The Impact of the All-Star Game

The MLB-All-Star game, which is widely known as the most competitive All-Star game in sports, maybe got a little too competitive.  The MLB decided in 2003 to ultimately make the winner of the All-Star game get home-field advantage in the World Series, after a loud showing of boos following the 2002 game ending poorly. The regular season performance of the two teams eventually meant nothing in regard to the most important series of the season. By 2016, MLB executives and owners decided on the fact to terminate their experiment, and it was the right choice.

Before the rule change in 2003, MLB teams who had home-field advantage in the World Series were 17-3 in the last twenty years and won an astounding sixty-eight percent of the series during the commissioners’ era. Although home-field advantage is so key, and many believe that it should be awarded to the better team of the regular season, many people liked the All-Star game format as it was and weren’t happy when it got changed. Lifelong baseball fan, Nick Leight mentioned, “The build-up and excitement around the All-Star game when it declared home-field advantage was amazing. It gave the players something to play for and made the game more fun to watch”. Tyler Ford, who is a lifelong baseball fan as well, agreed with the statement, mentioning, “With the stakes being so high, it made the game much more fun to watch, especially when it could benefit your favorite team down the line”.

There are many people on both sides of the argument, but the evidence supporting of the All-Star game not deciding home-field advantage just outweighs everything else. The pure advantage home field gives to a team is just too crucial to have it be decided over an All-Star game, rather than which team was better in the regular season.