You mean Jered Weaver, not Jeff Weaver

In a modest defense of Zobrist here, I think his positional flexibility should count for something. There should be room on the roster for a good utility guy, like Zobrist or Mark DeRosa or Chone Figgins, even at the expense of a third first baseman or something.

The only reason (tongue-in-cheek) that makes sense for Maddon selecting Wakefield is to have someone to go multiple innings in case the game goes to extras. We just better not see him come on in the 6th.

Why the condescension toward Ryan Franklin? By any measures I can find (VORP, WXRL, WHIP, ERA, you name it), he's having a better year than the two guys that you suggest replacing him with, and he's not a complete flash in the pan; his other two years in St. Louis have been strong as well. What's the complaint about him? Just the fact that he has a bunch of saves certainly does not mean he's NOT a strong candidate for the team.

I say this as a complete stathead apologist, but the Zobrist argument is a waste of words and clearly one where Joe needs to come out from behind the spreadsheet.

OF COURSE Joe Maddon was going to take him, and I'll argue that he should have. You can't have the #3 guy in the AL in OPS in your own clubhouse and not take him to the All-Star game. This isn't Strat. He's not a career All-Star clearly, but the game has always had room for guys like these, and if the object is to win so the Rays can host Game 7 of the World Series, then Maddon is obviously going to trust his own hottest hitter more than the other guy.

I find the Howard inclusion much more egregious, and THAT I say as someone who took a day off work to go to the parade last fall.

So who plays CF for the NL if Beltran doesn't make the trip? Everyone else is a corner outfielder, and it's no sure think that either Kemp or Victorino makes it through the final ballot nonsense.

Joe, just putting it out there... Prince Fielder is one of the 4 1B reps in the NL... and there's a case that he'd be the 4th or 5th best 1Bman in the NL Central?

I agree with you in the most part, how ARod can be left off in particular, but I don't have a problem with the managers focusing on this season over the whole body of work for those last few spots (Especially if/when it gets down to team reps).

You know what, the game itself is run so poorly, that I only ever root for a tie again anyway.

I'm still waiting for the story by BP of how Buehrle manages to outperform his projections almost every season. This year, the White Sox have won almost every game that he's started. He actually should have at least 10 wins. His ERA is 3.09, his WHIP is 1.12. The guy has been the most consistent pitcher in baseball during the decade, while pitching in an offensive park. Sure he doesn't strikeout enough batters to get PECOTA wet, but this doesn't mean his consistency shouldn't be recognized. He was an automatic selection, not one where Maddon should have kept him off, instead of Dye.

Joe, you wrote this back in May: "The 2009 National League All-Star voting is going to be the best information we yet have about how fans really feel about players suspected of using steroids. The potential for Ramirez to be voted onto the All-Star team while serving a PED suspension is easily the most interesting thing about his suspension today."
Then, you write this today: "but it appears that some combination of his absence and the reasons for his absence dampened his vote totals, both among the fans and the players. It’s not easy to determine how much weight to give those factors, given that time and again current-season performance seems to carry so much weight with the voters."
Today's description of what happened with the voting is a bit mealy-mouthed. By your May standards, doesn't Manny's All-Star team absence mean we can deduce that the public is also fed up with the PED usage and that it's not merely the media-driven story that you've suggested?

Not defending the pick, but the fact that Howard is from STL and could have a hand in making the HR Derby a fun story might have something to do with his selection.

"" Yadier Molina isn’t better than Brian McCann by any stretch of the imagination, and his election seems simply to be a case of more votes coming from one precinct than another. It’s not right, but it's OK""


If it's not right, why is it ok?

McCann should be starting, and if the NL were serious about winning, would catch all 9. The dropoff to second best is pretty steep.

I have to join the chorus who think Zobrist and others of his breakout ilk *are* deserving of All Star selections. After all, its the 2009 All Star Game, not the Lifetime Achievement All Star Game. In 2009, Zobrist has been fantastic and if this is his only big year, so be it.

"The AL player picks were also all about 2009 performance..."

For whatever reason many people vote for the all-stars based on that year's performance only and I think that's a completely legitimate way to vote. It may not be how you vote or how you think others should vote, but I've never heard anything official about the 'correct' way to vote.

I don't understand your infatuation with Joey Votto. He's missed a lot of time and doesn't have much of a track record except in the minor leagues. He's hit well this year while he's been on the field... but he's not an all star by your criteria.

Not to get overly social science-y, but the players' decision (conscious or not) to vote for the All-Star team based on the first half of the season makes perfect sense. If All-Star teams were made up of the best players (as defined by some combination of career and current value), the same players would make the All-Star teams over and over again. There would be some wild cards, but most of the changes would occur when a star either established himself or became unproductive.

As you rightly point out, voting based on one half season will get players into the game who don't "deserve" to be there. From the players' point of view, that's a good thing, because most players don't "deserve" to be there. For the vast majority of players, it is in their self-interest to vote based on short-term performance, because there is no other way that they themselves could ever hope to make the team. If I were an economist, I would say that the players have chosen a rational valuation system.

Marquis and Wakefield are far and away the most offensive selections.

Color me confused on the Zobrist outrage as well. He's been a 4-win player in the first half and a plus defender at every position he's played since moving off SS.

Why isn't the fact that the NL has 4 1B-man getting more attention? How is it that you select three subs for Pujols? Tell me they're playing in an AL park this year and at least can rotate these guys into the DH slot.

Joe,

Generally love your work but I'm a bit confused as to why you're so dead set on looking at career worth when determining the all stars.

None of the other major honors bestowed on a player - MVP, Cy Young, Silver Slugger, Reliever Award, Gold Glove (oh wait, not so much with this one...) - are based on the career body of work, but rather each season's success. Why should the All Star game be any different?

I think it's entirely legitimate to take players based on their performance in this season. There is certainly no rule requiring that All Star selections be based on a career body of work. Perhaps the I fail to see how Ben Zobrist is one of the worst selection of all time - the man is having a hell of a good year. Sure Rodriguez is an all time great player (wrongly or rightly, I wouldn't be too sure about him being an inner-circle hall of famer but let's leave the steroid conversation for another day) but his .523 slugging is hardly Pujols-ian and well below his career .577 - Zobrist's is currently at .598.

I also don't quite understand the outrage over Raul Ibanez, he's a well established player with a successful career who hasn't had an OPS lower than .792 in 9 years and only two of those seasons were below .825 (or if you prefer OPS+ he is over 115 in all but one of the last 9 seasons). His OPS this year is a spectacular 1.027 and despite the injury he's still near the league leaders in home runs and most other counting stats.

That said I still would have left Marquis and Wakefield are particularly rough selections.

I'd also note that irichmon raised a great point about why players prefer the short term evaluation for the All Star team - what players don't want to someday make an All Star team?

So that was, what, 6 or 7 Braves players you mentioned as being legitimate All-Star picks?

Really underlines how bad the rest of the team is given that they're 3 under .500.

I really can't agree with Sheehan's views about who should make the All Star team. He thinks that the "best" players in the game should make it, but defines "best" in terms of established performance. By that standard, the teams should include Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez, Vlad Guerrero and Jake Peavy. But none of those guys are playing particularly well right now (though Rodriguez's disappointing performance seems to be mostly due to bad luck).

If they were to make the team, then we'd miss out on seeing emerging stars - like, for example, Justin Upton - and players who are neither established nor projected for stardom, but who are absolutely tearing the cover off the ball - like, for example, Ben Zobrist.

Baseball should recognize and reward not only the established stars, but also the guys who substantially outperform their peers for a season or two. By Sheehan's lights, we shouldn't do that. We should recognize consistently excellent players, even when they're playing poorly. If we do that, though, then we miss the opportunity to officially emphasize something special about baseball: the undervalued player. If we can do that in the All Star game, then we're getting something right.

Ben Zobrist deserves his spot: he has been one of the best hitters in baseball for most of the season. And his flexibility in the field makes him incredibly valuable to his team. And he's a single example of the same storyline, one that gets repeated every year. I'm glad baseball realizes that extraordinary performances sometimes come out of nowhere. And I'm glad they sometimes get it right by making it a part of their most visible means of recognizing players.

