Baseball's All-Star Game

Any fan of baseball, and even some that aren't fans, know that in baseball the wining side of the All-Star game gets home field advantage in the World Series. When I say side I mean either the National League or the American League. If you did not know that then now you do. But is this the right thing to do? Is it right to put actual play on the line during an exhibition game that is only intended for fun and entertainment?

In most sports during the All-Star break the best players from each team come together to play one another in a meaningless exhibition match for fun and entertainment. Baseball however slightly deviates from this norm, and makes the All-Star game some what meaningful. In the Baseball All-Star game the winning team receives home field advantage during the World Series, which is not fair at all. This is the case for obvious reasons, but the reason that they do that is so that the players actually play during the All-Star game, and don't just take it easy.

Like I said this design is obviously not fair, but it is that way for this reason. During the regular season each team battles through a rough 162 game schedule to seed themselves for the playoffs. In other sports the team with the better record at the time of the finals gets home field advantage. In baseball, battling for the best record really doesn't mean anything in the World Series, because home field advantage was decided at the All-Star game a couple months earlier. Now you can understand why Baseball would want to do this. Every other sport has trouble getting the players to actually play during the All-Star game. However they way they approach getting their players to play, just isn't right. There has to be a different way to go about this wanted result. Baseball obviously has no trouble with the money they pay their players, so they could possibly institute a bonus for excellent play at the All-Star game. It is something like this that would need to be created, because the current form just isn't working.