Should the MLB All-Star Game winner get home-field in World Series?

  • Caleb Luketic

1-3

The MLB All-Star Game is quickly approaching, and voting for your favorite players is coming to a close. This is the first year that the ballot was strictly online, and we all have seen the controversy that has ensued with the Kansas City Royals. The ballot stacking of the Royals’ players has seemingly come to a close, as only five players, instead of all nine, are likely to start the All-Star game for the American League team.

The All-Star Game has another interesting incentive that was installed by Bud Selig in 2003 that the winner will be given home-field advantage in the World Series. As of 2003, this rule only helped the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals as they beat the Texas Rangers 6-2 in game 7 in St. Louis. However, it did not assist the 2014 Kansas City Royals as they were beat by the San Francisco Giants 3-2 in game 7 in Kansas City.

This stimulant was implemented because of the 2002 All-Star game that ended in a 7-7 tie after 11 innings. Both leagues were in a compromising position because they had used all their reserves, but the game was still tied. So Selig had to make a decision, and he decided to end the game after 11 innings, which provided Selig with major backlash from the fans. Selig added this extra twist to the All-Star Game to prevent another 2002 incident, and it has stuck ever since.

There has been some controversy, however, over this installment on whether or not this should actually be the prize for the winning league.

People say that this should be rewarded to the winner because it makes the players play harder, which makes the game more enjoyable to watch. I certainly don’t want to watch a baseball game where the players are only playing at 60% because they just don’t care. This game is for the fans enjoyment, and fans love seeing the best players in the world giving it their all.

Propents arguing it shouldn’t be prized to the victor argue that the team that has the better record should get home field because they earned it. I couldn’t agree more because if a team was head and shoulders above their opponents, they deserve home field. They shouldn’t have to rely on players throughout their league to get it, or get short changed because they lost some meaningless game.

While this incentive does make the players play harder, I still am not a fan of it. I just think that players need to play hard no matter what because you’re supposed to give it your all regardless of the reward you receive or lack-thereof.

I don’t want to have a repeat of 2002, but I still believe that home field needs to go to the better team, not the winner of an All-Star Game, where players rarely give more than 70%, which is pitiful.

FOR MORE by Caleb Luketic, check out CalebOnSports.com and follow him on Twitter @CalebOnSports

 

Share & Rate

From The Web

From SK Network

discussion by

About The Author

Caleb Luketic

Caleb Luketic - author

Leave a Comment

Fill Out All Required Fields


− 2 = 6