Skip to main content

World Series Home-Field Advantage

The All-Star Game in baseball will be played before long. Typically in any major sport, these games and events are just for the fans, but not in baseball anymore. The winner of this game will decide which league's team will have home-field advantage in the World Series. Is it just me (don't answer that), but is this one of the dumbest ideas that Bud Selig has laid down? I know that this isn't the first year where this has taken place, but I've been blogging for less than a year, so it's the first time in my short blogger life for it to have taken place.

There's a home run derby, an old-time classics game, along with other festivities that aren't for anything but entertainment for the fans. The All-Star shenanigans in hockey are there for the fans. The Pro Bowl in football is there for the players to go to Hawaii and for entertaining the fans. Notice the trend here? It's a game made for fun! The fans even get to decide who starts in the game with votes! How about letting the fans decide if this game should decide who will hold home-field advantage in the most important series of the year?

Why put more emphasis on this one game than on the 162 regular season games? If Detroit broke the record for most regular season wins, but the National League won the All-Star game, then because of that one fun game for the fans, Detroit would not get home-field advantage in the World Series. That's ridiculous. Why should a team who holds the best record after an excruciating 162 game season be undeserving of home-field advantage throughout the playoffs (including the World Series) because of an All-Star game? Many players take All-Star games off to go on vacation, to spend with family, or to rest. These are teams composed by the fans and the managers, where minimal amounts of players have played side-by-side to one another. In other words, they're not going to have the team chemistry of a baseball team who has played 162 games together. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to award the winner of the All-Star game with an advantage in the World Series. We should be rewarding teams based on their dedication, effort, and consistency and not on a team's luck or lack there of it for one single meaningless game.

Also, if Bud wants in on a little secret, the All-Star game and even the World Series have lost a bit of their luster because of Interleague Play. Because Interleague Play was introduced to the league, there was a certain mystery about both events, because neither league had played the other all year, but now matchups like Tim Lincecum vs. Alex Rodriguez or C.C. Sabbathia vs. Chase Utley aren't as compelling anymore. I don't really care about Interleague Play one way or the other, but Bud, if you're reading and what you want is for the All-Star game to be special, then you may want to think about getting rid of Interleague Play. If all you're trying to do is make up for that All-Star game tie you called a few years ago, then I suggest just letting that go and let the teams earn their World Series advantage through playing 162 games. You've more than "made up" for that mistake of yours. Now, just let it go. It'll be allright. You can do it. Oh, and Bud, I hear that David Eckstein is on steroids. You may want to check that out. By the way, if you didn't catch the sarcasm, for Eckstein fans out there, I was only kidding.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...