Official MLB All-Star Game Thread

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Anyways, I dislike having Ortiz start at 1B. One, he's not a first baseman and two, he pushed Kevin Youkilis off of the list. Ortiz is the best of the first baseman on the ballot, but I didn't vote for him since I didn't consider him a 1B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just contradict yourself like 3 times here?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah he did, but its an amusing post

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
They call it the 2007 all-star game for a reason, right?

Or is it called the 2/5 of 2007 All-Star/Run-Good game.

I actually agree with Vyse here, players can have such ridiculously fluky starts of a season, especially in the popular lucky stats(ERA, Wins, BA) that it's stupid to declare them all stars based on that.


James Shields is actually awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, players run good. But can't you use stats that are more likely to be a result of good play than running good and go from there? To what degree should we use what has happened this season to determine who gets a chance to play in the all-star game? I agree with sample size and all that, but I see no reason why the players having the best seasons shouldn't be rewarded. If it's close in any way, I definitely say give it to the proven star, but you get into a sticky area when relying on previous season's performance to dictate all-stars. Should Zito be an all-star based on his last year's performance? Mussina? I mean it doesn't really matter much to me at all. The fans vote and I think the fans always vote for the people they want to see the most which is really all that matters. But as far as merit-based selection, I really see no reason not to take good reliable statistics(ignoring stats with obvious flaws like ERA or batting average) and going from there.

James

[SL__72]

Only thing that bugs me is Hanely getting snubbed. At this point he is probably the best offensive SS in the MLB. I know SS in the NL is stacked, but he is way more worthy then Hardy. Renteria and JRoll are too for that matter.

I think its awesome/hilarious that Dmitri Young is an all star.

The fans did a pretty good job of voting imo. In the AL, I only vote 2 positions differently (Victor at C and Roberts at 2b) and the same with the NL (Cabrera at 3rd, Holliday > Beltran) Basically DET and NYM fans messed it up.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Only thing that bugs me is Hanely getting snubbed. At this point he is probably the best offensive SS in the MLB. I know SS in the NL is stacked, but he is way more worthy then Hardy. Renteria and JRoll are too for that matter.

I think its awesome/hilarious that Dmitri Young is an all star.

The fans did a pretty good job of voting imo. In the AL, I only vote 2 positions differently (Victor at C and Roberts at 2b) and the same with the NL (Cabrera at 3rd, Holliday > Beltran) Basically DET and NYM fans messed it up.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, Hanley getting snubbed is a complete joke. Probably the only thing I have a huge problem with, except Freddy Sanchez being on the team.

James

[SL__72]

Yeah, Snell and Gorz should probably both be in anyway which alleviates the need to pick someone from their very average group of hitters.

[AbreuTime]

Mistakes (ignoring mediocre players who got in as their team's rep):
Orlando Hudson > H. Ramirez
Fuentes > C. Young
Sanchez > Gorz/Snell

I don't follow the AL as much, but I was surprised that Shef didn't get a nod. I probably would have picked Shields over Crawford as TB rep.

I'm a pretty big Polanco fan, and I'm glad he got voted in to start.

[CheckRaise]

No Young, Francis, Maine, Gorzelanny, Snell, Hudson, Oswalt...

Cole Hamels shouldn't have been picked over any of these guys, I mean I know he strikes out a lot of guys but come on.

[goofball]

SuperUBerBob,

Ichiro's OPS+ is 142, Sheffield's is 146, Ichiro has more than twice as many steals and half as many CS, and plays gold glove centerfield. Would you trade one straight up for the other?

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
No Young, Francis, Maine, Gorzelanny, Snell, Hudson, Oswalt...

Cole Hamels shouldn't have been picked over any of these guys, I mean I know he strikes out a lot of guys but come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way Francis or Maine are > than Hamels. Hudson is questionable as well, and I'd also probably take Hamels over Snell and Gorzelanny, too. And maybe Oswalt, whose peripherals are sucking.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, players run good. But can't you use stats that are more likely to be a result of good play than running good and go from there?

[/ QUOTE ]

... Yeah, in 2/5 of the season. The basic way I pick my All-Stars is asking one simple question: based on my best estimation of what happens by the end of this season, and factoring in potential growth, is Player A a reliably better bet than Player B the following season? That simple. The best players in the game should be in the All-Star game, and that is not proven through two and a half months...

[ QUOTE ]
To what degree should we use what has happened this season to determine who gets a chance to play in the all-star game? I agree with sample size and all that, but I see no reason why the players having the best seasons shouldn't be rewarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't even say they're going to HAVE the best seasons with three months left to play.

[ QUOTE ]
If it's close in any way, I definitely say give it to the proven star, but you get into a sticky area when relying on previous season's performance to dictate all-stars. Should Zito be an all-star based on his last year's performance? Mussina?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's not sticky at all. Zito? He was a borderline All-Star last year (not saying he was or wasn't, but either way he was borderline); this year he has been mediocre despite being in a very easy division / home park, and his peripherals have been on a downward trend for a while, so that's evidence he's solid, not great, and therefore not an All-Star. Similar with Mussina, who's old, has had injury concerns, and before last year looked like he was near done. Very easy situations.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean it doesn't really matter much to me at all. The fans vote and I think the fans always vote for the people they want to see the most which is really all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obviously not all that matters since many of the decisions the idiotic fans make will be used dozens of years from now to foolishly argue the Hall of Fame candidacy of someone. It also serves to jack up salaries ("Hey, my client, Shea Hillenbrand, is just coming off an All-Star berth!") for mediocre players, which is a negative towards MLB, not a positive.

[ QUOTE ]
But as far as merit-based selection, I really see no reason not to take good reliable statistics(ignoring stats with obvious flaws like ERA or batting average) and going from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Houston Astros circa 04 and 05. Oakland A's circa 05. Minnesota Twins circa 06. Imagine if we just made hard conclusions about their prospects on the season before we even let the entire season play out. Those teams had ~2 months, if not more, of games played and sucked hardcore; they then played considerably better and ended up among the best teams in their league. So the point is, what's a valid sample size in the baseball world? It surely isn't two and a half months...

[CheckRaise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No Young, Francis, Maine, Gorzelanny, Snell, Hudson, Oswalt...

Cole Hamels shouldn't have been picked over any of these guys, I mean I know he strikes out a lot of guys but come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way Francis or Maine are > than Hamels. Hudson is questionable as well, and I'd also probably take Hamels over Snell and Gorzelanny, too. And maybe Oswalt, whose peripherals are sucking.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

all of those guys have a better ERA+ and VORP than Hamels