MLB All Star Game - Should it be used to determine WS home field advantage?

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

No, it shouldn't. I'm a Yankee fan and always want the AL to win, so it's worked out well for me. But it's a really bad way to determine something that's so important.

1) Home field advantage is important in the World Series. 4 home games vs. 3, plus games 6 and 7 at home is a real advantage, although probably not as much as other sports.

2) The position players/batters are out of the game by the 5th inning. In a tight game, most of the players that are left are second-rate all-stars: 1) those who got into the game as substitutes, 2) through injuries, 3) to meet the 1-player team minimum.

3) The relievers left in the game are still the best in the game. Thus, in the event of a tie going into the last few innings, runs are very hard to come by. This extends the game and managers are left with very few options.

4) Since managers try to get everyone in the game, by the end of the game some of the position players left aren't even playing the position for which they were voted in. Last night, Christian Guzman played an outstanding 3rd base and helped the NL get out of at least one jam. Of course, he hadn't played 3rd base all year. Do we really want out-of-position players determining something so important?

To me, the decision to use this game to determine WS home field advantage was not thought out well.

Agree/disagree?

[What Exit?]

I am OK with it. I would not be sad to see it go, but I don't think it hurts. No methods is without flaws.

The alternating system was fine, but there was no reason why it was the best way. It just worked and that is how they did it.

The oft suggested give home field to the team with the best record is flawed as quite often in MLB history one league was significantly better than the other.

I like the All Star game having some meaning. It seems to have brought up the integrity of the game a small bit. However, it will not crush me if it goes.

Jim

[villa]

This year it wasn't just decided by an exhibition game, it was decided by the scrubs in an exhibition game. It's ridiculous.

I'd like to see home field advantage won though, rather than alternated. I thought last night a good way of doing it might be to award home field to the team with the best inter-league record. Or, alternately, to the team from the league with the best inter-league record. It again isn't perfect, and I am still morally opposed to the concept of interleague play (except in the WS), but it would avoid the problem of one league being stronger than the other.

[lieu]

While I agree that it's nice to see the AS Game again have some meaning, I'm not sure that doing so in a manner that may influence the outcome of the WS is of justifiable benefit.

[Gangster Octopus]

Why does the AS game have to have any meaning apart from it being a fun time?

[Sarahfeena]

Why does the AS game have to have any meaning apart from it being a fun time? That's what I don't get. Who cares if they try or not? The most fun in that game was the introduction of the players, with all the HOF guys, anyway. And silly stuff, like Zambrano throwing that pitch over M Rameriez's head.

I think it's BS that the World Series is influenced, however slightly by the AS game. Is it really a motivating factor for the AS players? Maybe for some...I'm sure my Cubs had it in the back of their minds this year, but most years, when we send one or two guys and they know they aren't getting anywhere near the WS that fall, are they really going to care?

[Bryan Ekers]

In this age of air travel, why does there have to be a 2-3-2 pattern to the WS games at all? Why not one game every other day in alternating cities?

[Hawkeyeop]

No, it shouldn't. I'm a Yankee fan and always want the AL to win, so it's worked out well for me. But it's a really bad way to determine something that's so important.

1) Home field advantage is important in the World Series. 4 home games vs. 3, plus games 6 and 7 at home is a real advantage, although probably not as much as other sports.

The home team only has an advantage if the series goes seven games. The two teams split home games in a 4 or 6 game series, and the road team has the advantage in a 5 game series. So home field advantage has its uses, but I wouldn't call it major advantage. You can tell that by the fact that it has always been decided by what year it is, and no one cared. MLB didn't make the switch to find a better system of determining home field advantage, they did it to attempt to make the all star game more of event.

The problem is MLB tried to capture the feel of the game from previous eras, which is impossible. I can watch every player in both leagues play, so there is no mystique to the other league. There is no NL players or AL players as players jump from one another all the time. Fantasy sports makes me more attached to individual players, and less into teams/league. I was rooting for the Nl, but I was also rooting for Josh Hamilton, Scott Kazmir, etc.

I agree that it should be a meaningless game. I would prefer the game be managed and played with the thinking of "wouldn't it be cool if" rather then "we need to win this one". Larry Walker facing Randy Johnson is my favorite all star game moment ever, and would have probably not occurred if the teams were determined to win

[Thudlow Boink]

The All-Star game is a silly way of determining home field advantage for the World Series. But I'm okay with that, at least as long as they don't try to pretend that it isn't a silly way. It's not as though there's some other, vastly superior method that's crying out to be used.

