I've been writing in Trout the max 25 times using various fake email addresses. Sure, it's cheating, but I don't care. I don't want Trout's All-Star fate to rest in the hands of Ron Washington.

It literally takes less than five minutes to vote 25 times. If every Angels fan who wants to see Trout and Trumbo in the game does it once or twice a day, they will make it.

The Angels had 4 All Stars in the 1995 All Star Game in Texas - Jim Edmonds, Chuck Finley, Lee Smith, and Gary DiSarcina.

Yes I did vote today, and mine was virtually the same as yours, except that instead of Peter Bourjos, I voted for Adam Jones (Orioles). Sorry I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Peter Bourjos, not this year.
As you did, I voted for two outfielders from each league and wrote in Mike Trout and Bryce Harper.

I really don't agree with fans choosing, I believe the players have a much better idea of who truly deserves to be there.
Especially since home field advantage is at stake in the World Series, I believe the players should have the right to field the best possible team with players that they believe gives them the best opportunity to win.

I myself voted for Angel players that even I believe are not the best at their position, simply because I am an Angel fan. I do not feel too badly about it because I am certain that those few votes will not negatively impact the final tally. However in an enormous market, such as New York, it might.

I voted this year for the sole purpose of writing in Mike Trout and Bryce Harper.
I would urge everyone else to take a couple of minutes and do the same please.
Both of these young men should be there, in my opinion.

Wouldn't change if the players voted. They might even vote based on their agent. I've heard some players are closer to players with their same agent, then they are to their own teammates.

So how do you explain that the last team to have 5 starters in the Allstar game was a West Coast team?

< So here are the 2011 AS starters. Who of them had "no business being there"? >

It depends on the criteria, I don't consider Alex Avila, Asdrubal Cabrera, or Rickie Weeks "stars". If you want to get away from the original premise and go only by the "numbers" then Rickie Weeks, Carlos Beltran, and Scott Rolen shouldn't be included.

< So how do you explain that the last team to have 5 starters in the Allstar game was a West Coast team? >

Population.

Independent of whether you are right or wrong in your short lists, in either case I don't call that a"lot". For the most part the fans get it right and the managers select the ones that have been overlooked pretty well if they don't.

The fans will pick the top names and, of course, the most popular/visable team will end up with several selections. The players on the other hand, tend to probably be more accurate in thier selections of the most deserving players based on recent play.

The manager is limited as his selections are based on the approval of King Selig and, have to ensure that any team not represented by the fan/player vote has at least 1 representative.

Overall, I think they end up getting it close to right. There will always be some controversy and some good players will stay home strictly based on limited available slots and, fan popularity of the perennial big name stars.

I just wish it didn't determine home field in the WS. That, to me, is ludicrous.

I agree on that last point; that's for sure.

If the ASG were later in the season, I would agree with the idea of using only the present year stats for the selection criteria. But since the voting comes out so early, I am in favor of using the stats since the last ASG (including postseason ones) and perhaps weighting it a bit toward the present season, like they do for the choices in the Ryder Cup.

>>I just wish it didn't determine home field in the WS. That, to me, is ludicrous<<

I agree.

---

Edited 6/16/2012 2:33 pm by CJ_Pitch

Population would be fine had it been the Dodger, Angels or Giants but not the Padres.

Fact is, whoever chooses the players may have it come back to bite them if they advance to the World Series. I mean, why WOULDN'T Washington want Trout on the All-Star team, if he expects his team to be in the World Series. If he just picks Texas players, and doesn't get home field advantage because of it, that's his headache.

He, also, will have to answer to whoever is the team in the World Series this year (himself or someone else). LaRussa is just doing it for pride, so that's bad news for Harper.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it was a Texas vs Washington World Series? Washington (manager) vs Washington (team). Washington (former home of Texas) vs Texas (where Washington moved to).

I, myself, prefer a Dodgers vs Angels Freeway World Series.

3 million people live in or near San Diego, that's why calling them a small-market team is a joke.

Less dense then Anaheim and Los Angeles, isn't it? Not sure about Anaheim (Orange County).

Great lakes start with droplets of water somewhere.

Whoever said Washington doesn't want Trout on his All Star team? I keep seeing that posted or inferred around here all the time. The truth of the matter is, I'm sure Washington would love to have a player like Trout on the team. If Trout doesn't make it, it won't be because Washington didn't want him.

Yeah, American Idol isn't a matter of who wins anymore. It's which white, Southern, guitar-playing, young cute guy gets the young girls (and cougars) votes. Can't be too young though (David Cook beat David Archuletta--who had the young teens behind him), as it's the cougars that really make the difference.