Sitting back and watching the MLB All-Star game last night I really started to think about the controversies surrounding the All-Star games in general.  The arguments go on for pages it seems like.  Play for home-field or not, mid-season or after the season, and how players get selected are the arguments that really got me thinking.  This is the first of a three part series about the parameters surrounding each major sport’s (except hockey, sorry Crosby) All-Star game.  First up, Major League Baseball.

MLB All Star Game:

1. When: Mid-way point of the season
2. How players are selected: By Fan Vote
3. Incentive: Winning League gets homefield advantage in the World Series

My Take

The timing of the All-Star game seems right from a marketing standpoint and also from a league standpoint.  In the middle of July, the only possible Sporting events that could conflict with this event is the World Cup (which, I believe is over by now, but am not sure, would love clarification).  Otherwise, the British Open is next week, the Tour Du France is happening, but I can’t envision too many people being torn between which one to watch (I guess I’m saying I can’t envision too many people that are hardcore fans of both baseball and cycling), and Olympics wouldn’t start until August.  Bottom line, it is played at a good time of year and usually does well on TV.  Also, it doesn’t get pushed to after the season because it determines the home field advantage for the “Series” and becaues there isn’t an injury concern.

The way players are selected is of greater concern to me.  Here the participants are picked via fan vote.  I’m sorry America, though you are the consumer, you’re judgment sometimes isn’t right and people get selected to the All Star Game that have no business being there.  To me, my happy medium that pacifies fan’s need to participate, as well as getting the true all stars on the field is my 33-33-33 (that’s what we’ll call it) method.  A third of the vote comes from the fans, a third from players and coaches, and a third from media.  That would allow for a happy medium way of picking the all stars.

Finally, the incentive for baseball at first glance seems compeltely bogus, but after I think about it, makes more sense.  I completely see the argument for home field being granted to the team with the better record.  But Baseball is a weird sport (one of the reasons I don’t prefer it as much).  Teams play like 180 games, and don’t play everyone in the league.  That makes no sense to me up front.  But, since they only play teams in their league (NL or AL), with the exception of a few interleague games, this seems like the only logical outlet to picking the home field advantage winner.  A silver lining to doing it this way, is there is incentive in the All-Star game, so players play harder.  Still, having every team play a series against everyone at least once (in both the AL and NL), would make the argument for no Home Field advantage a lot better.

Related posts:

1. Tackling Controversy: Part III – NBA All Star Game
2. Tackling Controversy: Part II – NFL Pro Bowl