The idea is so obvious that I’m almost embarrassed to suggest it. Actually, I should be embarrassed because I have made the suggestion before with no success and here I am raising it again despite knowing it will be ignored. Call it a foolish effort.

But Major League Baseball has defrauded its players and fans for nine years – this year will make it an even 10 – and it’s time to admit the gimmick hasn’t worked and a new link for homefield advantage for the World Series is needed.

Before the 2003 World Series, Commissioner Bud Selig and the club owners were desperate to help Fox Sports raise its ratings for the All-Star game. What was good for Fox, they felt, had to be good for them. But the World Series homefield advantage would go to the champion of the league that wins the All-Star game?

Baseball’s premier event would have a critical element – which team would have more home games – based on an exhibition game. Lest anyone forget, the All-Star game is just that and no more, an exhibition game.

Some players have contract clauses that pay them bonuses if they make the All-Star team, but individual teams pay those bonuses. If M.L.B. feels a need to create better All-Star games by inducing players to play more aggressively, a more inspired game, offer league bonuses to the winners.

That will never happen because baseball believes players already make too much money. They’re not about to pay them even more to win an exhibition game.

But they decide that it’s appropriate to award World Series Games 1, 2, 6 and 7 – that’s considered homefield advantage – to the champion of the league that wins the All-Star game.

Advocates of the All-Star link attribute all sorts of good things to it – the players play harder, the players play longer, the managers manage differently, the managers manage more intelligently, the fans are more into the games, it improves the economy.

All right, so I made up that last benefit, but that’s the absurd level the stated benefits reach.

It’s time for baseball to stop insulting the intelligence of its players, its fans and the members of the news media, who know that the All-Star gimmick is just that, a gimmick.

The most interesting development stemming from the gimmick is that it hasn’t accomplished the sole reason for its creation. Despite this harder played, better managed game, the Fox ratings for the game have fallen six times in the 10 years of the link’s existence, including the last two years, when the ratings have been the lowest ever for a Fox televised All-Star game, 7.5 in 2010 and 6.9 last year. Viewership has also plunged to its lowest, 12.1 million and 11 million in the last two years, respectively.

These numbers unmask M.L.B. as the fraud that it has been in concocting the All-Star gimmick. Even worse than the gimmick has been the spin – I call it lies – baseball and Fox have used in trying pathetically to explain and defend the All-Star gimmick.

Baseball has recently used other gimmicks, trying to beef up interest in the game. Last year they held a fan contest to determine the “greatest moment in All-Star history.” It was such a hit that M.L.B. didn’t issue a news release announcing the winner. The winner, Stan Musial’s game-winning home run in the N.L. half of the 12^th inning of the 1955 game, was announced during the Fox telecast of the game.

The impact of the contest on the game’s telecast can be seen from the game’s rating.

M.L.B. introduced another new element last year, though not for the game itself. Unlike previous practice, players were permitted to tweet during the home run derby the day before the All-Star game. That idea seemed to be successful that I suggested, not altogether seriously, that M.L.B. allow players to tweet during the game, interacting with fans at the park and elsewhere.

It was such a bizarre idea that I was afraid they might actually adopt it for the game, but they only renewed it for the home run derby.

The proposal I am serious about, though, is the way homefield advantage should be determined for the World Series. Until the All-Star link was created in 2003, the start of the Series was rotated between leagues, one year beginning in the home park of the National League, the next year in the home of the American League champ.

Then Bill Giles or somebody came up with the All-Star link, and it has been embraced for no sensible reason.

Not that baseball wants to be fair and intelligent about the issue, its own experience offers the way to do it. Interleague play has been a hugely successful format for M.L.B., and it would serve an appropriate means of determining homefield advantage.

Selig has rightfully boasted about the success of interleague play. His public relations people issued a news release early this week showing how popular interleague play is with fans.

