I'm on a mission now

Posting that last piece about Frank Deford felt good.  It felt so good I went to see if he had written any other garbage and boy has he ever.  He has so many hot taeks:

• "Americans Don't Care about Major League Soccer"

• "Awards for Athletes Should Honor Unsung Heroes"

• Some moral grandstanding about Tom Brady being a cheater

• "Alex Rodriguez is Back, For Better or Worse"

• "Outside of the Games, Are Sports Corrupt?"

• An article that declares the truly groundbreaking idea that America's national pastime is no longer good old baseball but FOOTBALL.

• World Series games start too late!

He's the Platonic version of a crotchety-old-man get-off-my-lawn commentator.  Honestly if I followed more other sports or had enough bile in me I could just do a weekly feature hating on this guy. Maybe I will, if he keeps setting out to ruin my Wednesday mornings with his terrible radio bits.

Anyways, check out another of his amazing insights: "All Star Games Are Worthless if the Players are not All-Stars".  Whooo, boy. Time for Frank Deford to weigh in on this crucial issue of the All Star balloting:

For those of you who haven't got your baseball All-Star ballot in, don't panic, you have until Thursday. It's convenient. You can get a ballot off the Internet, and here's the good news: You can vote 35 times.

Well, all right, that makes sense. It might have been interesting to note that MLB eliminated paper ballots this year, which seems like it would have been the perfect thing for a crotchety old guy to complain about. 

[English teacher usage geekery alert:  Does it make any sense, in this context to get a ballot "off the internet"?  The ballot only exists on the internet, it's not like you could download it and send it in.  I'm imagining Frank spending twenty minutes trying to print a ballot on his inkjet printer and then mailing it c/o Rob Manfred in New York.  But I digress.  That was only one preposition.]

Understand what I'm saying? Each fan can cast 35 votes. Where that magic figure comes from, I don't know. Why not 3,500 apiece? Or 35,000?

Well I mean, 35,000 would be silly, Frank. I guess he's right in pointing out that it seems arbitrary, but it's not like this is anything new.  Actually, paper balloting would have allowed each fan to vote like a zillion times if they really wanted to.

Anyway, it means that more than half a billion votes will be cast. Not only that, but, in order to keep the election on the up-and-up, baseball swears that it tosses out about one out of every five votes. 

Now this is sort of interesting.  I'm intrigued to know that MLB considers 20% of the votes to be fraudulent.  Can you tell me something interesting about that, Frank Deford?

I can only guess that vampires and terrorists are denied the franchise.

ZING!  I submit to you, in the 1,481st post, the worst joke in this blog's history.

So right now –– just to take one example –– Salvador Perez has 11,666,785 votes for catcher. What does that mean? It's like light years or grains of sand on the beach, just number numbers.

Frank, fan balloting with meaningless final vote totals has been going on for 45 years now.  Are you just now understanding it?  And secondly, what's with the insult here: somehow, these are "just number numbers".  Take that, stats geeks!  Either way, Frank, writers like you are idiot idiots.

But having fans vote is the way leagues like to run All-Star balloting nowadays, instead of being old-fashioned and letting the choices be made by people who actually know something, people we dare call experts.

Fan balloting was restored in 1970.  That was during the Nixon presidency. Apollo 13 happened that year. You cannot possibly talk about leagues using fan ballots "nowadays". Nor can you also ignore the obvious fact that fans only select the 17 starters and the two Final Vote guys, while the managers and players collectively select 33, and that doesn't count the replacements. Right now the fans pick about a third of the roster.

You see, when fans vote, it's interactive. It's an interactive world now. Baseball's rationale is that if you voted your 35 times for Salvador Perez, interactively, you'll then be on pins and needles to see if he can win. You're invested in Salvador Perez.

When Frank was growing up the world was not interactive.  It just sat there and you just sat there and nothing happened. You'd wake up the next day and nothing would also happen because the world was not interactive.   Thank god the world turned interactive sometime in like 2002 because otherwise we'd still be sitting there in puddles of our own drool.

Plus, wouldn't voters be equally invested in their candidates with the paper ballot?  Wouldn't the same basic thing be true of elections in sports, politics, online polls, the 8th grade student council president at Otis P. Snodgrass Junior high in Arkadelphia and also the  entire history of human beings?  Didn't ancient Greeks and Romans sit out on pins and needles because they were invested in electing the next group of senators or whatever?

But actually it's the reverse, because the irony is that if you want to get fans just plain actively engaged, the fewer decision-makers the better. Half the fun in the selection of All-Stars — or any award winners — is being able to castigate the people who made the choices you disagree with as dimwitted dummies.

I guess that's true.  It's sort of mean spirited, I guess, but given the nature of this blog I will stay safely in my glass house of castigating dimwitted dummies.

That's why Simon Cowell on American Idol was so good: because he was a loud-mouth, very outer-active judge you could hate. But when it's just millions of interactive ballots filled out robotically you've got nobody to vent to and a lot of emotion goes out of the game before it starts.

Are you kidding? Everybody vented about Royals fans for the last two months. Somehow this took the emotion out of the game?  That makes no sense.  Honestly, the thing that really takes the emotion out of the selection is the fact that there are like eighty players selected which is like more than 10% of the current roster of baseball.  Maybe if they cut back on the dead weight we'd have some more tension here.  

But god forbid then we have a tie and no doubt Frank Deford's Church of Old Timey Baseball would hate any repeats of that one year, you know, the All Star Game Which Shall Not Be Named.

It's even worse this year because the good people of Kansas City have stuffed the ballot box, so instead of an All-Star game, it's going to be more of a royal pain. 

Zing!  Like the time Prince Charles had a charlie horse!

That's the problem when anyone fills out an Internet ballot, times 35: Fans don't make serious judgments. They just vote for all-ordinary players on their favorite team.

What an idiot.  Fans have always done this.  My own Cincinnati Reds did this famously back in the fifties, essentially ending the fan vote for a dozen years. Internet ballots are no worse than paper ballots.  No doubt Frank longs for the glory days of the 1990s when every fan took their vote seriously and the players casually took steroids and Hideki Irabu was a major league pitcher.

Look, All-Star games in every sport are just high-falutin' exhibitions, but they're good fun. Unfortunately, they're worthless if the people playing in the All-Star games aren't, well, aren't all-stars.

Maybe a couple of questionable players are elected of the whole 80-man roster, and Frank declares the whole exercise worthless, even as a high-falutin' exhibitions. Ugh.

Excuse the following usage/English geekery.  If you're not an English teacher nerd like me you may want to stop reading, but honestly, who hyphenates AND adds an apostrophe to "highfalutin"?  The word is not an abbreviation for "highfaluting", and it's not hyphenated. You can't just add random punctuation to try and make your words sound less.... highfalutin.  You actually have to choose a different word.  In fact, arbitrary punctuation disasters aside, it's not even the right word!  What is so highfalutin about a baseball game? It's not played by Dukes (anymore) or Princes (wait..), the preferred foods are hot dogs and sunflower seeds, and it's really just grown men running around and sliding in the mud.  You're not even a good writer, Frank.

Well this has been miserable and I hope you're feeling equally miserable that this guy is employed to say things about sports.  When I am up to it again I will write up another one of his horrible pieces.

Bitching about the All-Star rosters is dumb

Does that make me dumb by extension if I bitch about the people bitching about the rosters?  Probably.  But there are always going to be fifty worthless "HERE IS MY LIST OF ALL-STAR SNUBS" articles written in the days after the rosters get announced, and I have to post about something.  So here goes.  Lead us off, Scott Miller.

First base: Chris Davis, Orioles
My pick: Davis

Talk about getting out the vote. The Orioles did it better than MTV ever dreamed of.

That's one of the worst jokes I've ever read.

Second base: Robinson Cano, Yankees
My pick: Jason Kipnis, Indians

Yes, this is coin-flip territory. But Kipnis is having one Rock and Roll Hall of Fame summer, 

That is a thing that is in that player's city!

and the message isn't carrying too well across Lake Erie to the rest of the land. Cano, Boston's Dustin Pedroia and the Angels' Howie Kendrick are deserving as well. But Kipnis leads all AL second basemen in OPS (.904), and he's played a significant role in Cleveland's reconstruction. If you want to go Pedroia, that's an acceptable answer, too. 

And so is Cano, who (it shocks me to have to say this) has shouldered a heavy load in a super thin Yankees lineup.  He is usually "protected" (haha snark quotation marks rule) by Travis Hafner.  But go ahead, tell us why you think Cano is the wrong choice.

One very demerit-inducing trend regarding Cano: He's a far worse player at home in New York than on the road this year. In 44 games on the road, he's hitting .326 with 13 homers and 33 RBI. In 43 games at home, he's at .255, 7 and 25. 

Yes, that's right.  Looking at home/road splits over the course of 85 games is a great way to choose your All-Stars.  Not that Kipnis is a bad choice, I just find this criterion to be pretty fucking stupid.  Quick, do another blimp crash of a joke!

Jay-Z might want to address this with his new client. Next thing you know, Cano will be in a Visa commercial addressing his New York nightlife.

Oh dear Lord.

Third base: Miguel Cabrera, Tigers
My pick: Cabrera

Fire up the cognitive dissonance tornado siren!

No question here it's Cabrera, 

True.

and man, is this a tough position to crack. 

Also very true.

The Orioles' Manny Machado (who makes the club as a reserve) and the Rays' Evan Longoria, the Athletics' Josh Donaldson and the Rangers' Adrian Beltre (who didn't) … it's almost like shortstop in the AL in the 1990s when you had a young Jeter, Alex Rodriguez and Nomar Garciaparra. Somebody deserving is going to get hosed. 

Correct.  Now stop, before you--

Speaking of which, how does Donaldson not make the team? 

Wait, what?  You answered that question literally one sentence ago.

Somebody deserving is going to get hosed. Speaking of which, how does Donaldson not make the team? 

Somebody deserving is going to get hosed. Speaking of which, how does Donaldson not make the team? 

Somebody deserving is going to get hosed. Speaking of which, how does Donaldson not make the team? 

Amazing.

Was Angel Hernandez in charge of choosing the reserves?

It's hard to screw up an Angel Hernandez joke, but I think you just did.

Catcher: Joe Mauer, Twins
My pick: Mauer

No other choice here. The Royals' Salvador Perez, the Indians' Carlos Santana, the Astros Jason Castro, the Orioles' Matt Wieters and the Blue Jays' J.P. Arencibia all are having nice seasons, but nobody is more deserving than Mauer (even if Target Field has stripped him of much of his power). 

Career SLG%: .467

2013 SLG%: .466

It's annoying how many writes and fans think Mauer's 2009 (28 HR, 2nd highest total in his career is 13; .587 SLG%, 2nd highest total in a full season in his career is .507) was the norm.  He will almost certainly hit double digits in home runs this year, for only the 4th time in 10 seasons.  

Hard to believe this will be Mauer's first start since 2010.

Well, he was garbage in 2011, and in 2012 he deserved it but the Twins were garbage and the Rangers had won two pennants in a row and sold out like every game and Mike Napoli had been awesome in 2011 (especially in the playoffs), so no, it's not hard to believe at all.

Second base: Brandon Phillips, Reds
My pick: Matt Carpenter, Cardinals

Nobody is a bigger fan of Phillips than me, and he totally got screwed a year ago by not even making the team. That said, Carpenter's OPS is 144 points higher than Phillips' and the kid is having a knockout season. 

All reasonable things to say, so let's just leave it at--

Phillips' lineage, though, is pretty cool: He becomes the first Reds second baseman elected to start an All-Star Game since Hall of Famer Joe Morgan in 1978. Does this mean there one day will be a FireBrandonPhillips.com website?

Barf barf barf barf barf barf barf barf barf

Ken Rosenthal gets in on the action with an utterly worthless column based on the premise that, because the A's are having a good season, they deserve to have a bunch of All-Stars.  Watch him refute his own arguments and wander off aimlessly into nothingness.

They can’t get a new ballpark. Raw sewage flooded parts of their current ballpark. So, the least baseball could do for the Oakland Athletics would be to give them more than one All-Star, right?

I mean, I guess, but only if they really had more than one guy who was deserving.  Unfortunately it's hard to make the case that they do.

The A’s, after all, are the defending AL West champions. 

Not a thing that should be considered when picking All-Stars.  Of course it happens indirectly all the time, because successful teams have more fans voting, but it's not like any objective voter is going to sit there and say "Hey, the A's won their division last year.  I think I'm going to vote for Josh Reddick over Mike Trout."

They’re leading the West again, rolling along with the second-best record in the AL. Over the past 365 days, their 103-63 record is the best in the majors.

Only slightly less important than their 2012 performance.  I mean in theory I hear what he's saying, and it's kind of too bad that Donaldson didn't make it, but the fact is the A's don't really have many All-Star caliber players.  Ho hum, it happens, they're still a really good team.  This is like an 800 word column (I'm not posting all of it here) that probably should be a 125 character tweet.

And they get one stinking All-Star?

Ah, there are reasons. There always are reasons. 

Spoken like someone who already knows they have nothing to say.  

And I’m guessing that at least one of the injustices — the exclusion of right-hander Grant Balfour, the only AL closer who has not blown a save this season — will be corrected.

Complaining about which RPs belong or don't belong on the roster is the stupidest subset of the already very stupid activity of complaining about players who belong or don't belong on the roster.

Righty Bartolo Colon, the Athletics’ only selection, is scheduled to start next Sunday, two days before the All-Star Game. That alone could open a spot for Balfour, according to the “Sunday Pitcher Rule” in the collective-bargaining agreement.

Great, let's move on to the rest of the non-substance of your argument.

The rule gives pitchers who start the Sunday before the ASG the option of participating or not participating. If they participate, they cannot pitch more than one inning. If they elect not to participate, they are replaced on the roster but treated in the same manner as other All-Stars, and encouraged to attend and be announced at the game.

OK, seriously, can we move on?

So, Colon can take one for the team, creating an opening for Balfour. 

JESUS CHRIST.

The withdrawals of other Sunday starters or injuries also could lead to extra roster spots. AL manager Jim Leyland alluded to possible adjustments Saturday, saying, “I wouldn’t jump the gun on anything, because things do change.”

Leyland is a piece of shit, but as Rosenthal himself will shortly show us, he made a pretty solid set of choices in assembling his team.

Leyland, of course, will take the hit for the Great Oakland Snub, 

Seriously?

and his five-player, final-man ballot, as we shall see, is absurd. But with his bullpen, all he did was try to balance his left-handers and right-handers.

To try to win the game, because for better or for worse, it's in the interest of an ASG manager to assemble a roster that will win the game, and not worry about finding space for marginal guys who play for good teams simply because of the fact that they play for good teams.

The players elected righties Mariano Rivera of the Yankees and Joe Nathan of the Rangers, overlooking Balfour. Leyland added lefties Glen Perkins of the Twins and Brett Cecil of the Blue Jays, both of whom have been brilliant.

So you're going to refute your own argument?

Balfour has excelled against left-handed hitters, holding them to a .571 OPS, but Perkins has been even better (.526) and Cecil downright absurd (.293). 

OK, yes you are.

The game determines home-field advantage for the World Series. Can’t fault Leyland for choosing the optimal pieces. Can’t fault him at all.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT THEN?  YOU'RE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.  I DON'T WANT TO BE WRITING THIS.  NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO BE READING IT.  GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER, ROSENTHAL.

The other Oakland snubs — shortstop Jed Lowrie, 

Maybe having the 5th best season of any SS in the AL, maybe

outfielder Coco Crisp, 

If you really stretch your imagination, you could say he's been a top 8 OF in the AL this year

even third baseman Josh Donaldson 

Already discussed, and while he's awesome, I think it's safe to say Drinky Cabrera and Machado have been awesomer (the latter because of his stellar defense).

— are less egregious. 

Remember the part when he was like "AND THE A'S ONLY GET ONE STINKING ALL-STAR?  THIS IS AN OUTRAGE"?  

The fans elected the Orioles’ J.J. Hardy at short, the players picked the Tigers’ Jhonny Peralta. Crisp missed time with a strained left hamstring, and the fans and players picked six outfielders ahead of him. Donaldson, well, he just got caught up in an unfortunate numbers game.

All correct.

The Tigers’ Miguel Cabrera, naturally, is the fans’ elected starter at third base, while the Orioles’ Manny Machado was the players’ selection. 

I know it's redundant to leave these in when I already addressed it, but it's kind of funny to see him walk everything back, isn't it?

Leyland went with three second basemen, 

All of whom are having seasons so much better than Lowrie or Crisp that it's not even funny.  And Donaldson has been great, but all three of these 2Bs have been better than him too.

choosing the Indians’ Jason Kipnis to go with the fan’s pick, the Yankees’ Robinson Cano, and players’ choice, the Red Sox’s Dustin Pedroia.

But the manager also bypassed Evan Longoria at third, instead picking Ben Zobrist, who offers versatility as a switch-hitter and multi-position player, as his only Ray.

And that's pretty sketchy, because Zobrist is not having a good year (.262/.348/.375), but again, Leyland is trying to win the game.

All that is understandable. 

Thank you for continuing to write nothing at all.

What is not understandable is Leyland’s final-man ballot, which should have been something like this: Donaldson, Longoria, the Angels’ Howie Kendrick, Rangers’ Adrian Beltre and Red Sox’s Jacoby Ellsbury, Daniel Nava or Jose Iglesias.

Except that... say it with me now, Herm Edwards... Leyland is... playing to...

Leyland instead chose five setup relievers — the Jays’ Steve Delabar, Yankees’ David Robertson, Red Sox’s Koji Uehara, Rangers’ Tanner Scheppers and Tigers’Joaquin Benoit. It’s nice to see such pitchers get recognition. But at the expense of worthy position players? Please.

I'll just leave this here.

NL manager Bruce Bochy put together a much more representative and intriguing final-man ballot — the Nationals’ Ian Desmond, Braves’ Freddie Freeman, Giants’ Hunter Pence and Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig and Adrian Gonzalez. 

That ballot is in no way "more representative" than the AL ballot.  The only way either ballot could be non-representative is if the players on it were shitty (nope), or if they were from the opposite league (nope).  It is intriguing, I guess, if you really care about Puig making the team (which I'm sure he will, but let's not shit our pants over whether or not that happens--looking at you, Papelbon) or if you're intrigued by the idea of good-not-great players like Freeman or Pence maybe making an extra $25K due to a bonus clause in their contracts or something.

That’s the way the ballot is supposed to be used — as a last resort for deserving players (and in the case of Pence, as a reward for one of Bochy’s own).

SHAME ON YOU, JIM LEYLAND.  Rosenthal hopes you encounter a situation next week in which you desperately need another third baseman, but only have a bench full of relief pitchers.  Who will look like the idiot when that happens?  (Note: I promise you that outside of the .001% chance that both Machado and Cabrera get hurt during the game, that is not going to happen)

WHAT????!?!?

You're shitting me. How did they overcome his absence? Shortstops with no range who can rake to the tune of .260/.324/.324 don't just grow on trees, you know. He's actually accumulated -0.1 Baseball-reference WAR so far this year. The Yankees should have been expected to get ever so slightly better simply by having him get hurt.

So of course he's going to start the All-Star game, why wouldn't he? And of course there are people out there (who aren't from Yonkers or Jersey) more than willing to justify his All-Star selection, why wouldn't they? YOU KNOW WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IT'S THE ALL *STAR* GAME- ONLY STARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY. AND ONLY GUYS WHO HAVE PLAYED IN THE ALL STAR GAME BEFORE COUNT AS STARS, WHICH CLOSES THE LOOP AND MAKES THIS LINE OF LOGIC FLAWLESS:

AL shortstop for life: Despite a subpar season, Trenton Thunder shortstop Derek Jeter was voted into his sixth straight Midsummer Classic and 11th overall. Just as you're sure to read plenty of profiles of Vogelsong's time in Japan, you're also going to hear plenty of bellyaching about Jeter's spot on the team with a 77 OPS+. Whatever. It's always been my position that the All-Star game should feature "stars" and there isn't a bigger one in baseball right now than Derek Jeter. With all apologies to Asdrubal Cabrera -- who could start the game anyway if Jeter isn't up to the task — no one's tuning into the game to watch Asdrubal Cabrera.

There "isn't a bigger (star) in baseball right now than Derek Jeter"? Fuck you, Yahoo Sports blogger. Regardless of the validity of this line of logic, you can't say that. I'm not having it. Even if you make "how many fans know who he is" your #1 qualification for stardom, Jeter's almost certainly not even the biggest star on his own team. He's probably in the top 10 in the league, but still. C'mon.

Now, Chris W and I discussed this today and we agree that the ASG is for the fans (insert snarky comment about how stupid it is for the game to determine WS home field advantage here), so if they want to see Jeter, they should vote to see Jeter. Of course, Chris then went on to make a number of important points that supersede that point:

1) Fans don't really know what's best for them or for the game. Which is better for both: letting the fans restrict themselves to a narrow and aging base of superstars who are about to be put out to pasture, or forcing the fans to acknowledge that younger better players like Asdrubal Cabrera are budding stars who are really actually good at baseball in the year 2011 and will be for the next 10 years? But don't bother telling any of that to Selig and his merry band of asshole owners, because

2) MLB is run by a bunch of fucking morons who let fans determine who gets coverage. The attention balance in MLB as compared to the NFL blows my mind. I shake my head in sadness at the fact that Colts vs. Jaguars or Chiefs vs. Chargers can get great ratings on Monday Night Football (provided those teams are playing well of course), but if a baseball game involves any team other than the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, or Cubs, 90% of sports fans don't give a shit. This is partially on media giants like ESPN and FOX, but more significantly it's on the league itself, which rams the GREATEST RIVALRY IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS EVER (you know which teams I'm referring to) down our throats every year at the expense of developing any number of other available and compelling storylines. Fuck you, MLB. Fuck you with an oar, Bud Selig. You suck ass. And of course, on both the fan and ownership sides, the problem is accurately generalized by Chris when he points out that

3) The problem with sports (and really all of entertainment... but I'll skip ranting on a broader subject because this isn't Gruntland) today is that people won't let their perceived enjoyment now be lowered even if that means they'll be able to enjoy things more tomorrow.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. And that pretty much sums up how talking about this with Chris/writing this post made me feel. Good luck to you in the ASG, Jeter. I hope you somehow ground into twenty double plays and get a standing ovation after each of them.

Again, It's Not Broken

I know we spend a lot of time on this blog bitching about things extraneous to currently-played big-league baseball, like the HOF and the All-Star Game.

But this seems silly.

Changes to the All-Star Game, based on recommendations by the Special Committee for On-Field Matters, were announced by Major League Baseball on Wednesday, furthering efforts to sharpen the competitive edge in baseball's annual Midsummer Classic.

Maybe they should sharpen the edge by telling the National League to win a few goddamn games. Also, none of these changes sharpen anyone's competitive edge, they simply allow more people to be recognized as All-Stars.

Starting with the 81st All-Star Game on July 13 in Anaheim, the changes include:

• The contest always will include a designated hitter no matter where it's played.

Why? This sucks. Like really. Why? I know I'm not really being articulate here because I don't want to get into the whole DH or not DH argument, but can't we just respect our differences as leagues and permit each to play by their rules half the time?

• No pitcher who competes for his team on the previous Sunday will be allowed to pitch in the game.

I recognize the rationale for this, but is it really necessary?

• Rosters have been increased to 34 players, by one slot designated for a position player.

Great. Why don't they call it the All the Kind of Good Players Game?

• A rule will allow one position player re-entry into the game if necessitated by injury.

This rule wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have some sort of pathological love of participation that impels managers to waste a lot of players on pinch-hits and one-out relief appearances just to get them in the game. If MLB really wanted to solve the problem, they wouldn't change the rules, they'd just tell the managers to stop the bullshit.

I wonder if MLB encourages managers to get each team's player in the game to hold the attention of (and the corresponding ratings and ad dollars) fans in weak teams' markets.

The procedural changes, agreed upon by Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, come as the most significant alterations to the sport recommended by the Special Committee to date.

I realize I sound about eighty-eight years old when I say this shit, but really, if it isn't broke, then the Special Committee for On-Field Matters can keep its own Special Nose in its own Special Business.

Chaired by Commissioner Bud Selig and composed of longtime managers, executives and observers of the game, the committee was formed in December.

Thanks, Bud. Knew you were in on this somehow. Also, there is no rationale cited for the formation of this committee.

It previously recommended an off-day be removed from the League Championship rounds to tighten the playoff schedule, and the Commissioner's Office announced that change in March.

Yawn.

These also are the first significant alterations to the All-Star Game format since 2003, when the game was declared the deciding factor for which league hosts the World Series. That change, along with a roster bump from 30 to 32 players, was made in the wake of the 7-7 tie at the 2002 game in Milwaukee.

And which has resulted in a nuclear tsunami volcano of stupidity since then.

The rest of the article is just Joe Girardi just yokeling on about how these rules will make the ASG better.

All-Star Liveblog!

Here's a few thoughts on the ASG as it unfolds. All quotations are in italics, and are the best paraphrases I can accomplish, since I don't have a DVR.

First off, fuck the nearly hour-long pregame nonsense.
Second off, Obama's left-handed toss was a blooper that barely made it. [Note: I didn't see it till the replays in the second inning]. I think that explains why this country's so screwed up: we elected a southpaw. They can't even walk straight, or even live straight, in the case of Larry B.

Top of the first:
Some poor defense by the NL lets the AL sneak ahead 2-0. Albert Pujols, all-everything, commits the error that lets in a couple of runs. Nothing egregious in the commentary so far.

Bottom of the first.
A graphic calls Roy Halladay "The I-Beam of The Blue Jays". Really.
McCarver:
"We looked that up, I'm not an architect or anything, but it's supposed to be the structure of the house."
Well, I'm glad Tim admits that he looked something up - he's a step ahead of Joe Morgan. Still:
- Who made that stupid graphic?
- Neither of the broadcasters, who've been alive for fifty or so years... know what an "I-beam" is?

McCarver:
"Nobody has had numbers in his first nine years like Albert Pujols. Nobody."
Except this guy and this guy. But ok, Pujols is legendarily good. Not that bad.

Top 2:
lol, Halladay didn't bring a helmet. He's the starting pitcher! And the AL goes quietly.

Bottom 2:
Obama shows up in the booth in a White Sox jacket to chat with our esteemed team. In the course of this inning, Obama commits several FJM cardinal sins: admits that he doesn't hate the Cubs, admits he didn't play the game (wait, that's not one of our Cardinal sins), believes in parity in baseball, endorses the Phillies as a "scrappy team" and engages in blatant Hawaiian homerism.

I'm kidding. If I were the President I'd do the same thing. But shouldn't he be out saving the world?

"No bailout plan in place for the National League" - don't remember which of the two said this, but it's not funny.

Interesting move by Charlie Manuel spending Prince Fielder, perhaps his best pinch-hitter, with two out and a runner on second early in this game. But it pays off with Prince's double to left! Two-out rally plates three and the NL takes the lead.

Top 3
Ryan Franklin has a bizarre beard.

It seems like a lot of players are pulling the ball tonight - you'd think that with some of the hardest throwers in the game only having to go one or two innings, you'd see a lot of balls hit the other way. Maybe they're not throwing their hardest? Speculation.

AL goes in order.

Bottom 3
What happened in this inning?

Top 4
McCarver blathers on a long time about Haren's windup being hard to detect.

A single by Michael Young does nothing and this game is moving quickly.

A commercial by MasterCard comes on to show passionate fans. Of course it shows Cubs, Dodgers and, inexplicably, a Giants fan. Strange: Cubs and Dodgers fans are probably the most notorious fans in baseball for not actually being passionate about baseball.

Bottom 4
At 37, the oldest nonpitcher to make an ASG debut since Babe Ruth (why does nobody note that there was no game for Ruth to make?). The roider fouls out.

Spoiler: The answer to the trivia question is Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby.

Zach Grienke's sick stuff makes the NL look bad, striking out the next two. I wish he still had social anxiety disorder. Did doctors name it that just for the obvious acronym?

Top 5
Crawford leads off with a single. McCarver discusses his speed, comparing him to Lou Brock.
Buck: "Imagine how fast he'd be if he pulled his pants up."
McCarver: "Lou Brock always had his pants up high."

Damn kids these days and their fashion.

Also, Jeter apparently cried when Chris Webber called timeout. What a pansy. I thought this was true.


Joe Mauer double ties the game. That Joe Mauer is quite the American. Pujols' diving stop keeps it tied.

Bottom 5:
This inning was uneventful.

Top 6
A 4-6-3 and Hoffman gets some useless revenge against Michael Young. Game still tied at 3. I'm almost bored, except for these exciting commercials that remind me that somehow MLB is making piles and piles money off this.

Also, I note that I hate pretty much every commercial, even ones that try to be funny. I think it's because I hate the public to which these companies are trying to appeal. Also, these bullshit "passion for the game" commercials that show a bloody sock or Derek fucking Jeter diving into a bullpen make me sick. I'm sure it makes hordes of morons want to go drink Gatorade and buy Nike products, but they piss me off.

Anyone who buys Daughtry albums can go hug a cactus already.

Bottom 6
Here's a quote taken out of context, because I missed the context:
McCarver: "How come you didn't tweet me that day?"

Here's a picture taken out of context:


NL goes quietly.

Top 7
Cordero shows a little Reds pride. Shuts down the AL and this one's turning into a barn burner.

Bottom 7:
This is the most uneventful liveblog ever. Nobody's said anything really stupid. Carl Crawford did just make a sick catch, though.

Top 8:
This is where I had to stop watching the game. Fortunately, Larry B watched the rest of it and provided me with a few good quotes:

McCarver, re: Kevin Youkilis: "You can make a case that he's the most VALUABLE (emphasis Tim's) player in the league this year - by which I mean, look at his salary. Only 6 million a year for his level of production! Then, look at what A-Rod and Mark Teixeira make- $52 million between them!"

Really, Tim? This guy is making $439,000 this year. This guy is probably making about that much - made $408,000 last year. That's a lot more valuable per-dollar than Youkilis. Basically any decent young pre-arbitration player is going to rank higher than Youkilis on this list.

Later: 2 on, 2 out for the NL in the bottom of the 8th.

Joe Buck: "Francisco Rodriguez warming up, just in case"

Larry B: "Just in case? You mean when he has to pitch the top of 9th no matter what happens this half inning?"

Larry B later suggested that Joe Buck was ignorant of the fact that Mr. Rodriguez does not, in fact, pitch in the American League any more, and his job as the Angels' closer has been taken over by Mr. Brian Fuentes, a left-handed sidearm slinger.

[Late edit from Larry B, since dan bob didn't tell the whole story: it was abundantly clear after Buck made that comment that he was clueless as to the fact that K-Rod is no longer with the Angels. When he first said it, I was a bit confused because of, you know, the fact that the NL was the home team. But immediately after he said it, they flashed to the AL bullpen where we see Fuentes warming up. So in Buck's I-don't-give-a-shit-about-baseball-and-there-is-no-way-I-should-ever-call-another-World-Series-game-again brain, he sees Angels reliever, he assumes K-Rod. It's a cherry on top that Fuentes is a lefty submariner and K-Rod has a distinctive righty overhand throw. Seriously, fuck Joe Buck and fuck FOX for making him call baseball games when he clearly doesn't give a shit about them. Just let him stick to football, I don't care how good/famous his dad was.]

And the National League loses again. Dammit.

Stan McNeal: Perpetual Fuckstick

Stan McNeal has some All-Star game thoughts. Smartass that I am, I have counter-thoughts.

First comes the selection of the All-Star teams. Next comes the griping. Even with the rosters bumped to 33 players, I've got my complaints. Here's my top five.

Is anyone watching the Rangers?
No Kevin Millwood. No Ian Kinsler. Both should be on the club, especially Millwood.

I will grant you this. These are both very legitimate claims. Millwood not being on the team (as opposed to like, Wakefield, whom McNeal cites) is something of a cruel joke. Kinsler's numbers are significantly better than those of that shithead Pedroia, and given Kinsler's superior defense, I'll give him the nod over Aaron Hill, though it's very close. Hill over Kinsler is not worth crying over, so I'm guessing the complaint is against Pedroia. So I guess the problem here is the fan voting.

There's a far, FAR bigger Rangers-related fan-voting-oriented complaint out there though. Did you miss it, Stanley? How about the fact that this guy is starting the game after playing only 35 games at a .240/.290/.456 clip? America, this is absolutely unacceptable.

The Dodgers were snubbed, too.
The Cubs had eight representatives last year when they carried the N.L.'s best record into the break. This year, the Dodgers have the best record in the majors but only three All-Stars and just one — backup second baseman Orlando Hudson — who plays in the field.

Waaahh Waaaahhh Waaaahhh. The Cubs comparison is completely illegitimate. The Dodgers this year are a far more balanced powerhouse than the Cubs from last season.

Maybe the players split their votes between Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, allowing Hunter Pence to gain a spot.

Correct ranking of these three players, not really close. Gap between Kemp and Pence is primarily due to positional difference and Kemp's awesome CF defense.

1) Kemp
2) Pence
3) Ethier

Please do not mention Ethier again.

Ethier leads the world in walk-off hits,

What did I JUST say?

Ohhhh...I forgot the almighty Walk-Off-Hit stat, the most sustainable and telling of stats.

and Kemp is hitting .303.

Pence is hitting .303. Please argue better. That was terrible.

Picking four first basemen in the N.L. was the way to go.
Don't blame Charlie Manuel for adding his own, Ryan Howard, to the team, even though Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez and Prince Fielder are more deserving. First base is that loaded, and the game is in Howard's hometown. Plus, he would not have been in the home run contest if he didn't make the team.

NO. NO. NO. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

1) Ryan Howard has a .328 OBP
2) You just argued someone should be in the All-Star game because it's their hometown. Where do you get the right to criticize other peoples' selections?
3) Ryan Howard a) has a significantly lower EqA and b) plays an easier defensive position than Hunter Pence, whom you bitched about earlier. You think it's such a crime that Matt Kemp was snubbed, but it's okay to stick The Most Overrated Ever on the team FOURTH on the depth chart at his position?
4) The home run contest is SO FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Only one Cub.
As that's all who should have been.

Why did you even write that?

Only one Red.
As that's all who should have been.

I just....don't understand the point.

(btw...just kidding dan-bob....Cueto was snubzilla-ed!)

While We're At It, Cancel EVERY All-Star Game!

Ah, the All-Star game. Remember being a kid and being excited that all these awesome players were playing together? Usually a player from your team would be playing there, too! Slam dunk contests, home run derbies, skills competitions... it was worth staying in on a Sunday to watch. Then you grow up and it turned into an excuse for taking a fantastic weekend nap with sports on TV. I'll TiVo Saturday's skills competition because the trick shots will be awesome and Versus might give me another goalie fucking up his hip.
Since the lockout, the NHL hasn't put out a single paper ballot for the All-Star Game and ever since, there's a big stink about people who don't deserve to go to the All-Star Game going. John Grigg is back to explain to us why fans shouldn't vote.

The NHL has reached the tipping point with All-Star Game fan voting. It needs to be scrapped. Now.

This wasn't a problem with the paper ballots because who brought a pen or pencil with them to a hockey game? Well they have the internet on computers now, and you can vote for anybody you want as many times as you want. This year you could also text the name of your team to some SMS short code and it counted as 1 vote for every player from your favorite team. So instead of throttling the input of fan votes down to say, a username/password combo and limiting each of those to a certain number of votes, we should abort the whole thing.

With the league insisting all 30 teams be represented, the game is already watered-down. With only six open spots available on each 21-man roster, allowing fans to determine the starters is akin to letting ice cubes melt in an already weak drink.

Letting fans feel like they have a say in something is SUCH a horrible thing. We shouldn't let fans go to the All-Star game. Instead, they should be forced to watch the game in large common areas with TVs that are tuned to Versus.

A few years back, the NHL got a glimpse of the future when a fan-based Internet campaign almost got journeyman defenseman Rory Fitzpatrick voted in. Conspiracy theorists suggest the NHL manipulated the results to ensure Fitzpatrick didn’t make the grade. The player himself was publicly uncomfortable with the possibility.

What Rory Fitzpatrick said he was uncomfortable with was that he was becoming a sideshow. From the CanWest News Service: ''It could have created more of a stir. I just tried to keep it fun and not stressful. If it got to be a distraction for the team or too much, I might have handled it differently.'' The NHL didn't do anything about the voting system because the Vote For Rory campaign made national sports headlines, and there's no way the league would discourage actions that make ESPN talk about the league.

This season the problem was taken to new heights. Eleven players - all either Canadiens or Penguins, including the yet-to-play-a-game-this-season Sergei Gonchar - surpassed Jaromir Jagr’s 2000 record of 1,020,736 fan votes. And just four teams - Anaheim (three players), Chicago (three), Montreal (four) and Pittsburgh (two) - are represented in the starting lineups for the Jan. 25 event.

My biggest problem this year is that four centers and two right wingers are starting. So left wingers can go fuck themselves. John Grigg cares not about positions, only about team representation.

Crosby led all vote-getters, topping 1.7 million votes. Malkin nearly matched him. The four Habs averaged about 1.4 million votes each. None of the other players with one million-plus votes were named reserves. The Hawks and Ducks starters averaged just 747,000 votes each, but took all the spots in the West.

How dare Montreal fans vote to see their players play in front of them when Montreal hosts the All-Star game this year! It's stupid that there's only four teams represented in the starting lineup. I would imagine that after the first shift, those players will be split up between other lines.

