Everything Is Wrong with Professional All-Star Games
July 8th 2009 07:25
There are many problems with the MLB All-Star Game that subtract from the Midsummer Classic's credibility, but the one that takes the cake for me (and almost everyone else) is the fan vote.
Why? In short, fans are stupid. They are biased, emotional, and agenda-driven; instead of seeing the best player at every position, they continue to vote for popular players who don't deserve to start, much less be on the team, like Derek Jeter. Ichiro is a heck of an outfielder, but there are a handful of AL reserves who are much more deserving of the starting spot he was voted into. This is because Ichiro is simply more popular than the likes of Carl Crawford, Torii Hunter, or Adam Jones.
Feel good stories create sentimental favorites for All-Star voting. Exhibit A: Josh Hamilton. Hamilton is a great outfielder and superb hitter, but there is absolutely no reason he should be on the AL All-Star team. Hamilton's numbers are nothing special on a per game basis, and he missed about a month of action with an injury. Does Hamilton, or teammate Michael Young, REALLY deserve to be an All-Star over mashers like Miguel Cabrera or Ian Kinsler? This is not subject to opinion. The answer, based on facts and figures, is no, not a chance.
I propose an overhaul of the All-Star selection system. I think the manager of each league should be presented with a list of all the top producers at each position over the first half of games. The top 2 from every position (or 4 for the outfield and 3 starting pitchers) get an invite. Its that simple. This method eliminates the ridiculous popularity contest that goes on, which is incredibly influenced by biased and agenda-driven media outlets. It also eliminates former superstars who are still popular but are no longer productive (Jeter, Miguel Tejada), and ensures that injured/suspended players don't win votes they shouldn't get (Hamilton, Manny Ramirez).
Most importantly, it keeps players like Tim Wakefield from EVER getting chosen as an All-Star. Oh wait, he got his first bid this year based on lies, perception, and being on a good team? Sounds like a little ESPN has been successful with its East Coast propaganda. There is a reason players like Wakefield don't make the All-Star team: because they're not good players. But with the fan vote, literally ANY player in the majors has a chance to start for its league's All-Star team.
Every year, the talking heads always go over the rosters and say who got snubbed and who doesn't belong. With my system, there wouldn't BE any snubs because the most deserving players would be selected. My system also returns the significance to being an All-Star. Current All-Star rosters carry 34 players from each league. My system would streamline teams, cutting down rosters to 21-25 players. Simply stated, it would be harder to be an All-Star. Also, I would eliminate the requirement that every team be represented on the All-Stars. This way, managers wouldn't have to waste a spot on Justin Duchscherer (2008), Freddy Sanchez (2006 and 07), Mark Redman, David Eckstein, and Jose Lopez (all in 2006).
The current system allows mediocre players to put "All-Star" on their resumes, many for having one exceptional half season. It diminishes the meaning of being an All-Star caliber player. My system restores the accolade of being an All-Star, making it an accomplishment to truly be proud of. No more are the days of "Player X: 1 career All-Star appearance."
All of this we owe to the fan vote. But baseball's All-Star festivities are not the only ones tainted by the fan vote. The same applies to the NBA, although with less egregious mistakes made by fans. I think the fans shouldn't be allowed to vote for ANY All-Stars.
Finally, the MLB All-Star game is a walking, talking, money-making spectacle of a contradiction. Since 2003, the game has "mattered" instead of simply be an exhibition. The winner of the game would be awarded home field advantage in the World Series, which is a very real incentive to play for. The players play to win, the managers manage to win...but the fans still get to put sub-par players on the field in a very crucial, meaningful, and intense situation. Before 2003, it didn't matter. Now it does. The game should either return to being an exhibition, or the fan vote should be abolished. The contradiction cannot continue.
What is MLB afraid of? Does it fear that keeping the fans from voting will reduce the compelling nature or fan-friendliness of the event? If anything, having the best players in each league go head-to-head makes the game MORE compelling and MORE fan-friendly. Sometimes (ok, most of the time) I fail to understand Commissioner Bud Selig's logic.
So next Tuesday when you tune into the game, think about who got snubbed this year and who doesn't belong on that field in St. Louis. Think about how much the level of the game is brought down by players who are in over their heads. Consider all this and think about a perfect system without flaws.
