Baseball is the only sport in which the All-Star Game carries some weight. It's also the only All-Star Game that hasn't been required to change its format because of lack of interest. The Pro Bowl recently switched over to the Rice vs. Sanders teams, no longer AFC vs. NFC. The NHL has done a similar format, with two team captains picking their teams (2012 was Team Chara vs. Team Alfredsson). The NBA still does East vs. West, but it's becoming such a spectacle of athleticism and just a showcase of outlandish skills that it's really not fun to watch. It seems this year that the NBA was more concerned with the dunk contest than the game itself, with the hashtag #SavetheDunkContest powering through the Twittersphere. Can you really take a game that has this seriously? I think Shaq is as hilarious as the next guy, but come on now.
The MLB All-Star Game is a thing of beauty though - because it means something. I'm not a huge fan of the rule that every team gets a representative, but I understand it. It goes hand in hand with the democracy of baseball. How else are the Astros fans going to watch the game? To see their boy Jason Castro get an inning behind the plate of course.
The MLB All-Star game winner determines who gets home field advantage for the World Series, and I love that idea. It's not just a random break in the action of the summer to show off who has the fastest 60 yard dash speed, who has the best arm accuracy...the only skills competition is the Home Run Derby, but other than that the break is focused on the actual game itself. Weird, right?
Yesterday, the final score of the NBA All-Star Game was 163-155. That's a total of 318 points, and when divided by the regulation game time of 48 minutes, that's 6.625 points a minute. That's approximately one basket every twenty seconds. Blake Griffin shot 19-23, a field goal percentage of 82%. This season, he's averaging a 54% field goal percentage, which is great. But to see almost a 30 point hike is absolutely no fun. It's not basketball anymore, it's more of a "Hey, you haven't scored in a while, take the ball and do something fancy."
The 2013 MLB All-Star game was a nail biter. The AL won 3-0, with Jason Kipnis locking it up with an RBI double in the 8th and setting up Mariano Rivera for his last All Star save. These guys don't see this game as a break. Sure it's nice to have a few days off from the intense inter-divisional schedule, but the All-Star Game carries so much weight so they will hustle all the harder. I mean last year Prince Fielder got a triple, need I say more?
I'm not arguing that baseball is a better sport in general (though that is indeed my personal belief). I am arguing that the MLB All-Star Game is the best of the four major sports because it means something. Being an All-Star starter is a huge honor because they fight for their league pride, not just to wear fancy shoes (like Bryce Harper) and go wow the crowd for awhile. Just ask Max Scherzer on his thoughts of what it meant to be the AL's staring pitcher. The All-Star Game is one of my favorite nights of the year, because it is the highest quality baseball you'll ever see, and it determines the fate of October. This past summer at the Hall of Fame we got to work a special event called the All Star Gala in which visitors could come and watch the game in a big theater on a 100-foot TV screen. I had the awesome opportunity to host and emcee the event and watch the game (where my Tigers all had a hit except Torii Hunter).
To sum up my ramble, the other All-Star Games are mildly entertaining because you get to see players relaxed and show off their true athletic ability. But the MLB All-Star Game is truly special because of the weight it carries how big of an honor it is for a player to start.
As always, thanks for reading. Don't fear the snow, folks. Baseball is back.
I completely agree with you about the MLB All Star Game being the best of the 4 major sports. The final score of the NBA one was stupid.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to say I love the representation rule (Of course, you know why. My boy, Jose, proved he deserved to be there though.) and I am not completely sold on the idea that the winning league gets home field advantage during the World Series. While it does add a great incentive and it makes the game way more exciting than a conventional All-Star game, I can't help but to think of scenarios where you can question whether it is a fair incentive. Roll with me here: let's say my Fish are 10 games under .500 at the break. They get their one player (let's say it is Stanton, for arguments sake) and he goes 0-2 with a K and an infield fly. Meanwhile, the Tigers have 4 or 5 guys on the AL team who all do well in the game. The NL still wins, though, because Chris Sale gets shelled, thus getting home field advantage. Now, flash forward to the end of the season: My Fish magically get into the Playoffs as the last Wild Card team at 89-73. Your Tigers have a remarkable season and go 120-42. They both make it to the World Series, but my Fish get home field advantage. Do they deserve it? I say no.
I understand the home field advantage rule, but I constantly question whether is it really that fair. I am not arguing that they need to change it, I am just trying to convince myself that it is the best rule.
Anyways, those are my thoughts, if they make any sense. Also, another great post, man. I have really been enjoying these!
That is a good point, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be just as mad. Remember 2012, JV got the start on the mound and got lit up for 5 runs at Kauffman Stadium in KC. The Tigers made it to the World Series that year and were ultimately swept. Had the AL won that game, maybe the World Series would have been different, but that's mere conjecture and not really worth exploring.
DeleteI understand your point, and it makes a lot of sense but I personally enjoy the way it is right now. Thanks for reading!
Oh yeah, my whole response was conjecture. I think that the way it is is really the best option for making the game relevant and exciting.
Delete