Jul 11, 2011, 4:36 PM EST
The dominant All-Star conversation for the past 48 hours or so has been about how there are too many of them. What with all of the substitutions and everything, there are 84 or 85 guys who can count them All-Stars, and that’s an outrage, right?
Maybe not! Because according to Bill and The Common Man of The Platoon Advantage, historically speaking this may be low:
However, the truth is that that’s not out of line with where the All Star Game has been in the past. After all, there are almost twice as many teams playing today as there were in 1933, when the All Star Game debuted. Rosters are larger, and the changing nature of the bullpen means that more pitchers have been deemed worthy All Stars. We looked on Baseball Reference.com into every All Star Game from 1933-2010, to see exactly how much the term “all star” gets devalued when 84 players are so honored in 2011.
You’ll have to click through for the analysis, but as is always the case, TPA makes it worth your time.
Now: if they can explain how so many All-Stars — if not problematic on the merits of their selection — can possibly make the game halfway decent. Because that’s the real problem here.
But hey, we’re halfway there!
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)