0 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He Isn't Increasing Ratings and He Didn't Make the All-Star Team

It's time for the New York media to relay what A-Rod has done wrong lately. The New York media previously gnashed their teeth that A-Rod wanted the full bonus the Yankees had promised him in his contract, and he wanted the full amount even if the Yankees gave the bonus to charity rather than A-Rod. Also, A-Rod wouldn't create controversy on demand, which frustrated Bill Madden. Now A-Rod isn't doing anything to increase the ratings at YES (because A-Rod is singlehandedly responsible for these ratings) and he didn't get voted on to the All-Star team. What a bunch of serious missteps by A-Rod.

I'll start off first with Bob Raissman, who says that A-Rod has played well on the field, but he still isn't helping the Yankees with television ratings. Because A-Rod's job is to make sure ratings increase, not perform well on the field, and it is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job to increase Yankees' television ratings.

Is there a Yankeeography on the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network in Alex Rodriguez’s future?
 
Judging by pinstriped suits’ (Hal, Hankenstein, etc.) positive reaction to A-Rod’s “Summer of Love Tour,” we would have to say (Only On) YES. Rodriguez has done all the right things upon his return from a year-long sentence for his role in the Biogenesis caper.

The New York media is still a little bitter they can not bash A-Rod for underachieving this year, so resorting to being cutesy and sarcastic about A-Rod coming back from his year-long suspension and contributing to the team is the attitude of choice.

Since he embarked on this comeback, during which he’s posted the kind of numbers even know-it-all Analytics Aliens could not have predicted,

The media continuously has no idea what Sabermetrics are or how these statistics are supposed to be used. Using Sabermetrics isn't like being a psychic where they are trying to predict the future as if they know it all. It's the use of statistics to make predictions based on past information and A-Rod's age. It's less know-it-all and more let's-use-data-to-try-and-predict-but-this-isn't-guaranteed-to-be-right. Sabermetricians don't claim to be psychics.

much of the media has gifted him the kind of supernatural powers performance-enhancing drugs cannot produce.

Yes, the media is making A-Rod into a better player than he truly is. Why is the media always on A-Rod's side? Sure, it's really impressive he's putting up such numbers at the age of 40 (while apparently clean) after taking an entire year off from baseball, after suffering injuries prior to his year off from baseball, but stop talking about him like he's good at the sport. The media is always overrating A-Rod's abilities. 

This is a much higher power — like the ability to jack up television ratings, which influence the rates networks can charge advertisers to buy time.

Sure A-Rod's doing a good job of hitting the baseball, but the real test of his baseball skill is his ability to increase television ratings. This is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job. If YES ratings are low, it's because A-Rod can't draw a viewing crowd. These ratings are a direct reflection on A-Rod and it's not at all possible ratings would be even lower if A-Rod wasn't drawing more viewers to YES Yankees broadcasts. 

Part of the debate over whether Rodriguez deserves to be a member of the American League All-Star team Tuesday night in Cincinnati includes a perception he can draw eyeballs to the Foxies’ party.

But this perception is wrong because the Yankees don't have great ratings. This is just like the perception Paul Goldschmidt could help a contending team who trades for him is wrong because the Diamondbacks aren't very good. The D-Backs suck and that means so does Goldschmidt. 

Kay admits Rodriguez does not belong on the AL All-Stars. “Just tell me who he replaces?” Kay asked. But on his ESPN-98.7 gabfest, Kay added: “I think it would be great for Fox (if A-Rod was on the team). I think it (the game) will get higher ratings with Alex there.”

Kay, and the many others who share his opinion, never quantify it. If they did, they couldn’t back up their words. 

It concerns me that Bob Raissman gets paid to write about television broadcasts and ratings when he uses the logic he is about to use in order to justify his point. The big issue here is that there is no telling what the ratings would be this year if A-Rod wasn't playing, so it's almost impossible to say the effect he has on ratings. The Yankees are also not expected to be competing for the World Series, which also affects the ratings.

Through July 7, Yankees TV ratings on YES were averaging a 2.55 rating, down a hefty 15% from the same point in the 2014 season, according to The Nielsen Co. And average total viewership on YES’ Yankees cablecasts is 237,000, down 17% from the same point in 2014.

This is concerning for me. Bob Raissman uses ratings from the 2014 season, which could easily be skewed based on it being Derek Jeter's last season as a Yankee. Ratings could have been higher for 2014 than 2013, which would mean the ratings for the Yankees this season are normal. It's concerning to me that Raissman uses a potentially outlier year to prove his point without using any other data from previous seasons to compare 2014 to. Maybe he could learn something from the Analytics Aliens. 

So, if A-Rod can’t put the Yankees ahead in the ratings department on YES, where the majority of peepers have forgot about his PED past and mostly have forgiven him (as long as he continues being productive) for past “sins,” there is no shot — absolutely none — that extraneous eyeballs from sea to shining sea are going to go out of their way to tune into Fox’s All-Star telecast to see A-Rod.

Who says A-Rod isn't helping YES ratings? Aren't there are other reasonable explanations for the decline in YES ratings? It's possible A-Rod is helping ratings, but the other factors that go into how many Yankees fans watch the games are hurting the ratings more. 

Why waste time watching a guy they still despise?

This is the only obvious conclusion. Fans who will watch the All-Star game hate A-Rod because the ratings for Yankees games are down from the 2014 season. 

Understand? 

Yes, I understand you are making assumptions and using rating data from one year, a year that very well could be an outlier, in order to make the point you want to make. I understand you are assuming A-Rod is personally responsible for the ratings decline on YES and you are willfully ignoring all other factors that could affect ratings. I understand you get paid to do this job and I understand that makes me sad and embarrassed for you. 

Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings. And even if A-Rod were on the team, viewers would see him only during the opening introductions and likely in a pinch-hitting role.

How Bob Raissman knows that Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings is beyond me. He seems to really lack the ability to think three dimensionally about this topic. 

Maybe, MAYBE, ESPN would enjoy a ratings boost from A-Rod if he were added to the Home Run Derby. In that freak show, an oddity of A-Rod’s proportion could be a ratings difference maker.

Maybe, MAYBE, Bob Raissman has very little evidence anything he is writing is fact-based. 

That said, it’s surprising that A-Rod is not driving ratings higher on Yankees telecasts. Think about it: The numbers were better at this point last season WITHOUT him.

True, but the ratings could have been higher last season due to one of the greatest Yankees ever playing his last season. I'm sure the 2014 ratings had less to do with The Jeter retiring and more to do with Yankees fans watching games again now that they were rid of A-Rod. 

Rodriguez brings controversy, legitimate star power and a possible comeback of the year storyline to a team with little marquee value to sell, unless you believe Chase Headley, Brett Gardner, Mark Teixeira or Didi Gregorius are all major attractions.

Bob Raissman a few paragraphs ago: "The Yankees had better ratings WITHOUT A-Rod. How come the ratings for Yankees games on YES are so low and A-Rod can't pull them up? What else could explain the decreased ratings?"

Bob Raissman now: "The Yankees have no star power and the team is a tough sell. Here is a list of players who don't provide marquee value."

Think perhaps the lack of other players on the roster with marquee value affects the ratings of Yankees games? Perhaps the ratings would be even worse without A-Rod on the team, which means he would have an impact on the All-Star games' ratings.

Maybe this can be attributed to boring baseball (played by both teams in this city) and a lack of offense. Has this caused viewers to tune out?

Absolutely not. Do not entertain this wild idea. I'm sure A-Rod has more to do with the decreased ratings from 2014 than the fact it was The Jeter's last season, as well as the perception the 2015 Yankees lack marquee value and don't seem like they would be competitive. It's A-Rod, not the boring (supposedly) team that causes viewers to tune out. 

Anyway, even though he has proven not to be a ratings magnet, A-Rod sure ain’t boring.

This has provided plenty of material for use inside the Valley of the Stupid and other media precincts. The Gasbags wonder why. Or they ask who really is keeping A-Rod out? Is it players who can’t stand him?

Yes, it is the players who can't stand A-Rod. His not being selected is not a result of other players being more deserving, but instead is the result of the players not liking A-Rod and getting their revenge by choosing to put more deserving players on the team.

“I’m not going to make it (A-Rod not being an All-Star) like it’s the crime of the century because it isn’t,” Mike Greenberg said on ESPN Radio.

Just enough of a “crime” to float across many media platforms where opinions can be delivered between commercial messages. Consider it a gift delivered by A-Rod.

Yes, it is definitely A-Rod's fault that many media platforms are discussing his not being in the All-Star game. A-Rod specifically tells ESPN what to talk about and when to talk about it. The network will immediately do as they are told. 

Just don’t ask him to deliver any ratings. He doesn’t have that kind of juice.

Maybe he doesn't, maybe he does. The ratings on YES aren't simply a by-product of A-Rod's presence on the Yankee roster. Bob Raissman admits the Yankees lack marquee stars, yet he isn't capable of connecting the dots and seeing that could be part of the reason in the ratings dip. He also doesn't compare the 2015 ratings to any other year for further perspective, outside of 2014 when The Jeter was making his farewell tour. It's Raissman's job to talk about ratings and the media, yet he fails at this job. 

Now John Harper thinks the fact A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team shows that the people really hate A-Rod. Because, you know, it's so embarrassing to hate A-Rod that people who don't like him have to do it in private and through passive-aggressiveness acts rather than just admit how they feel about him. No one has the guts to hate A-Rod publicly, so the fact he didn't make the All-Star team proves what John Harper chooses to believe. Weird how that works. Harper has a belief and tries hard to fit reality into that belief.

Nope, for all of the stature A-Rod has regained in baseball this season with his bat and his contrite demeanor, his peers wouldn't let him slip past the velvet rope to mingle with the best of the best, as he once did every summer.

It's the result of a vendetta against A-Rod, not a snub based on A-Rod's merit compared to the merit of other AL hitters. 

Does that have anything to do with the many bridges A-Rod torched when he was at war with every facet of Major League Baseball — including the Players Association — in 2013 while trying in vain to avoid a PED suspension?

It’s a fair question, though one to which there is no obvious answer.

This is a fair question. It is also a question that makes more assumptions than is required when the easy and more obvious answer is that A-Rod's exclusion on the AL All-Star roster was based on his merit versus the merit of other AL hitters. But why would John Harper go with the easy answer when he can come up with an answer more elaborate that helps him to write a column about how this All-Star exclusion means everyone hates A-Rod? 

A-Rod had the numbers to warrant a DH spot on the AL All-Star team, but after the fans voted Nelson Cruz as the starter, the Yankee star was not named among the reserves that are chosen by player vote and manager Ned Yost’s preference.

Perhaps, and I know this doesn't fit the story that John Harper wants to push, the players just thought there were more deserving candidates to represent the AL in the All-Star game and A-Rod's exclusion wasn't because they don't personally like him. I know, that would be a logical conclusion, but what's the fun in logic when Harper can shoehorn his beliefs into this (lack of a) story? 

Prince Fielder earned the back-up DH nod, and it’s tough to argue with his selection, considering that he’s hitting .347 with 13 home runs, 50 RBI and a .943 OPS.

John Harper a few paragraphs ago: "Was A-Rod left off the All-Star roster because the MLB players hate him for suing the union? It's possible!"

John Harper now: "Here is a player who took A-Rod's roster spot that was more deserving than A-Rod."

I think we have our answer on why A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team.

Had Yost somehow finagled Kendrys Morales, his Royals DH, onto the team, then you could have made the case that A-Rod got snubbed.

But you are the one making the case A-Rod was left off for reasons other than merit. You are the one suggesting it was a conspiracy among the players that ended with A-Rod not being on the All-Star roster. Now you are refuting your own theory, but only refuting it after trying to make the case that everyone hates A-Rod. It's important to put that line of thought out in the universe before refuting it. 

But Fielder certainly was deserving.

So, there we go. It wasn't about whether A-Rod was hated or not by his fellow players, but about Prince Fielder being more deserving than A-Rod.

In truth, Brett Gardner is the Yankee who had a right to feel he got jobbed.

Gardner is clearly having an All-Star season, and in many ways he has become the heart and soul of these Yankees, his hustle and aggressiveness setting a tone at the top of the lineup for a team that has exceeded expectations so far.

So does this exclusion mean that John Harper thinks the AL players hate Gardner like he believes A-Rod's exclusion was the result of the players passive-aggressively telling A-Rod how they feel? Of course not! That's silly. The "he got snubbed because everyone hates him" logic is only used for A-Rod.

As for A-Rod, Yost made the case on the ESPN All-Star selection show that much discussion went into his candidacy, but ultimately the need for position players outweighed whatever desire there was to include him.

“We wanted to try to find a way to get Alex Rodriguez on there,” Yost said. “We couldn’t.”

How hard they tried is anybody’s guess.

PROBABLY NOT HARD AT ALL!

In fact, I bet AL pitchers threw Prince Fielder fastballs straight down the plate in order to ensure he made the All-Star team over A-Rod. How could this not be true? It's a fair assessment with no obvious answer.

A-Rod would have added some sizzle to an event that remains mostly a spectacle, no matter how determined MLB is to cling to this silly idea that the game should decide home-field advantage in the World Series.

It’s not likely that a pitcher would have thrown A-Rod the “pipe-shot” that Adam Wainwright served up for Derek Jeter last year.

It's not likely. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if A-Rod had made the team, and the second he stepped in the batter's box, the NL catcher would have pulled out a switchblade and knifed him to death. It could happen. Would the NL catcher murder A-Rod in the All-Star game? It's a fair question with no obvious answer.  

Nor would you think someone might pull a Ryan Dempster and drill him on such a big stage as some sort of statement on behalf of the union members who were included in the suit Rodriguez temporarily brought against the Players Association — at least until he seemed to come to his senses.

It could happen since the only assumption that is being worked under right now is that everyone hates A-Rod. Sure, there's no evidence this is true, but who needs evidence when John Harper has a fancy computer and inclination to believe this conclusion? 

On the surface, at least, all seems to have been forgiven this year as A-Rod has made his return from his 2014 suspension. He has long since won over Yankee fans with his rather stunning offensive production, to the point that he was practically given the Jeter treatment, curtain call and all, when he hit a home run for his 3,000th hit.

He almost got "the Jeter treatment," which apparently is what a curtain call will now be referred to as being. 

And while he was never the outcast in the Yankee clubhouse he was sometimes portrayed as,

Gee, I wonder who sometimes portrayed A-Rod as the outcast in the clubhouse? I'm sure it wasn't John Harper and his fellow media members.

all indications are that he is admired now more than ever by teammates for his work ethic, his superstar status and his singular talk of winning as a team.

But fuck indications, let's make some shit up. Sure, A-Rod isn't an outcast like the media portrays him as being, and sure, he probably didn't make the All-Star team based on merit and not based on some long-held grudge, but where's the fun in coming to this conclusion? 

Everybody loves A-Rod? Well, not enough to give him a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff, even with a deserving resume. Perhaps forgiveness only goes so far.

Wait, "a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff"? Is Alex Rodriguez retiring after this season? I think all indications are that A-Rod will be back next year, so why would his presence in the All-Star game this season have been a "sendoff"? It's likely that John Harper is doing what every boring, predictable New York sportswriter does, which is compare A-Rod to Derek Jeter, and therefore lazily assumes this is A-Rod's last season or chance to the make the All-Star team. Everything always comes back to Derek Jeter for sportswriters. Always. 

2 comments Terence Moore Writes about How Great the MLB All-Star Game Is, Certainly Not at the Behest of His Employer

Terence Moore works for MLB.com. He has written an article about how great the All-Star Game is and how the MLB All-Star Game is still totally relevant because MLB says so. He even throws in a little bit about how great the Home Run Derby is for good measure. It's probably just coincidence that MLB.com has an article up about how great the All-Star Game is. Nothing to see here. The problem is that while Terence Moore writes about how the MLB All-Star Game is still relevant, the facts don't show that the All-Star Game has maintained the relevance Terence claims it has. So here is Terence Moore, not at all doing MLB.com's bidding by talking up the All-Star Game, telling us how the All-Star Game is relevant still, just as long as you ignore that fewer and fewer viewers are tuning into the game.

Don't give me this crap either about how there are other things to watch on television and that's why ratings are down. This is a good counter to the constant attempts to explain how baseball is dying, because baseball is really a regional sport, but the All-Star Game is not supposed to be regional. A person may not watch the Tigers and Yankees on Monday Night Baseball because they are watching something else, but the All-Star Game is supposed to be an event. I don't buy the "regionalism" excuse in this situation.

So was it LeBron James, and then the Final Vote?

Or was it the Final Vote, and then LeBron?

It was more like "Everyone talking LeBron and then a few Tweets about the Final Vote mainly involving hashtags."

Full disclosure here before I begin going through Terence Moore's insistence the All-Star Game is still relevant. I am a fan of baseball and don't watch the All-Star Game. I haven't watched it in nearly a decade and I will not, ever, ever, watch any more than a few minutes of the Home Run Derby. I've tried it before. It's by far among the most boring and overrated events involved with any sport ever. It needs to improved in so many ways (not the least of which to get the human penguin Chris Berman off the program, preferably locked in a closet with a grenade in his mouth) that I can't watch the event as it is currently shown. I don't know what kind of half-assed event allows the competitor to choose the person pitching to him and then allows an infinite number of pitches that batter can take. If you choose your pitcher, then you can't sit there for half an hour waiting on the perfect pitch. That's my stance. So I am biased in that I am a fan of baseball who is tired of the pomp and circumstance of the Home Run Derby and doesn't really care about the All-Star Game all that much. It's an exhibition game no matter how much baseball doesn't want it to be.

I don't watch any All-Star games in any sport. I think baseball's All-Star Game is the best of the major sports, but All-Star Game is a relic of a time when fans couldn't watch every single MLB player any time they wanted. You could see Babe Ruth hit! Now you can see a guy for the Yankees hit by getting the MLB Extra Innings package or tuning into any Monday/Wednesday/Sunday Night Baseball game on ESPN where the Yankees appear 25 times per year. If that doesn't work for you, just pay attention to the multitude of highlights available showing that player hitting. All-Star games were once for the fans to see players they normally couldn't see play. That day has passed.

The Major League Baseball All-Star Game still matters, and it does so big time. We know this, because the Final Vote spent the last few days sprinting around the bases toward scoring the winning run among Twitter followers.

I think this may be more of a result of fans of certain players wanting that player to have the honor of participating in the All-Star Game, rather than proof the All-Star Game matters big time. More users of Twitter are younger, while those who watch the All-Star Game average to be in their 50's. These circles overlap certainly, but the Final Vote was more of a way for fans to get their favorite player in the game more than proof the All-Star game matters more than ever. So it seems there are quite a few people who voted for the final spot on the NL/AL team who probably won't end up watching the game. 

Trending? Twitter? Cyberspace? There goes another myth that baseball doesn't keep up with the times.

Young people like baseball. Baseball doesn't always keep up with the times, but it certainly is a myth that there aren't fans of baseball who are younger. No doubt.

There is Interleague Play throughout the season. There is expanded replay. There even are lights in Wrigley Field. Mostly, there isn't a reason for folks to insist the game is operating in the dark ages, not unless they choose to ignore the several million people who spent much of this week typing things into their electronic devices such as #PickRick, #VoteJUP and #TargetSale.

I'll remember this statement the next time Terence Moore claims innovations and changes in baseball are ruining the sport. The sport is in great shape and there's no way the game is operating in the dark ages, much of this to the chagrin and against the will of the so-called "Traditionalists" like Terence Moore. The game of baseball is changing and innovating despite writers like Terence Moore who dig in their heels and refuse to budge when confronted with ideas they don't like.

Those hashtag items on Twitter represented Final Vote candidates. There was a group of five players from each the National and American Leagues, and much of the universe (at least the part that was tweeting, re-tweeting or sort of thinking about it) watched those several million folks push aside thoughts of LeBron's latest decision to study, then discuss and then pick the player they wanted for the last roster spot of that player's respective league at Tuesday night's All-Star Game in Minneapolis.

I didn't see a lot of discussion about these players and why one player deserved to be on the All-Star team over another player on Twitter. Mostly there were a lot of hashtags and statements simply made about who the respective Tweeter supports for the Final Vote. There was much more discussion (that I saw at least) on LeBron and his free agency decision.

I feel like Terence Moore is translating interest in a player from a certain team making the All-Star team to also mean those people Tweeting support of that player were very interested in the All-Star game as a whole. It may be true, but the last time I checked MLB didn't even release the final Final Vote counts. Perhaps I missed it. It seems the Final Vote is just a way to get more players from a fan's favorite team into the All-Star Game.

Contrary to the whispers that have become shouts over the decades among baseball bashers, the All-Star Game still matters, all right.

The All-Star Game matters only because MLB has tied the winner of the All-Star Game to the league that gets homefield advantage in the World Series. So the game matters in that it's forced to matter, rather than settle which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series by giving it to the team that has the best record on the season. That makes more sense to me. So the game matters because it's made to matter, but viewership is declining.

Two words: Derek Jeter. 

(Starts screaming out of joy and eventually faints)

Officially, he is the Yankees' Captain.

Unofficially, he is the Lord Commander of All That is Right with Baseball.

Unofficially, he has been baseball's greatest ambassador inside and outside of the foul lines for most of his two decades in the Major Leagues. Come to think of it, Jeter has been more significant than that.

Definitely. He's also the Shining Example of Players Who Don't Use PED's and Would Never Dream of Benefiting from Using PED's *

*As long as you don't count the fact he's been teammates with multiple PED users and has won many games, including a few World Series, while benefiting from his teammates who have used PED's.

He is retiring after this season.

WHAT? I HAD NOT HEARD ABOUT THIS! DO ELABORATE IN NO LESS THAN 50,000 WORDS!

He already has been hugged in every city he has visited for the last time. So, since this is his last All-Star Game, more than a few folks will be clicking their remotes Tuesday night to view it all.

Oooooo....yeah, but Tuesday is "Shark Tank" night on CNBC and I also have started watching "House of Cards." So I'll just have to settle for watching Jeter play the 68 other games he will play in the regular season. See, I will be able to do that because it's not 1946 and his team is on television all the time. Welcome to the future.

Did I say baseball All-Star Games still matter?

Yeah, but it's true only in that it's forced to be true.

Think Jeter, and now think Cal Ripken Jr., whose farewell season was 2001, when he played his last All-Star Game in Seattle. There was two-fold drama for this noted iron man of the Orioles, and it began before the first pitch after AL shortstop Alex Rodriguez exchanged positions with Ripken at third base to bring Ripken back to his shortstop roots.

Well plus, A-Rod's steroids worked better when he was at third base. This is a scientifically accurate statement.

Jeter will become Ripken next week in his own way. I don't know when, and I don't know how.

Less insightful sentences will ever be written. Remember when this column was about the All-Star Game mattering and not about Derek Jeter? 

Let's review this sentence briefly. Jeter will become Ripken "next week" in his own way. Terence doesn't know when, despite the fact he just said it will be "next week" when this occurs. So next week (but don't ask Terence when because he doesn't know) Derek Jeter will become a white balding man who plays third base for the Baltimore Orioles. Don't ask Terence Moore how, he knows, but he's working on a really original screenplay that will elaborate more on how Derek Jeter turns into Cal Ripken.

That's because everything around the All-Star Game still matters, along with the nearly 30-year-old Home Run Derby, which is an extension of the game itself.

The Home Run Derby is like cancer on the anus of the All-Star Game. It could easily go away and many people would feel better, especially those who have to hear Chris Berman constant bellowing "Back, back, back..." fifty million times as he randomly names cities and wonders why anyone who still has their hearing hates him.

Unlike the NBA that struggles to get stars to participate in the Slam Dunk Contest during its All-Star Game Weekend, baseball has many of its premier sluggers in the 2014 Gillette Home Run Derby. They include Giancarlo Stanton and Yasiel Puig, masters of rocket shots toward the farthest black hole, and Josh Donaldson, who joins Stanton (21) with at least 20 homers already in this Year of the Pitcher.

Except the Home Run Derby takes longer than actual game of baseball, it just has Chris Berman as the commentator and lacks any other type of exciting action. Even the most exciting part of the Home Run Derby, when a ball is hit far, is interrupted by the seal-like bellowing of Applebees' favorite shill.

The Home Run Derby needs a huge re-vamp. It's way too long. Outside of Chris Berman, the length of the Home Run Derby is outrageous. Players shouldn't be able to choose their pitcher and then stand at home plate and wait for the perfect pitch to hit. You chose the pitcher, hit what he throws you.

There is the Futures Game that showcases stars to come, the Legends and Celebrity Softball Game, a concert and the Red Carpet Show before the game.

And I know fans really love the Red Carpet Show before the Home Run Derby. Who are you wearing, David Ortiz?

But it's all about the primary game, and those who contend that it doesn't matter keep confusing baseball's All-Star Game with its historically irrelevant counterparts from the other four major professional leagues in North America.

In terms of being the best All-Star game, MLB's is the best, but this is like being the fastest kid at fat camp. The Pro Bowl is the jokiest of jokes, the NBA All-Star Game is just a bunch of scoring and I know nothing about the NHL All-Star Game so I probably should avoid commenting on it like I already have. At least baseball's All-Star Game has some semblance of similarity to a real baseball game. Still, ratings have been declining and the game only matters because MLB forces it to matter.

Quick: Name your favorite Pro Bowl.

The one where the punter got blown up by some defensive player.

Elsewhere, the All-Star Games associated with the NBA and NHL resemble the Pro Bowl in that they really aren't games. It's difficult to say what they are. Not only do they rarely feature defense, they lack true offense. The same goes for any sense of strategy, enthusiasm and charisma.

Again, it's like being the fastest kid at fat camp. Yes, MLB has the best All-Star Game, though it does lose in terms of ratings to the Pro Bowl. The audience for the MLB All-Star Game is declining and this can't be ignored when speaking about it's relevance. All the hashtags and Final Vote tallies can't cover up for the fact the All-Star Game is very popular, but not as popular as it used to be. It's an important event, but only through contrived circumstances, and the novel idea of the All-Star Game lacks relevance in 2014 when fans can see the participants in the All-Star Game play baseball almost any time they would like to.

Baseball's All-Star Game has all of that, and it began with the legendary likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx during the first one in 1933. They made the whole thing magical forever. Cal Hubbell striking out five consecutive Hall of Famers. Ted Williams skipping around the bases after a game-winning homer. Pete Rose slamming through Ray Fosse at home plate for an NL victory. Reggie Jackson's rocketing a shot off a light tower at Tiger Stadium. Dave Parker making a throw for the ages from right field.

Notice what all of those highlights have in common? I'll give you a hint, Mike Trout wasn't around to see them.

There always are moments at baseball's All-Star Games, and none surpasses that impromptu tribute to Williams before the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway Park. Half of New England gathered around the pitcher's mound for a group hug of the Red Sox legend. Actually, it was just current baseball legends doing the honor, but it seemed like more.

This was a nice moment. It was also a moment that didn't really have anything to do with the game being played on the field that night. What did have to do with the product on the field was Pedro Martinez striking out five of the first six batters he faced.

More importantly, the ratings for that game were 17.64 million people, which is a number the All-Star Game hasn't hit since that time. That was 15 years ago, by the way. I think this ties in well with the idea that MLB has the best All-Star game of the four major sports, but this doesn't mean the game matters now more than it used to. It's still an exhibition game, just an exhibition game with an outcome tied to the World Series.

Then came last year, when Yankees closer Mariano Rivera played his last All-Star Game along the way to retirement. He didn't know he was about to produce moist eyes throughout Citi Field in New York. He was sent to the pitcher's mound to start the eighth inning, but nobody else took the field.

He was a man alone ... with endless cheers.

That was a good moment too. The All-Star Game isn't irrelevant, it's just not the exciting, defining moment of the season that Terence Moore seems to be believe it is. Terence claims the game matters because of the Final Vote and because the game decides World Series homefield advantage. The fact the game decides the World Series is a way contrived to give the game meaning, so I don't really include that as giving the All-Star Game meaning. I also think those people on Twitter who wanted fans to vote for a certain player for the final spot on the team did so out of love for their team, not necessarily as a shining example of how much they think the All-Star Game matters.

Baseball's All-Star Game still matters for those reasons and that other one: The winning league gets home-field advantage in the World Series.

And yet, this doesn't really mean the game matters in the eyes of the fans. Whether the game really matters to the general public is reflected in the ratings for the game, which reflects who was interested enough to watch the game. So the All-Star Game doesn't matter because of the insistence of tying homefield advantage into who wins the All-Star Game. It matters because fans enjoy and watch the game. By that metric, the game doesn't matter as much as it used to. Baseball isn't dying because it's a regional sport and the All-Star Game isn't dying. Pretending it still holds the relevance it used to is folly though.

14 comments Bill Conlin Joins Joe Morgan As a Member of the Ryan Howard Excessive Fan Club

Two things before I break down Bill Conlin's vehement defense of Ryan Howard:

1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.

2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.

Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.

Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.

ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.

They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.

My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.

They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.

Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.

Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.

(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)

And egregiously stupid.

And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.

Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.

I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.

I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.

Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140

So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.

And RH is no longer one of them . . .

That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.

So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.

Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.

Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.

Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.

Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.

Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard.

Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.

But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in wins

This is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.

and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.

Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.

Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.

So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.

Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),

Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.

Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.

and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)

This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.

Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:

The Phillies are paying Howard more than the Sox are paying Adrian Gonzalez a professional hitter. That would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.

I do think this is a bit overboard. Howard isn't that bad, though at this point I would probably take Adrian Gonzalez over Howard.

I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."

Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.

Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.

Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?

Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?

I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.

Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.

This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.

Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.

He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .

Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?

One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.

This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.

That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."

It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.

It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.

Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.

WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.

For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.

You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.

I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.

In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"

In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."

This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.

Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.

Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.

So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.

This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.

Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.

They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.

If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?

Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.

Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).

For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.

So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.

In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.

I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.

Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:

* The Chucker drove in 693 runs for an average of 138.6.

* Howard has driven in 680 runs for an average of 136.

* The Chucker hit 180 homers for an average of 36.

* Howard has hit 229 homers for an average of 45.8.

I am not sure anyone will argue Ryan Howard doesn't hit enough home runs or doesn't drive in enough runs. Using home runs and RBI's to prove...whatever the hell Bill is trying to prove isn't the end-all-be-all in discussing Ryan Howard. Using statistics from 1930 doesn't help the case much either.

At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.

I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.

See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.

I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.

Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.

Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.

I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.

4 comments Gene Wojciechowski Is The First To Write A "Here's How You Fix The MLB All-Star Game" Column

Every year about this time sportswriters start getting bored and trying to figure out ways to fix the MLB All-Star Game. Gene Wojciechowski deserves some congratulations because he is the first sportswriter I have seen to write this type column for 2010. As if to rub his achievement in, he writes it in the form of an open letter, or something that looks like an open letter, which is probably one of the laziest forms of sportswriting. Some of the solutions aren't terrible (while some are), but I have grown tired of the yearly "let's fix the All-Star Game" columns.

If you want to make the All-Star Game relevant again, here are the solutions to your problem:

It's the first sentence of the column and I already am irritated slightly. The All-Star game is relevant because it decides which league gets home field advantage in the World Series. That makes the All-Star Game relevant. We need solutions on how the All-Star Game can deserve to be relevant. Personally, I think the All-Star Game as a format is completely outdated and worked better when fans didn't have satellite television and MLB Network to watch any game of their choosing and did not get to see players play any time they wanted. The purpose originally was to see players who fans didn't normally get to see play together and have a competition to see which league was better. Free agency, the opening of rosters to where each team has a player included, and time has caused the game to lose its luster. I don't think it is coming back either.

Still, let's hear Gene's solutions to "fix" the All-Star Game.

Instant replay

If ever there was a game in which to experiment and expand the use of instant replay, this is it. I mean, what's the downside? That the umpires might get their feelings hurt?

