Where the All-Star Game Went Wrong

Last night, the MLB announced the rosters for the 2016 All-Star Game. Strangely enough, they held their "selection show" at 7 PM ET, when most games on the east coast were getting under way. Not the best marketing, in my opinion.

Anyway, the All-Star Game rosters were announced with little fanfare. Sure, there will be some debate over the validity over Addison Russell's selection or Kyle Seager's snub, but that fact of the matter is that the All-Star Game is no longer the much-watch event that it used to be. Take someone like me for example. I am probably the biggest baseball fan around, I watch probably 150 out of 162 Met games a year, yet I don't know if I will watch the MLB All Star Game. I'll probably end up putting it on, but that fact that it is not a must-watch for a die-hard baseball fan speaks to how far the All-Star Game has fallen.

The All Star Game used to mean something. It used to be must-watch television for any baseball fan. However, recent changes to the game have made it as redundant as the NFL Pro-Bowl. The first problem is that the starting lineups are voted exclusively by fans. This has been a problem in recent years, as fan bases have stuffed the ballot boxes to put in undeserving players that play on their team. This year, for example, 5 out of the 8 starters in the National League are on the Chicago Cubs, including the entire infield. Though you could argue that Anthony Rizzo, Ben Zobrist, Kris Bryant, and to a lesser extent Dexter Fowler deserve to start the All Star Game, there is no way that Addison Russell should be allowed anywhere near that game, yet here he is starting. At best, Russell might be the 8th best shortstop in the National League, yet here is starting because the entire city of Chicago voted for him

Players like Russell starting the game is bad for the MLB, who are trying to capture the casual fan. The casual fan wants to see the best players in this game, like Corey Seager, not mediocre (at best) players like Addison Russell.

A bigger problem for the All Star Game is interleague play. Obviosuly, there are two leagues in Major League Baseball, the American League and the National League. Before 1997, these two leagues would only play each other in the World Series. As a result of this, the best players from each league almost never got to play each other. This made an exhibition like the All Star Game a very exciting event, as you got to see the rare occurrence of superstar players from separate leagues on the same field.

If you were a baseball fan in the 1960s, you would probably say that the best player in baseball was Micky Mantle, while the best pitcher in baseball was Bob Gibson. The issue here was that Gibson played in the National League while Mantle played in the American League. So apart from the 1964 World Series, the only opportunity to see these two legends face each other was during the All Star Game, which made it appointment television.

Things are different now, interleague play has been going on since 1997, which takes away the rarity of National League teams playing American League teams. Whats worse, is that since 2013 interleague play has expanded. Now, a team will play 20 interleague games a season against an entire division. So teams in the NL East for example, which each play 20 games against teams from the AL Central.

This expansion of interleague play greatly diminishes the uniqueness that used to make the All Star Game great. Just as Mantle and Gibson were the best players in the 1960s, Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw are widely considered to be the greatest players of today's game. However, if Trout and Kershaw were to face each other in the All Star Game next week (this won't happen because Kershaw is injured), it will not be the least bit special or unique because they have already faced each other 12 times in the regular season.

The fact of the matter is that all-star games in all professional sports tend to be pretty boring, and for the most part have become more for the advertisers than for the fans (its officially the MLB All Star Game, presented by MasterCard). The NFL Pro Bowl has become unwatchable, and the NBA All Star Game isn't much better. So its hard to get too upset for the MLB All Star Game becoming boring and redundant. However, unlike in other sports, the MLB All Star Game has a history of being unique, as for most of the game's existence most of the players were on the field together for the first time.

Unlike the other sport's all-star games, though, the MLB version actually means something. Inexplicably, the league that wins the All Star game has gotten home-field advantage in the World Series since 2003. This makes a an exhibition game that fans and players do not take seriously worth quite a bit. I could write a whole other blog about wrong with this setup, but I'll leave it at the fact that an exhibition game should count for exactly nothing, not home-field advantage in the World Series.

Do I encourage everyone to watch the All Star Game on Tuesday? Yes I do. If you're not familiar with a lot of the game's biggest stars, its a great way to see them in action. However, if you watch your own team's games even at a casual level, you will probably see all these players anyway without watching the All Star Game. It wasn't always that way.

Settling the Harper-Trout Debate

While its always fun to watch sports with a friend, its even more fun to have a heated argument about sports with a friend. In many ways, it seems that sports like baseball only exist so they can spark arguments and disagreements. Of these arguments, the most common among baseball fans is arguably the "who is better" argument. It is not enough for a player to be great. Instead, he must be compared to other players in order to be judged. This argument has always existed in baseball, and will exist as long as baseball is played. In the 1960s, I'm sure every baseball fan spent substantial time arguing over who was a better player: Micky Mantle or Willie Mays. The same discussion exists to day, except that it involves the two best young players in the game today: Mike Trout and Bryce Harper.

