As I correctly predicted, strong pitching carried the National League to their first All-Star Game victory in 14 years. 

With the triumph brings home-field advantage to the NL in the World Series for the first time since 2001, and for the first time ever under the new "this time it counts," rules. 

Of course, home-field advantage is basically irrelevant unless the series goes to game seven, which it hasn't done since the Angels beat the Giants in 2002.

So technically, the game has yet to count for anything other than bragging rights. 

Maybe more noteworthy than the game's lack of relevance, is the way one league has dominated for years at a time.

Most recently it has been the American League dominating, winning 12 straight decisions from 1997 to 2009. 

However between 1963 and 1982 it was the NL that won 19 of 20 games. 

But even before that, the AL won 12 of the first 16 games between 1933 and 1949.

With or without the games determining home-field advantage, does the league dominating the Midsummer Classic have any correlation to the league wearing the ring at the end of the season? 

Over the AL's recent span of 12 consecutive wins, from 1997 to 2009, excluding the 2002 tie, the AL won eight of the 13 World Series'. 

During the National League's reign between '63 and '82, the NL won 12 of the 20 Fall Classics. Again, only a slight correlation. 

From 1933 to 1949, during the AL's stretch of 12 wins in 16 years, the Americans won 11 of the 16 championships, with eight of them belonging to the New York Yankees. 

The time of most parity in the All-Star Game took place between the seven-year span of 1954 through 1960 in which the NL won five and the AL won four.

How could there be nine games in seven years, you ask? Little known fact, between 1959 and 1962, two All-Star Games were played each year. 

In that seven-year span of back-and-forth, the NL won five World Series' and the AL won two. 

So is the league that dominates the All-Star Game truly the better league or is it just luck? I think the figures show it's a little of both.

While the dominant league did have the edge in championships during each era, it was never by enough to convincingly prove that that particular league was that much better than the other. 

At the same time however, some of the game's most dominant teams such as Joe Dimaggio's Yankees, the Big Red Machine and the 1990's Yankee dynasty thrived during their respective league's period of All-Star supremacy. 

Another factor that could contribute to a certain league's All-Star success could be the era the games are played in.

For example, the AL's reign between '33 and '49 was the beginning of the live-ball era in baseball, and many of the game's best hitters were in the American League. 

Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams, Jimmie Fox and Al Simmons just to name a few. 

However between 1963 and 1982 the focus turned to pitching. Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton all dominated NL mounds during that era.

The steroid era was upon us during the AL's recent streak of 12 consecutive wins, and many of the game’s most powerful hitters donned AL jerseys. 

Players like Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Jason Giambi and Vladimir Guerrero brought some pop to the AL bat that helped the Americans reel off the 12-straight wins.

The one thing we do know is that leagues normally win the All-Star game in bunches, so if last night's game was any indication, good things are to come for baseball's oldest league. - Twitter: @Rob_Ogden