MLB All-Star Game is overrated

There is a problem with every all-star game in every major sport. Football? Might have the best idea of all the sports in that they hold their game after the entire season is over, thus providing the best players for the entire season to attend. The drawback is that some of the best players choose to be recovering from injury during this post-season accolade, and really, rarely does any player give 100% in such a game with the chance of injury for no reason.

Basketball has become a showcase of offense: who can provide the most dramatic alley-oop or posterizing dunk? A better statistic would be 'count the number of steps when Player A drives the lane.' There is no defense in the NBA All-Star game. MVP is given to the first player to score 40 points, and there are usually several of those. The dunk contest is a joke, there are no original dunks anymore, and the winner in 2007 or 08 (Dwight Howard and his 'superman' dunk), didn't even dunk the ball on his big 'dunk.' He threw it through the hoop from about two feet away. His hand didn't even touch the rim, not even close.

Baseball... well at least it counts, right? Winner gets home field advantage in the World Series, which is a great gimmick for the players and fans, or at least those in contention. In 2008, do you think the relief pitcher for the Kansas City Royals really cared who won? The starters for each league are voted on by the fans, because this Mid-Summer classic is supposed to be for the fans. I'm a huge fan of baseball, and you know what? I didn't care, other than the American League won, which, if my favorite team makes the World Series, would mean we have home field advantage. However, I will not watch the All-Star game because it is littered with players I don't care to watch. The starters are voted for, a popularity contest which is always skewed toward certain teams in New York and Boston. Out of 9 starting positions in the American League, 5 were Yankees or Red Sox. The two teams had at least 10 people play. America sees enough of these two teams because ESPN plays all of their games, and few of other teams.

However, I digress. I'll save my East Coast views for another day, another rant. What makes these players All-Stars? Why does every team must have an All-Star? Why is there a token player, even if they are not deserving? My issue is how the players are selected. If this were to be a true game of the best players in the league, there would be no popularity contest for fans to vote, and certainly there would not be a player from every team. My solution? Take two players at every field position, the five best starting pitchers, the three best relief pitchers and the two best closers. There you have 16 positional players and 10 pitchers. For the positional players, you take the best offensive player and the best defensive player. For example, shortstop. The best offensive shortstop would be a congregate of batting average, RBI's and on-bas percentage. The best defensive would be the player with the best fielding percentage combined with the most chances. Possibly the most assists. Out of the two, the coach decides who will start, due to how they create the lineup. For pitching, the five starters could be selected by their number of wins, strikeouts, ERA, opponents' average, and strikeout-to-walk ratios. The relief and closing pitchers would be selected by ERA, opponents' average, inherited runners scored, holds and saves. At an American League park, two DH are selected, and it would be manager choice to select two in the National League since there are no Designated Hitters.

With that in mind, here are the All-Stars for 2008 (Offensive player first, Defensive player second, with their team and #1 rank among other position players).

American League
Catcher: Joe Mauer (MIN, R, H, 2B, Avg, BB, RBI), Jason Varitek (BOS, .995 - Second behind Mauer)
1st base: Justin Morneau (MIN, AB, H, RB, Avg), Casey Kotchman (LAA, .998 - Tied with Morneau)
2nd base: Ian Kinsler (TEX, Avg, H, R RBI, HR), Mark Ellis (OAK, .996)
3rd base: Alex Rodriguez (NYY, R, HR, Avg), Mike Lowell (BOS, 0.947)
Short: Michael Young (TEX, R, H, RBI, Avg), Orlando Cabrera (CHI, .985 - Was second behind Young)
Right: Jermain Dye (CHI, H, HR, Avg), Nick Markakis (BAL, .995)
Center: Josh Hamilton (TEX, 2B, HR, RBI, Avg), Torii Hunter (LAA, 1.000)
Left: Carlos Quentin (CHI, R, HR), Carl Crawford (TB, .995)
DH: Aubrey Huff (BAL, R, H, 2B, HR, RBI) Milton Bradley (TEX, HR, Avg)