[Marley23]

<Moved to The Game Room>

[fachverwirrt]

In this age of air travel, why does there have to be a 2-3-2 pattern to the WS games at all? Why not one game every other day in alternating cities?
What difference would that make re: home field advantage? There are still seven games, so one team would necessarily have more home games than the other.

Plus, it's expensive, wasteful, and exhausting to travel between every game. If it's Mets vs. Yankees it's one thing, but if it's Red Sox vs. Dodgers, do you really think the players will want to endure a five hour flight every other day? It also lengthens the series to have a day off between every game; the playoffs go long enough as it is.

[HoboStew]

Why does the AS game have to have any meaning apart from it being a fun time?Because too many players were phoning it in, leaving the game after the third innning, etc. There was a palpable air of "who cares" amongst the players, and this was viewed as a way of combating it. Personally I think Bill Simmons's idea for the NBA allstar game should be used for all sports: Each player on each team puts up $10K, winning team splits the pot equally. Nothing brings out the competitive edge in players quite like having money on the line. I don't think having the allstar game determine homefield advantage is a bad idea, I just don't think it is the best.

[Paintcharge]

No it should not. It was a dumb idea when they started it, and it remains a dumb idea. IMHO, home field should be granted to the team with the better regular season record, as it is done in the LCS's.

Who cares if the All Star Game ends in a tie? State from the beginning that it will be called a tie if the score is even after, oh let's say, 12 innings.

[RickJay]

There isn't any other way to determine home field advantage that isn't arbitrary. There's nothing more or less fair about the current system than assigning it based on whether it's an odd or even numbered year.

So why not? I think it's fine.

[dalej42]

No it shouldn't.

Like the other poster above, there is no way to return the All Star game to the glory days. Even without interleague play, there is far too much movement of players among teams to keep the All Star game at the same interest level.

Make it a 9 inning game and ties are ok. Sure, you're going to have players phoning it in. Even with World Series home advantage, players on teams that are out of contention have no real reason to care.

[Hawkeyeop]

Endeing the game in a tie would show a distinct lack of creativity. I'd be more than a bit miffed if I paid $800 to see a tie. There is just no reason to piss off dedicated fans like that. However, they should have some definite plan in place to deal with all possibilies, so that the managers aren't put into awkward situations like last night. There are a million fun possible tie-breakers that can be used, which would leave the fans satisfied, and not put the players at risk. Have a mini hr derby, skills competition, use a designated independent pitcher. Almost anything is better than a tie.

[Marley23]

Personally I think Bill Simmons's idea for the NBA allstar game should be used for all sports: Each player on each team puts up $10K, winning team splits the pot equally.
Minor problem here: this is gambling on sports. Even if it's legal, with the NBA dealing with the Donaghy scandal it's a really bad idea.

I've always been against the All-Star game determining WS homefield. To me, that actually makes the game more important than it should be. If the game is going to matter, it should be played by the best players - not the ones the fans like the most in a race to stuff the ballot box (oh and one player from every team has to be represented even if the team stinks). I'm fine with it being an exhibition, and that's really all it's ever going to be. If it wasn't, you wouldn't see the starters getting yanked after four innings and the bullpens being emptied early. I think baseball is contradicting itself by trying to have it both ways.

[RealityChuck]

The players certainly don't like it. It should go back to behing an exhibition.

[What Exit?]

The players certainly don't like it. It should go back to behing an exhibition.
Cite please?

I have not heard this and I don't believe it is true of the majority. If anything the players appear to be responding to it by showing up more often and playing harder. (As they use to.)

[Key Lime Guy]

In this age of air travel, why does there have to be a 2-3-2 pattern to the WS games at all? Why not one game every other day in alternating cities?

The NHL does 2-2-1-1-1 throughout the playoffs.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Cite please?

I have not heard this and I don't believe it is true of the majority. If anything the players appear to be responding to it by showing up more often and playing harder. (As they use to.)

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25643875/

[What Exit?]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25643875/
I must have missed the part of the article that polled the players as opposed to a handful that commented.

[Happy Lendervedder]

I must have missed the part of the article that polled the players as opposed to a handful that commented.

Hey, I just gave you a link to a story that was run on a lot of websites over the past few days; I imagine that's where RealityChuck got the idea that players don't like it. Forgive me that it didn't meet your expectations.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I posted this two weeks ago. It died an unlamented death in its own thread, but maybe it can be discussed here. I, of course, think it's positively brilliant:



Alternative idea for A-S game

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They've been trying to give the All Star teams a real motivation for playing hard, trying to win, etc., by making the World Series home advantage go to the winner, which I don't like for a number of reasons, not least of which is that most All-Stars realize by mid-July that they ain't going to the post-season anyway, so it means very little to many players personally, and may even have a disincentive to some (those who think "I don't want [a player in their league on a first-place team whom they despise] to win the Series, so I'll miss the cutoff man here." Mostly, it seems like a lame advantage to me, like it will really make a difference in most All-Stars's effort in the game itself.

But I have an incentive that will. There are advantages to BEING on the A-S team, mainly financial ones, and most players are going to be in the same league next year, and most A-S players have a good shot at being chosen for NEXT year's squad. So this is it.

The losing team will take the traditional number of players (I think it's 28 players now?) to NEXT year's game, while the winning team will get to add players to their squad, as many additional players as the run difference in the final score.

Now, THERE's an incentive. Not only might the additional players help the A-S team to win next year's game (a very small edge) but each player will think "I could get voted off next year's squad if it's only 28 players, but if it's 30 or 35 or 38 players, that gives me a much better chance of earning my A-S incentive in my contract," so they'll play hard, they'll play to win, and they'll play good baseball even in a blowout.

Shoot that down.

[Paintcharge]

There isn't any other way to determine home field advantage that isn't arbitrary. There's nothing more or less fair about the current system than assigning it based on whether it's an odd or even numbered year.

So why not? I think it's fine.


Why not make the team with the best record in the regular season have home field advantage?

[CJJ*]

As I stated in another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10008911#post10008911), the MLB All-Star game is trying to meet two separate and conflicting goals. Putting HFA for the WS on the line certainly adds to the "meaningfulness" of the game, but there are other factors which promote its role as an exhibition, and these are at odds with having a game that "counts":

Requiring every team to be represented means there is a chance you must pick a player who is not as good/useful as another.
Teams routinely put pitch counts on their pitchers for an All-Star game. Scott Kazimir was an example from last nights game.
There is the unwritten custom that everybody gets to play. This is the only reason why, for example, Francisco Rodriguez was basically wasted in last night's game; Francona couldn't get away with omitting Rivera from the game after the booing Papelbon got (pretty classless IMO).

I'm not saying these are all bad things, but they certainly don't contribute to making the game "count". Basically the ASG is managed the same way now as it was before the HFA prize was added. If the game were all about winning, A-Rod would probably play the entire 16 innings, Dan Uggla's lead glove would not be in the lineup in extras, and there'd be far fewer pitching changes.

The reason people protested the 2002 affair was (1) fans paid $125 a pop to get in, and (2) it was clear baseball had no plan to deal with the situation. Thin-skinned Bud over-reacted, which allowed Fox to manipulate him into adding the HFA prize.

Bud's post-game declaration that they "would have played until the end" shows how stupid he is--you really want the game's meaning to come down to two guys who hadn't pitched since high-school (there was a good chance J.D. Drew and David Wright would have been pitching if it had gone 1-2 more innnings)? He clearly doesn't see the core conflict, and thinks the HFA gimmick has appeased the fans.

Make it an exhibition or make it a real game, and change the rules to be consistent with one or the other--you can't have it both ways.

[dalej42]

Also, Bud Selig was at the top of most fans shit list in 2002. The All Star game was coming right after the contraction plans and the team ownership swap.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

No it should not. It was a dumb idea when they started it, and it remains a dumb idea. IMHO, home field should be granted to the team with the better regular season record, as it is done in the LCS's.

Who cares if the All Star Game ends in a tie? State from the beginning that it will be called a tie if the score is even after, oh let's say, 12 innings.

I agree with this. I hate the fact that a team can win 115 games and has nothing to show for it other than a gaudy record if their league loses the meaningless AS game. That's provided the 115 game winner advances to the WS of course.

[What Exit?]

Hey, I just gave you a link to a story that was run on a lot of websites over the past few days; I imagine that's where RealityChuck got the idea that players don't like it. Forgive me that it didn't meet your expectations.
Sorry about that, my reply was unfairly snarky. I was in a hurry and typed out my initial thought. Normally I self-edit better.

PRR, I don't really like your idea, but it is interesting. I find the idea of one squad having an extra 7 players distasteful, but that is the extent of my argument against it.

