Tell me a more fake ending to a baseball game

[Snapolit1]

It's a freakin' exhibition. That means absolutely nothing. Lighten up.

Whole point of the event is to highlight the great players of the game and let their personalities shine. Particularly the great new players. And they did that. I stopped caring about the score of the All Star game when I was 9.

[BobbyStrawberry]

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if they replaced the zombie runner extra innings with a HR derby for regular season games.

[Beercan collector]

Speed up the game - Every at bat is an out unless it’s a home run

[Mark17]

Next thing will be teams drafting Swing Off pitchers who perfect the fine art of laying the ball over the plate for their teammates to smash over the fence.

Maybe that will draw Bert "Going going gone" Blyleven out of retirement.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

It's a freakin' exhibition. That means absolutely nothing. Lighten up.

Whole point of the event is to highlight the great players of the game and let their personalities shine. Particularly the great new players. And they did that. I stopped caring about the score of the All Star game when I was 9.

It was advertised as a "baseball game." Instead, it turned into a second Home Run Derby.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

It's a freakin' exhibition. That means absolutely nothing. Lighten up.

Whole point of the event is to highlight the great players of the game and let their personalities shine. Particularly the great new players. And they did that. I stopped caring about the score of the All Star game when I was 9.

It didn't used to be. Are you old enough to remember Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse because the players wanted to win? Now the game is decided by how effective the batting practice pitcher is at serving up fat pitches to hit out of the park.

Viewership was down for the game, the second lowest all-time. With the population in the US growing plus more international viewers, Japan, you would think the ratings would be up. They are really trying to kill interest in the game.

[SAllen2556]

I assume if you're complaining about the all-star game it's because you're too young to remember how separate the AL and NL leagues used to be. They never played each other until the World Series. Players didn't switch leagues as often. Each league had different strengths and weaknesses. They even had different rules. I know you all know this, but maybe you don't remember what effect that had on the all-star game.

There was just a different feeling to the game that can't be replicated today because of interleague play and the frequency with which players switch leagues. It's just another game now. Paul Skenes pitched against the Tigers about 2 weeks ago, and Tarik Skubal faced the Pirates in the same series. So what's the big deal about them facing each other in the all-star game? It would have been a bigger deal in 1971.

Maybe it'd be better to bring an international team of all-stars and play a US vs. the World game.

Go watch the 1971 all-star game on Youtube. If you listen to the commentary you'll understand why it used to be a bigger deal.

[Snapolit1]

I watched Pete Rose run over Ray Fosse.

If viewership was down, it wasn't because of an ending that none of expected to happen, 3 hours later.

More people are talking about the All Star game this week than I have ever seen in my life. Not all positive of course, but much is positive.

Agree that interleague play hjas changed the nature of the beast. It was amazing seeing a Mets pitcher throwing to a Yankee. Now that's meaningless, as they play 6 or 8 games every year. I've seen Edwin Diaz pitch to Aaron Judge. Seeing it in an All Star Game is not a big deal.

Originally Posted by rats60

It didn't used to be. Are you old enough to remember Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse because the players wanted to win? Now the game is decided by how effective the batting practice pitcher is at serving up fat pitches to hit out of the park.

Viewership was down for the game, the second lowest all-time. With the population in the US growing plus more international viewers, Japan, you would think the ratings would be up. They are really trying to kill interest in the game.

[Snapolit1]

I watched Pete Rose run over Ray Fosse.

If viewership was down, it wasn't because of an ending that none of expected to happen, 3 hours later.

More people are talking about the All Star game this week than I have ever seen in my life. Not all positive of course, but much is positive.

Agree that interleague play has changed the nature of the beast. It was amazing seeing a Mets pitcher throwing to a Yankee. Now that's meaningless, as they play 6 or 8 games every year. I've seen Edwin Diaz pitch to Aaron Judge. Many times. Seeing it in an All Star Game is not a big thrill.

Originally Posted by rats60

It didn't used to be. Are you old enough to remember Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse because the players wanted to win? Now the game is decided by how effective the batting practice pitcher is at serving up fat pitches to hit out of the park.

Viewership was down for the game, the second lowest all-time. With the population in the US growing plus more international viewers, Japan, you would think the ratings would be up. They are really trying to kill interest in the game.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

It's a freakin' exhibition. That means absolutely nothing. Lighten up.

Whole point of the event is to highlight the great players of the game and let their personalities shine. Particularly the great new players. And they did that. I stopped caring about the score of the All Star game when I was 9.

I accidentally clicked on the game for about less than a second until my finger hit the button to go to another channel. It's actually a net negative for me. Can't stand almost any MLB and the All Star game is worse than the regular season. But I love me some vintage baseball cards. Just my point of view, we all have one.
.

