The Some Stars Game

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:47 am

Something happened on the way to the All Star game.

Once, this game was our league's best against your league's best. Now, it has become a war of attrition. Players opt out to rest, rest an injury, have an injury, some pitched Sunday, while some just plain don't want to go.

At least 16 players have opted out for the reasons above. 'At least' because others like Aramis Ramirez turned down an invitation because of pre-made plans.

Writers like penning 'Who got snubbed' columns, but eventually the snubees play for somebody else and even players without All Star credentials go to the game.So we are treated to All Stars Scott Rolen and Dave Robertson. Woohoo.

Once 'THE' All Star game in sports, the baseball All Star game started losing its luster when interleague play was introduced. For some players it has become no more than a bonus on their contract of incentives.

Now, it is about Managers asking the All Star Manager not to use their players too much. Now, it is not about seeing the best of the best.

Now, it is about seeing the best of the rest.

The All Star game 'counts' now. But not enough to move some players to play. If it doesn't 'count' enough for a player to want to play, why should I the fan care?

I am all for taking the All Star designation away from any player who isn't sitting on their All Star team's bench. This would mean if they don't make an appearance at the game, their contract incentive is null and void.The mere fact that they show up at the game, at the least, displays that they care.

As is, we will have at least 84 players who will call themselves All Star's next year.

I'll be calling some of them them something else.

The All Star game has become a human bait and switch. It is still called the All Star game, but we know better. It is like buying a ticket for a Springseen/Rolling Stones/The Who concert, only to find out it'll be The Who/Frampton/Air Supply.

It is now, The Some Stars Game.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:55 am

Scott Rolen making the All-Star team and now starting is an absolute joke. No excuse for him to be named to the team ahead of Aramis Ramirez or Chase Headley. Pujols could've been picked too. Rolen is only slightly more deserving of being an All-Star than Casey McGahee. I realize the 3B position is weak but there were far better options than a .240 hitter with no power.

Johnny Venters is darn good but how does he get picked ahead of his own teammate Kimbrel (who ultimately did make it) or John Axford?

Good thing this game "counts" since so many qualified players won't be there.

whipsaw · Post by **whipsaw** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:06 am

In 1960, there were 16 teams in baseball. That's 400 major leaguers on 25 man rosters. With 25 man rosters on each All Star team, that means that 12.5% of all players were considered "All Stars" (not including injury replacements, if any occurred). There are now 30 teams representing 750 players. If 84 are "on" a team in some fashion, that's 11.2% of all players.

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:24 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Scott Rolen making the All-Star team and now starting is an absolute joke. No excuse for him to be named to the team ahead of Aramis Ramirez or Chase Headley. Pujols could've been picked too. Rolen is only slightly more deserving of being an All-Star than Casey McGahee. I realize the 3B position is weak but there were far better options than a .240 hitter with no power.

Johnny Venters is darn good but how does he get picked ahead of his own teammate Kimbrel (who ultimately did make it) or John Axford?

Good thing this game "counts" since so many qualified players won't be there. I'm pretty sure Rolen made it because he was the next leading vote-getter at 3B after Polanco. When a fan-voted starter backs out, I believe they automatically go to the next top vote getter not in the ASG

Quack · Post by **Quack** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:09 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Scott Rolen making the All-Star team and now starting is an absolute joke. No excuse for him to be named to the team ahead of Aramis Ramirez or Chase Headley. Pujols could've been picked too. Rolen is only slightly more deserving of being an All-Star than Casey McGahee. I realize the 3B position is weak but there were far better options than a .240 hitter with no power.

Johnny Venters is darn good but how does he get picked ahead of his own teammate Kimbrel (who ultimately did make it) or John Axford?

Good thing this game "counts" since so many qualified players won't be there. Aramis declined as he had plans to go on a short vacation.

Cocktails and Dreams · Post by **Cocktails and Dreams** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:19 am

"I am all for taking the All Star designation away from any player who isn't sitting on their All Star team's bench. This would mean if they don't make an appearance at the game, their contract incentive is null and void.The mere fact that they show up at the game, at the least, displays that they care."

I agree with that for sure. That would be a step in the right direction.

The Mighty Men · Post by **The Mighty Men** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:05 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Scott Rolen making the All-Star team and now starting is an absolute joke. No excuse for him to be named to the team ahead of Aramis Ramirez or Chase Headley. Two comments about Ramirez. First, Ramirez has been a completely disinterested ball player for the Cubs this year. he is completely just going through the motions. He started hitting only after the Cubs are out of contention, which admittedly didn't take long. He is doing nothing but playing for a contract at this point. I can't wait until he is OFF the Cubs (along with Soriano) so we get somebody with a little heart on this team.

Second, he turned down attending the game, which fits right along with his disinterest in playing baseball except only for himself.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:27 am

It does appear Rolen is going because of where he finished in the players vote. Which just goes to show the players can muck up an All-Star Game just like the fans.

Scott Rolen has been a good player in his career. But he has no business being on the All-Star team. The fact he is going because he finished second in the players' balloting strongly suggests the system needs to be overhauled.

Now watch Rolen go on and be the game's MVP.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:03 am

In 1957, there was a ballot stuffing campaign run by the Cincinnati Enquirer and others around the City.

Seven players from the Reds were voted on to the team. The only player that wasn't a Reds player and a member of the starting eight was Stan Musial.

The game was held at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis, Musial's home field.

It was found that over half of the ballots returned in the voting, came from the Cincinnati area. The Cincinnati Enquirer had printed pre-marked ballots and put them in their Sunday papers to make it easy for fans to vote often.

It was also claimed that some bartenders would not serve drinks to customers unless they had filled out an all star ballot 'correctly' first.

Then Commish Ford Frick intervened and 'benched' two of the Reds and inserted Willie Mays and Hank Aaron into the starting lineup.

He also took the vote away from fans the following year. In 1970, the vote was given back to the fans.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:52 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Something happened on the way to the All Star game.

Once, this game was our league's best against your league's best. Now, it has become a war of attrition. Players opt out to rest, rest an injury, have an injury, some pitched Sunday, while some just plain don't want to go.

Derek Jeter had to "decompress" from "emotional exhaustion" of 3000 hits. I wonder if the previous 27 players to reach 3000 hits used this excuse ... hey Pete Rose, do you want to play in the all-star game or go home to decompress?

Who's the true hall of famer?

Now if what Jeter meant was to say was, "I didn't deserve it, I'm going to pass so that Asdrubel, who should've been voted into the starting lineup, gets the all-star recognition ... then I'm on board.

[ July 11, 2011, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:52 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Something happened on the way to the All Star game.

Once, this game was our league's best against your league's best. Now, it has become a war of attrition. Players opt out to rest, rest an injury, have an injury, some pitched Sunday, while some just plain don't want to go.

Derek Jeter had to "decompress" from "emotional exhaustion" of 3000 hits. I wonder if the previous 27 players to reach 3000 hits used this excuse ... hey Pete Rose, do you want to play in the all-star game or go home to decompress?

Who's the true hall of famer?

Now if what Jeter meant was to say was, "I didn't deserve it, I'm going to pass so that Asdrubel, who should've been voted into the starting lineup, gets the all-star recognition ... then I'm on board. [/QUOTE]Agree completely.

Decompress, my ass.

Cocktails and Dreams · Post by **Cocktails and Dreams** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:44 pm

I think I would prefer to "decompress" also if I was Derek.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:45 pm

Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:

I think I would prefer to "decompress" also if I was Derek.

ok, now I get it

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:07 am

Originally posted by whipsaw:

In 1960, there were 16 teams in baseball. That's 400 major leaguers on 25 man rosters. With 25 man rosters on each All Star team, that means that 12.5% of all players were considered "All Stars" (not including injury replacements, if any occurred). There are now 30 teams representing 750 players. If 84 are "on" a team in some fashion, that's 11.2% of all players. Fair enough. Numerish, it is.

1960 was before expansion, so I can understand why you would pick that year.

BUT, in 1960, there were two All Star games.

The regular game and another game to help fund a meager players pension fund.

The rosters were 30 players at the time. 60 players for both games. Only one player missed the games due to an injury. A 98.3 attendance rate. Or, if we counted both games, the attendance rate goes up to 99.2 per cent.

2011's attendance rate is 80 per cent.

If we count players who have had enough at bats to qualify for a batting title. And qualify all pitchers eligible for an ERA title. And relievers with enough innings to match the lowest amount by an All Star reliever.

