Let the "game" part go for seven innings of normal baseball. Keep the starting lineups in as long as possible. After the seventh inning, change over to a "town ball" system. In the top of the 8th, every "visiting" player who hasn't been taken out of the game comes to bat (order determined by the manager). Everyone gets one at bat - no limit on the number of outs. Same thing in the bottom of the 8th for the "home" team (the visitor's defensive alignment can be whoever wants to be in the field). If the score is tied, repeat the "innings" until one team has the more runs when the dust settles.
This should incentivize keeping the starters in a long time, since that will give you more players / at-bats in the final "inning".....and everyone still gets at least one at-bat.
The All Star game shouldn't be a game. It should be a 3 game series played in the winter in 3 different cities. (In warm weather areas or domes and not necessarily in MLB parks)
The teams should be mad up of a 26 man roster. (5 starters, 5 relievers, 8 position players, and 5 "bench players")
Each game would have 2 starters that must go 3 innings each baring injury.
The biggest mix up however is no DH. Instead of a DH the lineup would consist of all 8 position players and the 8 bench players. Also all position players can come out of the game and reenter it in a later inning but each position player must play an inning in the field at some point.
Picking up from Khazad's wild suggestion, starting with the 3-innings for starters rule, how about making the All-Star Game a best-of-3 series of 3-inning games? My wife, who hates baseball, saw the resumption of the massively delayed Phillies-Rays 2008 WS game as the only hope for the sport. She had a point. The teams finished that game in overtime shootout mode. That's my proposal: 3 mini ASGs with a 10-minute break between games. Mascots could compete at something while the players eat orange wedges and drink juice boxes. Everybody gets a chance to shine and contribute to a win.
And like someone else said, players should go back to wearing their own team's uniforms.
Dear Joe, I love your writing except for one phrase. If they ever play again. Will I spend my summers at the local park watching the Middle School girls play fast pitch softball? Or will I go to Oracle stadium and enjoy a Giants game? Hmmm?
So, this is what I would do: Voted starters play 3 innings. This guarantees everyone an at bat and some time in the field. From the 4th to the 6th, they play back ups, trying to get everyone in the game.
From the 7th on, the managers choose a lineup 1-9 to end the game with. They choose this before the game, it does not have to be voted starters, and it will be talked about. No matter where the 6th ends, this lineup starts with the lead off spot in the top of the 7th. Also before the game, they choose who they want defensively at each position in the last 3 innings. This will not be the same nine, though it could be. If you have a great offensive catcher and a great defensive catcher, one would catch and one would hit. They would be able to pinch run, but if a player is pinch ran for after the 7th, he is done for the day. No pinch hitting until the chosen prime lineup has gone around once.
Starting Pitchers have to complete at least an inning, barring injury, even if they are getting shelled. They get to go three if they have not given up a run. After that, no three batter rule for pitchers, they are trying to get as many in as they can, and can use that platoon advantage. OF course, most will save the top relievers until the end. I don't think we should end games in ties, so there should be one starter, hopefully a top guy that has already pitched in an all star game (but it doesn't have to be) that is designated as an extra inning starter. On offense, you could sub for the 10th, offensively or defensively, but being subbed for in extras means the guy is done for the game.
This gives us a bonus for being starters, and the best players on the field at the end, both in the field and the batters box, and saves the game from being played out at the end by players who were backups, picked because their team needed a rep, or a substitute for an injured player. You won't stop paying attention because the guy or guys you tuned in to watch are done for the day.
Excellent post as usual. I have one question/complaint about the use of the word "megastar" (not trying to criticize Joe, but I've seen this word used more and more and I want to get its meaning straight). Also, Joe did use "mega star", which you may see very differently, but either way it's a discussion I wanted to have.
I always thought that "star" was for very good players and "superstar" was for the MVP types. So Juan Soto and Trea Turner would be superstars because they're legitimate MVP candidates, while most of the rest of those lineups would "only" be stars. Maybe there are 5-10 superstars in baseball at a given time, not very many.
As far as I know, the word "megastar" is pretty new, and at first I thought it was meant to be the very, very biggest stars, like Lou Gehrig or Satchel Paige, the "Willie Mays Hall of Famers" who transcend the sport, probably no more than about 20 in the history of baseball. I had noticed "superstar" being diluted a bit over the years, so it made sense that "megastar" emerged for the very best of the best.
