The 2009 MLB All-Star Game: A Critique

Charlie Klein

The Major League Baseball All-Star game has been a misunderstood exhibition since it's inception in 1933. There are numerous criticisms of the game, all of which I will review and rebuke.

The primary classic issue that people have with the All-Star game is that it doesn't mean anything. Then in 2003 proud to be your Bud Selig made the absolutely asinine decision to grant the winning league's representative in the games that actually matter home field advantage. This did not drive up the ratings of the game nor did it give the game any more meaning than it already had. To me the game doesn't have to mean anything. It is a problem of human thinking that everything one does has to be of some sort of significance, have any shred of meaning or importance.

The All-Star Game was meant to be a meaningless fun exhibition game that showcased the talent from each league providing a spectacle for the fans. Having experienced MLB All-Star Week in Seattle during the 2001 season. I never once said to my dad, with whom I attended all of the events, "I really wish this game meant something." Watching Randy Johnson face Ichiro, the best pure hitter against the best pitcher in the game was enough for me.

People criticize the All-Star Game for its pointlessness stating that before the age of interleague play it was the only way to see a certain matchup, like Babe Ruth versus Carl Hubbell or the starting outfields in the 1957 All-Star Game, Mantle, Williams, Kaline versus Mays, Aaron, and Robinson. And that criticism is for the most part true. Now in the age of interleague play one is able to see those same matchups without the All-Star Game.

There is also a great debate among baseball fans on the rule that every team has to be represented in the All-Star Game. Specifically fans in big markets like New York, Boston, and Los Angeles gripe about the inclusion of players like Andrew Bailey of Oakland, who has a great ERA but only has nine saves, who has benefited from this rule. His inclusion came at the expense of more deserving candidates, but I will address that later. I grew up living in small market baseball towns like Seattle, Kansas City, and Baltimore. For me as a kid I always loved to see one of my favourite players make the All-Star team and made me watch the game to see him play. I would have been incredibly disllusioned with the All-Star Game if none of the players on my favourite team made it. While I understand that some people feel that the one player from every team is slightly undemocratic, it is important that the celebration of baseball is open for all.

The final controversy surrounding the All-Star Game is allowing the fans to vote for the starting eight field players for each league. ESPN's Sportsnation noted that those who took part in their poll on the subject were split 50/50 on whether fans should be allowed to enjoy that priviledge. Personally I think that fan voting is essential to the games success both commercially and from a human interest stand point. The phrase voting leads to enfranchisement is a classic amongst political scientists and it works the same way for the All-Star Game. If we are not involved in the process, how can we be interested in its results? The starters for this year's edition are all deserving, with the exceptions of Dustin Pedroia and Josh Hamilton of the AL and Yadier Molina of the NL. The fact that Aaron Hill of the Blue Jays is not starting the game is truly a miscarriage of justice. Red Sox Nation, go ahead, try and tell me that a player who is batting .295, 19 HRs, and 59 RBIs deserves to ride the pine while their puny star is batting .290 with 3 HRs, and 36 RBIs starts the game. It's truly ridiculous. Then you have Hamilton, who I love for his 32 homeruns in one round at last year's Home Run Derby, who has been on the DL twice this season and is batting .240 in only 125 at bats. Yet he is starting over a player like Carl Crawford of the Rays who has had a much better first half.

In the end I have minimal issues with the roster selections made. I think that David Aardsma should be on the AL All-Star team but was denied a spot by the necessary inclusion of Andrew Bailey. As for starting pitchers for each league, the only thing left undebated at this point, I think that Tim Lincecum of the San Francisco Giants should start for the NL versus Felix Hernandez of the Seattle Mariners of the AL. Ultimately it will probably be Zack Greinke of the Kansas City Royals who will get the nod for the American League because of the game's proximity to Kansas City and because of all of the hype he is getting for AL Cy Young.

Overall the Major League All-Star Game is victim to many criticisms, legitimate or otherwise. Regardless of all of them, I will watch every minute of the festivities enjoying it for the spectacle that it remains for me. The game is imperfect, just like everything else about the league. With a few tweaks it could be what it should be, a fun and meaningless showcase of the talent of MLB.