No Tying in Baseball: Looking Back at 2002 MLB All-Star Game (The Most Meaningful Meaningless Game in All-Star History)

Entering the 2013 MLB All-Star game, there's been 10 mid-season exhibition games that have been played that have counted. And by counted, I mean that the winner of these glorified exhibition games, or at least that's what they should be (as they were for the seven decades before that) earned the right to home field advantage for its respective league.

It didn't have to be that way.

The 2002 All-Star game, held on July 9th of that season, was coming at an awkward time for the game. The players and owners were staring down the barrel of more labor issues...another strike. I remember this because I was a few days away from going on a 12-day baseball road trip and was considering making a sign to carry to games, "No Balls, Two Strikes, We're Out". I did not make this sign, somewhat out of laziness and also I thought it would be inconvenient to carry that sign around everywhere. Where was I....oh yeah, awkward times. The last thing the MLB wanted at this point was some controversial occurrence to mar everything that promised to be with the All-Star festivities.

Some of the best MLB players were on display*, a who's who of the steroid era: Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, A-Rod, Manny.

Bud Selig had nothing to worry about...right?

No way. In fact, the game started out with one of the best All-Star plays in recent memory, as Torri Hunter scaled the wall to bring back a Bonds dinger in the first inning of the game, prompting a rare playful Bonds to run out to the outfield to launch Hunter over his back.

Who would have known that play could be one of the reasons why the All-Star format changed the following year?  The use of 19 pitches (10 NL/9 AL) in the following 10 innings, and Bud Selig declares the game a tie in front of the Milwaukee fans, who greeted the news from their former owner by showering the field with beer bottles and tremendous hostility.

In 22 half-innings of baseball, Joe Torre and Bob Brenly managed to run out of pitchers to use. In less than a years-time, the two skippers go from battling in a memorable seven-game World Series (won by Arizona) to being the center of the ugliest non-steroid story that baseball has seen since the 1994 strike.

Why did they use all of these pitchers? Well, one of the traditions at this time in these games is to make sure as many of these All-Stars get to play as possible. A look at the box score shows that only two pitchers between both teams threw more than 30 pitches (Mark Buehrle & Freddy Garcia). Those two were among only five pitchers who toed the pitching rubber for multiple innings. It is understandable that managers do not want to burn these pitchers out in an exhibition, but to have 14 of 19 guys pitch an inning or less lends itself to a catastrophe such as this. Without increasing the total of pitchers allowed on the roster or allowing some of these guys back on the mound in case a game goes long, you were bound to have this happen at some point.

When Garcia struck out Benito Santiago in caught-looking fashion to end the eleventh inning, it was Selig and other MLB brass who were left caught looking at a result (a tie game) that could have easily been prevented. Whether it be forcing the managers to have better management of your pitchers, allowing pitchers to re-enter the game, or allowing for the addition of more pitchers, there were ways around avoiding this tie.

The irony of people booing at the end result of an exhibition game oozes with the tragic irony that Shakespeare plays thrived upon. It was the sole reason that Selig vowed that a tie would never happen again, bestowing home field advantage in the World Series to the team that won the glorified exhibition game.

And despite this World Series stipulation, the commissioner's office made sure to keep some of the format of previous games (i.e. mandatory one player from each team, no matter how undeserving the team may be) that directly conflict with the best of each league playing for the rights of the extra game for their league (ideally one of the players' every-day team).

It made no sense when it started in 2003. It still makes no sense now in 2013.

For a sport that is usually so rooted in the past that traditionalists have a hard time adjusting to changes in the game - interleague baseball, wild card, sabermetrics, instant replay - one item that it should revert back to its traditions is making the baseball an actual exhibition game, just like it was in 2002. Let every team continue to be represented. Let the game be fun, where even guys like Bonds can enjoy themselves without the extra burden of having to play for its league's right to earn the World Series home field.

Never thought I would say this, MLB, but for once, don't embrace the change you made ten years ago.

*couple interesting notes:

1. Three current Sox were selected for that game - Paul Konerko, Robin Ventura (as a Yankee...and a player) and Adam Dunn (Reds). If you count A.J. Pierzynski, there were four White Sox members in 2012 who were involved in the game played ten years earlier.
2. Five of the nine AL Starters (Giambi, Alfonso Soriano, A-Rod, Hunter, Ichiro) and two of the NL starters (Todd Helton & Jimmy Rollins) are on active MLB rosters. An additional nine AL bench/pitchers and two NL bench players are still active.

