Hope you all had a wonderful Winter Carnival. I was concerned about the welfare of this weekend when I heard the troubling news about the collapsing snow sculpture on Wednesday, but it seemed like everyone who made it out had a good time. Seniors: get pumped for Green Key.
Knapp and I were a bit behind the 8-ball in terms of thinking of topics for this edition, so instead of debating about something related to Dartmouth sports, we're going to cop out and discuss professional sports.
I love the idea (emphasize idea) of all-star games. In theory, you get to see the best players together in the same venue matching up against one another and going at it for an entire game. With so much talent in one place, there is a good chance that you'll see some ridiculous plays over the course of the night. Also, all-star games are supplemented with some kind of skills competition, meaning the audience gets even more of an opportunity to see athletes do incredible things within the realm of their respective sports.
The recent NBA All-Star Weekend had all of this, starting with the dunk competition between Nate Washington and Dwight Howard (who apparently agreed upon doing some sort of Superman-inspired role play) and ending with the East-West clash between Kobe, LeBron and company.
But for me, the NBA All-Star Game is not the best all-star competition out there (I'll agree with Knapp and not talk about the NHL All-Star Game, because nobody cares about hockey right now, and the Pro Bowl, because that game is awful and nobody watches that either). I think Major League Baseball's All-Star Game wins out because of the quality of the competition and the impact of the contest itself.
Knapp says that all-star games should be about entertainment value, which is a valid point. But the NBA All-Star weekend is a shell of its former self. The dunk competition just doesn't have the same draw anymore, partly because of the event's current string of underwhelming lineups (where have Kobe and LeBron been for the last few years?). But the MLB Home Run Derby isn't any better, mostly because (a) there's isn't the kind of creativity in hitting a homer as there is in dunking and (b) it features players like Dan Uggla of the Florida Marlins.
The actual NBA All-Star Game isn't all that great either because of the complete lack of defense. I totally understand that players don't want to get injured for the rest of the regular season, and that there has always been an unwritten rule among players about letting the offense control the game, but personally, I find that, for the casual fan, the NBA game gets boring pretty quickly, and the allure of seeing endless alley-oops and dunks wears off fast.
The MLB All-Star Game, on the other hand, provides fans with a high-caliber roster of players who can actually try their hardest on both offense and defense. It's a given in the MLB All-Star Game that the hitters are the best in the league, and that they have the potential to do some damage each time they're at the plate. Consider some of the names at the 2008 All-Star Game: Josh Hamilton, Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols, Chase Utley, Lance Berkman. Not a bad lineup to see in one park.
But in baseball, it's pretty hard for a pitcher to do well unless he throws a variety of pitches and throws with good speed and command. All-Star pitchers aren't going to give hitters easy ones down the middle of the plate -- they want to strikeout the side and keep the opposition hitless. Also, position players can't really phone it in for one play if they have a ball hit their way. For instance, a shortstop will look kind of stupid if he doesn't try to make a diving stab at a ball to get the out at first.
In the MLB All-Star Game, fans can appreciate great defense as much as they can relish great offense. Remember when Torii Hunter robbed Barry "I Did Steroids and Everyone Knows It Except Ry Sullivan '09" Bonds of a home run with an amazing catch over the centerfield wall in 2002? Even last year's game, despite the 4-3 score, was considered one of the most exciting All-Star games in recent memory. While other all-star games can easily become boring because there's no defense, the MLB All-Star Game actually resembles the level of play in a real baseball game and still be exciting.
Along with this, the MLB All-Star Game has more meaning to the game than the NBA All-Star Game. It's the only thing going on, sports-wise, in the middle of the summer, and represents one of the marquee events for the American pastime. Also, the fact that the winner of the All-Star Game gets home-field advantage in the World Series means that both players and fans have even more of a reason to watch the competition in July. It may seem hoaxy to tie home field to the All-Star game, but I like the concept of making the All-Star competition relevant to the rest of the season.
Overall, the fans can get a better quality game from the MLB contest than the NBA's version and still see the best ballplayers show off their stuff to a national audience. To me, that sounds pretty good.
