Is There Any Correlation Between The All Star Game And The World Series Champion?

With the MLB All Star Game and all the festivities that come with it next week, this question is sure to linger in heads. Before 2003 the All Star Game had no direct influence on the World Series though this changed after the 2002 All Star Game ended in a tie. This was a result of the teams running out of pitchers and not wanting to leave their current pitchers out on the mound to die in a meaningless game. Fans were enraged by this decision so baseball decided to make the game meaningful as now the winner of the All Star Game would have home-field advantage in the World Series where previously this would switch between leagues year to year. This rule change was on a two-year trial but lasted through the 2016 season. Baseball felt it was unfair to put so much weight on one game in July so they decided that the team with the better record should get home-field advantage. With these 3 iterations of how home-field advantage is determined let's see how the World Series have been impacted.

This graph shows the relationship between the League that won the All Star Game and the League that won the World Series. The graph also shows this relationship when the ASG affected home field advantage (2003-2016) and when it didn't (1933-2002 & 2017-2023). First is interesting to note that since 1933 the AL has won more World Series than the NL. Now, in the years that the All Star Game had no effect there was no impact on the World Series as the AL has a higher winning percentage than the NL regardless of the league that won the game. This goes against conventional wisdom as one would think the best league would win both the All Star Game and the World Series. For the years that the World Series was affected this relationship is held as when the AL Won the ASG they won more World Series' and vice versa. This can be true due to either the league that won the ASG being better or home-field advantage having such a powerful effect on the World Series. It is important to note that there is a small sample size with the years of affecting as the difference in AL Won ASG is 2 while the NL is 3.

To further examine the rule change the top graph shows from 1936 to 2016 the percentage of teams that had home-field advantage and had the better record than the team they were facing. The percentage of same is greater than different displaying that under the current rules (better record getting home field advantage) had they been active during this time the team with home field advantage would have stayed the same more than it changed. Meanwhile, the bottom graph shows the same relationship between 2003 to 2016. During this time there are clearly more home-field advantages that are the same as expected than different. This emphasizes that during this period the league that won the ASG was had the better teams. This also shows but also shows that rule change ended up having not such a big impact on home-field advantages. Though for the few discrepancies we have since the rule was instituted in 2003 let's see what would have happened if the better record got home-field advantages.

The 3 discrepancies are 2004 Red Sox vs Cardinals, 2011 Rangers vs Cardinals, and 2016 Cubs vs Guardians. The 2004 and 2011 World Series were before the advent of Statcast so the only differences that can be looked at with true certainty are last licks (home team as the last batting opportunity). One could also look at the designated hitter rule but the difference in having it and not having it has major ripple effects that are hard to track.

In 2004 the only thing effected is in Game 1 Mark Belhorn's tie-breaking/game-winning 2-run home run off the Pesky Pole would have almost certainly not gotten out at Busch Stadium. It's hard to tell what would have happened instead and how the game would have turned out after that but the Cardinals winning Game 1 or pushing the games to extras could have changed the whole complexion of the series and the result of the Red Sox winning in 4 games.

The 2011 World Series is iconic for David Freese's Game 6 2-run game-tying triple when his Cardinals were down to their final strike and out and his walk-off home run in the 11th inning. However, in our what-if scenario, the Rangers would have home-field advantage in Game 6 negating Freese's walk-off home run. This is not to say that the Rangers would have won this game and the World Series as we will never know what that triple could have been with different dimensions. Additionally, the triple not occurring may have saved Nelson Cruz (the right fielder during this play) a better reputation as a fielder.

In 2016 with the advent of Statcast, we can tell how far a ball was hit, how hard it was hit, and what parks it would be a home run in. With this, we can more easily make judgments about what would have happened had the Cubs had a home-field advantage. This chart shows those hypothetical changes and the result on the score along with what actually happened. The only game-changing result occurs in Game 7. David Ross hit a home run in the Top 6 which padded the Cubs lead but wouldn't have been a home run at Wrigley. If everything else remains the same in the rest of the game, David Ross doesn't score and Rajai Davis's home run off Aroldis Chapman wins the World Series for the Indians instead of tying the game and sending it to extras. Ironically in this having home-field advantage would have probably hurt the Cubs.

Looking back at these World Series and seeing what would have happened if the home-field advantage followed the current day's rules is a cool experiment. Though these World Series are iconic for the way they turned out so I wouldn't want these World Series to have occurred another way. I still do believe the home-field advantage rule that formed these World Series was misguided. The problem in the 2002 game was not the effort but rather not having a good extra innings rule. The current one with a swing-off would have been a much better solution. In terms of the rest of the All Star Game, I find it to be a really strong game especially when compared to other sports All Star Games. Though I would get rid of those horrendous jerseys and let the players wear their normal jerseys, not everything should be about making money.