But it seems to me that a lot of people are using "megastar" in the same way that they use "superstar". I wouldn't put anyone from those lineups particularly close to megastar status, at least for the time being. I don't know why I feel so strongly about this, but it just grabs my attention. What do the rest of you think: what's your definition of "megastar"?
I'll agree with you and defend Joe at the same time. We could fill out the All-Star Game with "stars" alone (excluding the players having a nice first half of a season). Superstar should be reserved for the players known by casual baseball fans and serious sportsfans where baseball is not one of their favorites. It's quite subjective of course and influenced by personality and who they play for (Matt Olson might struggle to get the "star" tag while Javy Baez would be listed by some as a "superstar").
Megastars should not only be known by everyone who attends a game, but even mentioning the name to a "person on the street" should generate recognition. A caveat - baseball players are less "famous" than many other sports apparently due to the regional nature of the broadcasting and the lack of coverage from the general sports world (last April there was more NFL draft coverage than the fresh baseball season). Forbes claims Ohtani's $6M in endorsements last year was highest in the league. So, perhaps the "star" classifications need to be kept within baseball fandom?
To defend Joe, one of the things I love about his writing is the enthusiasm which is found in referring to players as terrific, despite not being seriously considered for the HoF. So, yes, there could be several "megastars" in the game right now. That could be an interested argument - who would they be? Do you stick to performance/stats? Is it playing style that is fun to watch? Is it "fame/recognizability"?
OK, serious question: if everyone agrees that the NFL Pro Bowl is unwatchable, then why all the love for the NBA ASG? I watched a little of the NBA game on TV yesterday and it wasn't recognizably basketball, except in the sense that the Globetrotters are basketball. I guess part of the difference is that pro basketball players can do amazing things (long threes, crazy dunks, etc.) without a defense to pester them, whereas amazing feats in the NFL are defined by overcoming the defense; if the defense doesn't play hard, then all those catches and runs are, by definition, unimpressive.
So where does that leave baseball? The MLB ASG is the one all-star game game that most resembles the real thing, in that the defense fully participates (the pitcher tries to get the hitters out and the fielders try to catch the ball). On the other hand, now that the NL and AL are no more meaningful than the NFC and the AFC, it's hard to get excited about an exhibition game, especially when we see these players on TV all the freaking time (people my age will remember when the ASG was a real treat because we hardly ever got a chance to see many of the players on television, let alone in person.
I don't think the answer is to go overboard with the gimmicks. Maybe reduce the rosters so the "real" stars have more time on the field, limit the game to seven innings so it will be over in less than two and a half hours, eliminate shifts, and use robo-umps. But at the end of the day, it's baseball. Either you like it or you don't. And if you don't, you're not going to be drawn in by making the game a farce.
Go back to everybody wearing their own uniforms for their own teams. But let them choose WHICH uniform from their team. If Tim Anderson wants to wear the Southside alternate jersey, go for it. But if he wants to wear a ca. 1972 throwback, he can… he just has to talk about Dick Allen. Bryce Harper can wear that beautiful powder blue Phillies jersey… and talk about how great Mike Schmidt was. Connect the current game with the past by having today’s stars embrace yesterday’s legends. This changes zero about the way the game is played but it gives baseball another chance to be absorbed in its history and a lot of people will eat that up.
It would never happen, but I’d love to see the backups start the ASG and then bring in the voted starters in the 4th inning or so. I’d rather see Mike Trout or Juan Soto have a crucial 9th inning at bat than an obligatory representative from a last place team.
Ya beat me to it! I remember watching Lynn hit that bomb, sitting in the family loveseat with my dad, excited to be staying up late. Sox fans, we lamented Freddy Lynn hitting for the Angels.
I recall this because I was a big NL (Padres) fan and I had two thoughts after Lynn hit it. First: darn, I guess the American League is finally going to win one of these things (their last win was in 1971). Second: what the @#$% is Atlee Hammaker doing in the All-Star Game?
One obvious idea that Joe didn't mention would be stealing the NBA's "captains pick their own teams" format. We seem to be in agreement that the AL vs. NL format doesn't pull people in the way it did before interleague play. So let's go sandlot format and have two guys pick their own teams.
Also I wonder if there are any creative skills competitions that could be introduced. For instance, is there some way you could come up with a workable format for a base stealing or outfield throwing contest?
