1) Is the ASG "in trouble"?
I don't think so, outside of last year's tie game. I don't think having the All Star game decide HFA is going to fix that either.
2) Can the ASG "be fixed"?
Well if the "fix" involves the players buying into the game being important, it will be hard to do.
3) Is "get everyone in the ASG" a problem?
It is when the game ends up being a tie after the managers run out of players. Really this is the biggest problem. There wasn't any real groundswell of support for changing the All Star game before last year.
4) How best to solve "get everyone in the ASG" "problem"?
Well unless it's the individual player's home field the All Star game is being played at, I don't see how it can be a problem not to play those substandard "All Stars" from teams like the DRays. Players who wouldn't be there otherwise.
5) Should the ASG "just be an exhibition"?
I think it should. To me it's just some fantasy game, where the best players come together to show off their stuff. Baseball also has a history of deciding things over the course of a long season. It has the fewest playoff teams out of the professional sports in this country, which I think is a good thing. To decide HFA on the basis of one exhibition game goes against the grain of the 162 game season and having only 8 out of 30 teams in the playoffs.
6) Can the ASG mean more than an exhibition?
Again, only if the players buy into it. You can't really force them to make the game something it's not. With the dilution of the rivalry between the leagues because of interleague play, and other things like the elimination of the league offices of President for both leagues, the AL vs NL fervor just isn't what it once was.
7) How important is WS home field advantage?
Recent history says it's very important.
8 ) Has WS HFA really increased recently?
15 out of the last 17 winners with HFA seems to indicate that it has.
9) Should WS HFA be random, rotated, or "awarded"?
Rotated is the fairest method given the current way schedules are made out.
10) Should WS HFA be awarded to the league or the team?
Well ideally, I think the fairest way is to eliminate HFA altogether and have it at a neutral site, but that's not going to happen.
11) What's the best way to award WS HFA?
Best? Have everybody play the exact same schedule, both AL and NL across leagues, then award it to the team with the best regular season record.
12) Are the leagues basically equal?
No easy answer with a question worded this way. I think you could make a case though that the AL has more teams that are currently worse. Looking at the projected pitching rotations for Detroit, Cleveland, Kansas City, and Tampa Bay, I don't see a lot of hope foir those teams having a good year. Milwaukee is the only team in the NL with that kind of poor quality pitching in their rotation. San Diego, who lost 96 games last season, at least has some promising pitching prospects in their system. The Cubs should be better than last year and have at least made some moves to better their team.
13) Is the ASG game a good way to measure league strength?
One game isn't a good way to measure any strength.
14) Is there a better way to measure league strength?
Interleague play, but even that is streak driven since teach team only plays about 12(?) interleague games each season.
15) Would interleague record be a better way to determine the stronger league?
Better than a 1 game exhibition, but it still has it's faults.
16) Is a Tampa Bay vs Milwaukee interleague game a better way to determine WS HFA than the ASG?
No, but it isn't just about one interleague game if you use that method, right?
17) If overall individual team record is the way to determine HFA,
how best to handle unbalanced divisional schedules?
That's the trouble, you can't and be reasonably fair. The only way would be to use some kind of Sagarin rating where strength of schedule figures into the mix.
18 ) Is a September game of Yankees vs Tampa Bay AAA callups a better way to determine HFA than the ASG?
Nope
19) Do changes tend to work as intended or backfire and make things worse?
Well it depends on how you look at which changes. Some would say a change like moving in the fences is good because it attracts more poeple to high scoring games. Others think this new era of easy home runs is destructive when players constantly swing for the fences and strikeout a lot.
20) If things get worse, are they easily fixed?
Nope, in general the worse things get, the more effort you have to put out to exact change.
21) Have previous Bud Selig proposals (3-divsions, wild card, interleague play) helped or hurt baseball?
They've generally helped when it comes to increasing revenues. Interleague games have a higher average attendance than your average AL or NL games.
22) How much should Bud Selig's past record affect our opinion of this decision?
I'm always skeptical when it comes to Selig's decisions.
23) What parts of Selig's past record (owner, Milwaukee Braves fan protest leader, car dealer) should be evaluated?
All of it really.
24) Is it good for baseball to try changes?
Yes, as long as they try those changes in exhibition games. One item recently that was a "change" was the promotion of going back to the strike zone as it's written in the rule book. Also known as "bringing back the high strike", I think that was a good change as you rarely saw anything above the belt being called a strike. Anything that can get the umps to be more consistent with their strike zone is a good thing.
Another positive change IMO was to eliminate the body armour that players wore. That's another rule that could use more inforcement....a player must make an attempt to avoid being hit by a pitched ball.
25) Is it good for baseball to try this change?
I don't think so. Most fans are perfectly content with the All Star game being an exhibition, and the players certainly want it that way. Already other changes are underway for the All Star game.
In this USA Today column it looks as though the managers won't be able to pick the reserves.
