PDA

View Full Version : How should home field advantage be determined?


chisoxfanatic
07-15-2009, 12:24 AM
It is my belief that the league with the better record in interleague play should get home field advantage in the World Series. It is the best possible way of determining the stronger league on the field, because it's the largest sample size.

How do you think home field advantage in the World Series should be determined?

35th and Shields
07-15-2009, 12:38 AM
I don't get why teams with better records get home field through the first two series, but in the world series it changes into something completely out of any teams control. It's just the worst idea ever.

GoGoCrede
07-15-2009, 12:39 AM
Alternating the fields from year to year. There's really no fair way, but I like this option best.

35th and Shields
07-15-2009, 12:41 AM
Alternating the fields from year to year. There's really no fair way, but I like this option best.

You don't think the team with the best record is the most fair way?

GoGoCrede
07-15-2009, 12:43 AM
You don't think the team with the best record is the most fair way?

But then there's the argument of which team had the easier schedule, etc.

chisoxfanatic
07-15-2009, 12:44 AM
You don't think the team with the best record is the most fair way?
I don't. I think it should be the league with more wins in interleague play. If not that, then MAYBE whomever won the series if the two teams in the World Series met during interleague play that season.

It'll be interesting to see what everyone has to say.

Scottiehaswheels
07-15-2009, 12:45 AM
Coin flip.
Drinking contest between the managers?

BigP50
07-15-2009, 12:50 AM
it has to be the better record between the teams

BNLSox
07-15-2009, 01:09 AM
it has to be the better record between the teams

This is the logical answer, but until MLB confronts the issue of the highly imbalanced schedule and the DH difference, record is not as apples to apples as it might appear. I think "fairly" answering this question has many league corrections taking place to provide for parity rather than abitrary geographic lines determining who should be in the Post Seas.

Until we get a 32 team league or finally force the DH on the NL/do away with the DH in the AL so that interleague can occur all the time and we can have two 15 team leagues, we will still be miles from a fair way to compare records. So I, in the interim, choose the record from interleague play determining the homefield with the All star game also counting in some way greater than a single AL team vs. NL team game would count.

TDog
07-15-2009, 02:05 AM
it has to be the better record between the teams

How about the team with the most triples after the sixth inning in road games. It's just as significant. Maybe the team whose starting pitchers were called for balks the fewest number of times should get the homefield advantage.

These are two different leagues with two sets of rules and two different schedules. If the Rays went to the series again (this is only hypothetical, of course) facing the Dodgers, you would be comparing the record of a team that played 18 games against the Yankees and 18 games against the Red Sox with the record of a team that played an NL East schedule.

There is nothing wrong with the All-Star Game deciding homefield advantage for the World Series, which isn't that big of a deal. Few World Series go seven games. The Phillies on last year without it. The Cardinals in 2006 wouldn't have gotten homefield with their record, but they still beat the Tigers without it. The White Sox lost only one game in the 2005 postseason, and that was at home. Really, they didn't need it.

When you had alternating DH years, homefield meant more. Greg Luzinski wouldn't have been able to DH against the Phillies in 1983 if the Sox had beaten the Orioles. Now it's a smaller thing.

The fact that there is something on the line, however little, has improved the competition in the All-Star Game. If you believe the league with the best interleague record should get homefield because the winning run came in on a sacrifice fly by an Oriole hitting against a Padres pitcher, that too comes down to the Padres and the Nationals losing games to American League opponents as much as the Sox beating the Pirates and Dodgers two out of three. (Of course, tonight's game also came down to a Phillies hitter not getting a hit against a Twins pitcher.)

I know this homefield thing offends people. But I really don't see why.

aryzner
07-15-2009, 07:25 AM
I'm a fan of the better regular season record choice.

Moses_Scurry
07-15-2009, 07:30 AM
I've never heard a logical argument against having the league with the better record in interleague play get the HFA. People who want something else just tend to ignore the suggestion. What would be incorrect about it? It's the best method with no drawbacks at all.

Other options:

Alternating year to year ....... no real drawbacks other than an 84 win team from the NL west shouldn't have HFA over the 97 win AL east power house.

Team with better record ...... major drawbacks IMO. The best team in the pathetic NL central should not have HFA over the Red Sox or Yankees even if they have a slightly better record.

Current system ..... HFA for a great LA Dodgers team should not be decided by a crappy inning by a relief pitcher of the last place San Diego Padres.


Interleague is the only way to go with alternating year-to-year as the 2nd best choice.

Madvora
07-15-2009, 07:40 AM
What about each individual team's interleague record? Forget about league vs league, that's another thing that is outside of the two pennant winners' control. Maybe they should look at the AL champ's interleague record and the NL champ's interleague record.

DumpJerry
07-15-2009, 07:52 AM
They should leave it up to Dale Tallon to decide.

russ99
07-15-2009, 07:58 AM
Right now, I think best record should get it.