One more off the wall idea for the game portion. The NBA had a four-team bracket for the Rising Stars Challenge. Could baseball do something similar? Take the draft idea, draft four mini-teams, and play four innings to reduce the workload and increase the tension. Maybe play Tuesday and Wednesday? (Or possibly a Tuesday double-header situation, if that's not too much?) With four teams, you'd be able to get everyone a chance to play while avoiding having long stretches where there are no marquee stars on the field.
Time to implement the rule we came up with as kids - when a runner reaches home, he has the option to head to the dugout, OR he can turn and head to first base again. Once he makes the turn, he's a regular runner and can be put out - no deciding halfway to first that you're not going to make it.
Equal parts sensible and silly ideas to me in these comments so far: I side with silly!
Proposed: each line up is organized alphabetically, by first initial of the players' last names. And then, after they have hit through once, it goes back serpentine, Z-A.
This way guaranteed each top player hitting twice in, possibly, 5 innings, before they organically rotate out and then the managers can put in whoever he feels like it whenever he wants to, so we still see lots of top players overall.
Personal grievance: for my 12th birthday I got a nose bleeder to the '67 all-star game in Anaheim -- tied for most future HoFers in an all-star game ever -- but briefly mournful I only saw Mickey, by then in permanent knee limp-mode, pulled after one AB.
That was the game where he memorably departed the club house in OC; took a cab up to LAX; flew to Dallas in a far slower jet back then; got off the plane, went to his favorite hometown watering hole and was stunned as he walked in that on the TV behind the bar they were still playing in the 15th inning!)
That Mantle tale sounds like one of those stories that is too good to check*.
* Checking, however, I doubt that was realistically possible. Mantle's pinch hit appearance was in the bottom of the fifth inning. According to baseball-reference, the time of the game was 3:41 for all 15 innings (let's be charitable and say that he had three hours after leaving the game). According to travelmath.com the wheels up to wheels down time between LAX and DFW is 2:33. Last I checked, Anaheim isn't even close to LAX--it's about 40 miles away, so speed limit be damned that's at least 30 minutes. Even without TSA, I doubt it was ever physically possible to get from the ballpark to a waiting plane, and then in Dallas from the plane to even an airport bar in time to see the last out.
Rigorously thought out reply and I appreciate your math!
I am out here in SoCal, still currently working (but I was technically working when I still had time to post it in the first place, now didn't I?). but I pledge to nose around when freed up, see if I can dig up a credible assertion from annals of sports writing for sourcing, like, directly from his mouth. see if it more provable than it tracks back to some old sod columnist for the Fort Worth paper originally "heard" it happened.
But, to your finale, even if Mickey officially said it and it doesn't hold up, I, too, slightly prefer the qualities of his tale to its truthfulness!
My first attempt would be limit MLB all-star roster sizes to 25, and get rid of the "at least one all-star from each team" rule. And managers should be under no obligation to try to get everyone on the roster into the game, especially pitchers.
Method for determining a winner in extra-inning MLB games in an efficient, sensible manner, with some special rules. This could be called "Showdown" or something else.
The winner will be determined in one-half inning. If the offense scores a run in that half-inning, they win; if the defense gets three outs without allowing a run in that half-inning, they win.
Home team chooses to be on offense or defense for the showdown.
Any eligible player on the active roster for that game may play in the showdown, even if they have been removed earlier in the game.
Once the lineups for the showdown have been declared, no substitutions are allowed, except to replace an injured player.
Offense selects a player to be the ghost-runner on first base with no outs (in an attempt to make it as close to a 50-50 proposition as possible).
Offense sets its batting order for five (different) players in any order they choose. No more than five batters will be needed in the showdown.
Defense selects nine players to play in the showdown.
Let the "game" part go for seven innings of normal baseball. Keep the starting lineups in as long as possible. After the seventh inning, change over to a "town ball" system. In the top of the 8th, every "visiting" player who hasn't been taken out of the game comes to bat (order determined by the manager). Everyone gets one at bat - no limit on the number of outs. Same thing in the bottom of the 8th for the "home" team (the visitor's defensive alignment can be whoever wants to be in the field). If the score is tied, repeat the "innings" until one team has the more runs when the dust settles.
This should incentivize keeping the starters in a long time, since that will give you more players / at-bats in the final "inning".....and everyone still gets at least one at-bat.
