New All Star Game Rules

[cgannon64]

What do you think? In this year's baseball All Star Game (happening tonight) the winner of the game gets home-field advantage during the World Series. Normally it was always the NL who had it, but now the winner gets it.

What do you think? A good stunt to boost ratings, or a bad move? I think its a bad decision because the NL having home-field advantage is classic and is necessary, IMO.

 

[china444]

I voted its a bad idea and hurts the World Series....I mean a game usuallly meant to be for fun and non competiive will now mean ALOT for the champion of baseball....

What if a team from the NL gets home field advantage...but not 1 of their players participated in the all star game....like San Fransisco.

Basically I think the idea sucks. Why change the heart of the sport and a very important factor in the world series just for TV ratings?

To spite who ever made the idea i am not gonna watch the game, so their ratings will go down.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by china444
What if a team from the NL gets home field advantage...but not 1 of their players participated in the all star game....like San Fransisco.

I thought every team has to have at least one player in the All Star game.

 

[Speaker]

A) They used to alternate which league had homefield advantage. It was never the NL having it every year.

B) Every team has an all-star, including San Fransisco, who has two starters--Jason Schmidt as the NL starting pitcher and Barry Bonds as an NL outfielder.

Why would the NL having homefield be necessary even if it was "classic?"

 

[shortej]

Because the AL pitcher dosen't have to hit. Instead, they get a designated hitter ( a stupid idea, IMHO). So even tough the NL pitcher uses energy hitting and running, the Al pitcher can focus 100% on pitching.

 

[Speaker]

Uh, I don't know what game you're watching, but in the World Series and in Interleague play, the DH is used in the AL parks, while the DH is not used in NL parks. So AL teams are at a slight disadvantage in that respect, though most pitchers are an easy out regardless of league. I will not argue the merits of the DH here (perhaps in another thread), but I am in favor of it.

 

[shortej]

You're right!
What was I watching?...

 

[WillJ]

At first when I saw it on a commercial I thought, "Hey, so now the All-Star game actually matters. Great!"

But then I realized it's kinda stupid. I mean, a team getting home field advantage because its league did better than the other in the All-Star game? What the crap? IMO, home field advantage should be given to the team with the better record, like it is in all other sports. I never knew that they used to alternate from year to year; I assumed it was like the way I just said (as you can tell, I don't follow baseball all that much). Alternating from year to year is also stupid, IMO, even stupider than it being decided on the All-Star game.

So I say it's a stupid publicity stunt.

 

[Dboating]

I realize I am answering in the aftermath, but I think it did add some spice to the game. Over the next 100 All-Star games it will probably even out to 50-50 anyhow so it's pretty much like it was before. Nobody liked the wildcard or interleague play when they started either, so give this a chance.

 

[rangers85]

Well, I still don't like interleague play because of the wild card. Now with unbalanced schedules and interleague, teams can get off with a far easier schedule than another which can make the difference in the wild card race. Also, it has taken out some of the spice of the World Series. Maddux against Giambi, Mussina against Sammy Sosa, those types of matchups you'd only see in the World Series, however, now you can see them much more often. I think in that aspect, the World Series has been hurt by the advent of interleague play.

Personally, I don't think this adds much to the game. I think it's just MLB trying to increase ratings for he all-star game by giving it some superficial meaning.

 

[JonathanValjean]

I didn't like the fact that the decision was driven by ratings, however, I must admit, I enjoyed the game a lot more knowing that it "counted."

 

[General Brown]

The whole thing is just a stuint to get people to like Bud Selig because everyone hates him for calling last year's game a tie.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Who liked Bud Selig before?

Can you imagine A-Rod saying, "Come on guys, let's win this game for the Yankees"

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I thought it was a dumb idea. Since I was over in Long Island at the time, I watched some of the game in the bar, but it was still pretty hard to get excited about. I'm with WillJ - the team with the best record should gt home field advantage in game 1 of the World Series. If that isn't palatable (as you could argue it simply measures how poor the other team in their division &/or league are), then alternate as was done previously. But base it on the All Star game ? That's just illogical, captain.

 

[mayakovsky]

I actually think that the idea is not a bad one. They do need to change some things though. If they are going to have the All- Star game be the decisive factor in home field advantage then they need to go all the way with it. They should drop the 1 player from every team rule. I never liked that anyways. The best players should be picked, period.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by mayakovsky
I actually think that the idea is not a bad one. They do need to change some things though. If they are going to have the All- Star game be the decisive factor in home field advantage then they need to go all the way with it. They should drop the 1 player from every team rule. I never liked that anyways. The best players should be picked, period.

Exactly. If your going to make it count, allow only the best and make it were every player doesnt have to play.