PDA

View Full Version : MLB All-Star Game: are they the real all-stars?


nvot9
07-07-2007, 07:21 PM
I know that there's already an MLB Discussion thread, but I kinda wanted to have an isolated thread to focus on this specific topic. That being said, do you think the MLB All-Star game really means anything anymore? I mean with the fan voting, it's pretty ridiculous. This is stemming off from my disgust that guys like Roy Oswalt, Carlos Zambrano, Brian Fuentes, Ben Sheets, and Cole Hamels made it over John Maine, but in general, from an unbiased standpoint, I think the fan voting must stop.

This is not done in any other sport, and in all those other sports, you see the very best players for that specific year, battle it out in a match to determine who really is the best, but with the MLB All-Star game, all you are really seeing, is the most popular players duking it out, I mean lets get serious, I'm a huge Mets fan, but Carlos Beltran in the All-Star game...starting, along side Barry Bonds no less? I think not. It's not even just that, but if someone is injured, and can't play in the game, the replacement is chosen by who has the next most votes at that position. I mean, do the managers actually have ANY say at all on who will be their to represent their league?

I just find it ridiculous that guys having MVP/Cy Young caliber years are year in and year out getting snubbed, while washed up stars having career worst years are winning the popularity contests.

Which leaves me to my question, should Bud Selig end the fans voting for the All-Star game starters or no?

comahan
07-07-2007, 07:22 PM
Oswalt got in from Player Voting.

nvot9
07-07-2007, 07:23 PM
Oswalt got in from Player Voting.

I meant Brandon Webb, who replaced Smoltz.

comahan
07-07-2007, 07:24 PM
Webb replaced Fuentes, Oswalt replaced Smoltz.

But yea, I dont like fan voting either. Carlos Lee finished like 9th amongst NL outfielders. Uhg.

Green Bay Scat
07-07-2007, 07:27 PM
i hate fan voting, it ruins the smaller market teams that have solid player, like Florida

ccB
07-07-2007, 07:31 PM
I hate the allstar game in general, It jumped the shark the year they called it a tie.

SeanTaylorRIP
07-07-2007, 07:53 PM
Not a baseball guy, but it's pretty stupid how a worthless Allstar game determines world series home field advantage, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of in sports.

yo123
07-07-2007, 07:54 PM
Not a baseball guy, but it's pretty stupid how a worthless Allstar game determines world series home field advantage, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of in sports.



Agreed. Best regular season record should get home field advantage.

SeanTaylorRIP
07-07-2007, 07:56 PM
Home field advantage can be the difference between a championship and a runner up, to say an Allstar game determines it is ludicrous.

Bengals1690
07-07-2007, 07:57 PM
well, all star doesnt nessicarly (sp?) mean "Best Players". Is is a combonation of skill and popularity. John Maine is having a greast year, and he has the stats, but honestly, would you rather watch him or Zambrano pitch? 9 outta ten would say Zambrano. Maine just isnt a household name. Im happy with the fan voting, actually.

And are you implying that barry bonds doesnt deserve to start? the guy is leading the majors in OBP

Eaglez.Fan
07-07-2007, 08:01 PM
Home field advantage can be the difference between a championship and a runner up, to say an Allstar game determines it is ludicrous.

It's just a way to boost up rating for an all-star game. In any all-star game it isn't very intense because the players don't care, nor why should they. In the Pro-Bowl, noone blitzes, no 3-4 defense, it's just boring. the NHL all-star game is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, and I'm a big hockey fan. They should keep that rule, but change the voting.

yo123
07-07-2007, 08:03 PM
well, all star doesnt nessicarly (sp?) mean "Best Players". Is is a combonation of skill and popularity. John Maine is having a greast year, and he has the stats, but honestly, would you rather watch him or Zambrano pitch? 9 outta ten would say Zambrano. Maine just isnt a household name. Im happy with the fan voting, actually.

And are you implying that barry bonds doesnt deserve to start? the guy is leading the majors in OBP



Bonds deserves to be on the team, Holliday should be starting.

nvot9
07-07-2007, 08:04 PM
well, all star doesnt nessicarly (sp?) mean "Best Players". Is is a combonation of skill and popularity. John Maine is having a greast year, and he has the stats, but honestly, would you rather watch him or Zambrano pitch? 9 outta ten would say Zambrano. Maine just isnt a household name. Im happy with the fan voting, actually.

And are you implying that barry bonds doesnt deserve to start? the guy is leading the majors in OBP

First of all, an all-star should have nothing to do with popularity, and I guess I'm that 1 guy who thinks Maine should be there instead of Zambrano, I love Zambrano and hope he's a Met this year or next, but honestly, I don't give a **** if he's more aggressive on the mound or not, I want the guy who can pitch the best on the mound, to ensure my team (whoever your fav team is) that they will have home field advantage.

As for Bonds goes, yea, I'm saying he shouldn't be starting. I don't care about his OBP which is ridiculously inflated because of the amount of intentional walks he draws because people are afraid of his steroid induced arms. Personally, I think Matt Holliday should be starting.

In conclusion, if Selig is gunna be dumb enough to make the All-Star game potentially determine the World Series winner, at least give each team a fair shot to go against the other by having them equipped with the best possible players.

comahan
07-07-2007, 08:06 PM
Good god don't turn this into a Bonds/Steroid argument please.

princefielder28
07-07-2007, 08:07 PM
well, all star doesnt nessicarly (sp?) mean "Best Players". Is is a combonation of skill and popularity. John Maine is having a greast year, and he has the stats, but honestly, would you rather watch him or Zambrano pitch? 9 outta ten would say Zambrano. Maine just isnt a household name. Im happy with the fan voting, actually.

And are you implying that barry bonds doesnt deserve to start? the guy is leading the majors in OBP

Honestly, as a Brewers fan and fan of a team that has a chance at the playoffs and World Series, I want a team made up of the best players this year. John Maine has 10 wins with an ERA below 3.00, and he would be a catalyst to a win not a deterrant

gator3guy
07-07-2007, 08:13 PM
fan voting should be combined with player voting somehow. IMO.

Damix
07-07-2007, 08:14 PM
The game is meant for the fans, the vote who they want to see. I think its fine.

Shane P. Hallam
07-07-2007, 08:19 PM
Yeah, I can see it either way. I mean, this makes the all-star game for the fans, and baseballs all-star game is one of the best in sports. You get all the big names and it is a lot of fun.

Other sports have a lot of this too, Michael Vick has made pro bowl after pro bowl due to fan voting. Every sport has that aspect IN it. I think you have to go all or nothing. Either all player votes or all fan votes, not a mix.

iowatreat54
07-07-2007, 08:20 PM
am I the only person who realizes that Z isn't an all-star this year? I understand the argument on how Maine got screwed but stop using Z in the complaining when he's not even in it...

and no, bonds should not be starting.

Eaglez.Fan
07-07-2007, 08:25 PM
Can fans even vote for pitchers?

yo123
07-07-2007, 08:26 PM
Can fans even vote for pitchers?



Nope. Just fielders

yo123
07-07-2007, 08:27 PM
am I the only person who realizes that Z isn't an all-star this year? I understand the argument on how Maine got screwed but stop using Z in the complaining when he's not even in it...

and no, bonds should not be starting.



No, Zambrano isnt an all star, but hes been on a tear lately and if he didnt start out so slow he definetly would be

iowatreat54
07-07-2007, 08:28 PM
Can fans even vote for pitchers?

No...so you can only complain about positional players

also...what's everyone's feeling on every team having to be represented? I think the idea is good because in theory it would keep fans from teams such as KC, Pitt, Tampa Bay, etc. interested, but when they stretch to take players who are unquestionably not even close to allstars over other players who should make it, then its stupid...I think they should get rid of that rule

wiscbadgerfootball
07-07-2007, 08:29 PM
ugh I'm tired of people saying that home field advantage can determine a winner

iowatreat54
07-07-2007, 08:31 PM
No, Zambrano isnt an all star, but hes been on a tear lately and if he didnt start out so slow he definetly would be

Yea I was just getting annoyed because Nvot kept saying how pissed he was that Z made it instead of Maine...

Z has been arguably the best pitcher in the league the last month...that said Young, Maine, and Oswalt all should have made it originally before him

yo123
07-07-2007, 08:34 PM
No...so you can only complain about positional players

also...what's everyone's feeling on every team having to be represented? I think the idea is good because in theory it would keep fans from teams such as KC, Pitt, Tampa Bay, etc. interested, but when they stretch to take players who are unquestionably not even close to allstars over other players who should make it, then its stupid...I think they should get rid of that rule



I hate it. I dont want to see Freddy Sanchez or Gil Meche I want to see the best players out there, not just some guy from Tampa Bay because they need to take somebody from Tampa. I could care less if KC fans are interested, other fans would just be more interested because they get to watch the best players in the league.

iowatreat54
07-07-2007, 08:34 PM
ugh I'm tired of people saying that home field advantage can determine a winner

well it is a pretty big factor...look at the Brewers

If they made the WS vs. an AL team with a worse record but the AL won the AS game, they would play in the AL park for 4 games...the Brewers are the best team in the NL and are dominant at home but suck on the road...so in that case it would be more beneficial to give home field to the more deserving team, instead of screwing them because of an exhibition game result...

someone447
07-07-2007, 08:50 PM
well it is a pretty big factor...look at the Brewers

If they made the WS vs. an AL team with a worse record but the AL won the AS game, they would play in the AL park for 4 games...the Brewers are the best team in the NL and are dominant at home but suck on the road...so in that case it would be more beneficial to give home field to the more deserving team, instead of screwing them because of an exhibition game result...

Not only that, but wherever the game is played determines whether or not a DH is used. Home field in the World Series is more important than home field in any other sport.

Stash
07-07-2007, 08:53 PM
It sounds like some people earlier in the thread think that fans pick all the players, but I'm pretty sure the fans only vote for the starters. I like that system, because even if the fans make some ridiculous picks (ex: Pudge, Beltran, Bonds) you still get the best players as reserves.

As far as players getting snubbed, that happens every year in every sport. There always seem to be more all-star caliber players than there are roster spots (especially since each team has to have at least one All-Star representative in the MLB).

I agree with most of you about the home field rule, that is the dumbest rule in the history of sports. An exhibition game should not determine who gets home field in the WS.

Brodeur
07-07-2007, 09:05 PM
I'm fine with everything the way it is, I really have no gripes. And Bonds SHOULD be starting the all star game, there is no doubt about it. The only starters I disagree with are Pudge (should be Victor Martinez), David Wright (should be Miguel Cabrera), and Carlos Beltran (Holliday). And the WS home field advantage actually makes the game interesting, unlike some.

wiscbadgerfootball
07-07-2007, 09:07 PM
Not only that, but wherever the game is played determines whether or not a DH is used. Home field in the World Series is more important than home field in any other sport.

yeah but to me this is all part of the game of baseball.. you gotta have a versatile team that can perform in any condition

Jensen
07-07-2007, 09:09 PM
They probably wouldn't draw as much interest if they didn't let the fans vote for the starting team. I think it's a good idea to let the fans vote, but my idea would be the fans have 50% of the vote, and then the managers from each league get the other 50%. That way the fans can't vote for players that shouldn't be in the game, and the managers should know who should be in the All-Star game.

Another idea would be to only allow the fans to pick 3 players from one team max. Most of the time, one team doesn't have more than 3 starters. This would stop a lot of the major market teams players from going to the All-Star game that don't deserve it. It would also keep the fans from voting for all the players on their favorite team while giving the lower market team players a better shot at starting in the game when they deserve it.

Borat
07-07-2007, 09:14 PM
As for Bonds goes, yea, I'm saying he shouldn't be starting. I don't care about his OBP which is ridiculously inflated because of the amount of intentional walks he draws because people are afraid of his steroid induced arms. Personally, I think Matt Holliday should be starting.


Hey man, you do know that there is a PROVEN steroid user on the Mets right now, don't you?

Edit: Sorry Comahan, I couldn't resist.

P-L
07-07-2007, 09:21 PM
I have no problem with fan voting and I have no problem with it deciding home field advantage in the World Series. I do however, have a problem with both at the same time.

If you want the fans to vote, then it's fine. The all-star game is supposed to be for the fans. If the fans want to see Barry Bonds in the starting lineup, I have no problem with that. Whoever the fans want to see, they should be able to see. However, if you are going to put home field advantage in the World Series on the line, then you need to send out the best players.

sweetness34
07-07-2007, 11:03 PM
The game is meant for the fans, the vote who they want to see. I think its fine.

Yup. It's a fans event, so let the fans vote for who they want to see IMO.

JT Jag
07-07-2007, 11:18 PM
The fans should be allowed to vote for the starters.

The smart people should vote for the other All-Stars.

This should be the case for all of the sports All-Star games... the Pro Bowl, the Basketball All-Star game as well.

nvot9
07-07-2007, 11:30 PM
Hey man, you do know that there is a PROVEN steroid user on the Mets right now, don't you?

Edit: Sorry Comahan, I couldn't resist.

And is he going to be an all-star? No...so why the hell would you even say that, pretty much 100% irrelevant to the entire discussion, but hey, thanks for the pointless input..

BigDawg819
07-07-2007, 11:35 PM
Erik Bedard isn't on the team so I'm against it!

