http://economics.about.com
Loaiza and Mora have the "mandatory representative" spots all locked up with their brilliant half-seasons, so the debate about whether they deserve to be named is moot. Who else are you gonna take? Magglio Ordonez is playing like Carlos Lee this year, and if not for Mora, either Ponson or Gibbons would be a pseudo-star. Don't get me started on Dmitri Young, Rocco Baldelli, Milton Bradley, Mark Loretta or Rondell White and any Brewer (Richie Sexson, I guess) possibly deciding home field advantage in the World Series.

Mora has been the best hitter in the AL. I think you'd have to take him, even if you didn't need an Oriole. You could take Ponson instead, who has pitched pretty well.

As far as bad teams go:

K.C.: Sweeney has been one of the best first basemen in the league for the past few years. I think you'd have to take him.

Florida: Mike Lowell is having a big year and has had some good ones in the past. He's in.

Cleveland: Milton Bradley has been the 2nd best CF in the AL this year. It's not like he's come out of nowhere: he was a very highly touted prospect a few years ago. I'd take him... I have a feeling he'll be going to a few of these by the time his career is up. C.C. Sabathia has pitched pretty well but hasn't gotten a whole lot of support. He's a bit more of a star as well.

Tampa: Aubrey Huff has been the best of a very weak crowd of AL right fielders. Again, he's another possible future star, so why not take him? Jay Gibbons has probably been the 2nd best right fielder, if you want a different Oriole.

White Sox: You could also take Frank Thomas if you weren't comfortable with Loaiza.

Pittsburgh: Brian Giles isn't having his best season but he's still mashing the ball and he's a legitimate star

Arizona: I guess you take Luis Gonzales given that their pitching has been hurt.

Detroit: Ugh. I wouldn't take anyone from Detroit. Dmitri Young, I guess. It's cases like this where I don't like the rule.

Milwaukee: Double Ugh. Sexson or Jenkins I guess. Estrella has had a pretty good year in the pen and might be just as useful. I'd say none of them should go.

Padres: Triple Ugh. I guess Ryan Klesko on name value, but he's not having an all-star year. Mark Loretta has been arguably their best hitter. Again, I say none of them should go.

Mets: Gotta go with Piazza, tho Cliff Floyd isn't having a horrible year.

Mike

Mike D,

How on earth would Konerko make it at a position with lots of great hitters, when his 2003 PA get weighted at 40%? He's probably behind Delgado, Giambi and Sweeney based only on 2001 and 2002!

I would chose those 3, with honourable mention to John Olerud (also ranking well ahead of Konerko, with defence and a porr pitcher's park being a huge plus for Ole).

Mike D,

How on earth would Konerko make it at a position with lots of great hitters, when his 2003 PA get weighted at 40%? He's probably behind Delgado, Giambi and Sweeney based only on 2001 and 2002!

I would chose those 3, with honourable mention to John Olerud (also ranking well ahead of Konerko, with defence and a porr pitcher's park being a huge plus for Ole).

Brady,

What I reward is established performance. If someone was great in 2001 and 2002, but has been a bench player in 2003, then that is obviously evidence that the player is no longer the player he was only a year ago (and he would not be on the team). Who exactly is in that category?

When/if Mora and Loaiza continue to play well this year and for the first half of next year, it will be time to include them on next year's team. All I am doing is rewarding people who've proven they are all-stars. If Mora and Loaiza are legit (as Mike Scott turned out to be for about 3 years) then they'll get their rewards. If not, we avoid looking back and wondering things like: "What were they smoking when they put Jerry Mumphrey in the lineup with Mike Schmidt and Andre Dawson?"

This is supposed to be an All-STAR game.

Coach,

I would take Magglio. He clearly is the best player on the team until proven otherwise.

I would take the first 7 on Coach's chart (Moose, Pedro, Roy, Big 3 and Moyer - with Moose probably starting). Possibly Colon or Buerhle would be #8 among starters (so we now have 3 White Sox more deserving than Loaiza).

Among relievers, I'd thing Rivera and Foulke would be shoe-ins.

That's Jonny's chart, Robert, as I'm sure you know. More research than I like to do. I agree that Magglio is by far the best White Sock, and the game being in his home park is another (illogical) reason he might get named, but I doubt it will be at Loaiza's expense -- more likely, as I said before, it will be Vernon Wells who gets squeezed by the convoluted selection process.

