Should the winner of the All Star game have home field advantage in the world series?

catalankid · July 12th, 2008, 10:26 PM

I am curious of how you feel about this rule. I'm a fan of the national league style of play, and I have to admit that they have come up short in the win column for quite some time now at the all star game. With that being said, I still don't mind the rule, as I feel that the national league will just have to get tougher if the want home field advantage for their contender in the world series.

SINCASTER · July 12th, 2008, 10:28 PM

No.
Alternate by year.
Home advantage in the WS should not be decided by an exhibition game.
Another bad Bud decision.

geddins · July 12th, 2008, 10:35 PM

Absolutely....one of the best improvements to baseball in recent years. But if they wanted to give HF to the holder of the best regular season record, I'd be ok with that as well.

It should not be alternated....HF is a very real advantage for many teams and to get it can be the difference between a championship and 2nd place. You outta earn HF ...one way or another.

SINCASTER · July 12th, 2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geddins

Absolutely....one of the best improvements to baseball in recent years. But if they wanted to give HF to the holder of the best regular season record, I'd be ok with that as well.

It should not be alternated....HF is a very real advantage for many teams and to get it can be the difference between a championship and 2nd place. You outta earn HF ...one way or another.

I'm concerned about the possibility of either league having home advantage for a decade.
Seems to be not much of an issue though as we have yet to see a game 7 since Bud's blunder.

geddins · July 12th, 2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINCASTER

I'm concerned about the possibility of either league having home advantage for a decade.
Seems to be not much of an issue though as we have yet to see a game 7 since Bud's blunder.

Well, as far as I'm concerned that wouldn't bother me....if the other side wants it bad enough they'll win it I think. It won't break my heart either way to be honest, but I prefer it to be "earned" someway.

skydawg · July 12th, 2008, 10:56 PM

I think the breaking point was the game that got suspended because both teams ran out of pitchers. I think the all star game by it's very nature is more compatible with the AL style of play (offense vs defense, very broadly speaking). More players seem to get voted in for offensive prowess vs. defensive. Personally, I'd like to see the voting go back to the players and coaches.

morroben · July 12th, 2008, 10:58 PM

NO!!! There are a VERY limited number of players in the all star game that have a chance to make it to the World Series. They know this. What's there incentive?
Should I get upset when every pitcher on the AL squad gets a chance to play? My Angels might have a better chance at home field if I stick with the one best pitcher.
It's an exhibition...shouldn't matter at all regarding anything.
I get what they're trying to do, and I can respect the sentiment of wanting it to matter, but they're wrong this time.

Buckocaster51 · July 12th, 2008, 11:00 PM

Sure why not?

MLB's game.

MLB's rules.

Let them do what they want.

If you know what I mean.

Derek S · July 12th, 2008, 11:31 PM

Give it to the series contender with the better record. The All Star Game is merely an exhibition and should not have home field deciding importance.

ac15 · July 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM

Not if the participants in the All Star Game continue to be chosen in the manner they are. If the game counts for something, don't let fans vote and don't make it mandatory that every team has at least one member. Basically what MLB is saying is that it's not necessary to field the best team, but the game has importance. Makes no sense.

The Bone2 · July 13th, 2008, 01:42 AM

First of all, the fans SHOULD vote for the all-star team. Frankly, it is one of the only and final connections that any fan has for any of the major sports. Aside from maybe giving some overpaid hoops player a high-five as he walks off the court at half-time.

So, assuming the fans vote for the all stars, then the answer is clearly...

Absolutely, NO, the all-star game should not give home field advantage to the winning team.

I may be all wet, but I think Bud Selig is one of the worst, if not the worst commissioners of all time (contrary to Bob Costas and George Will, who both worship the dirt he walks on).

boris bubbanov · July 13th, 2008, 12:29 PM

The imbalance is already out of hand; why make the competition more lop sided?

At least wait until both leagues are playing on the same par.

straightface · July 13th, 2008, 06:26 PM

It should go to the team with the best regular season record.

ajgus · July 13th, 2008, 06:30 PM

Should the winner of the All Star game have home field advantage in the world series?

Short answer...No.

It's an exhibition game. It is to give the fans a chance to build their dream teams & see "what would happen if...". Period. More than half of the teams represented have no chance of making it to the World Series. Where is the incentive to perform? The managers should not be put into a position where-by they can not give each elected player a chance to play. I completely agree with skydawg in that this is a direct result of the tie game a few years back. But that never should have happened. That was their (MLB's) fault. It should either alternate from year to year or the team with the best record should get the advantage.

getbent · July 13th, 2008, 06:34 PM

aquila non capit muscas

boris bubbanov · July 13th, 2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getbent

aquila non capit muscas

Waitress, I'll have what he's having, please!

Gipper · July 14th, 2008, 05:58 AM

Better question...should the DH be in all 7 games, not just the AL home games?

Gip

stantheman · July 14th, 2008, 07:09 AM

This makes The All-Star Game much MUCH more than just a stupid exhibition.
The All Star Game is important.

chet · July 14th, 2008, 08:07 AM

"Should the winner of the All Star game have home field advantage in the world series? "

Who cares?

July 12th, 2008, 10:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
catalankid TDPRI Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Richfield, Id. Age: 54 Posts: 43	Should the winner of the All Star game have home field advantage in the world series? I am curious of how you feel about this rule. I'm a fan of the national league style of play, and I have to admit that they have come up short in the win column for quite some time now at the all star game. With that being said, I still don't mind the rule, as I feel that the national league will just have to get tougher if the want home field advantage for their contender in the world series.