B List - Stupidest Sports Arguments (List 9)

I still plan on writing about the new NCAA playoff format and how it's going to cause more problems than it creates.

For now, I will mention it among six other sports arguments that I consider to be among the stupidest. This will likely have a slight Chicago lean, as I have listened to many an argument about sports from friends and strangers alike.

Here's the list of arguments that I consider to be among the most pointless.

7.  Tebow - There's no way to have a reasonable debate on Tim Tebow. He's such a polarizing sports figure that you may as well discuss your stance on abortion, gun rights and gay marriage and be more productive in talking. His critics (such as myself and anyone who likes their quarterbacks to be accurate and good) will never convince his fans (who love what he stands for and his ability to win close games) that he sucks, and his fans will never convince his critics that he is the greatest quarterback of all time. I'm convinced that ranking systems like NFL Networks Top 100 players (ranked him 95th best player in the league) and NFL Films (ranking him the 7th best Heisman winner in NFL history - a ranking that was to measure the career accomplishments of Heisman winners) were just to grab attention and ratings. Anyone who thinks Tebow has accomplished more in his short career (one in which he hasn't started a complete season) than Earl Campbell (8th) and Marcus Allen (9th) is smoking the kind of crack I'd like to smoke if I was into that sort of thing.

6. Comparing Michael Jordan to anyone - There are way too many times people want to compare the best players of the day to MJ. I discussed this in a blog almost two months ago with Kobe and how he and Lebron are often brought up by people who want to discuss today's players with the best of all time. No reasonable person would argue that these guys are better than MJ. Many times, this argument, at least from my observations, is usually addressed by the folks who are so hard for MJ that they can't wait to bring his name up anytime Kobe or LeBron does something good. "Kobe's good, but he's no MJ" or pictures of MJ flaunting his rings asking LeBron about his rings are just a few of the examples that pop up when people want to remind the world that MJ is the best. I don't think we need these comments/pictures posted on FB all the time to know that MJ is better than both of them. Let it go.

5. Old champs vs. new champs - Media and public folks do this a lot. How would (current champ) do against (some old great team), with most of the folks who are on the elderly side of the debate usually arguing for the latter. The most recent example of this was Kobe being asked if he thought this current collection of Olympians could beat the Dream Team in a game, with Kobe answering affirmatively. Did everyone expect Kobe to say, "No, you know what, I think we'd get killed." It's not in Kobe's DNA to admit that he can't do something, even if his heart of hearts believed that his current squad would have no chance. In one game, sure, this collection of guys may be able to win, but the Dream Team, whose player composition included all but one Hall of Famer, would likely win most matchups. But you know what? You can't possibly know what would happen because it can never happen. Therefore, these type of arguments are deemed pointless in my eyes.

4. Best running back ever - I've heard this many times argued among friends and on TV alike. There's only a few names that I would even consider being reasonable to discuss in the equation - including Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson, Earl Campbell, and of course Walter Payton. Living in Chicago, the most common debate I heard was Payton being the best, with a few of my Dallas friends arguing Emmitt's case. It may not be the worst argument in sports, but with the way I've heard it argued, it usually turns into an ugly conversation. Perhaps that's more of a reflection of my friends arguing it than the argument itself. Since I am not old enough to have seen (or remember) many of these guys play, I can only go by statistics to say who was the best. And I don't think that's fair to the debate. I've always contended that Jim Brown was the best ever. Take a look at his stats and accomplishments if you get the chance to understand why I would think this. I'd rather not get into this argument, so I'm going to stop now.

3. BCS - For most of its existence, people have denounced the BCS as a crappy way to crown a college champion. The truth is - there is no perfect way to do this. Since there are many conferences and there's no way that teams can play completely balanced schedules, there will always have to be a human element involved with deciding who should be considered for the right to be champion (or at least play for the championship). The system that preceded the BCS was straight up voting, with many seasons in NCAA history ending without the two best regular season teams facing each other based on how the Bowl system would place teams into specific Bowls. Instead, the winner was voted on in polls before the BCS. At least with the BCS, you have almost always had two of the top 2-4 teams in the nation playing for the national championship. This new 4-team playoff is going to cause more problems than it will solve and will likely become one of its own top 2-3 dumb sports arguments out there. Whenever a selection process is used to decide who will make a playoff (as this playoff will be), you will hear about at least 2-3 teams a year (if not more) who got screwed out of a chance to play.

