Could the All-Star game mean something?

[Lefty]

This sure would make it interesting.

NEW YORK -- Commissioner Bud Selig, who said in November that he intends to reinvigorate the All-Star Game, has come up with a plan to make the game meaningful.

Selig plans to brief owners next week on a proposal to award home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star Game.

The All-Star Game, which has lost much of his luster in recent years, reached a nadir last summer when Selig was forced to end the game after 11 innings with the score tied, 7-7, because both teams -- which only used players for short stretches to ensure that everyone played -- had run out of pitchers. Over the last 15 or 20 years, both the American League and the National League have seemed less interested in the game and have been treating it as a necessary evil, with their two main goals being a) making sure no one gets hurt, and b) playing everyone as little as possible to make sure each player participates.

Selig said at the November owners' meeting that he wanted to make the All-Star Game meaningful once more. If home-field advantage in the World Series hung in the balance, both leagues would probably make much more of an effort to win . . . which would return the game to the competitive event it had been from its inception in the 1930s until sometime in the early '80s.

Home-field advantage in the best-of-seven World Series has rotated each year. Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said this week that Selig's plan to have the team from the All-Star-winning league be host for Games One, Two, Six and Seven doesn't require a vote by owners

 

[BC867]

I believe that is an unnecessary change!

The fans want to see players from their team exhibited. It is an exhibition game!

Plus, if the NL or AL manager thinks that the team most likely to advance to the World Series from his league is a rival, he may not care about getting him an advantage in October . . . vs. getting every player into the All star game.

 

[FORKTUNG]

Exhibition Game

It's a dumb idea

 

[Stallion]

How about giving home field in the WS to the team with the best regular season record? I think home field should be earned, like in the NBA.

I was a huge Twins fan growing up and even I can admit they only reason they won their 2 titles was they happened to be in years when the AL had home field.

This would also put more weight on the regular season which has also been declining (see last year's Wild Card Series).

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by BC867
I believe that is an unnecessary change!

The fans want to see players from their team exhibited. It is an exhibition game!

Plus, if the NL or AL manager thinks that the team most likely to advance to the World Series from his league is a rival, he may not care about getting him an advantage in October . . . vs. getting every player into the All star game.

I think this discussion breaks through the lines of the different levels of fan:

I'm a fan 1st of the sport, the team 2nd, which makes me strongly disagree with BC867. If I were a TBY fan I wouldn't care if Randy Winn got in the game in the 7th Inn to bat once. I want to see the top 8 vote getters play more than 1 or 2 Inns. The way it is now "getting everybody in" cost me that extra AB of Schilling vs. A-Rod. Would A-Rod have gotten the best of Curt the next time? I don't know, but would have rather seen it than that killer Paul Quantrill vs. Charles Johson AB. .

Originally posted by Stallion
How about giving home field in the WS to the team with the best regular season record? I think home field should be earned, like in the NBA.

I was a huge Twins fan growing up and even I can admit they only reason they won their 2 titles was they happened to be in years when the AL had home field.

This would also put more weight on the regular season which has also been declining (see last year's Wild Card Series).

This would be a huge disadvantage to a team in a tough division ( NL or AL West ) because of the unbalanced schedual

 

[Dback Jon]

Having Home-field advantage based on an Exhibition Game is a terrible idea - the game means nothing (in terms of the regular season) so why should my teams chances of having homefield be based on what players/managers from other teams do?

And basing on regular season record is no good either. As DWKB points out, every team does not play each other in all of baseball, and even with in a league, there is an unbalanced schedule.

The alternating years works fine.
Don't mess up something that means everything (the World Series) to try to "fix" something that is meaningless (All-Star Game).

 

[FORKTUNG]

Players aren't going to go all out and risk injury for a meaningless exhibition game

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Having Home-field advantage based on an Exhibition Game is a terrible idea - the game means nothing (in terms of the regular season) so why should my teams chances of having homefield be based on what players/managers from other teams do?

On July 8th, teams who were 15 or more games out of 1st:

PHI ( JRoll )
MIL ( Jose Hernendez, Sexton )
SDP ( Hoffman )
TOR ( Halladay )
TBY ( Winn )
KCR ( Sweeney )
DET ( Fick )
TEX ( A-Rod )

9 total players, 2 starters, 2 pitchers, and 2-3 player who were "honorary" picks

Teams who were 10-15 games out of 1st:

FLA ( Castillo, Lowell )
NYM ( Piazza )
PIT ( Mike Williams )
CHI ( Sosa )
COL ( Helton )
BAL ( Batista )

7 players, 3 starters, 1 pitcher, and 1-2 "honorary" picks

So, out of 60 total spots, we're talking 16 players ( 27% ) who might not care, 3-5 player who might not be selected if not for needing a team rep, and 5 players ( 8% ) who you would think would have a definate impact ( starters ).

That is given the loose interpritation that 10 games out of 1st is "out of it" with 74 games to play.

That leaves 44 players who would probably care and 11 starters + 16 pitchers out of the 44.

The current solution is to have the "chance" that it's your turn to have HF advantage.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by DWKB
On July 8th, teams who were 15 or more games out of 1st:

PHI ( JRoll )
MIL ( Jose Hernendez, Sexton )
SDP ( Hoffman )
TOR ( Halladay )
TBY ( Winn )
KCR ( Sweeney )
DET ( Fick )
TEX ( A-Rod )

9 total players, 2 starters, 2 pitchers, and 2-3 player who were "honorary" picks

Actually the Phillies had 3 all-stars, not one. You forgot Rolen and Vicente Padilla, remember him? The guy who shouldn't have pitched in the first place because his shoulder was sore and the reason the game ended.

Frankly as a Phillies phan I would have had no interest in winning but if Brenly had blown out Padilla's arm (which BTW was very tired by season's end and may be injured I would have been real, real teed off.

As a phan of a team that was way out of it by the all-star break, my primary interest was in watching the greats of the game play and have fun and watching my guys get to play. Don't care who won, don't want to care who wins. Not everything in life requires winning. But if I had been a Pittsburgh fan and Mike Williams, our sole rep never made it into the game "just in case" I'd have been real bummed.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Actually the Phillies had 3 all-stars, not one. You forgot Rolen and Vicente Padilla, remember him? The guy who shouldn't have pitched in the first place because his shoulder was sore and the reason the game ended.

Yes, I forgot Rolen but Padilla was a replacement for Johnson. He really shouldn't have been there ( not speaking talent-wise so don't get worked up )

Originally posted by schillingfan

Frankly as a Phillies phan I would have had no interest in winning but if Brenly had blown out Padilla's arm (which BTW was very tired by season's end and may be injured I would have been real, real teed off.

Of course you wouldn't care, you're team was one of the "more than 15 games out" teams, but would that have prevented you from watching the game? Doubt it. If Brenley was relying on Vicente Padilla to be his horse in the All Star Game with all those other pitchers who are frankly much better, he's a fool.

Originally posted by schillingfan

As a phan of a team that was way out of it by the all-star break, my primary interest was in watching the greats of the game play and have fun and watching my guys get to play. Don't care who won, don't want to care who wins. Not everything in life requires winning. But if I had been a Pittsburgh fan and Mike Williams, our sole rep never made it into the game "just in case" I'd have been real bummed.

Boy those Oregon hippie roots are showing through aren't they?
Taking the wants of the few and pushing them over the wants of the many.
The point of my last post was to show that there are less of "your" teams ( ones that are out of it at the break ) than "my" teams ( ones that aren't ) by a ratio of 3:1 on avg ( depending on where you draw the line ).

