of should the pennant winner with best record get it? last year, for example, the cards, with 83 wins, could have gotten the homefield if the nationals had won all star game! why should it be that team with 83 wins gets homefield over 100 win team?
2007-07-11 06:58:59 · 15 answers · asked by dan the man 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I don't like it, but I'll give Selig some credit - it's given some meaning to what used to be a silly exhibition.
I'd still rather see home field determined by record, but home field doesn't usually make or break too many teams come Series time anyway.
2007-07-11 07:02:16 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the best team should get home field. Here is my blog about the all star game that i wrote last year.
So lately I've been playing MLB 06 The Show. It's a fun game, but something happened the other day that made me angry. It had nothing to do with the game but with Major League Baseball itself. I had a career year with the Cardinals and we had a respectable record of 101-61 and were in first place. We played the A's in the world series and that's when I noticed the glitch. We were in 1st and Game 7 was being played in Oakland. How did they get homefield advantage for the World Series. Then it occured to me that as the lone representative from my team on the National League All Star Team we lost the All Star Game. What a crock. I was seriously bummed. We worked so hard to be the best and being the best in the league did not get us home field.
So why did they change the rules for the all star game and potentially punish the first place team that loses homefield advantage and punish their fans? The all star game wasn't exciting enough. Of course I never enter a rant without a reasonable solution.
1. Write it in the contracts.
You know, I buy tickets to the game, I buy the merchandise, I pay your freaking salary. If I choose that you are the best of the best, don't insult my dollar and my intelligence by not showing up. I have never seen anyone get seriously injured at the all star game. No one would expect you to go Bo Jackson into the wall or Pete Rose into second base it would be unreasonable to expect so and idiotic to do so. Ok...maybe Pete Rose went a little over the top though. Make the All Star Game like parent night in teacher contracts.
2. Don't forget why you play the all star game.
I'm sure the forefathers of the All Star game could have given a **** what the players thought or what the outcome would mean. The fans who bought the tickets wanted to see the best play the best from each league. They didn't care who won to get homefield advantage. Seeing thier favorite players all in one place and bragging rights for one year was plenty, what happened to us? Players shouldn't be babies about playing a few innings in an exhibition game that they were chosen for by the people who pay their salaries.
3. Play the game for charity.
I never quite understood why tickets to the game cost $400. Do the players get extra for playing? IF so why? So I had a solution. Players and the league designate charities for play during the game. For each homerun hit the player chooses a charity to donate $10,000 to. For each strikeout the same deal. The winners get to donate $100,000 to the charity of the MVP's choice on the leagues behalf. So skipping the All-Star game for resting would mean that you hate kids. If you don't want to play in the game for the thousands of fans that pay your salary at least do it for a hospital in the Congo.
I really didn't see what was wrong with letting the team with the best overall record have home field at the World Series. You know what they say if it's not broke don't fix it.
2007-07-11 07:04:44 · answer #2 · answered by alwaysmoose 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like the idea of homefield being on the line in the All Star Game. I think a better idea would be to determine the DH rule for the World Series depending upon which league wins the All Star Game.
Homefield is irrelevant unless the series goes 7 games. If the DH rule in the Series depends upon which team wins the All Star Game, that's going to impact the course of the World Series, as most National League teams don't have a quality DH on their bench and the best player on many American League teams is the DH.
2007-07-11 07:13:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should do away with the All-Star Game to determine the World Series homefield. They should just use the team with the best record to have homefield. As a tie-breaker, use which ever league had the best interleague record.
We can't allow the determination of the World Series homefield from a game in which starting players are selected by fans.
2007-07-11 07:10:17 · answer #4 · answered by rio r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All star games are not an exhibition anymore. And I like it. You can see it in their faces that they really wanna win it. There's a new found rivalry between leagues. Pitchers going all out on their fastballs and trying to get the best bite on the breaking stuff. Hitters taking pitches instead of trying to yank everything out of the yard. Now they're playing baseball they way it is played 162 other times. And with players of that magnitude, it makes for the best single game of the year. It used to be an All star showcase.....now it has become an All Star game.
May not be fair to use home field in the world series to give the All star game meaning....in fact I don't agree with it. But I'm really happy with the end product.
2007-07-11 08:16:49 · answer #5 · answered by george_0829 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a joke. It should be the best team to get home advantage.
I read on yahoo a couple weeks ago someone was pushing for a SuperBowl type MLB championship with a 9 game series and a different huge market field every year. So you could see the Padres play the Angels in New York or Chicago. And all the local fans would not be able to attend. If Selig went through with that, I think Id stop caring...Unless my Cubs went and it was in Los Angeles. =D
2007-07-11 07:11:56 · answer #6 · answered by k g 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the ASG should not determine this!!! Homefield Advantage should be given to the World Series team with the best record. If both teams have the same record, there should be a tie breaker (runs scored or something like that)
2007-07-11 07:04:05 · answer #7 · answered by stlcards_9 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although i don't like it, MLB shouldn't take it away either. The All Star game should have a reward for players to play for. (dont say that playing for the crowd is a reward because if you take away the homefield advantage for the winning side, none of the players will try). The homefield motivates each side to try. Unless Selig comes up with another reward to motivate these players, they should keep it.
2007-07-11 07:08:32 · answer #8 · answered by Thomas 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the all-star game is an exhibition for the fans unrelated to the world series. Home field advantage, for the world series, should be earned and should go to the team with the best won and lost record during the regular season.
2007-07-11 07:03:10 · answer #9 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No! I think the all-star game is the one game that nobody should really try to win. It should just be an entertainment showcase for the fans to see their favorite players. I think they should make every effort to get everyone into the game instead and let pitchers come back in if needed. It sucks being a fan of a player that doesn't get to play.
2007-07-11 07:05:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