I don't see why instant replay would be experimented with in the All-Star Game rather than a regular season game. The All-Star Game winner decides which league gets home field advantage in the World Series, so it is probably better if there isn't too much experimentation during this game. While a Texas-Seattle game where one game in the standings is on the line is probably a better place to experiment with instant replay. Why choose the game where home field advantage in the World Series lies to experiment with new concepts?

For starters, you have months to scout out the perfect positions for replay cameras at the All-Star Game stadium.

It really wouldn't take months to figure this out. Television cameras presently catch the replays during games very well. It would take maybe a day to figure the camera placement for instant replay out.

Balls and strikes belong to the umpires, but everything else is reviewable. The managers each get, say, three challenges during the first nine innings and one additional challenge if the game goes into extras.

Son of a bitch! Three challenges during the first 9 innings of the game for both managers? Has Gene ever seen a baseball game? There is maybe one semi-controversial call per game, much less six plays that would need to be challenged during a typical 9 inning game that doesn't involve balls and strikes.

Holy crap, three replays per manager is a huge amount. Seriously, has Gene watched a baseball game lately?

If it works -- and it will -- then you prove to the traditionalists that the human element of umpiring can coexist with replay.

You can do this during a regular season game as well. I don't get why the experimentation of instant replay works in an exhibition game that isn't really an exhibition game rather than in a regular season game.

The point of replay is to get the call right. Nothing else should matter.

Agreed, though I don't see how the All-Star Game is the best chance to experiment with instant replay...but three challenges for each manager? That's a lot.

Metal bats

Want to see a 600-foot home run? Me too.

Want to see someone die? I don't.

Metal bats being used in the All-Star Game is perhaps the worst idea in this column and that is saying a lot. I don't care to see a home run derby. The official Home Run Derby I don't watch prior to the All-Star Game is boring enough for me as it is. Metal bats in the hands of professional baseball players is a terrible, terrible idea. The players don't want to use them and shouldn't have to. If a pitcher got hit by a ball off a metal bat during an exhibition game...well I would hate to be Bud Selig trying to explain to the General Manager of the Phillies why Roy Halladay had to face batters who had metal bats when Halladay is missing a month and a half due to breaking his leg from a line drive hitting him.

Let the Home Run Derby contestants go aluminum and ping themselves silly. More dingers. More freakish distance.

The Home Run Derby is exciting for the first 5 minutes. Then it gets boring, tedious and makes me want to book a red eye flight to strangle the hell out of Chris Berman.

No more fan voting

It isn't the All-Popularity Game; it's the All-Star Game.

I am on the fence about fan voting. Fans are idiots and stuff the ballot for stupid players, but the game is also for the fans so the players they want to see start should be able to start. It sort of takes away the point of the All-Star game if the fan voting is taken away. I was always under the assumption the game is supposed to be for the fans, so naturally fans should vote for the players they want to see. This is why people who use All-Star Game appearances as a main criteria to say why a player should be in the Hall of Fame are idiots.

Did you realize you can vote online up to 25 times before the deadline of midnight, July 1? And depending on how many punch cards you scarf up at a major league stadium, a minor league game or a home improvement store (an official distribution site), you can stuff the ballot boxes full of votes for Mark Teixeira (.229, 12 home runs, 45 RBIs) instead of for Miguel Cabrera (.328, 19, 61).

I believe it is 25 times per day. The fan selection can be retarded, there is no doubt about that. Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, if ESPN didn't feature so many games that involved the New York Yankees or gave Miguel Cabrera a similar amount of coverage they give to Mark Teixeira more fans would vote for Miguel Cabrera. The same thing goes for Brennan Boesch. Perhaps if the media spent less time up the ass of Jason Heyward, they could figure out there is an equally good rookie outfielder in the American League.

Again, this is just a suggestion, but a writer for ESPN complaining that certain players aren't well enough known is very ironic to me. Naturally, the teams that win more games and are more popular are going to have players who get more votes.

So my careful, well-researched and performance-based vote for Cabrera doesn't have a chance against someone with a laptop or a chad fetish for Teixeira. Dumb.

But I want to hear from someone why you have to carefully research how well Cabrera is doing at the plate this year, while it is assumed Teixeira is having a good year. Why would fans (outside of Yankees fans) vote for Teixeira vote for him if he isn't having a good year? Why would many fans just assume Teixeira is having a good year, other than plain ignorance?

My solution: Bud Selig appoints a 12-person selection committee that chooses the starters. The committee would include a mixture of, say, Hall of Famers, members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Bob Costas, Bill James, George Will (he's on every baseball-related commission or committee, so he might as well be on this one), someone from Baseball Prospectus and an advance scout or two.

Because we all know the BWAA is always spot-on with their analysis of players and who deserves certain honors and who doesn't deserve certain honors. It may be better to choose the All-Star Game with darts and a dartboard. The Hall of Famers probably know less than the fans (example #1: Joe Morgan) and what the hell does Bob Costas know about baseball that doesn't involve broadcasting it?

So rather than have the All-Star Game starters voted upon by the biases and perceptions of the fans who watch the games and players, we will have the starters voted on by the biases and perceptions of more famous people who watch the game and players. At this point, we are essentially switching the biases and perceptions of the average fan for the biases and perceptions of a different group of people.

You'd still have controversies, but I can live with those debates. And this way the selection show would have some meat on its bones.

I would agree that some of those people Gene listed could probably do a better job than the fans, but there is still going to be some curious selections to the All-Star team if Hall of Famers, Bob Costas, George Will and the BBWA get to vote...at least I would think so.

I love the assumption that fans are idiots when it comes to choosing the best players, but this doesn't go for the fans who read Gene's columns. Fans can be idiots when it comes to the All-Star voting, but I find it deeply ironic sportswriters like Gene believe those who fans who vote for the All-Star Game can't get accurately choose the best players, but he will be glad to use the pageviews he gets from these moronic fans who choose to read his columns to show ESPN what a great writer he is and how valuable he is to get a raise at his next annual review.

So people are idiots and can't make smart choices unless their idiocy serves some purpose.

Stephen Strasburg

Do I even have to explain why?

Yes, you do. He has had five starts in the majors. If he is one of the 12 best pitchers than he should be in the All-Star Game. This does need to be explained.

Player vote

Forget about the players voting for other players. Let them vote for the umpires.

What about a 12 man committee voting for the umpires? WHAT ABOUT A COMMITTEE INVOLVING BOB COSTAS? HE'S THE VOICE OF A GENERATION!

I've talked to players about their All-Star votes. Most of them try to make informed choices, but there are plenty who vote purely on reputation, or because they think a guy is a good dude, or because they're trying to keep somebody else off the roster.

It can get that petty and arbitrary.

So these are definitely the people we need voting for the All-Star umpires.

I am sure players wouldn't be petty or vote for an umpire based on reputation. I am sure players wouldn't punish an umpire who is good at his job but abrasive and difficult to talk to and reason with. Why not have the people who admit to having biases in voting for their peers vote for the umpires?

Stagger the starters

Instead of pulling all the starters by the fifth or sixth innings, use three in the first three innings, another three in innings four through six and another three in innings seven through nine. That way you always have at least three starters in the game.

Yeah, but this would ruin the entire purpose of the All-Star Game, which is to have all the best players on the field at the exact same time. What kind of honor would it be for a player to be voted into the All-Star Game if he gets to play the same amount of time as the backups, doesn't get to start the game, and enters the game after most East Coast viewers have gone to bed?

This is a terrible idea. So the backups would potentially play more than those players voted in to start the All-Star Game?

No more World Series home-field advantage

MLB's heart was in the right place, but the All-Star Game shouldn't determine who gets to start the World Series at home.

I've always been pretty torn on whether the All-Star Game was the best place to determine which team gets home field advantage in the World Series. At least MLB tries to make the All-Star game relevant again. I still think home field advantage should go to the team that has the best record in the majors and if that is a tie then to the team with the best record in their division. This seems easier and allows the home field advantage to go to the team that has earned it the most.

