KC is making MLB all star a bigger joke

[packs]

Yeah but what is your point exactly? Should fan popularity factor into all star game voting? If yes, then there's nothing to complain about. If no, then you can't argue that a HOFer in their final twilight years who is having a terrible season (see Willie Mays 1972 & 1973) belongs on the team.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

Yeah but what is your point exactly? Should fan popularity factor into all star game voting? If yes, then there's nothing to complain about. If no, then you can't argue that a HOFer in their final twilight years who is having a terrible season (see Willie Mays 1972 & 1973) belongs on the team.

I know everyone wanted Mickey to be there in '68! The great ones deserve a final bow!

[packs]

I agree. That's why I think fan voting is best. Give us something that's just for us.

[nolemmings]

I know everyone wanted Mickey to be there in '68! The great ones deserve a final bow!

The problem with that statement is that a) the fans did not vote for the 1968 All-Stars; and b) Mantle did not retire until the Spring of 1969, with no "farewell tour" the year prior, so it wasn't certain that the '68 AS game would be his final bow in any event. Just sayin.

[nolemmings]

You do know that this same thing happened in 1957 with Reds fans stuffing the ballot box, right? That led to fans losing the privilege to vote for a dozen or so years. So various approaches have been tried. I'm with those who believe one should rally the vote if it's that important to him/her.

[digdugdig]

Originally Posted by packs

I agree. That's why I think fan voting is best. Give us something that's just for us.

Home field advantage in the W.S. goes to the winning league of the all-star game, does it not??

[clydepepper]

I just voted several times: The first ballots I voted a straight Oakland vs. Milwaukee (except Jason Rogers* taking cheater Braun's slot), then I voted for Twins vs. the home team Reds who actually have some legit candidates.

Now if the Reds had eight voted in, that would be cool for the home team.

*- played at the same college I did

I'm just being creative and the fact that I DID actually vote, allows me to have a legit voice in the argument.

[frankbmd]

Controversy surrounded the 1957 outing as the fanatical Cincinnati voters stuffed the ballot boxes and elected nearly their entire team (minus first baseman George Crowe & the batboy) onto the National League's starting roster. This upset Commissioner Ford Frick greatly and he responded by removing Gus Bell and Wally Post from the starting nine. He also transferred the responsibility for All-Star voting to the players, managers and coaches the next year.

The fans did not select the All-Stars in 1958.

History does indeed repeat itself.

[FenwayFaithful]

You can't have fans voting for starters AND make the game mean something (home field advantage in the World Series).

It's an awful, awful, AWFUL system.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by packs

Yeah but what is your point exactly? Should fan popularity factor into all star game voting? If yes, then there's nothing to complain about. If no, then you can't argue that a HOFer in their final twilight years who is having a terrible season (see Willie Mays 1972 & 1973) belongs on the team.

That was sort of my point. I had expected that more of the really great players would have done well despite being past their prime, some well past. So I figured I'd try to look it up quickly. And what I found was--------

that with few exceptions a great player towards the end of their career wasn't used the way a younger player would be - Most were used as pinch hitters if they even got into the game. Making the roster spot sort of ceremonial rather than competitive.

That even very established players who'd been all-stars regularly didn't do all that well.

That there's a pretty solid indicator of how the game has become more of a marketing exercise that an actual competition. Can you imagine having a guy with an ERA under 3 who is headed for 23 wins and yet he doesn't even play? That was Spahn in 63. Today not only does every team get someone on the roster, there's a serious attempt at playing everyone.


And since it's a marketing exercise - and at least in part has been since the 70's and probably before (Who didn't grab a fistful of those computer card ballots and spend part of the game punching out all the home team players?)
I'm not sure if the selection of those towards their career end was done by the fans or by the manager picking them as reserves. Probably the manager for most of them.

It's all about the money, sure having the best at each position for that year would be more correct, but with the people who may only watch the AS game on TV and that's their one game for the year it's more about marketability.
For myself, I'd rather see Reggie strike out one more time or see Ozzie Smith make a few more plays than see some guy I've never heard of get a hit when he's only there because while mediocre he's the best player on a very average team.

Now if they backed the roster down to the same as a normal team has during the season so the spots were actually the best players I might think differently. (To say nothing of not using a player because he might have to pitch within the next week or two)

Steve B