I don't care about the snubs or those selected who have no business being there. I don't get overly upset or happy. The reason is pretty simple: the All-Star game selections are a joke. It's not solely the managers' faults; it's the silly rules that continue to operate in obvious conflict that make it impossible to select a team of the best players.
I noted this not that long ago, saying, in essence:
If I were Commish for a day, I'd do the following about the All Star Game (note the OR between the 2nd and 3rd points):
- Eliminate the World Series home field advantage gimmick. PERIOD. Let the overall records decide who EARNED the home field advantage.
- Eliminate mandatory representation by every club. It was one thing when there just twenty-something teams, but with 32, too many inferior players are being named at the expense of more qualified players. OR:
- Expand the roster sizes to accomodate the expansion in the number of teams. If you do this, you can keep mandatory representation. Open the rosters to 35 and eliminate the handwringing.
ESPN's Keith Law has a great take on the game, the snub and the selection of SIX relief pitchers to the AL team. Thanks to ESPN for making it a free preview of what's usually Insider-only content. What I really enjoyed seeing:
This reliever fetish is getting completely out of control.
The American League has six relievers among the 12 pitchers on its staff, which seems to imply that a top-quality reliever is as valuable as a top-quality starter, when nothing could be further from the truth. With relievers typically throwing 70-80 innings -- often fewer for capital-C closers who are sequestered in a ninth-inning role and only called upon when Jerome Holtzman approves -- it is almost impossible for a reliever to equal the value of a top-10, 200-inning starter.
(H/T to Shysterball)