One of the biggest annoyances in entertainment comes when something can't decide what it wants to be. For example, there are movies out there which can't pick if they want to be a comedy or a drama, so they end up making a ton of jokes but then sprinkle in some darker moments. What this ends up doing is depressing all the movie goers who are no longer in a mood for laughter, it ends up ruining the rest of the jokes and no one leaves the theatre satisfied. You see this all the time with comedic actors who want to be taken more seriously. They want to do more dramatic roles, but can't bring themselves to abandon what made them famous and in the end this waffling between trying to be serious or funny just pisses off their old fans, doesn't make them any new ones and produces a string of terrible films.(Basically, Adam Sandler's career for the last decade.)
I couldn't help thinking about this last night as I tuned in to watch the opening ceremonies of the Major League Baseball All-Star Game (which is the only part I watch anymore). Now, I gave up on this game years ago because, much like a movie which can't choose a genre, the All-Star game doesn't know what it wants to be: it's half an exhibition for the fans which should just be enjoyed for the light-hearted competition it is. However, it simultaneously holds home field advantage in its hands and therefore should be taken very seriously for all involved. You can't have it both ways. In the end it ends up being neither and the indecision turns people away in droves, which was why it was no surprise that this year's game was the lowest rated in years.
The problem for the game starts with the rosters - every team has to be represented. That would be fine for an exhibition game, but what ends up happening is that some guy playing for the Houston Astros, who will not sniff the postseason this year, will end up effecting who gets the chance to set their line-up in the more advantageous way for the majority of the World Series. That's kind of a big deal. Also, fans get to vote for who the starters are which, again, would be just dandy if it were a popularity contest. But, All-Star selections used to mean something and are the first line when an athlete's career obituary is written. Either you were a 4-time All-Star or you weren't. It's not "He was a two-time legitimate All-Star and made the other two just on reputation." We need to decide: either the selections matter or they don't. I they don't, you can leave them in the hands of the fans. But if they do then they should be named by players and coaches only, at which point you'd like to hope they would take voting seriously.
People aren't even sure how the game should be managed. If you don't play everybody on the roster you're seen as ruining their All-Star appearance, but if you don't leave some people available should the game need to go extra innings then you are seen as not managing such a big game correctly. It is no wonder that so many players come up with fake injuries as a way to avoid going to the game.
No one person sums up the love/hate dichotomy of the All-Star game this year quite like Derek Jeter. When he was first named to the team, people were surprised because Jeter was actually having a very mediocre season. Everyone acknowledged that he only made the team because he plays for the Yankees and is probably skating in on reputation alone. However, it didn't really matter because this was for the fans and it doesn't really count. Then, Jeter announced at the last minute that he was skipping the game due to "exhaustion" from his 3,000 hit chase. (Jeter had just come off the DL and played a total of 6 games in a month, so I'm not sure how tired he could actually get.) Suddenly, the same people who didn't think he made it on merit were mad that he wasn't coming at all. Basically, they were saying, "You don't deserve to be here to begin with, so how dare you not show up?" But then Commissioner Bud Selig, who was the one who made the All-Star game decide home-field advantage for the World Series because he wanted the people involved to take it seriously, said he understood Jeter skipping the game and gave it his blessing. Another contradiction.
I think it is time that MLB abandons its plan of letting the winner of the All-Star game decide home-field advantage for the World Series and go all-in back to the exhibition side of the aisle. I think that provision was thrown in as a knee-jerk reaction to the 2002 All-Star game ending in a tie and making the event look unnecessary. (See what happens when Bud Selig makes hasty decision? Maybe we should all stop pushing him about instant replay.) Baseball teams play a gruelling 162-game season, let the team with the best record be the ones who get home-field, as they should. And let the All-Star game go back to being just an exhibition; a fun game to reward the players that have had either a good year or stellar career. I still won't want to watch the game, but at least I'll be more secure in how I feel about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment