While baseball fans argue passionately over their favorite teams, there are
a few unifying principles upon which almost everyone agrees. One, all the
players and owners make too much money. Two, the hot dogs at the local park
are never as appetizing as those in other cities (a curious thought given
that hot dogs, by definition, are virtually inedible). And three, the sport
would be imminently better off if the fan in question replaced Bud Selig as
baseball's commissioner.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But after years of near constant criticism and
complaint, it's time to give Selig some credit for a good idea whose time
has come.
|
|
(Bud) Selig recently floated the
possibility of letting the victor of the All-Star
Game determine the home-field advantage in the
World Series. The idea not only is fun and
progressive, it would improve the game without costing a thing. |
Selig recently floated the possibility of letting the victor of the All-Star
Game determine the home-field advantage in the World Series. The idea not
only is fun and progressive, it would improve the game without costing a
thing.
So of course there is resistance, out of mere reflex than anything else.
Critics say that home-field advantage is too important to be determined by
what is essentially an exhibition game, albeit one broadcast across the
globe in many languages, including the one Steve Lyons speaks. They're both
right and wrong about that. Since baseball changed the DH format for the
World Series in 1986 (beginning then, the DH was used in AL ballparks but
not in NL stadiums), every American League team with home-field advantage
has won the World Series. During the same period, all but two National
League teams with home-field advantage have won the series.
That's a pretty good indication that home-field advantage is fairly
significant in the World Series, perhaps too much so. But it doesn't become
any less significant simply by alternating home-field advantage between
leagues each year. If you're a St. Louis fan, the fact that National League
teams had home-field advantage in 1986 and 1988 did little to comfort you
when the Cardinals lost all four road games against Minnesota in 1987 when
the Twins had home-field advantage.
Obviously, basing home-field advantage on the All-Star Game would do nothing
to rectify this competitive discrepancy. But it would not worsen it, either.
Let's face it. One team is going to have home-field advantage every year and
how that team is determined is of no consequence when the ceremonial first
pitch is thrown and the players finally stop yelling at Jim Gray. We might
as well turn that problem into a positive by using it to spice up an
exhibition game that is losing fans quicker than the XFL.
Fans and players alike used to care deeply about who won the All-Star Game.
But then again, people used to care deeply about Cyndi Lauper, too.
Over the past decade the All-Star Game has become an increasingly corporate
affair with growing emphasis on the festivities surrounding it. Hey, I enjoy
the home run derby as much as everyone else, but just as with the slam dunk
contest in the NBA, it is overshadowing the actual game, robbing the latter
of its importance.
You can criticize Pete Rose for being overly aggressive when he introduced
himself to Ray Fosse's rib cage in 1970 but at least he cared about winning
the game. Too often now the only competition at the All-Star Game is seeing
whether the starters can shower, dress and board their flight before the
game is over.
Putting home-field advantage on the line won't instantly overcome years of
declining interest due to interleague play and player turnover. But it will
add interest and it's a much needed step toward making the All-Star Game
once again the Midsummer Classic.
Jim Caple of Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.
| |
|
