July 21, 2004
All-Star Stadiums
I found this article quite amusing.
With San Francisco, Arizona, Cincinnati, Philadelphia and San Diego all playing in new or relatively new ballparks and St. Louis to follow in 2006, one NL city would have to wait until 2018 for an All-Star game should baseball stay with its traditional but no-longer mandatory rotation.
By contrast, only the refurbished Anaheim Angels ballpark and Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg won't have been All-Star sites among the newer AL parks, once Detroit stages the 2005 game.
"I don't believe that it [the rotation] is as important as it used to be," Selig said. "I think the important thing is to try to be fair. In a perfect world, you would alternate NL and AL, but it's more important to reward franchises, I think, that really need to have the game because of their venue. There are so many great new ballparks, and that's the nice part."
So
Bud is determined to keep the All-Star as the determining factor in who gets home field in the World Series, but he's willing to give the NL last licks more often to showcase new ballparks.
How much longer do we have to put up with this nonsense?
If the All-Star game counts to the leagues, then you have to give the leagues equal chance to bat last and use the DH. If the game doesn't count, I don't care. Give the All-Star game to the team with the newest stadium every year. But doesn't Bud see the inconsistency in wanting it both ways?
I'd like to know when Seligula will be ready to showcase PacBell, widely acknowledge as the most beautiful place to watch a game, and it's never even mentioned as a potential host. Why? Because it's the only privately financed ballpark in all of baseball, and Bud will have to answer the question of why Magowan and company were able to do what apparently no one else can; build a ballpark without stealing from taxpayers.
Seligula is not now, and never has been interested in fair.
Last time I checked, both teams get the same number of outs no matter who is the home team. The advantage of hitting last is mythical.
And imagine, trying to boost a poorly run organization by giving them an all-star game. What's next, more revenue sharing? Oh yeah, we have that too. The nerve.
So Al, you're in a pickup game of baseball, and you win the toss. Do you pick last ups, or do you not care. My guess is that 100% of people take last ups.
"The advantage of hitting last is mythical."
If you take a lead in the bottom of the ninth inning or an extra inning, you don't have to defend that lead. That changes strategy, including pitcher usage and defensive aligments (ever see a team playing their outfielders all extremely shallow in the top of an inning?).
The advantage of hitting last is very tangible, though perhaps not *that* important.
And plus do I really want to see Tim Hudson or whoever batting in the next five All-Star games. I want to see the batting stars hit, not the pitchers.
I would choose last AB's, as you know a run will win if you are tied, so you can play for a run, if the situation presents itself. However, I do know one team used to choose to bat first to jump on top early, as they had a devastating offense (this was softball). Both teams get 27 outs, regardless.