Oswalt is a better pitcher than Capauno. Schilling deserves to be there MUCH more than Buehrle, but that's just Ozzie being the idiot that he is. Nothing really to complain about.
Ozzie actually had a few more of his players penciled into the All-Star roster, but the line was finally drawn by the time they got to Pablo Ozuna (Ozzie: "C'mon, he hitting .418!") and Neal Cotts (Ozzie: "I need him in front Jenks!") Word on the street is that if A.J. Pierzynski can't make the All-Star game, Chris Widger will be his injury replacement.
I don't see anything wrong with Oswalt. He's mich better than Buehrle at least. Oswalt has a 3.10 ERA which isn't bad...it's not his fault he;s not getting run support.
Player Compare Year to Date MLB Standard Stats
INN W L K BBI HA ERA WHIP
Capuano, Chris SP MIL 129.0 10 4 112 25 127 3.20 1.178
Oswalt, Roy SP HOU 119.0 6 5 80 24 123 3.10 1.235
How do you justify Oswalt over Capuano?
Why wasn't Oswalt a choice in the final vote?
Capuano was second in final vote.
Sunspot wrote:Player Compare Year to Date MLB Standard Stats INN W L K BBI HA ERA WHIP Capuano, Chris SP MIL 129.0 10 4 112 25 127 3.20 1.178 Oswalt, Roy SP HOU 119.0 6 5 80 24 123 3.10 1.235
How do you justify Oswalt over Capuano? Why wasn't Oswalt a choice in the final vote? Capuano was second in final vote.
Cap is having a great season, but Oswalt is the better pitcher as evidenced by his track record. He has a lower ERA than Cap anyway.
Why weren't Carl Crawford or Curt Schilling choices in the final vote? They deserved to be there more than AJ didn't they? It doesn't matter that Oswalt wasn't there and Cap was.
Let's see, how many other Astros did Garner pick...
Berkman and ummmm that's it.
In an era in which managers normally take 5-6 guys from their own team, half of which are undeserving, Garner takes only 2 Astros both very deserving. Oswalt has the 6th best ERA in the NL for christs sake. He should not have been left off the original team.
If Brewers fans are upset about Capuano not making it, then let's dump Turnbow.
I'm not going to argue for either Cap or Os, but track record should have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's the 2006 all-star game, not the 2000-2006 all-star game.
The thing I can never square with my opinion of all-star games is which is better-- a track record of being awesome, or only a half of performance?
I know all star games are dated, but should a flash in the pan be honored over a pereniial star just because of one half?
I don't get whihc side should have more importance.
Say some second year guy has a better first half than shaq (for example). Should he be honored over the guy whom everyone drools over, and might be statsicially inferior, albeit for a limited time?
Baseball seems tougher, since there are tons of exmaples of guys with awesome stretches, but can't quite hack it. I don't think Buerhle should be so honored over some of the other choices.