This time Ben Zobrist counts!!

The MLB All-Star Game, as currently constructed, is the most nonsensical in sports.

I don't understand why everyone can't be satisfied understanding that this game is an exhibition. There is no reason for it to have anything near the sort of impact of deciding home field advantage in the World Series. It should serve the same function it was designed to serve: give the players a little rest and give the fans a game featuring the best players in baseball. Nothing more.

Obviously, the catalyst to all this was the catastrophe that was the 11-inning tie in 2002, made possible by the collective choices of Joe Torre and Bob Brenly to use every player by the end of the 11th inning. Impressively, neither manager (each with a World Series victory on his resume) managed to consider the possibility of a game that would go into more than two extra innings (despite the indications of these performances, 12+ inning games happen... often... like, several times a season). And because of the unreasonable risk of letting a professional athlete pitch more than two innings, Bud Selig consented to the managers' wishes and allowed a tie at the end of 11 innings. The biggest travesty was that an MVP was not awarded. Clearly, Idiocy was robbed.

Growing apathy turned into overt rage over the state of the All-Star Game. It's understandable, then, why Selig and others in the MLB community decided to make a change to the Mid-Summer Classic. However, in classic MLB decision-making fashion, they missed the mark.

The problem was not (and never has been, and never will be) that the result of the game did not have any lasting impact. This was the case for years, and MLB had held the "Best All-Star Game" status among the major sports since its inception. What changed was not only how the game was being played, but namely, by who.

(Also worth noting, general apathy toward baseball was rising, due both to the increased popularity of the NFL and fans' disgust over the steroid controversy)

See, in the heyday of the All-Star Game, the starting players played the entire game. Considering the starters were typically the best among the All-Stars, this meant that the exhibition mirrored the regular season games in that the best position players were going to be out there during the game's final innings, unless a particular situation called for a reserve. This format inspired some great games and performances (See: Pete Rose vs. Ray Fosse's shoulder).

Then, sometime in the 90s, managers decided contemporary T-Ball leagues had it right. They decided, rather than let the best players fight it out over the course of 9 innings, the "everybody gets an inning" process would be better. This stance was justified, most frequently, by touting the value of letting everyone deserving of an All-Star selection take part in at least a portion of the game.

This always bothered me. Who were we helping?

The fans? Certainly not... they voted in the starters
The players? It doesn't really change someone's life if they get to say, "Little Johnny, you might not know this, but back in '96, your ol' grandad played one inning alongside Brady Anderson... I'll never forget that moment."
Major League Baseball? Again, the league benefits from more exposure to its stars... not more exposure to the mandatory Pirates representative (hiding from Jack Wilson).

The only entities to benefit from this approach were the teams. With this substitution patter, their star players (and, typically, huge financial investments) were exposed to 5-7 fewer innings of risk. Rather than have Alex Rodriguez have 4 or 5 at-bats, the Rangers only had to cross their fingers and chew their nails for 3 innings as their $250 million man went about his business in a game that didn't matter. Afterall, Tom Hicks was paying A-Rod to hit help them win a World Series... and performing well in the All-Star Game had nothing to do with that.

So while I can understand MLB wanting to do something to fix the All-Star Game, and I understand why teams put pressure on All-Star managers to limit playing time, what I can't understand is how MLB glosses over the enormous problem created by each of these desires being satisfied.

The Game matters now because it decides home field advantage. But the Game still doesn't matter because all the starters are taken out after the 3rd inning. Imagine a Yankees-Red Sox series where A-Rod, Youkilis, Jeter and Ortiz sat out the last 6 innings. Would anyone watch that? How about a Week 8 game where Peyton Manning and Tom Brady sat on the sidelines for the 3rd and 4th quarters?

More importantly, would anyone really believe we had just seen a legitimate result? Could Francona and..... Girardi (that took a bit) really look the fans in the eye and tell them they did everything they could to win the ballgame?

Of course not.

And yet, when Ben Zobrist knocks in Brandon Inge in the top of the 9th, then Brian Fuentes finishes off the NL 2-3-4 hitters (by that time, Hudson-Hawpe-Pence), MLB will do just that by awarding home field advantage to the winning league.