First, while using the regular season best record isn't a perfect way of determining the best team, it is clearly better than alternating years or using exhibition games, which provide zero context on which team is the best in the league. It's true that one league will likely be better than the other, but inter-league play at least provides a little exposure of the NL vs. the AL. But, even if it didn't, dominating your conference gives you incentive for the playoffs.
It forces teams to play all 162, as they should. Say the Yankees are battling for a wild card spot and play the White Sox (assume best record) in the last series of the year. If the White Sox do not have a comfortable lead as the best record, they will not rest their starters and have incentive to win. This should be the ultimate goal of MLB, providing as much meaningful baseball as much as possible. Throw away series are worthless and bad for the game. It also gives incentive for teams to win as many games as possible early in the year so they will have a big lead for best record coming into September and they will have the opportunity to rest their players if they want to.
Also, did anyone find it insane that the Red Sox as a wild card team were able to have home field advantage over the Cardinals? There's simply no logic to that situation.
Third, players on crappy teams should not influence real games, much less championship games. And while this hypothetical would be a long shot, it's still a loophole that exposes a hole in the rule change. What if Jason Bay hits a game winning HR for the NL and then is traded to the Tigers and ends up playing in the World Series? His performance in an exhibition game ironically cost his team Game 7, best record or not.
Finally, the ASG was changed after it resulted in a tie because both managers used their roster to get everyone in the game. While everyone would love a more competitive ASG, it's still an exhibition game. It means nothing. Even if the rule change improved the game 100 fold, which it doesn't, it wouldn't be worth it if it affected the most meaningful series in the sport, which it clearly does. You're helping yourself where it doesn't matter, and hurting yourself where it does matter. Let's not look past those who TRULY benefit from this rule change, the TV companies. A "meaningful" exhibition game lines Rupert Murdoch's pockets as we arbitrarily change the World Series.
PS Home field advantage in baseball is less significant than in the other major sports, but that doesn't mean the principle itself is wrong. And 8 of the past WS Game 7s have been won by the home team.
idk, it's hard to say. it makes the all-star game better. but since the all-star game is really meaningless i don't know if it should be used to affect the world series. i was all for it at first but now i'm not so sure. and since it really doesn't make much sense to play the series at a neutral site, i guess the best alternative is to use either best regular season record or maybe best inter-league series record. and if the two teams playing have played eachother in inter-laegue play then maybe you can use head-head first.
It doesnt seem right players from last place clubs (Pirates, Royals etc) determine which league gets home field. You mentioned that fact that home field in baseball doesnt matter as much as the other major sports and the majority of fans have reflected that sentiment in the ratings. The last 2 years have had poor ratings even though the game counts for something.