Baseball fans have been split on the All-Star Game since 2003. But now that the All-Star Game is no longer determining the home field advantage for the World Series, is it really necessary to have a game in 2017?
ESPN blogger David Schoenfield would prefer to have the All-Star Game determining the home field advantage. But now that it's no more, he argues the All-Star Game is pointless. Furthermore, he explains how much good the All-Star Game has done in the past.
Now the All-Star Game means nothing. The new collective bargaining agreement will assign home-field to the pennant winner with the best record. Whatever. I guess that’s fine, although I feel bad for the kids who have grown up with the All-Star Game counting for something. Now what?
But New York Times reporter Tyler Kepner thinks that the All-Star Game should just be an exhibition.
All are practical, progressive changes, yet none fit that description better than the removal of the link between the All-Star Game and home-field advantage for the World Series. The idea that it would add sizzle to the game, and thus spark ratings, was misguided from the start.
"I never liked it," said' Al Leiter, an analyst for MLB Network who pitched in two All-Star Games before the rule change. "You can market the heck out of it, you can let everybody know 'This time it counts'— the slogan in 2003 — but the truth of it is, you go to these things as a reward for a great first half, and it’s a celebration. You’ve got parties — you’ve got all these things you can show off to your sponsors. It’s really our Super Bowl, in the marketing sense."
But the All-Star Game was all about the home field advantage for many. Now what?