I think 34 players is too many. Last night's constant stream of players entering the game by what seemed liked a parade of non-entities and unknowns was extremely distracting. I liked the older method of the actual twenty-five best players being their league's representatives
Fozzy
Favorite Answer
I agree for the most part, but I would set the rosters at 27 and have them be made up of 2 players for each infield position, 6 outfielders and 10 pitchers.
Then I would love to see a fan vote for a "super sub" for each team. This would follow the same format as the last spot voting that MLB currently uses. Set some basic qualifications - for instance, maybe a player would have to have played 10 games at 3 different positions to be eligible. Might be a way for guys who are solid players but who don't get recognized since they don't play 150 or so games in on spot. Think of it as being similar to the NFL adding a special teams player to the Pro B rosters. Personally I have always admired those players that can play multiple positions and think it would have been cool to see a player like Jose Oquendo get some recognition for his contributions.
I also eliminate rule that every team needs a representative. While it is possible that even a poor team would have a player worthy of selection, I would much rather see the best 2 second baseman in each league than have fifth best play simply because a team needs to be represented. Great concept, but really only fair if the best player from each team gets a guaranteed spot, but not you end up with the 5th best player on the Royals making it simply to make sure they have a representative.
Maurice
The all-star game has outlived it's usefulness. When it started, it was a chance to see the best in the game that you didn't normally get to see. Now with ESPN, internet, etc. you can see every player every day. Even the home run contest is boring now.
And you're right. Too many players. Even if every team was represented, that only covers 15 players in each league. Even if the voters nominated 9 guys from the same team, each team could be represented. At least then the fans would get to see the guys they voted for actually play most of a game rather than 3 innings or 2 at bats. If you aren't voted in by the fans, you can't gripe about not being selected anyway.
And the voters voted for the first 9, why do they need to vote for an alternate?
Time to do away with the game completely. The season is long enough.
The Mick 7
I disagree with not only the present format but the entire concept of the game. 25 players is enough for a nine inning game. If the powers to be want to add "honorary members", like former HOFers in order to be recognized, I'm good with that.
Fan voting is also an issue with me. Stuffing the ballot box does not give a true representation of either team. The least objective people involved in the voting process are the fans. I have no problem with fans voting for the home run derby team, but not for the all star team. Specially now that home field advantage is the prize for winning the game.
Once upon a time the all star game was a showcase of the stars of the day. These were the players the fans wanted to see in a celebration of this great game. Now, thanks to Bud Selig, the mid summer classic has become a joke.
Andrew T
I think the 34 allows all of the good players to be there as well as a player from each team. I am content with the roster size. However, I am not a fan of the All Star game determinng which team gets home field in the World Series.
jigokusabre
I think that 26 was the ideal, because the "26th man" is an excellent idea to address snubbed players. 10 pitchers and 16 position players are enough to get through a game.
However, my concern is that if you contract the rosters, there will be a call to end the representation requirement... which would be wrong. There are very few examples you could come up with where a team has absolutely NO ONE that is deserving of being an All-Star.