It corresponds, because winning and fan popularity determines starters, but the other selections are from the players and manager - it should be roughly reflective of the top few players at the position (with some notable exceptions - Furcal this year, etc.) Maybe it shouldn't correspond, but I think a poll of the BBWAA voters would probably show that they think AS appearances relate. I think it hurts his chances - he needs to make the game enough times that he's a recognized "All-Star." He's going to continue to be hurt by Wright (if he stays in the league), Panda (until he eats his way off the position), and Hanley.
What hurts his chances for HOF-dom more, though is that his overall numbers, while good, don't scream "HOF" yet. He's going to need to have a seriously long career at his current levels to get into the aggregator levels and maintain his defensive prowess. I've thought for a long time that the Mike Schmidt/Brooks comparisons were unfair to Zim. His comps, I think, are more like Scott Rolen and Matt Williams. That's nothing to sneeze at - Rolen and Williams were cornerstone players and great additions, but they're far more borderline HOF'ers.
P.S. on topic - I appreciate Ian Desmond now more than I ever did.
Rolen is a HOF'er. If he can put up a career like his he deserves to go (Jim Rice made it after all).
