broncosmitty
Banned in Europe
- 94,338
- 28,370
- 1,033
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Location
- Almost Paradise
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 16,206.54
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
With your mom.
-
Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!
Should every team get an All-Star?
- Thread starter Mike A. S.
- Start date
nuraman00
Well-Known Member
- 15,155
- 471
- 83
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
I guess put Jean Segura at SS, just to keep the "J" streak going.
nuraman00
Well-Known Member
- 15,155
- 471
- 83
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
I say yes. The team record is a reflection of the general manager and owner, not necessarily the players.
Look at whether the general manager and owner have good contracts or anchors, and that determines part of a team's winning.
If an owner has a lot of unproductive players on large contracts, then that will hurt winning. Or if a owner has a low payroll and a lot of unproven players on their first contracts.
Or, a team can have great hitting but no pitching, or vice versa, causing a lot of losses.
On a 25 man roster, there's usually at least one good player.
Whether they've selected the right player in the past, is another matter.
No All Star game in any sport ever gets the most deserving players. Fans can select players for reasons other than merit (popularity; wanting to see their entire team represented).
Coaches can select players for their own reasons (their own biases; they don't like the attitudes of some players; or they make picks without looking at stats).
Players can pick players for their own reasons (who they are friends with, without looking at some objective stats or number of games played).
Especially in an individual sport like MLB, where one player contributes the least to winning. One hitter is only responsible for 1/9th of the offense in terms of opportunity; and a pitcher's contribution varies by the number of outs he helps generate.
To me, yes, a team can be in first place and have 1 All-Star. Demanding that they need to have more just because they're winning is as much of an "orange slices / participation" argument as anything. A team can have a collection of several very good but not great players, but still be in 1st place. They shouldn't be given All-Star spots just because they're winning, unless their players are having great seasons.
The owner and general manager usually set the stage for whether a team will be in a winning position.
I'm not going to say that every team will always deserve an All-Star. But I think that most of the time, if one looks hard enough, one should be able to find one relief pitcher or one hitter hitting close to .290 or on pace to steal 30 SBs (even if it's only the first half) or something. I'd be willing to put players a little bit outside of their defensive position, just so a potential jam at a fielding position isn't the reason why someone else isn't selected.
Only in the cases where a team is historically bad, would I be ok with not giving a team an All-Star. Such having both a historically bad offense and pitching. Not just one of those.
In basketball, I don't always diminish a player's scoring numbers by saying that he's on a bad team, so somebody has to score. I've seen historic teams where nobody scores. (Or nobody defends, etc.) Those are the teams that don't deserve All-Stars.
Normal bad teams, can still have 1 good player.
Every group that votes on something, whether it's fans, coaches, players, or the media, will always have their own biases.
The best way, IMO, to account for that is to allow those different groups, but weigh each group proportionally. That way there's different voices heard, but also weighed differently.
Look at whether the general manager and owner have good contracts or anchors, and that determines part of a team's winning.
If an owner has a lot of unproductive players on large contracts, then that will hurt winning. Or if a owner has a low payroll and a lot of unproven players on their first contracts.
Or, a team can have great hitting but no pitching, or vice versa, causing a lot of losses.
On a 25 man roster, there's usually at least one good player.
Whether they've selected the right player in the past, is another matter.
No All Star game in any sport ever gets the most deserving players. Fans can select players for reasons other than merit (popularity; wanting to see their entire team represented).
Coaches can select players for their own reasons (their own biases; they don't like the attitudes of some players; or they make picks without looking at stats).
Players can pick players for their own reasons (who they are friends with, without looking at some objective stats or number of games played).
Especially in an individual sport like MLB, where one player contributes the least to winning. One hitter is only responsible for 1/9th of the offense in terms of opportunity; and a pitcher's contribution varies by the number of outs he helps generate.
To me, yes, a team can be in first place and have 1 All-Star. Demanding that they need to have more just because they're winning is as much of an "orange slices / participation" argument as anything. A team can have a collection of several very good but not great players, but still be in 1st place. They shouldn't be given All-Star spots just because they're winning, unless their players are having great seasons.
The owner and general manager usually set the stage for whether a team will be in a winning position.
I'm not going to say that every team will always deserve an All-Star. But I think that most of the time, if one looks hard enough, one should be able to find one relief pitcher or one hitter hitting close to .290 or on pace to steal 30 SBs (even if it's only the first half) or something. I'd be willing to put players a little bit outside of their defensive position, just so a potential jam at a fielding position isn't the reason why someone else isn't selected.
Only in the cases where a team is historically bad, would I be ok with not giving a team an All-Star. Such having both a historically bad offense and pitching. Not just one of those.
In basketball, I don't always diminish a player's scoring numbers by saying that he's on a bad team, so somebody has to score. I've seen historic teams where nobody scores. (Or nobody defends, etc.) Those are the teams that don't deserve All-Stars.
Normal bad teams, can still have 1 good player.
Every group that votes on something, whether it's fans, coaches, players, or the media, will always have their own biases.
The best way, IMO, to account for that is to allow those different groups, but weigh each group proportionally. That way there's different voices heard, but also weighed differently.
SlinkyRedfoot
Well-Known Member
- 40,582
- 8,615
- 533
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Location
- Cripple Creek
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 500.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
mr.hockey4242
Well-Known Member
- 29,660
- 4,225
- 293
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 26,925.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
I’m good with Machado because 1. He was a fan choice and 2. In terms of offense they are pretty much equal(slight edge to manny) and for an All Star game that’s really what we are watching for. Best pitchers pitching to stud hitters.
But yeah, when you factor in defense Lindor has definitely been the more valuable SS this year.
Similar threads
- Discussion
- Discussion