Why not make the team with the best record in the regular season have home field advantage?
I already mentioned how one league will run better than the other for periods of time and thus it gives an unfair advantage to a team in a weak division and league over other teams with the unbalanced schedules. That would be the main objection.

[HoboStew]

Minor problem here: this is gambling on sports. Even if it's legal, with the NBA dealing with the Donaghy scandal it's a really bad idea.Even if the game otherwise counts for nothing? I can see your point, but if there isn't anything at stake I don't see how gambling laws would interfere. If a bunch of ball players went to the park and played softball and put money on the outcome, would there be gambling issues there?

[Marley23]

Even if the game otherwise counts for nothing? I can see your point, but if there isn't anything at stake I don't see how gambling laws would interfere. If a bunch of ball players went to the park and played softball and put money on the outcome, would there be gambling issues there?
This is an organized game played by professional athletes, not a game played by friends in the park. I don't know how the laws work, but I am confident that even if it's an exhibition, it would still qualify as a professional sporting event- and amateur events are still covered as far as I can tell.

[RickJay]

I posted this two weeks ago. It died an unlamented death in its own thread, but maybe it can be discussed here. I, of course, think it's positively brilliant:
It's got one rather enormous flaw:

not least of which is that most All-Stars realize by mid-July that they ain't going to the post-season anyway..
At least at a glance, it seems pretty obvious to me that the majority - the very substantial majority - of All-Stars have a chance of being in the playoffs. Most teams in mid-July are still within striking distance of the playoffs, and of course the better teams are more presented among All-Stars.

Take the American League. Of 14 teams, I'd argue that all nine teams at .500 or better are reasonable contenders. Five teams are almost certainly dead meat. Those five teams - Toronto, Baltimore, Seattle, Cleveland, and Kansas City - contributed only five All-Stars; Ichiro Suzuki, Cliff Lee, George Sherrill, Joakim Soria, and Roy Halladay. (As to the shitty-teams-shouldn't-get-All-Star theory, of those five, only Sherrill was a doubtful selection. It's unusual for even a bad team to have no deserving All-Stars.) That's just five out of 32, and you're going to have trouble convincing me those guys weren't playing their best.

I agree with this. I hate the fact that a team can win 115 games and has nothing to show for it other than a gaudy record if their league loses the meaningless AS game. That's provided the 115 game winner advances to the WS of course.
The only way this could be true is if a great team were to have its league lose the All-Star game, then get to the World Series and lose the Series in Game 7 - if they lose in fewer games than that, home field advantage had nothing to do with it, since prior to Game 7 the team with the home field advantage cannot win the series having played more games in its own park. What are the odds a legitimately great team will lose the World Series in Game 7 to a clearly inferior team?

As near as I can tell, this has never happened in the entire history of baseball. The only team to win more than two thirds of its games and lose Game 7 on the road is the 1931 Philadelphia A's, who were beaten by a team that was itself pretty awesome, the Cardinals. And that home field advantage was determined purely by alternating years, so how was that any more fair to the A's?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

The only way this could be true is if a great team were to have its league lose the All-Star game, then get to the World Series and lose the Series in Game 7 - if they lose in fewer games than that, home field advantage had nothing to do with it, since prior to Game 7 the team with the home field advantage cannot win the series having played more games in its own park. What are the odds a legitimately great team will lose the World Series in Game 7 to a clearly inferior team?

As near as I can tell, this has never happened in the entire history of baseball. The only team to win more than two thirds of its games and lose Game 7 on the road is the 1931 Philadelphia A's, who were beaten by a team that was itself pretty awesome, the Cardinals. And that home field advantage was determined purely by alternating years, so how was that any more fair to the A's?

But does that hold true anymore? Maybe regular season home/away records are bad indicators of what happens in the playoffs, but rare indeed is the team that does better on the road than at home.

And as far as "the odds a great team loses in WS game 7 to a clearly inferior opponent" under your scenario, what about the fact that it actually happens?

With the advent of the wildcard, I think rewarding a league home field in the WS due to the outcome of the AS game is a bad idea.

If no wildcard teams, then I think the relevance is less.

But I'm a Reds fan, so I may be suffering right now from baseball dementia.

[Cyberhwk]

No it should not. It was a dumb idea when they started it, and it remains a dumb idea. IMHO, home field should be granted to the team with the better regular season record, as it is done in the LCS's.

