Flip Flop Fly Ballin’ presents a chart detailing the number of players every season who played the entire All-Star game. Dave Winfield was the last player to complete four All-Star games, and in the last 13 seasons only one player went the distance, Carlos Beltran in 2006.
Maybe players should be paid $100,000 per inning to participate in the game. I suspect fewer would opt out, and the big stars would stay in longer. Since the game does “count”, players on teams in contention should want to be in the entire time.
I think we have to come to some sort of agreement about what the all-star game means, regardless of whether it “counts” or not. And this could not just be limited to baseball.
Does the “All-Star” game mean those players who are having the best first half of a season? Or does it mean players who have good enough careers for long enough that the fans want to see them year after year.
Would you rather see a pedestrian Derek Jeter or Cal Ripken, Jr. at the end of their Hall of Fame careers, or no-name KC shortstop who’s having a great first half of a season, only to bounce back to mediocrity in the second half, and to be out of baseball in 5 years?
rbj » I’d rather see Jeter or Ripken. Of course, I would have rather seen a young Alex Rodrgiuez than an old Ripken.
I’d rather see three days of meaningful baseball rather than a day with no baseball, a day with a stupid exhibition game and then another day with no baseball. The All Star break disrupts the rhythm of the season.
Not that I expect that it’ll ever go away.
Maybe players should be paid $100,000 per inning to participate in the game.
Thank you for being one of the few writers who believes professional athletes should be paid for their services. All I have been noticing is writers yelling at players for skipping out on the all star game.