The following point/counter-point article will hopefully become a running series between me and fellow Fox Sports contributor, Bluegrass Lady. Much like those infamous duos who paved the way for us, i.e., Jane Curtain & Dan Aykroyd, Barbara Walters & Harry Reasoner, and Han Solo & Princess Leia, we will look to debate, discuss and provide alternative perspectives in the world of sports.
This week marks the mid-point of the major league baseball season, to be celebrated on Tuesday with the 78th annual All-Star Game in all its regalia.
Traditionally, baseball’s All-Star Game was strictly an exhibition game between the most popular athletes the American and National League had to offer. That all changed in 2002 when the All-Star Game was declared a 7-7 draw after 11 innings. Fans went into an uproar, asking how such a disaster could come to pass. Commissioner Bud Selig took the brunt of the blame.
That off-season, Selig decided to shake things up a bit. The Commissioner proposed that the outcome of the All-Star Game (from here on out, there would be an outcome) would determine home-field advantage in the World Series. The proposal was discussed in the 2002-2003 off-season and team owners voted unanimously to approve Selig’s suggestion.
Selig has received considerable heat for this controversial change to the Midsummer classic. Baseball purists continue to question why an exhibition game, played between players who might not play in the post-season, and managed by managers who will not manage in the post-season, should have any bearing on who gets an extra, October home game.
Consider the alternative, however.
Before 2003, home field advantage in the World Series was assigned arbitrarily by year and NOT by the team with the best overall record. While home field advantage in the wild-card rounds and the League Championship Series is rewarded by merit to teams with the best records, prior to 2003, the extra World Series home game alternated by year, with the American League team getting the first two (and last two, if necessary) home games in even-numbered years and the National League awarded the extra game in odd-numbered years. Sounds fair, doesn’t it?
While you might think home field advantage in baseball isn’t as important as in other sports, think again. From 1990 through 2002, before the rule change, the team with home-field advantage won the World Series nine out of twelve times, with the only exceptions being the ’99 Yankees, the ’92 Blue Jays, and the ’90 Reds. Over that same period, the team with the better regular season record only had home-field advantage in the World Series FOUR TIMES (’02 Angels, ’98 Yankees, ‘97 Marlins, ’91 Twins). All four of those teams were crowned champions, meaning EIGHT times during that period, teams that held a better regular season record than their opponent did NOT receive home-field privileges in the World Series.
In 2001, the Diamondbacks had a worse regular season record than the Yankees yet received home field advantage because of the alternating years rule. Arizona won that World Series in a seventh game in their home stadium. In 1999, the Atlanta Braves had a better regular season record than the New York Yankees, yet didn’t have home field advantage to show for it. In 1992, the Atlanta Braves won more games than the Blue Jays, yet Toronto was awarded home field advantage simply because it was the American League’s year. Toronto also won that World Series.
Since Selig changed the rule in 2003, the outcome of the All-Star Game has had little bearing on who won the World Series. While the American League has won the past four All-Star Games, National League teams have actually won two of the last four pennants (’03 Marlins, ’06 Cardinals).
So the argument that the All-Star Game should not affect the post-season does not hold water for it is clearly a dramatic improvement over the arbitrary and inequitable system that preceded it.
Selig’s intention by proposing this change was to add relevance to the All-Star Game. In that respect, he succeeded. The fact that the All-Star Game affects the post-season gives the contest new meaning. Prior to that, the Commissioner was concerned players were taking the game lightly and not giving their best effort. Clearly the decision has generated quite a bit of scuttlebutt. It has probably affected how managers manage and players play out the contest. That’s not a bad thing.
Commissioner Selig deserves plenty of criticism for his tenure over major league baseball, but not for altering this rule. As seen recently, it has had little, if any, bearing on the World Series to date, and until another rule change is proposed, it is a dramatic improvement over the system that existed beforehand.
Nice piece Rev. I honestly had no idea about the alternating years of home field in the series. That was a rather large load of ####. I wonder how that came to pass - when was it enacted and why? It just doesn't seem to make any sense.
Great point. I am with on this one 100%. While the All-Star, (I like how you not so accidentally wrote "most popular" instead of best the league has to offer - that was spot on), is a bit of joke, at least the guys have to play like they mean it. Even if your team is already out of it, please see Yankees, you don't want to be the guy that ruins it for your entire league.
Here's the problem: If the All-Star decides home field, you need to take the voting out of the fans' hands. You can have an 'exhibition' feel with the voting if the game is supposed to matter. Just my two cents.
And do you really believe Bonds legitimately made that huge late surge to win a starting job? I have my doubts.
ya i agree with you on this it really is dumb the team with the best record should get it. it's not like most players even take the all star game seriously. i am disturbed that bonds got a starting position. if there was a dh in this all- star game i wouldnt mind giving it to him but there isnt and i believe that the spott should go to Matt Holliday easily. Bonds can hardly even jog after balls in the outfield and hardly ever catches anything i think it fits though. the game is just a big joke and making Bonds a starter is another joke
This could be a heated debate to last forever. I say......why not just switch back and forth every year? Seems to me like no controversy could be held, but what would sports be without one?
You say for example the 92 blue jays won over the 92 braves because they had the homefield advantage even though the braves had the overall better record. What if the All-Star game had counted that year and the AL had won, the Braves (with the best record) would STILL have been the odd team out.
