Is the American League BUYING the edge of being the Home Team in the World Series?

Georgie: I always enjoy reading your answers. I agree that some of the NL owners choose not to spend as much. This doesn't take away from my suggestion that since the AL owners are paying more, that they are in effect "buying" home field advantage for the World Series. By the way, don't include the Giants in the "cheap" category. They have the competitive disadvantage of being the only team that has to annually pay a very hefty mortgage 4 their new park.

Indianalee: Thanks 4 your research. I reviewed it. The top 4 payrolls are all AL teams. Have to go thru 6 NL to pass the top 4 AL in payroll. And, to advance my point, 3 of the top 4 AL teams (out of 12 AL teams) produced 4 of the 8 AL starters and 3 of the 7 pitchers. I am now more sure of my theory than before.

David R: "Their payroll may be less, but their talent isn't necessarily worse." - Most players go to where the most $ is. The better players are more likely to get the most $. Sad 2 say, Cub fans accept less.

Olelefthander: I've always liked southpaws -helped my batting average. But lefties' thinking is fuzzy. Not political lefties, who are right (correct); but lefthanders, who have perhaps been dulled dealing with a righthanded world. I agree that "Individual teams are buying their way into a better chance to win the series." BUT, the top 4 payroll teams are all AL teams! Yes, the 3 teams you mentioned are in contention. But, only one of them is in a division with the top 4 payroll teams.

Revenue sharing as presently constituted is not working and is not the answer. First of all, it doesn't seem to impair the top payroll teams frim continuing their spending. For example, with all the Yankees' broadcast and telecast income, their "tax" (revenue sharing) hardly impacts them. Second, what's the use of revenue sharing, if there is no requirement that the teams that receive the extra money are not required to spend it on player salaries? We need either an NFL or NBA type $ cap.

It is indisputable that playing home is an advantage. Yes, fans don't win games; players do. But you definitely may play differenly if you know that you have the last "at bats". There is no manager who would not prefer home field. That's why iis is called "home field advantage".

David W: I only agree that if it's a sweep by the team that is the visiting for the first 2 games - perhaps it doesn't matter. If it's a sweep by the team that was home (had the "home field advantage" for 4 of the potential 7 games) then it does matter. Despite what the Red Sox did 2 years ago, the winner of the first two games rarely loses the World Series. Being at home for the first 2 games is a major advantage.

jssc.lynn: I agree that the AL teams that spend the big $ are mainly trying to be the best in the AL. However, if those teams are attracting the best players to the AL, then, it follows that the AL could have the best players. And yes, from "Damm Yankees" - "You Gotta Have Heart".

K: "The white sox don't buy talent. It's home grown" (like Tome???) But, the fact that talent is "home grown" does not make a difference. Just because it's home grown does not mean that it stays home. For it to stay, it has to be compen$ated. A team that spends has an advantage in keeping its homegrown talent. Take Oakland for example. Few would disagree that the A's consistently have the best young talent. Billy Beane definitely knows what he's doing. The problem for the Oakland franchise is that they (allegedly) do not have the $ to keep their top talent. As a result, former top A's talent is now earning big $ - with other teams. In the past off season, Oakland diverted from tradition and modestly ventured into the free agent waters.

Mary: Yes, we can AND DO all get along. We all love and enjoy THE game. That's why we're on subject here. I'd just like there to be a more competitive playing field. It may never be level , but that shouldn't stop us from trying.