 |  |
 |
Updated: July 15, 11:18 AM ET Looking back at the 'disastrous' All-Star tie By Bruce Deckert ESPN.com |
||||||||||||||||
|
To some observers, the controversial tie in last year's All-Star Game was a disaster ... a disgrace ... a catastrophe. But was it? Perhaps the past year has given us some perspective. Actually, all the perspective we needed came less than a year before last year's Midsummer Classic.
In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, pro athletes and sports journalists alike declared that the language of heroism is rightfully reserved for paramedics, firefighters, police officers -- those who risk their lives for others without fanfare. ESPN The Magazine's 9/11 cover story expressed it well: "These were the days when heroism and villainy were redefined. ... The clichéd descriptions we so freely bestow on our athletes -- words like courageous, tireless, inspirational -- have taken on deeper meanings. ... Never again will a playoff or final or bowl seem quite as 'huge.' " Never, that is, until the All-Star Game ends in a tie. When the Midsummer Classic had no winner, we whined like a toddler whose toy was taken away. It seems that some baseball fans and analysts forgot to redefine their terms post-9/11. Let's look at the trio of adjectives noted above (which were used in the media to describe last year's game):
I recall a college English professor bemoaning the misuse of the English language. Overused words like "awesome," he contended, must be reserved for the overwhelming majesty of the Alps -- not the home run your buddy hit to win an intramural softball game. Should my old professor keep in step with the times? Or did he have a point? True, the passionate sports fan is as American as "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch. But sometimes we need to remind ourselves of three simple words: It's a game. Especially, let's save the hue and cry for issues other than a game that ends in a 7-7 tie after 11 innings because each team ran out of pitchers. Please don't misunderstand: This is not a defense of commissioner Bud Selig's resolution of last year's All-Star dilemma. With All-Star managers playing everyone on the roster, as has been the custom for a while, should Selig have had a Plan B in case the game went extra innings? Absolutely. Was this scenario an embarrassment to Major League Baseball? No question. Did paying fans at Milwaukee's Miller Park have a right to be upset? Yes.
This year, MLB's experimental solution for making the game meaningful again is to give home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star Game. We might give Selig a mulligan for last year's on-the-spot gaffe. But consider this: All-Star reliever Lance Carter of the last-place Tampa Bay Devil Rays could enter this year's contest in extra innings and give up a game-winning home run. And this could cost the Yankees home-field advantage in the World Series. In New York, fans would cry travesty -- but wouldn't call it a catastrophe. Bruce Deckert is an editor at ESPN.com. |
|
|||||||||||||||
No-Win Situation
Police Escort Not Needed