The All Star game shouldn't be a game. It should be a 3 game series played in the winter in 3 different cities. (In warm weather areas or domes and not necessarily in MLB parks)
The teams should be mad up of a 26 man roster. (5 starters, 5 relievers, 8 position players, and 5 "bench players")
Each game would have 2 starters that must go 3 innings each baring injury.
The biggest mix up however is no DH. Instead of a DH the lineup would consist of all 8 position players and the 8 bench players. Also all position players can come out of the game and reenter it in a later inning but each position player must play an inning in the field at some point.
Picking up from Khazad's wild suggestion, starting with the 3-innings for starters rule, how about making the All-Star Game a best-of-3 series of 3-inning games? My wife, who hates baseball, saw the resumption of the massively delayed Phillies-Rays 2008 WS game as the only hope for the sport. She had a point. The teams finished that game in overtime shootout mode. That's my proposal: 3 mini ASGs with a 10-minute break between games. Mascots could compete at something while the players eat orange wedges and drink juice boxes. Everybody gets a chance to shine and contribute to a win.
And like someone else said, players should go back to wearing their own team's uniforms.
Dear Joe, I love your writing except for one phrase. If they ever play again. Will I spend my summers at the local park watching the Middle School girls play fast pitch softball? Or will I go to Oracle stadium and enjoy a Giants game? Hmmm?
So, this is what I would do: Voted starters play 3 innings. This guarantees everyone an at bat and some time in the field. From the 4th to the 6th, they play back ups, trying to get everyone in the game.
From the 7th on, the managers choose a lineup 1-9 to end the game with. They choose this before the game, it does not have to be voted starters, and it will be talked about. No matter where the 6th ends, this lineup starts with the lead off spot in the top of the 7th. Also before the game, they choose who they want defensively at each position in the last 3 innings. This will not be the same nine, though it could be. If you have a great offensive catcher and a great defensive catcher, one would catch and one would hit. They would be able to pinch run, but if a player is pinch ran for after the 7th, he is done for the day. No pinch hitting until the chosen prime lineup has gone around once.
Starting Pitchers have to complete at least an inning, barring injury, even if they are getting shelled. They get to go three if they have not given up a run. After that, no three batter rule for pitchers, they are trying to get as many in as they can, and can use that platoon advantage. OF course, most will save the top relievers until the end. I don't think we should end games in ties, so there should be one starter, hopefully a top guy that has already pitched in an all star game (but it doesn't have to be) that is designated as an extra inning starter. On offense, you could sub for the 10th, offensively or defensively, but being subbed for in extras means the guy is done for the game.
This gives us a bonus for being starters, and the best players on the field at the end, both in the field and the batters box, and saves the game from being played out at the end by players who were backups, picked because their team needed a rep, or a substitute for an injured player. You won't stop paying attention because the guy or guys you tuned in to watch are done for the day.
Excellent post as usual. I have one question/complaint about the use of the word "megastar" (not trying to criticize Joe, but I've seen this word used more and more and I want to get its meaning straight). Also, Joe did use "mega star", which you may see very differently, but either way it's a discussion I wanted to have.
I always thought that "star" was for very good players and "superstar" was for the MVP types. So Juan Soto and Trea Turner would be superstars because they're legitimate MVP candidates, while most of the rest of those lineups would "only" be stars. Maybe there are 5-10 superstars in baseball at a given time, not very many.
As far as I know, the word "megastar" is pretty new, and at first I thought it was meant to be the very, very biggest stars, like Lou Gehrig or Satchel Paige, the "Willie Mays Hall of Famers" who transcend the sport, probably no more than about 20 in the history of baseball. I had noticed "superstar" being diluted a bit over the years, so it made sense that "megastar" emerged for the very best of the best.
But it seems to me that a lot of people are using "megastar" in the same way that they use "superstar". I wouldn't put anyone from those lineups particularly close to megastar status, at least for the time being. I don't know why I feel so strongly about this, but it just grabs my attention. What do the rest of you think: what's your definition of "megastar"?
I'll agree with you and defend Joe at the same time. We could fill out the All-Star Game with "stars" alone (excluding the players having a nice first half of a season). Superstar should be reserved for the players known by casual baseball fans and serious sportsfans where baseball is not one of their favorites. It's quite subjective of course and influenced by personality and who they play for (Matt Olson might struggle to get the "star" tag while Javy Baez would be listed by some as a "superstar").