(Though they often screw it up. But that's a different argument.)

The lesson here is obvious: Hunter and Dye should become drug addicts, causing great suffering to their families and costing their organizations millions. Then, once they sober up, they'll be raking in the votes regardless of their performance or playing time.

Holy mixed arguments Batman. Jered Weaver was a snub because he's been good this year (and really this year only) but Ben Zobrist is on there unjustly because he's. been good. this. year. and this. year only...

Same argument for Howard. You want to use career body of work but his is ignored?

Though I haven't seen mention of it any where, I suspect that Jered Weaver being left off may have something to do with the fact that he is scheduled to start next weekend and would not have full rest, not that they need to use all the pitchers that make the team....

McCann has been 6 runs better than Molina this year. Hardly something to make a fuss over.

Can't blame Cholly for picking Marquis. He may be a Phillie at the end of the month, afterall.

As I see it, there are two really wonky selections:

Michael Young, 3B, TEX - Ian Kinsler is a more valuable player (both offensively and defensively) on the same team, Texas was already represented by Hamilton, and Scott Rolen is a more valuable player (again, both offensively and defensively) at the same position. What purpose does Young serve on this roster other than to allow them to roll clips of his All Star heroics from season when he deserved to be there?

Hunter Pence, OF, HOU - Houston is already represented by Miguel Tejada, Matt Kemp has been the most valuable outfielder (by WAR) in the entire NL this year, and is both a better hitter and a better defensive OF than Pence. Again, why is he there? What did Matt Kemp do to Joe Torre's dog to be stuck batting 7th, 8th, or 9th in the LA lineup?

I can never quite figure out what's more egregious, the outrageous picks made, or the outrage directed toward the picks that are made. To me, it comes down to 3 simple things;

1. Prior to "the incident" no one really cared about the All Star game in terms of wins and losses, it was a fun game. People voted for their favorite players, players essentially became legacy selections, and the game had a sense of familiarity. But who really cared? Prior to "the incident", the home run derby (on mute, of course) was the most entertaining part of the whole thing.

2. If the point now, when the game "means something", is to win so your league has home field advantage in the World Series, why wouldn't you want to take the best performers in 2009? Who cares what Ben Zobrist did two years ago? Who cares if the fans neglected to vote Ibanez into previous games when he was one of the more consistent hitters in the game? John Smoltz is one of the better pitchers in the last 15 years. He saved 145 games in a 3 year span, and was a staff ace for many years. So shouldn't he be in there instead of, say, Andrew Bailey? I mean sure, Bailey has been much better this year, but his resume is certainly nothing like that of Smoltz.

The bottom line on this point is, it sounds like you (and others like you) are too sentimental when talking about the present day All Star game. Its not a lifetime achievement award, or a members only club where the dues are a 2 inch thick baseball resume. Since the onus has been placed on "winning", the managers feel the need to take who they feel is playing the best now, whether those players are Hall of Fame bound or only catching lightning in a bottle.

3. The game still doesn't really matter. For a guy like A-Rod, how important is making a 13th All Star game? He missed the game in 1999 and it didn't kill his career. But how much do you think it means to a guy like Wakefield or Zobrist? Wakefield isn't an elite pitcher, but he clearly cares about the game, and I bet that he was really happy when he found out. And I bet it means a bunch to his family and his friends too. I don't see ASG snubs as some sort of travesty, I see it as a chance to give guys who might fly under the radar their due, and I bet it means a lot more to them than it does to the guy who is looking at his 12th or 13th ASG appearance. At the end of the day, this game really doesn't matter. Home field advantage doesn't guarantee you anything, but for these guys who will make their first game, I'm sure it will be a huge highlight for them.

Lots of people complain about the Mainstream Media's fascination with 3 or 4 teams at the cost of the rest of the sport. Now is the chance to spotlight more guys in smaller markets and give them some exposure.

