Baseball's All-Star Game Sucks. Part 1: The Fans Select The Starters

In case you didn't read the title of this post, I absolutely hate the baseball all-star game, and I wish it would get syphilis and die. They say that the game gets better ratings than all the other major sports, that it's for the fans, and that it's good for the game and such, but that's just a lie. The All Star Game is an excuse for the supposed best in baseball to be very lazy, get wined and dined, and for the host owner and city to cash in on the local idiots and the media fanfare. Let us deconstruct this issue rationally. The MLB All Star game does enjoy a sizeable television audience, but that's because the baseball enjoys several major advantages. The"mid-summer classic" happens in July, when there's no good television on, and at a time when there's no other sports competition. The NBA All-Star game falls just after the NFL season ends (super bowl hangover), and right in the midst of television "sweeps". It also has to compete (although it doesn't have to try hard) with the NHL. The Pro Bowl is watered-down football with little hitting and less effort and doesn't mean anything, so no one watches. The NHL is the NHL, so no more discussion is needed there. With no competition, Major League Baseball can feel free to put a shoddy product on the field and get away with it because there's nothing else better on! The All Star Game is just a stupid idea in general. I would much rather see the World Baseball Classic than the all-star game because there's more at stake and people will try.

My first pet peeve is the idiotic voting to determine its rosters and put together a game that no one really cares about under the guise of "giving the fans what they want". Trust me, NO ONE is getting what they want (except maybe the owner of the host team, who gets a ton of revenue with no risk because he can get the host city to cover his costs).

Part I: The Selection Process

The All-Star selection process is crap, and it always pisses me off. The wealthy teams in the big cities dominate the voting and get the most starters in. Either that, or the sentimental favorites will be voted in with no merit, and that robs more worthy players of being invited. This year was a huge abberation, I only noted 2 borderline selections (Paul LoDuca as the starting NL catcher over Brian McCann and Vlad Guerrero over Vernon Wells or Grady Sizemore in the AL outfield). And really, does David Ortiz really deserve to be on the ballot as a first baseman? The guy is a terrible fielder, and he's a DH. He played 5 games at 1B during the season, and he's on the ballot, while Jim Thome, who is in a similar situation but is a competent 1B is not on the ballot? Let's face it, in an NL home year, anyone who is a full time DH should not be on the ballot. That means Ortiz should be a write-in candidate AT BEST. Moreover, most years you see crap like Barry Bonds elected as a starter the 2005 All Star Game when he hadn't taken an at-bat all year, or the last 7 years of Cal Ripkin's career, where he was voted in to start at 3B, when he wasn't even the 5th best player at his position in the AL. You could make the argument that this is what the fans want. I make the argument that fans are complete idiots, and they stuff the ballot boxes for their hometown stars without giving a thought to the most deserving candidates. Generally, the fans do right on about 60% of the selections. That's not a percentage or a track record that I would trust. I mean really, if you got to have sex once a year, and only 60% of the time, your partner was able to please you, would you let them try again after 25+ years of that BS? HELLLLL NO! Seriously, this is the All-Star Game, not the All-Popular Game. The best players from THAT YEAR should go, not the guy who clinched the Hall of Fame 5 years ago and is sticking around for the paycheck.

Up Next: The Player/Manager Reserve Selections.