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Having the All-Star game in the middle of the season never made sense to me. You want to have the best pitchers in the game put on a show and waste one of their slots in the rotation?

To me, I don't understand why pitching one inning (or less!) in the All-Star Game would preclude a starter from making their next scheduled start. Even for a pitcher starting on the Sunday before and the Friday after the All-Star Game, is it really a big problem to throw an inning on Tuesday?

As-is, apparently there's an actual rule that says someone who pitches on Sunday can't pitch in the all-star game, which is strange to me - it seems to me like the pitcher and the manager should be able to decide for themselves whether they can pitch or not. The AL's two 12-game winners won't be at the All-Star Game.


Pitchers, especially starters, have a very structured routine for their off-days. Only one of those days would really allow them to pitch even an inning (usually the 3rd day). And even then, it usually limits how much they can pitch the next time out. Think about long extra-inning games; sometimes they can bring in a starter for a couple innings. This usually depends on whether he did throwing session before the game (cannot be used) or was planning to do it afterwards (can be used).

I am pretty sure the rule is just there to protect egos/reputations. "I wanted to come back in two days and pitch for the fans, but the rule says I can't, so sorry guys" sounds a lot better than "I can't recover fast enough".
 
2011-07-11 08:24:09 AM  
At least it is just an exhibition game with no implications for the league as a whole. Oh wait...
 
2011-07-11 08:45:48 AM  
I don't know where to start with this. I hate the whole pitching situation; not just because they can't pitch an inning in a farking ALL STAR GAME, but because they're babied in the first place with pitch counts, rules about when they can pitch before the game, etc. Then you have a bunch of players selected on name basis who either don't belong or are injured this year. Top that all off with the fact that the game, which is pretty much a sham now, is supposed to mean something just because Selig got taunted mercilessly for the 2002 tie in his home stadium.

Just makes me want to not watch - oh wait, I wasn't going to anyway.

\bonus: It's a pitcher's park, so good luck getting any juice in the Home Run Derby tonight
 
2011-07-11 08:51:22 AM  

MisterLoki: At least it is just an exhibition game with no implications for the league as a whole. Oh wait...


Since 162 games are played, presumably one team would have a better regular season record than the other. Would it be too much to ask to not place the fate of a team on that of these supposed All-Stars and... shiat, I don't know, do what other sports do and maybe have the best team play at home first in the World Series?

These Baseball idiots make it like the problem is so hard to solve. Tards.
 
2011-07-11 08:54:09 AM  
In follow-up, YES, I know this is so the All-Star game MEANS something, but it means nothing, it means the fate of a team that may only have 2 All-Stars rests on that of his colleagues who could possibly suck so bad (see Houston, Dodgers, Baltimore etc) that they have no prayer of getting to the post season. So where is their incentive to play hard? Selig is a moron for suggesting this means more than rat shiat.
 
2011-07-11 08:59:49 AM  

mikemoto: Never liked this idea myself. Why MLB just can't let the team with the better record have home field have the home field advantage? You do that in the ALCS/NLCS.


coeyagi: Since 162 games are played, presumably one team would have a better regular season record than the other. Would it be too much to ask to not place the fate of a team on that of these supposed All-Stars and... shiat, I don't know, do what other sports do and maybe have the best team play at home first in the World Series?

These Baseball idiots make it like the problem is so hard to solve. Tards.


NL and AL teams don't play the same opponents. This is why they don't use records to determine home field in the World Series. This is why before 2002, home field simply alternated each year.
 
2011-07-11 09:04:31 AM  

The Bestest: mikemoto: Never liked this idea myself. Why MLB just can't let the team with the better record have home field have the home field advantage? You do that in the ALCS/NLCS.

coeyagi: Since 162 games are played, presumably one team would have a better regular season record than the other. Would it be too much to ask to not place the fate of a team on that of these supposed All-Stars and... shiat, I don't know, do what other sports do and maybe have the best team play at home first in the World Series?

These Baseball idiots make it like the problem is so hard to solve. Tards.

NL and AL teams don't play the same opponents. This is why they don't use records to determine home field in the World Series. This is why before 2002, home field simply alternated each year.


Yes, well NL (or AL) teams whose playoffs in the NLDS and the NLCS is determined by record, also don't play the same teams because of variance in the interleague schedules even within the same division. So, why does opponent not matter for Division and League championship series but it does matter for the World Series? I heard that argument before and it never quite made sense.
 
