making an exibition game "count" is stupid - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

making an exibition game "count" is stupid

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:07 pm

'this time it means something.' i will tell you what it means. it means selig is moron. awarding home field advantage to the winner was supposed to make the game be more than an exhibition yet the managers still treated it like an exhibition. they tried to get all the players at least one at bat. why else would you remove pujols or bonds? torre admitted he was going to try to get every player in the game during a pregame interview. the reason the managers did that was because that is what the fans and the players wanted. the fans want to see all the players. the players want to get at least one at bat. they all want an exhibition game. so not only is awarding home field advantage attempting to take away what the players and fans want, it has done absolutely nothing to prevent the game from ending in a tie, the exact thing it was originally intended to prevent.
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby Ajax » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:10 pm

great gretzky wrote: then the final three games played at a neutral site.


Regardless of where they played, one team or the other would still get to bat in the bottom half of the innings. I think that's the most significant part of home field advantage in baseball.
Ajax
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 188
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby josebach » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:15 pm

j_d_mcnugent wrote:so not only is awarding home field advantage attempting to take away what the players and fans want,


Uh, you lost me there. What fans are you talking about, your friends? This is exactly what the fans want. Just because it's not what you want, doesn't mean you can distort the facts.
josebach
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2036
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:12 pm

josebach wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:so not only is awarding home field advantage attempting to take away what the players and fans want,


Uh, you lost me there. What fans are you talking about, your friends? This is exactly what the fans want. Just because it's not what you want, doesn't mean you can distort the facts.


sorry, i wasnt clear. thats my opinion. i assumed the fans that voted in jeter, giambi, etc. this year and matsui last year wanted to see their favorite players and not those who might have offered better odds of a win. (ironically, jeter did well this year but that is beside the point). i assumed the identical tv ratings from 2002 to 2003 indicated that the fans did not significantly care that the game 'counts.'

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Fair or Not Fair is most definitely up for debate. What isn't up for debate (IMO) is that having the all-star game determine home field advantage brings a broader audience than otherwise would watch it.


uh, you lost me. you say its not up for debate but then say its just your opinion? its a fact that the 2002 tie game and 2003 game had identical 9.5 ratings. so where is the broader audience? just because you want the game to matter doesnt mean you can distort the facts either.
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby josebach » Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:42 pm

j_d_mcnugent wrote:
josebach wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:so not only is awarding home field advantage attempting to take away what the players and fans want,


Uh, you lost me there. What fans are you talking about, your friends? This is exactly what the fans want. Just because it's not what you want, doesn't mean you can distort the facts.


sorry, i wasnt clear. thats my opinion. i assumed the fans that voted in jeter, giambi, etc. this year and matsui last year wanted to see their favorite players and not those who might have offered better odds of a win. (ironically, jeter did well this year but that is beside the point). i assumed the identical tv ratings from 2002 to 2003 indicated that the fans did not significantly care that the game 'counts.'

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Fair or Not Fair is most definitely up for debate. What isn't up for debate (IMO) is that having the all-star game determine home field advantage brings a broader audience than otherwise would watch it.


uh, you lost me. you say its not up for debate but then say its just your opinion? its a fact that the 2002 tie game and 2003 game had identical 9.5 ratings. so where is the broader audience? just because you want the game to matter doesnt mean you can distort the facts either.


Actually, 2002 had a 11.9 share and 2003 had a 13.9 share. Where was your source?

Mine's here:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml

You're partly right in one aspect, though... it doesn't necessarily mean the increased share was brought on by the all star game determining home field advantage. I personally believe it partly is... hence the acronym IMO.

You honestly don't think there are certain people that wouldn't have watched the all star game if it didn't determine home field advantage?
josebach
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2036
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:58 pm

josebach wrote:Actually, 2002 had a 11.9 share and 2003 had a 13.9 share. Where was your source?

Mine's here:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml

You're partly right in one aspect, though... it doesn't necessarily mean the increased share was brought on by the all star game determining home field advantage. I personally believe it partly is... hence the acronym IMO.

You honestly don't think there are certain people that wouldn't have watched the all star game if it didn't determine home field advantage?


interesting. i dont know which one is correct. my source is USA today. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball ... ings_x.htm

here are some of the highlights of what was said:

The network got the same rating — 9.5 — it got for last year's game, which set a record for the lowest MLB All-Star TV rating.

With Tuesday's 9.5 national rating, translating to 9.5% of U.S. TV households, Fox ties that record.