BuckNaked
07-07-2007, 11:40 PM
Erik Bedard isn't on the team so I'm against it!

Bedard really does deserve to be on. He pitched another gem today.

BigDawg819
07-07-2007, 11:43 PM
Bedard really does deserve to be on. He pitched another gem today.

7-4 3.40 ERA 149 K 1.13 WHIP .244 BAA

He'd have a better record if not for one of the lowest run support in the majors.

Borat
07-07-2007, 11:46 PM
And is he going to be an all-star? No...so why the hell would you even say that, pretty much 100% irrelevant to the entire discussion, but hey, thanks for the pointless input..

No problem. It was as irrelevant as starting a thread to complain about the fans not voting in a pitcher to the All Star Game when the fans aren't allowed to vote for pitchers in the ASG in the first place. And I just like to point out the hypocrisy of people when they talk about Bonds and steroids.

yo123
07-08-2007, 12:01 AM
Bedard is having a nice season, but who would he replace? And dont say Gil Meche because the Royals need a represenative.

VY10
07-08-2007, 12:17 AM
I hate Barry Bonds. I was at the astros game when Russ Springer beaned him in the back...Springer was ejected but did receive a standing ovation. As you can tell what I think Bonds doesn't deserve to be starting in the All-Star game.

Brodeur
07-08-2007, 12:25 AM
I hate Barry Bonds. I was at the astros game when Russ Springer beaned him in the back...Springer was ejected but did receive a standing ovation. As you can tell what I think Bonds doesn't deserve to be starting in the All-Star game.

So because you hate Bonds, you don't think he deserves to start the all star game?

nvot9
07-08-2007, 08:18 AM
No problem. It was as irrelevant as starting a thread to complain about the fans not voting in a pitcher to the All Star Game when the fans aren't allowed to vote for pitchers in the ASG in the first place. And I just like to point out the hypocrisy of people when they talk about Bonds and steroids.

This thread has NOTHING to do with Bonds and steroids, Bonds was merely an example of a player who has been voted in by the fans to start withing the last 5 to 10 years when he shouldn't have been. You'll notice I also mentioned Carlos Beltran.

And I didn't say that the fans voted in John Maine, but I'm glad to see that on top of making irrelevant points, you can also put words in my mouth. My point with John Maine not being in the game was, that the All-Star game isn't really a big deal anymore as far as talent goes, and that regardless of if it's fan voting or not, apparently the game has become a fixation on making it enjoyable for the fans, as opposed to ensuring that the best team can guarantee home field advantage. Believe me, I'm all for it being devoted to the enjoyment of a fans, I mean after all, this is a business and it's all about money to them, but then you have to get rid of the illusion of the All-Star game as actually meaning something and you have to get rid of the home field advantage bit, because with fan voting, the All-Star game loses all it's merit.

ElectricEye
07-08-2007, 08:22 AM
I'm fine with everything the way it is, I really have no gripes. And Bonds SHOULD be starting the all star game, there is no doubt about it. The only starters I disagree with are Pudge (should be Victor Martinez), David Wright (should be Miguel Cabrera), and Carlos Beltran (Holliday). And the WS home field advantage actually makes the game interesting, unlike some.

I agree with all of that. It does have a few problems, but I think it's fine the way it is.

nvot9
07-08-2007, 08:28 AM
I'm fine with everything the way it is, I really have no gripes. And Bonds SHOULD be starting the all star game, there is no doubt about it. The only starters I disagree with are Pudge (should be Victor Martinez), David Wright (should be Miguel Cabrera), and Carlos Beltran (Holliday). And the WS home field advantage actually makes the game interesting, unlike some.

I feel that there's a fine line between interesting, and fair..

It's not fair to have one game so meaningful in the sense that it determines home field advantage and potential the World Series winner, but then to throw away all it's merit by having the primarily biased and unintelligent fans choose the hitters and fielders.

princefielder28
07-08-2007, 08:56 AM
I feel that there's a fine line between interesting, and fair..

It's not fair to have one game so meaningful in the sense that it determines home field advantage and potential the World Series winner, but then to throw away all it's merit by having the primarily biased and unintelligent fans choose the hitters and fielders.

The fans were pretty intellegent for NL. They voted for Prince Fielder and Russell Martin; two guys that strongly deserved to start and are doing so. Bonds over Holliday is really the only one they got wrong.

MaxV
07-08-2007, 08:59 AM
I have no problem with fans voting, but they shouldn't be the only ones who decide the starters.

There should be a writer's vote and a coaches vote for starters.

ATLDirtyBirds
07-08-2007, 09:08 AM
I like fan voting. They only get to choose 8 players, and those are the guys they want to see. It's not right to blame the fans. The manager and players make the call on the backups/pitchers, and if they decided the starting 8, there would still be people left out. Example, John Maine. So I'm fine with the fans picking the starting 8.


I hate the home field advantage thing. The better record should get it.

P-L
07-08-2007, 12:21 PM
So because you hate Bonds, you don't think he deserves to start the all star game?

Bonds doesn't deserve to start because Matt Holliday has been the best player in the NL this year. You could make the case that Bonds is more deserving than Carlos Beltran, but seeing as neither Holliday or Bonds can play CF it's really a moot point. It's pretty much a toss up between Bonds and Griffey, but again neither Bonds nor Holliday have ever played RF.

Smokey Joe
07-08-2007, 12:32 PM
The All-Star game is quite simply a popularity contest. I have no purpose to watch it this year.

iowatreat54
07-08-2007, 12:58 PM
not to sound like a homer, because I don't think Soriano deserved to start...but how does Bonds somehow make up hundreds of thousands of votes in the week/days leading up to the end of voting? Soriano was up by 150,000+ like 5 days before, and then all of a sudden Bonds wins?

I do not like Bonds at all, I do not think he deserves to start based on the fan voting...the only reason he is starting is because it is in SF, had it been anywhere else he would prolly be a reserve

Borat
07-08-2007, 01:27 PM
This thread has NOTHING to do with Bonds and steroids, Bonds was merely an example of a player who has been voted in by the fans to start withing the last 5 to 10 years when he shouldn't have been. You'll notice I also mentioned Carlos Beltran.

And I didn't say that the fans voted in John Maine, but I'm glad to see that on top of making irrelevant points, you can also put words in my mouth. My point with John Maine not being in the game was, that the All-Star game isn't really a big deal anymore as far as talent goes, and that regardless of if it's fan voting or not, apparently the game has become a fixation on making it enjoyable for the fans, as opposed to ensuring that the best team can guarantee home field advantage. Believe me, I'm all for it being devoted to the enjoyment of a fans, I mean after all, this is a business and it's all about money to them, but then you have to get rid of the illusion of the All-Star game as actually meaning something and you have to get rid of the home field advantage bit, because with fan voting, the All-Star game loses all it's merit.

If it has nothing to do with Bonds and steroids, why did you bring it up? How can you say Bonds didn't deserve to be voted into the ASG within the past 5-10 years? He's been the most dominant player in the game during that span. That's not deserving enough for you? Even if you feel he shouldn't be a starter, then he'd still be a reserve. He's still going to play either way.

You act like the starter plays the entire game. He's going to play 2 innings, Matt Holliday is going to play 2 innings. It doesn't make any difference which 2 innings each of them plays. This has no effect on the outcome. Get over it.

And yes, you did complain about the fans voting involving John Maine.I didn't put those words in your mouth. It was in your original post. Hell, half the posts after it were pointing out to you that fans don't vote for the pitchers. You should direct your anger toward the manager/players that determine the pitchers. Or at least stop trying to use the fact that your favorite pitcher didn't make the game and therefore, the fans shouldn't be voting because that doesn't make any bit of sense.

Brodeur
07-08-2007, 01:33 PM
The All-Star game is quite simply a popularity contest. I have no purpose to watch it this year.

Because the only White Sox player in there is Bobby Jenks?

The arguments for not allowing the fans to vote aren't exactly that good. It doesn't even matter because most of the players that deserve to make it do infact make it, and they play just as long as the starters. And generally, the fans do get it right.

BigDawg819
07-08-2007, 01:35 PM
Because the only White Sox player in there is Bobby Jenks?


That and Erik Bedard isn't on the team!

Boston
07-08-2007, 02:50 PM
I must say, I'm looking forward to AL pitchers going after Bonds.

BigDawg819
07-08-2007, 02:51 PM
I must say, I'm looking forward to AL pitchers going after Bonds.

I hope Bonds charges the mound and beats them with his walker.

yo123
07-08-2007, 02:56 PM
Rios and Pujols will round out the home run derby lineup. Just saw it on ESPN.com

BigDawg819
07-08-2007, 02:57 PM
Rios and Pujols will round out the home run derby lineup. Just saw it on ESPN.com

Rios???? Well can't have a Homerun Derby without someone getting shut up I guess.......

