PDA

View Full Version : The All star game


It's Time
06-29-2008, 10:46 PM
Has it ever been bigger in terms of getting home field advantage? With the way teams are dominating at home, this is going to be huge.

Currently, the Rays have the best record in the AL and that leaves the Sox just 3 games out as far as getting home field.

:popcorn:

chisoxfanatic
06-29-2008, 11:13 PM
The AL is gonna win this All Star game in a laugher. It won't be even close.

sox1970
06-29-2008, 11:25 PM
The AL is gonna win this All Star game in a laugher. It won't be even close.

Thanks. I won't watch then.

DumpJerry
06-30-2008, 01:29 AM
The strong home field advantage going on during the regular season will not be as strong in the playoffs. There will be quality teams on both side and the stakes are higher.

How comfortable would you feel if the Sox came home for Game 6 behind two games to three against the best and hottest of the National League winning three in a row against us?

The All Star Game should not determine who has HFA in the World Series. Season records of the combatants should.

jcw218
06-30-2008, 01:57 AM
The strong home field advantage going on during the regular season will not be as strong in the playoffs. There will be quality teams on both side and the stakes are higher.

How comfortable would you feel if the Sox came home for Game 6 behind two games to three against the best and hottest of the National League winning three in a row against us?

The All Star Game should not determine who has HFA in the World Series. Season records of the combatants should.

The part in bold is absolutely correct. Lets get back to treating the All Star Game as it was meant to be, an exhibition game for the fans. If MLB is going to continue to give the home field advantage to the winner of the all staqr game, then it should reconsider how the starters and reserves are selected for each leagues squad.

TDog
06-30-2008, 02:09 AM
The strong home field advantage going on during the regular season will not be as strong in the playoffs. There will be quality teams on both side and the stakes are higher.

How comfortable would you feel if the Sox came home for Game 6 behind two games to three against the best and hottest of the National League winning three in a row against us?

The All Star Game should not determine who has HFA in the World Series. Season records of the combatants should.

I think season records of the combatants are as irrelevant as the results of the All-Star. I don't know if the Cubs still have the best record in the National League, but they went, what, 6-9 against the American League? The are, I think something like 9-3 against the Pirates. The White Sox only got to play three games against the Pirates and had to play seven games in St. Petersburg. The Cubs lost three in their only series against the Rays. The Cubs have a record 2.5 games better than the Sox, but it is clear that the Sox have already played a tougher schedule (and the Cubs are going to San Francisco for four games).

You are right about the homefield advantage diminishing in the postseason, though. In 2005, the Sox went 11-1 in the postseason, and their only loss came at home. They won three games in Anaheim. The Sox don't often go into Anaheim and win three straight regular season games.

You don't know how the 2005 World Series would have come out if the NL had won the All-Star Game, of course. But the Sox won two games in Chicago and two in Houston. And when the Tigers had the homefield advantage in 2006, the Cardinals still beat them. It seems to have been awhile since the homefield advantage meant anything.

Anyway, the results of the All-Star Game may be arbitrary, but regular season records are just as arbitrary, perhaps less arbitrary than rotating homefield in alternate years.

jcw218
06-30-2008, 02:19 AM
You are right about the homefield advantage diminishing in the postseason, though. In 2005, the Sox went 11-1 in the postseason, and their only loss came on the road. They won three games in Anaheim. The Sox don't often go into Anaheim and win three straight regular season games.

Actually, the Sox won every game that they played on the road in teh playoff in 2005. Game 3 in Boston to finish the sweep, games 3, 4, and five in LA and games 3 and 4 in Houston to complete the sweep. The only loss by the Sox was game one in the ALCS in Chicago after the Angels had to play on three consecutive days, in 3 different cities in three different time zones.

TDog
06-30-2008, 03:18 AM
Actually, the Sox won every game that they played on the road in teh playoff in 2005. Game 3 in Boston to finish the sweep, games 3, 4, and five in LA and games 3 and 4 in Houston to complete the sweep. The only loss by the Sox was game one in the ALCS in Chicago after the Angels had to play on three consecutive days, in 3 different cities in three different time zones.

I meant to type "at home," which really makes my point. It's late.

Railsplitter
06-30-2008, 07:05 AM
There's nothing wrong with alternating "home field advanatge" in the World Series each year. A true champions should be abe to win anywhere, home, away or nuetral site.

For those of you advocated give the privlige of hosting Game 1 of the Series to the team with better record: What if the two teams have identical records and didn't play each other? Are you going to settle the with a coin flip? Pulling a slip of paper out of a hat?

jcw218
06-30-2008, 11:51 AM
There's nothing wrong with alternating "home field advanatge" in the World Series each year. A true champions should be abe to win anywhere, home, away or nuetral site.

For those of you advocated give the privlige of hosting Game 1 of the Series to the team with better record: What if the two teams have identical records and didn't play each other? Are you going to settle the with a coin flip? Pulling a slip of paper out of a hat?

