Would you rather have Albert Pujols or Orlando Hudson batting with the game on the line? How about Pujols or Aaron Rowand?
This time it counts, as if Pete Rose ever thought it didn't. This time, and ever since the infamous 7-7 tie in 2002, the league that wins the All-Star game gets the home field advantage in the World Series. Entering the 2003 season, the team with the potential extra game had won 15 of the last 17 World Championships. In addition, the home team has won Game 7 the last eight times. Statistics must be analyzed, but let us accept the position that having games 1,2, and potentially games 6 and 7 at home IS an advantage, despite Barry Bonds' comment that the best team is going to win anyway.
Whom would you rather have batting in the bottom of the ninth, trailing 5-4, with runners on first and second and two outs -- Orlando Hudson or Albert Pujols? You and National League All Star team manager Tony La Russa get another chance. Would you rather have Aaron Rowand or Albert Pujols bat after Hudson walks to load the bases? I thought so.
Yogi Berra revealed that it wasn't possible, at least for him, to hit and think at the same time. Tony La Russa is a good manager. He is a creative manager who doesn't always go by the book, but sometimes, he thinks too much. The reason he didn't pinch hit with Albert Pujols was that if the game went into extra innings, he would have Pujols on the bench if he had to replace a position player. ""You had to save somebody you could use all over the place, and the game was close enough to where (if) we tied it there in the ninth, somebody has to play in the 10th, so Albert was the guy."
That is not a good enough reason to hold back Pujols. A manager must weigh having Albert Pujols batting where a hit could tie or win the game. Earlier, La Russa should have held back at least one more player, which would have given him some flexibility and which would have allowed him to pinch hit with Pujols. If the All Star game is so important because it gives the winning league the home field advantage in the World Series, why is it so critical that managers get as many players into the game as possible, leaving them almost no bench players late in the game? If winning the game were the primary concern, each manager would use his best players, including pitchers, as long as possible. The fact that pitchers are limited to no more than three innings was never mentioned during the game. You know why it was never mentioned? Because no pitcher ever pitches three innings in the All Star game anymore.
You can't have it both ways. If the All Star game determines the home field advantage in the World Series, managers must manage to win, not to merely showcase stars. If the game is a showcase, then it is unfair to handicap managers and shortchange fans by using as many players as possible. Tony La Russa knew what he was doing, but just as Yogi couldn't hit and think, maybe La Russa should stop trying to manage and think. He is a true professional and a class individual. After the game, he said, "Because you manage in the moment, yeah, I wish I sent him out there, but the game would have either ended there or ended later if somebody got hurt, and there's a way to fix it." Increasing the size of the roster is not the fix. The judicious use of the bench is.