This week our roundtable dives right into the discussion approaching the upcoming MLB All-Star Game. We’ll look back at the biggest snubs (you can check out our in-depth breadown of the rosters for the AL and NL), talk the new-look home run derby, and whether or not home-field advantage in the World Series being on the line has worked for baseball.
Strike 1: In your opinion, who is the biggest All-Star snub?
Garrett Wilson: Andrew McCutchen, and it really isn’t even close. He is having an amazing year and somehow gets left off. It just amazes me that after so many years of the lousy Pirates forcing one of their undeserving players onto the All-Star roster that the team finally gets decent and has a guy who is obviously All-Star material and he gets passed over.
Matt Lindner: Paul Konerko. I get that the White Sox are having an astonishingly mediocre season, but on what planet are his offensive numbers – .324, 22 HR, 64 RBI, .973 OPS – not worthy of All-Star honors? McCutchen’s numbers are nice and the Pirates do rank as one of this season’s feel good stories but he’ll have plenty more All-Star Games in which to shine. Konerko is a guy who, at 35, is on pace to have the best season of his Hall-of-Very Good career.
Daniel Moroz: McCutchen by a mile. He’s one of the NL’s best players, and has a good argument to be a starter. That he wasn’t voted in wasn’t good; that he wasn’t picked as a reserve was bad; to not even put him in the final five is awful.
Pat Lackey: It’s McCutchen; I’m obviously a bit biased, but right now he’s second in the NL in both FanGraphs and Baseball-Reference WAR. He gets on base and hits for power and runs like crazy and is playing great defense this year at a premium position. If he were a centerfielder in a big market, people would be raving over him the way they’re raving over Jose Reyes this year. It’s fine that Matt Kemp, who’s having a phenomenal year on his own, got voted to start, but it’s an absolute joke that they couldn’t even get McCutchen into the final vote.
Ben Duornio: Andrew McCutchen. He’s arguably the best all around centerfielder in baseball. It doesn’t quite make sense either, considering the Pirates are doing well and the guys who got in ahead of him are not as talented.
Brian Packey: My biased, but completely justifiable pick is Jhonny Peralta. He leads the AL amongst SS in BA (.314), OBP (.365), SLG (.539), tied in HR (14; in roughly 70 less PA than Cabrera), WAR (3.3) and is top five in fielding. If I had the time and desire to fact check this, I’d guess this would be my starting SS on an All-Time Worst Snub team. Relative, of course, to who was actually selected. I should also mention that I’m not particularly happy about the McCutcheon snub, either, but I guess that’s okay by me if the NL doesn’t want to include the best players — it only improves the Tigers’ chances of securing home field advantage in the World Series.
Matt Yoder: It has to be McCutchen, I’m tempted to say CC Sabathia because he leads the AL in Wins, but his expanded statistics don’t scream out his name as an OMG All-Star snub. McCutchen on the other hand has the complete package and the stats to back it up. Most importantly though, he’s led the Pirates to relevancy again. Of course, he’d never have a shot in the final five vote, but the Pirates haven’t been this good since Barry Bonds’ head was smaller than a bread box.
Strike 2: MLB is altering the home run contest and going to a team-oriented format. What would you do with it? Leave it as it was? New format? Or forget it all together and have something else?
Pat: The home run derby is really boring, and I’m looking forward to not being paid to watch it the way I have been in years past so that I can change the channel after ten minutes and 400 Chris Berman geography references and not even notice that the format changed.
Ben: This format interests me. A lot of people dislike the derby, but I find it enjoyable. It seems fun for the players too, so I will wait to see how this attempt goes before I decide how exactly I would alter it.
Brian: It’s still an individual contest in which the players who hit the most balls over the fence advance to the subsequent rounds. The gimmick in naming Fielder & Ortiz “captains” and allowing them to select the other participants doesn’t really change how it’ll play out, based on my understanding of the rules on MLB.com. Fans watch it to see spectacles like Josh Hamilton hitting a million home runs in a row and that’s all it’ll ever — and should — be. If they want to add up the home runs of the AL/NL and call that the competition, fine — they’ve been kind of doing that every year already, anyway. Either way, both captains’ charities get money and fans get to see dudes hit the long ball.
Garrett: I haven’t been even remotely interested in the Home Run Derby for years now, but I honestly can’t think of anything to replace it with. The team format is worth a shot, but at the end of the day, it is still just guys taking batting practice.
