DCBucky
Jan 10 2003, 06:41 AM
What do you guys make of Herr Selig's proposal to have the league that wins the All Star Game gain home-field advantage in the World Series? Advantage now is rotated from year-to-year. (I guess he's trying to make up for the fiasco last July).
Link to story here (need to scroll down past the first part).
George Twins fan
Jan 10 2003, 08:00 AM
I personally don't like it and don't think it will happen. What incentive does this give players from teams that won't be in the playoff hunt? (Many of those teams know who they are by the All Star break!) The only way this works, in my mind, is if they throw out the rule that every team must be represented and simply invite the BEST players.
[ January 10, 2003: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]
Ump25
Jan 10 2003, 04:15 PM
Gee, here's a novel idea...
How about having the team w/ the better record get the home advantage in the World Series? No other sport does that, do they?
satxbuddy1
Jan 10 2003, 06:25 PM
what's wrong with the way home field advantage is determined now?
Adam
Jan 10 2003, 06:54 PM
Ump25: Bravo!! Bravo!! Bravo!! I have wondered why baseball doesn't do just that for years...it has always seemed to be the most logical solution...oh wait, logic and Bud Selig don't go together.
And, which team would have home-field advantage if the All-Star game ends in a tie?
~Adam
[ January 10, 2003: Message edited by: Adam ]
Seph
Jan 11 2003, 08:59 PM
What happens if the All Star game ends in a tie?
This has to be the most assinine thing Selig has said this...week.
George Twins fan
Jan 11 2003, 09:05 PM
Having a game in which 90% of the participants will NOT be part of the World Series determine home field for the World Series just makes no sense to me. I know they want to juice up the All Star game, but this isn't the way. Do Detroit Tigers or Kansas City Royals relly care if the Yankees have home field?
Joe in Philly
Jan 11 2003, 09:44 PM
This will do absolutely NOTHING to juice up the All-Star game. There is only ONE solution if they really want an all-out competition for an exhibition game, and I hate to say it: lots and lots of money, winner take all.
billsf
Jan 16 2003, 10:10 AM
Well, espn.com thinks that the owners are going to vote to make the game decide home field advantage:
espn.com articleWhat a joke!
Bill W
Jan 16 2003, 11:55 AM
However, if you read the article, such a plan needs the players union's approval ... and the NY Times says they're against it.
[quote]Originally posted by satxbuddy1:
what's wrong with the way home field advantage is determined now?
It's NOT determined ... simply alternated by league each year. I bet that's how it's staying.
George Twins fan
Jan 16 2003, 02:45 PM
The owners have unanimously approved Herr Selig's proposal. From ESPN.com:
[quote] Baseball owners unanimously approved commissioner Bud Selig's proposal to have the league that wins the All-Star Game get home-field advantage in the World Series.
"This energizes it. This gives them something to really play for,'' Selig said. "People pay a lot of money to see that game. They deserve to see the same intensity they see all year long. Television people pay a lot of money for the game. It was not and should not be a meaningless exhibition game.''
Management lawyers will now ask the players' association to approve the change. Union head Donald Fehr said before Thursday's 30-0 vote that players were not yet sure of their stance.
In recent years, as the differences between the American and National leagues lessened because of increased player mobility and interleague play, many players have treated the All-Star Game as a show rather than a game.
The change is strongly backed by Fox, which holds baseball's national television rights. It also needs approval of the players' association.
"We've been discussing it with players,'' Fehr said Wednesday. "We know they're interested in it, and we'll get back to them.''
A management official who had spoken with the union said that while the change was likely to become an issue between the sides, the union told management it was still unclear what position it would adopt.
Owners can't understand any opposition.
"Their arguments are kind of hollow, whatever they are,'' Arizona owner Jerry Colangelo said.
Joe in Philly
Jan 16 2003, 07:57 PM
My guess is the players will try and get some concession in exchange for their approval. But this is a joke. It will do NOTHING to make the game more interesting or improve the ratings.
Bill W
Jan 17 2003, 08:00 AM
[quote]Originally posted by George_vikingfan:
From ESPN.com:
"Their arguments are kind of hollow, whatever they are,'' Arizona owner Jerry Colangelo said.
Jeez, I sense a Bush Cabinet post in Colangelo's future.
If I was Don Fehr, I'd say, "OK, we're fine with it. It's not an exhibition game anymore. We accept your plan in exchange for abolishing the Home Run Derby, Celebrity Softball and the mid-game ceremonies that last 15-20 minutes." End of plan.
William1865
Jan 17 2003, 11:52 AM
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of, and that's saying a lot. (I hang out in the Politics forum.)
Why not just use this to determine homefield advantage?
Ask the Eight Ball
canmark
Jan 17 2003, 11:53 AM
If the game is to be "meaningful," what will this mean for the manager? One of the nice things about the All Star game is that the manager tries to use all or most of the players available. But if it counts, would he use just the best players... say Randy Johnson for 9 innings while the other pitchers sit on the bench to the chagrin of the fans (not to mention Arizona, who won't be able to use Johnson for another 4 days). And are the players supposed to try "harder" to win? Bowling over the catcher at home, perhaps, and possibly injuring him?
Will the fans appreciate the game more? I think not.