All you have to do for 2010 is not vote.
Why? In short, fans are stupid. They are biased, emotional, and agenda-driven; instead of seeing the best player at every position, they continue to vote for popular players who don't deserve to start, much less be on the team, like Derek Jeter. Ichiro is a heck of an outfielder, but there are a handful of AL reserves who are much more deserving of the starting spot he was voted into. This is because Ichiro is simply more popular than the likes of Carl Crawford, Torii Hunter, or Adam Jones.
Feel good stories create sentimental favorites for All-Star voting. Exhibit A: Josh Hamilton. Hamilton is a great outfielder and superb hitter, but there is absolutely no reason he should be on the AL All-Star team. Hamilton's numbers are nothing special on a per game basis, and he missed about a month of action with an injury. Does Hamilton, or teammate Michael Young, REALLY deserve to be an All-Star over mashers like Miguel Cabrera or Ian Kinsler? This is not subject to opinion. The answer, based on facts and figures, is no, not a chance.
I propose an overhaul of the All-Star selection system. I think the manager of each league should be presented with a list of all the top producers at each position over the first half of games. The top 2 from every position (or 4 for the outfield and 3 starting pitchers) get an invite. Its that simple. This method eliminates the ridiculous popularity contest that goes on, which is incredibly influenced by biased and agenda-driven media outlets. It also eliminates former superstars who are still popular but are no longer productive (Jeter, Miguel Tejada), and ensures that injured/suspended players don't win votes they shouldn't get (Hamilton, Manny Ramirez).
Most importantly, it keeps players like Tim Wakefield from EVER getting chosen as an All-Star. Oh wait, he got his first bid this year based on lies, perception, and being on a good team? Sounds like a little ESPN has been successful with its East Coast propaganda. There is a reason players like Wakefield don't make the All-Star team: because they're not good players. But with the fan vote, literally ANY player in the majors has a chance to start for its league's All-Star team.
Every year, the talking heads always go over the rosters and say who got snubbed and who doesn't belong. With my system, there wouldn't BE any snubs because the most deserving players would be selected. My system also returns the significance to being an All-Star. Current All-Star rosters carry 34 players from each league. My system would streamline teams, cutting down rosters to 21-25 players. Simply stated, it would be harder to be an All-Star. Also, I would eliminate the requirement that every team be represented on the All-Stars. This way, managers wouldn't have to waste a spot on Justin Duchscherer (2008), Freddy Sanchez (2006 and 07), Mark Redman, David Eckstein, and Jose Lopez (all in 2006).
The current system allows mediocre players to put "All-Star" on their resumes, many for having one exceptional half season. It diminishes the meaning of being an All-Star caliber player. My system restores the accolade of being an All-Star, making it an accomplishment to truly be proud of. No more are the days of "Player X: 1 career All-Star appearance."
All of this we owe to the fan vote. But baseball's All-Star festivities are not the only ones tainted by the fan vote. The same applies to the NBA, although with less egregious mistakes made by fans. I think the fans shouldn't be allowed to vote for ANY All-Stars.
Finally, the MLB All-Star game is a walking, talking, money-making spectacle of a contradiction. Since 2003, the game has "mattered" instead of simply be an exhibition. The winner of the game would be awarded home field advantage in the World Series, which is a very real incentive to play for. The players play to win, the managers manage to win...but the fans still get to put sub-par players on the field in a very crucial, meaningful, and intense situation. Before 2003, it didn't matter. Now it does. The game should either return to being an exhibition, or the fan vote should be abolished. The contradiction cannot continue.
What is MLB afraid of? Does it fear that keeping the fans from voting will reduce the compelling nature or fan-friendliness of the event? If anything, having the best players in each league go head-to-head makes the game MORE compelling and MORE fan-friendly. Sometimes (ok, most of the time) I fail to understand Commissioner Bud Selig's logic.
So next Tuesday when you tune into the game, think about who got snubbed this year and who doesn't belong on that field in St. Louis. Think about how much the level of the game is brought down by players who are in over their heads. Consider all this and think about a perfect system without flaws.
All you have to do for 2010 is not vote.
| 22 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
