Does anyone else think MLB is being stupid with the All Star game?

[Kodos]

I don't follow MLB at all, except to root against the Yankees come fall, but I've repeatedly seen that ad that says the All Star game will determine which team gets the home field advantage in the World Series. That's just plain stupid. Whatever happened to giving the team with the best record the home field? Way to make a long, meaningless regular season even more meaningless. :rolleyes:

[Radii]

Actually baseball has alternated home field advantage in the world series for decades(possibly all the way back to the first series? A long damn way back I know).

I do agree though using the all star game to decide home field is really stupid. Having a large group of players who won't be involved in the world series, decide a key point of it, is asinine. There must have been 50 other ways to avoid the debacle of last year's all star game than the one they finally chose.

[Radii]

dola, if you don't like baseball, that's fine, or if you think the regular season is too long, that's fine, but I will always argue that the NBA and NHL have meaningless regular seasons, much much moreso than baseball. I can't really respect any league that allows over 50% of its teams into the playoffs. to me, *that* is the definition of a meaningless regular season.

Baseball is a game of small swings, and over the course of the season only the small number of teams that truly prove themselves get a shot at the title.

[Kodos]

They alternate home field in the World Series each year? That seems dumb too... Why not reward the team with the best record?

Ah well. I said the regular season is meaningless more due to the sheer number of games. With so many games, no single game makes that big of a difference, whereas in the NFL, almost every game has some sort of consequence for the teams involved. Anyhow, like I said, I don't really follow MLB at all until playoff time, so my comments aren't worth much. I was just shocked by the All Star game being used to determine anything of any importance, much less the home field advantage in the series. It just seems backwards for a major league to be run that way.

[Chief Rum]

Hmm...I guess it's a matter of how you look at it, Kodos, but I disagree with you completely.

In my mind, it is best served when the best teams get the best shots to win the title. By having as many games as they do, baseball makes it extremely hard, maybe veen impossible, for a team to luck through to the playoffs--which has a major-sport low eight members for a 30-team league.

I love football, but the way that just dumb luck or a good run that is not truly indicative of talent determines the successes and failures of whole seasons boggles my mind. That doesn't happen in baseball. Almost exclusively, only the teams that deserve it are a part of the postseason. I can't always say that about the other sports, where if you're mediocre, congrats, you're going to the postseason!

I want a sport where talent and skill determines the winner. Not dumb luck.

Chief Rum

[andy m]

all they need to do to fix the allstar game is get rid of that stupid thing where they feel they have to get everyone onto the field at some point. if they did that, there wouldn't be an issue.

[Travis]

The problem with awarding home field advantage to the team with the better record is the fact that until recently, neither of the leagues played each other during the regular season, which makes it hard to compare the final two teams based on their regular season record because they both played a completely different set of teams (with a completely different set of rules).

Having said that, once they abolish the DH rule and fully integrate a full season schedule in which all teams play each other, then I would be a full supporter of having home field determined by the better record.

[oykib]

I think that it should be based on best record. It's slightly unfair. But a 90-win team in the NL is not as good as a 98-win team in the AL and vice versa. It only becomes unfair when you're deling with a swing of three games or fewer.

Granted, thaat's a lot of games. But it's better than deciding by who wins the All-Star game.

On a related note. How many players have won both the All-Star MVP and the World Series MVP?






One. Derek Jeter did it durring the Subway Series year. That goes to show how related the Midsummer and Fall Classics are.

[Marmel]

Alternating Home Field Advantage was working just fine for how many years? I was happy with that.

The All-Star game is just an exhibition. I am not sure why the tie last year got everybody all worked up. We got to see (I think) 12 innings of the best players in the game, but nobody won. So what? The game counted for nothing. Now you are going to put something on the line, and it will make it less of a 'fun' event.

Sucks. :(

[Travis]

Don't worry Marmel, next year home field advantage will be based on the home run derby so that they can bring the fun back to the actual All-Star game.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I love football, but the way that just dumb luck or a good run that is not truly indicative of talent determines the successes and failures of whole seasons boggles my mind. That doesn't happen in baseball. Almost exclusively, only the teams that deserve it are a part of the postseason. I can't always say that about the other sports, where if you're mediocre, congrats, you're going to the postseason!
It may be true that baseball has the most exclusive postseason, but as a spectator, 162 games vs 16 makes all the difference for me. When watching an NFL game, the coaches and players are always thinking that they have to win THIS GAME to make the playoffs. Every game has huge significance. And yet, I cannot bring myself to watch a regular season baseball game, because I am 99% assured that the result of that game will have no impact on the final standings. What compels one to watch?