Who cares if the All Star Game ends in a tie? State from the beginning that it will be called a tie if the score is even after, oh let's say, 12 innings.Like FoieGrasIsEvil, I agree 100%.

I'd be absolutely LIVID if I was a manager and my pitcher got caught up pitching extra innings during the All-Star game. Worse yet, having your star twist an ankle or break a wrist on a check-swing. Hell...the more I think about it have it during the off-season at some warm southern park.

[Cheesesteak]

I don't mind the AS game determining the WS home field, but it's not necessary in order to avoid the dreaded tie. My suggestion is two fold, and depends on the fact that this is an exhibition game.

First, once you go into extra innings, all position players are eligible to return to the lineup. They only play 3-4 innings to begin with because it's an exhibition, it's stupid to lean on the "no return" rule for the same exhibition. One caveat, you only get to return once, no ins and outs allowed.

Second, the manager can select a number of pitchers (2-3?) as All Star alternates, who are only eligible to pitch in extra innings.

This allows the manager to use all the players selected during the first 9, without handcuffing the team in extra innings.

[storyteller0910]

I don't mind the AS game determining the WS home field, but it's not necessary in order to avoid the dreaded tie. My suggestion is two fold, and depends on the fact that this is an exhibition game.

First, once you go into extra innings, all position players are eligible to return to the lineup. They only play 3-4 innings to begin with because it's an exhibition, it's stupid to lean on the "no return" rule for the same exhibition. One caveat, you only get to return once, no ins and outs allowed.


Actually, why not? It might be sort of entertaining. An "ulimited substitutions" rule would be entertaining as all get out, and while it would no longer be baseball in the purest sense, it would certainly solve these problems.


Second, the manager can select a number of pitchers (2-3?) as All Star alternates, who are only eligible to pitch in extra innings.

This allows the manager to use all the players selected during the first 9, without handcuffing the team in extra innings.

How about assigning pitchers from the Futures games to be used as the All Star alternates? I know that sounds kooky, but since your average minor league player isn't going to be able to shut-out an All Star team for long, it would certainly abbreviate the endgame if that's a concern.

[Marley23]

First, once you go into extra innings, all position players are eligible to return to the lineup. They only play 3-4 innings to begin with because it's an exhibition, it's stupid to lean on the "no return" rule for the same exhibition.
I like this, and it's what I was thinking as I tried to stay awake and watch the end of the game.

[What Exit?]

How about assigning pitchers from the Futures games to be used as the All Star alternates? I know that sounds kooky, but since your average minor league player isn't going to be able to shut-out an All Star team for long, it would certainly abbreviate the endgame if that's a concern.
I love this idea. The kids would get a kick out of it and it should end the game swiftly. If it didn't, it would still be a good story to watch unfold.

I also like the idea of players being put back in, in case of injuries or extra innings.

I think this solution would make almost everyone happy.

[Cyberhwk]

Second, the manager can select a number of pitchers (2-3?) as All Star alternates, who are only eligible to pitch in extra innings. I like your first suggestion of re-entering the game once in extra innings, but this one would be tough to swallow.

Baseball is played pretty much every single day for six months. Even their "days off" aren't days off. They're travel days. I think you'd have a hard time getting 2-3 players to give up one of the extremely few days they're going to have to relax and spend with their family at the off chance the game goes into extra innings and only then they MIGHT get to play.

[jtgain]

Actually, why not? It might be sort of entertaining. An "ulimited substitutions" rule would be entertaining as all get out, and while it would no longer be baseball in the purest sense, it would certainly solve these problems.


I can see one big problem here. Late innings and Bonds (assume he still plays and is an all-star) pinch hits and hits a game tying home run!!!

Then he leaves the game, and pinch hits for the next guy! and the next guy! and the next guy! We are treated to constant Bonds every at bat, and due to the unlimited substitutions, all of the other players can "re-enter" the game as well and stay in their positions.

[What Exit?]

I can see one big problem here. Late innings and Bonds (assume he still plays and is an all-star) pinch hits and hits a game tying home run!!!

Then he leaves the game, and pinch hits for the next guy! and the next guy! and the next guy! We are treated to constant Bonds every at bat, and due to the unlimited substitutions, all of the other players can "re-enter" the game as well and stay in their positions.
That would have to be restricted. I would say a player could only go back in, in case of injury or extra innings and only once.

[RickJay]

I can see one big problem here. Late innings and Bonds (assume he still plays and is an all-star) pinch hits and hits a game tying home run!!!

