[MLB] Does anyone else dislike the ASG determining WS home-field advantage?

[Quillz]

I really don't like it at all. The ASG has always been an exhibition game, and I don't feel it should have any bearing whatsoever on the remaining overall season. While I don't have the stats on-hand, I'm sure it's a pretty safe bet that the league champion that gets home-field in the WS is going to have the advantage. Thus, it seems as if the AL has had advantage in the WS for quite a bit longer than the NL, who has had it just twice since 2000: 2001 and 2010.

I don't see what was wrong with the old method of just switching home-field advantage between the leagues every year, similar to what they do in the NFL. Or, why not give it to the team that goes into the WS with the better win-loss record, similar to the NBA and NHL? Either method seems far more logical than something as arbitrary as basing home-field solely on the performance of a league as a whole in a single game. Especially if either the NL or AL winner has had few or zero representatives in said game.

A bit of a rant, I know. But it's something that's bothered me for a while and it's one of the reasons I really dislike Selig as a commissioner.

[pmoehrin]

The answer to fix the all-star game was/is to get rid of these little league everyone's gotta play rules. This was an attempt to crack down on it without actually doing it.

To be fair to Selig though, I think there's too many interested parties against stopping the little league play rules to ever get them changed. Players don't like it because they don't feel like going to the All-Star game and not playing and owners don't like it because it puts their stars at greater risk for getting hurt.

The rule does seem to have gotten guys to play more and has gotten a little bit of the everyone's gotta play crap out of the game, but at what cost?

I have mixed feelings on it myself. I see pros and cons to both sides. I tend to agree though that having the game decide home field advantage in the series is a bit much. World Series>All-Star Game so if I have to pick and choose, that's the game I'm more worried about.

[abluecarrot]

I like it. It gives the game some meaning.

[oddball]

Determining home field advantage by the winner of the All-Star game is stupid and completely short-sighted by Bud Selig. It makes the regular season completely meaningless as you don't earn home field advantage but hope some scrub on Pittsburgh or Kansas City who's having an average year can actually come through on the big stage. What really needs to happen is that MLB needs to make a rule that starting position players must play 7 innings and starting pitchers must pitch 5 innings. That would get rid of the ridiculous need by managers to get everyone in the game and actually make the game like a regular season game.

[NJTank]

I think it is terrible, HFA should go to the team that has the best record period end of story. It is silly to do it in the All-Star Game an exhibition game that this year has seen more players pull out than I can ever recall.

[16kid]

I like it like aluecarrot said earlier it gives the game some meaning

[Lights Out]

The game never needed any meaning besides the stars of the AL and NL playing together. Making it count for homefield advantage takes the exhibition-game status, and frankly, the fun out of it. Here's how you fix the All-Star game: make it count only for bragging rights, and put limits on how many starters can come from one team, so we aren't treated to the New Boston YankSox vs. the St. Philadelphia Cardillies every year.

[YessSir32]

I like it. It makes the game more interesting and gives it more meaning. Look at the NBA All-Star Game, it's more of a big show than a game.

[Gary]

I can't stand having the determining factor of HFA going to the winner of the All-Star Game. It should be like every other sport where the HFA where the highest seed gets the HFA! Always thought this was a stupid idea and if it weren't for the tie in '02 there wouldn't be this deciding factor.

[FiddySicks]

I'm not so sure I buy that home field advantage really gives one league THAT much more of an advantage. In the last ten years both leagues are pretty evenly split when it comes to what league wins the World Series. The only argument I can see is that it takes one game of revenue away from the losing league, but if you make it that far to begin with you're turning a huge profit either way.

[pmoehrin]

I'm not so sure I buy that home field advantage really gives one league THAT much more of an advantage. In the last ten years both leagues are pretty evenly split when it comes to what league wins the World Series. The only argument I can see is that it takes one game of revenue away from the losing league, but if you make it that far to begin with you're turning a huge profit either way.

Its not going to come up as an issue until we have a series that goes seven games. It hasn't happened yet under the All-Star game gets home field advantage rules, but it will eventually.

When that happens I think you'll hear alot more discussion about rexamining this rule.

[OnWis97]

I don't like it. MLB has it both ways: they have the game "count" but they still have it serve as an exhibition: (as mentioned above) everyone playing, all teams represented, and fans voting in starters. Take a pick: "count" it or make it an exhibition...not both. If the game should count, then the manager(s) should select players (including starting lineups) and do so based on who gives the best chance to win. And keep the starters in until a "playing the percentages" move is needed. The game is not about that anymore...let it be an exhibition. There are too many worries about overuse of players making 8 figures a year, etc.

