I may not always agree, but when Leonard Koppett speaks, I listen. I guess he's the E. F. Hutton of baseball writing.

First, I agree with Caple, the World Series is infinitely better. That said, I completely dismiss more than 2/3 of this reasons, including the first one ("Babe Ruth's called shot.") ...

Let's be fair here, for a moment and understand that there have been around 100 World Series, and (guessing) somewhere between 500 and 600 World Series games ... and there have been thirty-seven Super Bowl Games. How many great moment do we remember about the first 37 World Series, much less the first 37 World Series games (taking us to, what, 1909 or so)? It's apples and oranges.

You say "Kirk Gibson's home run," I say "John Elway's spinning first down." You say "Bill Mazeroski's home run," I say "Adam Vinatieri's field goal." You say "Carlton Fisk's home run," I say "Lynn Swann's catch." You say "Joe Carter's home run," I say "Joe Montana's last minute drive."

And football even has the advantage of each memorable moment being something spectacularly different from the others, while most of the baseball moments, as dramatic as they are, are "just" home runs. So you want to look at other types of "great moments" (apologies to MasterCard, please don't sue me)? Okay ...

Legends? You say "Babe Ruth's called shot," I say "Joe Namath's guarantee." Personalities? You say "Reggie Jackson," I say "Max McGee." Memorable failures? You say "Bill Buckner," I say "Scott Norwood." Dominant performances? You say "Don Larsen's perfect game," I say "Steve Young's six touchdown passes." Thrilling defensive endings? You say "McCovey's line drive to Bobby Richardson," I say "Ooooh, if only Kevin Dyson were two inches taller."

You want to give the World Series props because of history and tradition or because you plain old like baseball better -- I do, and I think it's clear Caple does -- that's fine. But any one-game or one-play "reason" is horse-hockey.

Missed this one -- Rob Neyer discusses other possible ASG wrinkles. Sandy Alderson of MLB may take over some of the roster decisions from the managers, and there could also be a minimum innings requirement for the starters. To these rumours, I say "good" and "good."

Koppett was in rare form when penning this column. He accurately disparages most of the absurdity involved in this Selig decision.

I don't mind the Selig plan, really. I would strongly object to the "best record" alternative proposal for home-field in the Series, because even though interleague play exists, it's limited enough that the AL and NL champions won't have remotely played the same schedule. If one league has, say, two more 100-loss teams than the other league, the potential for record inflation problems is obvious.

If the counterproposal is "leave well enough alone," then that's fine, but the All-Star Game has lost my interest. I didn't even watch the '02 debacle. Artificial playing-time requirements for starters don't make sense and might even inhibit a team's ability to win if the fans vote poorly.

Maybe it's just me among the BB authors, but I like the idea of having the teams playing to win. It's rejuvenated my interest in the game, and there's just no doubt that anti-Seligism -- as eminently justified as it usually is -- is playing a major role in the All-Star backlash.

Guilty as charged, Mike. I don't like BeelzeBud. Controlling two teams is worse than just one, but any owner-Commissioner is ridiculous. (So is a player-Commissioner or an agent-Commissioner.)

I'm all for improving the ASG, which on this of all weekends, I would like to remind you is already much better than say, the Pro Bowl or the NHL "classic", a pair of no-hitters. Agreed that the vote for starters entirely in the hands of fans is a recipe for disaster; just last year I (and many others) stuffed the ballot box with Expos and Twins. So if you're going to make the game "important", fix the entire process while you're at it.

Through my anti-Selig haze, I see the changes as another knee-jerk (emphasis second syllable) reaction to a mess he could have prevented. History will remember him as a buffoon, or worse. When's Paul Beeston writing that autobiography, anyway?

Leonard Koppett is a brand new animal to me... Is he really bad at math or am I missing something?

Well, yes and no. In the 98 World Series, the eventual winner won the first game at home 56 times and lost 42 times. But that includes the 17 four-game sweeps, which obviously didn't depend on any home-field advantage.

So all the longer series came out 42-39 in favor of the home opener loser.

56 minus 17 is 39, yes. But what if the team that did the sweeping was the road team in the first game?