 |
| |
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Midsummer mess Tying All-Star Game to World Series isn't the way to fix itPosted: Monday May 05, 2003 12:06 PMUpdated: Tuesday May 06, 2003 2:01 AM
So, say you're Major League Baseball and, like every other big-time pro sport, you're scrambling like mad to keep your fans. Saints preserve us, maybe you're even trying to grab a few new ones. Say you've been conked by a few public relations beanballs over the past couple of years, and you're on the offensive. You want to get bold. Innovative. You're thinking outside of the batter's box. Say, for instance, that you have this game, this "Midsummer Classic" -- hard to live up to something called a classic, you know? -- that has lost its luster. It's become more of a Midsummer Distraction, really. A Midsummer Break. A Midsummer Yawn. Last year, it became, in a lot of people's eyes, A Midsummer Joke. How can you make this latest negative a positive? What do you do? What DO you do?
Selig & Cohorts aren't offering up more money for the winners of the annual All-Star Game, though that would work. Heck, that would work just fine. Players understand money. Players will play for money. That's what they do. That's not happening, though. Instead, baseball is breaking a long tradition by making the All-Star Game the thing that decides who has home-field advantage in the World Series. Win the game, win home-field for your league in the big show. That's the plan to restore the All-Star Game's credibility. "You might think it matters to some of the guys who are still in contention," Cubs manager Dusty Baker, who will be in charge of the National League team this summer, said last week. "But at the same time, how many guys think that far in advance?" Yeah, that's a problem. But that's only one of the problems with this plan. The biggest problem is that a game between the AL and NL just isn't unique anymore. The lines between the American and National leagues have blurred, thanks to free agents jumping all over the place and the advent of interleague play. You can see the AL and NL play every June. At one time, the All-Star Game was a classic. At one time, it was Pete Rose barreling into Ray Fosse. At one time, the pride of the two leagues was at stake. Now, it's Barry Bonds bearhugging Torii Hunter. Now, it's a race for the earliest flight out of town. Used to be a game. Now it's an exhibition. Attaching false importance to the game is not going to bring it back. You think the All-Stars care about who wins home-field advantage for the World Series? You think the representative for the Devil Rays or the Orioles or the Brewers or Tigers or Padres or whoever cares? You think fans will care? Or watch because of that? Last year's All-Star Game ended in a tie, the result of boneheaded managing pushed by the misguided notion that everyone in an All-Star Game is supposed to actually play. But that tie was a fluke. If baseball didn't do a thing to the All-Star Game, another tie wasn't likely ever to happen. Not after the purists got all in a tizzy about it. The fact is, the tie isn't what made Selig & Cronies want to change this thing. It was the ratings. They were the worst ever for the "Classic." Something had to give. And, so, the plan tying the game to the Series. The All-Star Game probably will never regain the status it once had. It's hard to get ratings anymore, as everyone in every sport knows. But baseball can make the game better. Instruct the managers to play to win. Keep the starters, the ones the fans elect, in longer. Offer incentives -- yeah, maybe even money, or an extra day off -- to get the players to play harder. Or to come to the game at all. Make it winner-take-all, for goodness sakes. It's simple, really. The game has to mean something to the ones who are playing it, certainly more than home-field advantage for something that most players will never experience. If it means something to the players, then it will mean something to the ones who might watch it. Anything less makes it Midsummer Meaningless.
This week, even more on the Hall of Fame's decision to cancel the Bull Durham celebration, a few comments on the terrible Tigers and more on scrappin' in the stands ...
Soriano is better than A-Rod right now? Are you serious? Soriano is already an outstanding offensive player, but I think most people would argue that Alex is a little better. In fact, last season Alex was much better in a number of offensive categories. Their numbers at this point in the season are virtually identical, but taking a sample size of only 25 games as the basis for comparison is obviously silly. Defensively, it's not even close, and A-Rod plays arguably the most critical position. To assert that Soriano is a better player than A-Rod right now is absolutely ridiculous, and I challenge you to find anyone outside of New York to agree with your assessment. I said right now, Michael. At this moment. At the end of April. I'd take A-Rod over Soriano (or anyone else) over the course of a season. Even over the course of a couple of months. But right now, it's hard to get better than Soriano.
I find it sad that nobody's talking about the Expos, in a baseball point of view, I should add. I was pretty sure to read about the Expos in your "True-false" column. Not a word. Same in the Power Rankings: Everybody always talks about the crowds and everything, never about the game. But, hey, they're playing good baseball! And if nobody cares in Montreal, I think people in other cities should know that a good team is coming in town! With a rotation of Vazquez, Armas, Okha, O. Hernandez and either Zach Day or Livan Hernandez, I think the Expos have all the rights to be talked about! There are a lot of things to say about the Expos other than the boring crowds thing. In the name of good baseball coverage, I ask reporters to do so.
The Expos certainly deserve their props. Frank Robinson can still manage and, more importantly, Omar Minaya has done an amazing job keeping this team competitive with restraints that no one else in baseball has.