Boston
07-08-2007, 03:13 PM
I hope Bonds charges the mound and beats them with his walker.

An All-Star brawl... That'd go down in the history books.

Smooth Criminal
07-08-2007, 03:24 PM
I hate fan voting. I don't think its a coincidence that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets are usually on the board multiple times over players that are having mch better seasons.

badgerbacker
07-08-2007, 04:56 PM
not to sound like a homer, because I don't think Soriano deserved to start...but how does Bonds somehow make up hundreds of thousands of votes in the week/days leading up to the end of voting? Soriano was up by 150,000+ like 5 days before, and then all of a sudden Bonds wins?

I do not like Bonds at all, I do not think he deserves to start based on the fan voting...the only reason he is starting is because it is in SF, had it been anywhere else he would prolly be a reserve

He made up all those votes in a hurry because almost everyone in the media started talking about how he should be starting. People listened I guess...

Smokey Joe
07-08-2007, 05:15 PM
Because the only White Sox player in there is Bobby Jenks?

The arguments for not allowing the fans to vote aren't exactly that good. It doesn't even matter because most of the players that deserve to make it do infact make it, and they play just as long as the starters. And generally, the fans do get it right.
explain to me why Manny Ramirez is on the team then, and Orlando Cabrera is not.

BigDawg819
07-08-2007, 05:17 PM
explain to me why Manny Ramirez is on the team then, and Orlando Cabrera is not.

Idiot Red Sox fans?

drowe
07-09-2007, 07:47 AM
i know there is flaws in the voting...and, really, no matter what the sport is, and no matter what people are actually deciding on, people are always going to disagree on the selection.

that being said, the MLB All-Star game is the best all star game in sports. look at the pro bowl. half the players selected don't go. and when it's played it's practically touch football. basketball and hockey's all star games are all but non existent. but, in baseball, everybody really wants to be selected, and those that are selected will always show up. despite the fact that they're using the only extended break in the long 6 month season.

so, i say keep it as is. it may not be perfect, but, it never will be. and as far as all star contests, it's the best one in sports.

Jughead10
07-09-2007, 08:43 AM
I hate fan voting. I don't think its a coincidence that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets are usually on the board multiple times over players that are having mch better seasons.

Pretty much everyone except for Manny from those teams deserves to be on it. You can't gripe much with anyone from any of those teams this year being selected.

BrownsTown
07-09-2007, 10:37 AM
If it determines home field advantage, take away the fan vote. Having both, just doesn't make sense.

MaxV
07-09-2007, 10:49 AM
Pretty much everyone except for Manny from those teams deserves to be on it. You can't gripe much with anyone from any of those teams this year being selected.

Exactly. Not to mention that Manny wasn't even selected by the fans.

Giantsfan1080
07-09-2007, 11:23 AM
I think the fans did a pretty good job with the starters as they normally do. Sure usually one to three spots get messed up but those guys will make it as reserves anyway. The coaches actually do a worse job making the team compared to the fans.

Jughead10
07-09-2007, 11:31 AM
I think the fans did a pretty good job with the starters as they normally do. Sure usually one to three spots get messed up but those guys will make it as reserves anyway. The coaches actually do a worse job making the team compared to the fans.

I give the managers a break though when picking the rosters. Especially with pitchers. A lot of times they do go by reputation. I'm sure the managers aren't sitting there going over stats to pick the team. They don't have time with that. Also sometimes they haven't even seen a guy play yet this season as not every team in has played in each other in the same league.

Giantsfan1080
07-09-2007, 11:38 AM
I give the managers a break though when picking the rosters. Especially with pitchers. A lot of times they do go by reputation. I'm sure the managers aren't sitting there going over stats to pick the team. They don't have time with that. Also sometimes they haven't even seen a guy play yet this season as not every team in has played in each other in the same league.

I agree with this but then it shouldn't be left up to the managers. Maybe the commissioner's office could select the reserves. They would be the most impartial and they also have the time to go over and choose the right guys.

ironman4579
07-09-2007, 11:51 AM
The managers actually don't have a ton of say in who makes the team either. I know Leyland went straight in line with the player voting. Then they've got to make sure each team has a rep. I'm sure by the time fan voting, player voting, and each team having a rep is over, the manager probably actually picks like 2 or 3 players tops.I'm sure if he could have Leyland probably would have tried to get Granderson on the team. Hell, I would have much rather seen Granderson than Pudge if it came down to that.

iowatreat54
07-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Rios???? Well can't have a Homerun Derby without someone getting shut up I guess.......