I like the idea behind it -- make the All-Star Game more meaningful -- but why would you want an RBI infield single by a Pittsburgh Pirate in July in Anaheim to be the reason the New York Yankees don't get home-field advantage in October?

I don't know. What is Gene's preference for what decides which team gets home field advantage in the playoffs? We will never know. This never fails to annoy me. It is fine to not like an idea, but if you can't think of a solution to the problem either, then you are just a part of the problem yourself. Gene may hate the idea, but he doesn't seem to have a better solution.

Ditch mandatory representation

This isn't the U.S. Senate. Not every team should get an automatic spot for one of its players.

Shouldn't this take care of the problem with home field advantage being decided by a Pittsburgh Pirate player having an RBI infield single that takes away home field advantage for the Yankees? If every team isn't forced to have a player represented in the All-Star Game shouldn't this ensure that only players who are good enough to play in the game could participate? Would it make everyone feel better about the All-Star Game deciding home field advantage in the World Series if Albert Pujols or the third-string All-Star shortstop gets an RBI base hit that takes away home field advantage for the Yankees?

Tweet

Let the players sitting on the bench or in the bullpen use Twitter during the game.

Why would I really care about what the players are thinking about during the game? I want to watch the All-Star Game for the actual game itself. I don't care to be entertained by the "hilarious" thoughts of the players.

We can read their tweets online, or Fox can scroll selected messages continuously at the bottom of the screen.

Gene does know we can read the player's Tweets online now, right? The last thing I want to see during any television viewing is more shit scrolling down at the bottom or top of my screen. I don't get how more visual distractions will make the All-Star Game more enjoyable for me.

Texts are good

Girardi turns to the camera in the sixth inning and says, "If I have to bring in a new reliever in the eighth inning, who should I use? So-and-so or what's-his-name?"

This is just stupid. What if Girardi has 2 minutes to make the decision and not enough time to text out the question? What's the point of having a manager who appeared in the World Series the year before managing the All-Star team if he doesn't have a chance to actually make the changes he wants to make?

And we, the fans, text our answers during the next 10 minutes. Girardi has to go with our vote. This way the manager picks the finalists, but we pick the pitcher.

So the fans aren't smart enough to vote the players into the All-Star game, but are plenty smart enough to decide which pitcher should face which hitter?

Bud and Joe Fan

Nine randomly chosen fans -- one for each inning -- get to sit next to the commish in his swanky seats during the game. Selig buys the beers.

Why would anyone want to pay for tickets to the All-Star Game and then not get to sit with the people they came to the game with? More importantly, why would a person want to waste an inning of their life sitting next to Bud Selig?

Now if Gene was talking about letting fans sit on the bench of the NL/AL All-Star team, that may be a good idea but swanky seats are a good idea, but I don't know about sitting next to the commissioner.

I don't know if I even like the idea of ending mandatory representation because I feel like they will cause lesser players from better teams to end up on the All-Star team and cause players on teams that aren't winning as much to be overlooked. If MLB could think of a better way to determine home field advantage, other than the obvious (and best) idea of giving it to the team with the best record, than I think they should go with it.

16 comments MMQB Review: Peter Does Some Playoff Handicapping Edition

Yesterday was perhaps one of the most boring last weeks of the regular season that I can remember in the NFL. I imagine if the NFL went to a 18 game schedule the last week would have been more exciting because there would have been 2 more games to play, but I also believe we would have ended up with possibly even more separation in the good and bad teams in the NFL, so Week 19 of the fictional 18 week season would still be boring. That's another strike against an 18 game NFL schedule in my mind. Nothing gets me less pumped up than to see 3 of the 4 playoff games that are going to be played next week match up the same teams that played this week. This doesn't excite me too much.

Today Peter decides rather than doing some handicapped football analysis he is going to do some playoff handicapping. It's about as good as it sounds.

Now that was a weird day. Sad with the devastating knee injury to one of the real poster children for everything that is good about the NFL, Wes Welker.

Everything good about the NFL in Peter's world: being white, being gritty, and playing for New England.

What are the odds of the same defender being at the epicenter of the temporary demise of two true New England heroes?

That was pretty creepy. Someone get Dan Shaughnessy on the phone to write a book about the curse of Pollard. He could sell millions of copies of this book. Then Bill Simmons can mock those people that believe in the curse of Pollard, but write a book capitalizing on the ending of the curse of Pollard to make himself a few bucks.

(Quick summation of Shaughnessy's book) "We're so cursed! No other team in the NFL is as cursed as we are. We have had 2 major injuries in the past 2 years! We are the only team to have lost two important players in a span of two years. Please buy this book in hardcover and paperback."

Other quickies from the day, and from very early this morning: When the Redskins' charter returned from San Diego after another dispiriting loss in the dispiriting two-year tenure of Jim Zorn, the team put him out of his misery, firing him with a year left on his contract. There's little doubt the team wants to hire Mike Shanahan. Owner Dan Snyder wasted no time in laying the groundwork.

Hey, maybe Snyder should hire Joe Gibbs again!

I said on NBC last night that this isn't going to be Black Monday (black because so many coaches usually lose their jobs on the day after the season), but rather Charcoal Gray Monday ...

Ba-da-(stabs self in eye with pencil)

I have some picks sure to rival my Stewart Bradley middle linebacker choice last year, and sure to make you nail me with some outraged Tweets.

Peter wants us to nail him with some outraged Tweets. 5 years ago this would have sounded like a sexual move you try on a freshman, but now I know exactly what he is talking about.

Dallas (NFC 3 seed). Cowboys are classic hot team at the right time, with a mature quarterback, Romo, and a bookend pass-rush team, Anthony Spencer and DeMarcus Ware, that's bordering on Freeney/Mathis in its impact this season.

I am telling you, this is the year Dallas wins their 1st playoff game since 1996. Normally I would be outraged and taking cheap shots at Dallas because I traditionally don't like them, but this year for some reason I actually wouldn't mind seeing them win a few playoff games. Maybe if they made the Super Bowl my retro-mid-90's hatred of the Cowboys would come back to visit. That would be the same time the annoying Cowboys fans in my area call up talk radio to taunt the entire state of North Carolina on how awesome the Cowboys are.

I want to see Jared Allen come out and dominate a game, which he hasn't done since a three-sack day at Green Bay Nov. 1.

Let me do a quick summation of Jared Allen's "Pro Bowl season" that wasn't a Pro Bowl season.

Sacks against Green Bay: 7.5 sacks (2 games)

Sacks against the rest of the NFL: 7 sacks (14 games)

Sacks before November 1 (not including Green Bay games): 3 sacks (6 games)

Sacks since November 1: 4 sacks (8 games)

Sorry, but simply because Jared Allen had 2 good games against Green Bay doesn't mean he is a Pro Bowler. He's should not be at least, so I don't know how he made it.

New Orleans (NFC 1 seed).

We'll see. This team's a total X factor.

You mean the #1 seed in the NFC is an X factor? I wouldn't think this could be true at all! How would the best team in the NFC by record, and how they perform in the playoffs, be considered the team that could alter the playoff landscape? This is an amazing, yet fairly obvious statement.

They'll fill his spot with Julian Edelman, who is a Welker clone -- the same body type, the same frenetic quickness after the catch.

He had like 10 catches for 103 yards yesterday. He's not Wes Welker but this is exactly why you have backups. Welker went down and the Patriots were smart enough to have a backup who can do a reasonable Welker impersonation. This is what good teams do.

Coaches don't want to hear about this ... except one from the AFC who I spoke with late Sunday night and who shall remain anonymous. He was concerned that even though the Jets could well have been one of the best six teams in the AFC at season's end, they got an unfair advantage by playing two teams in the last two weeks that already had playoff spots secured and weren't playing the way they'd play a regular game.

I am the type of person that thinks a team should play all of its starters during a playoff run to keep the team on its toes and make sure the momentum the team has built up can be kept in the playoffs. There's something to be said for a team like the Giants of 2007 who barely make it in the playoffs and were sharp because nearly every game has been a playoff game for them down the stretch. I think playing the starters regularly even after clinching a division helps the continuity and momentum of a team.

