Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury-News is less than thrilled about the All-Star Game. I share many of his complaints, but he's off base with this one:
Also, if form follows, the biggest All-Stars will be out of the game by the fourth or fifth inning. And once again, it will be left to the Adam Joneses or Aaron Hills to decide the outcome. Nothing against those guys. They're very good players. But as "All-Star" personalities, they are remote-control killers.
(Just so you don't have to look it up: Jones is a Baltimore outfielder. Hill is a Toronto infielder. And if anyone in St. Louis other than Tony La Russa recognizes either man walking down the sidewalk next week, it would be a shock.)
Really? Adam Jones is one of the game's major up-and-coming stars. He was part of a major trade last year and is currently hitting a nifty .305/.361/.497 at age 23. I suppose it may be too much for a very casual baseball fan to know who he is, but it's not like he's unknown to all but the hard core baseball junkies.
But more to Purdy's general point -- the lack of interest in the All-Star Game -- I'd argue that the presence of young, exciting players like Adam Jones on the All-Star roster will do more to stoke interest in the game than would a roster limited to the same guys we see three times a week on the national broadcasts (Jeter, Youkilis, Pujols, etc.). Unless you have the Extra Innings package or live in MASN territory, have you even had a chance to see Jones or the Orioles play this year?
There are many reasons to complain about the All-Star Game as currently constructed, but the presence of players like Adam Jones on the roster is not one of them.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
I'm glad Adam Jones made the squad and not, say, George Sherrill. Jones is an exciting plaver and an absolute joy to watch. Hopefully the rest of the country will get to see him make an outstanding play in center like we O's fans have for two years now.
And Aaron Hill has been around for a while now. I suspect that at least American League fans are fairly familiar with him. He's not a superstar or anything, but his inclusion isn't really a disaster.
The managers should decide, before the game, what they want to do:
Do they want to win, or do they want to get everyone into the game? If you really want to win you leave your best players in, except for pinch-hitting for the pitchers, or double switches, or pinch-hitting for a better hitter/pitcher matchup. If you want to play Little League ("Everyone gets to play!") then don't pretend you're trying to win, and don't let the game count for anything.
If you are the NL manager and you really want to win, how do you justify putting anyone in to replace Albert Pujols or Hanley Ramirez?
Why does everyone get their undies in a bunch over the All-Star teams? Since Bud Selig implemented the home-field advantage quirk for the game, the AL is only 3-3. Big whoop. And the 3 wins were all sweeps, where the NL team couldn't win at home anyway.
As for the rosters, I'm glad to see the young up and comers make the team. Would the original writer send David Ortiz and Manny and Jimmy Rollins and A-Rod, just because they are recognizable stars? You want the best players of that season, and guys like Adam Jones and Aaron Hill were excellent for their teams this season and deserve the nod.
I watch the All-Star games for what they are, exhibitions. I want to see all the players get in and really don't care who wins. They play 162 games for that, can't we just enjoy the stars for a day to two?
The cited piece says more about the slavish traditionalism of baseball "journalists" than it does about the state of the game.
Is Purdy always this bad? I've never read him before. Let's see...in 1933, when there were 8 teams in each league, the All-Star rosters were 17 and 18, and today, when there are 30 teams, each roster is 33! WOW! Talk about a change!