All-star Voting is a Joke

February 21, 2007
Major League all-star voting and MVP voting are a complete joke. The voting is a popularity contest, and isn't based on player performance.  Baseball Writer's and fans have cost better players these awards countless times because deserving players aren't always as marketable.  Voters from Japan play a significant role in the voting, nearly giving players like Ichiro and Matsui instant all-star status.   

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.