But an interesting idea is that if a team with a lesser record beats the team who would have the LCS/Series homefield in an earlier round, they should "inherit" that advantage.

Would make for some interesting scenarios, especially since the top teams fall out early more often than not.

RedHeadPaleHoser
07-15-2009, 07:59 AM
They should leave it up to Dale Tallon to decide.

The decision for WS HFA will be completed by Super Bowl Sunday.

g0g0
07-15-2009, 08:01 AM
While the better record is the way to go IMO, I like that the All-Star game has some relevance.

SoxSpeed22
07-15-2009, 08:45 AM
I also like that the All-Star game has relevance, but I don't think that players from teams like the Padres and Orioles should determine home field advantage for teams like the Yankees, or Dodgers or whoever is in the world series.
Last year, I posted this, and I think it uses the 162 games well. Have all four playoff teams in each league determine home field advantage by using the best combined record, not one game or one week.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1964945&highlight=advantage#post1964945

Eddo144
07-15-2009, 08:48 AM
Alternating the fields from year to year. There's really no fair way, but I like this option best.
This. And as TDog points out, as long as the two leagues play under a different set of rules, using regular season record or interleague record is shaky.

downstairs
07-15-2009, 08:55 AM
If you think about it, the team with the worse record is probably very often the better team.

Every league is going to have a great team. At least one. Imagine for a moment that the Red Sox, Yankees, LA Angels, and Dodgers are the best four teams in baseball, in that order.

What do you expect from their records?

The Dodgers I would expect to have the best record because they never play and of the other three teams, while they all play each other.

So not only is "best record" vague and unfair- it may actually yield the OPPOSITE results than you want- the "best" team getting home field.

Now, if you measure overall interleague, that is probably the closest you'll come to fair.

jdm2662
07-15-2009, 08:57 AM
Rocks, paper, scissors.

downstairs
07-15-2009, 08:58 AM
I also like that the All-Star game has relevance, but I don't think that players from teams like the Padres and Orioles should determine home field advantage for teams like the Yankees, or Dodgers or whoever is in the world series.
Last year, I posted this, and I think it uses the 162 games well. Have all four playoff teams in each league determine home field advantage by using the best combined record, not one game or one week.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1964945&highlight=advantage#post1964945

Interesting twist, but its not as accurate as full interleague.

Because the Yankees played the Orioles, Royals, etc. And the Dodgers played the Pads, Pirates, etc.

The only issue is the DH, and I wish they'd just make both leagues have it or don't have it at all.

asindc
07-15-2009, 08:58 AM
How about the team with the most triples after the sixth inning in road games. It's just as significant. Maybe the team whose starting pitchers were called for balks the fewest number of times should get the homefield advantage.

These are two different leagues with two sets of rules and two different schedules. If the Rays went to the series again (this is only hypothetical, of course) facing the Dodgers, you would be comparing the record of a team that played 18 games against the Yankees and 18 games against the Red Sox with the record of a team that played an NL East schedule.

There is nothing wrong with the All-Star Game deciding homefield advantage for the World Series, which isn't that big of a deal. Few World Series go seven games. The Phillies on last year without it. The Cardinals in 2006 wouldn't have gotten homefield with their record, but they still beat the Tigers without it. The White Sox lost only one game in the 2005 postseason, and that was at home. Really, they didn't need it.

When you had alternating DH years, homefield meant more. Greg Luzinski wouldn't have been able to DH against the Phillies in 1983 if the Sox had beaten the Orioles. Now it's a smaller thing.

The fact that there is something on the line, however little, has improved the competition in the All-Star Game. If you believe the league with the best interleague record should get homefield because the winning run came in on a sacrifice fly by an Oriole hitting against a Padres pitcher, that too comes down to the Padres and the Nationals losing games to American League opponents as much as the Sox beating the Pirates and Dodgers two out of three. (Of course, tonight's game also came down to a Phillies hitter not getting a hit against a Twins pitcher.)

I know this homefield thing offends people. But I really don't see why.

Actually, I think it is much, much, more significant that one team has won more games than the other team, even with imbalanced schedules. No one knows for sure who will be good or not so good before the season is actually played, so I don't think it is fair to penalize a team for being the most successful during the regular season.

In fact, a team can finish last in triples after the sixth inning during road games and still have the best record in the majors, and the reverse is also possible. So I disagree that having won more games than anyone else is no more significant than a team having hit the most triples after the sixth inning during road games. The wins says everything about how good a team is while the triples stat says next to nothing about how good a team is.

asindc
07-15-2009, 09:05 AM
Oh, by the way, I agree that from a purely competitive standpoint, homefield means less in baseball than the other major sports, to the point that it bears no real competitive significance. It is significant, however, in that the fans of one team have the possibility of attending more playoff games in their home park, and hosting game seven is always something a team would rather do than not do. So despite the different rules and unbalanced schedules, if a team has proven it can win more games than anyone else, I think they should be rewarded homefield advantage, if for no other reason than this.

Madvora
07-15-2009, 09:16 AM
Oh, by the way, I agree that from a purely competitive standpoint, homefield means less in baseball than the other major sports, to the point that it bears no real competitive significance. It is significant, however, in that the fans of one team have the possibility of attending more playoff games in their home park, and hosting game seven is always something a team would rather do than not do. So despite the different rules and unbalanced schedules, if a team has proven it can win more games than anyone else, I think they should be rewarded homefield advantage, if for no other reason than this.
I have to disagree with this. Home field advantage in baseball is evident in the actual game play, unlike any other sport. The home team gets to bat last. That gives them a strategic advantage.

asindc
07-15-2009, 09:21 AM
I have to disagree with this. Home field advantage in baseball is evident in the actual game play, unlike any other sport. The home team gets to bat last. That gives them a strategic advantage.

I don't disagree with that. Even with that said, I think the team with the best record has earned the right to have home field advantage.

hawkjt
07-15-2009, 09:24 AM
I am fine with the current setup. Since they installed this rule in 06...4 straight one run games full of drama. I like that.

doublem23
07-15-2009, 09:53 AM
I don't get why teams with better records get home field through the first two series, but in the world series it changes into something completely out of any teams control. It's just the worst idea ever.

That's actually not 100% true, home-field in the 1st 2 rounds is determined by seeding. In 2006, for example, the AL West Champion A's hosted Games 1 and 2 of the ALCS against the AL Wild Card Tigers, even though the Tigers had a better record (93-69 vs. 95-67).

I am fine with the current setup. Since they installed this rule in 06...4 straight one run games full of drama. I like that.

FWIW, the rule actually went into effect after the tie in Milwaukee in 2002, but I agree. I originally thought it was a dumb idea, but truthfully, the All-Star Games have been very exciting since then, a stark contrast to what had happened in the late-90s.

The only logical way to settle this, IMO, is to give it to the league with best interleague record, but the All-Star Game tie-in is sexier. So it's fine the way it is.

TDog
07-15-2009, 10:44 AM
I've never heard a logical argument against having the league with the better record in interleague play get the HFA. People who want something else just tend to ignore the suggestion. What would be incorrect about it? It's the best method with no drawbacks at all.

Other options:

Alternating year to year ....... no real drawbacks other than an 84 win team from the NL west shouldn't have HFA over the 97 win AL east power house.

Team with better record ...... major drawbacks IMO. The best team in the pathetic NL central should not have HFA over the Red Sox or Yankees even if they have a slightly better record.

Current system ..... HFA for a great LA Dodgers team should not be decided by a crappy inning by a relief pitcher of the last place San Diego Padres.


Interleague is the only way to go with alternating year-to-year as the 2nd best choice.

Having the All-Star Game decide homefield advantage isn't any worse than having interleague decide it. It is less arbitrary than an comparing apples and oranges, and it brings relevance to the All-Star Game.

There is a monumental difference between seeding within the league and seeding involving two leagues who play different schedules and different rules. All the World Series games are played at night (unfortunately), so maybe they should only count the record in night games. The season is six months long. Where a team is in September isn't where it is in April or May. In fact, lots of teams earn top seeding for their league division series and are clearly inferior to the team they are up against. Last year's Cubs team and the 2000 White Sox come to mind.

Of course, people could argue that it isn't fair no matter what is done. if the Phillies play the Twins in the World Series, the All-Star Game deciding homefield would be totally relevant. It was a Twins pitcher who struck out a Phillies slugger with the go-ahead run at second base to end the eighth. If the Dodgers play the White Sox, the Dodgers would probably have the better regular season record, but the White Sox would have beaten the Dodgers two out of three.

I think having the All-Star Game decide homefield advantage for a seventh-game of the World Series, which is rarely played, attaches significance to the All-Star Game that it didn't have in the past. The games are managed by the most recent World Series managers. The Phillies manager decided to put the Padres hitter in and intentionally walk a Batter to get to the Orioles hitter who drove in the winning run. But it was the Tigers hitter who scored the winning run and had at least as much to do with it being scored.

The All-Star games played since the tie game in Milwaukee have been competitive games. It doesn't hurt that they have counted for something.

It seems fashionable to want to change it, but whatever it is changed to would be worse in many ways.

cws05champ
07-15-2009, 11:20 AM
I don't disagree with that. Even with that said, I think the team with the best record has earned the right to have home field advantage.

Everyone says that you have all these inequities in schedules between teams and the best record really shouldn't determine HFA. Things are cyclical in baseball, and a good division one year may not be so good the next. So while you may have one year when a team like the Dodgers, playing in a poor division, has a better record than the AL rep even though the AL team played a much tougher schedule. The next year it could be completely different and a team like the Angels plays a weak schedule in their division to get a good record vs an NL rep that played in a good division.

People will complain no matter what method you use. IMO the current set up is ludicrous...letting fans choose players to play for a game that determines HFA in the most important series of the year. Why not have fans tweet the managers on strategy moves during the ASG too?

If I had to list it:
1) Best record
2) Combined AL vs NL Inter-league record
3) Alternate years
4) ASG winner

mantis1212
07-15-2009, 11:22 AM
They have said numerous times that best record isn't logistically possible because they don't know which team will have the best record until the LCS series are over.

I'm willing to buy that, so I say total interleague record is reasonable. The World Series concept is league vs. league, so why not have that record decide it?

Or we could use the Scott Boras idea of a nine-game series with 2 games played in neutral sites, like the Super Bowl.

oeo
07-15-2009, 11:49 AM
I don't get why teams with better records get home field through the first two series, but in the world series it changes into something completely out of any teams control. It's just the worst idea ever.

It's a hell of a lot better than alternating from year to year.

Count me as one of the few that likes the All Star Game meaning something. It actually makes it watchable.

asindc
07-15-2009, 11:50 AM
They have said numerous times that best record isn't logistically possible because they don't know which team will have the best record until the LCS series are over.

I'm willing to buy that, so I say total interleague record is reasonable. The World Series concept is league vs. league, so why not have that record decide it?

Or we could use the Scott Boras idea of a nine-game series with 2 games played in neutral sites, like the Super Bowl.

I'm talking about the regular season best record, just like it is done in every other sport.

soxfanreggie
07-15-2009, 11:58 AM
Going by better record does, to a point, include your own Interleague play in the numbers. I think more often than not you would have a team that's high up there in wins have a good Interleague play record. I'm sure you could have a situation where a team is 6-12 or something in Interleague play and still have the best record, but I would have that as more an outlier.

I would rather leave it up to something teams can control themselves than something like the All-Star game "counting". If not doing it that way, just go back to alternating, which to me seems more fair than the process of how they let fans select starters to the game.

ode to veeck
07-15-2009, 12:11 PM
winner of the all star game, there's lot's biger problems out there to solve, plus gives the NL incentive to end the losing streak.

fix the all-star voting is much more of a priority, its currnetly a pathetically flawed process

mantis1212
07-15-2009, 12:21 PM
I'm talking about the regular season best record, just like it is done in every other sport.

I know, but they have said there are too many diffeent possiblities when it comes time to plan the schedules, cities, etc. That's Bud's number one reply when asked why they do not use best regular season record.

Scottiehaswheels
07-15-2009, 12:29 PM
Beer pong contest between team captains.

TDog
07-15-2009, 01:36 PM
I'm talking about the regular season best record, just like it is done in every other sport.

The every-other-sport argument is fatally flawed. It isn't even accurate. It's not done that way in every other sport. Playing the Super Bowl at a neutral site should be far more offensive to anyone who is offended by the All-Star Game determining where a potential seventh game of the World Series will be played.

Railsplitter
07-15-2009, 01:49 PM
Alternate between the two leagues (A.L onje year, N.L. the next.) It worked fine from 1903 through 2002)

BadBobbyJenks
07-15-2009, 01:53 PM
It is dumb and makes no sense, but you know what? I like having the all star game deciding home field advantage.

asindc
07-15-2009, 02:00 PM
The every-other-sport argument is fatally flawed. It isn't even accurate. It's not done that way in every other sport. Playing the Super Bowl at a neutral site should be far more offensive to anyone who is offended by the All-Star Game determining where a potential seventh game of the World Series will be played.

Aside from the Super Bowl, which as a neutral site chosen before the season starts so as to remove the issue from the game, all home court/field/ice advantages for playoff games/series in basketball, football, and hockey are determined by overall winning record. Nothing flawed about that simple fact. The reason it is done is to provide incentive for teams to perform their best throughout the season. It is rightfully seen as a reward for having performed the best, with the best being determined by the most objective standard possible: how many games a team has won.

Someone can argue that you did not beat so-and-so enough times or you didn't have to play that team or that other team was all injured when you played them (sound familiar? those were the kinds of things Boston fans were saying about the Sox in 2005), but the other team had an equal number of chances to win just as many games.

After all, that's why playoff series are determined by which team wins the most games, whether or not Selig makes you close the dome (Houston fans' gripe, circa 2005).

TDog
07-15-2009, 02:26 PM
Aside from the Super Bowl, which as a neutral site chosen before the season starts so as to remove the issue from the game, all home court/field/ice advantages for playoff games/series in basketball, football, and hockey are determined by overall winning record. Nothing flawed about that simple fact. The reason it is done is to provide incentive for teams to perform their best throughout the season. It is rightfully seen as a reward for having performed the best, with the best being determined by the most objective standard possible: how many games a team has won.

Someone can argue that you did not beat so-and-so enough times or you didn't have to play that team or that other team was all injured when you played them (sound familiar? those were the kinds of things Boston fans were saying about the Sox in 2005), but the other team had an equal number of chances to win just as many games.

After all, that's why playoff series are determined by which team wins the most games, whether or not Selig makes you close the dome (Houston fans' gripe, circa 2005).

If the World Series winner played the Japanese League winner, it would be irrelevant who has the better record. Similarly, when the National League winner plays the American League winner, it is irrelevant who has the better record.

The argument is flawed because it is irrelevant to baseball what other sports do. Other sports don't play doubleheaders. Other sports don't have playoff games to determine ties among teams that go to the postseason. Maybe the NFL should play Wednesday and Thursday morning games because baseball regularly does it? I won't advocate that basketball and hockey playoffs include only division winners and perhaps a wild card (if necessary to avoid a bye -- I have no idea how many divisions there are in the NBA or NHL, I only know from NPR that the Detroit Red Wings apparently play in the West).

The World Series isn't "the playoffs" just as the Super Bowl isn't "the playoffs." If you believe the NFL PR machine that it's league design to play the Super Bowl at a neutral site (assuming the right warm-weather team doesn't turn it into a home-field advantage) or God's will that the NFL play its championship in some chosen place, you are mistaken. The neutral site came about because the AFL put out a challenge for the NFL to play its title holder in a single game for the championship of the world.

Before there was an interleague Super Bowl that became an intraleague Super Bowl when the NFL swallowed up the AFL, there was an NFL championship in which a team had the homefield advantage. The NFL actually played it's last pre-Super Bowl championship in Green Bay, where the Packers held a decided advantage over the Cowboys. If it had been held at a neutral site, the game may well have been played at the Cotton Bowl, where I believe the Cowboys played in those days, cheating the Packers out of the championship they earned. By the time there was only one league, the NFL had established the tradition of the Super Bowl.

The other-sports argument is flawed because every sport is different. Football weather aside, baseball is the sport where homefield is most important because every baseball field is different (some more different than others, as in the case of the Metrodome) and the home team bats last, having a chance to answer any scoring from the visiting team. But the homefield only comes into play if there is a seventh game. And only once in the history of baseball has a World Series winner won all four games at home, that home being the Metrodome.

chisoxfanatic
07-15-2009, 03:09 PM
What about each individual team's interleague record? Forget about league vs league, that's another thing that is outside of the two pennant winners' control. Maybe they should look at the AL champ's interleague record and the NL champ's interleague record.
Interleague schedules are so unbalanced that doing this would be pretty unfair.

Hitmen77
07-15-2009, 04:20 PM
You don't think the team with the best record is the most fair way?

Not when teams like the Cubs can fatten up their W-L record by playing 18 games each against an often mediocre NL Central (and an overall weaker NL) while teams like the Rays have to play 18 games each against the Yankees and Red Sox (and an overall tougher AL).

None of the choices is perfect, but perhaps the best option is to award it to the league with the winning interleague record.

35th and Shields
07-15-2009, 06:07 PM
Not when teams like the Cubs can fatten up their W-L record by playing 18 games each against an often mediocre NL Central (and an overall weaker NL) while teams like the Rays have to play 18 games each against the Yankees and Red Sox (and an overall tougher AL).

And that's one of the many areas where MLB chooses to be different, no salary cap (other then the luxury tax), causing differentiating competition levels in each division/league.

Then of course there's the problem with the DH in one league and not the other - it's hard to come up with solution to this when all of the rule variations don't add up to a system where you can logically decide home field advantage.

ChicagoG19
07-15-2009, 10:22 PM
It doesn't make any sense and it is not fair, but I like having the all-star game decide home field advantage in the WS. I was at a bar last night to watch the game (surrounded by by cardinal and cub fans) and everyone was hanging on every at-bat. I think it makes the game that much more enjoyable when it actually means something and you know that the players are actually trying.

dakotasox
07-15-2009, 10:52 PM
It doesn't make any sense and it is not fair, but I like having the all-star game decide home field advantage in the WS. I was at a bar last night to watch the game (surrounded by by cardinal and cub fans) and everyone was hanging on every at-bat. I think it makes the game that much more enjoyable when it actually means something and you know that the players are actually trying.

Exaggerate much? Haha, just messing. Add something else to the long list of things we argue about.

doublem23
07-15-2009, 11:57 PM
Aside from the Super Bowl, which as a neutral site chosen before the season starts so as to remove the issue from the game, all home court/field/ice advantages for playoff games/series in basketball, football, and hockey are determined by overall winning record. Nothing flawed about that simple fact. The reason it is done is to provide incentive for teams to perform their best throughout the season. It is rightfully seen as a reward for having performed the best, with the best being determined by the most objective standard possible: how many games a team has won.

But that's also because especially in basketball and hockey the best teams clinch a play-off berth well in advance, since both leagues let just about every team in the play-offs anyways. The majority of teams don't clinch a play-off berth in baseball until the final week or so, since baseball actually limits the teams that go to the post-season.

TornLabrum
07-16-2009, 07:40 AM
Alternating home field advantage worked quite well for nearly 100 years, so why not change it to something idiotic like who wins an exhibition game with the starters voted on by fans who know little to nothing about the game?

I didn't even bother to watch the All-Star Game this year. I've grown less interested in it as I've grown older, and home field advantage hasn't increased my interest.

asindc
07-16-2009, 08:35 AM
But that's also because especially in basketball and hockey the best teams clinch a play-off berth well in advance, since both leagues let just about every team in the play-offs anyways. The majority of teams don't clinch a play-off berth in baseball until the final week or so, since baseball actually limits the teams that go to the post-season.

Not always. As far as home court advantage is concerned, it often goes down to the last week in basketball. Even when it does go down to the last couple of games (like in 2005 when the Sox did not know who they would be playing in the first round until they swept Cleveland the last weekend), it can be easily arranged.

asindc
07-16-2009, 08:36 AM
Alternating home field advantage worked quite well for nearly 100 years, so why not change it to something idiotic like who wins an exhibition game with the starters voted on by fans who know little to nothing about the game?

I didn't even bother to watch the All-Star Game this year. I've grown less interested in it as I've grown older, and home field advantage hasn't increased my interest.

I'm actually for going back to alternating it, if you leave best winning record off the table. Better to alternate than to leave it to chance.

asindc
07-16-2009, 08:43 AM
If the World Series winner played the Japanese League winner, it would be irrelevant who has the better record. Similarly, when the National League winner plays the American League winner, it is irrelevant who has the better record.

The argument is flawed because it is irrelevant to baseball what other sports do. Other sports don't play doubleheaders. Other sports don't have playoff games to determine ties among teams that go to the postseason. Maybe the NFL should play Wednesday and Thursday morning games because baseball regularly does it? I won't advocate that basketball and hockey playoffs include only division winners and perhaps a wild card (if necessary to avoid a bye -- I have no idea how many divisions there are in the NBA or NHL, I only know from NPR that the Detroit Red Wings apparently play in the West).

The World Series isn't "the playoffs" just as the Super Bowl isn't "the playoffs." If you believe the NFL PR machine that it's league design to play the Super Bowl at a neutral site (assuming the right warm-weather team doesn't turn it into a home-field advantage) or God's will that the NFL play its championship in some chosen place, you are mistaken. The neutral site came about because the AFL put out a challenge for the NFL to play its title holder in a single game for the championship of the world.

Before there was an interleague Super Bowl that became an intraleague Super Bowl when the NFL swallowed up the AFL, there was an NFL championship in which a team had the homefield advantage. The NFL actually played it's last pre-Super Bowl championship in Green Bay, where the Packers held a decided advantage over the Cowboys. If it had been held at a neutral site, the game may well have been played at the Cotton Bowl, where I believe the Cowboys played in those days, cheating the Packers out of the championship they earned. By the time there was only one league, the NFL had established the tradition of the Super Bowl.

The other-sports argument is flawed because every sport is different. Football weather aside, baseball is the sport where homefield is most important because every baseball field is different (some more different than others, as in the case of the Metrodome) and the home team bats last, having a chance to answer any scoring from the visiting team. But the homefield only comes into play if there is a seventh game. And only once in the history of baseball has a World Series winner won all four games at home, that home being the Metrodome.

I'm well aware of the history of the Super Bowl and World Series. Both were established when there were two distinct and independant leagues. The common thread with neutral site championships is that they are usually one-game occasions, like in pro and college football. NCAA basketball tournament is somewhat of an exception, but even there the teams don't play a series of games against the same opponent.

Neutral site championships would not work in baseball, pro basketball, and hockey because it is impractical to schedule multiple neutral site games involving the same two teams.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I doubt that even you would argue against the notion that no team would give up home-field advantage in any series if given the choice. That alone should tell you that it means something. How much it means can obviously be debated.

Railsplitter
07-16-2009, 09:30 AM
I'm sick seeing sports scribblers and talking heads on the Employs Stupid People Network parrot "home field advantage" as if it were a truism. If playing at home truely assured victory, every team would be .500.


At least three teams that came back from 3-1 deficits to win the World Series played games 6 and 7 on the Road (1958 Yankees, 1968 Tigers, 1979 Pirates)

Any big league baseball team that wins two-thirds of it's regular season games should be able to win at home, on the road, or in the middle of a swamp (okay, I'm being facitious about the swamp:wink:)

asindc
07-16-2009, 10:32 AM
I'm sick seeing sports scribblers and talking heads on the Employs Stupid People Network parrot "home field advantage" as if it were a truism. If playing at home truely assured victory, every team would be .500.


At least three teams that came back from 3-1 deficits to win the World Series played games 6 and 7 on the Road (1958 Yankees, 1968 Tigers, 1979 Pirates)

Any big league baseball team that wins two-thirds of it's regular season games should be able to win at home, on the road, or in the middle of a swamp (okay, I'm being facitious about the swamp:wink:)

Of course it does not "guarantee" victory, and as much as I dislike ESPN's general coverage, I doubt that they intend it that way. This article might shed some light on the subject:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/06/08/2008-06-08_mlb_home_teams_winning_at_pace_not_seen_.html

I read somewhere that among the four major sports, MLB has the lowest home winning percentage historically, which is still above .500. I will try to find it and link to it.

TDog
07-16-2009, 12:44 PM
I'm sick seeing sports scribblers and talking heads on the Employs Stupid People Network parrot "home field advantage" as if it were a truism. If playing at home truely assured victory, every team would be .500.


At least three teams that came back from 3-1 deficits to win the World Series played games 6 and 7 on the Road (1958 Yankees, 1968 Tigers, 1979 Pirates)

Any big league baseball team that wins two-thirds of it's regular season games should be able to win at home, on the road, or in the middle of a swamp (okay, I'm being facitious about the swamp:wink:)

In 1984, Cubs fans blamed not going to the World Series on not having home-field advantage in the best-of-five NLCS, which alternated between east and west in those days, and with the unbalanced schedule, that was fairer than the seedings they have now. The Cubs won the first two games in Chicago and lost the next three in San Diego. I considered it glorious, having tickets to of the World Series in San Diego in my grasp the weekend the Cubs season ended. If the series had gone seven ... Cubs fans kept telling themselves.

Of course, 19 years later, the Cubs were up 3-1 to a wild card team in the NLCS. They lost Game 5 on the road, but had a 3-2 lead heading back to Chicago with Prior and Wood pitching. "We'z goin' to the World Series," Cubs fans shouted from coast to coast. The aurora borealis put on a brilliant display the next two game nights directly over my home in Juneau, Alaska, as if to celebrate that all is right with the world.

Does anyone remember how tenuous the 2005 championship drive felt after the Sox lost Game 1 of the ALCS at home? Even going to Anaheim for three games with the series tied, optimism was cautious at best.

In the World Series, and even in the league championship series, every team has at least two games at home. In 1959, the Sox had three games at home and three games in LA, and only won one in each city. The Dodgers won two of three in Chicago and two of three in LA. Only the Twins have won a World Series without winning any games on the road, but no team has enjoyed such a notorious homefield advantage as the team that calls the Metrodome home.

thomas35forever
07-16-2009, 01:03 PM
Selig won't let home-field advantage be determined by which team going in has the better record because it doesn't allow enough time to make the proper bookings and stuff. I think it's stupid that he lets that dictate home-field advantage.

Chez
07-16-2009, 02:25 PM
Selig won't let home-field advantage be determined by which team going in has the better record because it doesn't allow enough time to make the proper bookings and stuff. I think it's stupid that he lets that dictate home-field advantage.

But no one knows who is even going to be in the Series until the league championships are completed! It can't be "bookings and stuff."

Eddo144
07-16-2009, 03:53 PM
Of course it does not "guarantee" victory, and as much as I dislike ESPN's general coverage, I doubt that they intend it that way. This article might shed some light on the subject:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/06/08/2008-06-08_mlb_home_teams_winning_at_pace_not_seen_.html

I read somewhere that among the four major sports, MLB has the lowest home winning percentage historically, which is still above .500. I will try to find it and link to it.
I'm not sure if that indicates that home-field advantage is less of a factor in baseball, though. Remember, baseball has the narrowest gap between the records of the best and worst teams, too; the best baseball team in a given year wins roughly 100 games, which is roughly equivalent to 10 wins in the NFL and 50 wins in the NBA and NHL (though the latter confuses matters because of overtime losses and shootouts).

WhiteSoxFTW
07-16-2009, 05:03 PM
It's comical to me (and also ironic) that the winning run was batted in by a player on a 5th place team being pitched to by a pitcher on a 5th place team.

Also, while I think the WS should be determined by interleague record, I think that the All-Star game determining it would be okay...IF and ONLY IF...the managers managed the game to WIN, and not to play as many players as possible. You can't make an All-Star game where the starting lineup is determined by the FANS determine the WS schedule. There was NO reason for Josh Hamilton to be on that field for that many innings the other night (or at all). Until MLB fixed the All-Star game where players/managers determine the rosters, then it shouldn't count for the WS schedule.

TDog
07-17-2009, 12:47 AM
It's comical to me (and also ironic) that the winning run was batted in by a player on a 5th place team being pitched to by a pitcher on a 5th place team.

