does anyone actually think there are any fans (other than some younger boys/girls who like their home team heros) who care at all who wins an ALL STAR game. ITs for seeing a few strikeouts, a few matchups, and thats about it.
Why this game has to mean anything is really stupid.
Why this game has to mean anything is really stupid.
Well...an All-Star game is supposed to be the BEST of the American teams against the BEST of the National teams in a Showcase to see (tongue-in-cheek) who is really the BEST of-the-leagues, American or National?
It's was really meant as a Marketing Tool to get people to come out to the field to see all the stars in one place.
But I don't think Bud and his Buddies know what the f**k they are doing when it come to PROMOTING and marketing baseball in general and especially to the YOUNG audience out there...in fact I don't think they've known what the f**k to do for many years now and that's why MLB baseball keeps having it's up & downs in the market year from year and attendence keeps going d-o-w-n.
It's was really meant as a Marketing Tool to get people to come out to the field to see all the stars in one place.
But I don't think Bud and his Buddies know what the f**k they are doing when it come to PROMOTING and marketing baseball in general and especially to the YOUNG audience out there...in fact I don't think they've known what the f**k to do for many years now and that's why MLB baseball keeps having it's up & downs in the market year from year and attendence keeps going d-o-w-n.
home field advantage used to alternate between the NL and AL. when AZ beat NY - NY had the better record but since it was the NL's time to host G7 - AZ got it - and won G7. i DETEST the yankees - but they got screwed here. they had the better record over AZ and should have hosted G7.
for mlb to pull this crap is ridiculous. they want to find a way to improve the pathetic ratings so they pull this crap.
why can't they do what EVERY OTHER sport does - and give h/f advantage to the team with the better record? this is stupid.
how would you like to be on the team that had the best record in all of baseball but your team lost out on h/f for G7 because some tamp bay devil dog or detroit tigger made an error in the all-star game to cost the AL the game.
what shocks me more than anything else is the players actually AGREED to this stupidity - and keep in mind - if the players didn't agree to this - it wouldn't have been done.
if they insist on doing this stupid thing (and it is a 2-year experiment) then they should do away with the "every team needs a rep" on the all star team. WRONG! if this game is going to mean something then only get those who DESERVE to be an all star there. the only exception i would make to this rule is the home team is guaranteed an all star rep. other than that - sorry detroit tigers or tamp devil dogs or NY mets - your teams suck - you have NO ONE on them who deserves to play in this game - so they won't!
all of this is one more reason i lost interest in MLB some time ago. growing up i used to love it and watch the games all the time - but now - because of all of the stupidity in the game - i no longer care what happens. i also HATE inter-league play, too. along with this all star thing - among the 2 worst things to ever happen to baseball (salary arbitration is also on this list, too).
for mlb to pull this crap is ridiculous. they want to find a way to improve the pathetic ratings so they pull this crap.
why can't they do what EVERY OTHER sport does - and give h/f advantage to the team with the better record? this is stupid.
how would you like to be on the team that had the best record in all of baseball but your team lost out on h/f for G7 because some tamp bay devil dog or detroit tigger made an error in the all-star game to cost the AL the game.
what shocks me more than anything else is the players actually AGREED to this stupidity - and keep in mind - if the players didn't agree to this - it wouldn't have been done.
if they insist on doing this stupid thing (and it is a 2-year experiment) then they should do away with the "every team needs a rep" on the all star team. WRONG! if this game is going to mean something then only get those who DESERVE to be an all star there. the only exception i would make to this rule is the home team is guaranteed an all star rep. other than that - sorry detroit tigers or tamp devil dogs or NY mets - your teams suck - you have NO ONE on them who deserves to play in this game - so they won't!
all of this is one more reason i lost interest in MLB some time ago. growing up i used to love it and watch the games all the time - but now - because of all of the stupidity in the game - i no longer care what happens. i also HATE inter-league play, too. along with this all star thing - among the 2 worst things to ever happen to baseball (salary arbitration is also on this list, too).
Whew--lots of hostility here.
Since the old rule was alternating Leagues, this new rule could hardly be considered "worse." (If the game is meanignless its like flipping a coin--no worse than what we have now. If the all star game has some meaning, why not use it for home team advantage?)
I don't like the "best overall record" suggestions being made here at all.
A team's overall record is determined by both how good they are AND how "bad" their opposition is. By using best overall record, you are giving too much advantage to a team that comes from a weak division, and unfairly penalizing a team that comes from a tough division.
And when you think about it, by forcing the All Star team to include players from all teams, rather than only the best players from the best teams, this is actually a fairer estimate of how good or bad the respective leagues are.
For example, if one league happens to have three or four very weak teams in it, the best teams from that league will have better overall records than the best team from a league that has the better second division teams.
By filling the roster of the All Star game with players from all teams, you are better evaluating which League is better. And giving the better league home field advantage in the World Series makes some sense.
A lot of you guys are saying the game is meaningless. I say a game that has some meaning is a more interesting game to watch.
So there.
Since the old rule was alternating Leagues, this new rule could hardly be considered "worse." (If the game is meanignless its like flipping a coin--no worse than what we have now. If the all star game has some meaning, why not use it for home team advantage?)
I don't like the "best overall record" suggestions being made here at all.
A team's overall record is determined by both how good they are AND how "bad" their opposition is. By using best overall record, you are giving too much advantage to a team that comes from a weak division, and unfairly penalizing a team that comes from a tough division.
And when you think about it, by forcing the All Star team to include players from all teams, rather than only the best players from the best teams, this is actually a fairer estimate of how good or bad the respective leagues are.
For example, if one league happens to have three or four very weak teams in it, the best teams from that league will have better overall records than the best team from a league that has the better second division teams.
By filling the roster of the All Star game with players from all teams, you are better evaluating which League is better. And giving the better league home field advantage in the World Series makes some sense.
A lot of you guys are saying the game is meaningless. I say a game that has some meaning is a more interesting game to watch.
So there.
The alternating sites rule was simply baseball trying to preserve the identity that there were two leagues. Interleague play has ruined the AS Game more than anything, used to be you would never see those guys going at it with the opposite leagues. Remember Bonds going to Yankee Stadium and hitting that mammoth shot last year? That was stuff usually saved for the this one game but not any more.
I don't think the new rule is all that bad, I just wonder how much the strategy will change. Does this mean if its a one-run game in the 6th that the manager decides to do what he can to win it and ends up not playing 6 or 7 guys? Hard to say how it affects the atmosphere, but it definitely isn't worse than the alternating sites rule. Besides home field advantage can be overrated, its nice to have, but I think its very minimal in its value. A good pitcher wins at home or on the road, its the teams with weaker pitchers that have trouble winning on the road.
I don't think the new rule is all that bad, I just wonder how much the strategy will change. Does this mean if its a one-run game in the 6th that the manager decides to do what he can to win it and ends up not playing 6 or 7 guys? Hard to say how it affects the atmosphere, but it definitely isn't worse than the alternating sites rule. Besides home field advantage can be overrated, its nice to have, but I think its very minimal in its value. A good pitcher wins at home or on the road, its the teams with weaker pitchers that have trouble winning on the road.