In the old days, chad-punching homers voting with their hearts rather than their heads were the problem. Now the NHL has to fend off computer-hacker homers to ensure roster legitimacy. Luckily, most of the starters are legitimate all-stars, but some are debateable [sic]; some laughable.

And only fans of these four teams were stuffing the ballot box? I'm pretty sure that fans of every team are encouraged by their team to stuff the ballot box. I would even go so far as to say that there are very few people that sat down in front of their computer and thought out the scenario of the All-Star game and only voted for the best players. I don't care who starts, because the actual best players in the league will be named to the team anyways. So I might as well vote for my team's best players.

Jonathan Toews will be good, maybe great. But he’s not yet Henrik Zetterberg, Marian Hossa or Patrick Marleau. Scott Niedermayer is a Hall of Famer, but Duncan Keith and Brian Rafalski are more deserving this year.

Replace an Anaheim player with a Chicago player. That's a smart thing to say when you've completed bitching about how only 4 teams are represented in the starting lineup.

Jean-Sebastien Giguere has a Conn Smythe Trophy and a Stanley Cup on his resume. But he’s had better seasons when he wasn’t named an all-star and is being outperformed by others, especially rookie Steve Mason. Mason, at least, will be in the Young Stars Game, but it would have been fun to see the wunderkind in the skills competition and the big game.

It would have been a lot of fun to watch the kid get lit up by the Eastern Conference's finest.

With that in mind, I offer a solution: Have NHL players, coaches and GMs vote on who should represent the best hockey league in the world at its All-Star Game. Then open the starting-lineup voting to fans a couple of weeks prior to the game.

With that as a solution, what's the point of opening it up to the fans at all? To fix fan voting, limit the number of times they can vote. From what I remember, there was a 25 vote limit per person for the MLB All-Star Game. Make fans vote for every position instead of just voting for forwards. Don't give the fans a consolation prize just because the NHL screwed the system up to begin with.

Make the announcement an in-game event. Make a big deal of it. Keep the starters secret and give them prizes of some kind (Alex Ovechkin. Come on over! You’ve won your very own Segway. Sidney Crosby, you get your own apartment!). Make it fun. With some spontaneity and humor, it could be the NHL’s Golden Globe Awards.

A Segway joke? What is this? Do they even make Segways anymore? Give starters priz - - what the fuck just happened to the article? The All-Star Game is enough of a show as it is. If there's one thing the NHL doesn't need, it's a version of the Golden Globe Awards.

Because, really, who cares who starts the All-Star Game, as long as the best players are there? And since the 30-team rule already makes that difficult, the NHL shouldn’t let electronic ballot-stuffers make it impossible.

That's right, he just spent this whole article complaining about the starters and then at the end, he throws up his hands and says "Oh well!" Then why write this? Why not expand the roster to hold 63 players on each side, and the teams switch every period? The first period is determined by fan vote, the second period is determined by the coaches, players, and GMs. The third period - everybody on the ice at the same time! That'll fix your 30-team rule complaint.

Dan Uggla Hates Winning

The eminent second sacker for the erstwhile Marlins had this to say after last night's contest:

"That was a rough one, I'm not going to lie," he said. "You can say the term, 'When it rains it pours.' I still had a lot of fun. I still wouldn't change it for anything."

You wouldn't change losing the game and having perhaps the worst single-game performance in All-Star history for anything?

Even if I offered you a brand-new three-acre private island in the Bahamas, you wouldn't trade your performance for maybe a game-winning sac fly instead of your GIDP? Or maybe if I went back in time to 2004 and bought you a Faberge egg at auction, you would maybe not make one of your three errors?

Man. Dan Uggla had one hell of a time.

That Was One Hell of an All-Star Game, Wasn't It?

Too bad this post has very little to do with the game in question. It's more crap about A-Rod from Rick Morrissey.

Crede is no A-Rod ... thank goodness

Yeah, thank goodness. Because then the White Sox would have an absolute stranglehold on the AL Central and then baseball would be less exciting. That's what you're getting at, right?

No wait....you write for a Chicago newspaper. It has to be the other meaning. The stupid one.

Sitting at a table amid a gob of reporters and cameramen, Alex Rodriguez was talking about his life, which might or might not include Madonna, who, by the way, might be using Jewish mysticism to brainwash A-Rod into thinking the two are "soulmates," according to friends of Rodriguez's estranged wife, as reported by the New York Daily News, which keeps track of these things.

This is pretty much entirely the media's fault, when you think about it.

"Look, everyone has distractions, everyone goes through personal issues," Rodriguez was telling the gathered media Monday. "Mine are on the front page of the papers."

See? And you're making it worse. I saw the front page of the actual Chicago Tribune newspaper today, and these words of Rick Morrissey were written on it. It's like circular reasoning, man. "Thank God that Crede is no A-Rod, because A-Rod has widely publicized personal issues that are exacerbated by me writing this sentence on the front page of a newspaper."


A few minutes later and several tables away, Joe Crede was talking to five reporters about his distractions, which would be "A" material for the cover of Parenting magazine only if he came up with something like a revolutionary toilet-training method.

"The biggest excitement in my life are my two girls, 4 and 2," he said. "That's all the excitement I need right there.

Awwwwwww!

Alex Rodriguez, Joe Crede. I always get them mixed up.

This is sarcastic, I know. But what's your point?

They're both third basemen. They're both American League All-Stars. They used to be connected at the agent, Scott Boras, until Rodriguez decided to work out his own deal last year.

Uh huh....great.

That would pretty much sum up the similarities between the New York superstar and the White Sox's resurrected infielder.

This is interesting because......

This is Rodriguez's 12th All-Star Game, Crede's first.

::rereads and copies article title::

Crede is no A-Rod ... thank goodness

You serious, dude?

Rodriguez is the Yankee with the two-ton contract. Crede is the guy who would like a new contract from the Sox.

Again, true statements, but these have no relevance to any point you are trying to make.

The Sox didn't exactly leave him for dead in the off-season, but they were seen holding a stethoscope.

Are all the sports cartoonists in the room done laughing yet? The rest of us didn't find this one to be all that witty.

And they sure were talking a lot about an ascendant Josh Fields at third.

Maybe because he hit 23 HR in 373 AB last year?

Whether you believe they were furiously trying to trade Crede and his balky back depends on the person doing the talking.

No, it fucking doesn't. They were absolutely trying to dump him. They were showcasing him for a trade all spring and he played like Tomas Perez. Kenny Williams asked Brian Sabean for Fred Lewis, and even Sabean understood it was a ripoff and laughed in Kenny's face. Kenny Williams literally would have taken a vending machine in exchange for Joe Crede in spring training.

But it's indisputable that Crede is here at the All-Star Game.

Of course it's indisputable you fucking twat.

"Hi, I'm Rick Morrissey. It's indisputable that Joe Saunders is a pitcher."

Sometimes standing still — or being forced to stand still — is the best thing for a team.

God, that's great philosophy. Do you write books, sir? Maybe you should be a GM.

Forgive Crede for taking some pleasure in this. Thirteen months ago, he couldn't lift his children because of his back. Six months ago, as he rehabbed from back surgery, he was the subject of trade rumors.

Sure, of course he should be happy about his comeback. I don't think he should go around bragging about his .325 OBP or his .259 EqA though. Did I mention he in no way deserved to be on the All-Star team? Because if I didn't, let me declare this to the world.

Ahem.

Joe Crede in no way deserved to be on the All-Star team. If you are being generous, he has been the 7th best 3rd baseman in the American League this year, behind A-Rod, Lowell, Rolen, Longoria, Guillen, and ::gasp:: Adrian Beltre. He has 17 errors, which people with a fully functional brain would deem terrible. The fact that he made the All-Star team this year is living proof that you can't use All-Star game appearances at all to prove that a player has played well in a given season.

