MLB All-Star Game: 5 Ways to Make the Game More Watchable

As a diehard baseball fan, it pains me to see the the MLB All-Star Game in the shape that it's in. Media and fans alike have spent this week moaning and groaning about how the game has gotten stale.

Unfortunately, I agree. The interest level in the game has fallen to an all-time low thanks to bloated rosters and stars asking out of the game. This once proud event has become an afterthought. I shudder to think of what the interest level would be if this weren't the slowest sports week of the year otherwise.

Think of your favorite All-Star Game moment. I bet you have one. For older fans, it might be Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse to score the winning run in the 1970 game. For younger fans, it might be Torii Hunter robbing Barry Bonds of a home run in the 2002 game or Hank Blalock hitting a home run off of Eric Gagne in the 2003 game in the middle of Eric Gagne's absurd consecutive saves streak.

Those last two games were less than a decade ago, but they might as well have occurred a century ago when you consider how far the game has fallen.

Maybe I should write a letter to Bud Selig because I've got five ways to make the MLB All-Star Game more watchable.

Don't Make It Determine Home Field in the World Series

This one is obvious. Bud Selig made the All-Star Game determine home-field advantage in the World Series as a knee-jerk reaction the 2002 game ending in a tie. I'm not sure how supposedly giving players a little bit more motivation makes the game less likely to end up in a tie, but I certainly can't blame Selig for doing something given the anger in response to that tie game.

Which league gets the home-field advantage in the most important series of the entire season should not come down to Aaron Crow trying to strike out Starlin Castro.

Beyond the absurd nature of trying to give importance to this exhibition, the biggest unintended consequence of making the All-Star Game "matter" is that the managers, as is their nature, have begun to construct their rosters to try to win the game rather than rewarding players that have had great seasons.

Last season, Martin Prado and Ty Wigginton made the team not because they were among the best players of the season so far, but because they could play multiple positions for late game double-switches. That shouldn't be what the All-Star Game is about.

Reduce the Rosters

The swelling of All-Star Game rosters is another consequence of trying to keep a tie from happening ever again.

The logic is of course that with more players at the manager's disposal, the team is less likely to run out of players early. This would, in theory, keep a game from having to end in a tie simply because a team is out of players as it did in 2002.

What has happened in reality is managers burn through players more feverishly than ever. Managers feel pressure to get every player who wants to play the chance to play and they are going to do that no matter how many players they have on their bench. 

MLB needs to get the rosters back down to 25-28 players and really make it a team of All-Stars instead of a team of 15 All-Stars and then 20 or so other good players who happen to be selected to play in the game.

Allow Re-Entry for Position Players

This change goes hand in hand with reducing the rosters. If MLB were to reduce the number of players on each roster, it's plausible that the team might run out of position players at some point. If they allow re-entry for players who have already come out of the game, that wouldn't be a problem.

This rule change wouldn't work for everybody. Some veterans who are familiar with being in the Midsummer Classic like to leave the game and fly back home after they are removed from the game in the third or fourth inning. But for those that stick around, let them go back in if a manager needs to move players around.

Beyond the utilitarian purpose of giving a team more flexibility, allowing re-entry would allow for some blockbuster matchups late in the game. If the AL were down a run in the ninth, it would be nice for their manager to be able to bring back Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Hamilton and David Ortiz to face Heath Bell, or whoever would be doing the closing for the NL that year.

That might sound unfair to the pitching staffs, but this is all about what makes the game more watchable and I think we can all agree that more offense makes the game more watchable.

Don't Let the Fans Vote for All-Stars

Letting the fans vote-in the starters for the All-Star game is a time-honored tradition. This game is, after all, advertised as an exhibition for the fans. It's just that more often than not, the fans do a poor job.

I will give them credit for their voting this season. Jose Bautista got the most fan votes as he should have and the selection of Alex Avila as the American League's starting catcher was a pleasant surprise. But for every great choice by the fans, they are a dozens of choices that are based solely on popularity.

Allowing the players or media members or even the managers (even though they will have some bias) to pick the entire team will give you a true All-Star team. The teams will be made up of the best of the best from the current season and as such, the game will be played at a much higher (and much more watchable) level.

Get Rid of the "Mandatory All-Star"

I understand why MLB gives each team an All-Star. They do it so that some kid watching in Kansas City or Washington, D.C. can see one of the players from his hometown team. The hope is that he will watch the entire game for the chance to see that one player.

The list of unworthy All-Stars because of this rule is just about endless. One year, reliever Mike Williams of the Pirates made it even though he had an ERA well over 5.00. Ed Sprague, Ken Harvey and Bobby Higginson are among the others in recent memory.

I also understand the fear that goes along with doing away with this rule. The thought is that if you don't force the All-Star team to have a player from every MLB team, it will become a matchup of the best five or six players from the Yankees, Red Sox and Rangers taking on the best five or six from the Giants, Phillies and Cardinals.

That's why I would also implement a maximum to the number of players that can be from one team. If you cap the players that can be from one franchise to four, you keep it from being too heavy on any one team. It also makes it likely that they will have to take a player from nearly every team without being forced to do so.

This change kills two birds with one stone. The All-Star teams would be more complete and you keep one or two franchises from dominating the field.