If I'm reading the table correctly, 25 out of 27 for the NL in the years covering my youth.
Back when there was no interleague play, it was a very big deal. As you guys both know all too well, it was as if the Cubs beat the Sox almost every year.
They mentioned multiple times last night the 15 inning 1967 game, which was won by Tony Perez's home run. I watched that whole game. That game and the 1970 game which ended with Pete Rose bowling over Ray Fosse hurt as bad as any ND loss.
Now it's just the players having fun, though last night they did play hard. But back then, it was taken as seriously by the players as the World Series.
It's incredible that the all-time record is tied again after all these years. But I'm too old to care also. I couldn't have cared less who won last night. I'm actually happy about that.
One thing I will say, though - man, there is a lot of great young talent in baseball right now.
was partly due to more National League teams signing great Black and Latin players.
Mayes, Aaron, F. Robinson, Banks, McCovey, Cepada, Gibson, Clemente, Veda Pinson, Fergie Jenkins all played in the National League.
I'm not sure about now, but in the days before interleague play, I don't think the All-Star game trends were a fluke at all but a true reflection of the relative strengths of the leagues. The AL dominated from the 30's through the 50's, the NL dominated in the 60's and 70's, and then the AL came right back in the 80's, in no small part because they learned to sign more black and Latin players, too.
The World Series winners remained about even between the leagues, though, through the entire time, even in the long Yankee domination era when taken as a whole. As it was put long ago by one of the NL greats from that time when asked about that exact thing (All-star dominance vs. the World Series results - maybe Mays, maybe Aaron, someone of that stature) - "baseball is a team game".