Baseball fans may hate me for this, but I believe that allowing them to pick the starters for the MLB All-Star team is unfair to the players. Here’s why.
The first All-Star Game was in 1933 at the White Sox’s Comiskey Park. Chicago sportswriter Arch Ward played a pivotal role, helping to revitalize a game that World War I, the Black Sox scandal, and the Great Depression had wounded.
Babe Ruth, Al Simmons, and Earl Averill before the 1933 All-Star Game in Comiskey Park (photo courtesy Chicagology)
All-Star selections were made in part by the two managers and, in part, by the fans, who clipped ballots from the Chicago Tribune and mailed them in. From 1935 through 1946, the managers picked the entire All-Star rosters. In 1947, the fans regained some clout and were tasked with electing the eight starting position players, just as they are today.
But then came the 1957 vote. Cincinnati fans stuffed the ballot boxes and elected seven Reds to the starting lineup. Commissioner Ford Frick responded by pulling Gus Bell and Wally Post from the lineup and replacing them with Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Then he took away the fans’ voting privileges.
Until 1970, managers, coaches, and players had exclusive control over the process. With interest in the All-Star game waning, Commissioner Bowie Kuhn returned part of the voting to the paying customers.
In 2003, following complaints that the All-Star managers were filling the bench and pitching staff with their own players, MLB gave players a larger say, and that’s where we stand today.
–Fans pick the starting lineup players.
–MLB players vote on five starting pitchers, three relievers, and eight reserves.
–The Commissioner’s Office fills any remaining spots to ensure that each roster reaches 32 players and that each team has at least one representative.
But allowing the fans to pick the starting nine for each league, including the designated hitter, continues to produce some inequities. I am not saying that fans are not knowledgeable, but they are understandably biased toward their hometown players. Moreover, with fans being allowed to cast five votes every 24 hours, players in big-town markets such as Los Angeles and New York inevitably receive a skewed percentage of the votes.
James Wood of the Nationals (AP photo)
For example, this year, the Dodgers’ Teoscar Hernandez, although not named to the All-Star team, was an outfield finalist ahead of the Washington Nationals’ James Wood. National League hurlers so fear Wood that on June 29, the Angels intentionally walked him four times! Hernandez? As of July 7, Hernandez was hitting .257 with 14 home runs and 54 runs batted in. Yet, Hernandez received more than a million votes more than Wood.
There’s even more to this story.
Eight of the Dodgers’ nine starters were finalists, and Atlanta Braves’ Ronald Acuna, Jr. is a starting NL outfielder in the All-Star game ahead of Wood. Yet, Acuna has only played 40 games this season. He has put up good numbers, but his high vote total is more a nod to his past four All-Star selections and his star status.
In the American League, the Minnesota Twins’ Byron Buxton didn’t even make it as a finalist, despite having better numbers than the Detroit Tigers’ Javier Baez, who was selected as a starter. As of July 7, Baez was hitting .279 with ten homers and 39 RBIs, while Buxton was batting .270 with 20 home runs and 53 RBIs. Mike Trout, hitting .233 with 14 home runs and 33 RBIs, made it as a finalist over Buxton. Again, fortunately, the players selected Buxton as a reserve. However, he presents a strong case for being a starter.
Yes, the reality I’ve described makes a strong case for allowing players to choose starters as well. Fans are sentimental. Baez is having a resurgence after a few disappointing years with the Tigers, and Trout, an 11-time All-Star, is a perennial fan favorite.
Tampa Bay’s Jonathan Aranda (photo courtesy Tampa Bay Times)
When it comes to All-Star voting, how does a small-market organization like the Tampa Bay Rays compete with the New York Yankees? The Rays’ Jonathan Aranda has been the best first baseman statistically in the American League. Yet he was not one of the final two in the voting. That honor went to Vladimir Guerrero Jr. and the Yankees’ Paul Goldschmidt.
However, as of July 7, Aranda was batting .319 with ten home runs and 48 RBIs. Goldschmidt was hitting .284 with eight homers and 32 RBIs. The players were smart enough to vote Aranda ahead of Goldschmidt as a reserve, but Aranda makes a strong case to be starting over fan favorite Guerrero Jr., who was hitting .277 with 12 home runs and 44 RBIs.
And how did Jackson Holliday of the Orioles make it as one of the two finalists for second base over the Rays’ Brandon Lowe? It must be because of Baltimore’s bigger market, because as of July 7, Lowe was batting .272 with 19 home runs and 50 RBIs, while Holliday was hitting .260 with 11 homers and 36 RBIs. Once again, the players noticed and picked Lowe over Holliday as a reserve.
These examples show that players are making better selections than fans.
Being selected for the All-Star team is a great honor. Being selected as a starter is a greater honor. Should these honors be left for fans to decide? Players know other players best and, for the most part, are the most knowledgeable people about the game. They can analyze their peers’ strengths and weaknesses.
However, I don’t think MLB will ever eliminate fan voting. It would likely produce an uproar that would alienate fans and negatively impact attendance and television ratings. As Caleb Moody wrote for Just Baseball, “Fan voting certainly adds a unique personal aspect that undoubtedly keeps fans engaged, but it cannot be argued that it doesn’t come without its frustrations.”
The MVP and Cy Young awards are voted on by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. That is another option for All-Star selections. But….