Starting Pitchers: Justin Duchscherer (OAK, ERA), Cliff Lee (CLE, W), AJ Burnett (TOR, SO), Roy Halladay (TOR, K/BB), Joe Saunders (LAA)
Relivers: Fransisco Rodriguez (LAA), Jonathon Papelbon (BOS), Dan Wheeler (TB), Eddie Guardado (TEX), Scot Linebrink (CHI)

National League
Catcher: Brian McCann (ATL, 2B, HR, RBI, Avg), Geovany Soto (CHC, .995)
1st base: Lance Berkman (HOU, R, 2B, HR, SB), Mark Teixeira (ATL, .998)
2nd base: Chase Utley (PHI, H, HR, R, 2B, BB), Brandon Phillips (CIN, .992)
3rd base: David Wright (NYM, BB, HR, R, RBI), Troy Glaus (STL, .984)
Short: Hanley Ramirez (FLA, R, HR, RBI), Khalil Greene (SD, .983)
Right: Ryan Ludwick (STL, R, HR, RBI), Hunter Pence (HOU, 1.000)
Center: Nate McLouth (PIT, R, H, 2B), Chris Young (ARI, .992 - Was second behind McLouth)
Left: Matt Holiday (COL, Avg), Ryan Braun (MIL, 1.000)
DH: Albert Poujols (STL, Avg), Chipper Jones (ATL, Avg)

Starting Pitchers: Edinson Volquez (CIN, ERA), Brandon Webb (ARI, W), Tim Lincecom (SFG, SO), Cole Hammels (PHI), Dan Haren (ARI)
Relief pitchers: Billy Wagner(NYM), Kerry Wood (CHI), Kyle McClellen (STL), Taylor Bucholz (COL), Carlos Marmol (CHI)

So there are my All-Stars based on statistics. You will notice that there are a lot of famous names in there, to still provide the average fan with a viewing experience. At the same time, it provides those athletes who deserve to play, a chance to be part of the game of the best players available. You'll also notice that there are a lot fewer east coast (read New York and Boston) players, so the average viewer does not get upset about only seeing those players play. And of course, not every team is represented. Actually, only about half of the teams are represented. What does that say about the game? The teams that have more than one player, are usually those teams that are leading their divisions. The teams not represented do not have that key one or two players, that could get them to the upper echelons of baseball.

However, as long as money rules baseball, we will continue to see the same old names, no matter how they perform, and the same old teams, no matter that most of the country does not care about them. It's time for a change. Make the stars the real All-Stars.

Why Britain is Better (Part One)

For several months I've had an interesting internal debate, comparing things British to things American. And with the upcoming Fourth of July, Independence Day celebrations beginning soon, I started to realize that America shouldn't be celebrating their freedom from Britain; it should be Britain celebrating Americas' want to cede from the Kingdom. So far, for all of the discussion points I've thought about, I've found them to be better in Britain. While all of these trivial aspects are subject to personal belief or approval, I've created arguments to the latter.

First topic: sporting events.

I'll simply take two of Britain's (and the world's) more popular events: football (or soccer to Americans) and F1 racing. Neither of these events rank high on an American's scale of desire to watch or participate, yet in Britain and the world over, they are far more popular than any of their American counterparts. Start with soccer (I'll use the American term for it now, so as to not confuse Americans and their American football). Go ahead, look it up online, or through wikipedia. Soccer was called football long before American's invented their game. I digress: soccer is 'the beautiful game,' played by some of the most fit and athletic people in the world. I will not say that there aren't some very athletic players in the NFL: receivers, defensive backs, some running backs, are incredibly athletic. There are, however, 350+ pound linemen, that can't run more than 5 yards without taking breaks. In soccer, there are no time-outs, no stoppage of play to setup. The play is continuous, momentum is created, and players are involved no matter where they are on the field. There are limited substitutions, only a few per game. Soccer takes incredible endurance and skill, which lacks in American football. Some would argue that the high scores of a football game make it more enjoyable, however if you award seven points per goal, you would have a lot of games that were 21-14, or similar to a football game. Another argument is that soccer is boring, however in football the action stops every five to ten seconds, to reset the play, prepare for 30 seconds, then five to ten more seconds of play. Not much action, especially when watching the linemen stand against each other, in a display of heavy weight men pushing and slapping. The excruciating end of a game, where time-outs are called every other play are nonsense (this happens in basketball as well).

