 |
| The All-Star Game can still mean something on its own without World Series implications. Just ask Ray Fosse. |
In 2002, when the MLB All-Star Game ended in a tie, a huge uproar was thrown by everyone on this fiasco that was caused by the common over-use of bench players and pitchers in these exhibitions games. This is done so that everyone who gets invited to play gets an actual chance to play. Never before had there been such an uproar and over-reaction to an exhibition game that was played more to entertain the fans than it was to decide a winner.
The highlight of this overreaction was making the all-star game mean something to the league that won it - specifically homefield advantage in the World Series for the winner. From 2003-2009 we saw the AL squads win all 7 all-star games in that span and 4 of the 7 World Series. None of these series went beyond 6 games, and only 2 went past 5 games. So clearly, homefield didn't affect things as much as it would in other sports (but this argument is nothing new to baseball).
It's not that the winner gets homefield that is my biggest pet peeve about the game, but that there is any reward for the winner to begin with. Outside of maybe some victory bonus in their contracts (which for most of these guys, probably means as much to them as a penny does in change jar), there shouldn't be anything tied to the All-Star game in terms of the winner's league getting something.
No one wants to play in it
This year, there will be over 80 players recognized as All-Stars, with all the people who either had to miss the game (pitchers who started on Sunday are not allowed to pitch in the game), are injured and cannot participate, or just want the rest/3-4 days off. I can't say I'd blame them for wanting some rest, especially given the daily grind that baseball can be. However, with how easily some of these players blow off the All-Star game, that just goes to show you how little some of these guys actually care about World Series advantage. They know that home field will be secondary to the skill of their team vs. their opponents if they should be blessed enough to make it to baseball's last series of the year.
They still let all teams be represented
The fact that every team has to be represented is the biggest head scratcher in this whole "This game matters" rhetoric. In every other sport, where the All-Star game is an exhibition, they don't even have this requirement, so why should MLB - whose game is supposed to decide the home field advantage for the World Series - allow players who are likely less deserving on bad teams potentially be the deciding factors in whether Game 1 of the WS featuring the Yankees and Phillies? It makes no sense to feature a player on a last place team - let's say the Astros - in a situation that could decide who hosts the World Series. If they got rid of this rule, which is as stupid as it is archaic, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the home field stipulation.
The overreaction in giving the winner homefield advantage in the World Series was a product of the 2002 game and would have never been instituted if there were no tie. To be honest, at the end of the day, years later - does anyone remember who won the All-Star game (or really even care)?
Turn it back into its meaningless state and let the players do their thing. The true competitors will look to win no matter the stipulations of the game.
