Should the MLB All-Star game decide home field for the World Series?

**bigboydan** · 06-26-06, 08:13 PM

no it shouldn't

bud selig should have never implamented this dumb rule IMO

whats the reward of playing a great season to earn the right for that honor, when it's meaningless.

**Doug** · 06-26-06, 08:24 PM

Didn't they just alternate before ? I don't see that having much meaning.

**Illusion** · 06-26-06, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Doug

Didn't they just alternate before ? I don't see that having much meaning.

Yes they did. I think home feild should be based on overall record (whether they played each other that year or not)

**Willie Bee** · 06-26-06, 08:49 PM

Under the current conditions, no way. If it is going to count, you have to let the managers of the game pick a team themselves and then let them manage to win the damn thing. As it is now, you've got fans voting for .260 hitters and teams telling the All-Star Game managers, "Don't you dare let my guy throw more than about 15 pitches," or "My shortstop has a tochy hamstring, we'd rather he just pinch-hit."

If it's going to mean something as important as home field advantage in your championship series, then give the managers in the game a genuine team and tell 'em go win the dadgum thing instead of pussy-footing around.

**Mudcat** · 06-26-06, 09:04 PM

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. The negative discussion and 4-2 voting in favor of YES are not in harmony.

I voted YES by the way. I don't think it's a perfect way to decide home field but it's something. I definitely like it better than just alternating from year to year. I don't hate the idea of the team with the best record having home field but there are flaws to that too.

**Willie Bee** · 06-26-06, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Mudcat

I don't hate the idea of the team with the best record having home field but there are flaws to that too.

If you mean totally inequitable schedules within each league and division as the flaws, then I agree. But giving it to the team with the better record makes a lot more sense to me than giving it to the league that wins some horse dung of an exhibition game.

**Dark Horse** · 06-26-06, 09:29 PM

No. All Star game is semi-competitive event. Crazy to let that decide something that can possibly determine the championship.

**Illusion** · 06-26-06, 09:31 PM

It hasn't mattered the last two years since Boston and Chicago both swept.

**BuddyBear** · 06-26-06, 09:43 PM

Boston should have played GM 1 and 2 in STL not in Boston...

I think this is one of the worst rules in baseball.....I voted no

**moses millsap** · 06-26-06, 10:19 PM

Why not just reward the team who has the best overall record over the course of 162 game season? Makes perfect sense to me, but I'm not as bright as Bud Selig

**onlooker** · 06-26-06, 11:03 PM

Hell no.

Let the best record decide who has home field.

I like the points Willie made about letting the Managers pick the teams if its going to decide who has home field in the World Series. The public are not only clueless on betting, they cant pick a good allstar team to save their life.

Players that have been on the DL get a starting spot on the allstar team....what is wrong with that picture?

So again, Hell no it shouldnt.

**scottyy11** · 06-26-06, 11:59 PM

well this is better than alternating imo....that was the worst

but it should be best record

**tacomax** · 06-27-06, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by onlòóker

I like the points Willie made about letting the Managers pick the teams if its going to decide who has home field in the World Series. The public are not only clueless on betting, they cant pick a good allstar team to save their life.

I'll agree on that one. Have they ever considered that internet voting is open to abuse as well? Having said that, it would be funny if there was a mass organized voting ring to get Russ Ortiz as the starting pitcher.

As to whether it should dictate home field advantage then why not? I can't see any point of having an All-Star game at all, at least having something to play for makes it slightly more interesting. In any case, it's better than alternating each year or choosing it on a coin-flip.

But yes, best record would ultimately be the better option.

**isetcap** · 06-27-06, 07:50 AM

No.

It is painfully obvious that the best record in baseball should have the homefield advantage. The next best choice would be to use the overall results from interleague play.

If you want to give the allstar game some purpose beyond just a silly exhibition, then give the winners some money. Have the contest go nine innings. If the score is still tied, then have them play an extra inning. If the score is still tied then have a homerun derby type session to decide the winner. Then you'd have Pujols and Thome battling it out for their respective leagues. Fans would eat it up.

I agree with BB about the Boston/St. Louis series.

**Mudcat** · 07-10-06, 03:09 PM

It doesn't seem like Manny Ramirez is too concerned about battling for home field in the WS.

Or maybe he's really legitimately injured.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!!

No seriously.

**pags11** · 07-11-06, 12:47 AM

I like it...I think it's good for these teams to have an incentive to win...otherwise, the big stars just mail it in and are in their street close by the second inning...