Seems there was a lot of talk five or six years ago about trying various modifications to the All-Star lineup to help avoid a repeat of the tie game in Milwaukee. Adding more pitchers to the line-up or having All-Star "Light" pitchers suited up who knew the likelihood of their playing was very low. I don't believe anything ever became of that talk, did it? Instead, they went with the old reliable, "Surely, this won't happen again," approach and nearly got burned.
When I was a kid, there didn't seem to be this soccer mom "EVERYONE HAS TO PLAY" mentality that some managers in this game employ now. I can recall being disappointed that my favorite player or pitcher didn't get into a game. Has that approach evolved in part because of managers' hoping to avoid "snubbing" a player and seeing him come back later in the year all motivated to show him he was wrong? These guys don't think like that, do they? Is that another in a series of media creations?
Now that the extra-inning scenario has happened twice with a couple of near misses on extra innings in between, and the possibility of another tie game loomed greatly, ya' gotta wonder if MLB will feel like it has to do something about the line-ups this time. (Well, you don't HAVE to wonder, but you get the gyst). Asking managers to voluntarily hold back players didn't work. What would?
Requiring the starters play at least 3 innings, pitchers withstanding?
Employing the DH no matter what league is hosting the game? (Blasphemous talk, I know)
Dumping the EVERY TEAM MUST HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE rule? (I know; ain't gonna happen and doesn't really impact this scenario, anyway.)
Most intriguing and enjoyable All-Star Game I've watched since Rose blew through Fosse in extra frames way back when.
