"A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms. . . . What are mine? What draws my admiration? What is that which gives me joy?. . . [Brandishes bat] Baseball! A man stands alone at the plate. This is the time for what? For individual achievement. There he stands alone. But in the field, what? Part of a team. Teamwork. . . . Looks, throws, catches, hustles. Part of one big team. Bats himself the live long day, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and so on. If his team don't field. . . what is he? You follow me? No one. Sunny day, the stands are full of fans. What does he have to say? I'm goin' out there for myself. But. . . I get nowhere unless the team wins."
--Robert De Niro as Al Capone. "The Untouchables"
(Screenplay by David Mamet.)
The All-Star Game begins shortly, but the Solipsist will not be watching. Why? Mainly because it's a dreadful bore. And this is from someone who loves baseball!
Back in the day, the game held more interest. It was the only time you could see the best pitchers in each league face the best hitters in the other--outside of the World Series, of course, which, as it includes only two participants, provides at best a limited sample of such confrontations. Since 1997, however, when interleague play became a part of the regular season, the All-Star Game has been merely an unwelcome pause in the midst of serious baseball.
The game's irrelevance was driven home in 2002 when it ended in a tie in the eleventh inning. Both teams were out of players, so Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball, decreed that the game would end. While this was certainly a bummer, especially for the fans who had bought tickets, it was the right decision: Why force players to play on, perhaps risking injury, for what is, after all, an exhibition game? Then, in an effort to boost fan interest, the lords of baseball made the worst decision since the creation of the designated hitter: Since 2003, the league that has won the All-Star Game has won home field advantage for its representative in the World Series. In other words, the most meaningless game of the regular season has determined the site of the season's most meaningful game: Game 7 of the World Series.
The flaw in this reasoning is the nature of baseball itself. With all due respect to Mamet and De Niro, baseball is ALWAYS about individual achievement. Unlike basketball and football, where groups of players work in concert to achieve certain goals, baseball is always about the individual making plays--when batting, sure, but also when in the field. Only one player at a time catches or throws the ball. And when the throw is bad or the catch is muffed, only one player is penalized with an error. The only slightly balletic moments in baseball occur between a shortstop and second baseman turning a double play, but that's it. So, while every All-Star would presumably like to be on the winning team, does anyone honestly believe that Ryan Zimmerman of the dismal Washington Nationals is as invested in the game's outcome as the league-leading Dodgers' Orlando Hudson, Chad Billingsley, and Jonathan Broxton? And why should those last three players have to play as if their season depended on it (which it could) while their non-All Star teammates get to enjoy three or four days of rest?
We understand the All-Star game is fun for some fans, and it brings in revenue for Major League Baseball and the host city (this year, St. Louis). But if MLB wants to increase interest in the game, farcically inflating the game's importance is the wrong way to do it.
There are alternatives. One suggestion floated awhile back was to take a page from the National Hockey League and have a USA vs. The World All-Star Game. Not bad, but the World Baseball Classic has kind of undermined that idea. Plus, if the results of the WBC are any indication, American fans would find the results of that contest less than satisfying.
We think the pre-All-Star Game festivities actually show the way to go. The Home-Run Derby, for example, is always popular--baseball's answer to the NBA's Slam-Dunk Contest. What's nice is that it's purely exhibitionistic; nothing is at stake beyond the contest itself, and it gives fans a chance to see something they enjoy: home runs. The All-Star festivities also include a "Futures Game," basically a minor-league All-Star Game, where fans can see the "stars of tomorrow." There's also a kind of Pro-Am softball game featuring retired major leaguers and celebrity players: At last night's game, Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson cartwheeled down to first after drawing a walk.
But baseball is all about matchups, so if MLB wants more people to tune in, give us the kinds of matchups we wouldn't normally get to see. How about some kind of "Stolen Base Showdown"? Take, say, the 5 or 10 best catchers in baseball and challenge them to throw out the 5 or 10 best base-stealers. Or, even better, how about an Offense vs. Defense All-Star Game? It would work something like this: Fans would vote on the top offensive and defensive players at each position (we would grudgingly include DH's, and pitchers could be excluded from the offensive team). During the game, the Offense gets three outs at a time to push a run across the plate. Pitchers could be replaced after every three outs. For every "inning" in which the offense scores, the Offensive team gets a point; for every inning in which they don't score, the defense gets a point. Whoever reaches five points first (best of nine) wins the game.
We know it sounds complicated, but baseball fans LOVE complication. Do fans of any other sport quibble over statistical minutiae with the enthusiasm of baseball fans? And this would truly give fans the opportunity to see the best hitters (regardless of league) facing not only the best pitchers, but the best all-around defenses as well. What about home-field advantage for the World Series? Please! Go back to the old system of alternating years. Or, even better, do what every other sport does and give home-field advantage to the team with the best record. They deserve it.
Major League Baseball, all we can say is, you're welcome.
What the Solipsist would like to do to Bud Selig and those who thought it would be a good idea to award World Series home-field advantage to the winner of the All-Star Game (image from www.empireonline.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment