PDA

View Full Version : Players Union may squelch Selig Nonsense - All Star Game Version


SouthSide_HitMen
06-14-2006, 02:08 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/allstar/2006-06-12-all-star-status_x.htm

"This time it counts." Or does it? Less than one month before Major League Baseball's 77th annual All-Star Game in Pittsburgh, baseball has not reached an agreement with the players union that will reward the winner with home-field advantage in the World Series....

Said Donald Fehr, executive director of the players association: "We're still talking to them, so we'll see. It's something that has to be negotiated."

Whatever it is the union is holding out for I hope it passes and they end this nonsense ("this time it counts"). This is one of the dumbest ideas Selig has come up with (though well behind the drug testing plan farce and interleague play).

ChiSoxRowand
06-14-2006, 03:56 PM
I liked the idea at first, but I hope they go back to the old format. Let it be an exibition game.

RKMeibalane
06-14-2006, 04:47 PM
I liked the idea at first, but I hope they go back to the old format. Let it be an exibition game.

Agreed. Why not just let the team with the best overall record have homefield? I never understood why they used to alternate between AL and NL parks for each WS, as it seemed to reward teams that didn't have as good of a record.

Ol' No. 2
06-14-2006, 04:53 PM
Agreed. Why not just let the team with the best overall record have homefield? I never understood why they used to alternate between AL and NL parks for each WS, as it seemed to reward teams that didn't have as good of a record.In each of the last two years, the best record in baseball has belonged to a NL team (STL both years). Are you giving home field advantage to the best team or to the team that plays in the weaker league?

patbooyah
06-14-2006, 04:54 PM
yeah, i don't really mind the "this time it counts" thing. this way players actually show up at the all-star game and the AL's dominance is obvious.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-14-2006, 04:57 PM
In each of the last two years, the best record in baseball has belonged to a NL team (STL both years). Are you giving home field advantage to the best team or to the team that plays in the weaker league?

It should go to the team with the best record in the World Series. If St. Louis advanced last season they should have had it.

Letting the All Star Game determine it (this time (and the other times) it's for real) is the worst possible way to determine it.

ondafarm
06-14-2006, 05:04 PM
I actually like the All-Star game deciding home field advantage. It gives the All-Star game meaning unlike the worthless one in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The ASG was a great idea before interleague play and is still a chance to see a lot of great players, and a few Yankee bums, play together. Making it count for something means the players have some comittment to winning it. As for deciding homefield advantage in the World Series, assigning it to the best record is more like assigning it to the weaker league, alternating it means it doesn't count for anything, which it does and unless you have something else to assign it by, I actually think Selig came up with a good idea on this.

I have plenty of things I hate Selig for, but this isn't one of them.

RKMeibalane
06-14-2006, 05:19 PM
In each of the last two years, the best record in baseball has belonged to a NL team (STL both years). Are you giving home field advantage to the best team or to the team that plays in the weaker league?

That's a valid question. I'd still the give team with the best record homefield. If they end up getting their asses kicked in the WS, that's their own fault. I don't know. It just seems like a better alternative than the crock Selig has us stuck with.

RKMeibalane
06-14-2006, 05:20 PM
It should go to the team with the best record in the World Series. If St. Louis advanced last season they should have had it.

Letting the All Star Game determine it (this time (and the other times) it's for real) is the worst possible way to determine it.

Exactly. The best remaining team should get it. As Ol' No. 2 pointed out in his earlier post, it is possible that the team in question had a better record because they played in a weaker league, but I'd still give it to them because their won-loss record should count for something. It's a not perfect system, but it's better than what Selig came up with.

Ol' No. 2
06-14-2006, 05:22 PM
I actually like the All-Star game deciding home field advantage. It gives the All-Star game meaning unlike the worthless one in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The ASG was a great idea before interleague play and is still a chance to see a lot of great players, and a few Yankee bums, play together. Making it count for something means the players have some comittment to winning it. As for deciding homefield advantage in the World Series, assigning it to the best record is more like assigning it to the weaker league, alternating it means it doesn't count for anything, which it does and unless you have something else to assign it by, I actually think Selig came up with a good idea on this.

I have plenty of things I hate Selig for, but this isn't one of them.I don't necessarily like it, but I don't hate it, either. It's better than best record or alternating. The only reasonable alternative I've heard is to give it based on the league with the better overall interleague record. At least then it would go to the representative from the stronger league.

soxfanaticpaulie
06-14-2006, 05:23 PM
My idea is that Home Field could go to the Team representing the League that won the WS the previous year, using the "Champs until dethroned" as my rationale. If the AL won the previous year, they proved they are the dominant league, and thus retain home field until the NL wins a WS.

The ASG should be an exhibition. Period. What type of game that "counts" are you trying to play as many players as possible in, where the fans get to vote on the starters rather than having the actual best players play?

Pick a lane MLB....

soxfan26
06-14-2006, 05:26 PM
I would be incredibly happy if I never heard the phrase "this time it counts" again.

Further, I would be happy to hear "former MLB commissioner Bud Selig"

mrfourni
06-14-2006, 05:33 PM
I would be Ok with the ASG determining HFA if they eliminated the every team represented strategy.

Its set up as an exhibition and a popularity contest right now. MLB should either get rid of fan voting/every team represented or get rid of the Home Field Advantage strategy.

Chicken Dinner
06-14-2006, 05:34 PM
Why is it that the ASG is alternated each year but the WS home field advantage is determined by an ASG that's home field is alternated every year???:kukoo:

gbergman
06-14-2006, 05:45 PM
It should be best record gets homefield advantage. or alt. leagues.

Flight #24
06-14-2006, 05:53 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/allstar/2006-06-12-all-star-status_x.htm

"This time it counts." Or does it? Less than one month before Major League Baseball's 77th annual All-Star Game in Pittsburgh, baseball has not reached an agreement with the players union that will reward the winner with home-field advantage in the World Series....

Said Donald Fehr, executive director of the players association: "We're still talking to them, so we'll see. It's something that has to be negotiated."

Whatever it is the union is holding out for I hope it passes and they end this nonsense ("this time it counts"). This is one of the dumbest ideas Selig has come up with (though well behind the drug testing plan farce and interleague play).

I can only hope that all those who think it's stupid to have the ASG as a pure exhibition don't/didn't complain when it's managed that way (ala Milwaukee a few years ago). You can't have it both ways and have it be played like a meaningful game when it isn't one.

Personally, I don't mind the ASG HFA. It's IMO equally "meaningful" as alternating, using best record when they mostly play different teams, or pretty much anything else I've seen. The exception is the league with the best interleague record, which probably comes closest to determining the overall relative strength of the 2 leagues. Barring that nothing really stands out so I don't have a problem with using the ASG or not using the ASG.

The "every team 1 rep" has to go though. I can understand "home team ahs to have a rep", but if your team sucks, too damn bad.

Banix12
06-14-2006, 05:56 PM
I wouldn't mind the idea of it counting if it weren't for the lineups being chosen by the fans and the manager being forced to bring marginal talent from bad teams on the roster.

If the game truly counted the manager should be allowed to build his own team and own lineup from all the available players. They shouldn't have to bring along a Royal to appease Kansas City and they shouldn't have to start a fan favorite having a bad year because he he won the voting.

This whole "This time it counts" thing was just a drastic overraction to what was essentially a non-problem. Was it upsetting that the game in milwaukee ended in a tie? A bit but then again it really didn't matter.

Lip Man 1
06-14-2006, 06:32 PM
The All Star Game (otherwise known as the All Popularity Contest) is no longer being rotated betwqeen leagues. Proud To Be Your Bud overruled this. In 2006 it's in Pittsburgh, in 2007 it's in San Francisco.

Lip

downstairs
06-14-2006, 07:26 PM
It really should be the team from the league that has the best interleague record. Or, more simply, the team with the best interleague record.

Those are the only games that DO count that can measure one league against the other.

hawkjt
06-14-2006, 07:38 PM
They have made it clear it will never go to the team with the best record. Logistically difficult.

So it comes back to either alternate leagues every other year or the all star game set up.

Selfishly , I am an AL fan and a sox fan and I want home field every year if we can get it. the AL is clearly superior to the NL over the last decade plus and will continue to dominate the all star game. Sox with home field? I want it if the sox make it. If they dont I still usually root for the AL if it is not the yanks.


So no one likes having meaning to the all star game? Whats the harm? I do think they play to win more than in the past and if I am going to watch it I want them to care at least a little. Not sure why the union is against this.

TDog
06-14-2006, 07:56 PM
Agreed. Why not just let the team with the best overall record have homefield? I never understood why they used to alternate between AL and NL parks for each WS, as it seemed to reward teams that didn't have as good of a record.

Because the leagues are separate and play by different rules. The leagues don't even have the same number of teams. The "best record" scenario would be as arbitrary as a coin toss, which, at best, would result in alternating between AL and NL parks. Also, in baseball it is about league vs. league. Other sports hold their championships within their leagues.

The odd thing about baseball is that teams with unbelievably good records (1906 Cubs, 1954 Indians, 2001 Mariners) don't prove themselves as the best in October.

A single All-Star Game won't determine which league is better, but it's certainly is a better idea than "best record."

SouthSide_HitMen
06-14-2006, 08:37 PM
I don't necessarily like it, but I don't hate it, either. It's better than best record or alternating. The only reasonable alternative I've heard is to give it based on the league with the better overall interleague record. At least then it would go to the representative from the stronger league.

Even though I hate interleague (outside of the World Series) I'd take that over the current system as well. At least we are considering results in actual ballgames. The All Star game should be the same as a Spring Training matchup or the Hall of Fame Game - an exhibition game.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-14-2006, 08:48 PM
I can only hope that all those who think it's stupid to have the ASG as a pure exhibition don't/didn't complain when it's managed that way (ala Milwaukee a few years ago). You can't have it both ways and have it be played like a meaningful game when it isn't one.

I have the same interest in the All Star Game as I do the Hall of Fame (or spring training) game - marginal (unless there is an injury to a player I care about). They did this as a sop to Fox to help the ratings - period. I only make a point to watch if the game is at Comiskey - otherwise I am with 99% of the players taking a 3 day break from the game. Beyond saying "cool" if the AL wins I am not concerned if the game ends in a decision or a tie (as it also did in 1961 without incident).

The game is an exhibition - always has been and that is the way it should be.

getonbckthr
06-14-2006, 08:53 PM
The reason I like the "this time it counts" idea is that with todays athlete the term "exhibition" means who cares. With it meaning something the players show up and care. 20 years ago whether it was game 7 or an exhibition they played balls out (Pete Rose collision) not today!

ewokpelts
06-14-2006, 09:06 PM
The 2005 WS, based on the old rotation, should have had the Sox hosting games 3-5. But, with "this one counts", the sox gained HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE. It just may have had a hand in us winning the WS.
For that alone, I have no problem with "thisd one counts".

Gene

P.s. I was in Milwaukee in 02, and watching Torre and Brenly waste millions of fan's dollars is worse than losing "tradition". Remember the ol' asg tradition of TWO games in one year? Or of barry bonds flying out of town minutes after his last at bat?

Banix12
06-14-2006, 10:38 PM
This here probably sounds like a really stupid idea. Even I'm not even sure I like it but it just came to my mind.

How about home field advantage is decided by a special game at the end of the season. Take the best players off the rosters of the teams that didn't make the playoffs and create a kind of consolation all-star game that can actually be played during first round of the playoffs.


I actually don't mind the concept of the "This time it counts" idea using the all-star game. My only issue with it is how the game is played and how the rosters are created. Rarely in the all-star game do the best pitchers go deep into games because the teams get angry if you overuse their pitchers before the second half. The rosters is littered with players who have no business being there because they are the lone representative of the team. And the manager has no control over what gets placed in the starting lineup.

It's absolutely rediculous that the manager can't make out the lineup card in a game that counts for something like homefield

ondafarm
06-14-2006, 10:49 PM
The only thing I see as unfair about picking the ASG rosters is the fan voting. Look at this year's races. Robinson Cano is leading second basemen. Robinson F-en Cano? Why? Because he wears a F-en Yankee uniform.

The every team represented is fine. If you can't name one guy from each team who is worthy of playing for the league's honor, then you haven't looked very hard.

Royals - Sweeney.
Twins - Hunter or Santana
Tampa - Gomez or Lugo.
Pirates - Bay.
Flubs - Maddux or DLee.

It isn't that hard.

doogiec
06-14-2006, 11:01 PM
From what I've heard several times, MLB considers it logistically impossible to give home field advantage to the team with the best record.

If they did that in 2005 for example, they would need to wait until both LCS's ended to realistically book the thousands of hotel rooms, meeting rooms, security etc necessary for the World Series. Since they knew the Sox would have home field advantage they were able to arrange everything for games 1,2,6 and 7 while the NLCS was still going. If it was home field based, they would have to plan for the possibility of any of the seven games being in Chicago, depending on St Louis winning or losing. The World Series is an event on the same scale as the Super Bowl, but without the many years advance notice. So it makes sense (and dollars) that they need to narrow down the possible sites/dates as quickly as possible. Also, as mentioned above, since the schedules played by the teams is so different, best record is really kind of arbitrary anyway.

This is really no better or worse than alternating as was done for years. If people are looking for a reason to rip Selig, I think they need to find something other than this. It makes the ASG a little more interesting, and most years has no effect whatsoever on the Series.

Banix12
06-14-2006, 11:06 PM
The only thing I see as unfair about picking the ASG rosters is the fan voting. Look at this year's races. Robinson Cano is leading second basemen. Robinson F-en Cano? Why? Because he wears a F-en Yankee uniform.

The every team represented is fine. If you can't name one guy from each team who is worthy of playing for the league's honor, then you haven't looked very hard.

Royals - Sweeney.
Twins - Hunter or Santana
Tampa - Gomez or Lugo.
Pirates - Bay.
Flubs - Maddux or DLee.

It isn't that hard.


Sweeney hasn't done zip this year. been injured most of it. Has all of 68 ABs and was batting under .200. The best player on the Royals is probably Grudzielanek. Batting .298 with 2 homers and a .338 OBP. I think there might be some guys more deserving than Grudz. Cano deserves it more than him. Actually what is your problem with Cano, he's hitting .322.

D Lee has also been injured most of the year and shouldn't go. Maddux isn't doing much either right now either.

Cubs - Zambrano
Tampa - Kazmir
Pirates - Bay
Twins - Santana and Mauer (nobody had an issue with the Twins, they have some all stars)
Royals - pretty much nobody. Best players on the team right now are Mark Grudzielanek and Elmer Dessens.

Ol' No. 2
06-14-2006, 11:14 PM
From what I've heard several times, MLB considers it logistically impossible to give home field advantage to the team with the best record.

If they did that in 2005 for example, they would need to wait until both LCS's ended to realistically book the thousands of hotel rooms, meeting rooms, security etc necessary for the World Series. Since they knew the Sox would have home field advantage they were able to arrange everything for games 1,2,6 and 7 while the NLCS was still going. If it was home field based, they would have to plan for the possibility of any of the seven games being in Chicago, depending on St Louis winning or losing. The World Series is an event on the same scale as the Super Bowl, but without the many years advance notice. So it makes sense (and dollars) that they need to narrow down the possible sites/dates as quickly as possible. Also, as mentioned above, since the schedules played by the teams is so different, best record is really kind of arbitrary anyway.

This is really no better or worse than alternating as was done for years. If people are looking for a reason to rip Selig, I think they need to find something other than this. It makes the ASG a little more interesting, and most years has no effect whatsoever on the Series.I've heard this reasoning before and you know what??? It's bull****. They have to wait until both LCS are over anyway because they don't even know who's going to be in the World Series until then. At most it would buy them a few days.

ewokpelts
06-14-2006, 11:18 PM
From what I've heard several times, MLB considers it logistically impossible to give home field advantage to the team with the best record.

If they did that in 2005 for example, they would need to wait until both LCS's ended to realistically book the thousands of hotel rooms, meeting rooms, security etc necessary for the World Series. Since they knew the Sox would have home field advantage they were able to arrange everything for games 1,2,6 and 7 while the NLCS was still going. If it was home field based, they would have to plan for the possibility of any of the seven games being in Chicago, depending on St Louis winning or losing. The World Series is an event on the same scale as the Super Bowl, but without the many years advance notice. So it makes sense (and dollars) that they need to narrow down the possible sites/dates as quickly as possible. Also, as mentioned above, since the schedules played by the teams is so different, best record is really kind of arbitrary anyway.

This is really no better or worse than alternating as was done for years. If people are looking for a reason to rip Selig, I think they need to find something other than this. It makes the ASG a little more interesting, and most years has no effect whatsoever on the Series.
This theory dosent hold water.
The NBA has no problem booking all the hotels for 16 cities at the end of the season. Compare that to MLB's 8 playoff teams. And thier 2-2-1-1-1 playoff format is actually HARDER to manage than baseball's 2-3-2 system.
Selig and his cronies are just being lazy.

But reagrdless, adding home field advantage to the ags has made for better baseball. the 03 was a fun game, and the sox clearly benefited from the al win last year.
Gene

TDog
06-15-2006, 03:31 AM
When they do away with the American and National leagues, when the White Sox and Cubs play in the same division, when everyone uses the DH, home-field advantage in the MLB finals will be determined by best record.

And they won't call it the World Series anymore.

If St. Louis wins 100 games in the National League, did they earn home field if the White Sox, playing different teams with different rules, win 99? Most seasons the American League wild card is as good a team as the National League's best-record team.

"Best record" is such a flawed concept for the World Series home field -- the only thing more flawed that comes to mind would be to have the fans vote on where they want to see the games played.

doogiec
06-15-2006, 07:46 AM
I've heard this reasoning before and you know what??? It's bull****. They have to wait until both LCS are over anyway because they don't even know who's going to be in the World Series until then. At most it would buy them a few days.

No they don't. They book/plan everything during the LCS in the two cities that could possibly host games 1,2,6 and 7, and they book everything in the two cities that could host 3,4 and 5. You can't book/plan something like this in the two days after the LCS. When the picture clears, they then cancel in the cities that lose (and from what I've heard, pay for that priveledge).

Under the other scenario, they would need to book all seven days in possibly three or four different cities, with far more cancellations affecting more venues.

TommyJohn
06-15-2006, 08:24 AM
Why not just alternate years like before? What the hell was wrong with that setup?

wdelaney72
06-15-2006, 10:10 AM
give it based on the league with the better overall interleague record.

I could live with that.

ondafarm
06-15-2006, 11:03 AM
I don't necessarily like it, but I don't hate it, either. It's better than best record or alternating. The only reasonable alternative I've heard is to give it based on the league with the better overall interleague record. At least then it would go to the representative from the stronger league.

Except that there are an even number of interleague games played and the result could be a tie. I suppose you could say then it would stay with the winner of the previous year.

Ol' No. 2
06-15-2006, 11:07 AM
Except that there are an even number of interleague games played and the result could be a tie. I suppose you could say then it would stay with the winner of the previous year.There are lots of tiebreakers you could dream up. Worst case, flip a coin. That's no worse than just alternating.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 11:17 AM
No they don't. They book/plan everything during the LCS in the two cities that could possibly host games 1,2,6 and 7, and they book everything in the two cities that could host 3,4 and 5. You can't book/plan something like this in the two days after the LCS. When the picture clears, they then cancel in the cities that lose (and from what I've heard, pay for that priveledge).

Under the other scenario, they would need to book all seven days in possibly three or four different cities, with far more cancellations affecting more venues.the teams book the room for mlb.
no different than the all star host city booking the rooms for mlb hq

PKalltheway
06-15-2006, 01:19 PM
When they do away with the American and National leagues, when the White Sox and Cubs play in the same division, when everyone uses the DH, home-field advantage in the MLB finals will be determined by best record.

And they won't call it the World Series anymore.

If St. Louis wins 100 games in the National League, did they earn home field if the White Sox, playing different teams with different rules, win 99? Most seasons the American League wild card is as good a team as the National League's best-record team.

"Best record" is such a flawed concept for the World Series home field -- the only thing more flawed that comes to mind would be to have the fans vote on where they want to see the games played.
Right now the AL Wild Card is as good as the NL's best-record team. You gotta believe though that this is just a cycle that will eventually end. The power will eventually go back to the NL. Remember the 1999 Reds? They had 96 wins, and still went home. Only one team in the AL that year had a better record and that was the eventual World Champs, the Yankees. They had 98 wins. The AL is MUCH, MUCH better than the NL right now, but it won't last forever. I'm sure some of the posters here remember when the NL was a far more superior league than the AL for many, many years.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 01:29 PM
Right now the AL Wild Card is as good as the NL's best-record team. You gotta believe though that this is just a cycle that will eventually end. The power will eventually go back to the NL. Remember the 1999 Reds? They had 96 wins, and still went home. Only one team in the AL that year had a better record and that was the eventual World Champs, the Yankees. They had 98 wins. The AL is MUCH, MUCH better than the NL right now, but it won't last forever. I'm sure some of the posters here remember when the NL was a far more superior league than the AL for many, many years.that's a pretty stupid line of thinking.....
the 8 teams that go in the playoffs, regardless of league, all have more or less the same chance to win the ws.....look at the 2003 nl wild card, or the 02 WS, which had both wild cards duking it out....



AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO GETS HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE IN THE WS.
Gene

ondafarm
06-15-2006, 01:34 PM
that's a pretty stupid line of thinking.....
the 8 teams that go in the playoffs, regardless of league, all have more or less the same chance to win the ws.....look at the 2003 nl wild card, or the 02 WS, which had both wild cards duking it out....



AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO GETS HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE IN THE WS.
Gene

I agree and disagree.

For some teams, having home field is a huge advantage. The Red Sox, the Yankees, the A's and the Twins come to mind. For a lot of others, it's no matter. Teams on the road tend to be more relaxed and looser, teams with whacky home parks and that are well-built for those parks, tend to do better at home.

sullythered
06-15-2006, 01:36 PM
I generally think Selig is an idiot, but I kinda like the "this time it counts" stuff.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 02:08 PM
I agree and disagree.

For some teams, having home field is a huge advantage. The Red Sox, the Yankees, the A's and the Twins come to mind. For a lot of others, it's no matter. Teams on the road tend to be more relaxed and looser, teams with whacky home parks and that are well-built for those parks, tend to do better at home.arguaing about how hard it is to book hotel rooms has nothing to do with ws home field advantage.....the asg "this time it counts" is just a ploy to get ratings and to make sure players and(more importantly) managers dont screw up like they did in 02....i had tickets to that debacle, and i wasnt happy that i pissed almost 3 thousand dollars(the cost of brewers season tickets, asg tickets, hotels, spending money ect) down the drain so i can see torre and brenley get everyone in the game which ended in a tie
Gene

Tigerslover
06-15-2006, 02:57 PM
Gene

P.s. I was in Milwaukee in 02, and watching Torre and Brenly waste millions of fan's dollars is worse than losing "tradition".

How did they waste "millions of fan dollars"? You may not have gotten a winner, but you still saw a great game. That game had just about everything you could ask for. So what if nobody won? It's an exhibition anyway. You more then got your moneys worth that night IMO.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 03:28 PM
That game had just about everything you could ask for. So what if nobody won? i paid to watch a BASEBALL game.....there's no ties in baseball...

and furthermore, letting torre and brenley just throw people out ther isnt a game either......i was at both 02 and 03, and the 03 game was infinitely better...mike soscia played to win(of course baker didnt, but that's another story), and we got an exciting game...02 was a joke...you have sosa and bonds leaving the CITY after thier at-bats, pitchers were brought in for just one batter in a TIE GAME, and when the bottom fell out, 44 thousand people were BOOING the managers, selig, and the umps. the brewers and milwaukee got a black eye that night

Gene

p.s. if it had everything you could ask for, then why didnt it have a victor?

Tigerslover
06-15-2006, 03:33 PM
I still think the fans overreacted to that game. BTW there have been ties in baseball's past, even one in an older all star game, due to rain. Besides, I think every major league player hopes of playing in an all star game at some point in their career. Why pick them to the team if they can't play in the game? Makes no sense.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 03:42 PM
It's an exhibition anyway.
Technically, the WORLD SERIES is also JUST an EXHIBITION. Since the National and American Leagues are on paper two separate entities.
Would you like the Sox TYING game 3 last year?

I rest my point.

Tigerslover
06-15-2006, 03:45 PM
Comparing the all star game to the world series is like comparing apples to oranges if you ask me. The all star game has players from all 30 teams, does the world series have that? Exactly. Two completely different things. IMO if there's a tie in the all star game then so be it. Beyond that they couldn't risk players getting hurt for their respective clubs with the 2nd half of the season still to go.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 04:15 PM
Comparing the all star game to the world series is like comparing apples to oranges if you ask me. The all star game has players from all 30 teams, does the world series have that? Exactly. Two completely different things. IMO if there's a tie in the all star game then so be it. Beyond that they couldn't risk players getting hurt for their respective clubs with the 2nd half of the season still to go.
Let me explain this in a way that's easier for you to understand:

THE WORLD SERIES IS AN EXHIBITION SERIES.

THE AL AND NL ARE TWO SEPARATE LEAGUES.
THIER CHAMPIONS FACE OFF IN A SEPARATE CONTEST.

This is very similar to the pre nfl/afl merger super bowls. Two separate operations had an "exhibition" for bragging rights.

Both the World Series and the ASG are mlb events that are played in stadiums that are RENTED to mlb.
the sox officially have nothing to do with the 05 WS. the players get paid by mlb, NOT the sox.

I cant belive I'm trying to explain myself to a tiggers fan

Gene

TornLabrum
06-15-2006, 04:21 PM
The AL and NL are no longer two separate leagues. There are no league offices and league presidents anymore. All discipline, etc. are all under the auspices of the commissioner's office. The umpires are now MLB umpires, not AL or NL umpires. So is the World Series an exhibition? Is the Superbowl an exhibition? Are the NBA and NHL playoffs exhibition series?

TheKittle
06-15-2006, 04:37 PM
I actually like the All-Star game deciding home field advantage. It gives the All-Star game meaning unlike the worthless one in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The ASG was a great idea before interleague play and is still a chance to see a lot of great players, and a few Yankee bums, play together. Making it count for something means the players have some comittment to winning it. As for deciding homefield advantage in the World Series, assigning it to the best record is more like assigning it to the weaker league, alternating it means it doesn't count for anything, which it does and unless you have something else to assign it by, I actually think Selig came up with a good idea on this.

I have plenty of things I hate Selig for, but this isn't one of them.


This is BS. The All Star game used to mean something. Players took pride in winning the game to prove their league was better than the other league. Back then it was just on honor to MAKE the All Star team. Then this "little league" rules bull**** came into play, where everybody elected had to play in the game.

It started in 93 when Cito Gaston was the AL manager and the game was in Baltimore. Mike Mussina was warming up in the bullpen and Gaston didn't put him in the game. Since then all managers made sure everybody played in the game.

Give me the days of Pete Rose running over Fosse. Give me the night when Fred Lynn hit the first ASG grandslam and the AL finally won a damn ASG. Give me Bo Jackson crushing a HR in the 89 ASG. Give me Reggie's crushing HR off Dock Ellis.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 04:52 PM
The AL and NL are no longer two separate leagues. There are no league offices and league presidents anymore. All discipline, etc. are all under the auspices of the commissioner's office. The umpires are now MLB umpires, not AL or NL umpires. So is the World Series an exhibition? Is the Superbowl an exhibition? Are the NBA and NHL playoffs exhibition series?on paper, yes.....
in real life...no

but you try explaining it to a tiggers fan.

My main point is that if ON PAPER the WS is the same as the ASG(exhibition), then a tie game is no better than a win or loss. especially when millions of dollars are spent by the fans. Imagine the uproar if selig called game 3 last year in the 11th inning because it was too late, or that both managers ran out of players.

Gene

Tigerslover
06-15-2006, 05:11 PM
But still that is different. Selig would never do that, and besides as I said before what if someone got hurt in that all star game, and couldn't play for their team in the 2nd half?

SouthSide_HitMen
06-15-2006, 05:22 PM
on paper, yes.....
in real life...no

but you try explaining it to a tiggers fan.

My main point is that if ON PAPER the WS is the same as the ASG(exhibition), then a tie game is no better than a win or loss. especially when millions of dollars are spent by the fans. Imagine the uproar if selig called game 3 last year in the 11th inning because it was too late, or that both managers ran out of players.

Gene

:rolleyes:

This is nonsense. The All Star Game is next to meaningless.

The World Series is everything. 30 teams play over 6 months for the right to make the playoffs to determine who goes to the World Series.

All Star Game players are determined via web polls (and for spam email addresses) and a piece of paper punched by your keys or a pen sponsored by XXXXX corporation.

I could care less what happens in an All Star Game. I couldn't care more what happens in a World Series Game. If they cancelled an All Star Game (or it ends in a tie) who cares. When they cancelled the World Series in 1994 it took years and illegal steroids (thanks Bud, owners and players) to bring the game back to where it was.

The only reasons they implemented "this time it counts" is because Fox TV bitched about declining ratings. Period. End of story. The game is still meaningless but a possible World Series home game is in the balance because MLB whored itself yet again (Spiderman bases anyone?) to the highest bidder (Like Lady Heather Mills - only for more money). A whore is a whore is a whore.

ilsox7
06-15-2006, 05:25 PM
:rolleyes:

This is nonsense. The All Star Game is next to meaningless.

The World Series is everything. 30 teams play over 6 months for the right to make the playoffs to determine who goes to the World Series.

All Star Game players are determined via web polls (and for spam email addresses) and a piece of paper punched by your keys or a pen sponsored by XXXXX corporation.

I could care less what happens in an All Star Game. I couldn't care more what happens in a World Series Game. If they cancelled an All Star Game (or it ends in a tie) who cares. When they cancelled the World Series in 1994 it took years and illegal steroids (thanks Bud, owners and players) to bring the game back to where it was.

The only reasons they implemented "this time it counts" is because Fox TV bitched about declining ratings. Period. End of story. The game is still meaningless but a possible World Series home game is in the balance because MLB whored itself yet again (Spiderman bases anyone?) to the highest bidder (Like Lady Heather Mills - only for more money). A whore is a whore is a whore.

:thumbsup:

As someone who has spent a LOT of money going to various All-Star games, I can say that who won the game was pretty much last on the list of things I cared about.

ewokpelts
06-15-2006, 05:36 PM
But still that is different. Selig would never do that, and besides as I said before what if someone got hurt in that all star game, and couldn't play for their team in the 2nd half?ask pete rose about that tigger fan

doublem23
06-15-2006, 05:55 PM
Agreed. Why not just let the team with the best overall record have homefield? I never understood why they used to alternate between AL and NL parks for each WS, as it seemed to reward teams that didn't have as good of a record.

Records across the leagues are worthless.

Tigerslover
06-15-2006, 06:17 PM
ask pete rose about that tigger fan

That was a different situation, that came from him giving his all. What I mean is, as the game went on longer and longer, the more likely someone was to get hurt somehow.

Banix12
06-15-2006, 08:48 PM
There is really a very simple solution to figure out home field advantage that should appease all fans.

I call it "the cage of death".

Each league selects a gladiator, two men enter, one man leaves.

The winner gets homefield advantage for their respective league, $5 million dollars, and a plaque in the hall of fame.

Johnny Mostil
06-15-2006, 10:45 PM
I never understood why they used to alternate between AL and NL parks for each WS, as it seemed to reward teams that didn't have as good of a record.

Before or after inter-league play? Before, I assume it was because records of teams that had no common opponents weren't comparable . . .

mmmmmbeeer
06-17-2006, 01:08 PM
My idea is that Home Field could go to the Team representing the League that won the WS the previous year, using the "Champs until dethroned" as my rationale. If the AL won the previous year, they proved they are the dominant league, and thus retain home field until the NL wins a WS.

I really like this idea.