(I have changed my mind on this issue at times and sometimes my opinion differs when it comes to the makeup of each team. For example, I think a team like the Colts need to keep momentum, while a team like the Vikings may not. Or I could be rambling right now.)

Regardless, the NFL can never make everything fair. Is it fair that San Diego gets to play in a shitty division? Is it fair that Arizona is in the same division as two teams that are in a rebuilding mode? I don't think we can make everything fair in the NFL. Is it fair that New Orleans who went 8-8 last year got to play a 4th place schedule and played the likes of Detroit and St. Louis in their two games they play against 4th place teams in other divisions?

The NFL is never going to be completely fair, I don't think the NFL should force a coach to play his starters in any game. I think the coach should play his starters but it should be a team decision, not an NFL decision.

Fans would be buying a 10-game season-ticket (eight regular-season games, two exhibitions), and four of them, under my scenario, would be games the Colts were playing to keep guys healthy, not to win. Fans already detest paying for the preseason. Paying for more games like the preseason is absurd.

I think it's a good idea to have each team intending to sit starting players for some or all of the game have to make that announcement on Friday, as a show of good will to the fans who pay good money to watch the games.

This doesn't really help season ticket holders because they have already paid for the tickets and will have no chance at recouping the money they put out since it will be nearly impossible to sell the tickets to a game where the starters aren't playing.

I realize the Welker injury is going to affect this debate. It should. It's a valid concern, losing valuable players to injury in games you don't have to win.

Those people who think the Colts did the right thing by sitting Manning last week are going to use the Welker injury as the reason for a team to sit its starters, and that is valid, but that's also not the point. The point is that injuries can occur at any point and obviously preventing injuries is always a good thing, but many times you can't prevent an injury. It's like Brian Billick said yesterday when he was calling the Carolina-New Orleans game, teams can't play scared in the NFL. Injuries happen, you just have to hope your team has been built to withstand that injury. Playing scared is the best lose your momentum and edge before the playoffs begin...at least in my mind.

I had respect for the Oakland punter before Sunday's game; I already thought he was the best punter in Raider history before Sunday, and that's not to slight Ray Guy.

Yet by saying Lechler is the best punter in Raiders history, Peter is giving him this title over Ray Guy, who is generally agreed to be the best punter in the history of the NFL. That is actually slighting Ray Guy by making this statement.

2. Indianapolis (14-2). Watching Curtis Painter, you can see why everyone in the Indy organization is so paranoid about Peyton Manning getting hurt.

I would say no matter who the backup to Peyton Manning is, unless that was Drew Brees or Tom Brady, the Colts are going to be paranoid about Peyton Manning getting hurt. Wouldn't this just give more ammunition to the belief that Manning is the MVP?

4. Green Bay (11-5).
5. Minnesota (12-4).
6. Philadelphia (11-5).
7. New Orleans (13-3).

I don't know how Peter can rank the Saints below these three other teams simply because these other teams played their starters for the entire season, while the Saints didn't play their starters yesterday...especially when the Saints have already beaten one of these teams handily. It's nitpicky, but this is why power rankings are useless. They teach us nothing.

Quote of the Week I

"We're dangerous. You have to be able to run the football this time of year, and you have to be able to play defense, and we can do that better than any team in the league. That gives us a chance in every game, no matter who we play.''
-- Jets coach Rex Ryan after the 37-0 shutout of the Bengals that sent New York into the playoffs.

I don't recall who said it last week, but a sportswriter suggested a team would want to play the Jets in the 1st round of the playoffs. I disagreed. The Jets are #1 in the NFL in rushing and #1 in defense. I know they have a rookie quarterback but this isn't a team I would want to play in the playoffs.

"Master Lock Revis has put a lot of great receivers on him this season. That will not happen this upcoming [week]. Darrelle Revis couldn't cover me in a brown paper bag on a corner of a Manhattan street in a phone booth. It's impossible.''
-- Cincinnati receiver Chad Ochocinco, five days before being held to no catches against the Jets' corner Sunday night at the Meadowlands.

Chad told Bob Costas he'd change his name back to Chad Johnson if Revis shut him down Sunday night. Your move, Chad. Asked by a reporter after the game if he still planned to change his last name back to "Johnson,'' OchoCinco said, "Child, please.''

I couldn't help but think that Chad Johnson was hedging just a bit when he started limping in warm-ups and then he left the game with an injury. I know he was hurt, but I think it is pretty convenient he got hurt during a game when he wasn't backing up his talk. Yeah, he was hurt, but do I think he may have limped a little more to give himself an out? Yes, I do.

Coach of the Week

John Fox, head coach, Carolina.

With nothing to play for the past three weeks, Fox's team went 3-0 against teams that finished a combined 33-15 (Vikings, Giants, Saints). Though the Saints didn't come to play Sunday in Charlotte, Carolina beating three teams 90-26 when the games meant only pride is a sign Fox has the attention of every player in his locker room. A superb end-of-season run by one of the game's best coaches.

I am glad Peter recognized this. On a personal note, I am not a huge John Fox fan for reasons I could write 10,000 words about, but if Carolina doesn't at least extend him one more year (he has one year left on his contract) they are idiots. The players play for him and they are rarely ever out of a game. Reward him for this.

MVP Watch

I don't like putting five quarterbacks on my final list of the year, but I had to put the five most indispensable guys here ... and if I had to put a sixth, I'd likely put Romo ahead of Darrelle Revis and Chris Johnson.

I like how Peter acts as if he doesn't have a choice to put 5 quarterbacks in his MVP Watch. It is his list which he makes by giving his opinion. He can put whoever he wants in the MVP Watch. I don't see how Chris Johnson isn't as valuable to the Titans as Brett Favre is to the Vikings. The Titans started playing well this year when Johnson started playing well, while the Vikings struggled generally when the run game was stopped (which would indicate Adrian Peterson is as valuable as Favre or at least a running game is as valuable as Favre)...for the last time this year, THE VIKINGS MADE THE PLAYOFFS WITHOUT FAVRE LAST YEAR!!

4. (tie) Aaron Rodgers, QB, Green Bay. Poetic justice, isn't it, that Rodgers pulls even with Favre in the final week of the year. Don't know if anyone else will do it today, but I think it's due: Eighteen months ago, Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy got roundly taken to the cleaners in the court of public opinion, but now that Rodgers has turned into a top-flight quarterback, I just think it's time to say those guys knew what they were doing.

I don't know where this "court of public opinion" is located, but it's not located at this blog. Last year it was pretty clear choosing Aaron Rodgers over Brett Favre was a smart long term move for the Packers. I think I only wrote about this everyday. The only ones who didn't want to recognize Rodgers over Favre was a good move weren't Packers fans, but Favre fans, or were so hung up on Brett Favre being in a Packers uniform there is no way they could be rationally convinced.

Player	Years	W-L	Pct.	Yards	TD	Int.	Sacks	Rush Yds-TD	Rating
Favre	1995-96	24-8	.615	8,312	77	26	73	317-5	97.7
Rodgers	2008-09	17-15	.642	8,237	58	20	84	523-9	98.5

They're about equally efficient. Favre was more explosive and won more. Rodgers ran better and was slightly more accurate. If you compared apples to apples -- Favre's first two starting seasons (not his first two MVP seasons, but his first two shaky starting seasons) and Rodgers' same two -- the one thing that would stick out is Rodgers' plus-37 TD-to-interception differential and Favre's plus-0.

I am not saying Aaron Rodgers is going to be as good as Brett Favre when his career is over, but he is off to a good start in my mind. And no, the Aaron Rodgers Fan Club doesn't charge dues and I am not officially a member yet, but I am thinking of signing up.

A cheap travel note. It involves only walking -- 25 minutes on New Year's Day from my apartment in Boston's South End to Fenway Park. But that was the walk each way to the NHL Winter Classic, Bruins versus Flyers, and it was a great day. First, the best thing was standing on the field while the teams walked out for warmups. Everybody smiling. Tim Thomas, the Bruins' goalie, smiling. The Bruins coaches smiling. NHL brass smiling.Jon Miller, the NBC exec whose brainchild this great idea was, pulled out his phone and asked me to take a picture of him, smiling, by the side of the rink.