Megastars should not only be known by everyone who attends a game, but even mentioning the name to a "person on the street" should generate recognition. A caveat - baseball players are less "famous" than many other sports apparently due to the regional nature of the broadcasting and the lack of coverage from the general sports world (last April there was more NFL draft coverage than the fresh baseball season). Forbes claims Ohtani's $6M in endorsements last year was highest in the league. So, perhaps the "star" classifications need to be kept within baseball fandom?
To defend Joe, one of the things I love about his writing is the enthusiasm which is found in referring to players as terrific, despite not being seriously considered for the HoF. So, yes, there could be several "megastars" in the game right now. That could be an interested argument - who would they be? Do you stick to performance/stats? Is it playing style that is fun to watch? Is it "fame/recognizability"?
OK, serious question: if everyone agrees that the NFL Pro Bowl is unwatchable, then why all the love for the NBA ASG? I watched a little of the NBA game on TV yesterday and it wasn't recognizably basketball, except in the sense that the Globetrotters are basketball. I guess part of the difference is that pro basketball players can do amazing things (long threes, crazy dunks, etc.) without a defense to pester them, whereas amazing feats in the NFL are defined by overcoming the defense; if the defense doesn't play hard, then all those catches and runs are, by definition, unimpressive.
So where does that leave baseball? The MLB ASG is the one all-star game game that most resembles the real thing, in that the defense fully participates (the pitcher tries to get the hitters out and the fielders try to catch the ball). On the other hand, now that the NL and AL are no more meaningful than the NFC and the AFC, it's hard to get excited about an exhibition game, especially when we see these players on TV all the freaking time (people my age will remember when the ASG was a real treat because we hardly ever got a chance to see many of the players on television, let alone in person.
I don't think the answer is to go overboard with the gimmicks. Maybe reduce the rosters so the "real" stars have more time on the field, limit the game to seven innings so it will be over in less than two and a half hours, eliminate shifts, and use robo-umps. But at the end of the day, it's baseball. Either you like it or you don't. And if you don't, you're not going to be drawn in by making the game a farce.
Make everyone except the catchers and pitchers play out of position.
Totally serious about this idea:
Go back to everybody wearing their own uniforms for their own teams. But let them choose WHICH uniform from their team. If Tim Anderson wants to wear the Southside alternate jersey, go for it. But if he wants to wear a ca. 1972 throwback, he can… he just has to talk about Dick Allen. Bryce Harper can wear that beautiful powder blue Phillies jersey… and talk about how great Mike Schmidt was. Connect the current game with the past by having today’s stars embrace yesterday’s legends. This changes zero about the way the game is played but it gives baseball another chance to be absorbed in its history and a lot of people will eat that up.
It would never happen, but I’d love to see the backups start the ASG and then bring in the voted starters in the 4th inning or so. I’d rather see Mike Trout or Juan Soto have a crucial 9th inning at bat than an obligatory representative from a last place team.
The Teddy Ballgame walkoff in ‘41 was only a three-run homer, not a grand slam.
I thought to check because I remember a trivia question that the first grand slam in an All-Stat Game was hit in 1983.
Anybody know who hit it—or a much deeper cut, the pitcher who surrendered it? (no peeking)
Fred Lynn. Don't remember the pitcher.
Ya beat me to it! I remember watching Lynn hit that bomb, sitting in the family loveseat with my dad, excited to be staying up late. Sox fans, we lamented Freddy Lynn hitting for the Angels.
Oh, wait. Was it Atlee Hammaker? (Swear I didn't look it up.)
Yes, well done!
I recall this because I was a big NL (Padres) fan and I had two thoughts after Lynn hit it. First: darn, I guess the American League is finally going to win one of these things (their last win was in 1971). Second: what the @#$% is Atlee Hammaker doing in the All-Star Game?
One obvious idea that Joe didn't mention would be stealing the NBA's "captains pick their own teams" format. We seem to be in agreement that the AL vs. NL format doesn't pull people in the way it did before interleague play. So let's go sandlot format and have two guys pick their own teams.
Also I wonder if there are any creative skills competitions that could be introduced. For instance, is there some way you could come up with a workable format for a base stealing or outfield throwing contest?
