Guess the All-Star team Game

[bigboy1234]

I think we differ in two main areas:

1) I like at projections to determine who are worthy all-stars, you (like everybody else, which may be the correct way) look at the first half of one season.

2) You are more results based, I'm more of what the pitcher did before the results (in this case ERA), aka how he did against each batter no matter the circumstances, taking fielding out of it, and adjusting for the park.

Do you still think said stat is (Please Use More Appropriate Word) if it has Hanson as a top 20 pitcher?

[Sebastian]

Miguel Olivo
Geovany Soto
Jorge Posada
Brian McCann
John Jaso
Victor Martinez
Mike Napoli
Joe Mauer

All have better rate basis stats this year, although I would base the all-stars on true talent and not something stupid like first half stats. The Wieters thing is more because there isn't a clear-cut Orioles guy, so if you choose him as your catcher you don't have to pick Wigginton and that would make room for someone like Youkilis. Youkilis+Wieters is a lot better then Wigginton+Buck. And you are in a bizarro world if you think he sucks at baseball, yes he isn't having a good first half (funny enough his OBP is still the same as Buck's though), but just last season he was a league average hitter at catcher and the year before that he dominated Double-A.

You've listed guys who are injured and play in the NL. Good try, though. I understand the Orioles dilemma, but Wieters has been a colossal disappointment thus far, and had he been named to the squad he'd have been a worse choice than Infante. Arguing that he was an average player in a year this ASG is not taking place, as well as his minor-league dominance is completely inconsequential. Who cares. I said he sucks a lot of ass -- I thought it was obvious that I was referring to his play this year. He has indeed sucked ass this year.

Basing all-stars on "true talent and not something stupid like first-half stats"...wow. Okay, so if Pujols was hitting an "unlucky" .225 with a .700 OPS, he should have still been an All-Star. Really? This is crazy.

[bigboy1234]

You've listed guys who are injured and play in the NL.

Let's look back and read what you wrote.

John Buck has one of the best slash lines of any catcher in baseball.

Oh my, it's almost like you said all of baseball there. Wait, you totally did man. Good try, though.

had he been named to the squad he'd have been a worse choice than Infante.

How so? If you want to go by your great only this year matters theme, Wieters has 100 more PA and plays a harder position and his rate stats are only slightly lower.

Arguing that he was an average player in a year this ASG is not taking place, as well as his minor-league dominance is completely inconsequential. Who cares. I said he sucks a lot of ass

It is consequential because it is beyond stupid to think a half season tells you more about a player then his whole career.

Basing all-stars on "true talent and not something stupid like first-half stats"...wow. Okay, so if Pujols was hitting an "unlucky" .225 with a .700 OPS, he should have still been an All-Star. Really? This is crazy.

Uh, yeah he should as long as his true talent level is still better then how many ever roster spots are on the team. If a player has a .700 OPS in last 300 PA and in the previous 1500 PA the same player had a .950 OPS, why would you think a player who just posted a .800 OPS in his last 300 PA, but in his previous 1500 was at .650 OPS is better? There is a reason almost every team in major leagues uses projections and not first half stats to determine how good a player is.

Isn't the all-star game supposed to be a showcase of the best players in baseball?

[Schad]

I think we differ in two main areas:

1) I like at projections to determine who are worthy all-stars, you (like everybody else, which may be the correct way) look at the first half of one season.

2) You are more results based, I'm more of what the pitcher did before the results (in this case ERA), aka how he did against each batter no matter the circumstances, taking fielding out of it, and adjusting for the park.

Do you still think said stat is (Please Use More Appropriate Word) if it has Hanson as a top 20 pitcher?

I'm an advanced stats guy who spends countless hours on the Jays board arguing against people who derive conclusions from small sample sizes and ahistoric data, and I prefer analyzing past performance and a player's peripherals over looking at the base box score numbers...in every area of the game save for the All-Star Game. It's a largely meaningless exhibition game, and as such I have no problem keeping things as simple as possible. Consider park factors to some small extent, perhaps, but that's about it...it is a descriptive rather than predictive event, so the guys having the best seasons should make it, regardless of whether they're 'stars' writ large. When it comes to the All-Star game, no one gives a damn if Player A has more wins produced despite worse offensive numbers because he covers more ground than Player B, or if Pitcher A has gotten lucky owing to an unusually low batting average on balls in play or HR/F rate...punch the ticket of the dude with the best numbers, forget about the game two days later, and resume the debate when it concerns situations where player valuation has some impact.

It's one of the quirks in baseball; unlike basketball or football, it is entirely possible for a generally awful player to play worlds above their pay grade for an extended period time, and as a sop to their brief moment of glory, they get to pinch-run in the eighth inning of an exhibition game, and serve as a piece of trivia ten years down the road. I enjoy that aspect of it...the games are generally pretty dull whether featuring the best or the worst the league can offer, and most of the players will see an at-bat or two at most, so I couldn't care less if it doesn't serve as an accurate barometer of the most talented players in the league.

[bigboy1234]

The thing is the vast majority of people will look at back at things like all-star game selections, awards, etc. to judge a players legacy. Whether more statistically inclined people like it or not, there will always be more people who either don't believe the stats (aka go with their feel/FEAR!!!/memory), misinterpret stats, etc. How many times do you hear someone bring up a players all-star appearances when it comes are for the hall of fame? Yeah, it's trivial as it's just an exhibition game and I can turn on the TV and watch these players play anytime I want, that really isn't the point. The best players in baseball should be going because it's the right thing to do, really doesn't have much to do with the game itself.

[Schad]

The thing is the vast majority of people will look at back at things like all-star game selections, awards, etc. to judge a players legacy. Whether more statistically inclined people like it or not, there will always be more people who either don't believe the stats (aka go with their feel/FEAR!!!/memory), misinterpret stats, etc. How many times do you hear someone bring up a players all-star appearances when it comes are for the hall of fame?

Frequently, but those people are idiots. Even if a formula could be developed which would allow only the purest of talents to win the spots, All-Star appearances still wouldn't be a useful metric...between adjustments in the roster size, fan voting, positional considerations, and the 'everybody gets a prize!' allotment, it'll remain a hopelessly bad measure of a player's worth. The better option is to wean the chattering class off of using All-Star appearances, not to tailor the ASG to their inanity.

Yeah, it's trivial as it's just an exhibition game and I can turn on the TV and watch these players play anytime I want, that really isn't the point. The best players in baseball should be going because it's the right thing to do, really doesn't have much to do with the game itself.

But then you'll end up with the same problem as with Gold Gloves: a bunch of guys making it in on legacy, because as sample size considerations are considerable in baseball, it can really take a year and a half to two years to know whether a player has truly declined, or if it's some ailment bothering them, or they're simply having a down season.

[Wade2k6]

Looks like Votto and Swisher got the nod as the vote in players.

[Sebastian]

Votto was the right choice, at least.

[MHZ]

Glad to see Jimenez get the starting nod. Charlie hates him some Rockies after getting caught red-handed for sign-stealing.

[DakkaFromNyc]

Alex Wins The Game For The A.L.. Somehow, For Showw =)

[King_James6]

Votto def deserved his all-star nod. Glad he made it. Dude is NL MVP right now and is leading the freakin Reds to 1st place in their division.

[Celtics_Champs]

National League finally breaks the streak.

[sunshinekids99]

Man that was some horrible coaching from both sides. Next year can the fans vote on that too?

[King_James6]

Pitching has been really really strong this season. The All-Star game is further proof.

[El Turco]

this wasn't the best all-star game but still gave us fans some entertainment and something to think about rest of the season.