Baseball and the Wild Card

[EarlJam]

In baseball, more than any other sport, a bad team has a shot at beating a really good team on any given night or during any given series. I like the wild card, but with the recent rash of success of wild card teams in the postseason (again, like no other sport), something MUST be done.

If you were commissioner, what would you do to give the wild card team the disadvantage it has "earned" come playoff time? How about the wildcard team would have to win 4 of 7, while the pennent winner would only have to win 3 of five? I don't know. Just a random Monday rant.

-EarlJam

P.S. My team, the ZerO's have no chance at any playoff this year.

[cato]

In baseball, more than any other sport, a bad team has a shot at beating a really good team on any given night or during any given series. I like the wild card, but with the recent rash of success of wild card teams in the postseason (again, like no other sport), something MUST be done.

If you were commissioner, what would you do to give the wild card team the disadvantage it has "earned" come playoff time? How about the wildcard team would have to win 4 of 7, while the pennent winner would only have to win 3 of five? I don't know. Just a random Monday rant.

-EarlJam

P.S. My team, the ZerO's have no chance at any playoff this year.


I don't understand your starting point. If the wild card team plays well in the post season, why is that a bad thing?

[hurleyfor3]

The real problem is when you have a crappy division where the winner goes 82-79 or whatever. Wild cards are the SOLUTION to the problem, not the problem itself.

[acdevil]

Just make the series best of 7 which allows more time for the cream to rise to the top.

[rasputin]

Having a wild card is appropriate in a sport like football where you only play 16 games and there are lots of ties for division champ slots. IMHO, if you can't prove your superiority over the other teams in your division over 162 gaves, you don't belong in the playoffs, period. Of course, part of the problem in baseball is the fact that there are too many divisions, with too few teams in them, especially the AL West. Of course, I was one of the purists who didn't even like the expansion to 12 teams with 2 divisions in 1969, but learned to live with it because there was still a legitimate division with 6 teams in it, and because the better team usually, although not always, advanced to the World Series. (There were exceptions like the 1973 Mets.)

[JasonEvans]

The notion of requiring one team to win fewer games to advance seems truly strange to me. I cannot figure out how it would work. I can't see the logic in saying one team can win the series in 5 games but the other can only win it in 7 games.

I think you just make all the rounds into a best-of-7 series, that's the best I can come up with. I think that tests your bullpen and starting pitching more and more closely simiulates the elements it takes for success in the regular season.

One thing that bothers me about baseball is that its post-season is so different from the regular season in terms of time off. As a result, the pitching rotation and roles for a team in the post-season are often very different than they are for the regular season. I hate that. There is one set of rules and strategy that works for the regular season and then once you reach the playoffs you are suddenly playing by a different set of rules. What sense does that make?

Baseball is already more random than any other sport. By this I mean that bad teams beat good teams more often in baseball than any other sport. Look at the top teams in other sports. The best teams routinely win 70%+ of their games in the NBA and NFL. It is not at all uncommon to have a team win 3 out of every 4 games. The worst teams all win less than a third of their games.

Now, look at baseball standings. If you win 60% of your games, you are a stud team. It is not at all uncommon for a team to win their division by winning just 55% of their games or so. Heck, teams sometimes win their division playing barely above .500. It is soooo much easier for a bad team to beat a good team in baseball.

My point in all this is that by its nature, baseball is going to have more playoff "upsets." The only way to counteract this is to stretch the post-season series out a tiny bit so we have a better chance of the better team winning. It may not help much, but it might help a little tiny bit.

One more thing-- in my opinion it is not such a terrible thing when the Wild Card team does well. Quite often the Wild Card team is the better team or at least is the equal of some of the Division winners.

A piece of me wishes baseball had 3 wild cards and did their playoffs the way the NFL does, though that would be a real mess in terms of scheduling because the top 2 division winners would get a ton of time off and that could be a problem for them in terms of staying sharp. Maybe if you made those opening round series best of 3... though that would make them insanely short.

