Back in 2003, Major League Baseball decided to give its All-Star game some meaning. So, it decided that the winning league would get home field advantage in the World Series. On its face it is not a bad idea, give the players in the AS game something to play for, but in the words of Lance Berkman, it's a "fallacy."
The first beef I have with the AS game deciding home field advantage for the WS is that the incentive is not targeted enough to get the players to play any harder than they would if there were no incentive. Huh? Only two teams will eventually be affected by the outcome of the All-Star game. MLB has a rule that each of its teams must be represented in the AS game, and lots of those teams are already out of contention. By my count 10/36 of the NL players' teams and 12/36 AL players' teams are at least outside looking in at their divisions' pennant races. Therefore they don't have a horse in the AS game race and could care less about where the WS is played.
The AS game and its surrounding festivities are a break from the rigorous schedules and long hours that players put in during the season. They don't treat it like a real game that could make or break their season.
The second part of this puzzle is that the outcome of the game means too much. Home field advantage in the World Series is HUGE. If you don't think so, try telling that to Jeff Francis, who started game 1 of the '07 WS for my poor Colorado Rockies. He had been playing lights out for two months and dominating hitters. But you put him in one of the most intimidating atmospheres in baseball, Fenway Park for game 1 of a World Series, in front of those rude Boston bandwagon baseball fans and a national TV audience and what happens? He gives up a leadoff home run to Dustin Pedroia and the Rockies go on to a 13-1 drubbing. I knew right then and there that Colorado was out of it. You know what Jeff Francis was thinking when Pedroia's HR was sailing over his head?
"I sure wish Tony LaRussa (2007 AS NL manager) would have tried harder to get Albert Pujols into the AS game so maybe the NL could have won."
Had the Rockies had home field advantage in the '07 WS, things would have been a lot different. The Sox may still have won, but the series would have been a lot less one-sided.
In reality it comes down to one of my favorite economics conundrums: the benefits are concentrated while the payments are spread out. (A little light reading on that subject.) The players playing in the All-Star game have everything but the World Series on their mind, and one of the teams in the WS will get shafted by this scheme come October. And as every good student of economics knows, this scheme will never produce the intended consequence: make the All-Star player care about the game.
MLB should either go back to the way it was (alternating home field advantage) or come up with a new scheme (team with the better inter-league record? team from the league with the best inter-league record?) and ditch this current mess. The commish should wake up and realize that the All-Star game is a showcase of players, but they don't really care about the outcome.
Other Notes: Rockies coaching staff is coaching the NL squad. Good luck Clint Hurdle and crew.---Colorado is being represented by Matt Holliday and Aaron Cook.---The All-Star Game is just more evidence that small markets don't matter to MLB. In all reality, you could have Boston square off against the Chicago Cubs because each team has so many players in the game. Players that deserve to be there (see Jose Reyes and anyone besides Jason Varitek) will be watching the Sox and the Yanks vs the Cubs.---The current All-Star game/World Series home field advantage scheme was a concession to Fox TV (read link above).
No comments:
Post a Comment