Ump25
Jan 17 2003, 12:36 PM
[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
Will the fans appreciate the game more? I think not.
The real question is: "Will the fans like Selig more because of this?"
THAT is the only thing he is concerned about.
[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
MSUBulldog
Jan 19 2003, 09:20 AM
So what changed with the All-Star game that made it meaningless? THAT is what Selig needs to look at, not adding this rule about WS home advantage. I thought earlier in the week when it was announced, "hey they actually have something to play for now!" but the more I've read and the negative responses I've seen here and elsewhere, I'm beginning to think it is the wrong approach as well.
I remember years ago when it was more than an exhibition, that there actually was something to play for. League pride? Did that disappear when interleague games came into the picture and blended everything? Has the World Series become less meaningful because we saw the Angels and Giants play in the regular season? I'm starting to see that Selig has created more and more problems, and that what he is trying to "fix" is the problems that he himself has helped create!
Joe in Philly
Jan 19 2003, 12:01 PM
It's always been a pretty meaningless exhibition, except for the fact that NL and AL players never faced each other except in the World Series. So you had a curiosity factor that attracted fans, and league pride seemed to motivate the players. The advent of free agents and player movement from team to team and league to league, and just the attitude of the modern-day player, watered it down. The lessening interest in baseball in general hurt as well. Interleague play only added to it. I personally don't see it as a major factor. The game was already tarnished by the time interleague play began.
There is no reasonable solution that will ever restore the All-Star game. By "reasonable" I mean something that has a change of actually being implemented. I don't think they'll ever get rid of interleague play, free agency will not be limited, the modern-day attitude will not change. People just need to let go and accept the fact that it's an exhibition. If it ends in a tie, so be it.
Wisconsin Jock
Jan 19 2003, 05:06 PM
Thought Bud Selig getting ripped about the all star game was unwarranted...first of all it was the managers poor judgement to use up all the players so nobody was left & secondly the game itself is an exhibition & totally meaningless...dont care much one way or the other of his idea about the winning team taking home advantage in the World Series...seems kind of gimmicky...prefer to leave it the way it is now or team with best record getting the home advantage, but might make the game a little more competitve & a little less showy
George Twins fan
May 1 2003, 04:02 PM
The players union has approved the move to have the all star game determine home field. From ESPN.com:
QUOTE
Baseball players agreed to a two-year experiment Thursday to give home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star Game.
Owners approved the proposal Jan. 17, and union lawyers have discussed it with players since then before agreeing to it on a trial basis.
\"I am very pleased that we have agreed to this important structural change to the All-Star Game,\" commissioner Bud Selig said. \"Baseball, like all institutions, must continually re-evaluate and reassess itself, and make necessary changes to sustain its fan base and attract new ones.
\"To keep the game vibrant and more compelling for our present fans and future fans, we must be vigilant in seeking out fresh, bold, and creative ideas. This change is one of them. It will ensure that the All-Star Game, which its founder Arch Ward called the 'Mid-Summer Classic,' remains just that.\"
The team hosting Games 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the World Series has won 15 of the last 17 titles and the last eight Series that went a full seven games.
Fans will select the starting position players -- eight in the National League and nine in the AL this season because the game will have a designated hitter. A separate ballot of players, managers and coaches conducted during the final week of fan balloting will determine nine additional position players in the AL and eight in the NL, as well as eight pitchers in each league.
If that vote has the same winner as the fans, the second-place finisher will make the team. The All-Star manager, in consultation with the commissioner's office, will select the rest of the team, which must include 12 pitchers. All teams will still be guaranteed at least one All-Star.
Also, no pitcher will be required to pitch more than three innings and all starting position players must get at least one at-bat.
Joe in Philly
May 1 2003, 06:39 PM
QUOTE
George_vikingfan:
Fans will select the starting position players -- eight in the National League and nine in the AL this season because the game will have a designated hitter. A separate ballot of players, managers and coaches conducted during the final week of fan balloting will determine nine additional position players in the AL and eight in the NL, as well as eight pitchers in each league. If that vote has the same winner as the fans, the second-place finisher will make the team. The All-Star manager, in consultation with the commissioner's office, will select the rest of the team, which must include 12 pitchers.
If a separate vote by players/managers/coaches will determine "nine additional position players" how would they have the same winner as the fans? Why not just wait until the fan balloting is done and then let them vote on the rest of the players?
scottie
May 1 2003, 08:43 PM
I still want to know who will get home field advantage if the All Star Game is tied??
SmoothRon
May 1 2003, 09:10 PM
scottie- The win would be awarded to the league who is hosting the All-Star game. For example this summer's All-Star game will be hosted by an American League team (Chicago White Sox)at the U.S."I want to throw a Cellular phone at you"Field. If the game ends in a tie, instead of extended into extra innings, the American League will be acknowledged as the winner.
George Twins fan
May 2 2003, 10:14 AM
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
If a separate vote by players/managers/coaches will determine \"nine additional position players\" how would they have the same winner as the fans? Why not just wait until the fan balloting is done and then let them vote on the rest of the players?
My understanding is that the fan vote will count first. If the fans and players/managers/coaches pick the same, whoever finished second in the p/m/c selections will go.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.