In Defense of the All-Star Game

The "Midsummer Classic" is less than a week away. So, inevitably, the rumblings have begun as to whether the All-Star game is irrelevant. In theory, most of the charges against it are correct but upon further reflection I think it has its place.

In recent years, MLB has made some tweaks to the game so that it has an impact on games that count, such as home field advantage in the World Series. Considering that the National League has not won an All-Star game in decades, I'm not a huge fan of that rule. Of course, the Designated Hitter is by far the dumber decision made by MLB,* so I'm not going to hold that one against the American League.

For me, its the inequity of the whole thing. The game doesn't feature the actual "All-Stars" per se, but rather, the most popular players. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are the best team in baseball right now yet they only have two players on the team, neither of which are in the starting lineup. On the AL team, if you play decent ball for New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox, big market teams with long histories, you're virtually guaranteed a starting spot regardless of your comparative value against other players in the league. (They have a combined ten representaives, which is actually a weaker showing than recent years.) This year its the same deal with the Chicago Cubs, another big market team with a long history, on the NL team, with seven representatives. The Cubbies, at least, are leading their division; the same cannot be said for the Yanks and Sox.

Of course, the All-Star game is for the fans who want to see their favorite players compete against one another; the starting lineups are elected democratically, through ballots at the game and online. Its a popularity contest more than a reward for demonstrating skill on the diamond. So that's a legitmate criticism of the game but an excusable one. If you really want to stand on this point, it could be said that the popularity contest should be kept to the Home Run Derby--let the rubes see 'em hit some dingers!--but its ultimately a losing argument.

One-inning maximums on pitchers fall into the same category of excusable conduct. You don't watch your ace injuring himself in a glorfied pick-up game, right?

On the plus side, whatever you have against the All-Star game, at the very least it gives teams a well-deserved break in the middle of the season. Tired players get a few days off to rest and relax, compose themeselves for the rest of the long grind into October. Managers and pitching coaches get the opportunity to shuffle their starting rotation, since the pitchers' arms get a few more days rest.

On the balance, I suppose the best that can be said is this: the All-Star game is dumb and oftentimes boring but it has its benefits. High praise indeed.

* Don't bother to argue this. Sure, it increases run production, but it also removes a huge element of strategy from the game. NL managers have a much more difficult job because they need to consider whether to keep a pitcher going another inning when his slot in the lineup comes up and they're in a rally versus AL managers being able to do so whenever they please. Sure, pitchers rarely hit for shit but a well-placed bunt is one of the great pleasures of the game. If you like the DH, you're a moron who shouldn't bother to watch actual baseball games and should just stick to watching the highlights reel on SportsCenter.