There's something to be said for a sports event where everyone's happy, even the fans of the losing team. And I must have seen 10 Flyers fans taking photos outside Fenway after the game. Just a cool, feel-good event that was a gas to attend.

Someone mentioned in the comments a few weeks ago that Peter King was going to talk about the Flyers-Bruins game at Fenway Park. Well here we go, it happened. I am jaded though and would say if most hockey games were played outside not everyone would be smiling the entire time. I think the fact it was a once-a-year thing made this event more fun to attend.

h. How in the world are we going to get people fired up about the the Jets-Bengals rematch Saturday on NBC?

Exactly. As I mentioned earlier in this post, 3 of the 4 games are rematches of games this past Sunday. How the hell is that supposed to get people fired up for the playoffs? I know there is very little the NFL can do about this, but it does kind of stink.

3. I think we could argue about this for a while -- particularly at outside linebacker, wide receiver and the offensive line -- but here's the All-Pro team and awards I submitted to the Associated Press this morning: Peter King's 2009 All-Pro Team, Awards.

Let's look at Peter's All-Pro team and argue:

One other note: When important, I name players to their directional positions. Left tackle, right guard, for instance.

Oh sure, he does this for his All-Pro team but chooses not to do this for his All-Decade team. A little consistency is all I ask when choosing teams. Seriously, is that too much to ask?

WR Vincent Jackson, San Diego.

He's very slightly more consistent and just as game-breaking as Andre Johnson.

No, Andre Johnson should be a receiver on this team. I am not even arguing this. He should be an All-Pro receiver.

WR Wes Welker, New England.

Very tough to leave Reggie Wayne off this team, but it'd be tougher for me to leave the best slot receiver of this era off too.

So Welker is getting named because he is the best slot receiver of the era? I am not necessarily arguing with this selection, just wondering about the reasoning. It's not a lifetime achievement award, but an award for which player had the best year at each position. So while Welker had a good year, so did Wayne. Just because Welker is the best slot receiver of the era doesn't mean he should make the All-Pro team. Either way, Andre Johnson should be on the All-Pro team.

FB Lousaka Polite, Miami.

Not many teams use a pure fullback much anymore, and no team has as physical a blocker as Polite.

I may be a homer, but I would vote for the fullback that blocked for the only two running backs in the history of the NFL to both run for 1,100 yards in a season, Brad Hoover. I would think the fact both runners got 1,100 for the 1st time in NFL history would mean something about the guy who blocks for them. I guess not.

DE Jared Allen, Minnesota.

Allen would tell you he should have played better down the stretch, but through 12 weeks he was peerless. I'd listen to arguments for Robert Mathis here.

Absolutely not. Will Smith would have been a good choice here too over Allen. Jared Allen had 2 good games this year and the rest of the time he was merely above average. We discussed this earlier in this post. How is this hard to understand?

MLB Ray Lewis, Baltimore.

Had his most tackles since 2004 at age 34. How about this for consistency: Starting in Week 4, he had 14, 10, 8, 7, 8, 7, 8, 9, 7, 9, 9 and 12 tackles.

That's awesome because consistency is great. If we are going to measure tackles, how about these numbers:

Since Week 4, this guy had 10, 3, 7, 11, 11, 8, 8, 17, 6, 16, 3, 13, 8 tackles.

Consistency is fantastic but the 2nd guy had 3 interceptions and 3 sacks with 6 different defensive tackles that started in front of him this season against 3 sacks and 0 interceptions with a Pro Bowl nose tackle taking up space for Lewis. I am almost getting tired of saying it because he plays for my favorite team, but Jon Beason is being underrated in my world. Lewis can get it because he makes the same amount of tackles in each game and is old, that seems perfectly legit to me, but I wanted Beason on the Pro Bowl team. I hate All-Star game voting, yet I still whine about it. Go figure.

Comeback

Tom Brady, New England.

Thank God he didn't put Brett Favre in here. I would have had a hernia.

Coach

Marvin Lewis, Cincinnati.

I love Marvin Lewis and as inspiring as that performance against the Jets was last night, I don't think Marvin Lewis should be Coach of the Year. I have other suggestions, but there isn't one guy who sticks out for me this year. I think Jim Caldwell or Sean Payton probably could have gotten this award. There are other candidates I could mention over Lewis as well that many others may disagree with, like Mike McCarthy or Rex Ryan.

Ok, those are all the problems I had with Peter's All-Pro team, now back to Peter's MMQB.

b. Don't sleep on Malcom Floyd in the playoffs for San Diego. He's a 6-5 weapon too, just like Vincent Jackson.

All Peter has talked about is the size of the Chargers receivers. He is enamored with that team's height at the receiver position. It is a good thing, but I don't think it necessarily makes the Chargers a more dangerous team in the playoffs. Maybe I am wrong.

8. I think if records don't matter much to the Colts, why did Indianapolis play Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark only long enough to get to 100 catches? It's fine that they did; I want a player to want to leave his footprints on NFL history. But to say Reggie Wayne or Dallas Clark catching 100 balls, or to say the record of consecutive regular-season wins by a team, is more significant to a franchise than becoming the first team ever to go 19-0 (and only the second team in modern pro football history to go undefeated for an entire season) is just flat wrong.

I 100% agree with Peter here. This is the same Colts team that starts Peyton Manning in every game just so he can keep his consecutive starts streak alive. Apparently personal goals are more important than team goals to the Colts. I think Peter says it best.

In reality, Peter's MMQB hasn't been as bad of late in certain regards and what he says about the Colts here is evidence of that. I don't expect this to continue though.

Polian said the perfect season "we did not feel was a historic achievement.'' But, Polian said, winning more games than any team in a decade, and winning the most consecutive regular-season games are "historical milestones that were worth going out there and risking everything for.''

How does this make sense? Winning more games than any other team in a season is not a historical achievement but winning more games than any other team in a decade is a historical achievement? I don't understand this.

I categorically disagree those milestone are more significant than 19-0. In my mind, they're not even close. Every football fan knows there's been only one 17-0 team, Miami in 1972, and never a team better than that. No football fan can tell you (with certainty anyway), nor does any football fan care, which team won the most games in the eighties, or nineties. The consecutive regular-season wins are certainly nice, but it's not imprinted on the brain stem of any football fan. Now, 19-0 ... that's immortality right there. And if you don't want to go for it because you don't want to risk injury, please say that.

Ladies and gentlemen a pissed off Peter King! Again, he is absolutely right here. I just hope his sudden and unexpected boldness doesn't jeopardize his relationship with Peyton Manning. That's all Peter has seemed to care about in the past (being buddies with players) and I hate to see him possibly give up having to be friends with some NFL players by giving his opinion.

9. I think I've said it before about Tim Tebow and I'll say it again: The NFL team that can't find a spot for Tebow to help it win games is close-minded.

Not in the 1st round. I can't justify taking him there.

I don't know if he can be an every-down quarterback, but I do know 28 teams passed on Joe Montana through two rounds because he was too small, 31 teams passed onTom Brady through five rounds because he was just another guy,

Teams passed on Tom Brady because he was sharing snaps with Drew Henson at Michigan. He wasn't the full-time starter when he was at Michigan. That's why teams passed on him. It's a bit early to compare Tebow to Tom Brady or Joe Montana.

b. Can we savor how great a college football player Tebow was before consigning him to the Bucs' practice squad, please?

Yes, we have all savored Tim Tebow for four straight college football seasons now. Peter doesn't think the world has savored Tebow because he personally hasn't savored Tebow (or doesn't watch much college football), but he will definitely do so in the future. I think Peter may have a Tebow-crush in his future.

To act as if the world hasn't given Tebow enough credit as a quarterback is beyond absurd. It's insane and ludicrous. Tebow gets credit every minute when he plays a football game and is showered with compliments by announcers. We have all savored him enough.

f. Boy, did this season go fast. Incredibly fast. It's like you get on a roller coaster and just hang on, and before you know it, the Lions are 2-14 again.

Boy, Peter was a little chippy today wasn't he?

I wonder if he is in a lover's quarrel with Brett Favre because Peter didn't name Brett his "Comeback Player of the Year?"