There's a little segment on here called The Thursday Debate... today we look at whether or not the All-Star game should "count."It's not that hard to see why Bud Selig and the MLB came up with the rule that the League that won the All-Star game would have home-field advantage in the World Series. After the tie game a few years back, the All-Star game ran the risk of becoming irrelevent, like so many other All-Star games do.
But the question here is, do you like the rule? Should the MLB All-Star game really mean anything?
Again, I understand why the rule is in place. It makes sure that the game remains relevant and makes sure that the players have something to play for. But still, I have some problems with the rule.
One, the fans vote in the starters. In and of itself, I have no problem with this. The All-Star game is something for the fans, and the fans should be able to vote into the game who they want. That is why, even though the best players are not always starting, I don't really have a problem with them voting in the starters.
But if the game is really going to count, shouldn't the best players be playing? If the game is going to decide who has home-field advantage in the World Series, does it make sense to not have the best players out there?
Secondly, why should the fact that Michael Young (team not in the playoffs) hitting a 2-run triple to win the game mean that the American League got homefield advantage? Why are players who might have no part in the World Series decide this?
So as you can tell, I like the All-Star game, and I like fans voting for the All-Star game, but I don't like the fact that it actually counts for something.
But what do you think? Should the MLB All-Star game count? Place your vote and leave your reasons in the comments.
8 comments:
Does anybody notice a plethora of my Texas Rangers contributing to All-Star games in significant manners in the past few years? Hank Blalock off of Gagne (during his streak), Soriano as MVP, and Michael Young last year.
I don't think it should count however.
I voted no, it's one of those little things that ticks me off. I'm pretty sure that more then a few people find this rule to be ludicrous.
I voted yes because I like the All-Star game meaning something to the players. Back in the day, you had Pete Rose running over a catcher to win the All-Star game for his side, and fast forward several years, it ends in a tie because no one cares. It makes it entertaining that it means something. The NBA All-Star game was laughable because it obviously meant nothing to the players, and I think it should. If I'm going to take the time to watch a game, I want it to be entertaining, and if it's meaningless, it's not fun to watch.
It might make the game more entertaining, but I think it's ridiculous that an All-Star game could determine which team gets home field advantage in the WORLD SERIES. The team with the best record should be rewarded with home field advantage.
"Does anybody notice a plethora of my Texas Rangers contributing to All-Star games in significant manners in the past few years?"
I hadn't noticed the Rangers contributing in the All-Star games, however I did notice their team playing terrible baseball int he past few years.
Thank you for another excellent post. Where else could anybody get that kind of data in such a ideal way of writing? I've a presentation subsequent week, and I'm to the look for this kind of info.
I like it very much because it has very helpful articles of various topics like different culture and the latest news. I am a googler and search on many topics. By searching i found this nice website.
Had to sort through a lot of comments, however I absolutely enjoyed your post. It proved to be extremely useful for me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It’s always particularly good when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I’m sure you had fun researching this article.
NevergiveupPH
Post a Comment