-Jason "don't forget more playoffs = more money" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Having a wild card is appropriate in a sport like football where you only play 16 games and there are lots of ties for division champ slots. IMHO, if you can't prove your superiority over the other teams in your division over 162 gaves, you don't belong in the playoffs, period. Of course, part of the problem in baseball is the fact that there are too many divisions, with too few teams in them, especially the AL West. Of course, I was one of the purists who didn't even like the expansion to 12 teams with 2 divisions in 1969, but learned to live with it because there was still a legitimate division with 6 teams in it, and because the better team usually, although not always, advanced to the World Series. (There were exceptions like the 1973 Mets.)

If you eliminate the Wild Card what do you do with the divisions? Do you go back to 2 divisions? There could be huge revenue losses if you did this because it would serve to eliminate teams from playoff consideration a LOT faster. Nothing is worse for August and September attendance than a lack of playoff races.

Hmmm, what about 2 divisions and the top 2 teams in each make the playoffs?

I sorta think that no matter what you do, there is not going to be very much of a reward for being the best team over 162 games. There is a reward for being good enough to make the playoffs but there is almost no reward for being better than the other playoff teams.

-Jason "best of seven first round-- that's the only change I would make" Evans

[EarlJam]

I don't understand your starting point. If the wild card team plays well in the post season, why is that a bad thing?

I don't know the exact number, but wild card teams have won a few World Series. To me, it's too much. It's unacceptable. After playing 162 games, the team that earned first place should not have to fight for it's life in a five game series with a team that did not win the pennant. Lost that very first game, and suddenly, after 163 games, you are looking at a must win situation.

It should be much harder for the wild card team to advance.

-EarlJam

[tombrady]

One thing that bothers me about baseball is that its post-season is so different from the regular season in terms of time off. As a result, the pitching rotation and roles for a team in the post-season are often very different than they are for the regular season. I hate that. There is one set of rules and strategy that works for the regular season and then once you reach the playoffs you are suddenly playing by a different set of rules. What sense does that make?

What? This isn't true at all. The teams play 2 straight games at the better team's stadium, have a day off to travel (like the regular season), then play 3 straight games at the other team's stadium, have a day off to travel (like the regular season), and then finish up the last 2 in a row. Since division winners play eachother, they are naturally in different geographic areas (east, west, etc.) Unless you want teams finishing up a game at 11 PM, getting on a cross country flight, getting in at 5 in the morning, then having to play a game that same day, you have to have 1 day off for travel. This isn't extreme at all.

[tombrady]

I sorta think that no matter what you do, there is not going to be very much of a reward for being the best team over 162 games. There is a reward for being good enough to make the playoffs but there is almost no reward for being better than the other playoff teams.



This isn't true either. The best team, if they are really good enough to be "the best" -- by having a several game lead over the next closest division winner, can essentially take the last week off to line up their rotation so their best starters are going 1-2-3. This is a HUGE advantage. They'll be playing a wild-card team that in most cases isn't decided until the last 2 games of the season. The wild-card teams scratch and claw the last month of the season to barely get in -- the division winners many times are able to put it on cruise control a bit, get healthy, get lined up, etc. The Wild Card by virtue puts you in a bad place -- you're tired and you're playing the best team which is rested. And the best team has home field advantage.

[tombrady]

I don't know the exact number, but wild card teams have won a few World Series. To me, it's too much. It's unacceptable. After playing 162 games, the team that earned first place should not have to fight for it's life in a five game series with a team that did not win the pennant. Lost that very first game, and suddenly, after 163 games, you are looking at a must win situation.

It should be much harder for the wild card team to advance.

-EarlJam

Why? What if the wild card team has a better record than the other divison winners -- i.e. the cr@ppy divisions that produce winners that are barely above .500 (NL West last year, sometimes AL West).

You can't blame a superior team for being in a division with another superior team, when the second place team in that division would have crushed a bad division.