2. NCAA Tourney snubs - Speaking of NCAA and selection committees, one of the dumbest arguments I hear on a yearly basis is the teams who were left out of the NCAA March Madness tourney. Every year, a big part of ESPN and CBS broadcasts on Selection Sunday is devoted to the teams who barely squeaked in and the teams who just missed the tourney. Cases are made for each team who didn't make it (teams who are roughly 18-12 and lost in the second round of their conference tourney) as if they were leaving out the best team in the nation. It's gotten so bad with the tourney that they've even expanded the tourney several times in our lifetimes and people still complain about the last team who didn't make it. If you can't convince people that you are not one of the best teams in the nation when you have an 18-12 record and you don't win an automatic bid, you can't complain when you leave your team's postseason fate in the hands of a committee. The screams for the last team in are bad with the NCAA tourney - imagine how bad it will be when football gets around to their 4-team playoff.

1. All Star snubs - And the grand champion for stupid debates for me is All Star snubs. And this is by far the stupidest for me. While baseball is fresh in my mind, this also applies for the other sports who host an annual All-Star game. However, the bickering over baseball All Stars is probably the loudest (and definitely the most annoying). Even with expanding rosters, you could always find an idiot who says "My guy should have made it". Yeah, he could/should have, but who cares? In some ways, I'd rather have my guy rest for 3-4 days than go to a glorified exhibition game that most fans (at least the ones I know) don't care who wins. Even with the White Sox making a run towards the postseason, I have given little thought to the fact that they would be travelling for Game 1 of the World Series if they were lucky enough to make it that far because a collection of AL players lost 8-0 the other day. The new rule of adding a World Series stipulation to the game inspired the slogan "This Time, It Counts" from Fox for the longest time, inspiring even more annoying banter among people who say their guy should have made it and been able to help their league out in what should be a meaningless All-Star game. The emotion that is wasted when one gets sad or angry about their guy being left off a roster should instead be used to cheer that player on after the All-Star break ends. At the end of the day, the All Star game is an exhibition, whether the MLB's WS stipulation tells you or not.

A Look Back (and Look Ahead) at MLB thru All-Star Break

Many of you (based on blog views) read my MLB preview back in February in which I gave some of my predictions. Here it is again in case you want to take a look at it. Another blog I wrote featured a few more daring predictions: check that out here. I like to look back at my predictions, no matter how good or bad they are.

First, the Good predictions:

• Dunn will return to a 30+ HR hitter. He's only a few away from that mark. Granted, his average sucks, but he is seeing the ball better (much better OBP - which is what he is known for).
• One long-shot will win a division. Jury is still out on this, but according to the numbers I posted in March from what they were on 5dimes, the Pirates (30/1 to win NL Central), Mets (55/1 to win NL East), Orioles (110/1 to win AL East - yes, that high of odds - not a misprint), & the White Sox (12/1) are all in reasonable spots to contend in the second half of the season for their divisions. There's a chance none of these teams will win their division, but the fact remains - there's usually at least a few teams that come absolutely out of nowhere to make a surprising playoff run (or at the very least, threaten to make the playoffs).
• Nationals predicament w/ Strasburg. His inning limit is set in stone apparently. He has pitched 99 of his allotted 160-170 innings for the year, and yes, like I thought, the Nationals are in playoff contention. If this limit includes the playoffs, I think he's going to need to skip a few starts the rest of the year. 79 more team games would mean about 15-16 more starts if they stick with a 5 man rotation. 60-70 more innings in that time, wouldn't even be pitching more than 5 innings per game. Not sure of their minor league depth, but perhaps they could go to a 6-man rotation at a certain point. I would not want to have Strasburg sit if I'm a Nationals fan, but given the choice, I'd rather have him sit (or spread his starts out) now rather than later.
• Chris Sale as the best pitcher in the Sox rotation. I said that he would be the best by the end of the year, so I'm ahead of schedule. Peavy started off hotter than Sale, but the lefty has definitely left his mark as the future ace of the staff. I hope the Sox brass ensures that we don't overuse Sale now at the risk of a year-long injury in the near future (Wood, Strasburg, etc.). I know this sounds blasphemous, but Sale has the look of a younger Randy Johnson when he throws his wicked southpaw heat.
• AL HR leader: Jose Bautista (w/ Adam Dunn as listed sleeper); Al Cy Young: David Price; NL HR champ: Mike Stanton (Bruce as sleeper) - all have a fighters chance in those respective races. Except Mike is no longer Stanton's first name. Does that count against me?

