Let's Complain About the All-Star Game Selections

The BBQ Pit
21

  1. When I filled out my ballot, I was at work. It’s a mind numbing job and I need to fill the day with something, why the fuck not an all star ballot seeing as I love baseball? At the time didn’t seem like a big waste of time. (and in a way it still wasn’t seeing as it killed some of my day)

  2. As I stated before, I am a perfectionist. If I’m gonna do something, i’m going to do it right. So sue me if I feel that in order to vote for the all star game you should know at least a little something about it. Maybe be a FAN perhaps??? rather than some bandwagon jumper. . .

Fuck, I’d even relinquish my right to vote if it meant only knowlegable people would be able to vote, such as players, coaches, and members of the press.

22

What??? Recently? I remember stuffing the boxes back in the early 80s, when I still cared about baseball (before the last strike, and pre-Angelos–bastards all). I’m pretty sure it was before the late 80s, when I stopped going to games, because I have vivid memories of grabbing all the ballots I could find with a Little League teammate…Don’t know that it helped much. Did Lowenstein-Renockie (sp) ever play in an All-Star game?

23

Hrm. I guess that was pretty incoherent. That’s what I get for sarcasm… I’ve never been good at it. No, Impunha, determining all star status shouldn’t boil down to a player’s batting average. As an example, while Bob Gibson managed a mere .184 at bat in 1968, he did pitch a 1.12 ERA that season. Even with his < .25 BA, I would still gladly pay to see such a pithcing master in an all-star game.
I used to be a big fan of baseball. But in recent years, I’ve noticed that the scores have become higher and higher in games. Lots of runs and homers was never why I loved the game. It seems that so much more stress is placed on hitting in recent years, and it chafes my shorts.
Hope this makes more sense!

24

A bandwagon jumper . . . score one for having no clue about my baseball interests. I was born in 1981. I’ve been rooting for the Braves since I can remember. And that includes their 65-95 season.

I know plenty about baseball. I also know enough not to have to spend hours on an all-star ballot. I participate in two fantasy leagues and actively follow a few teams. And I am also part perfectionist, albeit not as much as you.

Um, mbd, no need to get that worked up:-) It’s one day out of the year.

Philo, I submit to you that a pitcher’s batting average is about as important to a coach as a batter’s ERA:)

25

You would deny fans(without whom there, is no game) the opportunity to see their favorite players in what amounts to a meaningless pick-up game???

Commie bastard!

26

A misplaced and possibly useless comma is a terrible thing.

27

And a comma is a terribly thing to waste:D

[sub]I dunno if you needed that comma, I just saw the perfect opportunity (I think) to say that.[/sub]

28

In case you missed it, here are your All Stars.

29

When teams from around the world are part of Major League Baseball, then fans from outside the U.S. and Canada should get to vote on the All-Star lineup.

But since most of the juice has been sucked out of the All-Star game by interleague play, it’s hard to care about it much.

30

Damn straight I’d remove the fans right to vote. They prove time and time again, they don’t deserve that right. Look what happens when you give regular citizens the right to vote on anything…you get George W - the W stands for White Trash by the way - Bush as your president(but that’s another thread).

When the fans earn the right to vote for the all star game by proving they are ruled by their mind, then MAYBE they can have their right to vote back.
And about me being a commie, so what if I am?

31

I’d just like to jump in regarding the omission of Albert Pujols - he’s been named by Bobby Valentine as a reserve. He received over 100,000 write-in votes, more than any other player, most of them at 3rd base.

Cardinal pitcher Matt Morris has also been named as a reserve player.

And Snooooopy, I’m going to have to agree that the Jethro Tull vs Metallica thing isn’t the same situation. That’s the Grammy Awards, voted on by people in the music business, not fans. Imagine if the Oscars were handed out by fan votes. Adam Sandler would have a freaking Acadamy Award by now as opposed to people who deserved it, like say, Russell Crowe in Gladiator… oh sheesh, that is a bad example there, isn’t it?

The All-Star game is a popularity contest. Should it be? Not in my opinion - I bitched last year when I couldn’t believe Jim Edmonds wasn’t a starter. But until the requirements for getting elected is more than who the fan favorites are, that’s what it will be and the stats don’t matter.

It’s the All-Star game, not the All-Talent game. I have learned there’s a difference between being a star and being the best. The only criteria needed to be a star is to be popular. I direct your attention once again to Adam Sandler as an example, who despite his incredible gift of suckiness has become a star.

