It’s finally July. This marks the midpoint of the baseball season and with that the All-Star Game.
There’s been endless talk of who got snubbed and as always, the debate of how voting should work is in the air. Along with it comes the debate over the rule of mandating at least one All-Star rep for each team.
Some say it’s tradition that every team is represented. Others say it needs to go.
I’m going to have to agree with the later. It just doesn’t seem right. The roster spots should go to the players most deserving of it, regardless of what team they play for.
Some years teams just don’t have a player worthy of All-Star status and the managers shouldn’t be forced to pick one for the sake of having a player from each team, especially when they’re trying to gain World Series home advantage.
2003 was the first year that the All-Star Game really began to mean something. In order to provide additional incentive to win, MLB made an agreement with the players union to give home-field advantage for the World Series to the league champion that won the All-Star Game. Prior to that, home-field advantage in the World Series alternated between the two leagues each year. This provides an even greater argument for the need to have the best players of the league on the field in the All-Star Game.
Although it can’t be proven, home-field advantage could be the difference between winning the World Series and being the first loser in the MLB. Yes, it’s not the only factor, but in the last couple years the American League has won all the All-Star Games as well as the majority of the World Series.
If one team has several players worthy of representing their league in the All-Star game they should be the ones to represent the league. It would be nice to include a player from every team, but there shouldn’t be a hard-line rule set in place to see that it happens.
Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com
- Login to post comments