i HATE the fact that this is the way that it is. why bust your @$$ as a player to win 100 games when you could have played half as hard to get 90 wins and made it if it doesn't matter come the world series? the only reason this is even a part of the game is because of the tie after 11 innings way back at miller park. i think we can blame two people for this: torrii hunter for robbing bonds of a home run and sammy sosa for getting thrown out by a mile trying to stretch a double into a triple for the first out. cardinal rule, don't make the first or last out of an inning at third, just stay at second b/c you are in scoring position anyways. just want a few thoughts.
2007-07-10 07:44:57 · 13 answers · asked by bearsnut19 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
The all-star game should have nothing to do with home field advantage in the world series. It is an exhibition game and should be left at that for the fans to enjoy. I say, let the team with the best regular season record, of the two that get to the world series, have home field advantage, they earned it by having the best record over 162 regular games in the schedule.
2007-07-10 07:51:41 · answer #1 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, before the current system of All-Star Game winner, home-field advantage in the World Series was NOT determined by regular season record. Home-field advantage in the World Series alternated between the American League and the National League from year to year. Regular season record was (and is) used to determine home-field advantage only in the Division and League championship series'.
Second, I agree with you that it IS stupid to place such importance on what is, essentially, an exhibition game. And, even more than that, a game in which the players are selected in a POPULARITY CONTEST.
But, please, don't blame the players for the current state of affairs. The fault lies with a few drunken fans who didn't like that fact that the 2002 All-Star Game ended in a tie. But it lies even greater on the shoulders of one Bud Selig, the weakest and most lilly-livered Comissioner that Major League Baseball has ever had, who did not have the b.alls to stand up to those few drunken fans and say "IT'S ONLY A GAME"!
Did you know that the 1961 All-Star Game in Fenway Park also ended in a tie? Nobody was "outraged" then. But, that was before sports had become the 800-pound gorilla they eventually became, and people enjoyed the game for what it is: JUST A GAME.
-
2007-07-10 08:06:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like giving home field to the all star game winner. However, because of the fact that for the most part, NL teams play NL teams and AL teams play AL teams, it isn't necessarily fair to just give home field to the team with the best record. Sometimes an NL team may have fewer wins the an AL team but maybe the overall strength of the NL is more balanced, making the schedule more difficult. I would do this:
1. No wild card team can have home filed in the world series unless both theams are wild cards.
2. The highest seeded team in their league that makes it in gets home filed.
3. If both teams have the same seed, home field is decided by a home run derby.
2007-07-13 05:57:22 · answer #3 · answered by Karen L 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it changed around 2003 or so. It was after the All-Star Game that ended in a tie. To put a higher value on it they made it more important, so now the ASG winner's league gets home field advantage for the WS.
2016-05-18 21:14:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like it either.
Lets grant home field advantage for the world series based on regular season records.
A. most wins regardless of the actual teams in the World Series.
or
B. most wins between the two teams left playing in the World Series.
Either way better than an all star game result (which for all I care can end in a tie)
2007-07-10 07:51:12 · answer #5 · answered by rhuzzy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't agree withe the all-star game winner getting home field advantage in the world series. it's just an exhibition game; i mean, the purpose of the all-star game is for the fans to see all of their favorite players out on the field at the same time. home-field advantage can't be decided on the teams' respective records because they are in two different leagues. home-field advantage should just alternate every year
2007-07-10 08:03:47 · answer #6 · answered by ARREAZA 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is baseballs way of avoiding a real shake-up. Bud Selig does not want to seed the playoffs like the NBA, but at the same time he wants meaning to the All-Star Game. His solution: give the winner home field advantage. I like that he is attempting to give meaning to that game, but I do not like that he is avoiding a major change. That is what keeps people watching and brings in new fans.
2007-07-10 07:49:14 · answer #7 · answered by FMF-Doc 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
sounds like a bunch of national leaguers crying :P
hehe.. j.k i'm in atlanta myself...
yeah, it was started to give some incentive to the players to actually try and make it a game instead of just some silly all star game.. problem is.. most all stars aren't on the one or two teams that know they will make it to the WS, so they still don't try..
i'd just alternate years..
2007-07-10 07:51:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like the idea. Just let the game be an exhibition so we can see all the big names in one game. If it ends in a tie, let it.
2007-07-10 07:48:48 · answer #9 · answered by jack of all trades 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeah that was the dumbest thing Big BUD did in what ever year he did that.... but its by no means as bad as sitting back for over a whole decade letting 75%+ of the players to juice up and cheat
2007-07-10 07:49:40 · answer #10 · answered by deezNutz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