 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
The bottom line All-Star Game was improved, but did more people tune in?Posted: Wednesday July 16, 2003 2:56 PM
Click here to send a question to Tom Verducci's Mailbag. In his pregame All-Star meeting, American League manager Mike Scioscia gave his players signs for the run-and-hit (a version of the hit-and-run in which the baserunners need a straight-steal quality jump) and -- egads! -- the bunt. He told his squad that not everybody would play and that he would use his substitutes largely based on matchups, which proved brilliant when the Angels skipper had Hank Blalock on the bench to hit against right-hander Eric Gagne in the eighth inning of the AL's 7-6 win, since he hadn't thrown the Rangers third baseman out earlier to face left-hander Billy Wagner. The players didn't play the game any more intensely. Gagne, for instance, said his pitch selection and approach to hitters was "a gray area" that was less than a regular season game but more than a sheer exhibition. But the event was managed slightly differently. (A dozen players didn't even get in.) And the biggest difference was in the postgame clubhouses. Going back to 1990, I don't ever remember so many players still being there afterward. "A few left [early], but more guys definitely stuck around the whole game," said Arizona outfielder Luis Gonzalez. They cared. The bottom line is the new format was not, despite Fox's necessary hype, a cataclysmic change. But I liked that something was riding on the outcome. It's cool to think that the great at-bat between Blalock and Gagne will be talked about in October no matter who is playing in the World Series, giving such All-Star moments even greater meaning and historical significance. I'm disappointed that the players didn't do a better job of selling the importance of the game. They kept running down the idea of a single contest deciding homefield advantage in the World Series, then they kept saying after the game that they can't be thinking about homefield advantage or, incongruously, saying it doesn't mean that much. They were misinformed about why the new format came about -- again, the momentum for the change had been building long before last year's 7-7 tie in order to try to salvage sinking ratings for the event. Or the players floated dumb ideas like a U.S. against The World format. (Great, let's promote jingoism and separatism when the game should be celebrating its inclusiveness.) I agree with the players' contention that it's not as if they weren't trying in years past. That suggestion is insulting to them. But don't take "This Time It Counts" as a comment on their intensity. It has everything to do with the context of the game. The Midsummer Classic has some meaning again, an edge. And it doesn't matter what the players or critics think, anyway. You the fan, the television viewer, will decide whether this is a good idea or not. It's just like interleague play. You bought more tickets and tuned in to more of those games, therefore interleague play will stick around -- no matter how many players complain. How many of you watched Tuesday night's game and how many watch next year will determine whether there will be more "This Time It Counts" All-Star games. I can't think of a sporting event with more riding on its rating than this All-Star Game. If Fox didn't get the 10 percent bump it expected, it laid a colossal egg. Remember, it's not really about the World Series. It's about getting more people to watch the All-Star Game. Now on to the mailbag ... Many people wrote in regarding how best regular-season record cannot be used to determine homefield advantage in the World Series because of logistical problems. Here's the deal. Both the players and Major League Baseball agree that it would be crazy, if not impossible, to block for up to 10 days the 12,000 hotel rooms needed for the World Series, then release more than half those days at the last minute once the sites are determined. Other logistical and security arrangements could not be made on such short notice. The World Series is much, much bigger than the LCS (or the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup), so those comparisons aren't equal ones. Let's say the Mariners win the ALCS and await an NLCS Game 7 between the Braves and Giants. Say the Braves have a better record than the Mariners (whatever that means, because their schedules aren't even close to being comparable), but the Giants have a worse record. If you know the series will open in an NL city, you need hotel rooms in Seattle only for the middle three games. But in this hypothetical case, the series could open in Seattle or in Atlanta. That means you'd have to block 12,000 rooms over a 10-day period in Seattle (in additional to the San Francisco portion), but you may only need three or four of those days. The bottom line is that the leagues need to lock in specific dates way in advance. Or, let's have Bud Selig explain it: "We can't do it. It's not pragmatic. We need 10,000 to 12,000 hotel rooms. We need other things set up. We can't do that in 24 hours. It just doesn't work. We talked to everyone about it." I could not believe the comments Bret Boone made about Bud Selig, which were in your column Tuesday. Does Boone realize that Fox, more so than Selig, wanted the change in the All-Star Game's format? Don't you think Boone was out of line?
I was amazed at how poorly informed players were about why the All-Star Game was changed. Boone is entitled to his opinion, but I think there's a time and place for everything. The All-Star break, a great stage for baseball with no other sports up and running -- and with a labor deal in place -- did not seem like the right time to attack the commissioner. Will Jeromy Burnitz and Rickey Henderson give the Dodgers' offense the jolt it needs? How much will Rickey play? Should L.A. add another bat?
Burnitz and Henderson will definitely help because they will be an improvement over what the Dodgers were running out there. Are the pair of outfielders enough? Probably not, but at least the Dodgers have given themselves a chance. Rickey should play four or five times a week and will be a useful player off the bench on other occasions (pinch running or pinch hitting). The White Sox got hot for a while, added Roberto Alomar and Carl Everett, and have now fizzled again. How much longer is Jerry Manuel going to hold on to his job? He should have been fired months ago. Is he on a short leash to start the second half?
Manuel is hanging on by a string. I think the next two weeks will be critical for him and the Sox. Rumors were flying around the All-Star Game that he could be gone even sooner. That's doubtful, but the 3-7 trip the White Sox took into the break really gave Manuel little rope to work with. Jim Duquette has done a nice job so far for the Mets. He has accomplished something (dumping high-priced vets for prospects) that his predecessor, Steve Phillips, could not. Is this surprising? You'd think spending that much time working with Phillips would have rubbed off on Duquette, but so far he's been smart. Also, where do you see Armando Benitez ending up? If you were in the race and needed a closer, would you take a chance on him?
I think Duquette is his own man and should not be viewed as being closely aligned with Phillips. Duquette has a very different style and good communication skills. He is doing a good job dumping talent, and Benitez will go any day now. The possibilities include the Royals, Yankees, Mariners and Cardinals. Personally, I don't trust him in a big spot and I don't know if being a set-up man would make him more reliable. Jim Bowden tried to trade Ken Griffey Jr. once before. With Junior on a hot streak and the Reds out of the race, do you think Griffey could be dealt? Wouldn't the Dodgers be a perfect fit?
Los Angeles isn't looking to take on that kind of salary. A Griffey trade would have to involve another team with a Phil Nevin-type contract to give back to Cincinnati so the money wouldn't be so lopsided. Anything's possible in Cincinnati -- even Adam Dunn's name has been floated as being available -- but I don't see a Griffey deal in the works soon. Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers baseball for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send a question to his Mailbag.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
