MLB Off-Topic

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

My alternative would be allow the writers to vote in the All-Star participants.

The writers who arbitrarily decide someone can only make it into the Hall on their 4th try instead of the 1st because Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous? They're not any more unbiased than fans, they'll vote for their local guys the same way.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The writers who arbitrarily decide someone can only make it into the Hall on their 4th try instead of the 1st because Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous? They're not any more unbiased than fans, they'll vote for their local guys the same way.

Ok...then let the coaches and players vote for starters the same way they vote for the reserves.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Does everyone think that home-field advantage really matters that much in the World Series? It's stupid that the ASG decides that, but it's a relatively minor detail to me.

Addy doesn't deserve to be starting, but this happens every season and his starting spot isn't as egregious as any other starter who shouldn't have been there in the past.

[LowerWolf]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The ASG deciding home-field for the World Series has never bothered me. I actually kind of like it.

[PhilliesFan13]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Jorge Mateo suspended 2 weeks by the Yankees for complaining to the front office about not being promoted to AA Trenton.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/ya...-front-office/

Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Does everyone think that home-field advantage really matters that much in the World Series? It's stupid that the ASG decides that, but it's a relatively minor detail to me.

Addy doesn't deserve to be starting, but this happens every season and his starting spot isn't as egregious as any other starter who shouldn't have been there in the past.

If you're manager is John Fareell yes. If not then no it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Does everyone think that home-field advantage really matters that much in the World Series? It's stupid that the ASG decides that, but it's a relatively minor detail to me.

Yes I do.

Since 2003, the home team is 9-4 in the World Series.

[slickdtc]

MLB Off-Topic

I don't put too much stock in HFA because historically it's only a slight bump in advantage, but there is some meaning to it. And especially in baseball where teams take turns playing offense/defense based on who is home and who is away.

If fans voted in a player of the NHL's John Scott caliber like what happened this last season, with the game meaning something, it would be a bigger deal. Right now, mostly negligible.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Aledmys Diaz is replacing Matt Carpenter on the NL All-Star roster.

Corey Kluber is replacing Marco Estrada on the AL All Star roster

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Does everyone think that home-field advantage really matters that much in the World Series?

Three words: Designated hitter rule.

If that's not enough, currently 23 of the 30 MLB teams have better home records than road records (by win % comparison). Also, 24 of the last 30 World Series championships have been claimed by the team who secured home field advantage (in the post-Milwaukee ASG Bud Selig rule era, that's 9 of the last 13 years).

The ASG deciding home-field for the World Series has never bothered me. I actually kind of like it.

I like it, too. It's the best ASG of any of the four core sports by far. Then again, it was even before it was an impacting game.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Russell and Aledmys are similar but it should really be Crawford or Seager starting. Both are having ridiculously good seasons.

I can cosign this 100%. Seager and Crawford both deserve to be there with Seager starting. Where I get off the bus is when people start ranking Russell 5th or 6th best SS in the NL to exaggerate their point.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

My alternative would be allow the writers to vote in the All-Star participants.

So you want the same writers that vote for the HoF to vote for the ASG? I'm sure that will go over well..... /s. At least it's an alternative idea. Most never get past the rabble rabble rabble part of it. I am cool with the fans doing it because I can't really think of a better alternative.

Never said that Addison Russell was a joke player. While I give you that Addison Russell is a good defensive player, I don't see where his defense raises his poor offensive output compared to guys like Diaz and Crawford, to the point where he gets a place over the other two in the All-Star Game.

Let me ask you this, had Crawford and/or Diaz been chosen over Russell would you feel as though he was wronged?

Not really, but I don't think me feeling wronged or not is a good barometer of what's right or supposed to happen either. I don't see it as such a critical thing, to be elected to the ASG or starting lineup. As long as the players are having good seasons, I can live with a few debatable ones.

You have to stop making this about Cardinals/Giants/Dodgers vs Cubs fans. There is no team bias on my part, just objectively looking at all the stats and judging who should be in or out of the All-Star game.

I think it's hard to "objectively look at the stats" because none of us have agreed in advance on a common set of criteria as to which stats are the most important. There is no objective vantage point save for really, really obvious cases. Some people are looking at WAR, some people are probably looking mostly at batting average, some are looking at homers etc etc...If the ASG were based on having the players with the best batting averages, then Russell doesn't belong on the team or in the conversation. I am looking at more than one stat.

As far as the "saltiness," the original posts that I responded to included a Cardinals, Giants, and Dodgers fan which just coincidentally happened to match up with the teams of the players being snubbed at NL SS. So there's that. All these other opinions surfaced and were sort of tacked on later. But, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that most fans of the aforementioned teams will take this easier than random fans of other stripes. Obviously, biased fans will care more about their players getting snubbed or not than neutral observers would, a few dissenting opinions here notwithstanding.

It would be "just an All-Star game" if it didn't have such major ramifications in October.

Eh, I'm not buying this massive importance angle. The next time a team wins the WS largely based on having home-field advantage in one additional game will probably be the first. That's just way down the list on what attributes turns a playoff team into a champion, imo.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

There's way too many things involved to say the home team winning the world series is really relevant. A few of those series since it was decided were sweeps, so was home field advantage important there? Maybe but because the home team wins doesn't NECESSARILY mean that there's a large home field advantage.

Having said that, the ASG determining home field is stupid. It doesn't bother me, but it's dumb. The team with the best record should have home field advantage. Why do we play 162 games to give home field in the most important games of the year to a team that had 3 players participate in an exhibition game? Just doesn't make any sense.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Aledmys Diaz is replacing Matt Carpenter on the NL All-Star roster.

Corey Kluber is replacing Marco Estrada on the AL All Star roster

This is the other thing about the ASG voting. Injuries usually make it so some additional snubs can get in. I would've picked Brandon Crawford for that spot, but there is some symmetry to replacing a Cardinal with another one.

Three words: Designated hitter rule.

If that's not enough, currently 23 of the 30 MLB teams have better home records than road records (by win % comparison). Also, 24 of the last 30 World Series championships have been claimed by the team who secured home field advantage (in the post-Milwaukee ASG Bud Selig rule era, that's 9 of the last 13 years).

I see the data here. And it certainly is data. But we have to be careful that we're not attributing the outcome to the wrong reason. Most teams that win HFA pre-Selig era anyway won HFA because they had the better record because they were the better team. I'd be hesitant to chalk these wins up to being because of having HFA or even that HFA played a significant role. It would be an interesting analysis if there were some methodology that could be derived to put odds on how much effect HFA had (where is Nate Silver for something like this?).

[LowerWolf]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Eh, I'm not buying this massive importance angle. The next time a team wins the WS largely based on having home-field advantage in one additional game will probably be the first. That's just way down the list on what attributes turns a playoff team into a champion, imo.

Off the top of my head, the Twins (in 87 and again in 91) are the main one I think of who rode home-field in the WS.

I'd be OK with best record, but that's not a perfect way to determine home-field either.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

This is the other thing about the ASG voting. Injuries usually make it so some additional snubs can get in. I would've picked Brandon Crawford for that spot, but there is some symmetry to replacing a Cardinal with another one.

They had to replace Carpenter with another Cardinals' player due to Carpenter being the lone representative for the ASG.