2011-07-11 09:06:08 AM  
I can understand the points being made in this thread-the stupidity of administration, the questions concerning the rotatation, the apparent boycott of the A-S game. Yet, I'll still have my tuchis planted on my couch screaming along with the 50,000 plus fans in AZ that night. :D

/as you were
 
2011-07-11 09:09:15 AM  

The Bestest: mikemoto: Never liked this idea myself. Why MLB just can't let the team with the better record have home field have the home field advantage? You do that in the ALCS/NLCS.

coeyagi: Since 162 games are played, presumably one team would have a better regular season record than the other. Would it be too much to ask to not place the fate of a team on that of these supposed All-Stars and... shiat, I don't know, do what other sports do and maybe have the best team play at home first in the World Series?

These Baseball idiots make it like the problem is so hard to solve. Tards.

NL and AL teams don't play the same opponents. This is why they don't use records to determine home field in the World Series. This is why before 2002, home field simply alternated each year.


Which is a system that worked just fine, thank you very much. I, for one, would welcome a return to that state of the rules.

/I'd also like it if the entire American League would go back to playing by the RULES OF BLOODY BASEBALL.
 
2011-07-11 09:16:07 AM  

coeyagi: Yes, well NL (or AL) teams whose playoffs in the NLDS and the NLCS is determined by record, also don't play the same teams because of variance in the interleague schedules even within the same division. So, why does opponent not matter for Division and League championship series but it does matter for the World Series? I heard that argument before and it never quite made sense.


The degree of uncommon opponents within the same league is nowhere near what it is between leagues.

Take the Phillies for example. No one doubts they are a very good team, but it is unlikely that they would have 57 wins right now had they been in the AL.

A better solution could probably be to use interleague records (league as a whole), but honestly, HFA isn't -that- big of a deal (in terms of determining the outcome of the Series.

The problem most people have with the ASG determining HFA has less to do with HFA itself than it does an exhibition having an implication.
 
2011-07-11 09:17:39 AM  

Farabor: The Bestest: mikemoto: Never liked this idea myself. Why MLB just can't let the team with the better record have home field have the home field advantage? You do that in the ALCS/NLCS.

coeyagi: Since 162 games are played, presumably one team would have a better regular season record than the other. Would it be too much to ask to not place the fate of a team on that of these supposed All-Stars and... shiat, I don't know, do what other sports do and maybe have the best team play at home first in the World Series?

These Baseball idiots make it like the problem is so hard to solve. Tards.

NL and AL teams don't play the same opponents. This is why they don't use records to determine home field in the World Series. This is why before 2002, home field simply alternated each year.

Which is a system that worked just fine, thank you very much. I, for one, would welcome a return to that state of the rules.

/I'd also like it if the entire American League would go back to playing by the RULES OF BLOODY BASEBALL.


I'd like to go back to no interleague games, but I don't see that going away anytime soon. Before all the interleague stuff, the All-Star game was the chance to see players from both leagues on the same field. That's part of what made it a big deal.
 
2011-07-11 09:43:26 AM  
I haven't watched the ASG in years. It's stupid, a popularity contest, and a waste of time. I'm glad as many Yankees have bowed as they have, and I wish that other Yankees would decline the invitation and let players from some other team get in. This "one all-star per team" crap is dumb. I want my team to get a 3 day vacation to rest up. I don't want them taking part in some stupid exhibition game.
 
2011-07-11 10:09:50 AM  

The Bestest: coeyagi: Yes, well NL (or AL) teams whose playoffs in the NLDS and the NLCS is determined by record, also don't play the same teams because of variance in the interleague schedules even within the same division. So, why does opponent not matter for Division and League championship series but it does matter for the World Series? I heard that argument before and it never quite made sense.

The degree of uncommon opponents within the same league is nowhere near what it is between leagues.

Take the Phillies for example. No one doubts they are a very good team, but it is unlikely that they would have 57 wins right now had they been in the AL.

A better solution could probably be to use interleague records (league as a whole), but honestly, HFA isn't -that- big of a deal (in terms of determining the outcome of the Series.

The problem most people have with the ASG determining HFA has less to do with HFA itself than it does an exhibition having an implication.


Agree with the bold, but it is an arbitrary determination where "the statistics are now marginally insignificant to determine fairness for HFA". And another way to look at it - since most of your games are played in your league, it is also possible to say the statistics for Interleague play are marginally insignificant to the point where you can arbitrarily determine that it's all relative and a 0.600 winning percentage team in the NL might not be as good as a 0.585 team in the AL, but if the NL gets the HFA in the world series, consider that a handicap that actually levels the playing field against a supposed better AL team. I know HFA is supposed to be a reward, but if all these gambits and tinkerings from Selig are meant to make things better, wouldn't a close World Series be better for ratings and the game as a whole?
 
