I agree.OTOH there actually is a bias against the visiting team in baseball’s single-substitution rule. The bias is that when you get to, say, the seventh inning and you pinch hit for your pitcher, if you’re the visiting team you have to substitute a new pitcher in the bottom of the seventh. If you’re the home team, your pitcher has already pitched the top of the seventh when you substitute a hitter for him.
The result of that situation is that the DH rule helps the disadvantaged visiting team. And, as a result, (the issue of the adaptation of the roster to the DH rule aside) the NL team visiting an AL park is better off than an AL team visiting a NL park.
Hence, the conventional wisdom in baseball: "Play for the tie at home and the win on the road." If the visiting team comes to bat in the top of the ninth inning trailing by a run, they should play out the inning in a way that maximizes their odds of scoring more than one run -- since they may never get a chance to bat again if they tie the game and the home teams wins the game in the bottom of the inning. Conversely ... If the home team comes to bat in the bottom of the ninth inning trailing by a run, they should play out the inning in a way that maximizes their odds of scoring that one run even if it means sacrificing their odds of scoring more than one run. They can afford to play it safe this way because if they tie the game they always have the comfort of knowing that they'll bat again in extra innings.
It's interesting how these sports work. From what I can tell, baseball and hockey are the only major sports where the home team has an advantage like this written into the rules of the game. In hockey, the home team always has the "last change" of players on the ice for every faceoff.