23 per cent of all players in 2011 are All Stars.

[ July 12, 2011, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

whipsaw · Post by **whipsaw** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:16 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:

In 1960, there were 16 teams in baseball. That's 400 major leaguers on 25 man rosters. With 25 man rosters on each All Star team, that means that 12.5% of all players were considered "All Stars" (not including injury replacements, if any occurred). There are now 30 teams representing 750 players. If 84 are "on" a team in some fashion, that's 11.2% of all players. Fair enough. Numerish, it is.

1960 was before expansion, so I can understand why you would pick that year.

BUT, in 1960, there were two All Star games.

The regular game and another game to help fund a meager players pension fund.

The rosters were 30 players at the time. 60 players for both games. Only one player missed the games due to an injury. A 98.3 attendance rate. Or, if we counted both games, the attendance rate goes up to 99.2 per cent.

2011's attendance rate is 80 per cent.

If we count players who have had enough at bats to qualify for a batting title. And qualify all pitchers eligible for an ERA title. And relievers with enough innings to match the lowest amount by an All Star reliever.

23 per cent of all players in 2011 are All Stars. [/QUOTE]Were those the limitations imposed on the managers picking the teams, or the fans in voting players onto the teams?

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:33 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:

In 1960, there were 16 teams in baseball. That's 400 major leaguers on 25 man rosters. With 25 man rosters on each All Star team, that means that 12.5% of all players were considered "All Stars" (not including injury replacements, if any occurred). There are now 30 teams representing 750 players. If 84 are "on" a team in some fashion, that's 11.2% of all players. Fair enough. Numerish, it is.

1960 was before expansion, so I can understand why you would pick that year.

BUT, in 1960, there were two All Star games.

The regular game and another game to help fund a meager players pension fund.

The rosters were 30 players at the time. 60 players for both games. Only one player missed the games due to an injury. A 98.3 attendance rate. Or, if we counted both games, the attendance rate goes up to 99.2 per cent.

2011's attendance rate is 80 per cent.

If we count players who have had enough at bats to qualify for a batting title. And qualify all pitchers eligible for an ERA title. And relievers with enough innings to match the lowest amount by an All Star reliever.

23 per cent of all players in 2011 are All Stars. [/QUOTE]Who knew?

DOUGHBOYS, Can speak numerish, too.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:34 am

Does it matter?

One in every five players do not show.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:35 am

Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:

In 1960, there were 16 teams in baseball. That's 400 major leaguers on 25 man rosters. With 25 man rosters on each All Star team, that means that 12.5% of all players were considered "All Stars" (not including injury replacements, if any occurred). There are now 30 teams representing 750 players. If 84 are "on" a team in some fashion, that's 11.2% of all players. Fair enough. Numerish, it is.

1960 was before expansion, so I can understand why you would pick that year.

BUT, in 1960, there were two All Star games.

The regular game and another game to help fund a meager players pension fund.

The rosters were 30 players at the time. 60 players for both games. Only one player missed the games due to an injury. A 98.3 attendance rate. Or, if we counted both games, the attendance rate goes up to 99.2 per cent.

2011's attendance rate is 80 per cent.

If we count players who have had enough at bats to qualify for a batting title. And qualify all pitchers eligible for an ERA title. And relievers with enough innings to match the lowest amount by an All Star reliever.

23 per cent of all players in 2011 are All Stars. [/QUOTE]Who knew?

DOUGHBOYS, Can speak numerish, too. [/QUOTE]

Ssssssh!

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:46 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:

In 1960, there were 16 teams in baseball. That's 400 major leaguers on 25 man rosters. With 25 man rosters on each All Star team, that means that 12.5% of all players were considered "All Stars" (not including injury replacements, if any occurred). There are now 30 teams representing 750 players. If 84 are "on" a team in some fashion, that's 11.2% of all players. Fair enough. Numerish, it is.

1960 was before expansion, so I can understand why you would pick that year.

BUT, in 1960, there were two All Star games.

The regular game and another game to help fund a meager players pension fund.

The rosters were 30 players at the time. 60 players for both games. Only one player missed the games due to an injury. A 98.3 attendance rate. Or, if we counted both games, the attendance rate goes up to 99.2 per cent.

2011's attendance rate is 80 per cent.