Yea...Rios was a horrible pick...

yodabear
07-09-2007, 09:54 PM
I like the whole thing that each team must be represented. This was a rule more before the whole tie and that led to this one counts ****, which I really hate. Cuz now not every team is technically represented, cuz he doesn't play. Cuz the team that only gets one representative usually isn't a all-star. For instance Gil Meche, Dmitri Young, and Whoever is representing the D-Rays. They don't get in the game. Cuz before the tie, everyone got in, I liked that. I mean the Orioles when the all-star game was in Seattle and the only representative was Ripken and he hit a homer, that was the moment of their year, and now we prolly won't see a representative of the Nats, D-Rays, or Royals. I like the fan vote cuz it allows the fans determine who they wanna see. I like the all-star game, but I hate that it determines home field cuz, although it hasn't played a huge factor cuz the three world series since it has counted there has been two sweeps and a 4-1, but like someone said:it could determine a champion and a runner-up. And as someone else said, best regular season record cuz it used to switch off, and I didn't like that. Cuz, even though I wasn't born, in 1987 the Twins won 85 games, and they had home-field over the Cards, who had a better record.

art vandelay
07-09-2007, 10:01 PM
I think that the fact that Hanley Ramirez is not on the team is an absolute crime. J.J. Hardy over Hanley? I'm not buying it. Also, you have Michael Young as the lone representative for Texas who really doesn't deserve to be in the game. Orlando Cabrera definitely should have gotten in over him (only 4 errors, exceptional batting). Teams like Texas and KC should not have to be represented if they do not have a player who deserves to be on the team.

art vandelay
07-09-2007, 10:03 PM
Yea...Rios was a horrible pick...

LOL, he made the finals. Fielder was a huge bust.

BigDawg819
07-10-2007, 12:28 PM
Yea...Rios was a horrible pick...

Nice sarcasm......................but no one expected that out of Rios......NOBODY!

drowe
07-10-2007, 12:33 PM
I think that the fact that Hanley Ramirez is not on the team is an absolute crime. J.J. Hardy over Hanley? I'm not buying it. Also, you have Michael Young as the lone representative for Texas who really doesn't deserve to be in the game. Orlando Cabrera definitely should have gotten in over him (only 4 errors, exceptional batting). Teams like Texas and KC should not have to be represented if they do not have a player who deserves to be on the team.


i agree that Hanley shoulda made it..but if Hardy missed out it woulda been an equally big snub. they shoulda had 3 shortstops and one less second baseman.

Sniper
07-10-2007, 12:34 PM
I know that there's already an MLB Discussion thread, but I kinda wanted to have an isolated thread to focus on this specific topic. That being said, do you think the MLB All-Star game really means anything anymore? I mean with the fan voting, it's pretty ridiculous. This is stemming off from my disgust that guys like Roy Oswalt, Carlos Zambrano, Brian Fuentes, Ben Sheets, and Cole Hamels made it over John Maine, but in general, from an unbiased standpoint, I think the fan voting must stop.

This is not done in any other sport, and in all those other sports, you see the very best players for that specific year, battle it out in a match to determine who really is the best, but with the MLB All-Star game, all you are really seeing, is the most popular players duking it out, I mean lets get serious, I'm a huge Mets fan, but Carlos Beltran in the All-Star game...starting, along side Barry Bonds no less? I think not. It's not even just that, but if someone is injured, and can't play in the game, the replacement is chosen by who has the next most votes at that position. I mean, do the managers actually have ANY say at all on who will be their to represent their league?

I just find it ridiculous that guys having MVP/Cy Young caliber years are year in and year out getting snubbed, while washed up stars having career worst years are winning the popularity contests.

Which leaves me to my question, should Bud Selig end the fans voting for the All-Star game starters or no?


Cole Hamels wins games of Connect 4 in 3 moves. He's an All-Star. But to the main issue, fan voting has got to go. It's stupid. Like you said, it's a popularity contest. For example, I'm a Red Sox fan and love David Ortiz, but they got the wrong first baseman from the Sox at the game. Why? Because Ortiz is a bigger name and more popular. Cut the popularity **** and make it a real all-star game.

princefielder28
07-10-2007, 12:35 PM
I think that the fact that Hanley Ramirez is not on the team is an absolute crime. J.J. Hardy over Hanley? I'm not buying it. Also, you have Michael Young as the lone representative for Texas who really doesn't deserve to be in the game. Orlando Cabrera definitely should have gotten in over him (only 4 errors, exceptional batting). Teams like Texas and KC should not have to be represented if they do not have a player who deserves to be on the team.