An American would also complain about the 'flopping' or crying of a soccer player when they are tackled (yes, there is tackling in soccer), or otherwise brought to the ground. There are always the highlights and slow motion shots of a player barely being touched, who lies on the ground writhing in pain, only to get up and run away after the penalty is called (or not called). This is no different than a player in the NBA, who is barely touched on a shot and complains to the ref about getting fouled; the player in the NBA who falls over without being run into for the offensive charge. Or the batter in the MLB who complains about balls and strikes. Or the wide receiver in the NFL, who instantly after being 'bumped' by the back, doesn't catch a ball and begins to signal for the flag. No different. While it is a bit more dramatic, it serves the same purpose: to draw attention and a possible foul. The only difference is, in soccer, when you go down, the play continues. In any American sport, play stops, the injured is carted away and replaced.

And if there is an argument about football players being 'tougher' than soccer players, we'll consult some rugby players, who don't wear pads, but do the same thing as American Football players. Have you ever seen an American player in any sport get their head stapled together and continue to play? Euro 2008 semi final between Turkey and Germany, when both players went for the ball and hit heads instead, the Turkey player was bleeding so badly, they stapled his head closed, on the sidelines! and he continued to play. In better shape? Soccer players normally run between 7000 and 12,000 meters in a game. That's equivalent to 6300 to 10,920 yards. That's a season for a running back in the NFL, and soccer players do that every game. No lineman would come close.

A serious penalty? In soccer you are carded, and sent off the pitch, no player will replace you. In any other sport (aside from hockey, which incidentally does the correct thing as well), the person is sent out, and replaced by another player. Could you image in MLB not having a first baseman? In the NBA, not having a point guard? In the NFL, not having a quarterback?

One thing that is equal, is the ridiculous after scoring dances.

And finally: the overtime. Again, NHL and soccer get things correct. If the score is tied, there is an overtime. If there is still a tie, penalty shootout. There is no better climactic event in all of sport better than the shootout at the end of a game. It would be similar to the NBA having a free-throw contest at the end. NFL has a ridiculous rule about the first team that scores, but both teams do not have an equal chance (one thing that the college ranks do much better than the professionals).

Parting shot: The Super Bowl, World Series (where only America and Canada participate), NBA Championships... hell even the Olympics cannot hold a candle to the World Cup, Euro Championships or the Champion's League. And bonus: WAGS are the hottest women on the planet. No other sport compares. Except possibly...

F1, or Formula One racing. Compared to America's two largest racing leagues, NASCAR and Indy, is like comparing diamond to cut glass. Again, a sport the world recognizes for it's beauty and precision that America shuns. Quite possibly this is due to the high class in which F1 appears to be. American's love their homeland and those things which are considered to be 'American.' This is why Indy car racing has floundered as well: only the rich can participate, and it's too much like F1. Call it the ugly cousin of F1 if you will. F1 races in distant lands, at high speeds, with people paying thousands of dollars to picnic by the raceway, sipping Champagne from a flute. NASCAR is beer and grilling, hard work and sweat. So the comparison is really F1 and NASCAR.

