Because in 2002 when they ran out of pitchers in the 11th inning the commissioner ended the game in a tie. The decision was widely reviled and led to changing the rules. You might be fine with it but at the time fans were universally against having no winner.
Universally? I really doubt that.
I can think of several ways to resolve a tie that involve actual baseball.
I will admit, however, that I’m biased against Manfred. Mostly because of the sleazy Biogenesis clusterfuck. How that clown became commissioner is an ongoing puzzlement.
I do too. When I thought they were going to end in a tie I was fine with it.
When they went to a swing-off, I liked that but I understand that’s not to everyone’s tastes.
I’m a fairly casual baseball fan, full disclosure. If my wife wasn’t such a huge fan I probably wouldn’t follow it at all, but it’s on TV all the time in our house so I watch it pretty regularly.
(I’m the football fan in the marriage.)
There’s no guarantee that they would play an odd number of games though.
True. But there are all sorts of tiebreakers. Just as are used to determine the wildcard teams.
As a top-of-head example:
- Best record of the two WS teams in their mutual regular season games.
- If tied, higher run total of the two WS teams in their mutual regular season games.
- If still tied, most innings led of the two WS teams in their regular season mutual games.
- If still tied, toss a coin.
I bet that we might go a century before we get to using my rule #3, much less reaching for that coin.
Then you don’t have a very good memory.
Despite the swing-off, viewership is down.
I remember people being dissatisfied that the game ended in a tie because they ran out of pitchers. My solution would be a baseball one: accept that ties happen or bring more pitchers.
The 1987 all-star game went 13 innings and the AL used 7 pitchers and the NL 8. Now were unwilling to use a pitcher more than one inning apiece? Bring several more. Bring some of those multi-inning relievers who don’t get any love because they’re not starters or closers.
My compromise solution would be to use the ghost runner and let a tie be a tie if there is no resolution after 11 or 12 innings.
The stadium booed and fans threw shit on the field. Selig was embarrassed. He was raked over the coals in the press. Not you obviously but fans were dissatisfied in it ending in a tie. It led to immediate changes including expanding the rosters and bringing in more pitchers as you suggested. It already happened.
Two issues at play as I see it. There is a desire to bring in as many players as possible both for the players and for the fans at home. More importantly the managers are entrusted with taking care of another teams pitchers. That includes not overusing their relievers. That’s the main reason for the limited innings.
Personally I’m ok with it ending with a mini home run derby. Maybe not immediately after 9 but I don’t think it’s horrible. It is disappointing for the fans that the big names can just say screw the fans and leave in the 3rd inning. If MLB wanted real buzz the swing off should have had Judge, Ohtani, Cruz and Raleigh.
What else could Selig have done at that point?
As I’ve heard in this thread, accept that ties happen. That’s not what the fans wanted but he could have done that.
The fans pay the bills.
They do. But very indirectly.
We all know baseball has been casting about for ways to increase fan appeal since we were kids. Which does not necessarily mean making current fans happier. It means making more fans who buy more tickets & merch, and watch more broadcasts. So not happier - more.
Some of these experiments have worked a little. Some have not.
It was good, silly fun in a game I was pretty much only watching for the commercials. Basically, the Simpsons got it right: I just wanted to see guys sock some dingers.
Ronald Acuna had a pretty nifty 301 foot assist in the Braves win over the Yankees.
Third base coach was noticeably absent on that play.
Re the All Star game. There are two conflicting desires: put every selected all-star into the game; save multiple pitchers for the case of a tie. These cannot be resolved. And while I found the mini HR Derby poor, I cannot think of a better solution other than calling a tie a tie. Incidentally, I find the HR Derby a dead bore. This year I watched the first round only. Next year I won’t bother to turn it on.
I was one of those who was fine with a tie in 2002 and I’d be fine with after 9 innings, it’s a tie.
If the game doesn’t mean anything anyway, can’t you just turn it off after nine innings and think of it in your head as a tie?
It’s even easier to not turn it on in the first place. it’s that meaningless. To me. And I enjoy and care about MLB.