The Brewster

Every year, there is some debate over all star snubs. This will always happen. But there have been bad omissions recently. There will be one this year in the Frick at least, because it's unavoidable. The Johnson may be even worse, as Rockville is about half the starters, and deservedly so. So I bet Arron is going to have to take a bunch of team representative picks, leaving out the second best player on a bunch of teams who already have one representative, despite that second best player being clearly superior to the "team rep" pick. If you are one of the best two players at a position by a wide margin, you should make the game. But this doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because every year, at least one and sometimes as many as three spots are taken up by players that do not deserve an appearance on merit, but are there simply because every team must be represented.

That rule makes some sense in real life. For us, it makes none. We don't have fans. Let's stop this nonsense. Let's put the best players in. If a team doesn't have a player worthy of making the ASG. They should get better players.

My fans would be unhappy if we didn't get an All-Star.

RonCo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:43 am

My fans would be unhappy if we didn't get an All-Star.

You didn't have one actually in the game last year, as your only rep was hurt lol.

Ted wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 am

Every year, there is some debate over all star snubs. This will always happen. But there have been bad omissions recently. There will be one this year in the Frick at least, because it's unavoidable. The Johnson may be even worse, as Rockville is about half the starters, and deservedly so. So I bet Arron is going to have to take a bunch of team representative picks, leaving out the second best player on a bunch of teams who already have one representative, despite that second best player being clearly superior to the "team rep" pick. If you are one of the best two players at a position by a wide margin, you should make the game. But this doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because every year, at least one and sometimes as many as three spots are taken up by players that do not deserve an appearance on merit, but are there simply because every team must be represented.

That rule makes some sense in real life. For us, it makes none. We don't have fans. Let's stop this nonsense. Let's put the best players in. If a team doesn't have a player worthy of making the ASG. They should get better players.

Just curious how would you classify the "best two players" at each position? I think everyone values players differently. Would we just vote 2 players for each position? or vote a bunch of reserves or what?

Do All-Star game appearances bump popularity for players? If so, it does make sense to do it. I figure it's also an easy TN for people who aren't big on writing or aren't as creative as others here. I don't know. I get the issue with it. But I don't mind it.

bcslouck wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:53 am

Do All-Star game appearances bump popularity for players? If so, it does make sense to do it. I figure it's also an easy TN for people who aren't big on writing or aren't as creative as others here. I don't know. I get the issue with it. But I don't mind it.

Quite a few of my contracts have all-star bonuses so people need to not vote for Omaha players.

niles08 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:56 am

Quite a few of my contracts have all-star bonuses so people need to not vote for Omaha players.

I'm going to go change my votes real quick. #omahastarting9

niles08 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:50 am

Ted wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 am

Every year, there is some debate over all star snubs. This will always happen. But there have been bad omissions recently. There will be one this year in the Frick at least, because it's unavoidable. The Johnson may be even worse, as Rockville is about half the starters, and deservedly so. So I bet Arron is going to have to take a bunch of team representative picks, leaving out the second best player on a bunch of teams who already have one representative, despite that second best player being clearly superior to the "team rep" pick. If you are one of the best two players at a position by a wide margin, you should make the game. But this doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because every year, at least one and sometimes as many as three spots are taken up by players that do not deserve an appearance on merit, but are there simply because every team must be represented.

That rule makes some sense in real life. For us, it makes none. We don't have fans. Let's stop this nonsense. Let's put the best players in. If a team doesn't have a player worthy of making the ASG. They should get better players.

Just curious how would you classify the "best two players" at each position? I think everyone values players differently. Would we just vote 2 players for each position? or vote a bunch of reserves or what?

The two players thing was just shorthand. I don't suggest changing the number of roster spots. But lets say your choices for a final spot are a 100 inning 3.6 ERA starter 2 WAR pitcher and a .330/.380/.570 batter worth 3 WAR. Which would you take? Do you want to be forced to leave the batter off because the team with the pitcher doesn't have any all stars yet. That's the scenario I was faced with when I picked my reserves last year. It's the same reason Emilio Morales wasn't on last year (or fine, if you think Moralas should have made it instead of Gillstrom). But BOTH should have been on the team last year. But couldn't because Randy had to represent a team with a weaker candidate.