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by Leon

I accidentally clicked on the game for about less than a second until my finger hit the button to go to another channel. It's actually a net negative for me. Can't stand almost any MLB and the All Star game is worse than the regular season. But I love me some vintage baseball cards. Just my point of view, we all have one.
.

Tell the truth Leon - you watched the game! I try to be positive so please don't be offended - but if your vintage collection of baseball cards is only thing that means something to you in baseball - I feel very sorry for you.

Please tell the forum what you do like about baseball - post war until now.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Tell the truth Leon - you watched the game! I try to be positive so please don't be offended - but if your vintage collection of baseball cards is only thing that means something to you in baseball - I feel very sorry for you.

Please tell the forum what you do like about baseball - post war until now.

I stand with Leon on this. I know things change; I'm not totally senile. Yet. But the idiotic changes to baseball are totally STUPID to me. That and the idiotic amount of money involved in the business of baseball today. I believe the only way you would enjoy baseball today is if you had never seen the game the way it was presented BEFORE the colossal, incomprehensible amount of money made the changes of recent necessary. But hey, that's just the way I see it. Your opinion may differ.

EDIT - My vintage cards and memorabilia are a connection to my youth, and to a time when there were no constantly jabbering broadcasters on TV, and the commercials, if there were any, were simple, beer or something like that, and they were done from the press box by the broadcaster himself. There wasn't 5 minutes between each half inning, with the 3rd out, the hitting team immediately took the field. There were no designated hitters; the pitcher hit, which meant the manager had to manage. There were no 4 finger intentional walks. There were no ghost runners; no man on 2nd to start extra innings. The umpire had the last word, right or wrong. It was part of the game. No robot umpires. None of the stadiums had to be financed out of taxation. None of the stadiums had to have a corporate name. None of that stuff had to be, because no one made a trillion dollars. And if the owner did, so what? If he put the money back into the team and made the team a perennial winner, and your owner didn't, all you could do was cry.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I stand with Leon on this. I know things change; I'm not totally senile. Yet. But the idiotic changes to baseball are totally STUPID to me. That and the idiotic amount of money involved in the business of baseball today. I believe the only way you would enjoy baseball today is if you had never seen the game the way it was presented BEFORE the colossal, incomprehensible amount of money made the changes of recent necessary. But hey, that's just the way I see it. Your opinion may differ.

EDIT - My vintage cards and memorabilia are a connection to my youth, and to a time when there were no constantly jabbering broadcasters on TV, and the commercials, if there were any, were simple, beer or something like that, and they were done from the press box by the broadcaster himself. There wasn't 5 minutes between each half inning, with the 3rd out, the hitting team immediately took the field. There were no designated hitters; the pitcher hit, which meant the manager had to manage. There were no 4 finger intentional walks. There were no ghost runners; no man on 2nd to start extra innings. The umpire had the last word, right or wrong. It was part of the game. No robot umpires. None of the stadiums had to be financed out of taxation. None of the stadiums had to have a corporate name. None of that stuff had to be, because no one made a trillion dollars. And if the owner did, so what? If he put the money back into the team and made the team a perennial winner, and your owner didn't, all you could do was cry.

I agree 100%. Money and greed have ruined the game. The All-Star Game used to be a competition between the NL and AL. Now it is a meaningless exhibition. This year's game with the outcome determined by which league had the best batting practice pitcher was a joke.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I stand with Leon on this. I know things change; I'm not totally senile. Yet. But the idiotic changes to baseball are totally STUPID to me. That and the idiotic amount of money involved in the business of baseball today. I believe the only way you would enjoy baseball today is if you had never seen the game the way it was presented BEFORE the colossal, incomprehensible amount of money made the changes of recent necessary. But hey, that's just the way I see it. Your opinion may differ.

EDIT - My vintage cards and memorabilia are a connection to my youth, and to a time when there were no constantly jabbering broadcasters on TV, and the commercials, if there were any, were simple, beer or something like that, and they were done from the press box by the broadcaster himself. There wasn't 5 minutes between each half inning, with the 3rd out, the hitting team immediately took the field. There were no designated hitters; the pitcher hit, which meant the manager had to manage. There were no 4 finger intentional walks. There were no ghost runners; no man on 2nd to start extra innings. The umpire had the last word, right or wrong. It was part of the game. No robot umpires. None of the stadiums had to be financed out of taxation. None of the stadiums had to have a corporate name. None of that stuff had to be, because no one made a trillion dollars. And if the owner did, so what? If he put the money back into the team and made the team a perennial winner, and your owner didn't, all you could do was cry.

This is the same stuff people were complaining about in 1930. Money has ruined the game. The home run has ruined the game. If you collect old baseball stuff, I assume you have some knowledge of the history of baseball. Yet you choose to ignore it.