But yeah, I mean all that stuff about not being able to lift his kids and rehabs and back surgery and rainbows and lollipops and trade rumors and....shucks, you're probably right, Morrissey.

Now he's backing up A-Rod at the All-Star Game.

Which is an honor because A-Rod is great, but.....

Crede is no A-Rod ... thank goodness

So it's awesome, because Crede deserves a world of respect for his comeback, which you are epitomizing by saying he's backing up an awesome player at the All-Star game, an awesome player whom, as your title states, you are glad Crede is nothing like.

It has come to my attention that several readers have developed migraines upon reading these things Morrissey has said. Remember, friends, don't kill the messenger!

If the Sox are smart, they will work something out with Crede.

If the Sox are smart, they would realize that having a pretty good 3B prospect at AAA that has already proven he has a future at the big league level would merit passing on Crede, an overrated player that is guaranteed to demand more than he is worth as a free agent, no matter how much he is worth at season's end.

But I mean, he couldn't lift his kids 13 months ago, so eh, I dunno Morrissey, what do you think? The evidence in both directions is astounding!

The All-Star selection would seem to be proof that his formerly aching back isn't an issue.

Again, we've had this discussion. Jason Varitek was an All-Star. He is hitting .218/.299/.354. What. The. Fuck. Is. Your. Point. Question. Mark?

Aside from a first half uncharacteristically filled with errors, he has been a rock at third base.

::reads sentence again to make sure that he isn't dreaming.::

Aside from a first half uncharacteristically filled with errors, he has been a rock at third base.

This might be the stupidest sentence I have ever read.

Okay readers, I can't do this one justice. We'll turn this over to you. What would be the funniest line to write here? Make it in the form of "Aside from _______, (something) has been (phrase basically saying (something) has been good)."

Here's an example. "Aside from all the holes in the bottom, this plastic bag has been great for containing water." You guys are creative, I trust you'll make them good! FireJay bloggers, get in on this one as well!

BACKBACKBACKBACKBACKBACK........ GAWWWWWNNNNNNN!

Wow. What the fuck. I just rewatched pieces and parts of last year's home run derby, which was being shown on ESPN2. Of all the annoying things Chris Berman does, I think I have a new favorite: his referencing of local cities/landmarks when describing how far a home run went. During a total of maybe twenty minutes worth of HR derby, I think I heard him awkwardly drop in about fifteen Bay Area points of interest. Not once was it funny. Not once was it clever. Not once did it add to my enjoyment of the festivities. Which begs the question- assuming he's commentating tonight, what NYC-area locations will he blurt out? Follow along at home, and see how many you catch!

-Statue of Liberty!
-Empire State Building!
-Times Square!
-Central Park!
-Ellis Island!
-Staten Island/Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens!
-Laguardia/JFK!
-Mount Vernon!
-White Plains!
-Union City!
-Yonkers!
-Connecticut!
-Harlem/East/Hudson River!
-THE ATLANTIC OCEAN!
-CANADA!
-OUTER FUCKING SPACE!

I bet he hits at least 10, maybe 12 of those.

Also- I'd like to take this opportunity to mention two blogs that are pretty fucking awesome. The first might already be familiar to a few of you- it's BenGoodFella's blog The Bottom of the Barrel, and it's very well done. I think he does more work for it on his own than our entire "staff" of six writers does for this piece of crap. And it's funny, too. So basically... it's better than this blog. Damn.

The second is a little more random. I only found it by looking at all the sites that have linked us in the last month via Google Analytics. It only has six total posts, hasn't been updated since June 18th, and doesn't even allow outside comments. But in spite of its anonymity and relative lack of content, it fucking rules. It's called Fire Michael Ryan Gebhardt. Who's that guy? Just read it and find out. And if you're out there reading this, "The Jackal," please please please update your blog more regularly. This MRG dude sounds like a real zero- don't tell me you can't bait him into emailing stupid shit to you more often than once every three weeks.

That's all I've got for now. I'm off to HACKENSACK! in hopes of catching a home run tonight. Hey, if any of you regular readers or commenters have a blog that you think is better than ours, email a link to firejaymariotti@gmail.com. If it's any good I'd be happy to link it in a post like I did for these two guys.

No, I'm Not Dead.

Though this blog has certainly flourished in my absence, I'm back to my scribblings (damn, the ghost of Ed Hardiman made me use that word). I was in Las Vegas this past week or so playing in the World Series of Poker. Though I was a disappointing Day 2 bustout, there is a large chance that I'll make a brief TV appearance saying the word "Wow". So if that doesn't just scream "ridiculously awesome consolation prize", I don't know what does.

Anyway, wasn't I here for a reason? Oh yeah. Tom Gage.

Wait....Tom Gage?

Who the fuck is Tom Gage?

Excuse me while I don't vote for Jason Giambi.

Ohhhhh....Tom Gage.

We all fully understand how difficult it is to choose the most deserving All-Star team. It's not a science, but if it were, it would be inexact.

That said, the American League All-Star team this year is flawed not seriously, but enough to be puzzling. Everyone botched it, to some degree: The fans, the players and, of course, the presiding manager who never avoids being second-guessed.

It's really hard to have a "seriously" flawed All-Star team. But this year's AL team comes damned close. Jason Varitek is a joke. Joe Crede had no business beating out Longoria on the basis of offensive stats, let alone his 17 errors. I know you have to select at least one dude per team, but why were Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana both included without giving at least a look to John Danks? I could go on for quite some time, but why don't we check out why Gage is upset?

If it weren't such a position of honor to manage an All-Star team, because it means your team was in the World Series the year before, it would be a miserably thankless job.

It nearly is, anyway. Red Sox manager Terry Francona called it "excruciating."

But that doesn't explain why Giambi, with a .256 batting average, is on the Final Vote ballot -- which adds one more All-Star to both teams during the week after the rosters are announced.

::sigh:: No, I suppose that the fact that Terry Francona called the process of selecting the All-Star team "excruciating" does not explain why Giambi, with a .256 batting average, is on the Final Vote ballot. Point: Gage.

If it were a first baseman Francona wanted on the ballot, he would have done better to choose Miguel Cabrera.

Why? Because you write for a Detroit web site?

Giambi has more RBIs than Cabrera (53-50), but

Actually a pretty solid start to a "but" clause. The RBIs are definitely not that big a deal. Hope you finish this one strong!

Cabrera is outhitting him .282 to .256.

Oh my! Well let's see here. Jason Giambi gets on base 39.4% of the time compared to Cabrera's 35.7%.......hey wait a second! That doesn't make sense! Cabrera has a higher batting average! What kind of witchcraft is at work here?

That's not to say Cabrera is slam-dunk worthy of being an All-Star this year, just that he and several others deserve it more than Giambi, whose RBI ratio is impressive and batting average isn't.

1) RBI....ratio?
2) Okay, fine, I'll dump the play-dumb sarcasm. Giambi has had a monster first half. The dude is fucking OPSing .928. Not only does Giambi deserve to be on that ballot, he deserves to strangle everyone who fucking voted Joe Crede into the game. Does the AL really need 3 backup 3rd basemen?

Francona did select Tampa Bay catcher Dioner Navarro as a backup, and that's a nice pick, although it could be argued that Chicago's A.J. Pierzynski deserved it more.

Arguable, certainly.

Does .317 in 227 at-bats qualify Navarro as an All-Star over Pudge Rodriguez's .290 and 14 previous All-Star selections?