The wild card gets the best teams in the playoffs. I agree, though, that the first round should be 7 games.

[tombrady]

IMHO, if you can't prove your superiority over the other teams in your division over 162 gaves, you don't belong in the playoffs, period.

What if you finish second to the winner of your division, but both of you have a record better than the other 13 teams in the league? You don't belong in the playoffs then, when you're clearly one of the best teams in the league?

I don't think I can be any more clear: The wild card gets the best teams into the playoffs.

[JasonEvans]

What? This isn't true at all. The teams play 2 straight games at the better team's stadium, have a day off to travel (like the regular season), then play 3 straight games at the other team's stadium, have a day off to travel (like the regular season), and then finish up the last 2 in a row. Since division winners play eachother, they are naturally in different geographic areas (east, west, etc.) Unless you want teams finishing up a game at 11 PM, getting on a cross country flight, getting in at 5 in the morning, then having to play a game that same day, you have to have 1 day off for travel. This isn't extreme at all.

The days off you are illustrating are very different than in the regular season. No team gets 2 days off each week (2 + 1 off + 3 + 1 off). The reality is that with the way the playoffs work no team needs to EVER use its 5th starter and teams often try to get by using only 3 starters. No matter what, in a 7 game series there is no way the 4th starter will pitch more than once.

Having decent 4th and 5th starters in the regular season is a huge advantage. In the post-season it is almmost meaningless.

-Jason "4th and 5th starters get 55 or so starts per year... and then they almost never start a game in the post-season... that is playing by a different set of rules" Evans

[pfrduke]

This thread raises a bit of a broader question that has been bothering me for a while. Why is setting up a system to ensure that the "right" teams win championships so important? Who, in the grand scheme of things, loses when a team like the 2006 Cardinals wins the World Series? (obviously, the Tigers lose, but that's not what I mean) Why is it so offensive that a wild card team has post-season success?

I think this every year during BCS controversy, when people are so obsessed with making sure the "right" two teams play for the national title. Besides fans of the respective schools, who really cared whether Michigan or Florida played OSU in the title game? And why? Would the entire college football season of 116 schools have been somehow less meaningful or cheapened if Michigan played OSU rather than Florida? Why can't people simply accept that "Champion" doesn't always equal "Best Team"? Seriously, who cares if the best team isn't the champion for that particular season?

[jimsumner]

Plenty of NCAA basketball championships have been won by teams that did not win their conference. Anybody want to go back to the old days when only one team per conference got a bid? Didn't think so.

Exclusive of the wild card, there are plenty of examples of superior baseball teams losing to lesser baseball teams in a short, postseason series. Last year's Cardinals are a vivid example, but hardly the only one. Even in the days when the World Series was the only post-season, there were stunning upsets. Look at the 1954 World Series. It's the nature of the game.

There are ways to tweak the system, using home field advantage. But in general the wildcard keeps more teams in the playoffs longer, generates more fan interest, and has been good for the sport.

[Mal]

This thread raises a bit of a broader question that has been bothering me for a while. Why is setting up a system to ensure that the "right" teams win championships so important? Who, in the grand scheme of things, loses when a team like the 2006 Cardinals wins the World Series? (obviously, the Tigers lose, but that's not what I mean) Why is it so offensive that a wild card team has post-season success?

I lose, as a serious baseball fan. Because MLB plays a 6 month regular season with 162 games, and I've tuned in to probably 40-50 over that span and then have to watch a team like the Cardinals win a horrible division by playing .500 ball (they wouldn't have won 75 games in any other division last year) and then get hot at the right (wrong) time when over the course of the season they haven't proven themselves to be worthy of the chance to get hot at the right time. Determining a champion in college football is a game of craps - you can't possibly get all the teams to play each other, and you only play a dozen games, so everyone's already aware of the fuzziness of crowning a "champion." Contrasting, what's the point of playing a game nearly every day for half the year and then allowing teams that win just 3 more than they lose to have a chance at your trophy? If you want the spectacle of The Playoffs to be like that of the NBA, fine, but don't waste 162 games of my time to get there. The regular season IS baseball in a way that doesn't apply to other sports. Don't tell me we need to play 162 games but that the goal of that is not to weed out the pack. The "champion" in such a long and grueling schedule should be a lot closer to the "best" team than in the NHL.

