Baseball

I enjoy Major League Baseball's All Star Game, at least enough to watch a chunk of it.
But I am amazed that some people take the game so seriously.
I heard a numbskull on the radio on Friday ranting about the "great travesty" it would be if Ryan Ludwick didn't make the All Star team.
Ryan Luckwick?
For the record, he's an outfielder with the Cardinals and is having a pretty good first half ... which brings me to my point, how can we logically identify an All Star squad only halfway through the season. Shouldn't a player be rated based on his total performance for the year, not just what he did over the first 85 or so games?
Maybe there should be two All Star games, one at mid-season and the other after the season? Or one game after the season?
MLB's system for picking the team is also a goof. Fan voting determines the starting lineups which means teams with better attendance (or more national TV appearances) have a big advantage over players on small market teams.
That's why you might have five NY Yankees and one Kansas City Royal on an All Star squad, even if the Yankees are lousy at the time.
You need more evidence?
How about some catcher you've never heard who happens to play for the Cubs leading the Braves' Brian McCann in this year's fan voting. (Just another reason to hate the Cubs!)
The rest of the all star squads are filled out by the team managers who make a big to-do about how much care they take in making their decisions ... based on half a season's stats.
The managers claim player personalities have nothing to do with the process, but that's a crock. Just like it's also a crock when the fans vote on an aging favorite who can't get around on the high heat anymore.
Then again, if you look at the All Star game as baseball's way of saying thanks to the fans -- those us us who shell out $45 for a decent seat and $7 for a hotdog -- then letting us knuckleheads pick the players we want to see is probably the best method ... even it means we don't get to see the immortal Ryan Ludwick.