One more off the wall idea for the game portion. The NBA had a four-team bracket for the Rising Stars Challenge. Could baseball do something similar? Take the draft idea, draft four mini-teams, and play four innings to reduce the workload and increase the tension. Maybe play Tuesday and Wednesday? (Or possibly a Tuesday double-header situation, if that's not too much?) With four teams, you'd be able to get everyone a chance to play while avoiding having long stretches where there are no marquee stars on the field.
One of my favorite moments is Curt Schilling throwing just fastballs vs ARod.
With today's bullpen parade of 100mph arms, how about a fastball only inning showdown.
Mandatory one knuckleball or ephus attempt per pitcher just to see who can throw one.
Wiffleball tourney of 3-4 player squads
Try all the experimental rules
No shifts
Only 1 pick off attempt per runner
Robo umps for balls and strikes
Catcher has to relay signs to the batter against Astros pitchers
Lose the mandatory one all star per team. Only the host city is guaranteed an all star and he gets to start.
Time to implement the rule we came up with as kids - when a runner reaches home, he has the option to head to the dugout, OR he can turn and head to first base again. Once he makes the turn, he's a regular runner and can be put out - no deciding halfway to first that you're not going to make it.
Equal parts sensible and silly ideas to me in these comments so far: I side with silly!
Proposed: each line up is organized alphabetically, by first initial of the players' last names. And then, after they have hit through once, it goes back serpentine, Z-A.
This way guaranteed each top player hitting twice in, possibly, 5 innings, before they organically rotate out and then the managers can put in whoever he feels like it whenever he wants to, so we still see lots of top players overall.
Personal grievance: for my 12th birthday I got a nose bleeder to the '67 all-star game in Anaheim -- tied for most future HoFers in an all-star game ever -- but briefly mournful I only saw Mickey, by then in permanent knee limp-mode, pulled after one AB.
That was the game where he memorably departed the club house in OC; took a cab up to LAX; flew to Dallas in a far slower jet back then; got off the plane, went to his favorite hometown watering hole and was stunned as he walked in that on the TV behind the bar they were still playing in the 15th inning!)
That Mantle tale sounds like one of those stories that is too good to check*.
* Checking, however, I doubt that was realistically possible. Mantle's pinch hit appearance was in the bottom of the fifth inning. According to baseball-reference, the time of the game was 3:41 for all 15 innings (let's be charitable and say that he had three hours after leaving the game). According to travelmath.com the wheels up to wheels down time between LAX and DFW is 2:33. Last I checked, Anaheim isn't even close to LAX--it's about 40 miles away, so speed limit be damned that's at least 30 minutes. Even without TSA, I doubt it was ever physically possible to get from the ballpark to a waiting plane, and then in Dallas from the plane to even an airport bar in time to see the last out.
His story was more fun, though ;-)
Rigorously thought out reply and I appreciate your math!
I am out here in SoCal, still currently working (but I was technically working when I still had time to post it in the first place, now didn't I?). but I pledge to nose around when freed up, see if I can dig up a credible assertion from annals of sports writing for sourcing, like, directly from his mouth. see if it more provable than it tracks back to some old sod columnist for the Fort Worth paper originally "heard" it happened.
But, to your finale, even if Mickey officially said it and it doesn't hold up, I, too, slightly prefer the qualities of his tale to its truthfulness!
My first attempt would be limit MLB all-star roster sizes to 25, and get rid of the "at least one all-star from each team" rule. And managers should be under no obligation to try to get everyone on the roster into the game, especially pitchers.
Method for determining a winner in extra-inning MLB games in an efficient, sensible manner, with some special rules. This could be called "Showdown" or something else.
The winner will be determined in one-half inning. If the offense scores a run in that half-inning, they win; if the defense gets three outs without allowing a run in that half-inning, they win.
Home team chooses to be on offense or defense for the showdown.
Any eligible player on the active roster for that game may play in the showdown, even if they have been removed earlier in the game.
Once the lineups for the showdown have been declared, no substitutions are allowed, except to replace an injured player.
Offense selects a player to be the ghost-runner on first base with no outs (in an attempt to make it as close to a 50-50 proposition as possible).
Offense sets its batting order for five (different) players in any order they choose. No more than five batters will be needed in the showdown.
Defense selects nine players to play in the showdown.
Play ball.