I agree with those advocating making the Divisional Series 7 games. I'm on Rasputin's page as a general purist and hater on the Wild Card/3 division concept in general - I've been vehemently against it from the start but learned to live with it, because it's not going anywhere (I also can't deny the positives of more teams still having a fighting chance in September). If you're going to have it, though, what's the point of tricking up the playoffs to further disadvantage the Wild Cards, as EarlJam seems to want? Either a Wild Card team is worthy of being in the playoffs or it's not - you can't have both. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the whole thing. They're already disadvantaged by being stressed out by the push to make it in and then having to play on the road.

Personally, I think the recent run of Wild Cards making or winning the World Series will, over the long run, turn out to be statistical anomaly. It'll even out over time.

Jason's gripe about the playoffs operating differently than the regular season resonates with me. It's an inherent problem with baseball as a sport, being so reliant on pitching. If you think it's an issue in MLB, look at your average high school, Little League, American Legion and other playoffs and tournaments, with a single game, bracket approach (sometimes with double elimination). To win a single elimination high school state tournament, you've basically got to win 10 or 12 games in a row. In a double elimination tournament, you can basically pencil the team with the best 1-2 starting pitcher combo into the final. It's not even close to ideal in determining who's "best" as a whole. But what are you going to do? You can't have high school kids playing 80 game seasons.

[A-Tex Devil]

What? This isn't true at all. The teams play 2 straight games at the better team's stadium, have a day off to travel (like the regular season), then play 3 straight games at the other team's stadium, have a day off to travel (like the regular season), and then finish up the last 2 in a row. Since division winners play eachother, they are naturally in different geographic areas (east, west, etc.) Unless you want teams finishing up a game at 11 PM, getting on a cross country flight, getting in at 5 in the morning, then having to play a game that same day, you have to have 1 day off for travel. This isn't extreme at all.

This isn't always true, especially in the first round because TV mucks things up. Sometimes, it's been as bad as a day off between the first 2 games of a 5 game series, another day off after the second game, two more games at the other teams park, another day off then the 5th game.

Thats 5 games in 8 days which NEVER happens in the season. I think Jason's point is that teams make the playoffs with, for instance, a strong 5 man rotation. That 5 man rotation means squat in the playoffs. So a team with a stud 1-2 and a weak 3-5 who scraped by in a weak division can always be set up to beat a solid 1 through 5 rotation in a five game series.

When it all comes down to it, just win the games. But it is different monster in the post season when a team can rig up a three man rotation and hide the weaknesses that caused it to lose games during the regular season.

All in all, though, I wouldn't change a thing. The Wild Card is perfectly fine with me, and if a weak division champion like the Cardinals didn't deserve to win it last year, someone should have beaten them.

[tombrady]

Having decent 4th and 5th starters in the regular season is a huge advantage. In the post-season it is almmost meaningless.

-Jason "4th and 5th starters get 55 or so starts per year... and then they almost never start a game in the post-season... that is playing by a different set of rules" Evans

Or, those decent 4th and 5th starters then slot into the bullpen, making it even better. Having those starters on your team helps you out in the playoffs.

The reason the travel is different is that teams don't fly east coast to west coast and back again 3 times a week. It doesn't "change the game" at all, unless you want to see super tired pitchers and players hacking it up like little league.

[tombrady]

I think Jason's point is that teams make the playoffs with, for instance, a strong 5 man rotation. That 5 man rotation means squat in the playoffs. So a team with a stud 1-2 and a weak 3-5 who scraped by in a weak division can always be set up to beat a solid 1 through 5 rotation in a five game series.


