Should every team have an AS rep?

[PaulFolk]

No, but there should be a limit to how many players from each team go to the all star game, 2?

This is a ridiculous idea.

First of all, how would you build a 31-man roster if you can't have more than 2 players per team? There are only 14 teams in the AL. 14 * 2 = 28. In the NL (16 teams), you'd basically have to have exactly 2 players from each team. Simple math dictates that you would have to take at least one player from each team, even though you answered "No" to the question. Which is it?

What would this system solve? It would create a bigger mess than the current system, by an extreme measure, turning the All-Star game into a complete joke. You'd have to bump worthy players off the team to make room for not just one but two Royals. And two Reds, and two Pirates, etc.

[Bosibus]

I think every team should have a representative based on fanbase. Saw it on the ESPN vote but how would you guys feel if they changed it up one year?

USA vs The World

Do not know how they would arrange things for post-season but it would still be fun.

Or just have two All-Star games, they already have everything packed into the week.

All-Stars vs Snubs

[Sports Guy]

Some, yes. And some probably spent more time than was rational on Royal messageboards and blogs debating who their rep should be, like we do here. If the choice is always "no one" they'd probably just ignore the game and go fishing.

Remember, there are at least as many Cindys in the world as there are Drungos. Probably more. Cindys watch the All Star game for Mark Redman.

But what if the player doesn't even play?

If you are going to have a rule that every team needs to have a rep for their fans, then there should be a rule that every player has to play.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think every team should have a representative based on fanbase. Saw it on the ESPN vote but how would you guys feel if they changed it up one year?

USA vs The World

Do not know how they would arrange things for post-season but it would still be fun.

Or just have two All-Star games, they already have everything packed into the week.

All-Stars vs Snubs

I think the game should be the MLB all stars against the Japanese all stars.

Unfortunately, with baseball's inherently ultraconservative nature, we'll never see a format change in my lifetime. If it was established in the Kenesaw Mountin Landis era it's as good as handed down by God straight to Abraham.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Some, yes. And some probably spent more time than was rational on Royal messageboards and blogs debating who their rep should be, like we do here. If the choice is always "no one" they'd probably just ignore the game and go fishing.

Remember, there are at least as many Cindys in the world as there are Drungos. Probably more. Cindys watch the All Star game for Mark Redman.

What did I do??!! :002_sdrool: :002_scool:

[geschinger]

Yes, it's the tradition and there is no compelling reason to change it.

[AgentOrange]

Where's the "Meh?" option? I used to get worked up about stuff like this, but I've come to think the all star game is just a meaningless exhibition for the fans. Don't care that Bud thinks otherwise. As a meaningless exhibition, sure, you need to have one player from every team just to give the people from Pittsburgh, Baltimore and KC something to cheer for, laugh at, and debate a little about.

I think the surest way to make the game even more irrelevant and meaningless than it already is would be to have a board of learned experts appoint the whole roster based on some concept of merit. At its best It's fun. Let's leave it at that.

What did you think the AS game was before when you got "worked up"?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Since the All-Star game matters, it should be composed of the 25 (I think AS rosters are 25) best players in each league.

So no.

[geschinger]

Since the All-Star game matters, it should be composed of the 25 (I think AS rosters are 25) best players in each league.

So no.

Eliminate fan voting? You aren't going to get the 25 best players in each league if fans are allowed to pick the starters.

[DrungoHazewood]

What did you think the AS game was before when you got "worked up"?

I guess when I was much younger I thought it was a way to tell which league was better. I was always disappointed when the American League lost. And it was also a way to validate your opinions of who was good and who wasn't - at least until I was 14 or 15 and started reading Bill James and the veil was lifted from my eyes.

[DrungoHazewood]

Since the All-Star game matters, it should be composed of the 25 (I think AS rosters are 25) best players in each league.

So no.

By what measure? Over what time period? Who does the selecting? If you asked me, 1970, Sports Guy, and Tony we'd probably disagree on 1/3 of the selections. Any other sources would be similar.

[Pedro Cerrano]

By what measure? Over what time period? Who does the selecting? If you asked me, 1970, Sports Guy, and Tony we'd probably disagree on 1/3 of the selections. Any other sources would be similar.

Simple, the manager of the AS team selects his coaches who together make the final decisions.

If you subscribe to the theory that most of the time the guy managing the team will have some vested interest in the outcome of the game (read: if he made the WS last year, it stands to reason he has a shot to do it this year, save the Marlins) then it would behoove him to select the best possible team and not just throw his entire roster on there.

[DrungoHazewood]

Simple, the manager of the AS team selects his coaches who together make the final decisions.

If you subscribe to the theory that most of the time the guy managing the team will have some vested interest in the outcome of the game (read: if he made the WS last year, it stands to reason he has a shot to do it this year, save the Marlins) then it would behoove him to select the best possible team and not just throw his entire roster on there.

That's making the assumption that the manager and his staff are the best evaluators of talent across the league. I'm not saying that they'd necessarily do a bad job, but I don't think they'd do any better than the current system.

Remember, managers and coaches don't identify, evaluate, and sign players - GMs, scouts, and analysts do.

[Pedro Cerrano]

That's making the assumption that the manager and his staff are the best evaluators of talent across the league. I'm not saying that they'd necessarily do a bad job, but I don't think they'd do any better than the current system.

Remember, managers and coaches don't identify, evaluate, and sign players - GMs, scouts, and analysts do.

Sorry, but I can't agree with the notion that a man who took a team to the World Series would only do as good a job as million of fans -- many of whom couldn't pick Prince Fielder or Chase Utley out of a police line-up.

[charliec107]

The problem is there will always been "snubs", no matter how big the roster is. Even if there were 100 spots determined by the "Master of All-Star Game Talent Evalution", there would be debate abut whether the 101st best player was snubbed. The single best player at each position usually gets picked anyways. They snubs are usually somewhere between are usually the third or fourth (sometimes second) best at their position.

I just know it is a big deal for some kid in Kansas City to see their lone rep just take the field during the anthem and see their favorite team represented with everyone else.

I think we were all spoiled with Ripken starting every year and we don't realize how big a deal it is to some other small markets. This sums up why I feel every team deserves a rep.