Ok, I get it. Major League Baseball wants to draw more attention to the game by making the All-Star Game worth more to the players, right?
But is this the best way to go about it?
A team could play an entire season as the best team in baseball, and still lose in the World Series because they didn't get home-field advantage.
Now you're saying, "Now wait a minute. If they were the best team in baseball, shouldn't they be good at home and win at least one the road?"
Not always true.
Take a look at my beloved Cubbies for example.
The Cubs, like most teams in the league are extremely good at home and mediocre at best on the road.
The Cubs are currently 37-12 at home and only 20-26 on the road. Home-field advantage in the World Series would be crucial for the Cubs...if the National League had won.
Every other division leader, with the exception of the Angels, has a sizably better record at home than on the road.
However, we all know well and good what the outcome of the game was on Tuesday night.
Didn't the All-Star Game used to be about having fun and showcasing the best players in both leagues for one night?
What if a pitcher had one bad night, or in the case of this year's game it goes to extras and it comes down to a play at the plate.
Should the outcome of the World Series really be determined by one game?
It is, of course, a marathon, not a sprint.