July 12th, 2008, 10:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
geddins Tele-Afflicted Join Date: May 2005 Location: Texas Age: 46 Posts: 1,826	Absolutely....one of the best improvements to baseball in recent years. But if they wanted to give HF to the holder of the best regular season record, I'd be ok with that as well. It should not be alternated....HF is a very real advantage for many teams and to get it can be the difference between a championship and 2nd place. You outta earn HF ...one way or another. __________________ www.myspace.com/gregeddins

July 12th, 2008, 11:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
Buckocaster51 Poster Extraordinaire Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Iowa USA Age: 56 Posts: 5,208 1 Photos	Sure why not? MLB's game. MLB's rules. Let them do what they want. If you know what I mean. __________________ "If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all." - Thumper the Rabbit "An awfully lot of time can be wasted waiting for the right time." - Gunsmoke's Doc Adams

July 12th, 2008, 11:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
Derek S Tele-Meister Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: EL PUEBLO VIEJO Posts: 320	Give it to the series contender with the better record. The All Star Game is merely an exhibition and should not have home field deciding importance. __________________ "Derek's good t'night"-Mick Jagger

July 13th, 2008, 01:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
The Bone2 Tele-Holic Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Sacratomato Age: 43 Posts: 644	It is a valid question First of all, the fans SHOULD vote for the all-star team. Frankly, it is one of the only and final connections that any fan has for any of the major sports. Aside from maybe giving some overpaid hoops player a high-five as he walks off the court at half-time. So, assuming the fans vote for the all stars, then the answer is clearly... Absolutely, NO, the all-star game should not give home field advantage to the winning team. I may be all wet, but I think Bud Selig is one of the worst, if not the worst commissioners of all time (contrary to Bob Costas and George Will, who both worship the dirt he walks on). __________________ "I tried Telecaster and it only has two sounds, good and bad, and a very weak tone variation" - Jimi Hendrix

July 12th, 2008, 10:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
SINCASTER Tele-Meister Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: 20 miles outta town and cold irons bound Posts: 447	No. Alternate by year. Home advantage in the WS should not be decided by an exhibition game. Another bad Bud decision.

July 12th, 2008, 10:56 PM	#6 (permalink)
skydawg Removed Tele-Afflicted Join Date: May 2006 Location: GREATER CHICAGOLAND AREA, USA Age: 55 Posts: 1,158	I think the breaking point was the game that got suspended because both teams ran out of pitchers. I think the all star game by it's very nature is more compatible with the AL style of play (offense vs defense, very broadly speaking). More players seem to get voted in for offensive prowess vs. defensive. Personally, I'd like to see the voting go back to the players and coaches.

July 12th, 2008, 10:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
morroben Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: california Age: 32 Posts: 1,780 18 Photos	NO!!! There are a VERY limited number of players in the all star game that have a chance to make it to the World Series. They know this. What's there incentive? Should I get upset when every pitcher on the AL squad gets a chance to play? My Angels might have a better chance at home field if I stick with the one best pitcher. It's an exhibition...shouldn't matter at all regarding anything. I get what they're trying to do, and I can respect the sentiment of wanting it to matter, but they're wrong this time.

July 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM	#10 (permalink)
ac15 Tele-Holic Join Date: May 2005 Location: CHICAGO, IL. Posts: 586	Not if the participants in the All Star Game continue to be chosen in the manner they are. If the game counts for something, don't let fans vote and don't make it mandatory that every team has at least one member. Basically what MLB is saying is that it's not necessary to field the best team, but the game has importance. Makes no sense.

July 13th, 2008, 12:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
boris bubbanov Poster Extraordinaire Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: New Orleans, LA + in the past Posts: 7,684	The imbalance is already out of hand; why make the competition more lop sided? At least wait until both leagues are playing on the same par. __________________ Bubban0v

July 13th, 2008, 06:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
straightface Tele-Holic Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: MA Posts: 851	It should go to the team with the best regular season record. __________________ At the end of time, all that will remain is Keith Richards, a Fender Telecaster, a bunch of cockroaches, and roots rock music. With nobody left to categorize it for, I bet Keef’ll just call it rock and roll… -Brian Henneman of The Bottle Rockets

July 13th, 2008, 06:30 PM	#14 (permalink)
ajgus Friend of Leo's Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: chicago Posts: 2,006	*Should the winner of the All Star game have home field advantage in the world series?* Short answer...No. It's an exhibition game. It is to give the fans a chance to build their dream teams & see "what would happen if...". Period. More than half of the teams represented have no chance of making it to the World Series. Where is the incentive to perform? The managers should not be put into a position where-by they can not give each elected player a chance to play. I completely agree with skydawg in that this is a direct result of the tie game a few years back. But that never should have happened. That was their (MLB's) fault. It should either alternate from year to year or the team with the best record should get the advantage. __________________ "I'll eat up all your crackers & your licorice. Hey yo, fat girl...come here...are you ticklish?" - Sir Humpty Hump

July 13th, 2008, 06:34 PM	#15 (permalink)
getbent Moderator Poster Extraordinaire Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: San Benito County, California Age: 48 Posts: 9,565 37 Photos	aquila non capit muscas __________________

July 14th, 2008, 05:58 AM	#17 (permalink)
Gipper TDPRI Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Kaiserslautern Germany Age: 47 Posts: 25	Better question...should the DH be in all 7 games, not just the AL home games? Gip

July 14th, 2008, 07:09 AM	#18 (permalink)
stantheman Friend of Leo's Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: White Mountains Posts: 4,931	Yes YES and Y-E-S!!! This makes The All-Star Game much MUCH more than just a stupid exhibition. The All Star Game is important. __________________ Somebody Loan Me A Dime

July 14th, 2008, 08:07 AM	#19 (permalink)
chet Poster Extraordinaire Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: The Jersey Shore Posts: 6,417	"Should the winner of the All Star game have home field advantage in the world series? " Who cares? __________________ In Brett We Trust.