Each year I fall into the same trap of excitement over Major League Baseball's All-Star Break. I examine the rosters to evaluate both the fan voting and managerial selections. I anticipate who will participate in the Home Run Derby. And I sit back, relax and prepare to watch the actual Tuesday night contest ritually. And each year for the past several years, I find that I am rather disappointed with the viewing experience.
Now don't misunderstand me - I'm not about to stop watching. As a die-hard sports and baseball fan, I'll continue to look forward to the events of the summer classic like a six year old looks forward to Christmas (or Hanukkah or whatever). This year I was home in PA during the All-Star break and was able to get together with my friend Justin to watch the Home Run Derby for the first time in I don't know how many years. During high school and summers in college we watched all types of sporting events together, so it was an awesome experience. However, its awesomeness would have been so much greater if the Home Run Derby hadn't become so nearly unwatchable.
MLB's Home Run Derby has become terribly long and tedious, mostly because hitters take five or six pitches for every swing. I think the time has come for Bud Selig to step in and fix this. A lot of ideas have been floated around to speed up the pace of the Derby, and they all have varying degrees of merit, but I have my own idea that I haven't heard repeated at all in the media...
Put an umpire behind the plate! That's right - get an MLB ump behind home plate to call strikes. Instituting a straight pitch count won't necessarily work because there's no guarantee that all of the pitches will be strikes - and I could wander off on a tangent about the random people the participants have throwing to them, but I'll refrain for the moment. No, instead the ump should call strikes and every third strike taken should count as an out. This will force the batters to swing at more balls and speed up the Derby. Would Josh Hamilton have been able to hit 28 home runs in the old Yankee Stadium under such a format? Not sure - though it appears certain could do it in the new one - but I'll sacrifice that singular performance for a higher quality Home Run Derby overall.
And then there's the All-Star game itself, with which I have two issues to raise. First, the game starts too late and the pre-game festivities last too long. If there's going to be 45 minutes of ceremonial presentations before the start of the game - which as great and moving as they are is about 25 minutes too many - FOX needs to start their coverage at 7:00pm or 7:30pm EST. From a business stance, all sports need young fans to ensure their future growth and prosperity. Baseball loses out on many potential young fans by starting its All-Star game and World Series games too late. I realize 7:00pm EST is pretty early on the West coast, but I definitely agree with those who argue that it's better if everyone can watch the end of the game as opposed to the beginning.
Second, the outcome of the All-Star game should have absolutely no bearing on which team has the home-field advantage in the World Series. That honor should be awarded to the team with the best record, period. The American League earning the home-field advantage in this year's World Series because Justin Upton misplayed a ball of the wall and Adam Jones hit a sacrifice fly - two players who will have zero association with the fall classic this year (I guess Justin might attend if his brother B.J. is playing in it) - is completely stupid, and every time Bud Selig attempts to defend the practice he sounds completely stupid.
This season, the Dodgers might wrap up the NL West by the beginning of September and the best record in the National League by the middle of September, and have two weeks of meaningless baseball before the playoffs begin. Conversely, the Red Sox, Yankees and Rays may be battling for both the AL East division crown and the best record in the American League on the final day of the season. There are pros and cons for these teams in both scenarios, but there are only pros for the fans in the American League example. But what if the Dodgers had to keep an eye on the AL East race in an effort to secure the best record in baseball and home-field advantage in the World Series? Doesn't this make the end of the season more interesting? Doesn't this add meaning to the final week or the regular season in a new and unique way for the MLB? Doesn't this accentuate the presence and importance of interleague play?
Baseball needs to learn from basketball in this regard. At the end of the NBA regular season the top playoff seeds were set, but the overall number one and the team with home-court advantage in the NBA finals was still up for grabs between the Lakers and Cavs. Granted, not much came of that this year - it appears Phil Jackson wasn't too concerned about facing the Cavs in the Finals, or was wise enough to know that there was little/no chance they'd make it there - but the potential for something interesting existed, and really that's all I ask.
P.S. I had an additional thought I neglected to include in my original posting: MLB should institute little league rules for the All-Star game. Keep the rosters to 25 players - the 33 or whatever it is currently is absurd - and allow the starters to re-enter the game. Albert Pujols can start at 1st base for the National League, play 4 or 5 innings, be taken out and then be used to pinch hit in a clutch situation in the 8th or 9th innings. Ichiro can start in the outfield for the American League, be taken out after the 4th inning or so and then be reinserted into the lineup when the AL needs more speed on the bases in the late innings. I don't see how this doesn't make the game more interesting and more enjoyable, start to finish, for players and fans alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment