Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
July 16, 2008
Play it Until the End

Bud Selig would not talk about the possibility of a tie in Tuesday's All-Star game:

"It will not happen again," Selig said of a tie. "We've added players to the roster. We've done things. There have been a lot of questions about all that, but I really believe that the things that we did [helped]. I mean, if we hadn't done them, tonight there's no question there would have been a problem. But we did. And, look, it worked out.

"We were going to play the game to the end. That was the contingency, we were playing to the end."

Francona had a more realistic take on the subject:

"You can't expect a 15-, 16-inning All-Star Game. And if it does, there's nothing wrong with a tie in my mind. It's not like the Milwaukee game where you go [11] and it's a tie. I mean, if you go 16 innings and no one comes up and wins an All-Star Game, you can chalk it up to a tie and be pretty happy with a tie. It's not like it could have been prevented."

There should be a contingency in place. The team with the higher OBA in the game gets home field in case of a tie, or more total bases, or even just more hits. This doesn't need to be known to anyone. In fact, the right thing to do might be to come up with four tie breaking stats, and every year draw them in a random order and keep it secret so the players can't try to game a tie. They shouldn't play the game differently because they are tied in extra innings. However, some way of awarding home field based on the stats in the game needs to be worked out, even if it happens only once every forty years.


Posted by David Pinto at 07:59 AM | All-Star Game | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Maybe I'm in a distinct minority, but I don't care if the All-Star game ends in a tie. It's an exhibition, just like the Home Run Derby. I think tying it to home field advantage was a knee-jerk reaction to a non-problem.

The real problem with rendering a decision is the perceived need to get everyone in the game. Of course they run out of players when they go into extra innings.

If anyone doubts it's still an exhibition, regardless of the consequences now attached to the game, ask yourself why the most of the best players were watching the game for the last 10 innings.

Posted by: Tor at July 16, 2008 08:29 AM

The thing I hate most about the All Star game is the bring the player on for an inning or two, then another player, aspect.

It would be great if it would be played like a normal baseball game, just with really good players from multiple teams. That means the starters are there for at least five innings, then gradually get replaced as the situation dictates. I can't come up with any elegant way for this to happen.

One idea would be to designate players who can only come into the All Star Game when it goes to extra innings. You have a much more limited roster of starters and reserves, more like what is normally available for a manager, for the first nine innings then if goes to extra innings you go into the second tier.

Maybe you don't even release the name of the second pool of players, which could be quite large. It will come as a surprise who the managers start tapping for substitutes when the game goes extra innings.

Posted by: Ed at July 16, 2008 08:51 AM

I would love to see the players pitch. That would end a tie real quick, it would be fun, and supposedly it's far safer than people (and managers) think. Jose Canseco just sticks out in everyone's mind. I would love to see what JD Drew would have had in store for Pujols.

Posted by: Mike at July 16, 2008 09:02 AM

That 1967 box score is a great illustration of what I mentioned in my first response. In that 15-inning game, 7 of the 8 AL position starters played the whole game (and 4 of 8 for the NL), and only 12 pitchers -- total -- were used. They could have played 25 innings!

Posted by: Tor at July 16, 2008 10:13 AM

There was never a need for it to end as a "tie." If one of the Leagues runs out of players first, and can't put 9 men on the field, then they forfeit and the other League wins.

Posted by: Phillybooster at July 16, 2008 10:33 AM

I thought after the tie managers were going to start managing to win instead of trying to play everyone. But they haven't and that's the problem. Also why the home field advantage aspect is ridiculous.

Posted by: Joe at July 16, 2008 11:41 AM

You're not alone, Tor. I have no problem with an exhibition game ending in a tie. I have a problem with a bunch of players with no stake in it deciding a major factor in the WS.

If the All Star game really "counts" why does every team need to send a player? Why are pitchers limited to 2 innings?

I thought the 2002 game was awesome, despite the final score. I had no issue with a tie.

Posted by: Donal at July 16, 2008 01:00 PM

If the AL didn't score that inning they were going to be out of pitchers (if Webb only pitched one inning after throwing 100+ pitches on Sunday there was no way Kazmir would go more). So I guess they would have had to forfeit and the NL would have won, right?

Two things I'd change -- for one, they shouldn't take players that can only pitch one inning or not at all (like Webb, Kazmir, Lincecum). Secondly, they should have some reserves from the host city (either from the team or the area) that could play in case of emergency -- it would have been easy for Mets or Yankees to bail them out.

Posted by: Tom at July 16, 2008 03:19 PM

Proposals

1) All-Star Game ends in a tie, the World Series gets played at a neutral park.

2) All-Star Game goes extra innings, the World Series gets extended. I think with the 15 inning game this year, the Series should go best of 13.

3) After 9 innings, there is a break at which the AL manager and NL manager takes turns drafting players from the Futures game. (The Futures players line up on the foul lines and go to which ever dugout drafts them, like in a schoolyard.) The rosters are extended to include these players.

Or

4) Home field advantage for the World Series alternates between the AL and NL by year.

Posted by: Capybara at July 16, 2008 03:37 PM

Add 1 more pitcher for each team.He could not have pitched later than thurs.He can only be used if the team is down to 2 pitchers & the game goes to extra innings.If a pitcher on the team throws 100 pitches or more on Sunday he will be replaced on the active roster. This should get them about 20 innings.

Posted by: fred at July 16, 2008 05:36 PM

Adding more players only makes the problem worse, as the compulsion will be to play those extra players, resulting in even more substitutions and shorter pitching stints.

I like the proposal I've seen recently to determine home field advantage in the World Series based on the aggregate winner of interleague play.

As for the All-Star game, return it to exhibition status and cap it at 12 innings. Everyone knows what to expect and gets what they paid for and Fox's postgame show doesn't have to start at 1:30 am. The managers can substitute to their heart's content safe in the knowledge that they won't run out of players. And an exhibition game won't be an important factor in determining the World Series champion.

Posted by: Tor at July 16, 2008 09:36 PM

Pick two teams, one being the home team (this year the Yankees), the other being a nearby team (the Mets). After X innings, all their players join the rosters for their respective leagues.

Or better yet: it's the All-Star game, who cares? Allow ties. Give the WS HFA to the team with the best record. And tell Bug Selig to retire already, and quit embarrassing everyone.

Posted by: Steve at July 17, 2008 07:57 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?