All Star game/WS homefield advantage

[Bote McBoteface]

Is this little experiment over yet? I thought I remembered them saying that it was a 4 year thing and then they'd go from there. I thiiiiink that was 4 years ago. Can we just go by record now? Or at least back to alternating?

[CubColtPacer]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything) while alternating gives you no benefit at all that I can see.

 

I'd of course much rather see them pick it by record of teams or who wins interleague play. But if those are out, I'd much rather see them keep the All-Star game thing going than go back to just alternating years.

[Roast]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything) while alternating gives you no benefit at all that I can see.

 

I'd of course much rather see them pick it by record of teams or who wins interleague play. But if those are out, I'd much rather see them keep the All-Star game thing going than go back to just alternating years.

Really? I hate the idea.

 

Alternating would be fine with me, whichever team had th best record in the regular season would also be nice. But the problem with the allstar game is that a team could potentially be screwed out of home field advantage by a pitcher - who is not on their team - giving up a run allowing the other team to win. Or in the case of last year, Dan Uggla forgetting how to play second base. It seems completely stupid to me to allow Uggla's craptastic inning/game to put a team for whom he does not play in any sort of advantage/disadvantage.

[CubColtPacer]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything) while alternating gives you no benefit at all that I can see.

 

I'd of course much rather see them pick it by record of teams or who wins interleague play. But if those are out, I'd much rather see them keep the All-Star game thing going than go back to just alternating years.

Really? I hate the idea.

 

Alternating would be fine with me, whichever team had th best record in the regular season would also be nice. But the problem with the allstar game is that a team could potentially be screwed out of home field advantage by a pitcher - who is not on their team - giving up a run allowing the other team to win. Or in the case of last year, Dan Uggla forgetting how to play second base. It seems completely stupid to me to allow Uggla's craptastic inning/game to put a team for whom he does not play in any sort of advantage/disadvantage.

 

And in alternating, your fate is tied to if it's an odd or even year. I'd rather it be decided by players on other teams than to have it be locked in to a particular league for absolutely no reason. Neither one has anything to do with what team actually deserves home field advantage, so might as well go with the one that provides a little bit of entertainment if they are the only two choices.

[UMFan83]

If they are going to keep doing this HF advantage thing, please lift the rule that says that every team needs to be represented. It was horrible to see Christian Guzman getting 3-4 ABs in last years game.

[Clem Fandango]

If they are going to keep doing this HF advantage thing, please lift the rule that says that every team needs to be represented. It was horrible to see Christian Guzman getting 3-4 ABs in last years game.

 

Mark Redman 2006 FTW

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's not okay for a team to be screwed out of HFA by a player not on their team, but it is okay to screw them out of it by the fact that it's an odd- or even-numbered year?

 

Both are equally arbitrary, so I don't see the problem.

[cubbinalltheway]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

[Derwood]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

 

because it's the simplest and most logical choice

[UMFan83]

It's not okay for a team to be screwed out of HFA by a player not on their team, but it is okay to screw them out of it by the fact that it's an odd- or even-numbered year?

 

Both are equally arbitrary, so I don't see the problem.

 

Except the AL has had HFA for like the last 7 years. Strangely enough, the AL is only 4-3 in World Series in those 7 years (Angels, Red Sox, White Sox, Red Sox vs. Marlins, Cardinals, Phillies).

 

Just weird that the last time the NL has had HFA in the World Series was the Diamondbacks in 2001.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything)

 

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing?

[CubColtPacer]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything)

 

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing?

 

You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything)

 

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing?

 

You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's.

 

Yeah, but you're talking about one game. They've been doing this for years, how is increased interest in last year's game indicative of HFA being the difference maker?

[UMFan83]

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything)

 

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing?

 

You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's.

 

Yeah, but you're talking about one game. They've been doing this for years, how is increased interest in last year's game indicative of HFA being the difference maker?

 

For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series.

 

IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500.