The easiest way to not have to make that decision is just to not win the Cartwright.

I like the contravercy it creates. Nothing gets the forums more active then a good ole screw job. And when Chip Puckett gets snubbed because Brooklyn needs a rep and recte accidentally selects the wrong Jose Gallegos. That just sets things up for great tn motivation.

Oh and I give Aaron full permission to select Rick ward if it means sending the best team to kick some frick ass.

ae37jr wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:21 pm

I like the contravercy it creates. Nothing gets the forums more active then a good ole screw job. And when Chip Puckett gets snubbed because Brooklyn needs a rep and recte accidentally selects the wrong Jose Gallegos. That just sets things up for great tn motivation.

I think we'd still have the controversy even with the change. We will always have "snubs". I just hate seeing and having to pick between two truly deserving players because I had to take someone I wouldn't even consider if a team didn't have to have a rep.

FYI I do plan on writing my massive explanation like I have done before, so feel free to chop that to shreds.

Regardless of what happens, I'm sure to write a TN or 5 about my all-stars or snubs......

Having an all star on every team is like giving everyone a participation trophy. I like the top 30 guys regardless of team.

Ted wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:00 am

That rule makes some sense in real life. For us, it makes none. We don't have fans. Let's stop this nonsense. Let's put the best players in. If a team doesn't have a player worthy of making the ASG. They should get better players.

I completely agree with this. I like it in real life but I don't like it for this league. No one on my team deserves an all star spot. I guess an argument could be made for Menne but he's been injured too long to qualify and there are many other elite third basemen in the Frick. If he had played enough games to qualify, he definitely would have been my representative and that would be taking a spot from someone like Collins or Mendoza who have been outstanding this season, which I don't think would be fair.

Spoiler alert, menne didn't make the team for pretty much the reasons you stated

You do realize I changed the rosters to 35 players a couple years back to address this issue, right?

So it's a non-issue.

I could make the rosters 100 if you still think it's an issue, in which case I STILL predict someone will bitch about a player being left off. That's part of the fun, right?

recte44 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:43 am

You do realize I changed the rosters to 35 players a couple years back to address this issue, right?

So it's a non-issue.

I could make the rosters 100 if you still think it's an issue, in which case I STILL predict someone will bitch about a player being left off. That's part of the fun, right?

since you told me last year when I was picking the rosters that it was 30 active players, no I didnt know that.... Even went back into my PMs to check to verify I was right.

recte44 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:43 am

You do realize I changed the rosters to 35 players a couple years back to address this issue, right?

So it's a non-issue.

I could make the rosters 100 if you still think it's an issue, in which case I STILL predict someone will bitch about a player being left off. That's part of the fun, right?

Haha. I don't think I knew that. Still, there were probably 36 players better than anyone from Vancouver this year, as Taylor was nice enough to admit.

I'm not concerned about people bitching someone was left off. The debate is actually fun. Who is better? I just don't like someone being left off because an inferior player HAD to be picked. This isn't a case of something thinking a player so more deserving. It's a case of KNOWING you are taking a less deserving player because you have to meet a quota. I'm not sure expanding the roster really helped. All it did was lower the bar and create more controversy. There are more 2 win players at the all star break than 3 win players. Raise the bar, and now you don't have to decide among five players you can take all of because you have to put in someone who doesn't deserve to go. It may only be two. The problem is the player that doesn't deserve to go.

Here's another way to look at it. If you made the rosters 100 players, there would definitely be more controversy. How do you decide between the 95th and 130th best player in the league . The lines are so blurry when you make the pool that big. Shrink it to 10, and it's a much easier problem. You're talking about maybe 12-13 players then.

10 player rosters -> 2-3 snubs
100 player rosters ->30-40 snubs

Expanding the rosters actually makes more snubs. What is does accomplish is making the chump that doesn't belong fit in easier. But the roster size you'd need to make him fit in completely is probably 50-60. And that's stupid. My two cents would be to shrink the rosters to raise the bar, make the cutoff clearer. Make all stars more elite. And get rid of the every team rule so you're never taking a less deserving player.