Then he leaves the game, and pinch hits for the next guy! and the next guy! and the next guy! We are treated to constant Bonds every at bat, and due to the unlimited substitutions, all of the other players can "re-enter" the game as well and stay in their positions.
It was already suggested upthread, but you could simply adopt the "once back in" rule used by slo-pitch leagues; a player can be reinserted, but only once, and it must be in the same batting order position he was in before.

[Marley23]

I can't help but think of what would have happened if the game had gone another inning or two and the position players started to pitch. Not only would it have been a joke - can you imagine what would have happened if one of them hurt himself while acting as an emergency reliever in the All-Star game? If Wright had blown out his arm a la Canseco, Selig never would have made it out of New York.

[What Exit?]

I can't help but think of what would have happened if the game had gone another inning or two and the position players started to pitch. Not only would it have been a joke - can you imagine what would have happened if one of them hurt himself while acting as an emergency reliever in the All-Star game? If Wright had blown out his arm a la Canseco, Selig never would have made it out of New York.
I would hope at that point the managers would have instead did the correct thing and told Selig the game was over, you figure out home field some other way this year.

[jtgain]

I can't help but think of what would have happened if the game had gone another inning or two and the position players started to pitch. Not only would it have been a joke - can you imagine what would have happened if one of them hurt himself while acting as an emergency reliever in the All-Star game? If Wright had blown out his arm a la Canseco, Selig never would have made it out of New York.

It's a kids game fer crying out loud. I go crazy when I hear all of this "poor well-conditioned athlete had to pitch three innings so he might not live through the night" nonsense.

It is what made people mad in 2002 when they called the game a tie. How many blue collar workers literally bust their asses every day in hard jobs to have enough disposable income to watch these multi-millionaires play a kids game for a living? Then have to hear them whine about playing a full game?

Cy Young used to pitch both ends of a double header. Harvey Haddix pitched 12 perfect innings. Today he would have been yanked after 9, if he didn't exceed his pitch count before that.

Yes, and I know, they blew their arms out a lot sooner, but that was their job. Coal miners have back problems later in life.

Thirty years ago, the league minimum salary was $30k/yr. The average fan could relate to those guys because they were average guys living a dream. Today they are pampered rich kids who are afraid they will get a hang nail if they slide into second.

[RickJay]

Thirty years ago, the league minimum salary was $30k/yr. The average fan could relate to those guys because they were average guys living a dream. Today they are pampered rich kids who are afraid they will get a hang nail if they slide into second.
For the most part it's not the pitchers who don't want to keep pitching, you realize.

[Marley23]

Yes, and I know, they blew their arms out a lot sooner, but that was their job. Coal miners have back problems later in life.
Want to tell us how many miles you walked to school in the snow?

What's your point, exactly? That the players are wrong not to want to blow their arms out, particularly in a meaningless game? That the teams are wrong to protect their investments - although I agree that they go much too far?

Yes, okay, too much was made of the whole 'what might happen to Scott Kazmir if he throws 50 pitches' thing. But the issue was more about how his team would be affected, not his health.

[Quercus]

[Regarding a proposal for the winning team to split a pot of money] Minor problem here: this is gambling on sports. Even if it's legal, with the NBA dealing with the Donaghy scandal it's a really bad idea.
Wait, giving the winning team bonus money is gambling? Doesn't pretty much every professional league give extra money to the championship team? (isn't dividing up World Series Shares a hallowed part of baseball?)

[Hawkeyeop]

Wait, giving the winning team bonus money is gambling? Doesn't pretty much every professional league give extra money to the championship team? (isn't dividing up World Series Shares a hallowed part of baseball?)

I think that kind of counts as overtime pay, though I suppose that doesn't allow for winners and losers to get different amounts.

[Marley23]

Wait, giving the winning team bonus money is gambling? Doesn't pretty much every professional league give extra money to the championship team? (isn't dividing up World Series Shares a hallowed part of baseball?)
No, having the players put up their own money is gambling.

Personally I think Bill Simmons's idea for the NBA allstar game should be used for all sports: Each player on each team puts up $10K, winning team splits the pot equally.

[Quercus]

No, having the players put up their own money is gambling.I see your point, however, I think this kind of arrangement is typically legal if the players putting up the money and winning the prize are competing in a true test of skill. Otherwise every local golf tournament with an entry fee and a prize would be illegal.