Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 Bjorn, I know the reality of the all-star game being a popularity contest...doesn't make it any less ludicrous when somebody like AJ gets in over more deserved players or someone gets voted in for their performance last year. That's all i'm saying.Ludicrous is a little strong. He's having an all-star type season. There are just others who are more deserving. That's life in the AL. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Ludicrous is a little strong. He's having an all-star type season. There are just others who are more deserving. ridiculous? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 so then do you base it on current season to date stats? last year's stats?I'd imagine it'd have to be up until roughly 2 weeks prior to the ASG stats. This would actually be closer to the true half-way point of the season, too, stat-wise. As it is now, balloting begins in late May, I think. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 What's ludicrous is that Liriano and Verlander weren't just on the team to begin with. I'm just happy No-mahhhh made it in. It would have been, dare I say, ludicrous not to have had the guy leading the league in batting in the All-Star game. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Yet Major League Baseball assures its fans that they have taken precautions to guard against this. Well, don't some players/teams have contracts with escalation clauses when players make the ASG? if so, doesn't that give some teams reason NOT to push their players for selection? Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 Depends on the size of the bonus and how cash-strapped the team is. AJ's bonus was something like $15,000. Peanuts. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 well AJ being in there is definitely a case of ballot stuffing....they have no way to prevent it if you can vote as much as you like.....there was a big campaign here to get AJ in. Same with Scotty Pods last year. Well, at least Pierzynski is more deserving than Podsednik was last year; I'll give him that. Now, obviously I'm rooting for the White Sox to not make it back to the World Series, however, if they do, I think it would be great if they don't get home field advantage because Ozzie stacked the team with Sox who put in a lesser performance in the All Star game than some others might have. Granted, it's just one game, so putting the best players on the team is no guarantee of a better result, but hey, it would at least be poetic justice on some small level. However, if the Tigers make it this year, and the AL loses the All Star game because of all this...well then I'll be pissed. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I give less than a shit about the All-Star Game. I mean, really, who cares? It's always a boring game, and people expend way too much energy arguing about who should and should not be there. Why does it matter? Why do we even have such a game? I know that it's now ingrained into the pro sports culture and certain parties probably make a lot of money off of these games, but if the all-star games in all the major sports suddenly ceased to exist, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. I never watch any of them (if I see an inning of the baseball version each year, I'd be surprised, and that's more than I ever see of the ones in other sports). The home run contest and slam dunk contest are exponentially more exciting than the all-star games they're associated with, and I think both of those events are boring too. Ah, but every year, arguments like this one erupt ... so my guess is, that's why these games happen. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Depends on the size of the bonus and how cash-strapped the team is. AJ's bonus was something like $15,000. Peanuts. Not only is that a particularly small bonus, but I think even in situations where the players get larger bonuses, it is still in a team's interest to push for more All Stars. More All Stars gets fan interest up, and that leads to higher gate receipts (for teams that aren't already selling their games out anyway) and higher merchandising sales. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 You're talking about a marginal difference in performance and possibly no difference in talent. The AL squad is frickin' loaded and should crush the NL. Yes, the team is stacked with White Sox, but most of them are deserving. Hell, the White Sox could probably beat the NL team. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I give less than a shit about the All-Star Game. I mean, really, who cares? It's always a boring game, and people expend way too much energy arguing about who should and should not be there. Why does it matter? Why do we even have such a game? I know that it's now ingrained into the pro sports culture and certain parties probably make a lot of money off of these games, but if the all-star games in all the major sports suddenly ceased to exist, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. I never watch any of them (if I see an inning of the baseball version each year, I'd be surprised, and that's more than I ever see of the ones in other sports). The home run contest and slam dunk contest are exponentially more exciting than the all-star games they're associated with, and I think both of those events are boring too. Ah, but every year, arguments like this one erupt ... so my guess is, that's why these games happen. Most of the excitement that goes along with being a sports fan lies in arguments about unimportant things. See, your problem is that you're trying to think about these things rationally. Reason and rationality have no place in the world of sports fandom. You're talking about a marginal difference in performance and possibly no difference in talent. The AL squad is frickin' loaded and should crush the NL. Yes, the team is stacked with White Sox, but most of them are deserving. Hell, the White Sox could probably beat the NL team. Even if the White Sox totally sucked there'd be a chance that they could beat the NL on their own. It's just one game, and any team can beat any other on the right day. I was talking purely in theoretical/vengeful terms. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 (edited) Per ASG: Joe Average fan likes it. And, it drives in loads of money to the hosting city and gives MLB a chance to promote the sport on an epicly inflated scale. That said, I don't watch either. I've got another pressing question, though: Why the title of "Captain" on some teams? And why does Varitek have to wear the riciculous "C" on his jersey? I can understand a Captain in hockey, for example, because it's who the referees go to for penalties/problems. But what, in baseball, does a Captain actually do? Absolutely nothing. Clubhouse morale? It's ridiculous. It bears no significance whatsoever. Edited July 7, 2006 by Lammycat Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Most of the excitement that goes along with being a sports fan lies in arguments about unimportant things. See, your problem is that you're trying to think about these things rationally. Reason and rationality have no place in the world of sports fandom.Oh, I love a sports-related argument about unimportant things as much as the next guy -- but all star games, fuck. I just can't be bothered to care. I'm sure the idea was to put the greatest players of the day onto the field at the same time, resulting in a great game, but it never works out that way. On a related note, is there anything more useless than the Pro Bowl? Seriously. But this is a baseball thread, so don't answer that. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 Joe Average fan likes it. And, it drives in loads of money to the hosting city and gives MLB a chance to promote the sport on an epically inflated scale. That said, I don't watch either. I've got another pressing question, though: Why the title of "Captain" on some teams? And why does Varitek have to wear the riciculous "C" on his jersey? I can understand a Captain in hockey, for example, because it's who the referees go to for penalties/problems. But what, in baseball, does a Captain actually do? Absolutely nothing. Clubhouse morale? It's ridiculous. It bears no significance whatsoever.It's just a prestige/authority thing. Konerko is captain of the White Sox, but elected to avoid the C. It's like a king without a crown. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 You're talking about a marginal difference in performance and possibly no difference in talent. The AL squad is frickin' loaded and should crush the NL. Yes, the team is stacked with White Sox, but most of them are deserving. Hell, the White Sox could probably beat the NL team. I'd say the only reason the AL will beat the NL is because it is such a different game over in the AL. It is an offensive minded game that relies on the home run to win it. The NL is much more strategy, and a guy with worse stats can have a much bigger impact in an NL team than a guy with monster stats in the AL. I'd say a guy like Dan Uggla on the Marlins is worth much more to his team than a guy like Troy Glaus in Toronto. (and according to VORP, I am completely correct, as Uggla is the 25 ranked player in the league). And not surprisingly, NL pitchers dominate the pitching VORP as much as AL hitters dominate the hitters VORP. (VORP is Value Over Replacement Player, and it is considered one of the best ways to judge a players value in terms of wins attributed to his team). Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I've got another pressing question, though: Why the title of "Captain" on some teams? And why does Varitek have to wear the riciculous "C" on his jersey? I can understand a Captain in hockey, for example, because it's who the referees go to for penalties/problems. But what, in baseball, does a Captain actually do? Absolutely nothing. Clubhouse morale? It's ridiculous. It bears no significance whatsoever. I'd never seen this in baseball at all until a couple years ago. I'm not sure I really understand it either, but for what it's worth, I think only a few teams do this, or at least only a few teams put the "C" on the jersey, regardless of how many have a "captain" or not. Oh, I love a sports-related argument about unimportant things as much as the next guy -- but all star games, fuck. I just can't be bothered to care. I'm sure the idea was to put the greatest players of the day onto the field at the same time, resulting in a great game, but it never works out that way. On a related note, is there anything more useless than the Pro Bowl? Seriously. But this is a baseball thread, so don't answer that. Personally I love the baseball All Star game, but yeah, it's a pretty meaningless thing, so I can completely understand people not caring. And yeah, there's always a handful of guys on the team who shouldn't be. But it's just so fun to argue about it. The Pro Bowl does nothing for me though. I think the big problem with the Pro Bowl is that it's done after the season has ended. Many of the players have already been done playing for a couple months, so those that actually choose to play are all out of shape and don't really care. They all just go because they want to go to Hawaii. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I care about the All-Star Game this year, as my favorite team may well be in competition to win the pennant. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I'd say the only reason the AL will beat the NL is because it is such a different game over in the AL. It is an offensive minded game that relies on the home run to win it. The NL is much more strategy, and a guy with worse stats can have a much bigger impact in an NL team than a guy with monster stats in the AL. I'd say a guy like Dan Uggla on the Marlins is worth much more to his team than a guy like Troy Glaus in Toronto. (and according to VORP, I am completely correct, as Uggla is the 25 ranked player in the league). If the different style of play causes the American League to consistently beat the NL (and I'm actually speaking more in terms of head to head play between real teams--like in interleague play more than the All Star game), then isn't this an indication that their style of play is better? I mean, a difference in style of play can account for certain statistical differences without proving that one league is better than the other, but I don't think that it can account for the big hurt that the AL has put on the NL in interleague play, especially since it's been pretty lopsided regardless of whether the games are played in AL or NL parks. It seems as though interleague play has pretty much proven that the AL is better at this particular time, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 If the different style of play causes the American League to consistently beat the NL (and I'm actually speaking more in terms of head to head play between real teams--like in interleague play more than the All Star game), then isn't this an indication that their style of play is better? I mean, a difference in style of play can account for certain statistical differences without proving that one league is better than the other, but I don't think that it can account for the big hurt that the AL has put on the NL in interleague play, especially since it's been pretty lopsided regardless of whether the games are played in AL or NL parks. It seems as though interleague play has pretty much proven that the AL is better at this particular time, don't you think? You are right, of course. Although I had this discussion with someone the other day at work, and basically, it comes down to the Yankees and Red Sox (but of course). (Hypothetically) If the Yankees and Red Sox are spending 120 million plus, they will most likely at least win the division and wild card, or wild card and division, respectively. This means that for every other team in the AL, they have to increase their spending just to win their own division. So it leads to most big name free agents moving to the AL because right now, that is where the money is (I have no stats to back this up, but I'd expect 7 of the top 10 pay rolls are in the AL). I am, of course completely wrong, in that regard, as 6 of the top 10 are NL teams. The AL is just better right now. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 You are right, of course. Although I had this discussion with someone the other day at work, and basically, it comes down to the Yankees and Red Sox (but of course). (Hypothetically) If the Yankees and Red Sox are spending 120 million plus, they will most likely at least win the division and wild card, or wild card and division, respectively. This means that for every other team in the AL, they have to increase their spending just to win their own division. So it leads to most big name free agents moving to the AL because right now, that is where the money is (I have no stats to back this up, but I'd expect 7 of the top 10 pay rolls are in the AL). I am, of course completely wrong, in that regard, as 6 of the top 10 are NL teams. Free agency money can account for some of it sure. What is your basis for claiming that 6 of the top 10 teams are in the NL though? Are you basing that just on record alone? Because I think that's not a good basis for judging that, because, if the rest of the NL is terrible, then those top teams will have inflated win totals since they're playing weaker competition. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I would at this point pencil either the Sox (Rouge) or the Yanks out of the wild card, as it seems either Detroit or the Sox (Blanc) will take that. The Yanks spent tons of money in the '80s, and it didn't get them squat. And the Knicks lead the payroll in the NBA. It's not just spending, it's spending wisely and being lucky, which personified the '90s Yankees. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Free agency money can account for some of it sure. What is your basis for claiming that 6 of the top 10 teams are in the NL though? Are you basing that just on record alone? Because I think that's not a good basis for judging that, because, if the rest of the NL is terrible, then those top teams will have inflated win totals since they're playing weaker competition. I meant 6 of top 10 in terms of payroll. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I meant 6 of top 10 in terms of payroll. My bad, I completely misunderstood. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 I'd say the only reason the AL will beat the NL is because it is such a different game over in the AL. It is an offensive minded game that relies on the home run to win it. The NL is much more strategy, and a guy with worse stats can have a much bigger impact in an NL team than a guy with monster stats in the AL. I'd say a guy like Dan Uggla on the Marlins is worth much more to his team than a guy like Troy Glaus in Toronto. (and according to VORP, I am completely correct, as Uggla is the 25 ranked player in the league).And not surprisingly, NL pitchers dominate the pitching VORP as much as AL hitters dominate the hitters VORP. (VORP is Value Over Replacement Player, and it is considered one of the best ways to judge a players value in terms of wins attributed to his team). This is kind of iffy logic. The NL pitchers have better stats because they pitch to weaker hitters. The AL has both stronger pitching and hitting and this was fairly well established in this year's inter-league games. Troy Glaus is one of the more questionable picks, so I'm not sure what your point is. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 This is kind of iffy logic. The NL pitchers have better stats because they pitch to weaker hitters. The AL has both stronger pitching and hitting and this was fairly well established in this year's inter-league games. Troy Glaus is one of the more questionable picks, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm just saying a guy like Glaus who has arguably better stats than Uggla is nowhere near as valuable to his team because it is a different style of play. Either way, once the Marlins dynasty restarts next year, it won't matter what the rest of the league does, because we are going to be a juggernaut that rolls over all comers Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts