Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 10, 1990 TAG: 9007100008
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: B4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bill Brill
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Why not let baseball fans select the pitchers in the All-Star Game?
Year after year, we are somewhat offended by the fans' voting for position players, but we are mollified because there is nothing that prohibits those snubbed as starters from being selected.
Certainly Cecil Fielder should start at first base for the American League, and Kelly Gruber deserved the nod over Wade Boggs at third. A case can be made that Cal Ripken isn't having the best year at shortstop; Ozzie Guillen is.
Ozzie Smith appears to be such a perennial choice among National League shortstops that others, notably Barry Larkin and Shawon Dunston, were overlooked this year.
But the nice part is that the deserving players not only can be selected, but they can play the rest of the game - and some probably will - after the starters complete the required three innings.
The defense for the choices is that this is a fans' game, and therefore it is the fans who should continue to select the starters.
But what about the pitchers? Don't the fans want to see them, too?
It is interesting that Tony La Russa, the Oakland manager who selected the American League pitching staff, didn't pick Nolan Ryan, saying, "I see where Ryan has a bad back and he can probably use the time off."
Ryan then went out and became the first pitcher in 11 years to strike out 10 or more Red Sox. He fanned 12 in seven innings of work while gaining career victory No. 297, running his record to 8-4 for a second-division team and, temporarily, taking the league lead in strikeouts.
At age 43, Ryan will have few more opportunities to be showcased. Perhaps this was his last, although we should know by now never to count out Ryan.
The point here is that if it's all right for Ozzie Smith to be the starting shortstop when he is hitting .231, why isn't it all right to have Ryan, 8-4 with a no-hitter, on the AL roster?
La Russa has a difficult task. Kansas City's Bret Saberhagen was picked despite his 5-7 record because every team has to have an All-Star. Saberhagen is a Cy Young Award winner and certainly is better than his record, but maybe in cases like that, it would be better to add a player or change the rule.
Since every team must be represented, Atlanta's designate is catcher Greg Olson, although outfielder Ron Gant is having a far superior year. But there are plenty of outfielders and not many good catchers in the National League.
The chief reason Ryan should be on the team is that not only has he had a deserving season, but he is unique. He has done things that had not been done before and may never be done again.
On that basis, Ryan should be on the team and La Russa - whose world champions submitted to Ryan's sixth no-hitter - should not have been forced to make a choice.
If this is the fans' game, let them select the entire roster.
I have read with interest the dueling articles on this paper's commentary page regarding soccer, or perhaps we should call it "world football."
I have learned that I am an insensitive boob - I took Mike Mohageg's attack Monday personally - because I don't appreciate all the nuances of the sport that don't deal with scoring. In effect, Virginia Tech graduate student Mohageg contended that a scoreless tie can be beautiful.
I do understand that if the 1994 World Cup, to be held for the first time in the United States, is as uneventful as the one just concluded, soccer has no chance of gaining TV viewers here.
I say that not because I understand the game, but because experts who covered the World Cup for American newspapers and wire services have deemed it the dullest ever.
Scoring may not be vital, but this year's World Cup final was the first in which there weren't at least three goals. What's more - I find this somewhat surprising - this was the first shutout in championship history. West Germany's lone, and winning goal, came on a penalty kick.
Even the European media found this disconcerting. One Englishman on a TNT presentation made the point that with TV coverage increasing worldwide, the teams played not to lose, and that once a goal was scored, the leading team almost inevitably took a defensive posture.
If that is the case - this was, overall, the lowest scoring World Cup ever - it will be a hard sell in America, whether or not our lads are capable of winning a game.
Lack of scoring is one thing; a failure to attack is quite another.
by CNB