PDA

View Full Version : 1990 World Series Question


maniem
10-20-2006, 08:55 AM
I was trying to remember how the Reds had home field advantage in the Series that year. This was obviously before Sir Selig decided to give home field advantage to the all star game winner. And we all know Oakland had a much better record during the regular season. So how did the Reds end up with this? Am i missing something? Did they alternate between leagues each year?
BuckWoody
10-20-2006, 08:57 AM
They alternated home field between the leagues back then.
redsmetz
10-20-2006, 08:58 AM
I was trying to remember how the Reds had home field advantage in the Series that year. This was obviously before Sir Selig decided to give home field advantage to the all star game winner. And we all know Oakland had a much better record during the regular season. So how did the Reds end up with this? Am i missing something? Did they alternate between leagues each year?

Yes, they alternated between leagues, which, frankly, they should return to and forget all this hogwash about the All Star game having "meaning". If it's to have meaning, it should be the pride of your league winning the game.
Johnny Footstool
10-20-2006, 09:35 AM
Ideally, home field advantage would be based on regular-season record, with interleague record as a tiebreaker.
George Anderson
10-20-2006, 10:33 AM
Ideally, home field advantage would be based on regular-season record, with interleague record as a tiebreaker.

Why is this idea not used now??
macro
10-20-2006, 11:02 AM
Why is this idea not used now??

Because, as redsmetz mentioned, Pud wants the All Star game to "mean something" so he ties home field advantage in the WS to the result.

Prior to the strike season of 1994, it was easy to remember which WS games where played at which sites. The NL had home field advantage in the even-numbered years and the AL team had it in the odd-numbered years.

Furthermore, the NLCS played games 1 and 2 at the NL West team's home field in the even-numbered years and 3-4-5 at the NL East team's field. In the odd-numbered years, it was reversed, with games 1 and 2 at the NL East team's home park.

As soon as Randy mentioned Game 5 of the 1970 World Series in that other thread, I immediately knew that it was played in Baltimore, because the NL team had the home field that year, even though I was too young to remember that series.

Even after the strike of 1994, one could figure out where each WS game was played, although the missed season meant that the NL got home field on the odd years instead of the even. Since Pud tied home field to the All Star game, I couldn't tell you where each game was played two years ago.

I'm not saying that the old system was the best or the fairest, but at least there was some symmetry to it, just as there was symmetry to the regular season schedules in those days. Today everything is a jumbled mess. Nineteen games against one division opponent, 17 against another, 16 against another...

(I'm starting to sound like a cranky old man, aren't I? :laugh: )
Matt700wlw
10-20-2006, 11:27 AM
Ideally, home field advantage would be based on regular-season record, with interleague record as a tiebreaker.

Couldn't agree more.
redsfanfalcon
10-20-2006, 11:28 AM
Ideally, home field advantage would be based on regular-season record, with interleague record as a tiebreaker.

Never heard that before, but that is an excellent idea. Johnny Footstool for COMMISH!:thumbup:
RichRed
10-20-2006, 12:18 PM
Why is this idea not used now??

Short answer: because it makes sense.
Johnny Footstool
10-20-2006, 12:25 PM
Short answer: because it makes sense.

There you go.
BuckWoody
10-20-2006, 12:43 PM
Why is this idea not used now??
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/_photos/2001-12-06-inside-selig.jpg
Stop with all the difficult questions!

;)
harangatang
10-20-2006, 02:22 PM
Since Pud tied home field to the All Star game, I couldn't tell you where each game was played two years ago.
Every year since the new rules were established linking home field advantage of the WS to the All-star game, the AL has had home field advantage in the WS.
vaticanplum
10-20-2006, 02:50 PM
Ideally, home field advantage would be based on regular-season record, with interleague record as a tiebreaker.

Wouldn't this present some serious logistical problems? Look at this year: had the Mets won last night, they'd have home-field advantage due to a better record. But the Cards did, so according to your suggestion the Tigers would get it. That gives Detroit all of two days to prepare the stadium, or Shea two days if the Mets had won. The grounds crew etc. would have to be completely on call, not to mention ticket sales would be a mess. And the Tigers wouldn't have known until late last night whether they were staying put or traveling. I think they definitely have to know who has home-field advantage before the postseason begins.
Johnny Footstool
10-20-2006, 03:34 PM
Wouldn't this present some serious logistical problems? Look at this year: had the Mets won last night, they'd have home-field advantage due to a better record. But the Cards did, so according to your suggestion the Tigers would get it. That gives Detroit all of two days to prepare the stadium, or Shea two days if the Mets had won. The grounds crew etc. would have to be completely on call, not to mention ticket sales would be a mess. And the Tigers wouldn't have known until late last night whether they were staying put or traveling. I think they definitely have to know who has home-field advantage before the postseason begins.

Knowing who has home-field advantage isn't a big issue for the Division Playoffs or the LCS. They have two days between the end of the season and the start of the playoffs and sometimes two days between the end of one playoff series and the start of another. They often don't know who is hosting the games until the last minute. The grounds crew, ticket sales, travel, and everything else you mentioned are affected the same way for every playoff series. They cope. They make contingency plans and they cope.

The NHL and NBA both deal with the same issues (groundskeeping notwithstanding in the NBA). They cope, too.

The World Series doesn't have to be different. It *shouldn't* be different.
vaticanplum
10-20-2006, 03:45 PM
I don't know...I just think the World Series is a bigger deal. A lot of that has to do with corporate stuff, not only the business side of things but the sending people there. I'd venture to guess that a lot more people come from out of town to see the World Series than the earlier series. And I bet that the preparation, the press, and the security is all a lot heavier too.

What you say is true, but it's probably nice for people to have a breather after the hecticness of the earlier series. I personally think that alternating is the way to go.