|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Reactions: MLB All-Star voting CNNSI.com users weigh-in with selection suggestionsPosted: Thursday July 06, 2000 11:25 AM
The subject of selecting players for the MLB All-Star game is a source for great debate. From picking the starters to adding the reserves, there are many field manager-wannabes that have their own ideas about how players should be selected for the mid-summer classic. CNNSI.com users were asked if fans should get to vote of if there is a better way to select these teams. The majority responded that the current selection process is a popularity contest that disregards players' statistics and that there are other ways to pick who's an All-Star that takes many factors into consideration. Here's a sample of the most interesting responses we received: I think the starters should continue to be voted in by the fans as the All-Star game is for the entertainment of the fans and paid for by the fans.
The big problem comes with the reserves. Why are they picked this way? I don't understand why the World Series manager gets to pick the reserves. It would be much fairer if all the managers in the league voted for the reserves. They would list 1-10 at each position and the players with the highest overall votes would be selected. Managers would be allowed to vote for their own team members but that would only be one vote.
The All-Star game is the fans' game, but let's face it most fans don't know what they're talking about. Ken Griffey, Jr. has a .240 batting average, yet somehow, the fans still like him. Mark McGwire hit 70 homeruns at one point in his career, so that means he should be starting in the All-Star game every year, right? I don't think so. But still, I think the fans should vote on the starters, but the players should vote on the reserves. It's ridiculous that these two lineups are packed full of Braves and Yankees. The managers are getting their reward for going to the World Series--the get to manage the All-Star game, but that doesn't mean they should take their whole team with them.
I think that the starters should be picked by the fans. The All-Star game is for them and they should be able to see who they want to see, whether they are having their best year or not. I feel the reserves should be voted on by all players and managers. Players should get a chance to send the people that are deserving of the honor. The players and managers would probably send people that are having All-Star years where the fans only think of a guy's reputation. I think the pitchers should all be picked by the fans. They're a part of the starters so they should be voted on too. The fans should be able to see who they want to see pitch. Thank you! :)
1. Fans vote for starters (except pitchers). Must play at least three innings and/or 2 at bats. Fans should vote for starters. Managers and/or media collectively should vote for reserves (the way it is in the NBA). Having one manager pick the entire list of reserves (the current system in baseball) is too biased.
The All-Star game is nothing more than a popularity contest. It is a shame that deserving players are left off of the rosters just because another player is more popular. That being said, I think the best way to select the rosters would be to let players, managers, along with the fans, vote. The votes should be weighted, with the fan's votes counting the least.
No. The voting system for the All-Star Game is not fair. First of all, I am the biggest Cal Ripken fan in the world. But my personal hero is not having an All-Star season. I believe that the All-Star Game voting would be more fair if the fans, players, and managers picked the All-Star team. Each of these three groups should cast ballots. Sorry fans, but players and managers votes should carry more weight.
Despite following MLB closely and being very informed about baseball in general, I have a hard time picking the "All-Stars." How is an average fan who only pays attention to their home team (I don't have one obviously) supposed to make a rational judgement about who should represent the league in the game. It is a game for the fans, and they deserve to see the best players, not the ones who line up for the team who gets the best attendance or the most ballots filled at their stadium!
I think that they should follow something along the lines of what football is now doing. Fans vote = 1/3, Players Vote = 1/3, Managers Vote = 1/3. And you treat it like they do with MVPs and the like. You get 10 points for the highest vote total at your position, and then so on down. So only the top 10 get points. If there is a tie, use the Fan Vote to determine the winner.
Then use the same method used now to pick the reserves, although I think this every team deserves an All-Star is a crime, McGriff makes is and Frank Thomas does not?!?!?!
I think the only problem with the All-Star selection process is that each team must have a representative. A true All-Star team would be the best players in the league, period. Every year players are left off that deserve to play. While there will always be snubs, there is a better chance the the best players will be playing if they don't have to choose from every team.
Fan voting needs to be eliminated because undeserving players (Cal Ripken, Ken Griffey, Jr., etc.) end up making it over the players who are really having the good year. Letting the managers pick all of them wouldn't be sufficient either because they always show favoritism to their own team. I think the players should pick the All-Stars themselves because it would be unbiased and players who are having MVP years such as Frank Thomas won't have to miss the All-Star game.
I don't think that fans should have complete control of voting for the starters. A prime example of why they should not is the fact that Craig Biggio almost made the All-Star team ahead of as many as seven much more qualified players. I think that many fans just vote for the players they have heard of, regardless of the type of season they are having. And I realize that the game is supposed to be for the fans but I have a hard time believing that the die hard baseball fans really wanted to see Craig Biggio play ahead of the likes of more deserving players like Jeff Kent, Edgardo Alfonzo, and Jose Vidro. Instead, maybe a system like the NFL has could be put into place where the fans have some input, but also the players themselves as well as the managers.
Another problem with the current system is that though the National League has 16 teams and the American League has 14, they are both allotted the same number of players. Worse yet is that each team is required to be represented, which waters down the talent selected to some degree. I think that rule should be abolished and rosters should be expanded so that more deserving players can go. And even if not all players got to play, I am sure they would appreciate the recognition and the chance to have the All-Star experience.
I think that the fans should vote on the starters, reserves, and even the pitchers because, as the players forget sometimes, this game is intended to gain the interest of the fans and not the interest of the players. Many players are complaining that their teammates should not be left off of the list because of their impressive stats. They are trying to be unselfish, yet they are forgeting the point. Whether the players like it or not it should be "status over stats".
The process of fan selection for the MLB All-Star game is good in the sense that fans get to choose who they want to see in the game. Other than that reason though, the process is completely unfair to some players every year. The fans should have a say, but also it should be balanced out with votes from both managers and players in the way that the NFL does for the Pro Bowl. This way, the fans still get their choices, but it eliminates (hopefully) the times when old fan favorites make the game, even though they don't deserve to go when some other individual is having a far better year. Case in point, I love Cal Ripken, but he does not deserve to start on the team when Troy Glaus and Travis Fryman are both having better years than he is.
If the concept of "All-Star" is to be truly taken seriously, then participants should be selected based on the current STATISTICS for each player, NOT on who has the best publicist and, therefore, the most face-time on TV or in newspaper interviews.
An All-Star is a player who is having a great year. The All-Star voting process is not fair because the guys who are the most popular get elected and not the most deserving players. For example, Cal Ripken does not deserve to even be playing in the game with other third basemen like Troy Glaus and Tony Batista having much better seasons. And is there any one who can honestly say that any of the NL outfielders, especially Ken Griffey, are having better years than Vladimir Guerrero, perhaps the best player of the first half of the season?
|