32

Whether the voters are fans or music industry insiders was not really relevant to the point I wished to make. I was objecting to spooje’s apparent assertion that the All-Star voting is such an inviolable process that we shouldn’t complain when obviously unworthy choices are made. Some people deserve to be elected, some don’t, and we can only hope the fans don’t screw it up. I chose the Grammy analogy because, like the All-Stars, there’s no one right answer for who should get the award – there are a few albums that would be defensible choices, while the new album from, say, Anal Cunt would obviously not. Plus, I figured there’d be precious few people in the world who would think Jethro Tull was a GOOD choice. Grammy voters are (hopefully) a little more refined, true, but they’re voters all the same.

33

Ah, I see now. I thought you were comparing the voting masses as opposed to comparing the process invloved.

34

For clarification.

My position is that it is an exercise in futility to complain and that I am tired of hearing it. It is a popularity contest, that is why it is up to the fans to vote on it. Somebody wants to change that? Hey, fine by me. You got a petition? I’ll sign it.

What I won’t do is bag on other fans for voting for who they want to see in the game.

And I wasn’t really calling mayberrydan a commie. It’s my little joke. I call everyone who doesn’t like baseball, or in some small way maligns baseball, a commie bastard. Guess I should have included a smiley.

35

You probably shouldn’t seek out threads like this so you can be even MORE tired of it.

And tell me you don’t gripe about things you really can’t do anything about.

**

I guess we’ll just have to disagree there. I have no problem identifying a dumb vote as a dumb vote.

36

I am tired of people whining about poor all-star selections.

I am not tired of whining about people who whine about poor all-star selections. Truth be told, I rather enjoy it.:smiley:

37

I’m sorry, but I have to take issue with this claim. Cal Ripken was an average shortstop. I can think of at least 5 shortstops who played in the 90s that were superior to him, and debatably 6 or 7. He only hit over .280 a few times in his carreer, won just 2 gold gloves, and for the past 5 years has been nothing but a liability for his team. Were it not for his selfish pursuit of “The Streak,” he would have been benched MUCH earlier.

If Cal Ripken makes it to the HOF, he has Lou Gehrig’s Disease to thank. Were it not for that horrible tragedy, Gehrig would still hold the record for the streak and Cal would have never tried it. He would have retired as just another pretty good SS.

38

OK folks. I have started this poll over in IMHO. Please drop by and cast a vote.

The question is: Is the All-Star game a popularity contest or merit award? And is that what was intended?

And no ballot stuffing! One vote per person please!

39

Flymaster, you’d be wrong. lets see…

Why only the 90’s??? Are you purposely eliminating the 80’s because it doesn’t fit with your conclusion (Ripken is average). He last played shortstop regularly in 1996.

.280 is a strange cut-off. Picking your thresholds arbitrarily. FYI he hit over .280 7 times and over .300 5 times. He also won 2 MVP’s. While Ripken has been awful lately, he revolutionized the idea that a big power hitter can play shortstop. Ripken’s career is odd in that he doesn’t climb to a peak then decline gradually. But if you look at his career achievements (400 HRs, 3000 hits), he was an obvious all-star.

Oh, please. The streak is just an oddity record. By any objective measure Ripken is a HOF player, with or without the streak.

40

He hit over .280 7 times in a 21 year career. However, he only hit over .283 5 times, 4, if you don’t count his 86 game season in 99, in which he only got 332 ABs. Even in his “prime” in the late 80s, he put together a run of 4 sub-.270 seasons.

Defensively, he is a good, but not spectacular .977 fielder, averaging about 17 or 18 errors per season.

Compare this to a true HOF shortstop, Honus Wagner. A career .327 hitter, he had a sub .283 season exactly 3 times in a similar 21 seasons, including a final season in which he played only 74 games, and still managed to hit .265. He was in the top 10 in HRs in 11 of 21 seasons, so don’t discount his power because of the slim numbers he put up. Remember, this was the dead ball era. Ripken, your “power hitter,” was in the top 10 TWICE.

Wagner was, defensively, much less capable on the surface, averaging 29 or 30 errors per season, but remember that this was an era with poorer gloves, equipment, and infields, where bad bounces could be expected.

Ripken’s numbers, much like Pudge Fisk’s, simply do not measure up. He will, like Fisk for his HR in 75, always be remembered for ONE less than noteworth accomplishment, and will make it to the HOF based on that, and that alone.