2008 MLB All-Star Game Thread

All true, but I'm thinking his first priority among those guys is taking care of his own pitcher.

He's also probably worrying about making sure Papelbon, Rodriguez and Rivera all get into the game.

It's time to get rid of the rule that puts home field in the World Series on the line and set a reasonable innings limit on the All-Star game. Yes, the tie sucked, but that is the price you pay for putting an exhibition game in the middle of the season.

 

Innings limit? Please give me a break.

How about players understand that they might not get in the game? Not that I don't love seeing the game decided by a bunch of second-tier stars and guys who are only there because of the mandate that every team have a representative.

How about players who pitched Sunday not be on the active roster? How about not pulling guys after eight or nine pitches, unless you REALLY need to match up against a guy?

 

We were talking about this the other day at work. Sometimes, it pays to be a reserve who gets in late because in a game like this, you could get three, four at-bats.

 

Trying to get everybody in does not fit with the idea that the game counts, that's for sure. I could definitely see them making that switch with pitchers who started the Sunday before being there but inactive. But whether it be a set limit or, much more likely one of the teams simply running out of arms, they need to be calling the thing before they have position players pitching.

 

Yeah, for all this bitching about players not playing a full game, most of the position players who were in at the end on Tuesday played a full nine innings, or close to it.

 

I can see the owners being against the idea of adding pitchers to replace the guys who pitch on Sunday.

The more guys you add the more guys you have to pay all-star bonuses to.

 

That's what I said. If you're cannot be depended on to pitch a couple innings, go to the game, but don't take a roster spot. I don't see what the big deal is. I get Sunday's starters not being able to go 100 percent. But there's no reason someone who pitched Saturday, on three days' rest, or Friday or Thursday can't pitch two or three to lessen the load for the other guys.

Halladay could have gone three. That guy's an old-school model -- one of the few left (Livan, Blanton, etc.) -- and I'm sure if he was given the option, he'd do just that or more.

If you want to be an overprotective coach or owner, hold your player back. Get some people who want to make a difference in the game on the teams.

 

I agree. There's nothing wrong with letting a deserving pitcher who went eight on Sunday be inactive and sit in the dugout to get the experience of being at an All-Star game and replacing him on the active roster with another.

 

What if Halladay does start another inning, but he runs into trouble and his pitch count starts pushing 30 or 35? I know the Fox guys went on for a little while about how the managers didn't want to bring in starters mid-inning, because it's not something they're accustomed to. Whether that's just whining, I don't know. But it is an unusual situation, for sure.

Of course, you could use a reliever in, say, the fifth inning, let him finish it out, then go back to a starter for the sixth.

I am quite sure that baseball will make some knee-jerk reactionary change, and it won't matter, because how often is the All-Star game gonna go 15 innings?

But I would have no problem with setting an innings limit of, say, 12. But get rid of the stupid home-field advantage thing. It's an exhibition game. No one has a problem with spring-training games cutting off after 10 or 11 innings.

If everyone knows beforehand that the game ends after 12, I doubt it would bother anyone. It would add some drama to extra innings too, because you don't have as many opportunities to end it. So if you get to the 12th, both teams know they have to score, and would pull out all the stops. Hopefully, anyway.