Joe Sheehan's Yankee homerism usually ranges from "quaint" to "mildly annoying," but here we see it interfering with basic logic and judgment. Joe claims that picking Ben Zobrist over A-Rod is "one of the worst [selections] I’ve ever seen."

Really? By what criteria, Joe?

Zobrist hit .264/.362/.568 (a .930 OPS) over the second half of 2008. He's hitting .281/.400/.598 so far this year. That's 439 PA as the best hitting middle infielder in the American League over the past year -- not just some lucky stiff who (in Joe's words) "timed his career peak exceptionally well." It took me 8 seconds to look up Zobrist's second-half 2008 numbers online; Joe couldn't do that before manufacturing more fake outrage than a Sarah Palin press conference?

I also think Joe misses the larger picture of the All-Star game in today's 24-hour ESPN-driven sports world. Is there anyone in the universe who intends to watch the 2009 All-Star Game -- that is, someone who is at least a mild fan of this game we call "baseball" -- who has not seen Alex Rodriguez play? (And even assuming such a hypothetical "fan" exists, is the current iteration of A-Rod *really* the first exposure you want that hypothetical fan to experience?!?)

As far as being the worst selection Joe's ever seen, I can only conclude that he's never actually seen an All-Star game. Just skimming through the past few years' worth of All-Star selections, we see such luminaries as Joe Crede, David Eckstein (!), Mark Loretta, Shea Hillenbrand, Cesar Izturis... and hell, I'm only back to 2005. I remember Scott Cooper. I remember Greg Olson. I remember when Jose Offerman was an All-Star, along with Ron Coomer, John Jaha, and Brad Ausmus. Brad Ausmus! Does Joe Sheehan really think a guy who can play seven positions while posting a .950 OPS is a worse selection than these guys?

Look, I *like* A-Rod. I'm on board with the view that outrage over steroids is overblown. But the notion that it's "just not an All-Star Game" without the 2009 version of Alex Rodriguez -- currently batting .244 and doing his best Mickey Tettleton impersonation at the plate and in the field -- is either Yankee homerism gone insane or the BP equivalent of shock jockery. Either way, I can do without it.

[Quoting Joe S.] "Carrying 13 pitchers for a single game is stupid. There’s no other word for it. Bud Selig is the all-time master of solving the last problem and doing it poorly. So we get an All-Star roster that encourages managers to handle their personnel in a silly manner, as opposed to one that encourages them to run a real ballgame" [End quote]

They wouldn't be carrying 13 pitchers if Torre and Brenly had properly managed the 2002 All Star game instead of burning through their pitchers like they had a quota to fill (they had nine apiece).

"As with Marquis in the NL, Wakefield in the AL is a curious choice that invites the question: How many pitcher slots would you need to actually get the job done correctly?"

Thank you for saying this correctly! Where others might have been tempted to say it "begs the question", you realized that that meant something else entirely, and so instead you said what you meant to say. Thanks!

Not germane to the excellent dialogue in the comments, but I went to summer camp (with very limited TV watching) for far longer than anyone should admit. As a lifelong baseball fan, you can imagine how excited I was to finally get to watch my first All-Star game at age 23, heightened by having to wait yet another year because of a long rain delay at the start of the 1990 game. Took about two innings of watching my inaugural ASG in 1991 to realize "Wow, I really couldn't give a rat's ass about this game." Since then I've been lucky to check in for about 5 minutes each year.

Joe: after Manny got suspended you wrote this: "We are about to find out how much the fans truly care about this issue. Remember, fans have voted players onto the All-Star team who were having lousy seasons, who were injured and missing large parts of the current season, or who had been in decline for years... The 2009 National League All-Star voting is going to be the best information we yet have about how fans really feel about players suspected of using steroids. The potential for Ramirez to be voted onto the All-Star team while serving a PED suspension is easily the most interesting thing about his suspension today."

Considering the way you hyped up the significance of the Manny All-Star vote, it's pretty disappointing for you to downplay it ("we don't really know why they voted this way, etc") after the results came out contrary to your preference. It seems pretty clear based on your prior writing on this issue and the quote from May that if Manny had been voted onto the team by the fans, the headline of your article would have been "fans don't care about steroids, suck it media." It is unfortunate that you are such a strong logical thinker on other topics, but show such inconsistency when it comes to your crusade against media coverage of steroids.