Now, the Bad predictions

• Marlins winning a World Series - seems a little far fetched. I don't think they'll even finish about .500 at this point, yet alone win a World Series. Many of the stars on the team have underachieved. The defense behind the pitching has been awful. Chalk this one up as a loss for yours truly.
• Detroit Tigers running away w/ the AL Central. Many people had this one wrong as well. The Tigers could go on a great run to end the season and win by 10+ like they did last year, but I don't see it happening. I, like many others, underestimated what the White Sox are capable of. I think it will come down to the last series with the White Sox taking the AL Central crown again.
• MVP choices: Miguel Cabrera in AL & Hanley Ramirez in NL. Way way off.
• NL Cy Young: Roy Halladay. See above.

Glad to see I hit more than I missed on these. Here's my revised picks for divisions and World Series:

AL East: NYY (original pick: NYY)

AL Central: Chi (original pick: Det)

AL West: Tex (original pick: Tex)

AL Wild Cards: Detroit & LAA (original picks: Rays & LAA)

NL East: Washington (original: Mia)

NL Central: StL (original: StL)

NL West: SF (original: SF)

NL Wild Cards: LA & Cin (Original: Wash & Phil)

ALCS: Rangers over White Sox (Original: Yanks over Tigers)

NLCS: Wash over SF (Original: Mia over SF)

WS: Rangers (FINALLY!) over Wash (Original: Mia over NYY)

Feel free to offer your own predictions as you see them. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Baseballog - Midseason Review on Predictions

I didn't want to be one of those guys who makes predictions to start the season and not follow up with how they are doing, as many people who make predictions of any sort tend to do. Here's a look back at my 2011 preseason baseball predictions and my assessment on how they've looked so far. Mind you, the surprise teams were based on odds that my gambling site at the time posted and nothing to do with how a team may have performed in previous years.

(Note: If you take a look at my picture that opens my prediction blog, you will see that I could not have been more wrong about Adam Dunn. High on-base percentage and 41 home runs, my ass!)

Predictions vs. Reality (at the All-Star Break)

AL East
Surprise Team to Contend- Prediction: Tampa Bay Rays....Reality: Rays. Even though they are 6 games back in baseball's toughest division, they are showing that they are better than the price that oddsmakers put them on.
Division Winner- Prediction: Boston....Reality: Boston and NY are looking like they will be in a neck and neck race for the division title. Boston has survived a terrible start and lots of injuries and NY's pitching has been deeper than expected thanks to the resurgence of Bartolo Colon. I'll stick with my Boston prediction but now I think NY will be the Wild Card winner.

AL Central
Surprise Team to Contend- Prediction: Minnesota....Reality: Oops. The Indians were paying close to 15/1 or 20/1 to win the division. Clearly I fumbled the surprise team in this one.
Division Winner- Prediction: Minnesota....Reality: Oops, Part II. This looks like a two-horse race to me (sorry Chicago, too inconsistent for me to trust with my preseason prediction). I think Detroit holds off Cleveland and wins it.

AL West
Surprise Team to Contend- Prediction: Los Angeles Angels....Reality: Solid prediction. One game out of the division lead. Getting 3/1 on them to start the year would have been a good deal.
Division Winner- Prediction: Texas....Reality: Another AL division, another 2 horse race. At least like my Boston prediction, Texas looks like they can live up to my Magic 8-ball prediction of winning the division. I'll stick with Texas as my division champ.

NL Central
Surprise Team to Contend- Prediction: Cubs....Reality: Uhm.....Next. Pittsburgh takes the cake here no doubt.
Division Winner- Prediction: Brewers.....Reality: Milwaukee is in a 4-team race for the division title. I like the move to get K-Rod, although I wonder if there will be a closer controversy if Axford blows a save that might get fans going and get egos riled up in the dugout. St. Louis has survived so much and is still right there. I'm rooting for my original prediction, but I see St. Louis winning this for some reason.

