Big
market teams dominate all-star voting selections. There is no question
that loads of baseball talent exists at the all-star game, but often
not the very best.
In 2001, Jason Giambi was robbed the AL
MVP award by Ichiro. Granted Ichiro's defense was spectacular, but the
offensive categories were not even close.
Ichiro
posted a .350/.381/.457 for a very modest OPS of .838 – pathetic for
the MVP of the American League. Giambi posted a .342/.477/.660 line
for an overpowering OPS of 1.137. I'm convinced that if he were being
pitched ping pong balls instead of baseballs that year, he would have
hit those out of the park too.
Giambi
arguably had one of the best offensive seasons in major league history,
but didn't get the MVP award. And its funny how in 2007, Justin Morneau
– who had a great year no doubt – won the AL MVP when he was only the
third best player on his own team.
We must
recognize that Major League Baseball is a business, and that they make
their money off of the fans. So the question is: Does the popularity
contest work better for business? I think so. The reason being that the
fans get to vote on who plays in the All-Star Game, so they are
ultimately voting on the players who they want to watch.
Keep
in mind that these votes are extremely biased towards a fans favorite
team, etc. Theoretically, the ratings for the All-Star Game should then
be higher if fans know that the players they admire are in the game, so
it makes sense from a business standpoint. And I can respect that
because I understand that MLB's top priority is to make money. However
it really grinds my gears when Travis Hafner (1.097 OPS in 2006, second
in the majors to only Pujols by .005 points) isn't invited. That's just
not right.
As much as I would like to see an all-star
system purely based on player statistics, I think it would hurt the
ratings in the short run. Suddenly, viewers would see a guy like Hafner
on the field and tune out because they've never heard of him. But
little do they know he's better then the next guy.
Less
popular players would become popular if they were exposed, so over the
long run it would be profitable. VORP (value over a replacement player)
would be the most suitable statistic to choose an all-star team because
it essentially gives you the best players in the league by position.
But
since these awards are about money and not player performance, all-star
selections, MVP awards, Gold Gloves, Cy-Young's, and other subjective
awards simply cannot be used to accurately evaluate a player's
worth. I'm tired of hearing how good a player is because he won a few
of these popularity contests. They may as well just make these awards
based on who is the best looking.
I've
heard the argument that the MVP award is the most valuable player for
their team, not necessarily the best player. This argument is
nonsense. The most valuable player is in fact, the best player. I can't
understand how a worse player for one team is more valuable to their
team than a better player for another.
So, okay MLB, have you little all-star stint, with your fancy teams with their cool uniforms, exciting contests, and hyped up player profiles. But just call it something else, like the all popular team, or the Japanese/AL East teams. But don't expect people to believe these are the truly the very best players in the league.
You can contact Erik at erik.zawojski@gmail.com.