So did Mays intentionally snub Josh Hamilton? Is there some backstory there?

makes me think of one word: polyester

The All-Star game, while entertaining, kindof bugged me. For all the "this time it counts" talk, the manager still treat it like an exhibition game, trying to get everyone in to play, using pitchers for 1 inning, etc. The pitching staffs were not terribly well managed. The AL ran out of position players fairly early in the game.

And, as an NL fan, why were the best hitters in the NL - Pujols, Chipper Jones, and Berkman pulled from the game? Dan Ugla ultimately got more at-bats than any of those 3. This is what happens when you treat it like a softball game, just substituting so everyone can play.

I, of course, would like to see the NL win a stupid game but it doesn't seem like the managers really play to win - that's my main frustration. I feel like in the 10th, 11th, the NL got the leadoff man on and failed to bunt him over. The bunting began the next inning, but not that one.

I'm beginning to agree making it determine home field advantage is dumb. But if that's the way it is to be someone needs to send a memo to the manager - keep the best players on the field, especially if the game is close.

Funny little weird moment: Willie Mays ignoring Josh Hamilton in center field, not even turning around to look at him when Hamilton patted Mays on the back to get his attention.

I too would like to know if there was a reason Mays did this. Was it the Home Run Derby record?

This is a game played with different rules RE: substitutions. Why not make it legal (just for the ASG) to bring back pitchers 9 innings after they have been taken out.

So the starters could have come back in the 11/12th inning last night and there would have been no spectre of a tie or JD Drew serving up BP in the 16th.

Also, field position players could be subject to the same rule so we don't have to feel the agony of Dan Uggla coming to bat for the 4th time in the 15th inning.

I don't know if there's a backstory with Mays and Hamilton. I think it was more like a senior moment kind of thing. Mays was looking at something in the other direction -- it wasn't clear if he was talking to Fukudome, who was on the other side of him, or looking past him at something -- and he just didn't respond when Hamilton came up. He probably did after the camera was off him.

As for the substitutions, I don't think the nine-inning pitcher rule makes much sense. Pitchers aren't going to come back after three hours. But it's very simple to have a rule saying players can re-enter the game if it goes into extra innings. Pitchers won't really benefit from it. They just have to keep some pitchers in reserve. It has to just be a thing everyone gets: Not everyone's going to pitch in a nine-inning game.

I was just about to write that myself. The easiest fix in the world - let players come back in after some time.

It could be as simple (and extreme) as just allowing free substitutions all the time; it could be that once all the pitchers have played, they all become eligible again (same with position players); it could be that after, say, 9 innings everyone becomes eligible again. Any of those solutions would be fine with me, and would keep us from seeing JD Drew pitching.

It would also allow a balance where the game could be competitive while still being an exhibition. Which is a good thing all around, I would think.

Maybe you've expounded on this in the past and I missed it. If not, would you mind telling your readers what's so dumb about having the All-Star game decide home field for the World Series. I really don't get how injecting some competitive consequences into a competition is so dumb.

I'll tell you why I think it's a bad idea. The world series is the biggest event of the year for baseball, and they're letting a glorified exhibition determine what is a huge benefit for the future home team. They are letting a game where players have never played together or been managed together have an effect on their game's most important series. That just seems silly to me.

I think injecting competitiveness into the series is fine. It's too bad the powers that be couldn't have found a different way to do it. More to the point, it's too bad the players couldn't muster the natural competitive enthusiasm players of others generations did naturally so this home field advantage idea never would have even been thought necessasry.

Imagine if how well you brushed your teeth determined whether the nectarines at the grocery store were any good.

It's something like that.

would you mind telling your readers what's so dumb about having the All-Star game decide home field for the World Series.

"Now pitching, JD Drew" doesn't answer that question?

Seriously, why should (for instance) the Chicago Cubs pay a competitive price for Dan Uggla having a bad exhibition game?

Didn't they award home field advantage via coin-flip in the past? I don't really see the big diff between that and this. I don't really have a problem with the ASG deciding homefield advantage - but by the same token it doesn't really add anything to my enjoyment of the game.

The game is great mainly because you get all these great players assembled and every so often you see something awesome (like Ichiro's throw-out of Pujols at second - that was AWESOME! :)

Actually, another thing that makes it great is, heaven help me, the job Joe Buck and Tim McCarver (??) do. They do a great job of giving you little factoids about each of the players as they come up - keep things fairly light, and make the game pleasant.

cheers!

p.s. Did anybody else feel just a little bit better for Uggla when they got out of the 10th (11th?) - where two flubs by Uggla led to bases loaded with none out - and THEN he double pumped his throw home preventing a 1-2-3 double play! He had one terrible half-inning there!