Matt Y: Let’s face it, the Home Run Derby will never be like it was when gorilla sized sluggers like McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa belted balls to the moon. Nothing in the Derby can ever top seeing Sosa launch balls almost out of Miller Park (even though now we know why that happened). Without the steroid factor, the awe factor isn’t there. Players don’t even want to compete because it messes up swings and now we have this team format that “captain” Prince Fielder is obviously excited about. Scrap it and come up with something else… or better yet, just forget the contrived competition all together.
Daniel: I’m fine with it. But, then again, I’ve tended to watch the Derby with a bunch of other people in recent years which makes it more entertaining. Otherwise I’d probably skip it altogether, in this format or in the previous one.
Matt L: I like the idea of having two player captains pick the teams in lieu of the league doing it. The Home Run Derby lost some of its shine for me somewhere around the time I turned 10 years old when I realized that if I got to Wrigley enough, I could basically experience the same thing. Because that’s what it is — glorified batting practice. Want to make it more interesting? Turn it in to target practice. Place targets in the stands with varying point totals. Turn it to a game within a game. The problem is, there’s really no other type of contest that you can use to replace it. I remember covering the Midwest League All-Star Game in 2009 for MLB.com and to mix things up, they had a skills competition. One of the skills — I kid you not — was trying to bunt a ball off a pitching machine in to hula hoops placed strategically throughout the infield.
Strike 3: Has the World Series homefield advantage rule worked for both the ASG and the sport as a whole?
Matt Y: Unfortunately, yes, it has worked for MLB… that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea though. This stupid rule has done what baseball always intended it to do – add extra buzz to the All-Star Game. Now, is it hideously stupefying to decide homefield advantage for the World Series on an exhibition game? Of course. But, from baseball’s point of view, any publicity and hype is good for the game. In the end, it cheapens the sport and the World Series, but Uncle Bud is obviously willing to sacrifice that.
Daniel: Either it should be an exhibition or it should count – combining the two is terrible. I’d prefer the former, so we can keep the rules about every team having a rep and the fan voting and all that (not that I like those rules, but they seem especially stupid if the outcome determines home field in the World Series).
Brian: No and no. First, ratings are still as low as ever compared to past All-Star Games (in fact, last year had one of the worst ratings ever for a baseball ASG). That has to be the single-most important barometer in determining whether or not it works for the game itself. Sure, it doesn’t allow the game to ever end in a tie again, which is a perk, but it’s still not exactly making the game must-see. As for home field advantage, well, there’s a lot (of stats) to be said for whether or not home field advantage even matters. If you’re on the train of thought that thinks it definitely matters, then pinning it on one game in July between teams made up of some of the best players in the game and others ill-advisedly voted in by the fans shouldn’t be the beacon. If it doesn’t matter, then it’s merely a ploy to generate more interest in the game and, as already mentioned, that simply hasn’t worked.
Garrett: To quote the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, “worst… idea… EVER.” Really, how have they allowed this stupid rule to continue for so long? It is embarrassing that an exhibition game decides something as important as home field for the World Series. What kills me is that it is somehow supposed to make the game more interesting and thus boost ratings. I don’t see how that could actually be the case though since I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever met anyone who though “this time it counts” is anything other than a traveshamockery.
Ben: I hardly see anyone defending it counting, so it seems like a pretty bad move to me. The game is still treated and managed like an exhibition, but it can seriously alter who ends up as World Series Champion. I’m not a fan of it, and I probably won’t ever be.
Matt L: I am a fan of many things Bud Selig has done – moving the Brewers to the National League, the Wild Card, et. al – but placing something as importance as home field advantage in your league’s penultimate series in a game that was originally designed as an exhibition is illogical. Plus what motivation do guys from teams the Pirates, A’s, Royals or Mets have? They’re not going to be around to enjoy the home field advantage. If you want to do something like that, eliminate the all-star from every team element and make it so that they’re filled with a hodgepodge of the best teams in the league. Of course this would never fly because nobody would tune in to the Red Sox/Yankees/Rays/Tigers/AL West team du jour vs. the Phillies/Braves/Giants/Cardinals/Brewers every year, but the reality is this season those are the only teams that have a shot of sticking around come October. Not to mention the slogan — “This Time It Counts” sounds like something a parent might say to threaten a small child who is misbehaving.
Pat: Well, as we’re noting in question number one, we can’t even name the best players to the roster, so it’s a bit ridiculous that that this game “counts” for something. I guess it’s probably garnered a bit more attention, which is what baseball wanted, but is selling some of the sports integrity for a few TV viewers worth it? Wait, forget I asked that. Don’t ask questions that you know you won’t like the answer to.