Taking Randy Winn as an example again ( because pitchers are voted on ) you have a few TBY fan's who want to see their guy recognized, you have the sympathizers ( like yourself ) and then you have the rest of us who either haven't ever heard of Randy Winn or don't care to see him come into the game in the 4th and get 2 ABs when we could be seeing A-Rod or Ramirez again. If there was really a big demand for Randy Winn in the All-Star game then wouldn't we see this in the voting? Randy Winn finished..hmmm...well lower than 15th because he's not on the top voting list.

The All-Star game is nothing more than a little league game with your round-robin style of play to not get anyones feelings hurt and causes the players to not give a rat's backend about it. This sits just well with emotionally, "rationally irational", mothers, who want to cheer for their little boys who aren't really good enough to play with the big boys but still get to "participate" to boost their self esteem ( or is it really to quell the parent's insecurities? ).

The basis of baseball is the competition. Without competition you don't have baseball and to pretend you do causes the players and fans not to care. It's why nobody watches the Pro-Bowl and they change the channel after the slam-dunk contest.


( yes I am fully aware of the small amount of hyperbole, thanks )

 

[schillingfan]

DWKB I don't get your point unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing with me. There is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is simply a matter of personal preference. I'm not sure why you would assume that my wants are those of the few. A lot of teams are out of it by the all-star break, at least enough not to be the "few" and I think fans who are fans of the game will watch regardless and marginal fans who are fans of their team will be more likely to watch to see their player. The more viewers the better, which is what I thought this was about. Unless it's about an abstract concept of purity of the game. But that goes back to my original point, it's all a matter of personal preferences, aims, goals and values.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
DWKB I don't get your point unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing with me. There is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is simply a matter of personal preference. I'm not sure why you would assume that my wants are those of the few. More teams are out by all-star break than are still in and I think fans who are fans of the game will watch regardless and marginal fans who are fans of their team will be more likely to watch to see their player. The more viewers the better, which is what I thought this was about. Unless it's about an abstract concept of purity of the game. But that goes back to my original point, it's all a matter of personal preferences, aims, goals and values.

Yes I understand that this won't be solved, but you didn't grasp my post and the points made it in cause you are wrong about there being more teams out than in.

If you count a team being 15 games out at the break "out of it" then there were 8 "out" and 22 "in". If you count being 10 games or more out at the break then there were 14 teams "out" and 16 teams "in". And since that point was made, then there are more fan's on the "in" side than the "out" side and frankly I don't think many fan's of KC or DET care about the one TBY player. So you lose fan's withen your "out" side. The amount of fan's who want to see Randy Winn play in the All-Star game pale in comparison to the amount of fan's who either don't think he should even be there or would rather see one of the real "stars" play in his place.

 

[schillingfan]

Before I saw your reply I went back and edited my point that more are out than in, because I realized it wasn't technically true. But a lot are out, which means you completely miss my point. In football, because there is parity and 6 playoff spots, very few fans have the feeling that their teams are constantly out of it.

Anyway I'm out of this conversation because you've never indicated that you have one scintilla of understanding what it is to be a fan of a losing team.

Let me say that I spent a lot of years having nothing good to cheer about during the baseball season other than watching Curt Schilling pitch (or some other Phillie) in the all-star game

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan

Anyway I'm out of this conversation because you've never indicated that you have one scintilla of understanding what it is to be a fan of a losing team.

I think it's extremely arrogant of you to insenuate that there is some difference between your type of fan ( of a losing team ) and my type of fan ( of a winning team ). If the DBacks go into the crapper I'm not going to change my "fan-type". Are you going to change your's if the Phils succeed? What kind of fan do you become then?

Originally posted by schillingfan
Let me say that I spent a lot of years having nothing good to cheer about during the baseball season other than watching Curt Schilling pitch (or some other Phillie) in the all-star game

Let me say that when/if the DBacks go down to mediocrity that seeing DBack player x in the All-Star Game isn't going to make my season. But then again I actually enjoy the game for it's competition. ( which the All-Star game currently has none )


You saying I don't know how to be a fan of a losing team just tells me I'm right where I need to be as being a fan of the sport of baseball and not just some player or team like so many others. I want what is best for the game itself and that will always be my stance on things.