The change to make this year's game determine home-field advantage in the World Series — hyped as "This Time It Counts" — had prompted Fox Sports President Ed Goren to predict that the game's rating would rise 10%.

Actually, it might have, if it had kept last year's start time. There's always debate about the best starting times for night games shown on national TV, with concerns about games running late on the East Coast pitted against worries that games will start too early for West Coast viewers.

In this year's All-Star Game, the TV ratings for the game began at 8:30 ET — up from 9 ET last year — after MLB and Fox changed the schedule. That was key to the ratings: Fox's first half-hour was off 26% from last year, and its second half hour was off 7%.

Neal Pilson, an ex-president of CBS Sports and now a consultant, notes that the slow start created a problem for the ratings. But, he says, "It didn't appear the change in the All-Star format had an effect on the rating."

Says Larry Novenstern of the Deutsch Inc. ad agency, which didn't have clients advertising during the game: "The interest in the game was higher in the stadium and with the players. It meant a lot more to the players.

"I just don't think it mattered more to viewers."


the start time thing is interesting but there are advertising execs who are paid to find out such things opining that the format change did not affect the ratings and didnt seem to matter to the viewers. i realize thats not really proof of anything but i havent yet seen any concrete proof that the new format really makes a difference to the fans.

You honestly don't think there are certain people that wouldn't have watched the all star game if it didn't determine home field advantage?


there are lots of negatives in there so i am not sure what you mean. i didnt read the other thread about this topic too closely but you are the first person i have noticed that really believes the new format is making a difference. i just dont think that it does, and thats my opinion.
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby josebach » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:26 pm

j_d_mcnugent wrote:
You honestly don't think there are certain people that wouldn't have watched the all star game if it didn't determine home field advantage?


there are lots of negatives in there so i am not sure what you mean. i didnt read the other thread about this topic too closely but you are the first person i have noticed that really believes the new format is making a difference. i just dont think that it does, and thats my opinion.


In other words, do you think some people watched the game because it determined home field advantage?


It doesn't really matter. You're right, it is just a matter of opinion. Whatever Selig and MLB decides will not affect me or how much I watch baseball. I think the more hardcore fan is probably against it and the more casual fan is probably for it. As I said before, Baseball needs to try to make both happy.
josebach
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2036
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee

Postby Amazinz » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:54 pm

From the AP article published today:

For the second straight year, the fact that the winning league in the All-Star game has been awarded home-field advantage in the World Series didn't translated into higher ratings.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=1839866
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby thehat » Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:09 pm

Here's a really obvious reason this game should not mean anything. It's still managed like an exhibition game. That fact was made plain as day in the very first inning on Tuesday. There is NO WAY Soriano gets a pitch to hit with the pitcher up next in a real game, and had Soriano been walked, Torre wasn't going to pinch hit for Mulder in the top of the first.

The game does not count. Never has, and never will. Once upon a time, it had real meaning in that this was the only opportunity the two leagues had to show which was stronger...but that was before free agency. Getting the winner's share of the pool was significant as well. The game was managed almost like a regular season game, and many starters would play the entire game...the idea was to win it. This scenario is gone forever.

It's my fervent belief that Selig's brainstorm to reward the league that wins the game with home field advantage in the WS is one of the most idiotic ideas in sports history. The only way this opinion will ever change is if the game suddenly starts being PLAYED as if it's important. It wasn't on Tuesday and it likely never will be anytime in the future.
thehat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 3721
Joined: 1 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fabulous Las Vegas

Postby buffalobillsrul2002 » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:01 pm

[quote][/quote]

Which is a shame. Maybe if managers actually had some pride about whose league was better they would try to win. I know that I would watch a lot more intensely if the managers managed hard. Most of the players would still get in because of the wide variety of skills that different All-Stars have (i.e. the NL pinch-hits Thome for Renteria in a close/late game situation. Then Jack Wilson comes in for defensive purposes.) If you force the pitcher to hit in each game, you would see most of the players used. If guys like Ken Harvey or Livan Hernandez ended up not being used, well then screw them. They barely deserve/do not deserve to be there anyways.[/list]
buffalobillsrul2002
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1349
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp, ensanimal, Johnesmype and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 29
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Minnesota at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Philadelphia at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Boston at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Miami at Atlanta
(7:35 pm)
Cleveland at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Texas at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Chi Cubs at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Colorado at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Oakland at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Diego
(10:10 pm)
Washington at Seattle
(10:10 pm)
Milwaukee at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact