It's time to remove all star voting from the fans

Axtell · July 2, 2006 11:35AM

I read an article today that states the obvious - all star voting should not be left up to the fans...not with the importance of the world series home field weighing on the game's outcome.

If they want to keep fans voting, then they need to revoke the notion that the winning team should dictate which league gets homefield. To say how important that advantage is, 20 of the last 25 world series winners have had home field. That's HUGE.

David Ortiz as starting first baseman? What? How many games, exactly, did he start at first base? An all yankee/red sox infield? Loretta's having a better year than either Lopez or Cano? Vlad in the outfield? What?!?

And the idea that every team should have a representative on it is stupid. Deserving players get left off every year because of this ridiculous rule. Do away with it, now.

Fans aren't voting for the most deserving players, they are voting for the home town players at every position, this much is obvious. It's time to remove that power from them if this 'exhibition' is going to be as important as it is.

goose3 · July 2, 2006 11:43AM

I heard a commercial the other day for the Indians (I think it was) in reference to all star voting.

Announcer stated "Vote early and Vote often".

I wouldn't be surprised if the DNC got upset over the use of their trademark slogan.

iamthegreatcornholio · July 2, 2006 11:54AM

<< Fans aren't voting for the most deserving players, they are voting for the home town players at every position, this much is obvious. >>

I agree.

I have major issues with both starting catchers.

Pudge is a great player, but WTF? Joe Mauer not being a starter is ridiculous - the guy is hitting damn near 0.400 (almost 100 points higher than pudge!)

Paul Lo Duca starting?!

I must have fallen asleep in statistics class as evidently a 0.286 BA, 3 HRs and 24 RBIs is greater than McCann's 0.354 BA, 5 HRs and 23 RBIs.

Connecticoin · July 2, 2006 12:26PM

Loretta is hitting .317, and fields much better than Cano.

Axtell · July 2, 2006 12:29PM

Lopez is batting less than Loretta, but crushing him in HR's and RBIs.

Hell brian roberts from baltimore would be a more deserving candidate.

Boopotts · July 2, 2006 12:39PM

<< 

<< Fans aren't voting for the most deserving players, they are voting for the home town players at every position, this much is obvious. >>

I agree.

I have major issues with both starting catchers.

Pudge is a great player, but WTF? Joe Mauer not being a starter is ridiculous - the guy is hitting damn near 0.400 (almost 100 points higher than pudge!)

Paul Lo Duca starting?!

I must have fallen asleep in statistics class as evidently a 0.286 BA, 3 HRs and 24 RBIs is greater than McCann's 0.354 BA, 5 HRs and 23 RBIs. >>

The Joe Mauer thing is indeed a tragedy. I don't have as big a problem with Loretta, since you can at least make an argument for him. But, like you, I think both McCann and Mauer got totally jobbed.

ToppsCo1lector · July 2, 2006 1:53PM

Eh, I don't vote in the All-Star and I rarely watch it(I think the last one was when the All Century team was named, when Jim Grey berated Pete Rose afterwards on the field). David Ortiz got in at 1B because it's NL rules this year, and Loretta is only starting(undeservably so) b/c Cano is injured and Lopez just doesn't get the airtime he deserves.

Good point on bringing up Brian Roberts. I see this guy play on a daily basis and he's one of the most underrated players in the league imo.

It was nice to see Soraino knock his way into the All Star game again, hopefully the Nats will do the right thing and sign him to a long term deal. He's proven over and over again he's worth it, and with the new Nats stadium being built less than 20 minutes from my house I'd really like to see him stay.

FifthScaleRacer · July 2, 2006 2:37PM

Any player who makes the All-Star game starting lineup, deserves to make it

Any player who doesn't make the starting lineup, deserves not to make it.

Its purely a fan popularity game.

Don't mess with it.

Axtell · July 2, 2006 3:44PM

<< Any player who makes the All-Star game starting lineup, deserves to make it

Any player who doesn't make the starting lineup, deserves not to make it.

Its purely a fan popularity game.

Don't mess with it. >>

So you're saying Paul La Duca at catcher deserves to make it?