2011-07-11 10:24:02 AM  
I like to think I am a fairly rabid sports fan and the only All-Star game festivities I care about are the NHL's Skills competition. Everything else - including the actual NHL ASG - are little more than boxscores to me. In fact, I actually root against players on my favorite team making it because I know agents go into negotiations with my team's GM saying, "Well, he made three all-star games so I feel he deserves that extra $500,000."

In a salary cap world (or a Mets fan with farking Wilponzi at the helm), that $500k could mean the difference between another good player or not.

Perhaps I am thinking this too far through.
 
2011-07-11 10:32:24 AM  

coeyagi: In follow-up, YES, I know this is so the All-Star game MEANS something, but it means nothing, it means the fate of a team that may only have 2 All-Stars rests on that of his colleagues who could possibly suck so bad (see Houston, Dodgers, Baltimore etc) that they have no prayer of getting to the post season. So where is their incentive to play hard? Selig is a moron for suggesting this means more than rat shiat.


The problem is not that these guys don't care. Many of them care more than the contenders (look at how many Yankees bailed) because it's all they have for the year outside normal games and they know it. The problem is having a lot of players who are in because they happen to play for teams with crazy fans who will stuff the box for every player on the ballot from their team. When they had the last fan vote the Phillies fans went nuts for a guy who everyone knew couldn't play in the game even if he got elected, and has missed 1/4 of his team's games. He shouldn't have even been in the running for that spot when they knew he couldn't play.

Then you have the years the manager decides to use his selections to invite his whole damn team.
 
2011-07-11 10:32:33 AM  

jayhawk88: Just end it already. No one really cares that much.

The All Star Game is a function of a by-gone era. There was a time when, as a baseball fan, I could have lived my entire life without seeing certain players play. Depending on where I lived, my only interaction with an Ernie Banks or Ted Williams might have been via a box score or some columnists story.

That's not the case anymore, obviously. Sure, the game still has a bit of novelty value and will draw a decent rating, but does anyone really care that much about it? If they just ditched the game totally, gave teams the 2-3 days to let them reset their rotations, and continued on with the season, is that really going to upset anyone? Besides over 50 baseball writers that is?


I don't ever to this, but THIS.

Nobody farking cares anymore. It costs $200 to watch every MLB game played on TV. Much less to do so on your computer.
 
2011-07-11 10:47:05 AM  

robsul82: "You want to investigate my courage? Do you? Find out! FIND OUT!"


Truly nothing is obscure on Fark.
 
2011-07-11 10:54:53 AM  

Yanks_RSJ: jayhawk88: Just end it already. No one really cares that much.

The All Star Game is a function of a by-gone era. There was a time when, as a baseball fan, I could have lived my entire life without seeing certain players play. Depending on where I lived, my only interaction with an Ernie Banks or Ted Williams might have been via a box score or some columnists story.

That's not the case anymore, obviously. Sure, the game still has a bit of novelty value and will draw a decent rating, but does anyone really care that much about it? If they just ditched the game totally, gave teams the 2-3 days to let them reset their rotations, and continued on with the season, is that really going to upset anyone? Besides over 50 baseball writers that is?

I don't ever to this, but THIS.

Nobody farking cares anymore. It costs $200 to watch every MLB game played on TV. Much less to do so on your computer.


I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but they should at least abolish the "every team gets an all-star" rule. It's stupid.

Michael Cuddyer, MLB All-star...let that sink-in for a minute

/and i'm a die-hard Twins fan
 
2011-07-11 11:09:40 AM  

SharkTrager: look at how many Yankees bailed


CC pitched yesterday (and wasn't even an original selection)
Jeter just came off the DL
A-Rod is having knee surgery today
 
2011-07-11 11:40:39 AM  
I hate the all-star game now. Well, not hate, but I completely disregard it. Interleague play devalued the novelty of seeing AL vs NL before the WS, and now that interleague play has been around for a while, it has devalued itself.

So, instead of getting rid of interleague play to raise the interest level of the all-star game, they tried to make the game mean something by having it affect the home field advantage of the most important series in the game. While I don't support that (I think the best team should get home-field advantage, period), I could live with it, except that farking fans get to vote on the goddam players.

I think what's going to happen is that becaue home field advantage will be decided mid-season (instead of potentially being decided the final few weeks), interest in the last month of baseball will decline once in the divisions where teams are clearly running away with it.

I wonder what crackhead scheme Selig will invent to regenerate interest in September baseball.
 
2011-07-11 11:46:37 AM  
Let's focus on what really matters here, Kate Upton absolutely dominating the All-Star Celebrity softball game.

i272.photobucket.com

More at With Leather (new window).
 
2011-07-11 11:58:28 AM  

FriarReb98: \bonus: It's a pitcher's park, so good luck getting any juice in the Home Run Derby tonight


Not only that, cut Chase Field is probably the worst possible place to have a home run derby.