Also, while I think the WS should be determined by interleague record, I think that the All-Star game determining it would be okay...IF and ONLY IF...the managers managed the game to WIN, and not to play as many players as possible. You can't make an All-Star game where the starting lineup is determined by the FANS determine the WS schedule. There was NO reason for Josh Hamilton to be on that field for that many innings the other night (or at all). Until MLB fixed the All-Star game where players/managers determine the rosters, then it shouldn't count for the WS schedule.

If you go by interleague records, you are letting fifth and sixth place teams decide who has homefield advantage, although the process would be so abstract you wouldn't even notice.

Both managers were playing to win. Pitching pitchers only one inning maximizes the effectiveness of starters. The NL may have been shut out if Halliday had only pitched one inning. Pitching relievers more than an inning would minimize their effectiveness.

The NL manager issued an intentional walk to get to a player from a fifth-place team with a runner on third and one out. I don't think there is any question that both managers were managing to win. When was the last time there was an All-Star Game played without a Cub participating?

Madvora
07-17-2009, 07:32 AM
Interleague schedules are so unbalanced that doing this would be pretty unfair.
You're right. I didn't think about that.
Actually the whole system they have right now doesn't work right. You can't have teams competing for the same wild card spot when they play different opponents.

WhiteSoxFTW
07-17-2009, 10:26 AM
If you go by interleague records, you are letting fifth and sixth place teams decide who has homefield advantage, although the process would be so abstract you wouldn't even notice.

Both managers were playing to win. Pitching pitchers only one inning maximizes the effectiveness of starters. The NL may have been shut out if Halliday had only pitched one inning. Pitching relievers more than an inning would minimize their effectiveness.

The NL manager issued an intentional walk to get to a player from a fifth-place team with a runner on third and one out. I don't think there is any question that both managers were managing to win. When was the last time there was an All-Star Game played without a Cub participating?

Both managers were playing to win?! What was Josh Hamilton doing out there? Some of the players that pinch-hit shouldn't have came in the game at all if they were managing to win. They were managing more of the pitchers this year than last year. I still don't think they are actually managing the players in the field. They are just letting everyone play.

Though, I like the fact that Maddon said he was going Papelbon, Nathan, and Rivera in the 7th, 8th, and 9th. And, that's what he did. No team has a shot against that, haha.

TDog
07-17-2009, 04:46 PM
Both managers were playing to win?! What was Josh Hamilton doing out there? Some of the players that pinch-hit shouldn't have came in the game at all if they were managing to win. They were managing more of the pitchers this year than last year. I still don't think they are actually managing the players in the field. They are just letting everyone play.

Though, I like the fact that Maddon said he was going Papelbon, Nathan, and Rivera in the 7th, 8th, and 9th. And, that's what he did. No team has a shot against that, haha.

There is no reason to leave Josh Hamilton out there past his minimum three innings if Maddon doesn't believe Hamilton is going to help him win. Hamilton isn't a feel-good story this year. He isn't one of Maddon's pet players. If you look at stats and say this player or that player shouldn't be in the game, you are ignoring that the game is being played now while the stats are just averages of where a player has been.

Maddon knows more about baseball than I do. I'm certain he knows more about baseball than you do. Guillen knows more about baseball than I do, but I know enough not to argue that Guillen isn't playing to win when he puts Wise in the starting lineup.

The NL moves should have been evidence Manuel was trying to win. The Fielder pinch-hitting at bat was key. So was the Howard pinch-hitting at bat. Howard didn't come through, but putting him up there was the move that would have been made by a manager trying to win. With the pitching both manager sent out there, it's a wonder anyone scored.

If you want to make the case that the losing manager was managing to win more than the winning manager, your argument is on shaky ground.

slavko
07-17-2009, 06:24 PM
You're right. I didn't think about that.
Actually the whole system they have right now doesn't work right. You can't have teams competing for the same wild card spot when they play different opponents.

Of course you're right, but a lot of things about baseball are wink, wink arrangements. As goes home field advantage, rotate it from year to year. That's as unfair as anything else, like for instance, winning an exhibition game.

TommyJohn
07-17-2009, 09:36 PM
Why not just alternate, like they did for 100 years? What was wrong with that method? And Selig's excuse that homefield can't go by best record because of "bookings" is so absurd it insults my intelligence that he tries to foist this excuse on everybody. Does he really think that baseball fans are as dumb as he is? Alternating every year was very simple. You would know years in advance what league would have homefield advantage.

Red Barchetta
07-17-2009, 09:42 PM
If I was a Cub fan, I would vote for the team with the better attendance. :D:

Since I'm not, I voted for best interleague play. That would make the inter-league games even more legitimate IMO vs. a novelty. It's basically the same concept as the All-Star game, but more evenly spread out and certainly more valid than one game that could easily have the outcome determined by a fluke play or bad call.