Baseball has evolved. It's a really old sport. The rules of baseball in 1887 were as different from the 1960 version you seem to long for as today's game is. Do you want to go back to when Germany Schaefer could steal first base? Do you want to go back to a time when the stupid Yankees just bought the pennant every year? I read a book by Mickey Lolich who was scouted by the Yankees who just assumed, because of how much more money they were offering, that he would sign with them.

I don't know who outside of New York could have possibly been a baseball fan of any AL team in the 1950's. It was over by Memorial Day most years. You want to go back to that? You want the A's to be the Yankees farm team like it was in the 50's? You want the St. Louis Browns back who drew 500 fans a game? Sounds like baseball nirvana to me - not!

Baseball is basically the same game it's always been. Pitch the ball; hit the ball; score the most runs and win the game. To whine about designated hitters and taxes is nothing but the ramblings of an old man - sorry. The 1919 White Sox threw the damn World Series because of money!!! That alone makes yesterday's game a joke compared to today's.

Your complaints are similar to people who say the music of the 80's, or whatever decade you turned 18 in, was better than anything today. One of the consequences of old age is the refusal to accept change - that the old days were the best. They weren't!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

This is the same stuff people were complaining about in 1930. Money has ruined the game. The home run has ruined the game. If you collect old baseball stuff, I assume you have some knowledge of the history of baseball. Yet you choose to ignore it.

Baseball has evolved. It's a really old sport. The rules of baseball in 1887 were as different from the 1960 version you seem to long for as today's game is. Do you want to go back to when Germany Schaefer could steal first base? Do you want to go back to a time when the stupid Yankees just bought the pennant every year? I read a book by Mickey Lolich who was scouted by the Yankees who just assumed, because of how much more money they were offering, that he would sign with them.

I don't know who outside of New York could have possibly been a baseball fan of any AL team in the 1950's. It was over by Memorial Day most years. You want to go back to that? You want the A's to be the Yankees farm team like it was in the 50's? You want the St. Louis Browns back who drew 500 fans a game? Sounds like baseball nirvana to me - not!

Baseball is basically the same game it's always been. Pitch the ball; hit the ball; score the most runs and win the game. To whine about designated hitters and taxes is nothing but the ramblings of an old man - sorry. The 1919 White Sox threw the damn World Series because of money!!! That alone makes yesterday's game a joke compared to today's.

Your complaints are similar to people who say the music of the 80's, or whatever decade you turned 18 in, was better than anything today. One of the consequences of old age is the refusal to accept change - that the old days were the best. They weren't!

No, the money from 1930 brought forward to today is nothing like today. When you change everything because of money, it is not the same game. I'n not old. I'm not a fogey. I am a realist. If you're young and enjoy today's MLB, great. If you are old enough to remember it before colossal sums of money mandated all the changes, perhaps you would see things differently. Lots of folks on this forum have deep pockets, so they don't see the money issue. That's fine. I believe the game is not the same, and for the worse, not better. Nothing is going to change my opinion. I don't watch it; to me it's too painful to watch. Unpleasant. Not fun.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jingram058

No, the money from 1930 brought forward to today is nothing like today. When you change everything because of money, it is not the same game. I'n not old. I'm not a fogey. I am a realist. If you're young and enjoy today's MLB, great. If you are old enough to remember it before colossal sums of money mandated all the changes, perhaps you would see things differently. Lots of folks on this forum have deep pockets, so they don't see the money issue. That's fine. I believe the game is not the same, and for the worse, not better. Nothing is going to change my opinion. I don't watch it; to me it's too painful to watch. Unpleasant. Not fun.

I sort of have to agree with the old fogey camp on this one. Without conducting any study or analysis I have to imagine today’s players are wildly far removed in terms of salaries from the common man more than they have ever been. That holds true for many aspects of society. CEOs are also more wildly removed from their workers than ever before. The players deserve the money due to what they bring in. Not questioning that, but it seems like it has resulted in players that don’t hold much if any allegiance to a particular team. That didn’t seem as true in the “old days” and I think it’s fair to not like the game as much based on that.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

It's a freakin' exhibition. That means absolutely nothing. Lighten up.

Whole point of the event is to highlight the great players of the game and let their personalities shine. Particularly the great new players. And they did that. I stopped caring about the score of the All Star game when I was 9.

It might just be an "exhibition" but the winning team gets $800k on top of the bonus money each player gets for making the all star game.There's extra money given to the players in the home run derby Raleigh gets one million for winning it. The players who recieve the top votes in each league get an additional 15k the next two 5k and 3rd get $2500. Cristopher Sanchez was selected and declined to play but he still gets a 50K bonus for being selected. Any player who agrees to be miked up gets an additonial 15k.
Not a bad payday for an exibition game that means absolutely nothing.