7/18/2007 Facilitation, MLB All-Star Game: Should It Count?

Just a couple weeks ago Major League Baseball had it's All-Star game. Just a couple years ago MLB decided that the All-Star game needed more interest and that it needed to count towards something. They decided that the winner of the All-Star game would decide which league had home field advantage in the World Series that year. The All-Star game for baseball puts the American league stars vs. the National league stars. MLB made this switch in 2003 at the All-Star game in Chicago. Previous to this home field advantage just switched between leagues each year. Now, with the NBA and NHL letting the team with the best record have home field advantage is it fair in MLB if a team has a better record than the opposing one that it not have home field advantage because the other teams league won an All-Star game? Should home field advantage go to the best record or revert back to its previous form of switching leagues each season?

Arguments why the All-Star game should decide home field advantage.
-It adds excitement to the All-Star game, makes more common fans watch.
-It provides a reason for players to want to play in the game because of what is on the line.

Arguments against having the game count.
-It is not fair to a team that did the hard work of achieving the best record during the season to let its leagues All-Star team lose the game and not allow them home field advantage.
-Some players that play on bad teams that have no shot at the world series that play in the All-Star game wont care about the end result because it does not affect their team.

What are your opinions?

Closers, the All-Star game and overrated stats

As you're finishing up Moneyball, pay special attention to the sections on how certain statistics are overrated. In almost any sport, there will be certain categories that announcers and "traditional" fans tend to think as more important than they really are. You'll recall that Billy Beane took advantage of the fact that other GMs believed saves to be the best measure of a closer. From page 126,

"Finding pitchers who could become successful closers wasn't all that difficult. To fill the hole at the back of the bullpen Billy had traded to the Toronto Blue Jays a minor league third baseman, Eric Hinske, for Billy Koch, another crude fireballer...Billy knew that barring some disaster, Koch would gain a lot of value as an asset. Koch would get his saves and be perceived by other teams to be a more critical piece of a successful team than he actually was, whereupon the A's would trade him for something cheaper, younger and possibly even better."

Yet five years later, players and managers still overrate stats like saves and wins (which often have little to do with the pitcher's ability). Look at this some of this year's All-Stars:

• Colorado Rockies relief pitcher Brian Fuentes, among the league leaders in saves, who was chosen for the team on the same day he was demoted from the closer's role.

• Cole Hamels, who leads the league in wins but whose ERA is almost twice as high as that of Chris Young (not on the original All-Star roster)?

• Ben Sheets, also tied for the league lead in wins but whose ERA is a run and a half higher than Chris Young's

Why do you think this is the case? There is empirical evidence which suggests that wins and saves are overrated stats, yet still this is how many players, announcers, etc measure performance. Why? Do you think it's mere stubbornness to accept a new way of viewing baseball?

Should Every Team Have an All-Star?

With Major League Baseball's All-Star roster just being announced, it's time for people to discuss who got snubbed, and who will win the Home Run Derby. Another question that gets talked about, is should every team be represented in the All-Star Game?

The short answer is NO!

The funny thing is, it wasn't always this way. From 1986 (my first baseball memory, thanks Boston.) to 2002, it was an emphatic YES! However, since 2003, I have felt that not every team should have a representative. What happened all of a sudden to make someone change their mind after 22 years?

Well, in 2003, Major League Baseball changed the way home field advantage for the World Series was determined. Instead of it being the team with the best overall record, it was determined by which league won the All-Star Game. Prior to 2003, it really didn't matter who won the game. Naturally, the players want to win for competition's sake, but for the fans, it's nice to see every team be represented. Another plus to having a representative from every team, is that the game has a mix of both small and large market teams.

Now, it's different. Although the All-Star game is technically still an exhibition game, it really isn't, since "This time, it counts". If it's going to count, and you need to win, then why not fill your roster with the best players in the league once the fans have finished voting. The Yankees thus far have shown this may not be successful over the course of a season, but for a one game play-off, I'll take my chances. Yeah, it would still be nice to see every team represented. But, if your team has a chance of making the play-offs, and home field advantage is riding on this game, you'd rather see the best of the best, rather than a guy who's good, but only got picked because there had to be someone from every team on the roster.

Unfortunately, from a business standpoint, it would make all too much sense to fill the team with Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets while leaving the Rangers, Royals, and Devil Rays out of the mix. "This time, it counts" plays with our psyches. On one hand, we want to be fair and not leave teams out, but on the other, we want our respective league to win, so our team may get home field advantage (assuming our team has a chance to make the World Series). Let's face it, we want to have our cake and eat it too. "This time, it counts" doesn't allow for that. If I could be commissioner for a day, I'd get rid of "This time, it counts". Not that the old system was perfect, but it was at least justifiable and seemed to make a little more sense.