I don't agree with you above saying that dumb luck or a good run determines success more in football than baseball. I think that the "better" team wins any given game far more often in football than in baseball. In baseball, only truly great teams win 65% of their games, yet in football, you need to hit that mark just to guarantee making the playoffs.

And don't be so quick to condemn other sports for letting so many teams in, and hold up baseball as a holy paragon. Baseball is rapidly heading that way. For, what, 80 years only 2 teams got in. Then, for 25 years, they let in four, now they are at 8. Do they go 10 years with that system before they become more desperate and add another round, or do they last 12? More playoff teams will come in baseball, its only a question of when. When is the labor contract up?

[Anrhydeddu]

Samdari: I believe you framed your argument incorrectly. Here's a more accurate way of looking at it:

For, what, 80 years only 2 teams got in 2 of 16 = 12.5%. Then, for 25 years, they let in four 4 of 24 = 16.6%, now they are at 8 8 of 30 = 26.6%. The trend held consistent for years but it is still below average despite the bump to 26.6%. NFL, NBA and NHL have been over 33% for years now, I believe.

Kodos et al, you are missing the most important reason for alternating home field, as they had been doing for decades - travel logistics. In the NFL, teams make SB reservations months in advance but for the WS, I think there are too many permutations to make that economically and logistically feasible.

[Canadian Football Guy]

I to think that the team with the best record should be rewarded with home field advantage. The all star game is an exhibition game and as such should not be used to decide something as important as home field advantage in teh world series.

[Samdari]

Yes, expansion did keep the percentage more level than I indicated, which does weaken my argument somewhat. But, by your own numbers, the percentage of playoff teams has been increasing exponentially (for the mathematically uninclined, this means very fast) just not as fast as I had indicated

I was also comparing MLB to the NFL, not the NBA or NHL (which arer both roughly 50%, and had to expand at a ridiculous rate to get down to that). I did, and do, concede that MLB has the most meaningful regular season, as a whole, of the 4 major USA-based sports leagues. However, when weighted by the number of games, any one MLB game is far more meaningless than any NFL game, and roughly even with a single NBA or NHL game (twice as many participants % wise, half as many games).

Your argument in terms of reservations (I assume you mean hotel and stadium) months in advance is somewhat ludicrous. Even knowing which league will have home field, the participants and starting dates of the world series is still not known until days in advance. Once the home field league is decided in July, noone can still make any reservations until October. That just doesn't work. They Yankees may have some inkling whether they will be playing home or away a certain week, but have no idea which team it will be until a few days before.

[Samdari]

Canadian Football Guy

The reason that baseball has given for years to not give the team with the best record home field was that comparing the records of the world series participants was unfair. The records had been attained against a completely different set of teams, and did not represent the same level of achievement. I think it was a good argument, somewhat watered down by interleague play.

I think one thing we are ignoring here is how ridiculous needing to find a reason to win the all-star game has become. It used to be the guys played hard, and managers tried to win because they either loved the game, or had a bit of pride. Sadly, that seems to have been lost.

[Anrhydeddu]

Samdari, I think even at the start of the LCS where there are 3 possibilities, making reservations of this sort only a week in advance would be difficult, imo. Once the playoffs starts, there are just too many combinations to make this feasible. Last season, the D'Backs would have had to make 6-8 sets of reservations at the end of the season, I think. But then again, I do wonder how the NFL can do this somewhat?

[Honolulu Blue]

It doesn't matter much which way it's done, because home field advantage is much less important than in the other major sports. Overall about 55% of home teams win, and one extra game here or there doesn't make that much difference in the long run.

That said, it would probably be fairest to have the home team decided by the team with the best regular season record. Yes, the AL and NL have different rules, but it's basically the same game.

[Samdari]

I don't understand what you are saying above. When a team makes the playoffs, it generally has a week's notice for what city and when they will be playing. For future rounds, there may be a limited choice of teams, but still undetermined dates.

I still remain unclear on how you think either method of determining home field advantage reduces the logistics involved in traveling to away games during the playoffs. All teams, in all sports (err, the 4 major north american leagues) manage it every year, and almost always have less than a week's notice as to where they will play and when. I think travel logistics is a complete non-factor in deciding how to determine which league/team gets home field in the world series.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Samdari, I think even at the start of the LCS where there are 3 possibilities, making reservations of this sort only a week in advance would be difficult, imo. Once the playoffs starts, there are just too many combinations to make this feasible. Last season, the D'Backs would have had to make 6-8 sets of reservations at the end of the season, I think. But then again, I do wonder how the NFL can do this somewhat?

