 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
The All-Star Game
It seems like we're going to try awarding home-field advantage in the World Series to the team representing the league that wins the All-Star game. I don't like that idea and I'll tell you why.
First of all, there are other, much better ways of determining home-field advantage in the World Series. Up until now it simply rotated every year. I don't really know what's wrong with that, other than the fact that it doesn't reward a team for a good regular season, but neither does the All-Star game scenario.
It would seem logical to give home-field advantage in the World Series to the team with the best record (this is how baseball handles the earlier rounds of the playoffs, and it's how every other sport determines playoff sites as well). Baseball says that this wouldn't be possible logistically, but that argument doesn't hold water. As it is, baseball has to prepare to open the World Series in two different cities. Say, for example, that the Braves and the Cardinals are playing for the National League title, and the National League has home-field advantage in the World Series (either by virtue of it being their year in the rotation, or because the National League won the All-Star game). You've got to be prepared for the World Series to be in either Atlanta or St. Louis.
Now, say that the Cards and Braves are duking it out in the NL, and Yankees and Mariners are playing in the ALCS. Say also that home-field in the World Series goes to whoever has the best record. In this example, give the Braves the best record in baseball, then the Yankees, then the Mariners, then the Cardinals. Now you've got to prepare for the World Series to be in three possible cities (not four, because there's no scenario by which it would be in St. Louis). So it's only 50% more work than is being done already, which may indeed be a lot of extra work, but basketball and hockey do it every year, sometime having to share arenas as they do. No baseball stadiums are also used for hockey and/or basketball (not since the Timberwolves played in the Metrodome, at least. I went to one of those games. Boy was that a dreary scene. More on that later. Actually, scratch that. No more on that, ever).
So the argument that giving home-field to the best team is too much of a headache isn't a valid one (at least I don't think so). The other argument for giving home-field to the league that wins the All-Star game is that it will give the players something to play for, thus making the All-Star game more meaningful.
I just don't see it. The players wanting to win made the All-Star game meaningful, the All-Star game being meaningful didn't make the players want to win. I read a story once where the National League, in the 70s, during a very long All-Star game winning streak, took batting practice before the game with smaller, more tightly-wound Japanese balls. They flew out of the ballpark, and the American League (so the story goes) was intimidated, and lost again. Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is an example (as is Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse) of how the players really used to ascribe some sort of importance to the outcome of the All-Star game. It didn't mean anything more then than it does now, but the players wanted to win, so the game was important.
Home-field advantage in the World Series is important (22 of the last 30 World Series winners had it), but half of the All-Stars (whose teams wouldn't be in contention anyway) wouldn't care about it, and half of the players on elite teams who might care about it would be out by the eighth or ninth inning of a close All-Star game (you don't really think Barry Bonds or Juan Gonzalez is going to play nine innings of All-Star ball for home-field advantage, do you? Maybe you do, in which case my argument is moot. But I don't think they would).
I guess we can't know until we do it, but I don't think that home-field is enough of an incentive for the players to start caring about the outcome again, and if they don't care about the outcome then the game will remain meaningless.
But, meaningless or not, it's still fun. So, here's what I would do.
I love the Each Team Gets an All-Star rule. It must stay. During the lean years for the Twins, the only fun thing about the All-Star game was hanging around until the late innings to see Radke pitch to a couple of batters, or to see Ron Coomer strike out looking against Trevor Hoffman. That rule stays, no ifs, ands or buts.
That being said, I think a nice unwritten rule for All-Star game managers would be that every team gets one player in the game, and every first-time All-Star plays. Beyond that, don't knock yourself out trying to get everyone in. That way, if Larry Walker sits on the bench the whole time, then who cares. Larry Walker's been to tons of All-Star games and he'll be to tons more. As long as Rockies fans get to see Todd Helton get his licks, they're fine.
And, as a last-ditch thing, if we ever DO see another tie where we run out of players (highly unlikely), let's just settle the score with a home-run derby. Or let Mark Grace pitch. To both teams (even if he's not an All-Star, he should be on hand just in case). Or something.
Remember, like the rest of baseball: the All-Star game is supposed to be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
