… even the All-Star game ended in a tie! They gave up after 11 innings! I remember an ASG (it must have been about 1985ish) that lasted 14 innings and ended in a 1-0 finish.
By calling the game early, they showed that they don’t really care about the fans. The fans wanted a finish and they were deprived of that.
If I were Bud, rather than calling the game, I would have allowed some of the pitchers who only pitched an inning or less to return to the game.
Of course, if the game got extraordinarily long a tie must be called. I don’t think an All Star manager can send a pitcher out there for six innings. But calling it after 11?
How appropriate that in a season where the players and owners will prove themselves losers overall, that there was no winner to the All Star Game.
(As an aside: How about the honor for Ted Williams. Name an award after a guy and the first year the award goes to — no one! :rolleyes: They could have named an MVP anyway. There is no rule that a game or series MVP must come from the winning team. I remember the 1986 NLCS MVP award going to Mike Scott even though the Astros lost.)
It’s an exhibition game. Nothing in regular play requires a result (although the thought of using the result for home-field advantage in the World Series has been broached – that of course is out now).
Because it’s an exhibition game, the managers often try real hard to get all the available players in.
Pitchers can not be re-used. Perhaps some can still throw - relievers sometimes are called to appear in both games of a double-header - but the risk to injury isn’t worth even making a rule-exception to allow this.
So maybe next year they should agree to keep enough players to go 11 full innings, and then agree to call it a tie if it’s tied.
Or go to a home-run derby.
Much as I’d like to join in burning that ratbag Selig in effigy, he did the right thing. Both managers had agreed to it before talking to him - and they did the right thing.
It was a pretty good game. They should have named an MVP (why does it have to be from a winning team?!?) or co-MVP’s, if only for Ted Williams’ sake.
As a matter of fact, pitchers CAN be reused, with the consent of the opposing manager. One-way substitution has been waived before.
The question really is, is it in the players’ best interest, specifically the pitchers, to have them return to the game after cooling down? I’m not really sure about that one.
However, given the distastrous strike looming in the horizon, this is the worst possible result they could possibly have had, and the players should have recognized that and soldiered on, if only to generate some goodwill for the future. As it is, MLB is in grave danger of disappearing from the face of the earth, becuase no matter what they negotiate, if nobody shows up they go broke.
Well, after a discussion, two World Series champion managers agreed that it would be in the pitchers’ best interest to not play them again after they cool down. As I am not in the profession, I’m going to take it on faith they would know better than I.
As had been mentioned, imagine how pissed fans would be if a pitcher was called back after cooling down to pitch and then injured himself, costing a team a valuable player going into a pennant run.
No it wasn’t. It was an exhibition game. The fans got to see some of the best players of today play against each other, and isn’t that the point? Disappointing, yes. A debacle of the highest magnitude? No, it was just a baseball game that has no impact on team standings or the rest of the season - unless of course a player gets hurt during it.
Although I agree not choosing an MVP was a bad idea.
)