Here is how I would weigh each inning/PA: 2001: 25%, 2002: 35%, 2003: 40%.

Mandatory reps aside, I think that what's generally been happening with the assigned spots, without anyone really meaning to, is something like 50% consideration of a player's career and 50% the year in question. That's why guys like Giles, Ordonez and Piazza have been and should again become All-Stars despite crappy 2003s. Then there are those, like Cal Ripken later in his career, who transcend any formula and slide by on Star status. I have no problem with that. As Robert says, this is supposed to be an All-Star team, not a Who-Precisely-Is-Having-The-Best-Season-Statistically-Team.

Like many others, I have huge issues with the mandatory rep rule. But, if you're going to eliminate that rule, you'd have to take the power to assign remaining roster spots away from the All-Star manager or else he's likely to appoint all of his own players. I say ditch the reps and either let the players vote on the subs or let ALL of the managers in that league vote on them, instead of just one.

I apologize to Jonny German - it is a very informative chart.

I have formatted chart envy.

i still don't see how you can just turn a blind eye to Loiza's dominance, esp. in favor of Burhle. Loiza's been the best pitcher in the AL this year, and it isn't an accident- his stuff has been damn good. Burhle's been inconsitent at best. I hate the idea of guys making the All-Star game on rep. or last year's performance. Magglio's an awesome hitter, but he hasn't shown it this year, so he stays home. If the guy is on the bubble based on this season, then you can factor in reputation and last year's performance, but Loiza's been the league's best since his first start, so he goes regardless of what he did last year. No big deal, and certainly not worth making a formula just to justify the exclusion of a pitcher Blue Jays fans have come to vehemently dislike:-->

The logic that keeps Loazia out would keep Vernon out too.

What format did you use for chart envy Gitz?

I definitely wouldn't say I vehemently dislike Esteban Loaiza. I'm more of a well-wisher, in that I don't wish him any specific harm. I absolutely do dislike David Wells, and vehemently dislike Roger Clemens. By rights he should probably be included in the discussion. I'm just glad Torre isn't the AL manager this year, so Roger can take a break. It's a long grinding season when you're completely full of it.

At any rate, as stated I made up the chart using Gitz's list and Robert's formula, with the exception that I added Pedro. I of course chose the statistical categories, and I ranked the players according to those categories and my biases. I did try to suppress the bias as much as possible - I'm unimpressed that a Yankee came out on top.

I would probably revise the formula to be more weighted to the current year. Or, as long as we're making choices solely on numbers, maybe I introduce an OR statement in the formula such that a certain level of single-season performance is enough to make us ignore past mediocrity.

To wit: Players are ranked for All-Star consideration based on the maximum of

20% 2001 + 30% 2002 + 50% 2003
OR
85% 2003.

To me this formula says that if your 2003 is better than what the perennial stars are doing even with a 15% discount, you get to go.

And to think I get annoyed with people like Lee Sinins for focusing solely on numbers...

Yes,

I agree that Vernon should not be on the 2003 All-Star Team.

dp,

You don't seem to understand that my formula isn't designed to exclude or include anybody. If Loaiza has a great this year and a pretty good one next year, the formula will work in his favour next year and against whoever the latest flash in the pan is.

The practical upshot is that guys with no history of success and a great half-year do not get in. Their spots are taken by guys who've established a level of excellence over a larger sample.

I'm never going to agree with a proposition like this:

"... but Loiza's been the league's best since his first start, so he goes regardless of what he did last year."

I attach a lot less meaning to a half-season of baseball than you do, apparently.

Robert, you can say what you want about "half-seasons"...but with the relatively weak crop of AL starters this year, it would take a whole slew of Bad Esteban outings (admittedly possible, but not necessarily likely) for his ultimate numbers at the end of the season coming out as non-All-Star-worthy. He'd have to give up a *lot* of hits and runs to make his numbers merely decent.

Mike D,

One solid season for Esteban gives him a leg up for next year's All-Star game. Fluke seasons do exist (hello Brady Anderson). I don't consider a player having a fluke year to truly be an all-star, and therefore such a player does not belong in a game for all-stars (which is not to say that E.L won't eventually prove that he's no fluke).

Have you taken a look at Joe Mays' 2001? Is he the kind of pitcher people 20 years hence will be taking about in awe?