I am not in total agreement but I voted yes only because I think they need something to motivate the two sides to play hard. I'd hate to see it turn into something like the NBA or NFL games.

No. But if they took away the fan vote, did away with a player from every team, and got rid of the notion that everyone must play then I could be ok with it. In fact that would probably make for a very entertaining game.

 

I will however give Selig credit for thinking outside the box which is something the sports world needs more of.

 

I agree with everything except the fan vote. That has to stay. If the fans can't pick then who picks?

 

Definitely have to get rid of the player from every team rule. Do we really need an Oriole or Royal on the All Star team every year? If I am a Yankee or Red Sox player I don't want an Oriole or Royal being the deciding factor in whether or not my team gets home field advantage in October.

 

I'll also add that guys that aren't on the disabled list that do not play in or show up in uniform to the All Star game should be fined 250,000.

 

I also have to give Selig credit for trying. Can't have ties in the All Star game.

I also have to give Selig credit for trying. Can't have ties in the All Star game.

Why can't we? It's an exhibition game.

I agree with everything except the fan vote. That has to stay. If the fans can't pick then who picks? Definitely have to get rid of the player from every team rule. Do we really need an Oriole or Royal on the All Star team every year? If I am a Yankee or Red Sox player I don't want an Oriole or Royal being the deciding factor in whether or not my team gets home field advantage in October.

 

I'll also add that guys that aren't on the disabled list that do not play in or show up in uniform to the All Star game should be fined 250,000.

 

I also have to give Selig credit for trying. Can't have ties in the All Star game.

Fans can't be trusted. Make an "all star panel" who determines it. Have the players pick. Have the managers pick. Honestly I don't care, but if it determines the WS advantage it should not be a popularity contest.

Stupid idea.

 

Beyond stupid.

Why can't we? It's an exhibition game.

 

Because it is still a game with the scoreboard on. If the score/game isn't important then turn the scoreboard off.

Fans can't be trusted. Make an "all star panel" who determines it. Have the players pick. Have the managers pick. Honestly I don't care, but if it determines the WS advantage it should not be a popularity contest.

 

The players can't be trusted either. Having the fans vote eliminates politics and keeps the interest level of the game up. Who wants to watch who the players think is the best players? The NFL players picked Peyton Manning as the 2nd best player in the NFL in 2011. I don't trust players from any sport to put who the fans want to see on the field. The only time fans have any control over the sports we put our hard earned money into is the All Star game. I feel as fans we are owed the control of who we want to see in All Star games. Those are for us. Not them.

 

I don't think the All Star game should determine home field advantage for the World Series but I do understand the logic behind the players picking if it does determine home field advantage.

 

For the most part the fans usually get it right.

The players can't be trusted either. Having the fans vote eliminates politics and keeps the interest level of the game up. Who wants to watch who the players think is the best players? The NFL players picked Peyton Manning as the 2nd best player in the NFL in 2011. I don't trust players from any sport to put who the fans want to see on the field. The only time fans have any control over the sports we put our hard earned money into is the All Star game. I feel as fans we are owed the control of who we want to see in All Star games. Those are for us. Not them.

 

I don't think the All Star game should determine home field advantage for the World Series but I do understand the logic behind the players picking if it does determine home field advantage.

 

For the most part the fans usually get it right.

Which is a very generous rating.

The players can't be trusted either. Having the fans vote eliminates politics and keeps the interest level of the game up. Who wants to watch who the players think is the best players? The NFL players picked Peyton Manning as the 2nd best player in the NFL in 2011. I don't trust players from any sport to put who the fans want to see on the field. The only time fans have any control over the sports we put our hard earned money into is the All Star game. I feel as fans we are owed the control of who we want to see in All Star games. Those are for us. Not them.

 

I don't think the All Star game should determine home field advantage for the World Series but I do understand the logic behind the players picking if it does determine home field advantage.

 

For the most part the fans usually get it right.

Having the fan vote may eliminate politics but it makes it a popularity contest. When you are talking about something as important as homefield advantage I can't logically see how a popularity contest should determine who gets in the game. And personally, I don't see what the big deal is with the fans picking anyways. Sure I fill out the ballots when I'm at the park but I've never really felt like my vote meant much. But, I didn't say it had to be the players. Just not the fans.

Fans can't be trusted. Make an "all star panel" who determines it. Have the players pick. Have the managers pick. Honestly I don't care, but if it determines the WS advantage it should not be a popularity contest.

 

:thumb: That's my main gripe. They added the World Series advantage to add some excitement to what were lifeless and meaningless games by incentivizing players to exert some effort, but it's still a fairly lifeless game, except it comes with consequences.

Having the fan vote may eliminate politics but it makes it a popularity contest. When you are talking about something as important as homefield advantage I can't logically see how a popularity contest should determine who gets in the game. And personally, I don't see what the big deal is with the fans picking anyways. Sure I fill out the ballots when I'm at the park but I've never really felt like my vote meant much. But, I didn't say it had to be the players. Just not the fans.

 

I hear you. Especially when it comes to determing home field advantage. Keep in mind that the fans only pick 8 position players to start, a DH every other year and the newer 10th man/odd man out thing they do. It's not like they pick the whole team. It's still up to the managers to field the rest of the team as well as divvy up playing time. It's not like the players show up anyways. I saw a joke on twitter from Peyton'sHead......I always wanted to be an MLB player and now I know what it feels like. I'm not going to the All Star game either.

 

 

I am the exact opposite. I'll fill out a ballot or two but I enjoy my small contribution and connection to the game. Granted it probably means very little in the overall scheme of things but I love knowing that the guys I voted for are starting. Guess I am a romantic in that sense in that I feel like my vote made a difference when it didn't. I wouldn't want that taken away from me regardless of what is on the line. I think a lot of issues could be resolved if they get rid of the rule that every team must be represented.

Why can't we? It's an exhibition game.

 

It was obvious from the fan outrage in 02, that they don't want ties either.

 

Ever since the Reserve Clause was abolished and free agency enhanced, there is not the pride of League as there was prior. I'm not saying it's good or bad, that it's just the way it was. Instead of managing to win the All-Star Game managers had been relegated to get everybody in the game, because it is an exhibition. When they got into an extra inning game, as in 02, they ran out of players.

 

Selig responded to the outcry of the fans to make the game competitive again. I don't like his solution, either, but the fans can't have it both ways.

Which is a very generous rating.

 

 

 

Yes it is. I DVRed the top ten and haven't watched it yet but was told Manning was #2. Blew my mind. Vick at #20? Really? The players said this?

I like it because it makes the game mean something.

This is one problem that I have with the players for quite a few years now. The game used to mean something without putting an incentive to win to it. Players in the past played for love of the game and pride. Just watch some of the past all star game replays/highlights on the MLB network when they are on. Players played hard. Who could forget Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse of the Red Sox in getting to the plate in the 1970 all star game. That is just one of many examples from back in the day.

 

As I said earlier, having an exhibition game determine a huge advantage in the World Series is imo just ridiculous. Another point that has been made is if the game is going to mean that much then the managers and players from all teams should pick the teams. Fans picking the teams is great, I love voting on it but if the game has that attatched to it then let the ones that know best on who should play.

It was obvious from the fan outrage in 02, that they don't want ties either.

Was there really much outrage?