I think its a very stupid rule. it shouldnt be decided by this one game! what do u think about it?
2006-07-08 16:53:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
I agree with you, it is weird to put homefield advantage in the world series on the line for one game. There is a reason that all other sports use best record for the season as the deciding factor. On the other hand it does bring meaning into an otherwise meaningless game, the all-star game is all about the fans, they pick the starters and by having this game have meaning it will force the managers to leave the best players in at all times. I like that aspect. The rule that I really have a problem with is that all teams must be respresented, all-star means just that, an all-star you shouldn't be on the team because you are the best player on a crummy team, the best players should make the team no matter where they play.
2006-07-08 17:05:45 · answer #1 · answered by Jeff D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's bogus because AL fans or NL fans can vote lesser players to start just to see a weaker team on the field for the opposition. For instance, how the hell doesn't Joe Mauer get the start at AL Catcher after nearly hitting .400 and how does Francisco Liriano get beat by AJ Pierzynski for the last spot on the AL team when he's 9-1 with a 1.99 ERA?? The Royals got Mark Redman on the team with a 6-4 record and ERA over 5.00???? The fan vote should count for half and the players should vote also.
2006-07-08 21:26:16 · answer #2 · answered by daknzach 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with the rule. I agree that it shouldn't be decided by one game. Personally, I think that the World Series should be played on neutral territory. That way, the players don't have to travel as much during the series, and so that the fans would behave a bit better.
2006-07-08 17:05:05 · answer #3 · answered by dramaman22 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stupid rule. The All-Star game is an exhibition contest, meant for entertainment, and shouldn't have an impact on the World Series. This commissioner (whose blind-eye towards steroids is in large part responsible for the mess that baseball got into) is by far the worst in the history of baseball. He's the owner's lackey.
2006-07-08 16:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by violet 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That rule was implemented because the Allstars were not taking the game seriously. This ensures that they want to win the game.
2006-07-08 16:57:38 · answer #5 · answered by alfredenuemann98195 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stupid Rule!
Because if this rule wasn't in place that would have meant in 2004 the Red Sox would have played game four in Boston rather in St Louis because the Cards won more games than Boston and they would have had home field advantage....
.... just think of how crazy that place would have went if the Sox would have won the WS in Boston...WOOOOOW!
I repeat.... STUPID RULE!
2006-07-08 22:42:47 · answer #6 · answered by freddyg34 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i flipped when i heard this, if you are the top team going into the all star break and have a good chance to make it you have to depend on other people from other teams to do good. plus the national league has not won in 10 years 0-9-1 yes 1 tie.
2006-07-08 17:07:20 · answer #7 · answered by E 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i actually thinks its awesome it give a meaning to the allstar game
2006-07-08 17:07:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its a way to make the game relevant to the players - top stars suddenly have injuries heal if their tean is going to bein the hunt at seasons end.
2006-07-08 16:58:01 · answer #9 · answered by Norman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the rule is dumb. i think they should do it by the teams records. but i also like it because the all-stars have something to play for.
2006-07-08 17:18:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