 

[schillingfan]

DWKB you missed the whole point of my initial post, which was this is how I want the All-Star game to be personally because of how I am as a fan. It doesn't make me right or wrong it makes me me. I was stating my personal opinions and preferences. There is no right or wrong way to look at the issue or there wasn't until you started making it a right or a wrong way to look at the game.

As a fan of a losing team I have a different perspective on the game. Does not make it the only perspective. Female fans who admire butts also have a perspective on the game. They are entitled to that perspective, I'll try to educate them to look at it in a broader way, but I will count them as fans whose opinions matter because they put bucks in the pockets of the owners and the players.

I don't particularly prefer to see Randy Winn in the all-star game instead of a better player, but if fans from Tampa Bay want to see him, then I can appreciate that desire. and have empathy for what it means to them to have a Tampa Bay player in the game and as fans I think they have a right to have their team represented.

I think it's great that you place a greater value on being a fan of the game than a fan of the team. It's a credible perspective. It's not mine and it's not that of a lot of other fans as well.

One thing that growing old gives you is an appreciation of other viewpoints, other needs and other desires. You become less sure that you are right. I don't object to your opinions and find merit in most of them, what pushes my buttons is when you assume they are the right or only way of looking at things.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

To determine something important as home field advantage in the playoffs on an exhibition game is whacked. To me it would be like having spring training games count for something just to make them "competitive". Of course it's not as bad as having unbalanced schedules and Wild Card teams, but that's a different story.

 

[FORKTUNG]

Bud's Dud Plan

Just wait until a wild card team gets home field advantage due to Bud's stupid idea.

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Bud's Dud Plan

Originally posted by FORKTUNG
Just wait until a wild card team gets home field advantage due to Bud's stupid idea.

Actually, it happened last year, since both Anaheim and SF were Wild Cards.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
To determine something important as home field advantage in the playoffs on an exhibition game is whacked

To stress, the way "something as important as home field advantage" is decided as of today is:


What year is it?

This is not a change to the World Series, it's a change to the All-Star Game ( which needs major revisions )

Why is it that once you assign value to some outcome people want to overestimate that value. Do we really think teams plan their World Series run according to what year it is and if they have home field advantage or not? No, so why would this affect teams going to the World Series any differently?

This could possibly change a lot for the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game is losing fans ( both hard core and casual ) fast and obviously has gone to an extreme farse after last year.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

This is not a change to the World Series, it's a change to the All-Star Game ( which needs major revisions )

Oh, but it does fundamentally change the World Series since 15 out of the last 17 teams with the home field advantage going into the series have came away with the title.

Why is it that once you assign value to some outcome people want to overestimate that value.

See above. How is it an overestimate when 15 out of the last 17 teams to win the series have done so with the home field advantage on their side?

Do we really think teams plan their World Series run according to what year it is and if they have home field advantage or not? No, so why would this affect teams going to the World Series any differently?

No they don't plan it that way, but recent history says that the home field advantage is a real occurence. Alternating it between each league based on what year it is might be arbitrary, but at least it has some fairness to it given the disparity in schedules. IMO, it's at least better than deciding it based on an exhibition game. But as Selig is want to do, this will just place more pressure on the players instead of Selig's own office. The rememdy was actually simple...don't try to get everyone into the game. That's what led to the managers running out of players. Just a simple directive from Selig's office that the managers didn't have to resort to this inclusive policy is all it would've took to solve last year's debauchle.

This could possibly change a lot for the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game is losing fans ( both hard core and casual ) fast and obviously has gone to an extreme farse after last year.

Personally, I don't care if it is a farce. The NFL's por bowl has always been a farce and it sure hasn't hurt it's popularity.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Oh, but it does fundamentally change the World Series since 15 out of the last 17 teams with the home field advantage going into the series have came away with the title.

