blur2005
July 5th, 2005, 08:40 PM
I have two major complaints with the MLB All-Star game:
First, the newer thing of having the game actually count for something. If the NL champ wins 106 games this year or something like that, and the AL champ is the wild card team that won only 93, who should host the majority of the World Series games? The NL team, of course. But if the AL wins the All-Star game, the lesser of the two teams gets to host. It's foolish; I know Fox wants added emphasis on the game to get more viewers, but it seems illogical to me in terms of legitimacy.
My second complaint is the foolish system of having every team represented. I know that it's supposedly fair allowing each team to have at least one representative, but c'mon. There are certain teams that don't have a player who is good enough at his position to warrant selection, and because he gets on the team, it robs someone else who is playing a lot better of his chance to be an All-Star. My favorite example of this is the 1999 All-Star game, when my favorite player, Chipper Jones, was robbed of his spot on the roster because of an injury to Jason Kendall, forcing Ed Sprague to be promoted on to the All-Star team, robbing Chipper of a roster spot. Guess who ended up winning the National League MVP award in 1999? It certainly wasn't Ed Sprague, who hit .267, hit 22 homers, and had 81 RBIs. No, it was Chipper Jones, who had a career year, carrying the Braves to the World Series, hitting .319, with 45 homers, and 110 RBIs. Yeah, Ed Sprague...he's done nothing really in his career. That's just my favorite example, but there are others of players getting gypped by this rule.
Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there.
First, the newer thing of having the game actually count for something. If the NL champ wins 106 games this year or something like that, and the AL champ is the wild card team that won only 93, who should host the majority of the World Series games? The NL team, of course. But if the AL wins the All-Star game, the lesser of the two teams gets to host. It's foolish; I know Fox wants added emphasis on the game to get more viewers, but it seems illogical to me in terms of legitimacy.
My second complaint is the foolish system of having every team represented. I know that it's supposedly fair allowing each team to have at least one representative, but c'mon. There are certain teams that don't have a player who is good enough at his position to warrant selection, and because he gets on the team, it robs someone else who is playing a lot better of his chance to be an All-Star. My favorite example of this is the 1999 All-Star game, when my favorite player, Chipper Jones, was robbed of his spot on the roster because of an injury to Jason Kendall, forcing Ed Sprague to be promoted on to the All-Star team, robbing Chipper of a roster spot. Guess who ended up winning the National League MVP award in 1999? It certainly wasn't Ed Sprague, who hit .267, hit 22 homers, and had 81 RBIs. No, it was Chipper Jones, who had a career year, carrying the Braves to the World Series, hitting .319, with 45 homers, and 110 RBIs. Yeah, Ed Sprague...he's done nothing really in his career. That's just my favorite example, but there are others of players getting gypped by this rule.
Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there.