I'm tired of all of it. None of this really matters that much. To me this is all just a product of the 24-hour news cycle that we live in, plus the fact that it's the dead of summer and there's very little actual news to fill that TV time. There's no more basketball or hockey. Football is still a couple months away. I've personally been entertaining myself by watching the Euro Cup and Wimbledon, and on those rare occasions like yesterday when Tiger is in contention, I'll tune into golf.
But I guess these stories (well, aside from Tiger) aren't important enough for the mainstream media to talk about. Let's run the same old arguments about baseball's All-Star game into the ground. It really drives me insane.
On the bright side, it has given me something to write about today. So, I'll be giving my responses to all of those questions I posed at the start... And then I never want to hear about them again.
SHOULD FANS VOTE FOR STARTERS?
Yes! Of course they should. The game is for the fans! I love the idea that I get to vote for my favorite players every year. I'll never forget going to Cardinals' games when I was a kid and being handed the ballots from the ushers. I'd usually keep one (or five) as a souvenir, but I'd always borrow a pen or pencil from my mom so I could punch out the chads for the players I wanted to see. The MLB All-Star game has always been one of my favorite parts of the summer, and I'd like to think that there are kids today that enjoy the same experiences of punching the ballots that I did.
Here's the other thing. There's a fail safe entrenched with the All-Star selection process, which is that players, and of course the manager, get to select the rest of the roster. So, in theory, the guys who deserve to be All-Stars are still on the team. Even if fans "get it wrong" and the best players don't start the game, why should that matter? If the game is going to count for something, don't you want the best players in the game at the end? As an NL fan, if the game is on the line in the eighth or ninth inning, I'd much rather have David Wright batting in a key spot than Pablo Sandoval.
SHOULD EACH TEAM BE REPRESENTED?
It stands to reason that if the game is going to count for something, each team should have its league's best players, and thus each team shouldn't be represented. But I actually love the fact that each team is represented, and it's for pretty similar reasons that I answered "yes" to the last question.
I specifically remember watching the All-Star game in 1993, and swelling with pride when they announced the Cardinals' representative, Greg Jeffries (OK, I have to admit this. I just looked this up, and it turns out closer Lee Smith also represented the Cardinals. Still, I distinctly remember Jeffries, so I'm going with it). Again, I'd like to think that there are Royals fans out there that will tune into the game just to see them announce Billy Butler, and hopefully they'll stay tuned in to see Butler get the opportunity to bat.
Does it hurt the game that Butler's inclusion (.297 avg., 16 HR, 48 RBI, .877 OPS, 1.0 WAR) leaves out Blue Jays DH Edwin Encarnacion (.291 avg., 22 HR, 55 RBI, .945 OPS, 2.8 WAR)? Maybe a little, but this is easily remedied. Why not add some more spots? I know expanding the rosters to 40 seems extreme. But what if the majority of those new additions were pitchers, and a fair portion of the roster went into the game knowing that they might not play? This actually leads me into my next question....
SHOULD THE GAME "COUNT?"
One week from now is the 10 year anniversary of the game that changed the game. OK, that's a little overstated, but all that is to say, 10 years ago was when the All-Star game that ended in a tie, and thus Bud Selig decided that the game had to "mean something" so it would never end in a tie again. Since then, the league that won the All-Star game has had home-field advantage in the World Series. I still maintain that the 2004 Cardinals would not have been swept had they had their rightful home-field advantage by having the better record (There's no way Curt Schilling starts Game 1 or 2 in St. Louis, because he couldn't bat! Remember, the bloody sock? That Cardinals team was too good to lose in four games. But I'm not bitter. You could probably argue that the Cards don't win the series last year without home-field, so it all worked itself out.)
In hindsight, and even at the time, this seemed like a ridiculous solution. Yes, they decided to call the game because it didn't technically mean anything, but the main reason it ended is because the teams were out of pitching! So (back to my original tangent), why not just expand the rosters and add some more pitching? You could even add one or two rookie or second-year pitchers to each team with them knowing in advance that they're only going to be used if the game goes into extra innings. Or, if teams run out of pitching, let's just call everyone off the field and have a Home Run Derby to determine the winner? Really, that's not any more flawed than ending hockey or soccer matches with penalty shoot outs/kicks. (Those last two ideas were actually stolen from ESPN's Bill Simmons, but I felt the need to pass them along).
All that being said, I've actually gotten used to home-field being determined by the All-Star game. Like Bud Selig has said, it's not like the way they did it before was very scientific (The AL and NL alternated every year who got home-field in the World Series). Based on that logic, I'm not entirely against the game "counting" like I was nine years ago. At leas, it doesn't bother me.
Still, the most obvious way to determine home-field advantage in the World Series would just be to give it to the team with the best record. All the "experts" on Outside the Lines today said that people involved with Major League Baseball say it doesn't work logistically. Which is ironic, because I don't think it's logical to determine home-field any other way.
IS LA RUSSA HOLDING GRUDGES?
Yes, and I love it!
No, seriously, I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the surface, it definitely seems like he's still holding some animosity towards Brandon Phillips and Johnny Cueto (who, by the way, ended Jason LaRue's career. Who was Jason LaRue, you ask? Yeah, I see your point, but still) for the bench clearing altercation between St. Louis and Cincinnati several years ago.
Phillips and Arizona's Aaron Hill have been the best to second basemen in the National League this year, and it's possible neither make the team (Hill is a part of the final fan vote). Dan Uggla got the nod from the fans at the position, and Jose Altuve was picked as the back up, and is the sole representative from Houston. Oddly enough my biggest problem with all of this is that Jed Lowrie wasn't picked Houston's representative, since he's probably been one of the best offensive shortstops in all of baseball. However, I don't see these snubs by La Russa as being that egregious.
Cueto (9-4, 2.26 ERA) being left off the team, on the other hand, must a bitter pill for Red's fans to swallow. It's also hard to believe that Zack Grienke (9-2, 2.82 ERA)of Milwaukee, another former division rival of La Russa, was left off the team.
The reality is it's a difficult job to pick these teams. I sat down for an hour last week and tried just pick the hitters and I couldn't narrow the list down. There are literally nine AL players that play 1B or DH and have an argument to be on the team. And after looking at the pitchers that actually made the team for the NL, it's difficult to decide who should be left in place of Cueto or Grienke.
And of course, like my friend Drew Hutchison (NOT the rookie pitcher for the Blue Jays) said on facebook, paraphrasing of course, "if Dusty Baker wants to decide who makes the All-Star team, maybe his team should win the pennant."
Ultimately, it's difficult for me to think the former Cardinal's manager is holding any grudges when the Cardinal's biggest rival, the Cubs, has TWO players on the team despite having the worst record in baseball.
If that's not a controversy, I don't know what is.