 

For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

[jersey cubs fan]

For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series.

 

IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500.

 

For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

 

So a small portion of the audience (people who pay very close attention to the Cubs, and are therefore far more likely to be interested in watching an ASG in the first place) had an increased interest in watching this year. But that doesn't mean having home field advantage determined by this game has increased interest in the game.

 

It's a stupid gimmick game that draws little interest and should have no baring on anything.

[BigbadB]

Geovany Soto

[cubbinalltheway]

For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series.

 

IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500.

 

For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

 

So a small portion of the audience (people who pay very close attention to the Cubs, and are therefore far more likely to be interested in watching an ASG in the first place) had an increased interest in watching this year. But that doesn't mean having home field advantage determined by this game has increased interest in the game.

 

It's a stupid gimmick game that draws little interest and should have no baring on anything.

i agree that it's a terrible way to determine HFA.

 

but to suggest that a "small portion of the audience" had an increased interest seems silly. think about it. fans of every team in contention at the ASB (which is probably 75% of the teams) have a vested interest in seeing one league win. would i have watched all 13 innings (or whatever it was) last year if the end result meant nothing? no. but knowing that it was going to hopefully have an effect on the cubs, i stayed up watching. i think a lot of people did the same thing. certainly enough to say that there was increased interest.

[jersey cubs fan]

For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series.

 

IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500.

 

For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

 

So a small portion of the audience (people who pay very close attention to the Cubs, and are therefore far more likely to be interested in watching an ASG in the first place) had an increased interest in watching this year. But that doesn't mean having home field advantage determined by this game has increased interest in the game.

 

It's a stupid gimmick game that draws little interest and should have no baring on anything.

i agree that it's a terrible way to determine HFA.

 

but to suggest that a "small portion of the audience" had an increased interest seems silly. think about it. fans of every team in contention at the ASB (which is probably 75% of the teams) have a vested interest in seeing one league win. would i have watched all 13 innings (or whatever it was) last year if the end result meant nothing? no. but knowing that it was going to hopefully have an effect on the cubs, i stayed up watching. i think a lot of people did the same thing. certainly enough to say that there was increased interest.

 

Others said the Cubs being in the race made it more interesting to people on this board, people who already spend an inordinate amount of time following baseball and the Cubs. That's a small minority of the overall television viewing audience.

 

But the HFA story is years old. Why would it suddenly increase interest this year?

[BigbadB]

For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series.

 

IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500.

 

For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

 

So a small portion of the audience (people who pay very close attention to the Cubs, and are therefore far more likely to be interested in watching an ASG in the first place) had an increased interest in watching this year. But that doesn't mean having home field advantage determined by this game has increased interest in the game.

 

It's a stupid gimmick game that draws little interest and should have no baring on anything.

i agree that it's a terrible way to determine HFA.

 

but to suggest that a "small portion of the audience" had an increased interest seems silly. think about it. fans of every team in contention at the ASB (which is probably 75% of the teams) have a vested interest in seeing one league win. would i have watched all 13 innings (or whatever it was) last year if the end result meant nothing? no. but knowing that it was going to hopefully have an effect on the cubs, i stayed up watching. i think a lot of people did the same thing. certainly enough to say that there was increased interest.

 

Others said the Cubs being in the race made it more interesting to people on this board, people who already spend an inordinate amount of time following baseball and the Cubs. That's a small minority of the overall television viewing audience.

 

But the HFA story is years old. Why would it suddenly increase interest this year?

 

I explained it already. Geovany Soto.

 

Did Josh Hamilton's HR barrage in the derby generate the increased audience?

[cubbinalltheway]

For us there was a lot more interest because we had the best record in the NL at the ASB, and many people thought this was our best shot to win a World Series.

 

IIRC, we were hovering around .500 at 2007s ASB. In 2004, we had interest but Clemens gave up like 5 runs in the first inning. 2003 we were also around .500.

 

For the general public, I am not sure, I guess because it was a very close back and forth game and it was showcasing historic Yankee Stadium for one of the last times.