There is nothing wrong with alternating the home field advantage in the World Series each year.

In the rare event that the two teams meeting in the World Series do have the same record and no head to head competition or dead even, how about who has the better record against common opponents?

What this discussion stems from is the fact that the league that wins the All Star Game is the league that is "awarded" the home field advantage for the World Series.

Let us not forget what the All Star Game is supposed to be, an exhibition game to display the games best players as decided by us fans, wether deserving or not. As long as the starters are being elected by fans in a popularity contest, the game should not mean anything, and if it ends in a tie, then so be it.

Hitmen77
06-30-2008, 12:20 PM
I think season records of the combatants are as irrelevant as the results of the All-Star. I don't know if the Cubs still have the best record in the National League, but they went, what, 6-9 against the American League? The are, I think something like 9-3 against the Pirates. The White Sox only got to play three games against the Pirates and had to play seven games in St. Petersburg. The Cubs lost three in their only series against the Rays. The Cubs have a record 2.5 games better than the Sox, but it is clear that the Sox have already played a tougher schedule (and the Cubs are going to San Francisco for four games).



I completely agree. Excellent example.

Noir
06-30-2008, 12:26 PM
There's nothing wrong with alternating "home field advanatge" in the World Series each year. A true champions should be abe to win anywhere, home, away or nuetral site.

For those of you advocated give the privlige of hosting Game 1 of the Series to the team with better record: What if the two teams have identical records and didn't play each other? Are you going to settle the with a coin flip? Pulling a slip of paper out of a hat?

If it were me, I would determine it by run differential.

EDIT: Only in the case that Railsplitter described above.

It's Time
06-30-2008, 12:38 PM
If the NL does win the game, there is a strong possibility that the Cubs would be getting the benefit of the HF advantage should they get to the series. Normally it would not be a big deal but if the Cubs do finish with the NL best record, I can't see them losing at Wrigley to any team that the NL has to offer.

Seriously, they need to change this rule.

jabrch
06-30-2008, 12:48 PM
Give it to the league with the best record in interleague play?

skottyj242
06-30-2008, 12:51 PM
What if the overall winner of interleague matchups gets home field? It would make every game more important.

TDog
06-30-2008, 12:55 PM
If the NL does win the game, there is a strong possibility that the Cubs would be getting the benefit of the HF advantage should they get to the series. Normally it would not be a big deal but if the Cubs do finish with the NL best record, I can't see them losing at Wrigley to any team that the NL has to offer.

Seriously, they need to change this rule.

Any way short of alternating homefield advangage between leagues would be arbitrary and capricious. Throwing run differential into the picture would be silly. Basesball teams play to win -- not win by a lot. The best teams win a lot of one-run games. (By the way, for all the complaints about the White Sox offense, they lead the American League in run differential.)

I still believe the Cubs are a longshot to get to the World Series (as are the White Sox and every other team for that matter -- though some shots are longer than others). Cubs fans believed they would have made it to the 1984 World Series if they had had homefield advantage in the NLCS. In 2003, they had homefield advantage and two of the league's top starters set to go at home with a 3-2 series lead.

Homefield in the World Series is not that big of a deal.

hawkjt
06-30-2008, 03:48 PM
I like the All-Star game having real implications...I think they play harder late in the game for this win. Just me. Plus, I like having home field in the World Series...those opening two games are very big ...usually a saturday and sunday game that make for a great weekend for the home team in terms of sheer event.

downstairs
07-01-2008, 10:59 AM
I actually think the overall interleague record (all AL vs NL games) should determine home field. Its the closest thing to fair. My thinking is if the AL team had to come out of a tougher league (and interleague games determine this pretty well), they should get home field.

Another idea along these lines is merely the interleague record of the two WS teams- but that's a tiny sample size.

I always hated the rotating home/away. The team's record is irrelevant, indeed. And the AS game idea is just foolishness.

White City
07-01-2008, 11:56 AM
Another idea along these lines is merely the interleague record of the two WS teams- but that's a tiny sample size.

How about a compromise in the middle? Take the interleague records of the four playoff teams from each side, and compare the aggregate for each league. That cuts down on the fluke team, but it also doesn't give the AL credit for the Royals beating the Nationals.

soxfan13
07-01-2008, 12:02 PM
How about a compromise in the middle? Take the interleague records of the four playoff teams from each side, and compare the aggregate for each league. That cuts down on the fluke team, but it also doesn't give the AL credit for the Royals beating the Nationals.


would they get credit for the winning records they had against STL, ARI and FLA?

soxpride724
07-01-2008, 12:04 PM
The part in bold is absolutely correct. Lets get back to treating the All Star Game as it was meant to be, an exhibition game for the fans. If MLB is going to continue to give the home field advantage to the winner of the all staqr game, then it should reconsider how the starters and reserves are selected for each leagues squad.


THANK YOU! I'm sick of players being voted in based on popularity, it's not a ****in popularity contest.