So answer this: what is the desire and where is the skill in driving around an oval, making left-handed turns? Aside from the two road courses, there is very little. On the 'super speedways' of Talledega or Daytona, a driver need not even lift their hoof from the gas. Only hope that a person in front of you crashes (which American's find to be quite humorous and a reason to watch the race). And who wants to see a Ford Taurus race against a Chevy Impala? I watched that yesterday downtown, and the Taurus won, though to be fair, the Impala was driven by an elderly woman who could barely see over the wheel. Last time I checked, that wasn't really an Impala out there on the Raceway in Kansas City. It didn't even look like one. And I'm certain that when I test-drove the Impala last year, it didn't go 200 miles per hour. So what exactly do these cars have to do with racing?

On the other hand, I did see a Ferrari drive 200 miles per hour down a street once in my life. And again on TV when I watched Formula One last weekend. When a Ferrari, a Mercedes and a BMW drive through the narrow streets of Paris or Monte Carlo (ironic that Monte Carlo is also a NASCAR car), on real streets, it is interesting. It is racing. F1 allows a manufacturer to create any car they desire. There are no limitations, no restrictions. NASCAR limits the engine, limits the weight, and on some ovals, has special 'restrictor plate' races, so the car does not go too fast. F1 challenges the skills of a driver, simply by adding a right-hand turn. The course may be wide at one point, narrow at another. There may be a fast wide turn, or a sharp hairpin. Cars will do 0 to 100 and back to 0 in the same time a NASCAR would go 0 to 60. Rain or shine. NASCAR (as well as Indy) will postpone or cancel an event if a little rain gets on the track. F1 races in all conditions, the drivers are prepared to race anywhere, anytime.

Aside from the aforementioned football, F1 and rugby, I'll mention these as well: cricket (without this, there is no baseball), golf and tennis. Three more wonderful sports that are not quite as popular in America, but originated or are popular in Britain.

Part Two: Liquors and Beer.

Miss America is rigged worse than an NBA game

Believe me, the last thing I wanted to watch last night was Miss America 2008. But between the several gin and tonics, and there being nothing on TV of any consequence, Col happened to see the pageant on the guide as I flipped through. And after seeing several commercials on how this year was supposed to be jazzed up, I figured it would be funny to poke fun at the latest generation of late teen and early twenties girls who threw away their childhoods to win a popularity contest.


We tuned in with sixteen contestants left, strutting out in their swimsuits. Immediately you saw that it was jazzed up at least a little, seeing that every contestant, save one in Miss Utah, was wearing a very small bikini. Utah, who apparently was 'America's Choice to Win,' did not have the body of a bikini model, nor that of a Marine, of which she was. Granted I did not see the early rounds, so I'm not entirely certain as to how she got this far, but the swimsuit competition did her in. Of course the only person to wear a one-piece is not going to advance. At any rate, there were only two rounds left: the evening wear and talent portion.

Most of the evening wear was horrific, something no woman would normally wear out to a formal event. The exception being Miss Wisconsin, who wore a stunning red, full length gown. Perfectly fit her glorious body, was not outlandish, very elegant. Much better than that of Miss Texas, who wore a very ugly, flowing beige and mint-neon green affair, which she kept waving around like it would fly away.

However, on to the talent. The winner (can't even remember where she was from) sang 'Over the Rainbow' in a shaking, squeaky voice. Just plain God awful. From the start we figured she was doomed. In fact, there were only two women who stood out in the talents. Miss Texas sang a beautiful operatic piece, and nailed the high notes perfectly. Her dozen years of voice lessons and professional work in opera were apparent. Simply marvelous. Miss Wisconsin, she of the stunning red dress, played classical violin.

Answer this now: how did the two best talents, regardless of the evening wear competition, not even make the top five? There were two ballet dancers, one of which lost her balance often, the winner who poorly sang a tired song, and one half-way decent singing of a latin pop song. The two best performed, and most difficult talents... and not even places in the top five.

Hands down, Miss Wisconsin should have won. The dress, the talent... no-brainer. The opera singer from Texas should have been second. The winner, well, I wouldn't have even put her in the top eight.

Aside from that, the master of ceremonies were horrible. Not that I've ever watched these pageants on a regular basis, but I will not watch next year.