Who would've won the 2002 All-Star Game had it not been for the infamous 7-7 tie?

Question

To Dusty:

Thanks Mr. Obvious!
I need some real answers!

Answer 1

I have a theory about these All Star games. Back when the NL was on its run, they had 12 teams in the laeague and the AL had 14. Now the AL has 14 teams and the NL 16. Because each team has to be represented by a player, cureently the AL can go 2 players deeper in any position it chooses. The NL has to make due with a player from a particular team. So the AL can select David Ortiz on its bench, while the NL has to select a player from Houston or Florida, but not the caliber the AL has where it can select its last 2 players from any team. That little depth can make a difference in the end of the game.

That and LaRussa kept Pujols on the bench.

Answer 2

I'd say the AL. They've pretty much dominated the NL for the past decade in both interleague play and all-star games. Facts state that the AL would've won.

Answer 3

Probably the AL since they've won the last 10 All Star games besides that tie game, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

Answer 4

I think the American League wouldv'e won. Ever since that stupid ending i could care less about the All Star Game besides interleague play ruining it as well.

Answer 5

The participants would have quit and left the field. Back then the game didn't mean home field in WS. So I say still wouldn't have been a winner.

Answer 6

The team with the most runs.

Answer 7

seeing as there is no way to tell the future we must look at the past...and the past 10 years say it would have been the american league

Answer 8

probaly the AL because they have dominated the all-star game for the last century it seems like.

Answer 9

You could flip a coin for your answer and have just as good a response as you could get from any of us.

Answer 10

American League.