But if what you are saying is true, then what difference does it make? If they alternate between NL and AL every other year or decide thru the all-star game they will still know before the playoff start. The alternating would actually give them a half season head start then waiting until July to determine home field advantage.

The all-star game revision is obviously another attempt by a crappy commisioner to try and win back the fans after he ended last year's game in a tie. And he just doesn't get it. Make Bob Costas commisioner.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Kodos
They alternate home field in the World Series each year? That seems dumb too... Why not reward the team with the best record?


Because extensive MLB research shows that magically the best team alternates between leagues each year (along with homefield advantage), so there is no need to worry about not rewarding the best team!

;)

[Daimyo]

I don't understand how travel logisitics is relevant to the discission at all? Knowing which league has home field advantage before the season starts still doesn't help you at all to know which two teams will be involved.

Who manages the all-star teams? If it is the managers of the teams with the best record at the break, than I think this is a good system (at least as good as you can get with the current setup) since both managers will actually have a huge incentive to try to win.

[Kodos]

Maybe David Copperfield should be made the commish then. :)

[clintl]

The managers from last season's pennant winners manage the All-Star Game.

As far as how to determine home field, there is nothing wrong with continuing to alternate between the leagues. In baseball, because there is so little interleague play, regular season records can be deceptive. It has some validity in basketball and hockey because every team plays everyone else multiple times. (The NFL has the Super Bowl at a neutral site, so it's not an issue there.) For the DCS and LCS, using regular season records is a good idea, but I don't think it's a good solution for the World Series.

However, it's better than using the All-Star Game. Surely, someone could have found a more appropriate way to make the game meaningful.

[stkelly52]

They were talking about doing this before last season's tie All Star game. This has little to do with that game. The main reason why they made the All Star Game determine home field advantage is because the All Star Game has degraded into a meaningless exibition game. Once upon a time, the All Star Game was one of the most important games of the season. The honor of the league was based upon the results of the game. Pitchers played the whole game, or at least most of it. Substitutions were infrequent. They didn't care about getting everyone into the game, they wanted to win. The hope is that some of this type of mentality will return to the game.

[Anrhydeddu]

Travel logisitics have been the argument against having the best record host the WS, as brought up by MLB. I'm just trying to remember why (even it doesn't make much a difference). Right now at the end of the regular season (or in September something), we know the date and four possible cities in which you would play games 1 and 2 and possibly 6 and 7 (assuming NL has the homefield). That is 3-4 weeks to make all of the appropriate reservation blocks. With the penny-pinching of MLB, that is a bigger deal than in the rich NFL or the smaller NBA and NHL. Going into the LCS, there are still 3 possibilities for which city hosts games 1 and 2 if the best record hosts. That, if I recall their argument, is not enough time to get good deals and certainly more so if you don't know what city you will be playing games 1 and 2 in four days. Remember, most MLB clubs make group reservations for every single series that have on the road way early. They just want to plan better in order to save more money. I don't know how this is relevant or if it makes any sense, I'm just thinking of their arguments.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Travel logisitics have been the argument against having the best record host the WS, as brought up by MLB. I'm just trying to remember why (even it doesn't make much a difference). Right now at the end of the regular season (or in September something), we know the date and four possible cities in which you would play games 1 and 2 and possibly 6 and 7 (assuming NL has the homefield). That is 3-4 weeks to make all of the appropriate reservation blocks. With the penny-pinching of MLB, that is a bigger deal than in the rich NFL or the smaller NBA and NHL. Going into the LCS, there are still 3 possibilities for which city hosts games 1 and 2 if the best record hosts. That, if I recall their argument, is not enough time to get good deals and certainly more so if you don't know what city you will be playing games 1 and 2 in four days. Remember, most MLB clubs make group reservations for every single series that have on the road way early. They just want to plan better in order to save more money. I don't know how this is relevant or if it makes any sense, I'm just thinking of their arguments.

The problem is that this explains why the all-star approach is better than the best record approach. It doesn't explain why the all-star approach is better than the alternating league approach.

[Anrhydeddu]

Personally, there is nothing wrong with the alternating league approach. As had been said, the MLB regular season (as the whole) means more and with best-of-5/7 playoffs, it can't come down to dumb luck or home field (which doesn't mean much).