Very few teams have a "Strong" 5 man rotation. Some teams might have 3-4 good pitchers, but nearly every team's 5th starter isn't really that good.

Everyone's playing by the same rules though (well, except for that whole DH thing...), so just sign a couple great 1-2 starters. No one's forcing teams to spread it out to 5 mediocre guys.

But like I said, those end of the rotation guys go to the bullpen, so they're still being used. As are other starters coming in on 3 day rest, or even 2 day rest.

In the playoffs, you use every part of your team to win each game at all costs. Teams could actually do this during the regular season, but its been proven to not be effective -- this is why teams elect to have 5 man rotations, instead of 3, etc.

[captmojo]

The division winner clinched it over a week ago while the wild card contender was exactly that, a contender, right up until the last day. He never let his guard down for those last few games and that put him on top of his game. Wild cards may not be any worse a team than the div champ, may actually have a winning record against the div champ, the real difference is that he started his playoff rounds a week or so earlier than the champ and his game is sharper and more focused.

[pfrduke]

I lose, as a serious baseball fan. Because MLB plays a 6 month regular season with 162 games, and I've tuned in to probably 40-50 over that span and then have to watch a team like the Cardinals win a horrible division by playing .500 ball (they wouldn't have won 75 games in any other division last year) and then get hot at the right (wrong) time when over the course of the season they haven't proven themselves to be worthy of the chance to get hot at the right time.

But why does this result in you "losing"? Do you feel like the 40-50 games you watch were wasted because the Cardinals won the World Series instead of the Mets, Tigers, or Yankees? Or are you just disappointed with the quality of the World Series (which last year may have been more attributable to the way the Tigers played than the Cardinals)? Not that the fact that an allegedly "inferior" team makes the World Series automatically diminishes the quality - the Giants-Angels series (two wild card teams) is one of the best played and most dramatic series of the past 15 years. I understand that you feel ill used by the fact that the Cardinals won the WS last year, or that some wild card teams have made it and won it recently. What I don't understand is why? How does it harm you, as a baseball fan?

[EarlJam]

Why? What if the wild card team has a better record than the other divison winners -- i.e. the cr@ppy divisions that produce winners that are barely above .500 (NL West last year, sometimes AL West).

You can't blame a superior team for being in a division with another superior team, when the second place team in that division would have crushed a bad division.

The wild card gets the best teams in the playoffs. I agree, though, that the first round should be 7 games.

I agree with all of what you said above. Consensus seems to be, accurately I think, that making all rounds best of seven would solve the "problem."

-EarlJam

[EarlJam]

Now, next issue. In what other sport do you have different rules for different leagues? Far out. I don't know where I stand on the DH issue. Part of me likes the differing rules per league because it adds to the mystique of the game. Still though, seems like both leagues should be playing by the same rules.

Ya'll think baseball will ever come to a consensus on this one?


-EarlJam

[EarlJam]

I badly misspelled "designated." Sorry.

[A-Tex Devil]

Very few teams have a "Strong" 5 man rotation. Some teams might have 3-4 good pitchers, but nearly every team's 5th starter isn't really that good.

Everyone's playing by the same rules though (well, except for that whole DH thing...), so just sign a couple great 1-2 starters. No one's forcing teams to spread it out to 5 mediocre guys.

But like I said, those end of the rotation guys go to the bullpen, so they're still being used. As are other starters coming in on 3 day rest, or even 2 day rest.

In the playoffs, you use every part of your team to win each game at all costs. Teams could actually do this during the regular season, but its been proven to not be effective -- this is why teams elect to have 5 man rotations, instead of 3, etc.

But isn't that the point? The game is played differently in the playoffs than in the regular season. Your 4 and 5 starters AREN'T in the bullpen in the regular season. A team with a couple of great starters can squeak into the playoffs in the regular season and then dominate in the playoffs -- but having a crappy 3-5 is going to make it tough for them to even get there.

