All Stars

Baseball's All Star game was this week, and it's the best All Star Game in professional sports.  Before anyone starts celebrating that level of praise, that's like saying the best Steven Seagal movie, or tastiest thing on a White Castle menu.

The NFL All Star game (the Pro Bowl) is the worst.  It's played before the Super Bowl, usually in Hawaii.  It's not relatable to fans, WAY too expensive to attend, most of the best players don't go and there is nothing hinging on the outcome.  Now they are thinking of playing it in Brazil, Mexico or Germany.  Wow...so excited...

The NBA and the NHL All Star games are better than the NFL's.  They are very similar to each other, occurring in the middle of the season, and at least the best players show up for it.  They move it around the individual leagues arenas, so the fans can at least see it from their houses.  The downsides to both the NBA and NHL's All Star games are similar too.  Only corporate sponsors and the wealthiest of wealthy are able to attend.  The average fan can't even afford to get into the nose bleed seats.  Also, both games are meaningless outside of being a showcase of the best players.

Major League Baseball's All Star Game was useless too, until they tied it a few years ago.  After that, they decided to make the game worth something, home field advantage for the World Series for whichever baseball league wins, the American League or the National League.  It makes me at least check out the score of the game online the next morning, but since MLB made the outcome worth something, they exposed the system they have for choosing players as faulty.

Currently MLB All Star starters, the eight fielding positions and the designated hitter, are picked by the fans.  The rest of the team is picked by the managers of the All Star teams, the two managers from the previous year's World Series.  Every team has to have at least one member represented on the All Star rosters, which I think is a good touch, but usually these rosters have one or two glaring omissions.

The fans always choose at least three or four players to play in the All Star game who just do not deserve to be there.  This year, Kansas City Royal fans seem to have, legally or illegally, stuffed the ballot boxes to get numerous Royals on the roster.  There are two problems with this.  First, we are talking the "All Star's," not the Adam Sandler Blockbuster Viewer Choice Award winners.  The best players in the game should be represented.  Also, with there being actual meaning to the outcome of the game, letting the fans choose the starting players leaves the whole notion of the game meaning something in limbo.

If you want to make the All Star Game better, try this.  The owners, managers, players and baseball writers choose the bulk of the team.  They would choose all of the starters, most of the reserves and pitchers, and would ensure every team has at least one player on the rosters.  The fans get to pick one additional infielder, outfielder, designated hitter, starting pitcher and relief pitcher to be added.  They would be limited to one additional player from any given team being added to the All Star roster, preventing 5 Yankees or 5 Dodgers making up the fan vote.

I'm not delusional.  MLB is not going to change a thing.  That's fine as long as they know I'll only be checking the boxscore the next day, instead of watching the game itself.