all-star game rules
iamthegreatcornholio
Posts: 3,366
in Sports Talk
one thing i've always been torn about is that a person from every team must be represented in the all-star game. i can understand that since fans want to see their teams players. but on the other hand, shouldn't the best players go... some teams are filled with bums. and now that it "counts", who is more motivated to play in the as game, a player on a winning ballclub or a player on a .333 ballclub? just curious to see what you guys think.
brian
brian
0
Comments
<< <i>Brian, I personally think having at least one represenative from each team is a good idea. >>
I personally think it sucks.
Why should some deserving player (Morgan Ensberg anyone) because of the every team has one representative rule? It makes the manager's job to field the best team possible all that much harder, and will continue to leave players off who should be there.
If they are going to place the importance of world series home field to it, they should let the managers pick whoever they want.
<< <i>But you would cry every year when the Mariners did not have a team represenative. >>
If I honestly felt that no one on my team deserved to go, I wouldn't have beef with that. But since Ichiro will wear an M's jersey until he retires, the M's will have at least one for another decade.
And do the names Griffey Jr. ring a bell? You have 2 Mariner greats in Arod and big unit on your team. The M's do just fine in developing talent. They are just going through a bad run right now (which you are going to know VERY well in the next few years...so get used to it).
Every team wins and loses in cycles. IT HAPPENS. But as I've said before, whether my team wins or loses doesn't affect that they are the team I root for (unlike you, who can't stand to root for a team that loses).
It would be nice to be a die hard fan and watch your player of your last place team hit the 3 run winning homerun in the allstar game to win it! so i think every team should have a player.
Why don't you drop that shtick. I have never rooted for any team but the Yankees. Bobby Murcer was my childhood idol in 1969 and I didn't root for the Amazings even though the Yankees were under .500 that year.
the more i think about it, i am opposed to the all-star game deciding home-field in the ws. as in my mind, it creates a conflict of interest between having fun and needing to win.
it should either alternate or just go to the team with the better record. although i guess this way ensures we'll never see another tie again (that was a disgrace)
brian
<< <i>axtell, did you feel the same way before it "counted"?
the more i think about it, i am opposed to the all-star game deciding home-field in the ws. as in my mind, it creates a conflict of interest between having fun and needing to win.
it should either alternate or just go to the team with the better record. although i guess this way ensures we'll never see another tie again (that was a disgrace)
brian >>
Honestly no I didnt.
When it was truly an exhibition, then yes, I felt every team should have a representative. When you start tying something as important as home field advantage in the world series to it, then the manager shouldn't be restricted to making every team have a player.
I don't think that the all star game should hold such importance. It's not good that something as important as that should be tied to an exhibition.
If a manager is going to be held with the responsibility of his team determining home field for the world series, then it should be the best PLAYERS, not one from each team.
And be honest, does a fan of say, tampa bay, care whether or not a player from his team is going?
I guess you don't consider little kids fans.
<< <i><<does a fan of say, tampa bay, care whether or not a player from his team is going?>>
I guess you don't consider little kids fans. >>
And do you think little kids care if they have a player from their team playing?
It wouldn't affect the game at all other than giving managers the tools to field the best possible team, instead of this rule that means they have to take players who aren't deserving.
ABSOLUTELY.
I cared in 1969....I care now.
<< <i><<And do you think little kids care if they have a player from their team playing?>>
ABSOLUTELY.
I cared in 1969....I care now. >>
Wow you sure seem to bring up that year a lot...are you trying to convince everyone you really do like them?
Little kids could care less if their team doesn't have a rep playing. They won't even remember it a week later.
I guess I was a special kid then.
I dont think it should go to the best record because the teams play different schedules. And it would probably be a logistical nightmare for tv and hotels if you wouldnt know who would be hosting Game 1 until the last game of the playoffs was over.
Im not overly sold on the winner of the All Star game hosting the Series. But if it leads to a more tightly fought battle, Im all for that. And the original method was just pot luck anyway.
How many other things are there for kids to enjoy now? There's no way they have the attention span for baseball they did then.
My point of contention is while I don't like the winner getting home field for the league, if that's how it's going to be, then the managers should be able to pick the team he feels gives him the best chance to win.
Not trying to pick on the D'Rays, but (a) does the single player selected really care if his team wins the all star game? and (b) what are the odds he's going to get into the game anyways?