Don't get me wrong, I think the system is fine, but building a team for the regular season and the playoffs are 2 different monsters. Just ask the Athletics and all the other teams with the "best record" that get knocked out before the world series. The fact that you built a team where your 4th and 5th starters were superior to other teams 4th and 5th starters helps you in the regular season, but not so much in the playoffs - even if they are in the bullpen.

Nothing wrong with all of that. Basketball and hockey are a bit different games in the playoffs too. Just not so much as baseball.

[JasonEvans]

Now, next issue. In what other sport do you have different rules for different leagues? Far out. I don't know where I stand on the DH issue. Part of me likes the differing rules per league because it adds to the mystique of the game. Still though, seems like both leagues should be playing by the same rules.

Ya'll think baseball will ever come to a consensus on this one?


If there ever is a consensus it will be to add the DH to the National League. There is just no way that the player's union allows the AL to get rid of the DH. There is a reason most AL teams have higher salaries than NL teams and it is because they are essentially paying for an extra starter. The player's union would never let that go away.

-Jason "6 of the 7 lowest payrolls in baseball belong to NL teams, 4 of the top 5 belong to AL teams" Evans

[tombrady]

If there ever is a consensus it will be to add the DH to the National League. There is just no way that the player's union allows the AL to get rid of the DH. There is a reason most AL teams have higher salaries than NL teams and it is because they are essentially paying for an extra starter. The player's union would never let that go away.

-Jason "6 of the 7 lowest payrolls in baseball belong to NL teams, 4 of the top 5 belong to AL teams" Evans

Agreed -- eventually there will be a DH in the NL. As sports in general become more and more specialized, there is no reason to see pitchers bat when many of them haven't seriously practiced the skill since high school. The overall level of the game rises with the DH -- it brings in a (much much) better hitter in place of the pitcher, and forces the pitcher to pitch to 9 hitters a game, instead of 8 (pitcher is basically an automatic out and rally killer).

That said, I watch nearly all AL baseball, but I went to a few NL games last week, and with all the pinch-hitting while swapping out pitchers, it really forces teams to focus more on their bench. I like that.

But, I don't like that managers are sometimes forced to take out a pitcher that is doing well when they feel more pressure to use his spot in the order to get a better hitter in there.

[EarlJam]

Okay, so far we've made this much progress (congrats everyone!)....

1. All playoff games go to "best of seven"
2. The DH is implemented into the National League

Now, may I enter another motion:

3. Bring back the GWRBI stat! (Game Winning RBI). It was a fun official stat. Why did they remove it?

-EarlJam - Hey, when you woke up this morning, did you know you'd be fixing all of baseball's woes?

[JasonEvans]

Okay, so far we've made this much progress (congrats everyone!)....

1. All playoff games go to "best of seven"
2. The DH is implemented into the National League

Now, may I enter another motion:

3. Bring back the GWRBI stat! (Game Winning RBI). It was a fun official stat. Why did they remove it?

-EarlJam - Hey, when you woke up this morning, did you know you'd be fixing all of baseball's woes?

I hate Game-winning RBI. How do you awward it? Does it go to the guy who made the score 1-0 in the first in a game won 13-12 in the 13th inning or does it go to the guy who drove in run number 6 in a game that was 6-2 at the time but ends up with a final score of 11-5? I dunno if that made sense but my problem with the stat is that it is too har dto figure out who made the GW hit.

I would like to see a special stat kept for guys batting averages/runs/HRs/RBIs in games where it is a 2-run or less game and there are fewer than 3 innings remaining. Call it "pressure" stats or something like that.

-Jason "as an aside, I hate the HR derby when most of the best sluggers sit out-- why was Bonds not there?!?!?!" Evans

[EarlJam]

I hate Game-winning RBI. How do you awward it? Does it go to the guy who made the score 1-0 in the first in a game won 13-12 in the 13th inning or does it go to the guy who drove in run number 6 in a game that was 6-2 at the time but ends up with a final score of 11-5? I dunno if that made sense but my problem with the stat is that it is too har dto figure out who made the GW hit.

