Where has the game I grew up loving gone? In large part, Bud "Light" Selig has succeeded in completely sucking the soul from the game. While baseball has had its problems in the past, it seems to have floundered under the pitiful guidance of Bud.
Exhibit A: the All-Star Games from 2002 and 2003. Last year's All-Star Game ended in a tie. (ObAmericanism: Ties are for SOCCER fans.) Our pal Bud was the one who called the game in the 11th inning when the two teams started running out of spoiled millionaires, er *players*, to field. (Never mind that most of the All-Star players see an at-bat or two, maybe come in as a pinch-runner or defensive replacement. Pitchers throw an inning or two. And they're surprised that they burned through the entire roster by the 11th? Well, duh.)
So what does good ol' Bud come up with this year? The winning league will earn home field advantage for its team in the World Series. Of all the idiotic ideas... so you're telling me that some Detroit pitcher throwing to some Rockies batter could decide who gets home field advantage? When NEITHER of those players' teams has any chance to be IN the World Series? That seems, uh... stupid.
Exhibit B: That which is becoming known as SausageGate. Earlier this week, a Pittsburgh Pirates player whacked the Italian Sausage in the Milwaukee "meat race". (Basically, they pit four people in heavy foam costumes shaped like various sausages in a race.) The four sausages were passing just in front of the Pittsburgh dugout when the player just dinked the Italian in the back of the head, knocking the 20-year-old girl inside down and tripping up another sausage.
This guy did a marginally dumb thing. He could have hurt the girl (from the fall, not the bat, as he didn't swing hardly at ALL), he trounced on a Milwaukee Brewers tradition... but judging from the response, you would think he tried to kneecap her with the bat. Our "Bud"dy released a lengthy response to the incident, using the phrase that Baseball "deeply regrets" that the incident happened at all. (Incidentally, this was the same phrase used by the commissioner's office when thousands of Houston fans were burned and temporarily blinded at a game two years ago.) Then, baseball suspended the Pirates player for three games. THREE GAMES. This is slightly under 1/2 of the sentence meted out to Sammy Sosa for cheating. CHEATING. Undermining the integrity of the game. Doesn't that seem a little extreme for a prank gone wrong?
There are so many other problems with baseball. Suspensions are a poor way to discipline players. George Steinbrenner needs to have his teeth knocked through the back of his head by a Pedro fastball. Interleague play has worn out its welcome. Another day...
Posted by pcg at July 11, 2003 5:46 PMHrm.. Maybe it's cause you called Sosa a cheater, I'm not sure, but it turns out I disagree with a lot of what you said.
Exhibit A: The fact that the game ended in a tie was pretty stupid, I'll agree. But if you watched the game, it's not like Bud Selig was the only one who thought that was the best option available. Both managers of the game, and other managers throughout the league agreed with the choice. If the game means nothing, then you can't risk injuring a guy, or changing the rules of the game in order to have one side be a winner (and a winner of what? It's like being pissed that a harlem Globtrotter was getting away with traveling. None of it matters). Did I wish they kept playing? You bet. Would I be willing to risk injury to a Cub or an Indian? Nope. I don't think the solution is to be pissed and blame Bud. If you want the game to have a winner, you have to make it mean something more than just a stat.
And that's what they've done. I'll admit, when I first heard about it, I thought it was stupid. What happens if Atlanta wins 120 games this year, didn't they earn home field throughout? You'd certainly think so. (Though let us all hope that Atlanta completely tanks the 2nd half of the season.) But you know what, the more I think about it, the more I really like it, if (and that's a big IF) the game is played like a real game. It won't happen. There's still too much demand for every player to play, which makes sense. But if you're sitting on a 2-0 lead, and Randy Johnson is pitching no-hit ball, I say you just let him keep pitching. It should be like when you played an All-Star game on some video game. You just kept bringing in good batters when you needed a homerun. But you'd never pull Barry Bonds because Rondell White hadn't batted yet. I , for one, am very much looking forward to this All-Star game. In very simplistic thinking: If the National League wins the All-Star game, the National League is better than the American League. If the National League is better than the American League, it would be harder for a team to win as many games in that league. Thus, the team winning the LCS in that league should get home field advantage. It's a flawed arguement, I realize, but it's not without some snippets of truth.
Exhibit B: The sausage thing was funny. Very funny. But you know what? He still shouldn't have done it. Listening to Milwaukee media, you'd think he'd just killed a guy. Selig had to issue a statement, obviously. What is he supposed to say? "It was funny, lighten up?" Not going to happen. The 3 day suspension was steep, but certainly not cruel or unusual. Players will think twice before doing something stupid, and thus the punishement was effective.
Sosa got a big suspension, which I thought was steep as well, but again, it was to be expected. As for "undermining the integrity of the game", that's just silly. Trying to cheat IS part of the game. Have you been paying attention to baseball at all in the past 100 years or so?
[and I still say it was an accident anyway.]
Suspensions are a good way to discipline a team. When you're without a player, it can really hurt your team. I think it's a manager's responisbility to keep his players in line, and it's MLB's job (and thus, Selig's) to keep teams in line. Suspensions and fines.. Do you have a better solution? If you brake the rules of the game, you should be punished within the game (i.e. suspension). If you break laws, you should be punished according to the law (i.e. fines, jail, etc.).
Interleague play is one of the best things to happen to baseball in a while. Mets vs. Yankees? Cubs vs. Sox? Sigh, dare I believe it? Some day I could be at Wrigley watching the Cubs play the Indians?
The Sosa-cheater thing was something of a troll. Sorry man.
You bring up some really great points, and I think I agree with your assessment of the All-Star Game. Either it means something or it doesn't, and should be played accordingly. I guess I would prefer it continue to be a showcase (in which case, I guess, ties are just fine); however, its importance as a showcase has been diminished since interleague play (as well as the continued proliferation of free agency). In the past, the All-Star Game featured matchups between AL pitchers and NL batters that you couldn't see otherwise. That, I think, was one of the best parts of the Game.
All of that to say, the whole tie thing isn't really that big of a deal. I think the other way they could have taken it was to declare an absolute end to the game (say, 11 innings). Of course, even as an exhibition game, the players remain competitive (cf. Pete Rose bowling over the catcher in the 1970 (?) Game). But I guess MLB felt like they had to do *something* as interest was waning.
Hypothetical question: what happens if the Game is rained out? Who gets home field advantage? :-)
As for the sausage thing, I agree, it was dumb and Simon should have been punished, to be sure. My only concern was the gravity with which it was treated. I don't think Bud should have blown it off, but "deeply regret"? Whatever, it's semantics.
Cheating: yes, that's always been a part of the game with spitballs, scuffing the ball, corked bats... I was getting a little carried away. But I don't know that I agree that a team should be punished when one of its players cheats, if it's possible to avoid such punishment. One option I've heard is that the player could still play for those (e.g.) seven games, but his salary would be garnished and given to charity or something. OTOH, what if that team ends up winning the World Series? That doesn't seem quite right either, given that the team had the services of a "suspended" player for part of the year.
Finally, interleague play. The Yankees need *more* easy wins by playing the Mets, just because they are geographically in the same city? I dunno, I guess I'm just a purist. (I also hate the DH rule, FWIW.) Maybe it's just because I don't get too excited about a Dodgers-Angels series; give me Dodgers-Giants anyday. And note, they haven't needed interleague play to cultivate a worthwhile rivalry. But at the end of the day, attendance is up, so I'm not that concerned with interleague play.
In any case, thanks for the comments. I can always take time out for talking baseball. :-)
Posted by: pcg on July 15, 2003 10:24 AM