Changing the MLB All-Star Game

I titled my blog "Changing the MLB All-Star Game" instead of "Fixing the MLB All-Star Game" because the game really isn't broken and in need of big changes, but it does have some flaws that I could do without.

The Major League Baseball All-Star game is far and away the best all-star game in sports. Because of the history of the game, both sides try to win, but they have fun with it, too. Who could forget Randy Johnson throwing over John Kruk's head in the 1993 game in Baltimore?

The NFL Pro Bowl as well as the NBA and NHL games are essentially pick-up games with no defense are are just shows for fans, not that there's anything wrong with that. The games should just be for fun because they are, after all, exhibitions. There is no reason to risk injury by playing 100% in an all-star game. This brings me to my first suggestion for change.

The tie in 2002 was disappointing,
but let's not overreact to it.

1. The game should not decide home field advantage in the World Series.
This is one of the most ridiculous rules in sports, right up there with the NBA rule that a team gets to advance the ball after a late-game timeout. The rule about the World Series was put in place because of a gross overreaction to the tie in Milwaukee in 2002. Yes, that sucked, but I'm over it. Is it really that important that the players "play hard" in this game and want to play in it? I don't think so. By the way, I'm not sure they do even with this World Series rule in place.

Sixteen players have pulled out of the 2011 game for one reason or another. Sixteen. If they all really cared about home field in the World Series, wouldn't they suck it up and go? Furthermore, the 2002 game didn't end in a tie because the players weren't playing hard. The game ended in a tie because both teams scored the same number of runs and both teams were out of pitchers. That could happen this year or any year. In fact, it almost did in 2008 in Yankee Stadium. The game went 15 innings, and I was curious how much longer they would have let it go before both teams said they had had enough. At some point, it's just not worth it for a Major League team to have a pitcher blow out his arm in extra innings trying to get home field in a game his team might not even play in. I remember staying up watching the game, and I started pulling for a tie once the game got past the 12th inning because I wanted to see what Bud Selig would do if both teams ran out of players.

Why did the Giants have home field
in the 2010 World Series? This guy.

It is ludicrous that the reason the San Francisco Giants had home field advantage over the Texas Rangers in the 2010 World Series was because Atlanta's Brian McCann doubled off Chicago's Matt Thornton in a July exhibition game. Digest that for a second.

The old way wasn't any better, either, by the way. Just alternating which league got home field? Equally confusing.

Home field advantage in the World Series should go to the team with the better record. Period. You don't give everything you have for 162 games just to have some game that doesn't count in the standings decide where Game Seven will be played. You give your best for 162 games because you want that critical home field in the games that determine the champion. The NBA and NHL both subscribe to this simple school of logic. Why baseball refuses to get on board with this has always baffled me.

Okay, so you're saying, "but Joe, what if it ends in a tie again?"

So what if it does? Just enjoy the fact you had a fun game and say goodnight. It's an exhibition. If it ends in a tie, big deal. We all had fun, right? Plus, if we know a tie is possible going in, I don't think it would be that big of a deal. That leads me to my next suggested rule change.

2.  The game cannot last more than 12 innings. After that, it ends in a tie.
If fans know going in that this is a rule, a tie will not be nearly as disappointing as 2002 was. If players and managers know this going in, they can manage their bullpens and benches accordingly. They don't have to save guys for a possible 18-inning marathon. They can empty the bench in the 11th and clean out the bullpen in the 12th. Isn't that always one minor complaint: that some guys didn't get in? This rule wouldn't completely solve that, but it might help.

Although there's no way to ensure every player gets into the game, knowing an exact drop-dead stop time (or inning) would help managers know when they can use everyone. So, some guys in their first (and maybe only) All-Star game can get in there just to say they played. Then the game can end and we can all go to bed.

I want to see Halladay pitch, not hit. Use the DH.

3. Use the DH every year in every park.
I'm a National League guy, and I like the strategy of having the pitcher bat. It forces managers to make critical decisions and rewards more well-rounded players who can both pitch and handle the bat. That said, I don't tune into the All-Star Game to see Roy Halladay or Jered Weaver hit. I tune in to see them pitch. Plus, All-Star pitchers are almost always pinch-hit for anyway. Using the DH all the time in the All-Star game means some bench player who was hoping to take the field won't see his night end after pinch-hitting in the second inning.

So, does that mean the National League just gets to pick its DH? Not necessarily, according to my next suggestion.

4. The top National League vote-getter who is not starting is the NL DH.
In other words, it's between the second-place finishers at first, catcher, short, second, and third against the fourth-place finisher in the outfield. It kind of has a wild card feel to it, doesn't it? So fans can keep voting for Ryan Howard or Prince Fielder even if Albert Pujols is way, way out in front.

On that note, my next suggestion isn't a rule change. It's just an affirmation of something that's already in place, although it draws some criticism.

5. Fan voting is fine the way it is.
I know that sometimes, guys get into the game that probably don't deserve it, but the game should be about the fans. If they want to see an aging player who is struggling but is an all-time favorite, I'm fine with that. Also, sometimes the AL lineup is all Yankees and Red Sox. To that I say: get out and vote more, fans of other teams. If you hate the Yankees and Red Sox, go stuff the ballot box for someone else.

I'm not suggesting sweeping change to the MLB All-Star game, just a few minor tweaks that bother me, especially the World Series thing. Taking that away won't make the players take the game less seriously. Even if they do, that's the direction the game is going anyway. I think fighting it is futile. The regular season and the World Series are now and forever will be more important than the All-Star Game, and I'm fine with that.

Several players pull out of the game every year with minor injuries. They'll do that no matter what is at stake. Baseball players respect their game, however. Even if a lot of players do pull out of the game, the ones who do play will always give a good effort for the fans no matter what the rules are, and I would like to see how the game looks if these minor changes were made.