Does the allstar game really matter now?

No it doesn't matter. It is a relic of days gone by with fewer teams and games not available on tv. It's all marketing gimmicks now instead of real stars playing a real game.

So, the All-Star game only mattered when games weren't available on TV? I guess very few of us under 50 never saw an All-star game that mattered. It certainly looked like it mattered to the young fans at the game, as I'm sure it did to the young (and old) fans who watched and enjoyed it on TV or the Net. Also, considering the first all-star game I saw in 1977 had representatives from all teams, fairly inflated rosters, active substitutions, and fan voting, this all-star game--outside of internet voting--is hardly anomalous. And there certainly were "real" stars in this game. Here's a few of them:

Bryce Harper
Mike Trout
Troy Tulowitzki
Buster Posey
Felix Hernandez
Clayton Kershaw
Paul Goldschmidt
Anthony Rizzo
Andrew McCutchen
Zack Greinke
Madison Bumgarner

Those are some real stars. Considering more excellent players played, this game was hardly lacking for real stars.

"Matters" is probably a poor choice of a descriptor. It DOES matter of course and has ever since they made the outcome determine the playoff home field advantage.

From the way I read Scumby's posts, seems like he's advocating for the game to be done away with. that would be a crying shame IMHO ( yes I'm Agreeing with Strether, mark it down ). I live on the east coast, am a Mets fan and while I know Mike Trout is considered one of the greatest players playing today I had no idea how good he really is, because I can count on one appendage the number of Angels games I've seen. After watching the All-Star game the other night, and seeing the display Trout put on (we saw it all, power, speed, defense) I have a whole new appreciation of just how talented a ball player Mr Trout is.
Now, I have had the pleasure of watching Mr. deGrom pitch many times (all via the tube of course), but how many of you knew the kid could be that good, that his fastball had that kind of life. If you watched his 1 inning. 10 pitch masterpiece, that had potential batting champ Jason Kipnis flailing like a school girl chasing butterflies with a net, you now know what has Mets fans so excited about the kid.

So to summarize, does it matter? Yes.

and More to Scumby's point, should it still be played in the format we have? I say yes.

Baseball is such a regional sport and even with interleague play, it's the one night where most( they always miss one or two) of the best players in the world get to showcase their talent to fans who might not see them otherwise. It's not without it's flaws, but since when has any sport been perfect.

No need to do away with it, just the impact on the World Series. I agree with the OP in that a game that determines home park advantage should be taken more seriously. The fact that they had to make it determine something proves the event had lost it's luster.

I do not know why MLB just doesn't follow what NBA and NHL do and best records get home field advantage. None of the major sports have balanced schedules and I do not see NHL/NBA have issues with it. Hockey even gives out a trophy for the best overall regular season record.

All-star game should be just that, an exhibition for the fans. Go back to how it was Manfred, Selig is gone.

I do not know why MLB just doesn't follow what NBA and NHL do and best records get home field advantage. None of the major sports have balanced schedules and I do not see NHL/NBA have issues with it. Hockey even gives out a trophy for the best overall regular season record.

All-star game should be just that, an exhibition for the fans. Go back to how it was Manfred, Selig is gone.

You know why they changed it, right? It was felt that the game wasn't being taken seriously enough by the players and had become to much of an exhibition and not enough of a true game. That's why it is the way it is. I'd guess the NFL would do the same thing actually if it home team meat something in a neutral site super bowl.

Taken seriously? Have you watched the NHL or NBA all-star games? All offense and no defense. The only difference in MLB is that you have defense in the pitcher and they do not want to get shown up.

How do you have a "true" game where most players are getting 1-2 AB's or pitching 1 inning? That is not a game.

Taken seriously? Have you watched the NHL or NBA all-star games? All offense and no defense. The only difference in MLB is that you have defense in the pitcher and they do not want to get shown up.

How do you have a "true" game where most players are getting 1-2 AB's or pitching 1 inning? That is not a game.

Nope not a fan of either sport. Stopped watching the NBA when Jordan retired and even though I'm from a hockey loving part of the country, I do not follow the sport at all, they could stop playing tomorrow and I wouldn't even notice.

And if you think the All star game is bad now, you should have watched before the Home field rule was added. Look I agree it's not as "hard core" a game as it could be, and you have a point about not letting the best players stay in the gam,e for the whole game, but remember, some of the guys on the bench are pretty good to, and part of the mission of the game is to get as many guys in as possible. Trout did get 3 at bats, now granted he was leading off, but still. You also have to balance not getting guys hurt. If you are an Angels fan how would you feel if Trout caught his leg on his slide into home and ruptured his knee???
As I said it's not perfect, but i don't think you can have a game where guys go 100% all out either due to the injury factor, and of the 4 major sports, I think baseball has the best all star game and it's not even close.

I still love the MLB All-Star game, it is a good tradition. I do think the fans should get a vote and the managers should decide the lineup. As an Indians fan I am glad each team gets at least one player.

Maybe if some people are so concerned about letting the fans vote... they should at least change the name of the all star game to "mid season exhibition game". I mean really... Infante almost started the game. We now have people that has no idea what a "all star" is choosing the starting lineup.

And for me, for the first time ever, I didn't watch one inning of it. I want to see all the best players of this season, not players that make it on past seasons and/or voting a "straight ticket" on the all star ballot.

Maybe if some people are so concerned about letting the fans vote... they should at least change the name of the all star game to "mid season exhibition game". I mean really... Infante almost started the game. We now have people that has no idea what a "all star" is choosing the starting lineup.

First of all, we have always had people that have no idea what an "all-star" is. For example, in 1972, Freddie Patek was selected with his .231 Avg. In 1983, Reggie Jackson was selected with his .214 Avg.. And in 1991, Sandy Alomar was selected with his .218 Avg. So, this is hardly the first year fans didn't get it all right, although they did do quite well.

And if it's more important to you to have the "perfect" all-star game than let fans (particularly the younger ones) enjoy voting for a game that is for them, then I suggest you complain to MLB. Considering the All-Star game is MLB's chance to connect to present fans and showcase their product for future ones, I don't think they'll be very open to the idea.

I, myself greatly enjoyed voting as a kid, and my son greatly enjoyed it as well. I think that enjoyment shared by many young (and even older) fans is more important than having a "perfect" all star game for the knowledgeable fans.