I know I'm not. It should go to the team with the better record. It seems a lot more fair.
2007-05-19 15:42:47 · 9 answers · asked by Toxic Valentine 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I agree with you 100%. The all star game is supposed to be a fun event and a chance to see all the players. Best record should determine home field advantage without a doubt.
2007-05-19 15:47:47 · answer #1 · answered by Yankee Dude 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Determining homefeild advantage gives the All-Star game some actual meaning. Otherwise it's a fun game that honors star players, but is no less glorified exhibition game for the fans.
That being said, I don't think that with the unbalanced playing feild that exists in MLB that there is anyone method of determining homefield advantage for the world series that is truly fair. That unless baseball goes back to the old way of flip-flopping homefield advantage every year which it won't do. I believe that you can find pros and cons under any other scenario.
If you sit back and say it should go to the team with the better record, what if that team being the NL club (104 wins) beat up on a weak division, meanwhile the AL club (93 wins)played in the toughest division in baseball and had to earn the wildcard?
That is a possibility under that scenario, usually win/loss records alone don't determine which league champion is better than the other one on paper.
2007-05-19 23:45:15 · answer #2 · answered by Baltimore Birds Fan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm torn.
I do think it should go to the team with the better record. But there is also this thing about making the All Star game mean something more than show boating. Before this rule, a lot of the big stars wouldn't play in it and it was nothing more than a popularity contest. I think having something riding on the results of the game makes the guys try a little harder, and makes the big names want to show up.
But I also think that every single player that has taken steroids should be kicked out of the league and banned from the Hall of Fame. And I think that it should be mandatory for drug testing to happen before each game (it doesn't take long to find steroids in the urine; if they are positive, that is it - see ya charlie!!).
2007-05-19 23:07:42 · answer #3 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a very good system, but it could be worse, and is slightly better than the previous "alternate between leagues each year" method.
Some sportswriter, and I wish I could recall who, suggested a three point system, earning two or more points wins home field advantage.
1. All-Star Game result;
2. Overall seasonal interleague play result;
3. League champion team records.
This isn't a lot better, but does make it a bit more interesting, and gives interleague play a bit more import.
2007-05-19 22:53:57 · answer #4 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your right it should go to the teams with beter records. The playes are at the allstar game for fans and fun no one wants to be hurt because it will cost the team they are trying to win a playoff spot with. I also think since the goal now of the allstar game is to get everyone on each team into the game so its not like a real game.
2007-05-19 23:10:16 · answer #5 · answered by Jay N 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't personally like that. It really should be the best team. It was a decent idea, because they really should give the players a reason to play hard in the AllStar Game. But the rule should be done away with.
2007-05-19 23:29:56 · answer #6 · answered by BH 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think it should belong to the team with the better record, also. Failing that, the team from the league that won it the previous year.
2007-05-19 23:31:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I have never liked this. Should go to the time with the best overall record.
2007-05-20 14:14:53 · answer #8 · answered by tom m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well becuase fans vote on who palys no. But if MLB picked based off of the stats then yes.
2007-05-19 23:11:53 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Smith 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