[Chief Rum]

Heh, I don't know if I put much weight into my friend Anrhydeddu's travel logistics theory, although I do agree that being a fan and trying to get to away postseason games would be a nightmare. To be honest, knowing whether the World Series will be home or away on given days only helps a little in this regard.

Basically, everyone is trying to say what is the best way for home field advantage to be determined for the World Series, and the fact of the matter is that A) baseball isn't set up in any way to make best record a fair resolution, and B) home field advantage doiesn't mean merely as much in baseball as it does in other sports.

No, the reason for this All Star thing has very little to do with that really. It's about the All Star game itself. stkelly a few posts above put it exactly the way it is. I know those of you who prefer the other sports are probably used to meaningless All Star events--just silly mideason (or for football postseason) celebrations of the league. Well, baseball ain't like that, and never has been. This game was never just an exhibition until the attitudes of players and managers recently changed that. This is an effort to change that attitude--to make this game matter--and I, for one, applaud it. I don't think it will have enough of an effect to ever actually determine a World Series winner, but has just enough enticement to at least get the players and managers to try--because most of them don't know yet if it may be their very own team that is affected by it.

Now as to the importance of the regular season, Samdari, you seem to enjoy math. You're right that the baseball game individually has less importance. But, you see, that's my whole point. A game isn't supposed to be the whole season! In football, sometimes it can feel that way. Let's say we allow that luck is a determining factor in all sports games, and that it is roughly the same for each sport (debatable, but this is hypothetical only). In football, you roll the dice just 16 times. If you hit bad luck or a team on a roll, even bad teams can win big in just 16 games. But when you roll it 162 times, you can't depend on luck anymore. It just doesn't make as big a difference because the bigger weight of actual talent starts to dominate in extended periods like that.

And point all you want to the trend of increasing postseason teams in baseball, but the fact of the matter is that in 100 years of modern baseball, the sport is still far behind the others in percentage of postseason teams (26.6%). Meanwhile, the NFL has advanced to 37.5% in just 35 years of "modern" football, and is already considering expanding further. The NBA and NHL are over 50%, and neither league has been around in its present form for three-quarters of the length of time baseball has been around.

Loose yourself from the importance of the game. I know when you take the time to watch something you like to think that that particular game will make a big difference, but the fact of the matter is that any sport in which any one game can have so much importance (short of a postseason game) is inherently flawed. Greatness is proven over time, not by a small subset of a game or a handful of games. And the postseason should be about the greatness, the skill, of teams. Baseball ensures that it is the skilled and not the lucky that get to the postseason.

BTW, I'm not saying that the other sports' regular seasons are meaningless--just less so than baseball's. Nor am I saying that unskilled teams in these sports are constantly getting to the postseason--but it's a heck of a lot more possible for that to happen with shorter regular seasons and extended postseasons.

Chief Rum

[tucker342]

really big mistake by MLB

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Loose yourself from the importance of the game. I know when you take the time to watch something you like to think that that particular game will make a big difference, but the fact of the matter is that any sport in which any one game can have so much importance (short of a postseason game) is inherently flawed. Greatness is proven over time, not by a small subset of a game or a handful of games. And the postseason should be about the greatness, the skill, of teams. Baseball ensures that it is the skilled and not the lucky that get to the postseason.
Well, I cannot loose myself from the importance of the game. That is what I love about sports. When the games matter the most is when I find them the most interesting. I only watch soccer during the world cup, but I watch, every time, because it matters so much.

Greatness may be proven over time, but I just don't have that much time to watch anymore. I agree that baseball takes the most care in ensuring that only its best teams make its postseason, which is then played in such a fashion that goes completely against that. For the same reasons you argue above, that being hot for a short period of time means nothing, you have essentially rendered the baseball postseason meaningless.

[cthomer5000]

But if baseball proves who the best team is over 162 games... why bother having a postseason?

[Chief Rum]

Still, Samdari, set at a seven-game series, it still equals the max that other sports' teams have to go through to win a championship. And since baseball's regular season has already assured that only deserving teams have reached the postseason, all eight teams are already within their rights to claim the championship without prejudice.

The postseason format itself may not be much of an improvement on what other sports do, but at least all the participants are virtually assured of being deserving of playing in it.

And, cthomer, the regular season merely weeds out the teams that are merely lucky. It doesn't determine who is really the best, especially since teams play in different leagues and different schedules. That is what the postseason is for.

Chief Rum