People inside and outside of baseball need to start making some decisions about the All-Star Game. What do we want it -- and the players participating in it -- to be? Someone might say it's foolish to look at an exhibition game and make it sound so meaningful, but people are even torn in this area. Is it just an exhibition game or is it more?
The fact that it determines home-field advantage in the World Series sure makes it seem like more than an exhibition game. Plus, there are managers that seem intent on winning the game like it determines a playoff spot. Look at Jim Leyland, who gave every Final Vote spot in this year's game to a reliever. More deserving players like Evan Longoria, Adrian Beltre, Josh Donaldson, and Carlos Santana won't even get a chance to get voted on in the final ballot, although can you blame Leyland for wanting more relief help? He's managing a Tigers team that has a great chance to get back to the World Series, so he has every incentive to win the All-Star Game and get the all-important home-field advantage. Bullpen depth is always key and All-Star teams go through pitchers faster than position players (playing in the field and getting a few at bats for 3+ innings would not be considered as much of an injury risk as leaving a pitcher in for that amount of time, so managers also feel more pressure to use more arms).
So, even though Leyland's Final Vote decision is ridiculous, he shouldn't be the one to blame. If the game didn't count, maybe he just goes with the more deserving position players or starting pitchers. That's Major League Baseball's fault.
In the other league, Yasiel Puig is causing a similar stir because he's played in a very small amount of games, not just for this season but for his entire career since this is his rookie year. Many people think it's ludicrous for someone with a 32-game track record to make it over someone who's played for twice as many games this season and has been in the league for years. Others think it's the All-Star game is simply a marketing event, so since Puig is such a big, exciting name, he should get a spot.
(Related note: I highly doubt Puig will draw more fans to the All-Star Game if he's voted in, given that he'll play for an inning or two at most. People aren't going to be saying, "I can't wait to hear Puig's name announced, and possibly see him make some nice defensive plays with maybe -- fingers crossed -- two at bats!" Fans will likely vote him in, which is fine. If the fans are so eager to see him, let them decide. That said, the increase in eyes he'll bring to the game will still be insignificant. People who normally don't watch the All-Star Game aren't going to be glued to their TV waiting to see Puig when they're not sure if or when he'll even get in.)
But Puig is just one extraordinary case. What about Bryce Harper, who has missed a lot of time this year in just his second big-league season? He's exciting, but does he deserve a spot over a proven veteran who's played more this year?
What about Chris Davis over Prince Fielder? On last week's "The Baseball Show with Rany and Joe," Joe Sheehan said Fielder should get the nod because he's been better for several more years than Davis. But Davis has been one of the most exciting players during the first half in which he's played much better than Fielder, so should that overrule a better track record?
The same argument could be had about whether Matt Harvey should start over proven guys like Clayton Kershaw or Adam Wainwright.
Every year, we have these debates and they seem to have been magnified this year with Puig and the relievers in the AL Final Vote. One big step towards clearing up this murky situation would be to stop making the game count. Evidence has shown that home-field advantage has a large effect on the eventual World Series champs, so it's moronic to give a team like the 90-win Wild Card Cardinals from 2011 home-field over the 96-win division champion Texas Rangers -- who played in a tougher division and league -- based on one game in which players from both teams had little-to-no impact. The Cardinals, by the way, won that Series in seven games, with the final two wins coming in front of their home crowd.
Getting rid of this home-field advantage rule would also increase the likelihood that managers would pick more exciting, deserving players as All-Stars instead of relievers who no one has ever heard of.
However, there would still be a divide between the "it's a marketing event" group and the track record group. People like Keith Law -- who's in the former group -- and Sheehan -- who's in the latter -- would probably feel just as passionate about their sides of the argument even if the home-field advantage travesty was eliminated. Managers, players, and fans would likely still feel split, as well.
There will never be an All-Star Game in any sport without people complaining about players who are undeserving or snubbed. It's part of what makes it so fun. I personally think Davis's spot as the starter is well-earned but I certainly don't ignore larger samples and better track records. The MLB All-Star Game will always have some type of identity problem, which isn't really a bad thing.
Still, there needs to be less ambiguity. The AL will have six relievers on this year's All-Star team, which is four, maybe five more than are necessary. There are several starting pitchers and position players who are more deserving.
Plus, there's still a divide between the new-school and old-school way of looking at baseball. Guys with gaudy win, save, and RBI totals (*cough* Brandon Philips *cough*) are still making it over players with much better numbers in actually meaningful statistical categories.
The first step towards eliminating some of this ridiculousness would be getting rid of the "it counts" nonsense, but the All-Star Game will still be more frustrating than it should be. The debating is fun but if people involved with baseball can start to agree on more aspects of the game, the outrage over snubs will feel more like a spousal argument over what movie to see instead of an argument about one of them cheating on the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment