There's something wrong with Major League Baseball if a game can end in a tie. Doubly so if that game is the All-Star or a playoff game. The whole of the sport is designed to find a winner in each contest -- a regulation game has at least 4.5 innings (if the game is called in event of rain), extra innings, and an optional bottom-of-the-ninth inning if the home team is leading.
Then there's this:
When it was announced over the public-address system that the game would be called if no run was scored in the bottom of the 11th, the crowd -- which had paid $125 per ticket -- went into a long, loud boo that dissolved into catcalls and invectives, and finally a chant of "Let them play!" as the final moments played out.(The $125 ticket price is another issue that's even more disgusting.)
But they pay it, and apparently are quite willing to do so. It's all about supply & demand.
You don't return your exorbitant programmer salary (or consulting rate, or whatever), do you?
Re:But they pay it...
ziggy on 2002-07-10T15:01:58
You could reduce baseball to simple economics. That's ignoring the point though. Baseball has [had] a lot of symbolic meaning.But they pay it, and apparently are quite willing to do so. It's all about supply & demand.Cheap tickets used to make it easy for a kid or a family to spend an afternoon at the ball game many times over the summer. Players often played for the love of the game, not because it's an interesting way to make a few millon dollars a year (how many ball players stay for hours after the game signing autographs today? or care more about building a team than being a free agent and signing with the team that offers the highest contract?). Sure, the ticket price for the all star game and post-season play should be more (higher demand), but that's not an excuse for it to be that high.
Supply and demand may explain how the ticket price for the All Star game is now $125. But it doesn't explain why it's slowly killing Baseball.
You don't return your exorbitant programmer salary (or consulting rate, or whatever), do you?You're comparing apples and cough syrup here.
Re:But they pay it...
petdance on 2002-07-10T15:29:26
I'm really not disagreeing about the notion that money is making baseball less accessible to the masses. I just don't agree with (what I infer is) your point that Baseball The Business has a responsibility to keep it accessible and the great American pasttime and all.Cheap tickets used to make it easy for a kid or a family to spend an afternoon at the ball game many times over the summer.
So take 'em to a minor league team. There are plenty, and I'd rather go see the Kane County Cougars or the Schaumburg Flyers than the Cubs or White Sox any day. To me, that's more about baseball than the majors.
I see live music the same way these days. Would it be nice to have everyone be able to see the Stones or the Who or whatever this year, without the family of 4 having to shell out $500? Sure, but that same family could go see Neko Case and Robbie Fulks at the Schubas summer festival for, say, $10/ticket, and probably get a better show out of it anyway.
Re:But they pay it...
jdporter on 2002-07-10T15:42:17
The price for an all-star game ticket should be like $1000.
Because, zig, the whole idea of an all-star game is counter to your ideal of how baseball should be. Baseball "as it ought to be" still exists -- and it isn't represented by Major League Baseball.
I for one would love to see Major League Baseball rot away to nothing, and ever-increasingly exhorbitant ticket prices are a good way to make that come about. But real baseball lives on, and does not suffer from any of the problems you cite.
Re:But they pay it...
jordan on 2002-07-10T16:17:39
- But they pay it, and apparently are quite willing to do so. It's all about supply & demand.
Sorry, it isn't simple "supply & demand" as long as MLB enjoys an Anti-Trust exemption and has their stadiums built for them by local governments.
You have to suspect that something is amiss when, on the one hand, MLB wants to close 2 franchises, claiming poverty (but steadfastly insist on not opening their books) and on the other hand the players are seriously considering another strike. Clearly, market forces are perverted here.
Re:Fooey
gizmo_mathboy on 2002-07-10T19:11:03
I like what Schilling said. Basically pick three players from each team and have a home run derby to decide it. Seems fair enough in an exhibition.
While it may have been an exhibition fans expect roughly the same rules to be in effect, i.e. play until someone wins. Other All-Star "Exhibitions" have gone longer (13 innings I think for one).
If it's an exhibition then put a limit on the innings and have a pre-determine method of resolving the game. If I paid to see a game I want to see a game not a farce. Then again I hate baseball, well MLB at least. I hope it rots in hell and if they strike that MLB is wiped off the face of the earth.Re:Fooey
pudge on 2002-07-10T19:25:55
1. Home Run derby is a nice idea, but you need to think about the same problem with pitchers, to a lesser degree: injury. Those guys after the Home Run Derby on Monday night are drained, and their muscles are all shot. Not that this means you can't do it, but it is a concern. Plus, a Home Run Derby with four players to a side takes 2 hours or so; I'd say one player per side.
2. The ones that have gone longer did not do what this one did: try to squeeze in all of the players, including the pitchers. However, I think we should return to that, because I find the games more entertaining and interesting when it is the same players playing for most of the game. I got to see Suzuki catch one fly ball, yay. I want to see him the whole game.
3. Yes, in any event, they should decide on the resolution beforehand. But I didn't see any problem with how it ended, really, considering the setup of the game, so I didn't mind.