I believe there may be a common, logical reason for the upset attitude of certain fans. Picture, for instance, Mr. Jones. He works 40 to 60 hours a week at the local factory and makes a fair living, let's say $300 per week, take home. After seeing most of his hard-earned salary picked away by taxes, expenses, ever increasing health costs, rent, utilities, and the all-American politicians, he manages to save enough to take his two sons to a ballgame. So, he shells out for tolls, gasoline, parking, admission, a few $4 hot dogs and sodas, a banner, schedule, team magazine and maybe a jersey or two. Well, lo and behold, Mr. Jones is now close to a week's pay in the hole. Now he gets to sit and watch his sons' favorite team. And all the players make many, many times his salary, get many perks, bonuses, extensions, free travel around the country, and the world, and so much more. And they traipse around the big, manicured ballfields missing weak grounders and high pop-ups, strike out more than three times a game, run into each other, trot everywhere they should be running and get into heated arguments with the umpires for calling a third strike on a borderline pitch. At this point, Mr. Jones wonders why he is not making a tenth of their salaries to do his best seven months of the year. Then, maybe, the guy sitting behind Mr. Jones, who has been on his cell phone for the last half hour talking about how this team sucks, happened to leave his phone under his chair when he went for a $4 hot dog ... I love baseball, I always have. But, I have given up on the dream of spending a day at the park. As have so many other average people.
Nice story, Bill, but I don't buy it. Look, I'm no player apologist. But the truth is, most of these guys -- nearly all of them, I'd say -- work hard and know how lucky they are to be doing what they're doing. As a fan, you either accept the fact that these guys get paid what they get paid or you don't. If you accept it, you can admire them for the skills they bring to the field. If you don't accept it, don't go and don't admire. Taking your frustrations out on the lucky by throwing cell phones or yelling obscene and outrageous comments is just not right.
I cannot tell you how utterly disgusted, disappointed and ashamed I am of a professional sportswriter's take on the current woes of the Detroit Tigers. Your column this past week was completely one-sided and lacked any in-depth research or critical analysis of the team's future. For example: What about the young pitching? OK, maybe not that. But what about the young prospects in the minors? Oh yeah, none of them. Well, what about the beautiful new park in one of the nation's most underrated cities? Oh, who am I kidding? Detroit looks like Gotham City after a meteor strike. Aside from the GM building, it could pass for Kosovo. Just contract this team already. And while you're at it, contract the Lions, too. Oh hell, can we just contract the city of Detroit? Let's give it to Windsor. Let the Canadians deal with it.
Funny, well-written e-mails, no matter what the take, will always have a home here at The Pitch.
I'm a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan (yeah, I can admit it). No doubt about it, the 2003 team is awful. However, I take exception with your view that Mike Ilitch being unwilling to spend money is part of the problem. That view is part of the instant gratification attitude among sports fans today. Let's face it, even if Ilitch put up the cash for a couple of top name free agents, these Tigers would still be a mediocre team, maybe with 15 more wins. The Tigers have an incredibly young team at every position. Why not play them now and accept the fact that the team will lose, hope to improve to a decent team in a couple years, then add the high-profile guys needed to push your team over the edge? As bad as they are now, the Tigers are using the proper rebuilding strategy, which does take time. Maybe in five years Detroit will be the new version of the 2002 Minnesota Twins.
I'm with you, John. The fact is, Ilitch has learned the hard way with the Tigers. He's unwilling to spend now because when he has spent (Juan Gonzalez comes to mind, and there are others), it has failed miserably. So now, he's slamming the checkbook shut, which is the only way to go there. You have to rebuild from within. Pump up the minors. Spend money on scouting and development. But do the Tigers -- and, more importantly, their fans -- have the stomach for it?
I'm not sure I support the idea of baseball players pummeling all drunk idiots who run on the field. Assault is assault, regardless of who does it. We don't tolerate police officers beating down those they detain; we shouldn't tolerate it from baseball players or anyone else. It's one thing to hold someone down until security can drag him away. It's another thing to stomp on his leg with metal spikes, as one enterprising Royal did. Let's not overreact on this. More diligent security in the later innings and cutting off alcohol to those visibly intoxicated should do the trick. Last I checked, athletes still are a greater threat to the general population (drunk driving, assault, rape) than liquored-up fans are to players on the field. Do something about that.
This whole talk about "letting the players take care of it" is idiotic and short-sighted. Not to mention really, really dangerous.
Sorry to keep on discussing the unruly fan issue, but I think I have a bit of a different perspective on it. Fans today are much better behaved at games than they were say, 15 years ago. I remember being at Mets games in the late 1980s and fights would regularly break out in the stands, and in one memorable incident, two guys wearing batting helmets bashed heads until one of the helmets broke. Today's fans are by no means perfect, but there do seem to be fewer incidents. Perhaps that's not the case in Chicago, however.
Maybe. I know Atlanta's Bobby Cox says the same thing -- that it used to be much worse. Hard to think about that, though, when some loudmouth two rows up is yelling a bunch of junk and you spend the whole game trying to cover up your kids' ears.
Trivia answer of the week: Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, is actually where the Wright Brothers first demonstrated sustained flight, near the beginning of the 20th Century. Although they flew in Kill Devil Hills, the nearest telegraph station was in Kitty Hawk, which is why most people know that name. Thought you might like to know.
We give geography lessons, too, here at The Pitch. One stop shopping.
Perhaps the Tigers can reacquire John Smoltz, Jim Bunning, Gus Triandos and Billy Pierce (all notable Tiger trade gaffes) to get their rotation back on track. I'm sure the older fellas can't be any worse than the current bunch.
Yeah! Bring back Mark Fidrych! Woo hoo!
John Donovan is a senior writer for SI.com.
Comments? To e-mail Donovan, click here.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We don't do real "Es" often in the E of the Week. But Sunday in Boston, the Red Sox committed a big one. The Sox, up 4-0, had Minnesota's Matt LeCroy dead-to-rights, trying to take second on a throw home. So LeCroy stopped, scampered back the other way -- and if you've seen LeCroy run, it's really no scamper -- and made it because no one was covering first. The Twins went on to tie the score that inning and win the game, 9-4. No E in the boxscore. But an E from us.
"I'm a firm believer that when you do something for so many years you've got to get away from it."
