Let’s say the Dodgers make it to the NLCS this year. Because the AL won the All-Star game, the Dodgers know they will be starting the World Series (if they make it) on the road, so they know it will be one of two places.

Now let’s say that home field advantage goes to the team with the better record. They still know the two teams they might play against, and they know what the regular season records were. So if they had a worse record than both teams, they make the same tentative plans. If they had a better record than one of them, woohoo, they only have to make one tentative plan!

So there is absolutely no reason, logistically speaking, why that system wouldn’t work.

I would love to go back in time and watch a bunch of old All-Star games and see if the fact that it was an exhibition really made it less intense. I know Pete Rose ran over Ray Fosse at home plate, but it’s hard to judge a large group of people based on what one person does, especially when that one person is Pete Rose. I like to think that the players would play hard and take pride in their performance even if nothing was technically on the line (it would be like playing for the Royals in September — or April, for that matter — except that all your teammates are good baseball players).

I don’t know, I go back and forth on whether I want it to mean something or whether I want it to be an exhibition. I think ultimately, I don’t like WHAT the game counts for (isn’t it silly that if, for example, the Cardinals were to make the World Series this year, they wouldn’t get home field advantage because a team with eight Cubs lost the All-Star game?). I think I would like the game to count for something (and be played and managed as if it counted for something), but have that “something” not be WS home field advantage.

Before reading Jeff’s post, I had two main ways to improve the All-Star game. The first is basically what Jayson Stark suggests – make the All-Star break longer to give any Sunday starters the time to rest and still pitch in the classic. My other suggestion to improve the game may be slightly more hairbrained, but could be fun. And you wouldn’t have to lengthen the break. Have every team nominate one starting pitcher who could physically handle 9 innings in the All-Star game. This would probably not be a team’s #1 or #2 starter. Maybe not even #3 or #4. Then a lottery would be held to select one pitcher from each league. In the All-Star game, the manager is prohibited from using this pitcher unless the game goes to extra innings. That way the manager can continue to manage an All-Star game like he has the past few years, knowing that he has a horse he can ride through extra innings, if necessary. And it could be the thrill of a lifetime for 2 pitchers.

After reading Jeff’s post, however, I am intrigued by the mutual exclusivity of an exhibition and playing for something. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I tend to agree. I want the players playing for something, though. One of the best parts of this year’s All-Star game was the effort displayed by the players in the extra innings. Aaron Cook bearing down to help relieve Dan Uggla’s cross was a perfect example. Think how awesome the game could be if the “1st String” All Stars (the A-Rods, Jeters, Pujols, Mannys, etc.) were in a meaningful game together at a meaningful time of the game. The result could be last night multiplied by about 50.

So I agree with Jeff – baseball needs to decide what it’s All-Star game is. And keep a great thing going.

I wonder, what would your thoughts be on if they made it a pure exhibition game after the World Series, similar to the Pro Bowl in the NFL. That seems to make the most sense if the focus is on the stars. In doing so, you also wouldn’t have to worry about players be overworked or risking injury for an exhibition, since the season will have been long since over.