If we count players who have had enough at bats to qualify for a batting title. And qualify all pitchers eligible for an ERA title. And relievers with enough innings to match the lowest amount by an All Star reliever.

23 per cent of all players in 2011 are All Stars. [/QUOTE]Who knew?

DOUGHBOYS, Can speak numerish, too. [/QUOTE]

Ssssssh! [/QUOTE]He may 9876503987632, but he is no 1203975643.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:52 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Now if what Jeter meant was to say was, "I didn't deserve it, I'm going to pass so that Asdrubel, who should've been voted into the starting lineup, gets the all-star recognition ... then I'm on board. [/QUOTE]That's exactly why he did it- that's called class. Mina is icing.

Money · Post by **Money** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:45 am

Boy, what a joke that game has become. In 1971 there were 20 future hall of famers playing. The list is unreal. Everyone wanted to win it was a highly anticipated game. The Rose Fosse home plate collision brought the game to it's peak.

This year they say it counts because the world Series home field advantage is at stake. How painful is that. I think Charlie Manual was the only one who cared. He at least lined up Hamels and Lee so they could pitch. Gerardi and Leyland (worse manager in the game) will be second guessing their stupidity/selfishness should they make the world series. Both Verlander and Sabbathia could've been slotted to pitch without missing a single start. Thereby making the game a bit fairer.

I doubt Cabrera was even hurt in this game (I hope). He left so that one more guy could play and he could be replaced because he was removed because of injury. Dumb, dumb rules. They used to play it like it was meant to be played, no more.

The World Series carrot means nothing. A better way would be to assign it to the league with the most wins in inter league play. Is this perfect, not close but at least we know everyone is putting their best foot forward.

whipsaw · Post by **whipsaw** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:17 am

A lot of criticism for the ASG and the players selected, not a single solution for an incentive that will have the players playing hard and treating it like a real game like they used to. Does anyone have a solution, or is this just another general gripe thread about how players in the 50's-70's were better human beings than those playing today? (this is probably more properly labeled latent jealousy of people playing a game you love for millions of dollars while we pay money to watch them)

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:21 am

You've got this all wrong (again).

Are you an agent for these players?

We, the fans want to see the best on the field.

We don't.

We, the fans want to see players play the game hard.

We don't.

Now You want us to come up with a solution to have even more incentive for them to play harder?

It's not about comparing them to old time players. It is about them being professional and accepting with grace that fans adore them and want to see them play a game against each other at least as hard as they play interleague games..

Apparently, you side with them and think that is too much to ask.

More incentives?

You think that's an answer?

And you ask fans to do the legwork, not the union or the players themselves?

Again, which player is your client?

[ July 13, 2011, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Money · Post by **Money** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:06 pm

I think it all changed when the "Commissioner" of baseball became someone other that a person that looked out for the "best interests" of the game".

Bowie Kuhn was not popular with the fans but he did what was in the "Best interests" of the game. He was truly very very good for the game.

The owners then got Ueberroth who they wanted to control but couldn't. Peter was very diplomatic though and was good for the game. The owners should've been happy.

Along comes Bart Giamatti and Fay Vincent. These guys had nothing but the "Best interests" of the game in mind when they made every decision. The owners could not stand it and simply wanted one of their own to watch over their interest and not those of the game or the fans. Unfortunately this was not in the "Best Interests" of the game.

So we end up with an owner only looking out for the owners. The players are kept somewhat happy and the Fans be damned. We get a STRIKE and "THEY TAKE AWAY THE WORLD SERIES FROM AMERICA IN 1994". What the F#$%, no world series. He should have been gone right then and there.

Now he takes the game through the most shameful period ever. Biggest scandal, no hall of famers without an asterisk and the demise of the only (major sports) all star game worth a **** .

He makes about 20 mil a year to destroy the national pastime. If it's up to him he'll find a way to **** up fantasy baseball as well.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:26 pm

Dan,

I just got back from the game and even minus the 16 players it is a blast for baseball fans. I would highly recommend it.

One of the great thrills of my life was sitting behind Henry Aaron today from Phoenix to Atlanta.

Hank has a reputation for being a decent guy but not much for chit chat so I did not bother him the entire flight although he sat there for 2 hours and read the in flight magazine. Huge, huge thrill for me since I consider the greatest player ever. BTW he is really showing his years has a hard time walking.