Through no fault of their own, Mike Trout and Bryce Harper will always be tied to one other. The "rivalry" between the two began on April 28, 2012, when they were called up from the minor leagues on the exact same day. That year, they established themselves as being two of the better players in baseball despite being absurdly young in age (Trout was 20 and Harper was 19).That year, they became only the 39th and 40th rookies to ever play in the MLB All Star Game, Harper being the youngest position player to ever appear in the game. They would both go on to win Rookie of the Year in their respective leagues, putting up 2 of the best rookie seasons of all time.

Since then, Trout and Harper have gone on to be the two biggest stars in baseball, despite being years younger than most major leaguers (the average age for an MLB player is 29.3). Despite their similar production on the field, their off the field reputations have become polar opposites of each other. Trout is widely viewed as the All-American boy. He keeps a smile on his face, doesn't say anything controversial, and plays an old-fashioned style on the field. As a result, Trout is one of the most well liked players in the game. Harper however, is widely viewed as a villain. He curses at umpires, showboats after he hits home runs, and acts like he doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks of him. Harper has cultivated a "bad boy" image, and thus has become one of the more disliked players in baseball. When he plays on the road, it is not uncommon for Harper to be loudly booed by opposing fans.

Although Harper is routinely despised by most baseball fans, none of those fans would be foolish enough to say that Harper is not a great baseball player. The question is whether or not he is the best player in the game. The honorary title of "Best Player in Baseball" had long been held by Miguel Cabrera of the Detroit Tigers. However, as Cabrera has aged, he has clearly been surpassed by Trout and Harper. The question now is whether Harper or Trout should be considered to be the "Best Player in Baseball". Up until last year, Trout was considered to be superior to Harper. However, Harper's historic 2015 season has led many people to change their minds. Here, we'll do a definitive side-by-side comparison of the two players to finally decide who the better player is.

Bryce Harper

• 2012 National League Rookie of the Year
• 2015 National League Most Valuable Player. Yongest winner to ever be selected by unanimous decision.
• 2015 Silver Slugger Winner. 2015 Hank Aaron Award Winner
• Led the major leagues in almost every offensive category last year, including runs, home runs, on base percentage, slugging percentage, OPS, and OPS+.
• Has been selected to the All Star Game in 3 out of his 4 seasons in the major leagues. 
• 3rd youngest player to be selected to the All Star Game. Youngest non-pitcher to ever be selected
• Is a year older than the average college senior, and already has 112 career home runs.
• Led the major leagues with a 9.9 Wins Above Replacement score, highest in the National League since Barry Bonds in 2004.
• Has a saved 32 runs in his career on defense, making him an above-average defensive right fielder.
• Had struggled to stay healthy before 2015.
• Career stats: .284/.386/.513
• Current 2016 stats: .254/..401/.480  1.8 WAR

Mike Trout

• 2012 American League Rookie of the Year
• 2014 American League Most Valuable Player (unanimously selected)
• 2012-2015 Silver Slugger Award Winner. 2014 Hank Aaron Award winner
• 2nd player to ever win Silver Slugger in each of his 1st 4 seasons
• 4-time All-Star (has been selected in each of his 4 MLB seasons)
• 2014, 2015 All Star Game Most Valuable Player
• Has had at least 7.9 WAR in each of his 4 seasons (8.0 is considered MVP-level)
• Led the American League in strikeouts in 2014
• Has a career Defensive Runs Saved of exactly 0 in CF., which means that he is considered to be an average center fielder.
• Career stats: .306/.399/.560
• Current 2016 stats: .319/.415/.572

As we can see, Harper and Trout each can fill a trophy case with the awards they have won in their young careers. In order to decide who is the better player, you must decide which is more valuable: quantity or quality. Trout has certainly had a more consistently great career so far, but Harper's 2015 season was better than any season that Trout has had so far. From my perspective, I'm inclined to take Trout's consistent greatness over Harper's unreal 2015 season. If Harper were to repeat the numbers that he put up last year, then this would be a very different conversation. However, Harper is having a mediocre season by his standards while Trout is having another MVP-type season. With that being said, I think Harper's mediocre stats can be attributed to the fact that he is not seeing good pitches to him due to the fact that he is in a poor Washington lineup. However, the fact remains that his numbers pale in comparison to Trout's. Add in the fact that Trout plays a more demanding defensive position in center field, and I think it is clear that Mike Trout is currently a superior player compared to Bryce Harper.