A good derby park needs a couple things:

1: A target-rich environment. Lots of different stuff to hit. Nobody cares where on a particular target you hit it, just that you hit it. Chase Field ruins that with that damn scoreboard in center that they had to paint a yellow line on just so you could hit home runs to dead center. The ball lands on THIS part of the wall, it's in play, but if it's on THIS identical-looking part of the wall six inches higher, it's a home run. 500-foot blast? Still hits the same wall. WHEEEEEEE.

2. Room for the ball to travel. If the ball can be hit out of the park, you're good. Everybody loves the ball leaving the park. Chase Field is almost a dome in this respect. The ball can't really go anywhere.

3. A Holy Grail target. Something that seems reachable, but that nobody or almost nobody can actually hit. Something that if you do manage to reach it, you are from that moment on a power-hitting god. The light tower at Tiger Stadium (or out of the stadium entirely, that also works), the scoreboard at Wrigley, the warehouse at Camden Yards, the Ohio River at Great American Ball Park. (The fifth deck at the Skydome? Too commonly hit.)
 
2011-07-11 12:09:38 PM  
If you are not on the DL, you should have to attend/play if you are selected.

The Bestest: CC pitched yesterday (and wasn't even an original selection)OK
Jeter just came off the DLHe just had five hits in a game, right? Get the f*ck out there
A-Rod is having knee surgery today

OK
 
2011-07-11 12:43:43 PM  

Orgasmatron138: So, instead of getting rid of interleague play to raise the interest level of the all-star game, they tried to make the game mean something by having it affect the home field advantage of the most important series in the game. While I don't support that (I think the best team should get home-field advantage, period), I could live with it, except that farking fans get to vote on the goddam players.

I think what's going to happen is that becaue home field advantage will be decided mid-season (instead of potentially being decided the final few weeks), interest in the last month of baseball will decline once in the divisions where teams are clearly running away with it.


I'm okay with them deciding in advance what league hosts. Makes for fewer cities they have to tentatively prep.

I'm also not really up to cancelling the All-Star Game. That's just going a bit far for my tastes. But it's supposed to be a fun little thing for the fans. Just let it be a fun little thing for the fans. (Emphasis, fun. Ties aren't fun.)

How do you decide home field in the World Series? Give it to whichever league has the better record in interleague play. It's a much better gauge of which league is superior, top-to-bottom. And nobody's sitting those games out.
 
2011-07-11 01:35:22 PM  

Gosling: How do you decide home field in the World Series?


I dunno...Rotate it like it was done for decades?
 
2011-07-11 02:24:50 PM  
Making it count conflicts with the fact that it's managed like an exhibition. Every year, the same thing happens:
- Make sure every player gets to play at some point, probably only for an inning or two
- Run out of pitchers and/or position players if there are any extra innings
- Talk about increasing number of players allowed on the roster for next year, so it doesn't happen again

Making it count, and making sure everybody gets to play, are mutually exclusive. Either you play to win, or you play it like an exhibition. You have to pick one. I say return it to being a pure exhibition game which doesn't count for anything, and set a 10 (or maybe 11) inning maximum length. If there's a tie, big farking deal.
 
2011-07-11 02:40:45 PM  

The Bestest: SharkTrager: look at how many Yankees bailed

CC pitched yesterday (and wasn't even an original selection)
Jeter just came off the DLis an old man and wants a vacation.
A-Rod is having knee surgery today


FTFY
 
2011-07-11 03:04:11 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: It costs $200 to watch every MLB game played on TV. Much less to do so on your computer.


And you get all the games online in HD, which isn't available on your actual TV.
 
2011-07-11 03:32:03 PM  

NeoCortex42: If there's a tie, big farking deal.


Or, you know, you can have a near-riot and calls for the Commissioner's head like last time.
 
2011-07-11 05:18:32 PM  
16 alternates and the best player in the game is still not taking part. Yes, Pujols is having an off-year by his standards but he's still batting .280 with 18 HR and 50 RBI.
 
2011-07-11 05:57:32 PM  

Lloyd Braun: 16 alternates and the best player in the game is still not taking part. Yes, Pujols is having an off-year by his standards but he's still batting .280 with 18 HR and 50 RBI.


Other than the fan votes, which should be done way with if the game "counts", it should go to the most deserving players in any given season. Not sure he belongs on it this year when that criteria is used.
 
2011-07-11 09:19:41 PM  
I like the idea of letting the overall interleague record determine home field in the WS. The All-Star game should be held two days before the WS, with players from every team but the two in the big game. Give everybody one last chance to see their favorites before the season closes.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report