We can debate whether the outcome of the All-Star Game is the best way to determine home-field advantage for the World Series.


We can lament that the team with the better regular-season record deserves home-field, though baseball officials say that such a plan is logistically impossible.

We can even long for the old days of alternating home-field, though I don't see how reviving such a system would be an improvement.

The bottom line is this, and I do not care if anyone calls me a shill for FOX.

The All-Star Game has become more of a game and less of an exhibition since the change in format in 2003.

And that is a good thing.

Mind you, the new format will drive the Phillies' Charlie Manuel and the Rays' Joe Maddon as crazy as it did previous managers. It is yet another example of baseball trying to accomplish too many things at once. And, as Cardinals manager Tony La Russa says, the winning of home-field advantage is not "significant enough that it resonates with all players. Realistically, how many players think it affects them?"

Heck, you can even make the case that home-field advantage hasn't been all that much of an advantage. The National League has lost all six All-Star Games since the change in format (not to mention five more before that). Yet, the NL has won three of the six World Series — and actually hosted more WS games, 15-13.

Ah, but I digress.

La Russa, who has managed the ASG under both formats, says that prior to the Unspeakable Tie in Milwaukee in 2002, Monday of All-Star Week had become more important than Tuesday; the home-run derby had eclipsed the actual game.

The introduction of a competitive stake at least gave the game meaning, provided incentive other than bragging rights, which few players, if any, cared about (truth be told, players probably are more loyal to their agents than to their leagues).

"The two biggest bullet points for me were 1) win the game and 2) get everyone home safe," says former Rockies manager Clint Hurdle, who managed the NL in 2008. "That in and of itself is a lot.

"Once the game started, I thought we stretched the players out professionally. We got everyone through the meat of the lineup three at-bats. You're definitely trying to win the game."

Which makes all the difference.

Most of the elected starters in '02 batted twice, not three times; I'd still love to know how many had left Milwaukee on chartered planes before the game ended.

Likewise, the starting pitcher often was the only one who went two innings before the change in format. Now managers are more inclined to ask their best starters for two, using them as hammers.

In '07, manager Jim Leyland went with Dan Haren and Josh Beckett for two innings each, helping the AL grab a 2-1 lead. Leyland also managed his bullpen aggressively, removing J.J. Putz in the middle of a ninth-inning meltdown and summoning Francisco Rodriguez to get the final out of a 5-4 victory.

Last year, Hurdle got a combined six scoreless innings out of Ben Sheets, Carlos Zambrano and Dan Haren, but naturally the NL blew a 2-0 lead and lost in 15 innings, 4-3. Both teams nearly ran out of pitchers, leading to the additions of one pitcher to each roster.

The problem for managers is that most All-Star Games last nine innings. Now that the stakes are higher, some players must be held back in case extra innings are required.

La Russa famously upset his own player, Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols, when he declined to use him as a pinch-hitter with the bases loaded, two outs in the ninth inning and the NL trailing by one run in '07.

The manager's explanation: He needed Pujols available for extra innings because of his ability to play multiple positions.

"You can tell pitchers, 'We're going to save you.' A lot of times, it's OK with them," La Russa says. "But players, it's a different deal. You sit around all game long and don't play. You're the protection guy? I don't think that works."

Red Sox manager Terry Francona, last year's AL manager, agrees.

"They've changed the rules where the game means so much, the outcome of the game is important," Francona says. "At the same time, I don't think there's any manager who is not going to try and play as many guys as he can.

"I remember last year before the game, sitting in that room talking to the players. I said, 'OK, here's what we're going to try to do. We're going to try to play as many people as we can, knowing that we're trying to win the game. We're thanking you in advance for your cooperation.' That's basically what the speech was."

There is an inherent conflict in such an approach — if you're playing as many people as possible, you're not necessarily doing everything possible to win (though, as Leyland says, "the beauty of it is, you take out an All-Star, you put in an All-Star, so what's the difference?")

If winning is the true goal, then each league should construct its roster with greater precision, choosing left-on-left specialists, pinch-runners, etc. You could even argue that the fan vote should be eliminated, ensuring that the game is not for the most popular, but the very best.

Of course, that would be going too far; the fan vote is part of what makes the game special. Managers just need to accept that the system is imperfect, sort of like those other crowded baseball concoctions — a three-round postseason starting with a best-of-five, a balanced schedule interrupted by inter-league play.

Still, baseball needs to be flexible.

The shift from a 32- to 33-man roster was a smart and necessary adjustment. A re-entry rule exists for catchers if injuries occur; why not extend the rule to infielders and outfielders, too? Another change, advocated by Leyland, would be to use the designated hitter in NL as well as AL parks.

"It's not a day that the manager should have to go over there and work his (butt) off, worrying about double-switches and all that stuff," Leyland says. "It's a day where he should go there, and they've got a designated hitter, you can use an extra pitcher, you can get a hitter an at-bat."

Such a change would not necessarily reduce the intensity of the competition, so perhaps it's worth a shot. The first and most important task — restoring the game's meaning — already has been accomplished. The rest is just details.

The All-Star Game is back.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9800488...-isn't-easy