JJ is top 10 in the league in homers, plays exceptional at shortstop, and the Brewers are in 1st place in the Central. He certainly deserved the nod and the players voted him in.

BigDawg819
07-10-2007, 12:38 PM
I still protest this game due to the exclusion of Erik Bedard.

RockJock07
07-10-2007, 03:11 PM
I think Hanley should be on the NL squad but so does Hardy. Bedard also needs to be on the team over Bobby Jenks, and I'm a white Sox fan.

Secondly, Don't make this game home-field advantage because it really does matter. If a team is good enough, home-field really doesn't matter. As a White Sox fan, they would have probably won the 05 world series if they had to play in Houston first. Some teams are destined to win it all. I think football is the most important sport to have HFA in.

ironman4579
07-10-2007, 03:46 PM
There's always going to be guys that should have been on that don't make it. Personally, I would have loved to see Curtis Granderson on the team. He certainly should have been on over Ramirez, and I think you could make a case for either Sizemore or Granderson, with Granderson being on top in doubles, triples, BA, SLG, OPS, and XBH, as well as being the superior fielder, and Sizemore leading in runs, HR, RBI, OBP, SB, and VORP. But it doesn't matter because there are always going to be deserving players who don't get on the team.

If the commish thinks that some players should be on and sone shouldn't, he can always change the rosters. It's been done before, so there is a precedent for it. In 1957, Reds fans stuffed the ballot box and voted 7 of their 8 starters onto the team, despite maybe 2 deserving it. The only non Reds starter was Stan Musial at first base. Commisioner Ford Frick took 2 of the 7 reds off the team, replaced them, and took away the fans voting rights for the all star game until they were finally allowed to vote for the starters again some years later.

Stash
07-10-2007, 04:51 PM
There will always be snubs every year because there are always more all-star caliber players than there are roster spots. You also have to take into account that every team needs a representative which usually means that spot could have gone to someone more deserving.

As for Hanley Ramirez, he's not the only NL SS that deserved to be there and isn't. Don't forget about Rollins and Renteria who are both having all-star type years but didn't get in. The spot that one of those guys should have taken went to the infielder for the Pirates because Pittsburgh needed a representative. That's just the way it works.

Boston
07-10-2007, 06:16 PM
How/why isn't Fielder batting cleanup over Griffey. Makes 0 sense.

art vandelay
07-10-2007, 08:56 PM
JJ is top 10 in the league in homers, plays exceptional at shortstop, and the Brewers are in 1st place in the Central. He certainly deserved the nod and the players voted him in.

First off, it really doesn't matter that the Brewers are in 1st place. Anyway...

AVG:
Ramirez - .331
Hardy - .280

OBP:
Ramirez - .388
Hardy - .338

SLUG:
Ramirez - .538
Hardy - .495

SB
Ramirez - 27
Hardy - 0

Runs
Ramirez - 70
Hardy - 48

Runs Created
Ramirez - 76.3
Hardy - 54.2

Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)
Ramirez - 45.1 (leads all shortstops)
Hardy - 19.8


Hardy leads Hanley in HR's by 4 (18 to 14) and in RBI (54 to 35), but with the RBI's you have to consider that Ramirez leads off while Hardy hits second. Hardy's HR's all came very early in the season and he has been pretty quiet since. If you asked me to choose between the two I would take Ramirez every single time.

Boston
07-10-2007, 09:12 PM
First off, it really doesn't matter that the Brewers are in 1st place. Anyway...

AVG:
Ramirez - .331
Hardy - .280

OBP:
Ramirez - .388
Hardy - .338

SLUG:
Ramirez - .538
Hardy - .495

SB
Ramirez - 27
Hardy - 0

Runs
Ramirez - 70
Hardy - 48

Runs Created
Ramirez - 76.3
Hardy - 54.2

Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)
Ramirez - 45.1 (leads all shortstops)
Hardy - 19.8


Hardy leads Hanley in HR's by 4 (18 to 14) and in RBI (54 to 35), but with the RBI's you have to consider that Ramirez leads off while Hardy hits second. Hardy's HR's all came very early in the season and he has been pretty quiet since. If you asked me to choose between the two I would take Ramirez every single time.

Too say Hardy was on fire through the first two months of the season would be an understatement. He's cooled off considerably since than.

art vandelay
07-10-2007, 09:14 PM
Too say Hardy was on fire through the first two months of the season would be an understatement. He's cooled off considerably since than.

Exactly my point...Hanley has been more consistent.