Derek I know you're a smart guy so why do you feel you need to abuse the numbers to prove your point? Only Game 7's should really affect hom field advantage. The 1990 CIN Reds beating the OAK A's in 4 strait doesn't prove anything because there were two games in CIN and two in OAK. You want to look at Game 7's, we will, but your selective sample sizing doesn't show us anything. Just looking at home field advantage and who wins doesn't take into consideration who was the better team or who happened to be on a hot streak or who was just plain lucky. There is far too much noise to make a legitimate correlation, much less show causation.

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson

See above. How is it an overestimate when 15 out of the last 17 teams to win the series have done so with the home field advantage on their side?

I think my previous answer shows how you've personally overstimated it.

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson

No they don't plan it that way, but recent history says that the home field advantage is a real occurence. Alternating it between each league based on what year it is might be arbitrary, but at least it has some fairness to it given the disparity in schedules. IMO, it's at least better than deciding it based on an exhibition game. But as Selig is want to do, this will just place more pressure on the players instead of Selig's own office. The rememdy was actually simple...don't try to get everyone into the game. That's what led to the managers running out of players. Just a simple directive from Selig's office that the managers didn't have to resort to this inclusive policy is all it would've took to solve last year's debauchle.

Well the All-Star game was breaking long before last year. I think refering to last year as the problem isn't seeing the whole picture.

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson

Personally, I don't care if it is a farce. The NFL's por bowl has always been a farce and it sure hasn't hurt it's popularity.

Yeah, well why don't we move it to Hawaii in Dec and let whomever show up that wants to, and we'll change the rules so nobody gets hurt and we'll take the fan's vote away from them while we're at it. Do you really think the Pro-Bowl has any popularity?

 

[Derek in Tucson]

Maybe you don't think 15 out of the last 17 is anything more than statistical noise, but the edge is so large in favor of the home team, I would have to think it has some legitimacy. Whether psychological, or actual, the home field advantage teams win most of the time. Unlike your hypothetical theories, this one is based on actual fact.

You talk about hot streaks and luck, is it anyway to decide the outcome of determining home field advantage based on a one game exhibition? We're talking one single game, where anything can happen.

As for the NFL, I was referring to their Pro Bowl vs the rise in popularity oif the NFL as a whole the last 20 years. The NFL has always had the worst all star type game mostly due to the fact that it's a postseason affair with players at less than top physical shape. But that hasn't hurt the popularity of the sport at all. It's grown into the most popular sport in this country if you just look at the size of the national TV deals they rake in compared to the other sports.

MLB has more imprtant problems to solve that affects the sport's popularity than trying to "fix" an exhibition game(pun directed at Chan Ho Park for the pitch he groooved to Cal Ripken). If Selig spent as much time on those problems as he does on minutae like this, then maybe baseball wouldn't be called the dying sport.

Edit: Something I just read at TSN

In Ken Rosenthal's latest column, a fan wrote that since his favorite team was in the NL, he'll just vote now for the best players in the NL, and the worst players on the ballot for the AL. So if a lot of people think the All Star voting is a joke now, just what is going to happen when the ballot stuffing goes to this extreme?

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Maybe you don't think 15 out of the last 17 is anything more than statistical noise, but the edge is so large in favor of the home team, I would have to think it has some legitimacy. Whether psychological, or actual, the home field advantage teams win most of the time. Unlike your hypothetical theories, this one is based on actual fact.

What "fact" is it based on? Maybe you can explain to me how a team that has home field advantage wins in 4, 5, or 6 games and had to win at least 2 games away from home were not just a better team and that it can be written off more logically with "Psychological home field momentum" that you've just espoused. If that's not a hypothetical theory I don't know what is.

You wanna play with "facts" well how about the fact that since 1967 only 1 teams has won a World Series with no player who'd already earned a ring before. That makes a 35 out of the last 36 World Series so maybe teams should be more focused on making sure they at least have that Luis Sojo sitting on their bench to make sure they win a World Series, I mean the "facts" are overwhelming.

