9RoyHobbsRF
06-17-2009, 04:04 PM
I have seen various things said about the all-star game and related items on this and other sites (there were many on the "what would you do as commissioner" thread here on BB Fever) and I have to throw some things out there
I am not trying to start arguments or point fingers but some of the logic or stated facts are at the least debatable
ITEM 1) "The all-star game is intended for players who had the best first halves"
my reaction is really?
rebuttal 1: did the creator of the all-star game back in 1933 say I want to create a game for the fans to see the best first half players? I doubt it. Is there a written stipulation in an all-star game "charter" that says that the all-star game is intended for players who had the best first halves?
rebuttal 2: did the game "evolve" into that intention today? when did the change take place? was it gradual? recent? or just some fans take? you have an established star say a Brooks Robinson who hits in the first half .275 with 9 HR. another player comes up and has a hot few weeks and hits .285 with 12 home runs. It can be argued the other player had a better first half, I would rather see Brooks in the all-star game, not even a close decision for me.
rebuttal 3: player "A" plays in a "cold" weather city, that city heats up in the summer, June/July/August and that's when he piles up his offesnive numbers. Player "B" plays in a "warm" weather city and can get better offensive numbers "earlier" due to hotter weather earlier and when you compare the two players "B" has better first half stats than "A", is it fair for player "A" to be excluded?
rebuttal 4: how/when do you honor a player who has a great second half of the season? in last year's all-star game? impossible! in next year's all-star game? well what if he doesn't have a big first half? how do you account for a player with this type of second half production? (off the top of my head I am thinking Bill White 1964 as an example).
ITEM 2) these are often combined in comments by the same person... "don't let the all-star game decide HFA in the world series because it is an exhibition game" and "take the voting away from the fans"
rebuttal (pretty obvious): if it is an exhibition and should not have any attached results/importance, why would it make sense to take the fans out of the voting? I would say that it is pretty much a definition of exhibition to be for the fans
and then there are some semantics issues
is an all-star game a game with a collection of stars? or a game with a collection of all-stars? I always found it make more sense (in my George Carlin/Gallagher way) that a player is not an all-star, he is a star and the misdummer game is an all-star game, which is a collection of stars. Why do we need the extra "all", he can make the all-star team/game, but he is a star, not an all-star. (sorry for this one, just my pet peeve)
I am not trying to start arguments or point fingers but some of the logic or stated facts are at the least debatable
ITEM 1) "The all-star game is intended for players who had the best first halves"
my reaction is really?
rebuttal 1: did the creator of the all-star game back in 1933 say I want to create a game for the fans to see the best first half players? I doubt it. Is there a written stipulation in an all-star game "charter" that says that the all-star game is intended for players who had the best first halves?
rebuttal 2: did the game "evolve" into that intention today? when did the change take place? was it gradual? recent? or just some fans take? you have an established star say a Brooks Robinson who hits in the first half .275 with 9 HR. another player comes up and has a hot few weeks and hits .285 with 12 home runs. It can be argued the other player had a better first half, I would rather see Brooks in the all-star game, not even a close decision for me.
rebuttal 3: player "A" plays in a "cold" weather city, that city heats up in the summer, June/July/August and that's when he piles up his offesnive numbers. Player "B" plays in a "warm" weather city and can get better offensive numbers "earlier" due to hotter weather earlier and when you compare the two players "B" has better first half stats than "A", is it fair for player "A" to be excluded?
rebuttal 4: how/when do you honor a player who has a great second half of the season? in last year's all-star game? impossible! in next year's all-star game? well what if he doesn't have a big first half? how do you account for a player with this type of second half production? (off the top of my head I am thinking Bill White 1964 as an example).
ITEM 2) these are often combined in comments by the same person... "don't let the all-star game decide HFA in the world series because it is an exhibition game" and "take the voting away from the fans"
rebuttal (pretty obvious): if it is an exhibition and should not have any attached results/importance, why would it make sense to take the fans out of the voting? I would say that it is pretty much a definition of exhibition to be for the fans
and then there are some semantics issues
is an all-star game a game with a collection of stars? or a game with a collection of all-stars? I always found it make more sense (in my George Carlin/Gallagher way) that a player is not an all-star, he is a star and the misdummer game is an all-star game, which is a collection of stars. Why do we need the extra "all", he can make the all-star team/game, but he is a star, not an all-star. (sorry for this one, just my pet peeve)