Boiler,

I watched the All-Star game with my two oldest sons. It was a very boring game. The AL won with killer offensive efficiency in the early innings, then held on through sub-par relief pitching.

I wonder how much of TLR's one-pitcher-per-inning strategy was an edict from the managers of those pitchers.

Carp pitched well, inducing the inning-ending double play in the bottom of the first. The hit he gave up was solid but not stunning.

I think the mindset of all of the professionals was summed up by the dugout interview of Terry Francona, when he said something to the effect of "I was hoping for a blowout, an 8-0 either way, so I could get all of the players in." That is the problem with the home-field advantage gig -- the players and managers don't think it matters enough to play *really* hard.

As far as the 2004 World Series goes -- the high that the Red Sox were riding after coming back from being down 3-0 to the Yankees could have been turned if the Cardinals had pulled out game 1, but after that, it was like the Cardinals were out of gas -- they spent a lot in winning the last two of the NLCS -- and the Red Sox had steamroller-like momentum. I'm not making excuses or anything, I just don't believe that Boston's home field advantage beat the Cardinals as much as Boston's pitching in games 2, 3, and 4 did.

(Also, I told my oldest son that those weren't really the Cardinals -- before the World Series, they were replaced by a bunch of aliens who didn't know how to play baseball, except Larry Walker, who was already an alien. Look at Suppan's baserunning error -- I know 3rd graders who know enough that they should try to score from 3rd base on a grounder to the right side. I don't care that Suppan is a pitcher, he's not so old he can't remember baserunning rules from the last time he did it. That's Exhibit A in my alien conspiracy theory.)

TSF

I realize that it wasn't JUST the home field disadvantage that did the Cards in last fall -- they played like crap -- but I still think that they shouldn't have started in Boston because of a poor outing by Roger Clemens in July, wild card opponent notwithstanding. This year, they could very well end up against a wild card team like the Indians or the Orioles who manages to catch lightning in a bottle down the stretch and finishes with 85-90 wins, and despite likely winning over 100 games once more, will be starting on the road. Because of ONE GAME. Not their excellence over the course of the season. It's an outrage.

Agreed, the whole "This Time It Counts" hoohah is bunk -- I just don't think the players and managers (with perhaps the exception of TLR) care about where they start the World Series.

You are all assuming the Cards will overtake the White Sox for "best overall record" and thus deserve home field advantage. To that I say, "not so fast." If you haven't been paying attention, and not many have, the Sox are awesome. If the World Series started today the AL pitching staffs I would least like to face are Chicago, Minnesota, and Anaheim, with the Sox being clearly the best.

Other things:
I agree that "one game" is a lousy way to decide home field advantage but is it better than "it's an odd-numbered year so the NL gets it"?

And, if you go with best overall record, do you account for the unbalanced divisional play? I mean, if the Orioles win 100 games and the Cardinals win 100 games I doubt you'd find many who would say the Cards didn't have an easier path.

I have no solutions but I'm pissed as hell that the NL will be the away team for the 4th straight year.

Last thing:

Since 1980:

Team with homefield advantage has won World Series 19 times.

Team without homefield advantage has won World Series 5 times.

Think homefield doesn't matter?