God, I really have to answer this? Ivan Rodriguez has been a bad hitter since 2004. I don't care what the fuck he did in 1999. The All-Star team is for the players that have performed the best, barring some sort of Ripken-like situation. You've got disorders, Gage. When I'm listening to you, everything gets all hazy and Detroit-y and batting average-y.

Probably not, but it's a nice gesture all the same.

There you go. "Probably not" is the answer. I'm looking at a half handle of Smirnoff right now and estimating how far I'd have to drink it down until I'm this stupid. I'm setting the bar right around the middle of the label.....

Dear Terry Frei, I Disagree

I was all set to watch the NHL All-Star game this weekend in the stunning clarity of high definition, but I live in Saint Louis. Instead of going into detail, I will point all interested parties to poster rmj1080p, who sums up everything exactly with post #664 (reply to #661) on AVS Forums.

So I went out scouting for am All-Star column and Terry Frei helped me out. Thanks Terry - I owe you one.

It's funny sometimes, the things you remember.

That's true. I once had a game involving a high school text book and the questionable sexual preferences of the females inside its pages. The turn of the century must have been a bad time to be a guy.

Waiting outside the dressing rooms after the 1998 All-Star Game in Vancouver, a group of us interviewed NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. The '98 contest was the first time the league -- as a tie-in to its players' participation in the upcoming Olympic Winter Games in Japan -- tried the World vs. North America format.

Bettman was more defensive than any of the defensemen in the game. (That wasn't saying much, of course.) He said everyone enjoyed watching North America's 8-7 win, and no matter what format the league used, we'd probably try to find something wrong with it.

At the time, that was true.

I remember watching it for the first time and thinking about how dumb it was. Players from the same team on opposite all star teams? As if hockey wasn't already confusing enough for people that didn't watch it, now the players that they might know about are playing against each other. It's a good thing that ended. But I'm agreeing with Mr. Frei so far and that's not what I'm all about.

At some point in the past 10 years, though, it seems the consensus has become that there's no use grousing about it, because the All-Star Game is a no-contact, no-emotion gimmick -- and it ain't ever going to change.

So because everyone knows what it is, isn't it wasting breath to knock it?

I'd say it is. Of course, that didn't really stop you from knocking it in the previous paragraph.

In a league that (again) is meekly accepting coaching strategies that strangle the entertainment value out of the regular season, most seem to have accepted the All-Star Game's role as a reminder that unfettered skills in a noncompetitive environment is largely boring.

The regular season isn't entertaining because it's too long and getting longer. Too many teams get into the playoffs. Expansion diluted the talent pool. But coaching strategies? He has a point with the neutral zone trap, but there aren't a lot of coaching strategies that reduce entertainment value. Home team wins = entertainment. Add alcohol and puck bunnies into the equation, and you get your $100 worth. Supposedly.

If the television ratings are awful Sunday night, the response should be: Good.

It will. It's Versus. And because Nielsen families aren't watching, the sport is doomed! DOOMED!

Clearly, it's about the culture of the game; there was no more theoretical incentive for the All-Star teams of 30 years ago -- when Gilbert Perreault's overtime goal gave the Wales Conference a 3-2 victory over the Campbell Conference in, appropriately enough, Buffalo.

And maybe there's no way to change it. Perhaps, regardless of the way the rosters are structured, the laissez-faire attitude would dominate.

Perhaps Bettman should suspend the writ of habeas corpus, giving teams a two man advantage for all games. (Thanks, Mr. Buffo!)

But shouldn't the league at least try? I'm not saying any of these suggestions would work, or even that they're all completely serious. The NHL Players' Association would frown upon some of these. But shouldn't the point be that mere acceptance of what the All-Star Game and All-Star weekend are doesn't have to be automatic?

How about one of the proposals below, or a combination thereof:

So just to make sure I have this right - Here's a list. Some of it is really bad, but instead of polish up the good ideas, I'll list them all. Here we go!

Give the winning conference home-ice advantage in the Stanley Cup finals.

STOP. RIGHT. THERE. No. Of all the ideas, I can see this one happening and it frightens me. Instead of giving the better team home ice advantage, let's give it to the winner of an exhibition game. Never in a million years should this happen. It took the seriousness of baseball down a notch, so why not poison hockey, too?

His first point, continued:

At best, it would add a tiny emotional edge, even if it's only from the coach behind the bench. A completely contrived way to decide the home ice? So? Even after its disgustingly minor tweak of the scheduling format for next season, the NHL will still have too few interconference games. Therefore using overall records to award home-ice advantage is nearly just as contrived.

Last I had read, next year's schedule might be 84 games long instead of 82, and could have every team play at every arena during the year. It probably won't happen, but stranger things have happened. Like making an all star game count for something.

Revert to the pre-expansion tradition of having the defending Stanley Cup champion play the All-Stars. The champs against the league, whether at a preordained site or the champs' own building. Include a financial mechanism to reward an entire roster for not getting a break, and hope that the champs play with cohesion and spirit out of pride and habit -- and that the All-Stars are coaxed into at least playing with some emotion.

With the way the free agent market is today compared to the "pre-expansion" days, I can't see this idea making the game anything but less interesting than it already is. This is also where the NHLPA would throw a fit. But it isn't a horrible idea.

Don't go back to the North America vs. World format. Instead, make it Canada against the World.

Isn't the rest of the world making fun of Canada anyways? How about a Red Wings vs. the World if we're throwing out dumb gimmick ideas. Or make like the new Survivor: NHL Superfans vs. NHL Superstars. If this happens, remember you read it here first.

Do it by age group. The league tries this in a very minor way with the YoungStars Game, but that's such a low-profile and more contrived "game" than the All-Star Game; and with many of the best "young stars" in the All-Star Game itself, it serves little useful purpose. It does not do what the league often seems so reluctant to do: truly celebrate the star power of the young players who will be in the spotlight for the next decade, or longer. Make it Vets vs. Kids. Upperclassmen vs. Underclassmen. Seniors vs. Sophomores. Whatever you want to call it, even if that means selling the team names to league sponsors for contributions to charity.

A lot of minor leagues already sell their all star team names to corporate sponsors. They just leave out the charity part.

At this point, 17 of the 42 players on this season's All-Star rosters are 30 or older. I'd draw the division artificially low, making it 26 and under, meaning Rick DiPietro would be on the Kids team and Vincent Lecavalier would be on the Vets. Showcase the young talent. Showcase the league's future. And hope this raises the level of competitiveness.

And what is the positive to sticking all the older guys on the same team exactly? Showcase the old talent and the league's past? A good hack to the ribs of some kid who dribbles the puck in the air? All in all, not a bad idea.

Make the weekend even more of a hockey jamboree, regardless of where the game is played. Have the defending Memorial Cup champions play a league game -- one that counts in the standings -- in the All-Star arena Sunday morning, or match the teams with the best records in the Quebec, Ontario and Western Leagues (two of the three on a rotating basis) on a cutoff date in a major junior showcase. Because of NCAA fussiness, having similar U.S. college and National Team Development Program participation probably would be impossible, but what the heck, see if there's a way to make it work.

Canada would love this idea. America would continue not to care.

Try the whole thing outdoors. Maybe not every year, but occasionally.

The NHL could turn the outdoor game into Who Wants to be a Millionaire? on ABC. Take a winning formula, then force it on everyone until it's unpopular, then never speak of it again.

Gulp. Rotate the All-Star site among Toronto, Montreal, New York, Detroit, Boston and Chicago. The Original Six. Yes, fans in the latter two cities have lost much of their passion for the NHL, but this would be more a nod to tradition than a salute of the state of the game in those cities.

Reward two cities that don't care about the sport anymore! Best idea ever!

I have one idea of my own: How about instead of naming a host city, the team of the player that scores the game winning goal gets the game the next year? Who's with me?