All-Star Game or No All-Star Game?

If the All-Star Game isn't for the fans to see the players they want to see, then who is it for?

I just believe it should be for the best players, not the most popular.

How do you determine that?

Everyone has an opinion to who the best players are. However, we all know that there is some bias in the voting. Seriously, how could anyone vote for Manny Ramirez this season (except before he was caught) and say that he is well deserving.

And why is it that people can vote up to 25 times each season with "one email account"? And I emphasize on one email because I know that several people have other accounts or could easily make more accounts and vote endlessly. That just isn't fair, even though anyone can do this.

This is about the most popular players, not the "best". How is this determined, Rawb? Well, why doesn't Selig ask the exact same people who vote for the Rookies of the Year, MVPs, and Cy Youngs? They all have "educated opinions", and they all vote once.

...Seems fair to me.

That's what we need. An All-Star Game with rosters set by sportswriters.

I don't want Manny in the ASG as much as you guys. Maybe Selig shouldv'e made a rule banning PED suspended players from ASG appearances or postseason awards.

But if people want to see Manny, why not let them? Why is it a big deal?

I see your point, Rawb.

Maybe a better idea would be to have Selig have a certain amount of games played (the amount of games before the break and minus 50, the amount of games PED users are suspended for). That way, that'll eliminate all the PED users from the voting.

That's the thing though: if people want to see Manny. I kinda think that's generalizing. If all of these people are complaining about Manny Ramirez being 5th in the voting for NL outfielders (yes, he dropped down one since last week, as Carlos Beltran passed him), and two article are published about this topic (Kenrick's and the Beast's) then there have got to be some complaints about it, especially if people post comments on the articles saying that they agree with them.

And you could also make a case that it's a big deal because players "deserve it more than Manny". First off, Manny gets suspended for using PEDs. Then he comes up with this great apology and excuse on how his test came back negative. Then... he gets votes. Then... people complain about him getting votes. Why? Because there are guys like Shane Victorino, Corey Hart, and Ryan Ludwick, guys who worked their butts off throughout almost, if not every game.

Well I think in the NFL, there's a rule that forbids people suspended for PEDs (maybe even all substances) from post-season honors, such as a Pro Bowl selection. It wouldn't be too difficult to employ a similar rule in baseball.

That's a new rule based on the Merriman incident from a couple years ago. I would rely on managers and players to make the selections. There may be a little collusion, but it is better (I hope) than ballot box stuffing by people on the internet.

I just don't see what the problem is with fans seeing who they want to see in the All-Star Game. We all seem disagree with it, but if the people want Manny, what's the travesty in letting him play? The ASG is already a joke.

I don't like to see cheaters rewarded. No matter what the fans want.

I don't watch the game anyway so it really doesn't matter.

Actually the fans know exactly what they are doing. They are voting for the stars they want to see in the ALL STAR game. It's not called the All-MVP Game. It is not an award, it is an exhibition game for 'the fans'. It is supposed to be fun, not serious. Drop the home field advantage in the WS thing and give it back to the fans whether you guys think they are informed enough or not.

This keeps happening, that was me.

I like your comment, Steel Town. It makes sense. The fans do know exactly what they're doing. However, why do we complain if "this is what the fans want"? That's my point.

But you do make a good point about the MLB All-Star game. Why do you think not many people complain about the NBA All Star game or the NHL All Star game? It's all about the fun, and the fans... at least that's what we think, right?

But then there's also the approach of the "Best of the Best" and who deserves to really be in the game. I'd definitely drop the home field advantage as well.

THIS ONE COUNTS!!!

I think people would care more about the pro-bowl if

A) The players cared/tried

B) It was before the Super Bowl. That would certainly cure the craving by a few fans, present company included

If the All-Star game voting was for the fans, how come all the great all-star games came before fan voting existing? Before 2002 (you know, that All-Star game where it was considered a friggin' tie), most people didn't complain about this game being about the fans and saying that the fans should vote and not the manager.

I would say give the fans the opportunity to select the number one player from each position (including a starting pitcher); the #1 outfielder will play, the second and third don't matter and it's up to the manager to put them in.

This is all about the fans, but the majority of baseball fans in the world are fans of teams with large fanbases (duh!), which means that there's more than a 50% chance that their outfielder will get selected over a player who's on a team with a small fanbase. This happened in 1957, when fans voted in every, single position except first base. Johnny Temple, Roy McMillan, Don Hoak, Ed Bailey, Frank Robinson, Gus Bell, and Wally Post all got selected to be the starting position players. Players, coaches, and managers were then given the authority to vote in the starting lineup for the next 12 years. However, the lack of fan input caused the All-Star game to "lose its value", and people stopped watching it.

No matter what the president of baseball does, it makes someone mad. I like the idea of the two managers of the previous World Series going head to head again, and I like the idea of having one player from each team play in the all star game, as it would make every fan of a baseball team at least somewhat happy. However, this is a game of fun, not competition (at least that's what I think). So I would rid of the "home field advantage" crap, and I would give the fans the opportunity to vote for the top player from each position (outfield being one position, not three). Then, the players from the MLB, or managers (whatever), pick the rest of the team...

I was never all that upset by the tie. To me, that more or less underscored the folly that is the All-Star game.

I like the idea of the fans voting for the starters. The rest of the roster should be left to players and coaches. They should also allow player re-entry or something like that in the AS game. Why not? It's an exhibition game anyway, so you shouldn't really have to stick to the estabished rules.

It doesn't really matter to me. There is a slim chance that I will be tuning in at 9 PM EST (!) to watch. How is this start time for the fans? Many kids will not be able to watch the game. You'd think that if you are trying to cultivate the next generation of fans that the game would be on when they can watch.

What am I saying? This is MLB I'm talking about. Having the game on at a time when kids could watch would not suit the advertising schedule. Silly me.

Many kids will not be able to watch the game.

Yeah but it's in July so unless you're targeting kids going to 12 month schools they'll be able to watch it since it's not a school night. ;)

When i was under 12, my parents made me go to bed before 11:30 on a Tuesday... even in the summer!

Good parents. Children always have a bed time.

I can only speak for me. I have two kids, 7 and 9, who go to bed by 9 (even in the summer). They are supposed to go to bed by 8, but I am somewhat lax on enforcing this....so they are not able to stay up to watch All-Star games and World Series games.

Except for last year, when they were allowed to stay up to watch the Phillies! But since a Phillies WS is like Halley's Comet, we had to let them stay up, right? ;-) And I'd do it again this year, should lightning strike twice.

I'd also argue that MLB should REALLY be courting kids that are young - like 5-9 years old if they want lifelong baseball fans. I was pretty fanatical at these ages, so I don't think this assumption is unrealistic. I'm thinking that if you don't have a kid as a fan by 12, then you may have missed the chance to convert that kid. Just one guy's opinion...

An All-Star Game during the day would be sick.

That's exactly it SJ. Tee ball/Minors is when the kids are most enthusiastic about learning the game. Targeting that age bracket would seem like a good idea.

Why not just have an "all-pro" (like) team for each league?

So get rid of the one that makes absolutely no sense. Why make an exhibition game decide who gets HFA? Besides, the AL wins it every year. ;-)