Bear with me if this is the 100th time that this has been asked. I am new to this category.
Does anyone else agree with me concerning this statement:
The all-star game's outcome should have absolutely NO bearing on who gets home-field advantage in the World Series.
Think about it: What if a team wins 105 games and goes to the World Series.....and plays a team who won 85 games (i.e the 87 Twins).....and loses the home field advantage because of a stupid all-star game? That team worked hard all season long to get those 105 wins......they deserve the home-field advantage.
What was the league thinking by doing this????
Your thoughts please
2007-10-04 01:52:56 · 9 answers · asked by primoa1970 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I couldn't agree more.
It used to not be based on record, it was defaulted annually that the AL had home field in odd years, and the NL had home field in even years. After the All-Star "tie game" fiasco a few years ago, Bud Selig decided he needed to spice up the game to increase interest.
Interest in the All-Star game is the LEAST of MLB's problems right now. If they addressed steroids, imbalance of team money spent/distributed, etc., increase of the game overall would go up.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of the wild card. I will admit that I like an extra layer to the playoffs, but I liked Bob Costas' idea from several years ago : three divisions, three division winners, no wild cards. The team with the best overall record in either league earns a bye for the first round, while the other two teams slug it out. Like you said, make the best record in the regular season count for something.
Besides, the wild card is usually the hottest team in baseball, not the best. The teams that are the best overall from wire to wire should be in the playoffs, not an 85-win team that essentially tripped into the postseason.
Don't get me started on the Rockies being there on that bogus home plate call from Monday night, either.
2007-10-04 02:00:53 · answer #1 · answered by Deke 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your arguement applies to other things as well, but first, your question.
The league was looking to juice up the game and more importantly the ratings. So adding some kind of incentive does make sense.
As far as home field advantage goes, MLB never awarded home field to the best record. They used to rotate between AL and NL parks year to year. So the All Star Game has not compromised the old system. Besides, the home fiels team wins only 54% of the time, so the advantage is not too great.
But your question also brings in another issue. The best record in each league will not play the wild card if they are in the same division. So this can be a legit. disadvantage. And havingthree divisions in each league means that conceiveably teams with better records then a division leader can actually miss the playoffs all together.
I think they should eliminate the three divisions in favor of two, take each division leader and either the next two best records or respected runners up into the post season.
2007-10-04 02:02:25 · answer #2 · answered by Leapers610 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Seligula has worked, hard, to destroy league identity. The AL and NL are now as distinct as Coke from Pepsi. There are a lot of factors that played into this, but Bud's doings were the last domino. The upshot to this was, the players stopped caring; a three-day break in the middle of a long season looks appealing, no matter how much fun and profit can be had from being selected an All-Star.
(I'm not saying the players have a difficult job; they're up to it. But the working conditions require a lot of travel and no weekends off for six months. It can be grueling.)
Having drained the ASG of its original appeal, which was reflected in both player enthusiasm (ever note how many small, DL-not-needed injuries crop up in early July?) and fan interest (as measured by tv ratings), MLB needed to try to do something to juice it up again. Thus, the homefield thing. Yeah, it's a typical Seligula maneuver -- ham-handed, poorly conceived and executed, overhyped, and solves the wrong problem. No surprises there.
I think it to be ever so slightly better than the previous alternate-each-year method, which rewarded luck-of-the-draw rather than any skill-related performances; but it is still far, far from being a good method.
Any team with 105 wins should have no problem winning a game on the road from an 85-win survivor.
2007-10-04 02:24:16 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The all Star game might be a joke if nothing was riding on it again.
Under your logic, why have divisions and pay-offs? Just award the pennant to the winningest team in the league as they once did.
What if a team wins 105 games and never gets to the World Series, knocked off by a hot (or just lucky) wild card team?
It's just a game. Don't make too much of it. Just enjoy the competition.
2007-10-04 04:48:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it never mattered who had best record in past, it switched from a.l park to n.l. park year to year... so its not really a big deal. away team still gets games at home.. and if a strong team plays a weaker team away they should win anyways. i like the change. if not for the indians catcher victor martinez's late home run american leaugue would not have home field this year. overall not a big deal american league has 4 games at home and national league has 3.. go tribe
2007-10-04 03:17:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NL-Geovany Soto This guy is on his thank you to rookie of the 300 and sixty 5 days. purely examine his stats. .352 batting frequently occurring, 6 homers, 24 rbi's, he additionally has greater hits than the different catcher in all the MLB with 37 hits AL-Joe Mauer he's nice.
2016-10-21 00:24:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is so true it should go to the team that has the most wins...the highr the amount of wins should get home field ...
2007-10-04 02:56:12 · answer #7 · answered by nas88car300 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
look, baseball is messed up, always has been and will continue to be, so the all star game is the least of the things that they need to fix, so dont worry about it.
2007-10-04 02:05:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
agree it is an exhibition.
only reason they came up with the lame rule is clue less joe ran out of players one year. tie game
2007-10-04 02:18:01 · answer #9 · answered by Michael M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