 

So a small portion of the audience (people who pay very close attention to the Cubs, and are therefore far more likely to be interested in watching an ASG in the first place) had an increased interest in watching this year. But that doesn't mean having home field advantage determined by this game has increased interest in the game.

 

It's a stupid gimmick game that draws little interest and should have no baring on anything.

i agree that it's a terrible way to determine HFA.

 

but to suggest that a "small portion of the audience" had an increased interest seems silly. think about it. fans of every team in contention at the ASB (which is probably 75% of the teams) have a vested interest in seeing one league win. would i have watched all 13 innings (or whatever it was) last year if the end result meant nothing? no. but knowing that it was going to hopefully have an effect on the cubs, i stayed up watching. i think a lot of people did the same thing. certainly enough to say that there was increased interest.

 

Others said the Cubs being in the race made it more interesting to people on this board, people who already spend an inordinate amount of time following baseball and the Cubs. That's a small minority of the overall television viewing audience.

 

But the HFA story is years old. Why would it suddenly increase interest this year?

oh i dont think it suddenly increased this past year. i wasnt arguing that. i just think that it does increase viewership in general.

[ConstableRabbit]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

Because AL teams play 90% of their games against other AL teams and NL teams play 90% of their games against other NL teams. Schedules aren't of even strengths, either. A better record between two teams only shows how much that team dominated their own league (mostly their own division). It doesn't necessarily mean they're a better team than a team from a different league with 2-3 less wins.

 

Now we're going to penalize teams based on their difficulty of their division/league based on that particular year? It's not an awful idea, but I don't think it's the obvious logical choice.

[cubbinalltheway]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

Because AL teams play 90% of their games against other AL teams and NL teams play 90% of their games against other NL teams. Schedules aren't of even strengths, either. A better record between two teams only shows how much that team dominated their own league (mostly their own division). It doesn't necessarily mean they're a better team than a team from a different league with 2-3 less wins.

 

Now we're going to penalize teams based on their difficulty of their division/league based on that particular year? It's not an awful idea, but I don't think it's the obvious logical choice.

then what is? im certainly open to other ideas. that just seems to be the best bet to me, by a fairly wide margin.

[Derwood]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

Because AL teams play 90% of their games against other AL teams and NL teams play 90% of their games against other NL teams. Schedules aren't of even strengths, either. A better record between two teams only shows how much that team dominated their own league (mostly their own division).

 

the NBA is unbalanced as well but it works for them

[ConstableRabbit]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

Because AL teams play 90% of their games against other AL teams and NL teams play 90% of their games against other NL teams. Schedules aren't of even strengths, either. A better record between two teams only shows how much that team dominated their own league (mostly their own division).

 

the NBA is unbalanced as well but it works for them

True, but in the NBA each conference doesn't have different rules. Also, I think their schedules are a little more balanced than in the MLB, no?

[ConstableRabbit]

the obvious logical choice is to give it to the team with the better record. why is this not happening?

Because AL teams play 90% of their games against other AL teams and NL teams play 90% of their games against other NL teams. Schedules aren't of even strengths, either. A better record between two teams only shows how much that team dominated their own league (mostly their own division). It doesn't necessarily mean they're a better team than a team from a different league with 2-3 less wins.

 

Now we're going to penalize teams based on their difficulty of their division/league based on that particular year? It's not an awful idea, but I don't think it's the obvious logical choice.

then what is? im certainly open to other ideas. that just seems to be the best bet to me, by a fairly wide margin.

Oh I have no idea what the best option is. I don't know if there's an obvious choice, which I guess is why we're having this discussion in the first place. From a marketing standpoint, the All-Star game deal is a huge success. I think I'd be more in favor of it if fans didn't select starters and not every team was guaranteed a player. Not to mention the fact that managers try to get every player in the game. In fact, if they managers selected all of the players and played them like it was a real game, I think the AS game format would be awesome.