Vote!

Well, OK, it's a bit too late to remind people to get out and vote. Whichever way you lean politically, I hope you voted yesterday, and you gotta admit it's gonna get a bit interesting in Washington for the next two years.

Because we had a national election yesterday, I feel that this is the perfect opportunity to talk about voting. And, to show how good I am at the segue, I'm going to give my opinions on voting as it pertains to baseball.

There are more than a few types of voting in baseball, but I'm going to concentrate on two: All-Star and Hall of Fame.

Baseball is the American sport, and as such it makes sense that at least one aspect of it is democratic. I don't feel that the fans should have equal representation when team decisions need to be made. For example, I wouldn't want a community vote whenever a free agent needs to be signed, nor would I want a poll to come up on the Jumbotron asking fans to text their vote for who's going to replace the starting pitcher from the bullpen. But the All-Star game is a game for the fans, and the tradition of allowing fans to vote for the starters is a time-honored tradition.

There are many arguments against this, but the one I hear the most (because my dad makes it) is that it's a popularity contest rather than a true All-Star roster. It's true that we fans tend to elect the same people over and over again, even when we probably shouldn't. As aging stars move past their prime, it's hard for us fans to let go of their youthful exploits on the diamond, and we keep voting them to the team.

But that argument is flawed in that it assumes the All-Star Game is truly played by a roster that is all stars, as in the best players at their respective position. It is not. It is a roster of fan favorites, regardless of skill. Those who argue for skill above stardom would have you believe that an All-Star movie featuring only Academy Award winners would be automatically more satisfying than one starring actors and actresses never likely to be nominated, much less win one.

While the analogy may be a bit outdated, I'm sure that the majority of movie-goers would much rather see a film with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone than most anything you could get a bunch of Oscar winners to sign on for.

The point of the matter is that it takes more than stats to get elected to the All-Star team, as it should. Cal Ripken Jr. was a perennial All-Star not for his stats, but because of the intangibles surrounding his streak, his attitude, and the love fans had for him.

But this does not mean that the (hypothetical) rookie from the Devil Rays that nobody outside of St. Petersburg has ever heard of who is tearing up the league doesn't deserve a slot on that team and a chance to shine on a world-wide stage. This is why we have the reserves, which the fans DO NOT vote for.

The problem with that, though, is that as it stands now, the manager of the All-Star game picks them. Other than the eight starting fielders and, when held in American League parks, the Designated Hitter, the manager who led his team to the league championship, to the World Series, the year before. So, in Pac Bell Park next year, Tony LaRussa and Jim Leyland will manage All-Star teams of players (mostly) hand-picked by them.

While this is supposed to be like the Electoral College of baseball, a last-chance opportunity to correct the mistakes and ommissions the fans make in their voting, it is usually far from that. The most recent example was last year, when Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen filled the roster with many of his players, most of whom will never have a chance of attaining the popular vote of the fans.

This is a problem for me, as I don't want to see the All-Stars plus Ozzie's Stars. I want to see a true All-Star game. So how to fix this?

What, you think I have all the answers? Don't you think that, if I did, I'd already have an office next to Bud Selig's?

No, of course not. They never listen to people who, though they may make sense, don't own baseball teams.

And I'm done antagonizing the two or three readers I have, so at this point I say "Just kidding" and offer the suggestion I have.

OK, so you have the starting rosters of the All-Star game. It's perfect as it is. It lets the fans, we who pay the bills, have a say in the game. It gives us a sense of attachment to it, a reason to tune in. There's already the requirement that each team must be represented on its league's roster, which ensures that even though the Royals may have no All-Stars on their squad, they have one on the All-Star team.

With that said, is there a way to get better diversity to the All-Star teams, to ensure a better representation of players? Perhaps the players themselves could vote on the second eight, or the managers of every team in the league vote on them. Or limit the number of players from one team (other than those the fans vote for). I'm sure this is a subject that, if addressed, will be subject to countless hours of meetings between the owners and players of MLB. Perhaps it's better just to leave it the way it is, as it's just one game per year.

While I'm unsure about fixing something that may not even be broken, the Hall of Fame voting never ceases to piss me off. After being retired from the game for five years, a player becomes eligible for Cooperstown enshrinement, pending a vote by his peers. And by "peers" I mean "sportswriters."

How fair is that? Are sportswriters truly the best judges of players? These are a group of people who make their living critiquing the work of others. In Hollywood, the biggest award show of the year is the Academy Awards. The "Critic's Choice" awards or whatever the hell they are don't get a prime-time live broadcast, as nobody really cares what the critics think. We know they're out of touch with the average movie watcher, so the Oscars get the big show.

And who votes on the Oscars?

The same people who get nominated for them.

Perhaps that's how it should be in Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame. Rather than putting the entire fate of a player's potential Cooperstown enshrinement in the hands of the press, perhaps the people who actually played the game should get a say. Suppose there's a player who hates the press (I know, BIG stretch of the imagination) but is well respected by his peers and has the stats that would normally put a player over the top. If the press truly doesn't like him, he may not get enshrinement when he deserves it, if at all.

And it may be easier to pallate not having Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame if those living members and eligible players (more than 10 years in MLB, I believe) didn't want him there.

Sure, you have the Veteran's Committee, but that doesn't kick in until twenty years after a player retires. A lot of deserving people have gotten into the Hall of Fame because of the Veteran's Committee.

For a good example of this, ask your local sportswriter why Bert Blyleven isn't in the Hall of Fame. Keep in mind that the man played on crappy teams his whole career. 287 wins, 3,701 strikeouts. He's the only player with more than 3,000 K's not in the Hall of Fame. Well, except for those who are still active.

Names like Schilling. Clemens. Johnson.

You know, losers like that.

Something really needs to be done about the Hall of Fame voting. There is no reason why baseball players can't do the job as objectively as sportswriters.

All I know is that, were I a sportswriter with a Hall of Fame ballot, I'd either vote for them all or toss my ballot into the wastebasket. And that decision wouldn't be made on a year-by-year basis, either. I'd do that for every ballot I received.

The sportswriters get the Cy Young, the MVP, Rookie of the Year already, plus others.

Let the baseball players decide whom among them should be immortalized.