POLL: Interest in attending the ASG.

[Baseball is Life]

I’m not going to a game to see a star hitter, I’ll sometimes base my decision on pitching matchups, but I’m not shelling out that kind of money to see a great starter thow an inning that neither they nor the batters really care about

I will go for the entertainment value. It doesn't matter to me that the game "doesn't mean anything." And, yes, the players do care, but in a different way.

[Ray D]

And, yes, the players do care, but in a different way.

They don't care about winning the game. I don't say that as a criticism but as a fact.  However in the "old" days (pre 80s) they did care. Why?    They took pride in their league.  Now days, with interleague, looser trade restrictions free agency  -  a player in one league could be in the other league next week or next season. So, no such thing as league pride.
They also cared very much about playing the game.  Not just being selected.  Now, they want to be selected (looks good on the stat sheet) but once selected, many want to find some excuse, like an injury, not to attend - they'd rather have the four days off.  If they do attend, even though they don't care a bit about winning but they do care about their personal stats (looks good on the stat sheet).
iI don't blame them. But if they don't care, I don't care.  And the selection process is a joke; it's so stupid that that alone makes the game a farce for me.  They did get rid of the World Series home field rule, but it was in place for many years, making the game even more ridiculous - I don't think they have recovered yet from that.

So there you have a few reasons why I don't care about the game.

[Count Walewski]

I think that both player selection and the quality of play in the All Star Game has improved noticeably in the 21st century.

The quality of play in the late 90's and early 2000's was frankly atrocious, and it improved after the game was tied to World Series home field. Changing that rule has not yet led to a deterioration back to 2002 standards. Fans have gotten much smarter about who to send to the ASG. Back in the early 2000's, it was more common for fans to simply vote for the players on their favorite team, which led to a lot of mediocre Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs on the team. Today those teams still receive outsize vote share, but voters are willing to elect a guy from Kansas City, Arizona, or Washington if he's really good.

But to me, quality of play is a decision factor in whether or not I would watch the game on TV. For in person attendance, the factor is 99% that the All Star Game happens in my city once in a generation and 1% everything else.

[Baseball is Life]

But to me, quality of play is a decision factor in whether or not I would watch the game on TV. For in person attendance, the factor is 99% that the All Star Game happens in my city once in a generation and 1% everything else.

This. It will be one of the biggest sports events this city has seen for a while and if I have a chance to go, I'm going.

[mitlen]

"My kingdom for a horse."

If we could play a WS in town, I wouldn't care if we ever saw an AS game.

[Baseball is Life]

They don't care about winning the game. I don't say that as a criticism but as a fact.  However in the "old" days (pre 80s) they did care. Why?    They took pride in their league.  Now days, with interleague, looser trade restrictions free agency  -  a player in one league could be in the other league next week or next season. So, no such thing as league pride.
They also cared very much about playing the game.  Not just being selected.  Now, they want to be selected (looks good on the stat sheet) but once selected, many want to find some excuse, like an injury, not to attend - they'd rather have the four days off.  If they do attend, even though they don't care a bit about winning but they do care about their personal stats (looks good on the stat sheet).
iI don't blame them. But if they don't care, I don't care.  And the selection process is a joke; it's so stupid that that alone makes the game a farce for me.  They did get rid of the World Series home field rule, but it was in place for many years, making the game even more ridiculous - I don't think they have recovered yet from that.

So there you have a few reasons why I don't care about the game.

Players don't care about winning the game, that's right. They do care about their performance because they don't want to be embarassed. Call it athletic pride or arrogance but they are not going to go out there and look like idiots. Some even crank it up a bit and try to put on a show. It's not unusual to see a pitcher really air it out at the ASG because they are pitching just to few batters.

[bluestreak]

I agree that quality of play in the ASG was better when tied to home field in the WS. I apparently was the only baseball fan who liked the idea. Or at least it became vogue to blast it.
I think it was a better solution than simply alternating and is a better solution than using records since the schedules between the AL and NL are too unbalanced.

I also think that we have no idea of the motivations of these players. I think many do care, I think some are worried about injury, I think some would rather spend the break with their families. Baseball players have varied motivations for what they do. Shocking. Sort of makes them like...people.

[Baseball is Life]

"My kingdom for a horse."

If we could play a WS in town, I wouldn't care if we ever saw an AS game.

Something we can all agree on.

[bluestreak]

"My kingdom for a horse."

If we could play a WS in town, I wouldn't care if we ever saw an AS game.

It’s not binary.

[mitlen]

It’s not binary.

It may be around here.   

[Baseball is Life]

I also think that we have no idea of the motivations of these players. I think many do care, I think some are worried about injury, I think some would rather spend the break with their families. Baseball players have varied motivations for what they do. Shocking. Sort of makes them like...people.

Dead on. Fans tend to speak in generalities when it comes to athletes. In this case, they run the gamut from players who choose not to go to players who see it as an opportunity to showcase their skills. And some don't know how to play except to play all out.

[skippy1999]

I agree that quality of play in the ASG was better when tied to home field in the WS. I apparently was the only baseball fan who liked the idea.

I liked it too!

[Baseball is Life]

I agree that quality of play in the ASG was better when tied to home field in the WS. I apparently was the only baseball fan who liked the idea. Or at least it became vogue to blast it.

WS home field didn't really affect quality of ASG play.  Players care more about their obligation to their team. They are not going to do anything to risk injury. It was just a marketing gimmick and people saw through that.

[HalfSmokes]

This. It will be one of the biggest sports events this city has seen for a while and if I have a chance to go, I'm going.

Probably subjective, but I’d put it behind last year’s nlds (I’m guessing local rating will bear that out).

[Baseball is Life]

Probably subjective, but I’d put it behind last year’s nlds (I’m guessing local rating will bear that out).

I wouldn't it behind the NLDS because we've had 4 in the last 6 years. That's why demand for NLDS tickets was slightly down last year. That is, if you can use the reseller sites as a gauge. TV ratings would not be a good indicator because watching this game on TV sucks.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I think that both player selection and the quality of play in the All Star Game has improved noticeably in the 21st century.

The quality of play in the late 90's and early 2000's was frankly atrocious, and it improved after the game was tied to World Series home field. Changing that rule has not yet led to a deterioration back to 2002 standards. Fans have gotten much smarter about who to send to the ASG. Back in the early 2000's, it was more common for fans to simply vote for the players on their favorite team, which led to a lot of mediocre Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs on the team. Today those teams still receive outsize vote share, but voters are willing to elect a guy from Kansas City, Arizona, or Washington if he's really good.

But to me, quality of play is a decision factor in whether or not I would watch the game on TV. For in person attendance, the factor is 99% that the All Star Game happens in my city once in a generation and 1% everything else.

I don't know if it is the fantasy sports effect, but I think fans follow players that aren't on their home teams more than they used to.

I'd say it is also a bit tougher to play half-hearted in baseball than some of the other all star games.  The NBA is no defense.  The NHL kind of has figured out that it is an exhibition so it does not even play a real game (I like the new format).  The  Pro Bowl is the worst.  First, players on the conference champions do not play, then there is the injury recovery for many of the conference runner ups, then there's the not wanting to get hurt, limitations on defense, lack of scheming, etc...  Baseball, you come to the plate and you face a pitcher, you still track the ball when you are up and try to take a decent swing, and pitchers still try to get you out.

[HalfSmokes]

I wouldn't it behind the NLDS because we've had 4 in the last 6 years. That's why demand for NLDS tickets was slightly down last year. That is, if you can use the reseller sites as a gauge. TV ratings would not be a good indicator because watching this game on TV sucks.

You could just as easily say resale is a flawed gauge because the number of tickets available to locals is artificially depressed.

[bluestreak]

I don't know if it is the fantasy sports effect, but I think fans follow players that aren't on their home teams more than they used to.

Probably a combination of fantasy, ESPN, interleague play, and mlb.tv

[mitlen]

Probably a combination of fantasy, ESPN, interleague play, and mlb.tv

When I was a kid, it was a big deal.    It was THE All Star game.    Now, it seems, to me, to be just part of the blend.    If a local team (other than NFL) was on another channel that night, I'd watch that game and drop in the AS game when I thought Harper was at bat.

[Natsinpwc]

When the NBA all star game was in DC back in the 1990s I took my son to the events they had at the convention center. That was fun and not too pricey at that time. Is there anything like that for the all star game?

The prices for these types of events have skyrocketed over the years. I don't think I have seen a increase in the quality of play in the MLB all star game over the years. Don't think it's what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Would be fun to attend but can't see paying the money. And certainly not for a home tune derby.

[bluestreak]

When the NBA all star game was in DC back in the 1990s I took my son to the events they had at the convention center. That was fun and not too pricey at that time. Is there anything like that for the all star game?

The prices for these types of events have skyrocketed over the years. I don't think I have seen a increase in the quality of play in the MLB all star game over the years. Don't think it's what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Would be fun to attend but can't see paying the money. And certainly not for a home tune derby.

There is a free fan fest that will likely be at the convention center.

[varoadking]

When I was a kid, it was a big deal.    It was THE All Star game.

...or games...

[Natsinpwc]

...or games...

Man. You are really old.

[mitlen]

...or games...

True dat.        So nice, they played it twice.

[Natsinpwc]

There is a free fan fest that will likely be at the convention center.

Thanks.