I would like to see a special stat kept for guys batting averages/runs/HRs/RBIs in games where it is a 2-run or less game and there are fewer than 3 innings remaining. Call it "pressure" stats or something like that.

-Jason "as an aside, I hate the HR derby when most of the best sluggers sit out-- why was Bonds not there?!?!?!" Evans


AGREED on the home run derby point completely. How could Bonds not participate........in his home city no less!?

As for GWRBI, why not just award it to the hitter that put his team up for good? Oh, wait a minute. Thinking as I type. I see. The hit could put a team up 3-2, and they could maintain the lead, but end up winning 8-7. Hmmmmmm. You could say award it to the hitter that drove in the eighth run but that could have been done under zero pressure (when the score was 7-3), hence, taking away from the meaning of the stat.

Okay Jason, you win. I'm sold. No bringing back of the GWRBI. That's THREE baseball issues solved for me today!

-EarlJam

P.S. Next issue (mildly related to baseball) - how can I get my hands on some illegal drugs? Narcotics. I'm out. Kidding. EarlJam is now drug free (moderate alcohol use doesn't count) and loving it.

[tombrady]

I would like to see a special stat kept for guys batting averages/runs/HRs/RBIs in games where it is a 2-run or less game and there are fewer than 3 innings remaining. Call it "pressure" stats or something like that.

-Jason "as an aside, I hate the HR derby when most of the best sluggers sit out-- why was Bonds not there?!?!?!" Evans

I suppose you mean something like the "Close and Late" stat.

Close And Late - results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

Close and Late MLB Stats (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=avg&split=60&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=25&hand=a&pos=all)

If I were Bonds, I wouldn't do it either. MLB has been clear it doesn't really like him -- why should he try to please Bud Selig?

[JasonEvans]

If I were Bonds, I wouldn't do it either. MLB has been clear it doesn't really like him -- why should he try to please Bud Selig?

Who gives a @!&^@ about Bud Selig? I am talking about the fans. Barry is on the bring of breaking what may be the most hallowed record in all of sports. Despite this, his public image is very bad and about the only place he is loved is his home park. So, baseball has an All-star game in his home park and conducts a special contest that focusses upon the aspect of baseball at which he has proven to be best in recent years and he skips it?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!?

This was a no-brainer. Barry should have done it and won back more fans.

Professional athletes are largely spoiled brats. The fact that Michael Jordan largely refused to do the slam dunk contest after the first few years or his career or that Bonds refuses to do the homerun contest is a joke.

Oh, and as an aside, who else would love to see baseball do some other fun skills games. You could have an outfield throwing contest where guys throw three balls at a homeplate target that is increasingly further and further away. You could have a hit-the-target contest with decent sized targets in the outfield and points depanding on how big and how far away they are and then let the best contact hitters declare which one they are going for against a batting practice pitcher. There could be hit-the-target contests with pitchers too.

Why doesn't baseball do this? Why only do homeruns?

-Jason "I would rule as commissioner of any sport!!" Evans

[tombrady]

Who gives a @!&^@ about Bud Selig? I am talking about the fans. Barry is on the bring of breaking what may be the most hallowed record in all of sports. Despite this, his public image is very bad and about the only place he is loved is his home park. So, baseball has an All-star game in his home park and conducts a special contest that focusses upon the aspect of baseball at which he has proven to be best in recent years and he skips it?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!?


ah, true, true. that said, lots of guys in that contest (see bobby abreu and david ortiz) have said that the HRD really messes up your swing, and is actually a lot of work -- taking 50 home run cuts, when in a regular game they might take 4 or 5, if they're really swinging for the fences.

could you imagine if bonds tweaked his knee real bad just a few short of 755?

again, not saying i advocate players missing the ASG because of injury fears, but its a factor.