This was a knee-jerk reaction to the tie of 2002. What I'd have done (ideally before 2002) is made the following rule: Any game that is tied after the 12th inning is declared a tie. It allows the managers to be able to manage the pitchers, and conditions us, the fans, to expect it. I think the uproar in 02 was more about having the rug pulled from under us than the fact that it was a tie...if we'd known in advance that there was a rule, we'd have been content with three extra innings (I think that one went 11, but I like 12). As an AL fan, the announcement was made after the top of the 11th, so I knew at that moment that my league could not win...would have been better to announce after the bottom of an inning. While the execution stunk, I did not have a problem with Bud's decision (and I generally cannot stand Bud).

As for home-field advantage, there are a few choices:

• Best record. It's probably as good as anything, but not totally obvious, as winning 96 in the AL vs. 95 in the NL is not proof of much given the different schedules. But all ways are flawed. The truth probably is that they don't do this becuase they like to know as soon as possible where the individual games will be...seems like a poor excuse given the uncertainties leading up to each round.
  
• All-Star game...only if they want to remove all things "exhibition"
  
• Alternating years: This would actually be OK with me, given the differing scheudles between the two leagues.
  
• Overall interleague record. I know, I know, we don't want Royals vs. Pirates being important...but there are enough interleague games that no one game/series would be under the microscope. This would actually be my choice. It's not totally fair (as the NL could get HFA sending an 83-win team from a weak division vs. a 103 win AL team) but all ways are flawed.
  

[Lights Out]

I like it. It makes the game more interesting and gives it more meaning. Look at the NBA All-Star Game, it's more of a big show than a game.

What's the problem with that? I look forward to that "show" every year. The NBA handles their All-Star festivities better than the rest of the Big Four.

[NJTank]

I heard someone suggest that HFA should be decided by the league that wins the most Interleague Games.

Thoughts?

[CS85]

If baseball got rid of interleague play and the ASG I wouldn't miss either of them at all.

[Magnus]

If baseball got rid of the Yankees I wouldn't miss them either.

[pianoknight]

They could consider making an All-Star Series instead of a single game. Probably too much to ask for, but a single game is just a logistic nightmare. Compare that to the Pro Bowl, for example. At least in the Pro Bowl, the NFC could play a different QB each quarter. This way, you're featuring 8 total quarterbacks, or 1/4th of the league in that game.

3 outs per inning (x) 9 innings gives you 27 total outs. For the 14 or 16 teams in the league, that's about 1-2 outs per pitcher if you were to try and feature everyone. Even pitching just one inning would force you to run through half the league's teams - and that's not counting relievers, closers, bullpens, etc...

With baseball it's just a big ol' clusterf*** trying to sandwich in like 45 guys on a 9 team roster. If they actually had an All-Star Series, I wouldn't mind so much about it deciding the WS home field advantage. At least in a series, the AL and NL managers could actually strategize and try to play their opponent intelligently instead of making the A-Rod or Derek Jeter showcase out there.

[loogodude90]

I'm with the OP. The ASG should be for entertainment purposes only.

If they need to add "meaning" to it by making it determine home field advantage, then they've kind of lost the meaning of the ASG to begin with.

Why not just have the team with the better record get home field advantage, or if you don't like that, then just alternate home field advantage each year?

I like it. It makes the game more interesting and gives it more meaning. Look at the NBA All-Star Game, it's more of a big show than a game.

I'm ok with that though. Like I said, I think it should be a big show - not some tense game where both teams are overly concerned with winning. Remember when Randy Johnson threw behind John Kruk and then Larry Walker put his helmet on backwards and switched sides? That's the kind of that makes All-Star games entertaining IMO. And the more emphasis they put on "winning," the less fun it will be.

I heard someone suggest that HFA should be decided by the league that wins the most Interleague Games.

Thoughts?

I think that's a decent idea, certainly better than what they do now.

[pmoehrin]

I think it is terrible, HFA should go to the team that has the best record period end of story. It is silly to do it in the All-Star Game an exhibition game that this year has seen more players pull out than I can ever recall.

If you pull out of the All-Star game then you should automatically miss the next three games as well. If your healthy enough to play in the games after the break then your healthy enough to play in the game itself.

I get a pitcher who started Sunday not wanting to play in which case the three game rule wouldn't effect him because he wouldn't be starting any of those games anyway, but a position player has no such excuse.

[infrared41]

I hate it. Best overall record should be rewarded with home field. That way the team decides it as opposed to a bunch of players who may not have a stake in it.