How about the fact that only 1 team since 1985 has won a World Series with a player hitting more than 36 HRs. This makes 16 out of the last 17 ( still better than home field advantage ratio ) World Series so maybe teams should take that guy in Sept who's sitting on 36 HRs and if not bench him, at least make sure he doesn't get ahold of one deep. They wouldn't want to go against the "facts" now would they?

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson

You talk about hot streaks and luck, is it anyway to decide the outcome of determining home field advantage based on a one game exhibition? We're talking one single game, where anything can happen.

Hot streaks and luck decide very serious situations all the time. Look at the Patriots, look at the '86 Mets, the '69 Mets, the '85 Royals. All had either luck or some hot streak that took them all the way in the final game/series.

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson

As for the NFL, I was referring to their Pro Bowl vs the rise in popularity oif the NFL as a whole the last 20 years. The NFL has always had the worst all star type game mostly due to the fact that it's a postseason affair with players at less than top physical shape. But that hasn't hurt the popularity of the sport at all. It's grown into the most popular sport in this country if you just look at the size of the national TV deals they rake in compared to the other sports.

Well I'm not trying to fix baseball with this, I'm trying to fix the ASG. If you don't think there is a problem with it then my suggestions posted before wouldn't bother you either I would assume. After all it is just an "exhibition" game. ( But as Steve said, aren't all games exhibition games?? )

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson

Edit: Something I just read at TSN

In Ken Rosenthal's latest column, a fan wrote that since his favorite team was in the NL, he'll just vote now for the best players in the NL, and the worst players on the ballot for the AL. So if a lot of people think the All Star voting is a joke now, just what is going to happen when the ballot stuffing goes to this extreme?

Well I've got one more "fact" for ya. Since 1976 the record for ASGs ( not counting 2002 ) is:

AL: 13-13
NL: 13-13

Home field advantage from 1976 - 2001:

AL: 13
NL: 13

 

[Derek in Tucson]

1. Oh, I thought we were talking about home field advantage in the World Series and not some numbers that doesn't directly realte to home field advantage like you have. Again, 15 out of the last 17 teams with home field advantage have won the World Series. That's a fact tied directly to the discussion at hand and jot some outlier like teams having nobody who hit more than 36 HRs during the regular season. Of course if you had any proof that home field advantage was meaningless, I might reconsider my position, but all I see out fo you is meaningless minutae.

2. Hot streaks and luck do decide serious matters like titles, I just don't think an exhibition game should decide things. In the examples you cite, the deciding factor was that the teams directly involved were on the field of play at the time and not some ballot stuffed All Star team that's filled out with biased manager's picks and all inclusive moves that get Ron Coomer on the roster.

3. Who said I didn't think the All Star game could use some changes? I already offfered up my solution, go back to the way it was when everybody didn't HAVE to get in the game. I just think that MLB is making a big mistake by attaching actual meaning to a game the players don't take all that seriously.

4. Nice to see you didn't have any comments about the ballot stuffing. So you don't think it'll happen, oir that it won't have any effect?

How about this scenario...a Boston Red Sox pitcher is on the mound in the bottom of the 9th inning of a tied All Star game. The Sox are 15 games behind the first place Yankees in the standings. So the Red Sox pitcher "looks" like he grooves a fastball to some bad Brewers rep, and the NL wins the game. So what happens the next day when it's suggested in the press, and by the fans, that the Red Sox pitcher just grooved one in so the Yankees would get home field advantage in the playoffs? Even if that Sox pitcher didn't do it, don't you see where the integrity of the game would be questioned? Would that scenario have a worse effect on the game than last year's tie?

 

[Cland]

I’m sure this has been said before but I don't know why they don't just give it to the best regular season record. It seems to work fine in every other major sports league. Alternating like they used to do it was just as stupid as having the all star game decide it.