This year’s interleague games drew 8,742,577 fans, third highest total in the 16-year history of interleague play but only 53,362 behind the second highest and 189,807 short of the highest.

If fans like interleague play that much, let it serve baseball in a more significant way.

Have the outcome of the 252-game interleague series determine homefield advantage for the World Series. The champion of the league whose teams prevailed in the interleague segment of the schedule would get homefield advantage. That benefit would be decided by 252 legitimate games, games that count in the standings, not a single exhibition game that otherwise counts for nothing and has no reason being put in such a critical position.

Critics of the interleague idea would probably point out that the process would be one-sided because the A.L. has dominated the N.L. for the last nine years, but these things run in cycles. The N.L. once won 11 All-Star games in a row and 19 of 20.

The news release about interleague attendance quoted Commissioner Selig as saying, “Major League Baseball is enjoying a remarkable first half of the season. With strong competitive balance, historic milestones, five no-hitters, and outstanding performances from our game’s young players, our attendance is a reflection of the great momentum we have as we approach the All-Star Game.”

Selig has reason to gloat. The professional football and basketball leagues are not far removed from contentious labor negotiations. Their hockey counterpart is entering its own potentially perilous time. Baseball is prospering in the midst of labor peace.

My suggested system wouldn’t do anything for television ratings, but baseball doesn’t have to worry about Fox’s All-Star ratings. This is the new world where all-star games aren’t the attractions they were when the commissioner and I were kids. No artificial, phony gimmick is going to infuse life into baseball’s All-Star game.

The fans have spoken. They care more about interleague games than the All-Star game. Listen to them, commissioner, use what they are telling you and tell Fox, “We gave it our best shot; now we’re going to do it legitimately.”

Roger Clemens won his trial on the government’s charge against him that he lied to Congress about his alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs, but Andy Pettitte, his old friend and teammate, got the much needed save.

It won’t show up in Pettitte’s 17-year career record, which includes no saves or save opportunities, but without it, Clemens would very likely not have gained his most vital victory. Pettitte’s role in the United States District Court trial had been expected to be critical but in the reverse way of what it turned out to be.

Going into the trial, it appeared that Pettitte would offer testimony that would hurt Clemens. Pettitte had told authorities that Clemens had told him he had used human growth hormone.

On the witness stand in Washington, D.C., that’s exactly what Pettitte said. Under cross-examination, however, he said something else that undermined his own testimony and put Clemens in the lead.

Asked if he might have misunderstood what Clemens had said to him, Pettitte said, “I could have.”

Asked if it was fair to say there was a 50-50 chance that he misunderstood, Pettitte responded, “I’d say that’s fair.”

The government’s case, which was already struggling, very likely died right then and there.

What happened with the government’s most believable witness?

“Pettitte gave a perfect answer for him,” said one of the former prosecutors I spoke with, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It was an answer that couldn’t get him in perjury trouble. He didn’t deny what he said, but it weakened the government case. When he previously gave testimony, he seemed to be definite.”

A theory:

With help or a suggestion from someone, obviously a lawyer, Pettitte came up with a solution to his predicament. An honest man, Pettitte wanted to tell the truth but was uncomfortable with the thought of testifying against his buddy.

He wasn’t about to move 180 degrees from his original comments to authorities, but a slight shift in emphasis might make it better for Clemens and therefore more palatable for Pettitte. He would not volunteer a new version of events, but he could answer a defense question about the certainty of his recollection.

“I wouldn’t be surprised,” a former federal prosecutor said of the theory. He feels bad about it. He gets commended for respecting the system and testifying when asked. I’m sure there are plenty of people who had suggestions for him.”

A defense attorney who represents murderers and other major criminal types said the Clemens case hinged on Pettitte.

“He changed his testimony,” the lawyer said. “He gave a reasonable doubt answer. He said 50-50. That’s beyond reasonable doubt. He changed his answer. He told the truth, then changed enough to be helpful to Clemens and no one could say he perjured himself. God knows how much pressure he was under.”

Could someone have approached Pettitte with the idea of changing his testimony?

“I can see someone on Clemens’ side,” the lawyer replied, “saying you don’t have to answer the way you did before and you can help him.”

Before the first trial, the government tried to have entered as evidence an affidavit from Pettitte’s wife in which she related that her husband had come home from a workout with Clemens and told her what Clemens had said about using human growth hormone.

However, one of the former federal prosecutors said, “The evidence was not permitted because it would be prejudicial. But once they impeached Pettitte she should have been allowed to testify. She might have been relevant and I think it would have been relevant. They got Pettitte to say it was 50-50. She should have been allowed to testify.”

ON DECK FOR BONDS AND CLEMENS

Two Federal juries have had their say on the guilt or innocence of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds in the world of performance-enhancing drugs, but their status has yet to be determined in the world of public opinion and Hall of Fame voting. They are not expected to get off so easily in those critical venues.

Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young award winner, was acquitted last week in United States District Court in Washington, D.C., on all six charges linked to lying to Congress. His acquittal came 14 months after Barry Bonds, a seven-time winner of the most valuable player award, emerged from his perjury trial in United States District Court in San Francisco almost as unscathed.

Bonds, who was accused of lying to a Federal grand jury in 2003, was convicted on one count of obstruction of justice for impeding a grand jury investigation, but the judge declare a mistrial on three perjury counts. The former slugger was subsequently sentenced to 30 days house arrest, two years of probation and a $4,000 fine.

He has appealed the conviction, and it would be no surprise if he were to win the appeal. However, his standing in the eyes of the public will not depend on the outcome of the appeal; nor will his standing on the Hall of Fame ballot, although there may be some writers/voters who will base their decisions on the technicality of whether Bonds, and Clemens, for that matter, will escape legal consequences for use of steroids.

“My overriding feeling on both cases is they both lost,” said Sam Reich, a former federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh. “I don’t agree with CNN that the Clemens acquittal vindicates him. A jury decided it had a reasonable doubt. That’s the way juries decide.”

“In terms of history, both lost tremendously,” Reich added. “Up until the trial the public had only a lot of speculation to go on. In the trials there was a lot that came out.”

What came out wasn’t enough to convince juries to convict Clemens and Bonds, but Reich raised a telling analogy.

“When the 1919 Black Sox players were tried in court,” he said, “they were acquitted, but the verdict of history is unanimous. They were guilty. Most people will conclude both did it just like they have with the Black Sox and O.J. Simpson. I think the majority of people will find them guilty. Both lost by going to trial.”

Both, however, were driven by their egos their feeling that they were too big to be toppled.

The next verdict on Clemens and Bonds will come in January when the Hall of Fame announces the results of the voting by the Baseball Writers Association. Clemens and Bonds will be on the ballot for the first time, as will Sammy Sosa and Mike Piazza.

Like Bonds and Clemens, Sosa has long been suspected of having used steroids, and his name was leaked from a 2003 list of about 100 players who tested positive in what was supposed to be an anonymous test.

Piazza has never been formally linked to steroids, and that’s what enrages his passionate fans whenever I write about my suspicions. In my most recent mention of Piazza, I wrote that his book is scheduled for publication next February and suggested that writers withhold their votes for him this time to wait and read what he writes about steroids.

If he is elected to the Hall in January and he admits in February that he used steroids, it will be too late for writers who oppose electing steroids users to do anything about it.

I do not know what to expect from the Clemens and Bonds voting. If the writers follow the precedent they have set in their voting on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, the two won’t have a chance.

Needing 75 percent of the vote for election, McGwire has not gained 24 percent in any of his six years on the ballot while Palmeiro has failed to receive 13 percent in either of his two years.

Jeff Bagwell, on the other hand, may avoid the stain of steroids despite rumors about his use. He went up last year from 41.7 percent to 56 percent.

The difficulty of forecasting the Hall of Fame fate of Clemens is a feeling among some writers that he had Hall of Fame achievements before he began using P.E.D.’s. The same argument has been made on Bonds’ behalf, that he was Hall of Fame worthy before he collected 258 home runs in a chemically-aided five-season stretch (2000-04) late in his career (ages 35-40).

Some writers will buy into that idea; others will ignore their cheating altogether. One voter, Buster Olney of ESPN.com, offered a novel, if questionable rationalization, for voting for cheaters. He told The New York Tlmes, “The institution of baseball condoned the use of performance-enhancing drugs for almost two decades with inaction. To hold it against a handful of individuals now is, to me, retroactive morality.”

That reasoning may fall into the category of two wrongs not making a right.

Clemens could very likely have avoided the whole dirty business altogether. The noise he and his chief lawyer, Rusty Hardin, made about the pitcher’s name appearing in the George Mitchell report on steroids in baseball, prompted a Congressional committee to hold a hearing on steroids use in baseball.

Even then the committee gave Clemens the option of not appearing, but he insisted on testifying. He presumably wanted to clear his name, but all he did was call greater attention to his alleged use and set himself up for a spectacle of a trial.

“If I had represented Clemens he would not have testified before Congress,” said Sam Reich the federal prosecutor turned defense attorney.

LEE PERFECT IN CY RACE

Cliff Lee appears to be in good position to win his second Cy Young award. He has made it this far into the season without a win and with one of the lowest WHIPs in the National League, 1.12. What more can a voter ask?

It has taken me a while, but I have learned these things, especially where wins are concerned.

After spending a lifetime watching pitchers win games and thinking they were doing something good, I learned from some of the readers here that wins are a meaningless statistic for pitchers, that they have no control over the outcome of games so don’t pay attention to the column with the W at the top.

I used to think – silly me – that pitchers could control games by allowing the opposing team to score fewer runs than their team scored. But apparently that’s not how the game is played today.

Win 13 games, or 15 or 16, and you can win yourself one of those huge, good-looking trophies. Win the award with few enough wins, and you can etch the scores of all of the games on the trophy.

If the award were voted today, R.A. Dickey probably wouldn’t have a chance against Lee. In the meantime, since the award isn’t being voted today, I’m going to take a few minutes and look through one of the baseball encyclopedias and find names like Roberts and Jenkins and Hunter and Palmer and Gibson and try to figure out how bad they really were.

The Wikipedia description of the 1949 film “It Happens Every Spring” says “the story of a baseball pitcher is completely fictitious, and the main character King Kelly is not based on or related to the actual player.” Wikipedia needs an update.

There is nothing fictitious about R.A. Dickey or what he has done. He has brought to life King Kelly, a.k.a. a college professor named Vernon K. Simpson, and in his own way he has duplicated Simpson’s accidental discovery of how to make pitched baseballs avoid wood bats.

Unless Dickey is getting away with something everyone has missed, he has not used any substance to make balls miss bats. King Kelly put a substance on the balls, and they jumped over and dived under bats. Dickey achieves that trick with his knuckleball.

“He throws a hard knuckleball; Phil Niekro and others threw a soft knuckleball,” said Omar Minaya, who when he was their general manager brought Dickey to the Mets as a minor league free agent in 2010.

Minaya had been a long-time Dickey fan, since he worked for Texas and the Rangers made Dickey their first-round pick (18^th player selected) in the 1996 draft.

“We agreed to a deal for something like $800,000,” Minaya recalled. “Then we found out he didn’t have an elbow tendon so $800,000 became something like $100,000.”

Dickey was not a knuckleball pitcher at that time but became one by necessity later. In 10 years with the Texas organization, the right-hander did not play a full season with the Rangers. Becoming a minor league free agent, he signed with Milwaukee and Minnesota and was drafted by Seattle in the minor league draft, all in 2007.

It wasn’t until last year, his 15^th in professional baseball, that Dickey played a full major league season. It was with the Mets, whom he joined May 19, 2010 with a promotion from AAA Buffalo.

“He came to camp with us in 2010 and was the first, or one of the first cuts,” Minaya recalled. “In spring training one day he was in front of his locker. Guys in his situation contemplate what they want to do: should I go down or give it up? He had that look on his face. He was really bad in spring training.”

Minaya, however, wasn’t letting Dickey go anywhere. “I wouldn’t let our minor league people release him,” he said. “because I felt he could be a good pitcher on the Triple A team and help other pitchers. I also knew he would be a good coach one day. He was always one of my favorites. The manager and coaches knew that.”

As often happens, developments took care of the matter. One of the Mets’ pitchers got hurt, Minaya said, “and we brought him up.”

“He had been the 10^th man on the Triple A staff,” Minaya added, but when you call up pitchers from the minor leagues you call up the pitcher who’s pitching the best, you bring up the hot guy. That’s why those 4A guys stay around. They know at any given moment they can be called up.”

Dickey became a regular in the rotation, compiling a two-year 19-22 record with a 3.08 earned run average. He wasn’t as impressive as Ray Milland was in St. Louis, but the best was to come.

What Dickey has done this year, though, hasn’t just been his best. He has been phenomenal. In 14 starts the 37-year-old Dickey has produced an 11-1 record and a 2.00 e.r.a., giving him the most wins in the majors, the best winning percentage and the lowest e.r.a.

He also has the lowest baserunners/9 innings ratio, 8.18, and he has the third lowest opponents’ batting average, .194, and the third most strikeouts, 103.

Even more impressive has been his performance in his last six starts, the last two of which have been one-hitters: 6-0, 0.18 e.r.a., 63 strikeouts, 5 walks, 21 hits, 0.55 baserunners/9 innings, .144 opponents’ batting average in 48 2/3 innings.

His two consecutive one-hit shutouts are especially interesting not only because they are the first in the majors since Dave Stieb did it in 1988 and the first in the National League since Jim Tobin did in 1944 but also because they outdo anything Nolan Ryan, the best low-hit pitcher ever, did in his career.

Ryan, who punctuated his career with seven no-hitters and a dozen one-hitters, never pitched two of those games consecutively. He had two of them in the same season three times and three of them in one of those seasons.

Elias Sports Bureau calls Dickey’s streak unprecedented in modern major league history (post-1900):

He is the only pitcher to throw two consecutive complete games allowing one hit or none with 10 or more strikeouts. He is the only pitcher who has struck out at least 60 and allowed two or fewer runs in a 6-0 stretch over 6 starts.

Dickey now has made seven successive starts with eight or more strikeouts and two or fewer walks, matching the longest such streak since 1900.

And for good measure, Elias notes that the knuckleballer is the 10^th pitcher since 1900 to allow one hit or none in consecutive complete games but the first pitcher to throw consecutive one-hitters in interleague games.

Minaya remains one of Dickey’s biggest boosters even though he works for the San Diego Padres.

“I always liked him and stayed in contact with him,” he said. “I like him because of his character. He was always going to give you everything he had. He was always going to be a competitor. I was impressed and intrigued by the speed of his knuckleball, but I was always impressed with him as a person, too. It wasn’t because of his ability; it was the kind of person he was.”

Minaya added, “I’m happy for him. Because of the knuckleball I can see him doing this for another four, five years.”

Because of Dickey’s late arrival in the majors as a steady starter, Dickey won’t have the longevity of the best known knuckleballers, such as the Niekros, Hall of Famer Phil and brother Joe; Charlie Hough and Hoyt Wilhelm. However, Dickey’s bravura performance this season catapults him into the pantheon of unparalleled performers.

“It’s a good story,” Minaya said.

Maybe even better than “It Happens Every Spring.”