And it stopped being 'purely a fan popularity game' when Selig, in his infinite wisdom, thought it a good idea for the winning team to determine home field for the world series. They need to choose, either make it an exhibiition game for the fans and remove the world series attachment, or make it a game where managers determine the teams, not dumbstruck fans.

FifthScaleRacer · July 2, 2006 3:49PM

<< 

So you're saying Paul La Duca at catcher deserves to make it?

And it stopped being 'purely a fan popularity game' when Selig, in his infinite wisdom, thought it a good idea for the winning team to determine home field for the world series. They need to choose, either make it an exhibiition game for the fans and remove the world series attachment, or make it a game where managers determine the teams, not dumbstruck fans. >>

If Paul La Duca is the top vote for the catcher position, then yes he deserves it.

But yeah I do agree that the WS home field advantage should not be tied in the the all-star game.

bri2327 · July 2, 2006 5:42PM

Although I dont think the voting should be taken away from the fans, I have to agree with Ax on this one. If they are going to leave it up to the fans then it just cannot be the deciding factor in home field advantage for the world series. MLB needs to get rid of that immediately. It was an idiotic move from the start. Let the fans vote on the game, but definately dont let the game have any implications for postseason play.

stevek · July 2, 2006 9:03PM

You know this isn't going to happen.

Barndog · July 2, 2006 11:06PM

How does Liriano not make the team? Seems that the coaches/managers can't make better decisions than the fans too.

ToppsCo1lector · July 2, 2006 11:17PM

^^
Barn-He's up for the final open slot, you can vote for him online.

Dallas88 · July 3, 2006 12:53AM

Ax is definitely right-on here.

The all-star game should not be just a popularity contest, or an exhibition of major media-player-representation.

Definitely keep the vote away from the media!

Get the vote away from the fans.

How about letting the players decide who is an all-star?

RipublicaninMass · July 3, 2006 1:05AM

<< Ax is definitely right-on here. >>

Quick Ax, save this in your sig line!! Just kidding

ctsoxfan · July 3, 2006 1:46AM

<< Eh, I don't vote in the All-Star and I rarely watch it(I think the last one was when the All Century team was named, when Jim Grey berated Pete Rose afterwards on the field). David Ortiz got in at 1B because it's NL rules this year, and Loretta is only starting(undeservably so) b/c Cano is injured and Lopez just doesn't get the airtime he deserves.

Good point on bringing up Brian Roberts. I see this guy play on a daily basis and he's one of the most underrated players in the league imo.

It was nice to see Soraino knock his way into the All Star game again, hopefully the Nats will do the right thing and sign him to a long term deal. He's proven over and over again he's worth it, and with the new Nats stadium being built less than 20 minutes from my house I'd really like to see him stay. >>

Sorry, you are wrong about Cano (he isn't starting because he lost the vote, not because of his injury).

<< Sports Network reports Boston Red Sox 2B Mark Loretta was voted in by fans as the starting AL second baseman for the All-Star Game. He had to come from behind to catch and pass New York Yankees 2B Robinson Cano for the honor. >>

I am not so sure I like the fan vote concept either - how can Curt Schilling not be on the AL team, but Mark Redman (who?) is? There has to be a better system, but what is it? Fan voting should always play a part - maybe the answer is to allow each person to vote only one time (not 25, like it currently is) but have the fan vote only play a percentage in the ultimate selections.

stevek · July 3, 2006 2:44AM

Yes, Axtell is right but it still isn't ever going to happen.

Axtell · July 3, 2006 2:54AM

If the all star game is not going to be an exhibition (and with it's current outcome, it isn't an exhibition at all), then some changes need to happen immediately:

-remove the vote for the starters from the fans
-have all the managers vote for the rosters (starters and backups)
-remove the ridiculous 'one player from every team rule'
-don't give out the all star roster votes until the end of May (currently it's April, when teams have played less than 30 games)
-don't allow players like David Ortiz to make a farce out of the voting, and put a DH on the ballot at 1B. Either have a DH slot
-take the backup roster selection away from the manager of the team, and prevent the homerism that people like Guillen (Jenks over Liriano or Verlander?)
-if you want to keep the fan vote, allow them to vote for the 2 remaining spots in each league, but only allow them to do so at the park. No internet voting. And make the 5 choices actual worthy choices.

If MLB doesn't want to make this a serious competition, with each team being given the tools to win, then they need to remove the outcome affecting the world series, immediately.

As it is, it's a joke.

AkbarClone · July 3, 2006 2:59AM

So Ax, your main complaint appears to be that the All-Star game determines who has home field advantage during the World Series, thus All-Star voting shouldn't be a popularity contest.

Out of curiosity, which World Series champions (since this rule was adopted) would not have won if the home field advantage had been switched to the other team?

I personally don't think it is as important as this thread makes it sound. I believe the best team will win the World Series each year whether they have home field advantage or not. While I do agree that it is sort of a farce that All-Star voting is a popularity contest, I don't see it being a determing factor at all in who wins the World Series.

Axtell · July 3, 2006 3:01AM

20 of the last 25 world series champs have had home field advantage. That's a ridiculously high stat to stick on the outcome of an exhibition.

If they want fans to have the vote, then get rid of the game affecting the home field...a simple fix.

AkbarClone · July 3, 2006 3:15AM

I would have no problem with changing the rule about All-Star game outcome determining World Series Home Field advantage, and I would also agree that "fan popularity" is not the best reason to make someone an "All-Star"--but I also still think that the previous World Series winners would have won whether they had home field advantage or not, because they were the better team at the end of the postseason--so I don't think the rule really makes a difference in the end.

I also think Brian Roberts would be a great choice as an All-Star (he is one of the players I collect

)

Dallas88 · July 3, 2006 4:48AM

I am not so sure I like the fan vote concept either - how can Curt Schilling not be on the AL team, but Mark Redman (who?) is?

Redman is a starting pitcher for the Royals.....I believe he's won his last 4 or 5 games.......thus improving his Royals record to 5-10

Barndog · July 3, 2006 4:52AM

<< Barn-He's up for the final open slot, you can vote for him online. >>

I know that part...it should not have to come to that! How does this guy NOT make the team? Is there a pitcher in the AL that has been more dominant that is not on the team? The system is broken.

Axtell · July 3, 2006 5:30AM

There's an all-star team of players NOT chosen for the all star team.

Curt Schilling
Justin Verlander
Francisco Liriano
Mike Mussina
Jeremy Bonderman
J.J. Putz

Joe Mauer

Jason Giambi

Brian Roberts

Travis Haffner

the list goes on and on and on...and this is just the AL!

Barndog · July 3, 2006 5:33AM

seems the "at least one player per team" rule hurts the standards of quality for the All-Star squads.

iamthegreatcornholio · July 3, 2006 6:17AM

<< seems the "at least one player per team" rule hurts the standards of quality for the All-Star squads. >>

yep - and invariably those players are from terrible teams that have no shot at the world series anyway, why are they allowed to determine the outcome? (i.e. kansas city does not have an all-star caliber player)

ctsoxfan · July 3, 2006 6:29AM

<< I am not so sure I like the fan vote concept either - how can Curt Schilling not be on the AL team, but Mark Redman (who?) is?

Redman is a starting pitcher for the Royals.....I believe he's won his last 4 or 5 games.......thus improving his Royals record to 5-10

>>

Mark Redman (who? again) is actually 5-10, and on the All-Star team? You have got to be kidding me.

iamthegreatcornholio · July 3, 2006 7:12AM

<< 

<< I am not so sure I like the fan vote concept either - how can Curt Schilling not be on the AL team, but Mark Redman (who?) is?

Redman is a starting pitcher for the Royals.....I believe he's won his last 4 or 5 games.......thus improving his Royals record to 5-10

>>

Mark Redman (who? again) is actually 5-10, and on the All-Star team? You have got to be kidding me. >>

well for the sake of argument, w/l doesn't mean much when you're comparing players (imo). a guy could have a 0.00 ERA and still lose every game... the opposite of that guy would be someone like a randy giving up 7 runs in 5 innings, but getting a win since his team scored 10...

but in the case of redmond, his ERA is 5.59?! he has good splits against southpaws, but it's ridiculous when the best pitcher in baseball isn't going (Liriano and his sub-2.00 ERA).

