McCarver, as usual, is talking faster than he thinks. Since the designated-hitter rule was introduced in 1973, the AL and NL are even in All-Star Game wins. In fact, the NL dominated the All-Star Game for the first decade of the DH era, with the AL's first win coming in 1983.
Much as McCarver and his fellow NL fans would like to think otherwise, the AL clubs are simply better right now -- not just built for their own league's style of play. There are exactly two good baseball teams in the NL -- the Mets and the Cardinals. And neither of those has dominated in interleague play, leading one to wonder how much of their success comes from playing in a weak league.
Quote:
The A.L.'s hegemony over the All-Star Game makes a mockery of Clueless Bud's recent tying of the World Series home-field advantage to the outcome of an exhibition in which most starters have moved on to their teams' next cities by the fifth inning.
I understand the argument, but one could follow the same facts to the opposite conclusion. There's a certain sense in giving home-field advantage in the World Series to the team that had to fight its way through a more difficult league to reach the Series. Considering that the old rule was simply to alternate between leagues without regard to merit, the new system is at least not worse.
But I do agree that the managers do not take the All-Star Game as seriously as they should if the game is to count. I have less of a problem with Bud's changes than I do with players and managers who are still playing the game like it's a pure exhibition. If the game lacks meaning, it's because the players and managers need to get with the times and play hard.