Who is an All-Star? Depends on the method.

The All-Star discussion in baseball is just plain stupid. Without even addressing the silliness of the game itself and its implications on World Series home-field advantage, we should accept the fact that the fans will not select an optimal roster for both the American and National Leagues and rather opt for seeing the players they want to see. Its their perogative and I’m fine with it. There is no guarantee the baseball cognoscenti will get it right either, especially with the differing opinions between traditional baseball minds and statistically-driven sabermetric crowd. And I’m not going into that debate here.

But after ruminating on how useless the entire discussion has become, I stumbled across an article that at least attempts to offer an intelligent discussion on Who is An All-Star? The article, from Basement-Dwellers.com (a blog I just discovered today and highly recommend for Reds fans) three potential ways to view the All-Star selection: true overall talent, previous 162-game performance, or first-half performance. What’s interesting about the analysis is how infrequently the different methods provide that same all-star at the same positions.

In the American League: Josh Hamilton, Jose Bautista, and Curtis Granderson could be considered unanimous All-Stars. In the National League, its Matt Holiday. In only one scenario, the National League previous 162-game method does an Indians or Reds player make the cut - Joey Votto’s previous 162 game performance exceeds that of Albert Pujols in terms of pure talent and Prince Fielders first half of 2011.