Dallas88 · July 3, 2006 8:13AM

Actually he's 5-4 --- lost his first 4 games for the Royals.....I was just being sarcastic.

Can't argue with any of the points made above.

A761506 · July 3, 2006 12:03PM

I do not understand why the all-star game is used to determine home field advantage at all, I think it's completely ridiculous. The all-star game is a fluff game.

Any game in which starting pitchers are being used to pitch 1 inning of relief after the starter is removed after 3 innings is an exhibition game, especially when the pitchers aren't even trying 100% because they don't want to risk injury or tire themselves out.

Any game where each team is required to have 1 player representing them, meaning the best possible players are not even on the roster cannot be taken seriously.

Any game where the manager has no choice in building the starting line-up other than the batting order and the pitcher is non-competitive before it even starts.

The bottom line is that whichever WS team finished the season with a better record automatically gets home field. It's like that in every other sport, and would make a lot more sense.

DirtyHarry · July 3, 2006 12:16PM

I agree with Axtell, but not sure on every point. I do believe there should be some kind of "weighting factor" on fan voting basis entry point of votes, with an additional componenent of weight given to manager votes. This would still leave it in the hands of the fans with a reality influence check from MLB.

stevek · July 3, 2006 12:54PM

<< seems the "at least one player per team" rule hurts the standards of quality for the All-Star squads. >>

That's one rule that really has to change! But again...they aren't ever going to do it. It's all about money and ratings - nothing else.

ctsoxfan · July 3, 2006 3:05PM

<< I do not understand why the all-star game is used to determine home field advantage at all, I think it's completely ridiculous. The all-star game is a fluff game.

Any game in which starting pitchers are being used to pitch 1 inning of relief after the starter is removed after 3 innings is an exhibition game, especially when the pitchers aren't even trying 100% because they don't want to risk injury or tire themselves out.

Any game where each team is required to have 1 player representing them, meaning the best possible players are not even on the roster cannot be taken seriously.

Any game where the manager has no choice in building the starting line-up other than the batting order and the pitcher is non-competitive before it even starts.

The bottom line is that whichever WS team finished the season with a better record automatically gets home field. It's like that in every other sport, and would make a lot more sense. >>

Agreed 100%. The team with the best W/L record in the World Series should get the home field advantage. Seems as logical as you can get. I know they were trying to give some meaning to this otherwise meaningless game, but it should have been left just like it was.

FifthScaleRacer · July 3, 2006 10:14PM

Inter-league play record is a better deciding factor on homefield.

If that is not decisive, then better W/L record should be used 2nd.

stevek · July 3, 2006 10:55PM

Well, despite the "problems" the MLB All-Star game is still the best All-Star "game" in my opinion.

The NFL Pro Bowl as a game is a first class joke and should not even be played - it should be simply an awards ceremony. It's even poor entertainment.

The NHL All-Star game is better than the NFL's and better entertainment, but still a joke.

The NBA All-Star game isn't even a game. It's simply an offensive exhibition - a complete joke as a game, but it is entertaining.

MLB All-Star game...best game and best entertainment of them all.

Axtell · July 4, 2006 12:21AM

If MLB is going to put the starting lineup in the hands of the biased fans, and make this truly an exhibition, then they need to remove the world series home field from it immediately.

Yes, the MLB all star game is the best (though watching the NBA's best go at it in a shootout is entertaining - what an exhibition is supposed to be), you can't have something as important as home field in the world series tied to the results.

diamondman · July 4, 2006 12:31AM

Why not have 2 All-Star Games double the money one the fans get to pick the players and the other one the players/managers and sportwriters pick the teams. MOO

stevek · July 4, 2006 2:04AM

<< Why not have 2 All-Star Games double the money one the fans get to pick the players and the other one the players/managers and sportwriters pick the teams. MOO >>

They actually used to play two MLB All-Star games in the early 1960s.

It's time to remove all star voting from the fans

Comments