I buy into Joe's reasoning because I want to see the better hitter/pitcher period. Give me A-Rod over Zobrist. Bet-ter hit-ter.

What drives me mad are the times like in 2007, when Albert "Best Hitter Period" Pujols doesn't even play, because we over think about short term performance.

I want to see A-Rod v. Santana. When Ben Zobrist comes up against Ryan Franklin, I'll probably just change the channel.

Joe, by your analysis it seems like there is almost nothing that Zobrist could have done since last All-Star game to merit a spot on the AL team. So far this year he is in the AL top five in both OBP and slugging. He's played competent middle infield defense for a contender that lost its entire starting middle infield for significant stretches of this season.

Other than raising the dead, what more could Zobrist have done to earn his way onto the squad?

Joe, I love your work, and usually agree with you on a lot of things, but I think you're being a bit too intolerant of other schools of thought when it comes to who belongs on the All Star team. Your position is perfectly valid. I also happen to think that basing it purely on who is doing the best this season is also perfectly valid. There's room for more than one opinion, and neither is more right or more wrong.

Uh, Joe, Mark Buehrle has a lower ERA and WHIP than Cliff Lee.
Buehrle also has had a far more accomplished career (lower ERA, WHIP, more wins).

Other than the fact that Lee plays for the beloved Indians,how in the world does Cliff Lee belong on the all star team?

Buehrle is 4th in WHIP and 7th in ERA and doesn't belong on the team?

Please.

Joe, you missed the boat on Marquis. Marquis obviously does a wonderful job of getting his offense to score runs, so he belongs on the squad.

Wait a second - taking Zobrist over Carlos Pena was a homer decision, eh?

Think on that one a bit, there, Joe.

It's sad that Chipper isn't in the game but...


Vote for Pablo!

Why is no one bitching about Papi not being an All-Star?

Ryan Howard's career line (all of which is recent work):
.276/.373/.581. And he would look very good coming off the bench late against a right-handed AL pitcher.

Joe,

If the fans, players, and managers have a different conception of the All-Star game than you do, maybe they're not the ones getting it wrong.

Joe, I just wanted to let you know that I applaud and greatly appreciate your dedication to following up discussion in the comments of your articles. It was an unexpected and pleasant surprise to find a response to my response at this late hour in the evening.

Blah blah blah..again...how many times has Joe written this already? Waste of space. Instead, what's Christina's take on this year's All Stars, or Jay's analysis, or (dare I say it) Nate's? We get this same article 2/3 times every year, do we really need it again? Nothing to write about the Yankess this week?

The All Star Game should be for the best players in the game. Not the best players in 2009, not the fringe players who can't stick at one position wanna-be Albert Pujols not quite Carlos Pena freaks. It seams like the voting process just cares about the stats, and I used to be like that before I started reading BP. Now, I understand that HR and RBI don't mean a thing in evaluating players, and that you should look at the player's OPS and such. But, that doesn't always work because of the Zobrist problem. Before 2009, Ben Zobrist had a triple stat line of .222/.280/.370. Now, let's compare that with Nick Punto (I'm not ribbing on utility players, I love Nicky's defense, but he couldn't hit a barrel going 50 mph)Punto's line through his ENTIRE CAREER is .249/.320/.325. If this is your definition of All Star, and if you think because A-ROD made a mistake, and doesn't have a sparkly batting average, even when his career line is .305/.390/.577, if you think he is not an All-Star, than contact Bud Selig, and tell him to eliminate the All-Star game, because it isn't worth a darn thing if the best players aren't in it.

So, basically, I'm on the same team as Joe Sheehan, and you should stop ribbing the man for telling the truth that we all know deep in our hearts to be true. Ben Zobrist isn't an All-Star by any means, he never will be again, and A-Rod, future Hall of Fame, even with the steroids (He apoligised, why can't we forgive and forget. Yeah, he cheated for a while, but don't take away what he did before and after that period) was robbed.