More on the All Star Game

Trademarq chimed in from Seattle yesterday with these thoughts:

I don't know if anyone has written or commented on the game from this angle, but it seems to me that (Tuesday's) All-Star game was a great representation of baseball in the post-steroid era. Low-scoring, extra innings, stolen bases, sac bunts, sac flies, clutch pitching, defensive gems, minimal home runs (and line drive ones, at that), etc. I hate All-Star games, but that was one of the best fundamental games I've ever witnessed.

Well, poor Dan Uggla aside, I can see where you're coming from. All Star Games typically haven't been the high-scoring affairs that such contests in the other professional leagues usually see, but it would make sense that best and the brightest would engage in a contest that closely represents what the game looks like at that moment.

The stolen bases especially caught my eye - the American League had six swipes on their own. I've always thought stolen bases were as exciting as home runs, if obviously not as productive. They're sort of the baseball fan's guilty pleasure; the food version of "empty calories." Since the American League had only three guys with 20 or more home runs on their roster, it makes sense they would find some alternative ways to score runs. (One more thought that lends credence to your theory - no one in the American League is on pace to hit 40 homers this season.)

Watching the game in extra innings, I have to say there was no point in time where I expected to see a titanic game-winning blast from an American League hitter or a string of extra-base hits from the National League. The pitchers were in control - and as a National League fan I've always thought that's the way it should be. It made for a better game and more entertaining viewing.

Too bad it won't be the Mariners who will be benefiting from the American League's victory this year ...