NL East
Surprise Team to Contend- Prediction: Florida....Reality: It looked good for a month or so, but now Florida sits at the bottom of the division despite riding a 5-game winning streak into the All-Star break. The Mets being over .500 (albeit one game over) would probably be the biggest surprise.
Division Winner- Prediction: Braves....Reality: I think I was trying to be cute and go against the grain of picking the obvious Phillies pick here. Even though Philadelphia's up only 3.5 games over the Braves, I don't see the Braves overtaking them. I do see them taking the Wild Card though.

NL West
Surprise Team to Contend- Prediction: San Diego....Reality: While San Diego is playing better than most people probably thought they would, the winner of the surprise team goes to Arizona, projected for a win total in the mid 70s and currently sitting 3 back.
Division Winner- Prediction: Giants...Reality: This division pick is the one I am most comfortable with, despite an injury to their best player, Buster Posey. Despite their offensive woes, the Giants find a way to grind out just enough runs to support their outstanding pitching staff.


Prognosis:
Surprise Teams: Only really hit on the Angels and Rays, with the Angels being the only of the surprise teams that have a shot at the division crown this year. The others, I soon found, were longshots to win their divisions for a reason.
Division Winners/Wild Cards: There's a chance I could hit all 4 of my NL playoff teams, albeit with the NL East winner/Wild Card switched. I had the AL Central completely wrong (and probably will barring a White Sox/Twins hot 2nd half) but feel solid with Texas and Boston.

New World Series prediction: Philadelphia over Detroit

Make it Meaningless to make it Mean More: Why Baseball Needs to Ditch Its All-Star Format

The All-Star Game can still mean something on its own without World Series implications. Just ask Ray Fosse.

In 2002, when the MLB All-Star Game ended in a tie, a huge uproar was thrown by everyone on this fiasco that was caused by the common over-use of bench players and pitchers in these exhibitions games. This is done so that everyone who gets invited to play gets an actual chance to play. Never before had there been such an uproar and over-reaction to an exhibition game that was played more to entertain the fans than it was to decide a winner.

The highlight of this overreaction was making the all-star game mean something to the league that won it - specifically homefield advantage in the World Series for the winner. From 2003-2009 we saw the AL squads win all 7 all-star games in that span and 4 of the 7 World Series. None of these series went beyond 6 games, and only 2 went past 5 games. So clearly, homefield didn't affect things as much as it would in other sports (but this argument is nothing new to baseball).

It's not that the winner gets homefield that is my biggest pet peeve about the game, but that there is any reward for the winner to begin with. Outside of maybe some victory bonus in their contracts (which for most of these guys, probably means as much to them as a penny does in change jar), there shouldn't be anything tied to the All-Star game in terms of the winner's league getting something.

No one wants to play in it

This year, there will be over 80 players recognized as All-Stars, with all the people who either had to miss the game (pitchers who started on Sunday are not allowed to pitch in the game), are injured and cannot participate, or just want the rest/3-4 days off. I can't say I'd blame them for wanting some rest, especially given the daily grind that baseball can be. However, with how easily some of these players blow off the All-Star game, that just goes to show you how little some of these guys actually care about World Series advantage. They know that home field will be secondary to the skill of their team vs. their opponents if they should be blessed enough to make it to baseball's last series of the year.

They still let all teams be represented

The fact that every team has to be represented is the biggest head scratcher in this whole "This game matters" rhetoric. In every other sport, where the All-Star game is an exhibition, they don't even have this requirement, so why should MLB - whose game is supposed to decide the home field advantage for the World Series - allow players who are likely less deserving on bad teams potentially be the deciding factors in whether Game 1 of the WS featuring the Yankees and Phillies? It makes no sense to feature a player on a last place team - let's say the Astros - in a situation that could decide who hosts the World Series. If they got rid of this rule, which is as stupid as it is archaic, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the home field stipulation.

The overreaction in giving the winner homefield advantage in the World Series was a product of the 2002 game and would have never been instituted if there were no tie. To be honest, at the end of the day, years later - does anyone remember who won the All-Star game (or really even care)?

Turn it back into its meaningless state and let the players do their thing. The true competitors will look to win no matter the stipulations of the game.