MLB players' union is clueless...

[IrishHand]

The owners voted 30-0 today in favor of the league winning the All-Star game having home field advantage in that year's World Series. The proposal now needs approval by the players' union in order to be consummated.

NL rep. Tom Glavine's position? "It's not something I'm in favor of,'' he told The New York Times. "I would find it hard to believe that most players would want the outcome of the All-Star Game to determine home-field advantage for the World Series.''

Yeah...it makes so much more sense for it to be determined by whether it's an even year or an odd year. At least some other sports are bright enough to award home field to the team with the better record. The MLB all-star game in it's current form is useless...the expansion and mandatory represenation has resulted in watered-down rosters...the coaching mentality to play everyone rather than play to win has killed interest and legitimacy...the list goes on...

Seriously...I'd like to see one legitimate reason for an MLB player to be opposed.

[andyfox]

I liked last year's outcome, where the game had to be called a tie because the players ran out of steroids. . .

[John Cole]

I suggest Baseball adopt a system something akin to the British Open rota, so that the Series be played in the four or five best ballparks from each league on a rotating basis. Next year Fenway, the year after Wrigley, then Yankee Stadium . . .

Sure, then we'd see how popular baseball is. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Phat Mack]

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Phat Mack]

This is the best plan I have ever seen to get a World Series into Fenway or Wrigley.

[HDPM]

Here's a reason. If the manager of an all-star team is managing a team that could make the series, he is much more likely to make decisions on the basis of winning the game. The starting pitcher is staying in if he's pitching well. If he asks out, he will be labeled a quitter, etc... The game might be more competitive, but I think these guys will lay down in a professional kind of way no matter the rules in a meaningless exhibition game. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif


P.S. Phat Mack's post re: Wrigley and Fenway. Ouch and LOL.

[IrishHand]

I think these guys will lay down in a professional kind of way
Sounds an awful lot like prostitution to me.

[HDPM]

Professional athletes essentially sell their bodies to those who like seeing them. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[IrishHand]

If you've been paying just to look all these years, you might want to reconsider your degenerate habits.
/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[HDPM]

Good point. I think you should tell that sailor that his wife is a professional athlete just like Barry Bonds, and that's what people are talking about. Problem solved.

[IrishHand]

lol

[Clarkmeister]

I am so glad that that prick Tom Glavine is on the Mets now. The only way I could hate him more is if he were on the Cubs. I can't stand him.

As far as the idea to make the All Star game meaningful - I don't have a strong opinion yet. Some things to consider, however:

What do we do if its a rainout?

By my recollection, All Star games don't rotate between AL/NL parks every single year (though they do in most years, no?). So one team might get an inherent advantage in the determining game 2 years in a row.

What's wrong with the current system?

Doesn't the All Star game have enough issues right now without stacking this one on it? Things like mandatory player per team, the unofficial rule of playing everyone, small roster size relative to qualified candidates (though this could be solved by eliminating the 1 player/team rule). The fact that half the players don't even want to play in it anymore.

I don't think it can hurt.....but is it really helping? I don't know, and if they do it, I really don't think I care. But I don't know what they are actually accomplishing with this. Baseball has far more serious problems to worry about IMO.

[IrishHand]

My position is that the current All-Star game is so rife with problems as to render it near-useless. I haven't watched one in it's entirety since about 1992. If the winning league had WS home-field advantage, then at least it would have some validity.

Of course, I agree that the mandatory representation is useless. The whole 'playing everyone' thing has actually become worse in recent years. In the 80s, it was normal for the younger pitchers and younger hitters (1-2 of each) to not play at all - simply because the game might go extra innings or there might be an injury. Apparently modern managers ignore such reliaties. Turns out they were correct, as demonstrated by this year's mockery.

[andyfox]

You're right, it's certainly a better plan to get the World Series into Fenway or Wrigley field than either the management of the Red Sox or the Cub have. . .

(Sorry, John)