The All-Star game should have no effect on the homefield advantage of the world series. It did not solve the problem. The powers-that-be panicked and came up with an alternative that just doesn't make since. The 2002 game was bound to happen eventually. If it is a crime for the team with the best record not to get homefield advantage then use the best overall record for this determination. They are using ONE All-Star game to make this decision.
Rev-I understand, of course. And I don't have a problem with fan balloting-if it's under the premise that they can see who they want to see play in this "exhibition." But if it determines home-field advantage, I don't think it's right.
Can't blame you for agreeing to pick a side, though.
Selig didn't change the rule taking away home field advantage from the better team. The current system, even if flawed, is still an improvement over the previous regime.
I along with NSF like the "most popular" bit as well. I mean come on Pudge over Victor Martinez?
AS for the All-Star game giving home field advantage I don't like it. Simply b/c of why it was instituted. It was done strictly b/c MLB screwed up by allowing a tie. What does the World Series have to do with anything related to the All-Star game? Absolutely nothing. But now it does. I agree with ricko, if they are going to give this "exhibition" game that much substance then the managers should be the ones giving the nod on who is an All-Star. Afterall home feild advantage is the 10th spot in the lineup and can make or break teams. Who doesn't feel more comfortable at home?
I would prefer the team with the best record get the call. I think after 162 games if your team has the best record then it is yours to lose. After 162 games haven't they earned it?
Or hey, why not make the All-Star week a 7 game series?
whoa....I don't like the idea, but then I don't like baseball. What if one has better teams than another? Still think it should be every other year switch...whatever happened to solving things simply? Baseball is only half over? dayum...
Brady, I still think the AL has the NL's number, but Haren as a starter doesn't do much for me. I thought you were going to come on here and say the Rams were going to win the All-Star Game.
Lisa, I don't have a problem with the better team having home field advantage. That's how it's done in every other professional sport. But given the two options, I'll go with having home field decided by the All-Star Game winner. If the American League is that much more dominant, then odds are its teams are better and will have warranted home field. Either way, the sytem is flawed. Selig experimented with this and the decision was passed unanimously by league owners. It's far from the most ludicrous thing in sports as others would have you believe.
BG, by the end of tonight's ballgame, I will have come up with three more ludicrous things in sports. Be prepared.
MeanDo, it was her topic to choose. While I don't necessarily agree with it either, I do think it's an improvement over a coin flip. So that's the angle I took.
BG, furthermore, I think we can stop calling this game an 'exhibition' game, since it no longer is. With such heavy stakes on the line, the All-Star Game has an edge it's never had. Since the outcome is now relevant, it's no longer just an exhibition game.
Last edited by ReverendRhythm on July 10th at 6:08 PM.
Do you really think the players are even thinking about the World Series during this game when MOST will not even make it?? I don't! This is a popularity contest therefore an exhibition game!
LGB, just admit I am right. The truth will set you free and you can still be a gator fan!
Granted rev there are many ludicrous things in sports but none that impact a sport as much as THIS ludicrous thing!! Selig sold out to the pressure and the outcome is a LUDICROUS rule!
BG, people had expressed concern to the commissioner that All-Star participants weren't trying. What better way to remedy that situation that to make the outcome of the game mean something.
Remove the fan voting. There was alleged, late night ballot stuffing in SF to get whasshisname in. Let players and coaches vote.
I like the AllStar/Home Field Advantage rule. S-pice up the game and get us to watch.
During the AllStar game, use bikini ball girls. That'll force more foul bunts and bring up the ratings.
How was Major League Baseball going to lose fans? Because there was a tie in a baseball game? Major League Baseball already lost its fan base by cancelling the World Series.
Now THAT is the most absurd thing to ever happen in professional sports. Owners and players unable to split a billion dollar pie.
Well, that and Tim McCarver's broadcast.
Last edited by ReverendRhythm on July 10th at 9:38 PM.
Okay...had my coffee...it is raining so no pool time for me today :( Guess you are stuck me me sweetie ;)
The useless addition of homefield advantage for the winning league adds nothing. The odds of a World Series going the full seven games are slim to none to begin with, baseball is the one major sport with the least home stadium edge. Homefield advantage matters because it should be earned in competition not handed out after an exhibition game which only resembles actual competition.
"Homefield advantage matters because it should be earned"
It wasn't earned in the previous system. In fact, even you could make the argument that its more 'earned' now than it was prior to 2003. So according to you, Selig's decision is just.
Thanks again for supporting my argument. You make my job easy.
Shouldn’t it be obvious that you can’t attach that much importance to an All-Star game as long as fans are voting for the starting lineup along with the one representative-per-team rule?
This just reinforces the fact that it is an exhibition game...nothing more.
The All-Star game is a time for fan favs to shine in front of those who voted for them. Certainly not to influence the game’s ultimate team prize. Awarding home-field advantage on a rotating basis is a far easier concept to ####.
I doubt very much that during the play of last night's All-Star Game was any participant thinking "OK, it's all or nothing. My league needs that homefield advantage in the World Series."
Turn-ons: Gator national championships ; Sushi; NBA Playoffs; A Tribe Called Quest; Women; Jack Daniels; Women who drink Jack Daniels; Women who drink Jack Daniels while eating sushi; Women who dream of more Gator national championships while eating sushi and drinking Jack Daniels during basketball season, The Red Zone Report
Turn-offs: Waking up early; The inevitable media coverage Bobby Bowden will get when he finally retires; Drama; Prejudice; Chicken liver; Work of any sort
