Get a load of this smug entitled punk kid and his disrespect for The Game.

"The Documentary was cool, but I never really liked LAX," said Harper.

I voted for Chipper for the same reason Harper said to, but it was hard not to vote for Harper.

He's not fooling anyone with this.

Whatever. I'm voting 25 times for Harper.

Also, no more of this false-modesty, respect-the-game ####, Bryce. Boring. Be more of a cocky entitled jerk, that's what America wants from you.

He's not fooling anyone with this.

That's the yelp of a beaten tomahawk who's living in the past.

Whatever. I'm voting 25 times for Harper.

I just did. Peavy too.

Went to the Braves-Nats game Sunday with my 4-year-old son. I'm hoping that in the year 2102 he'll be telling the neighborhood kids about the time that he saw Chipper Jones and 19-year-old Bryce Harper BITGOD (and get off my lawn).

I voted 25 times for Peavy, 13 times for Chipper, and 12 times for Harper.

That's the yelp of a beaten tomahawk who's living in the past.

It's not my fault that today's players suck.

So you're saying Aaron Hill doesn't stand a chance, huh ?

I refuse to vote for a forty year old grown man who insists on being called "Chipper" instead of his real name of Larry.

Chipper doesn't really deserve it, does he? Haven't looked that closely but I'm not sure he even deserves to be on the ballot.

The final results:
1. Chipper
2. Freese (!)
3. Harper

EDIT: Sorry, I had meant to say the "final vote" results. Yes, the polls are still open.

No, of course not. He needs a day off like every three or four days and isn't even really close to having the minimum number of qualifying plate appearances.

yeh i remember BITGOD when i took my sons to see baseball games and they WANTED to go too!!! now they disremember roger roy and biggio - they completely lost any teensy bit of interest they had left when they got rid of bourn and bourgeois and yes i know that one is not exactly the same as the other

enjoy it while they still WANT to go

According to this, Chipper has been named as Kemp's replacement. So, if he wins the fan vote, will it then go the the second place guy?

I saw Freese in a commercial (yesterday so the teams were already selected) for the All Star game. It seems odd that he would be featured when he's not even on the team.

Somebody go get Chan Ho Park!

Chipper doesn't really deserve it, does he?

You don't really like baseball, do you?

You don't really like baseball, do you?

I love baseball, which is why I'd rather see the best baseball players in the All-Star Game. If you want to honor Chipper in his final season there are plenty of other ways to do that. It would be different if he were still an All-Star caliber player just having a bad season, but I don't think that's the case.

You'd be okay with a routine All Star who isn't having a good year making the team but not with a HOFer having a very good final year (when healthy)?

I love baseball, which is why I'd rather see the best baseball players in the All-Star Game

Uh, but last time I checked it was still called the ALL-STAR game..not the best players at each position game. I'm with Srul on this, you get the guy on team no matter what.

#### Chipper.

If BBTF had been around in 1975, I'm sure there would have been people complaining that Hank Aaron had no business being on the All-Star team.

You'd be okay with a routine All Star who isn't having a good year making the team but not with a HOFer having a very good final year (when healthy)?

I don't know what a "routine All Star" is, by definition All Stars should not be routine players (unless they're only on the roster because their team needs a representative). I'm not advocating including Aaron Hill, but I can't see any argument for Chipper over Johan Santana or Matt Holliday, just to name two guys who are undeniably "stars" and are having great years but weren't even on the final ballot.

I love baseball, which is why I'd rather see the best baseball players in the All-Star Game.

Why? I mean this isn't gymnastics or even basketball. 99% of the time the guys just stand there off screen doing nothing. I'll pretty much bet anything that the spectacle of this being Chipper's send off will be way more memorable than anything some other final man on the roster would have done in this all-star. It is the all-star game afterall, the boringest game of the year.

If BBTF had been around in 1975, I'm sure there would have been people complaining that Hank Aaron had no business being on the All-Star team.

Chipper ain't Hank, and of course, Aaron didn't actually make the team in his final season. Chipper hasn't been an All-Star caliber player for about four years now, and he already had his equivalent of "Aaron in 1975" last season.

Aaron made the team in 1975 as a DH with a 95 OPS+, which is much worse than Chipper was last season any way you slice it. But you're right, Chipper Jones, Hall of Famer though he may be, is no Henry Aaron. So who is he like, maybe Carl Yastrzemski? Yaz made it as a 43-year-old DH with a 106 OPS+. Brooks Robinson? Robinson made it every year from age 35 to 37, and didn't hit nearly as well in any of those years as Chipper has this year.

One reason there's always so much discussion over who should be on the All-Star team is that no one quite agrees on the definition of "2012 All-Star." But both history and popularity seem to argue for having soon-to-be Hall of Famers on the team. I can't really see the point in arguing for the exclusion of someone who is undeniably a huge star.

Why? I mean this isn't gymnastics or even basketball. 99% of the time the guys just stand there off screen doing nothing. I'll pretty much bet anything that the spectacle of this being Chipper's send off will be way more memorable than anything some other final man on the roster would have done in this all-star.

Maybe I just missed it when Chipper Jones became one of our beloved national treasures? He's certainly had a great career and is a no doubt Hall of Famer, but he's been voted onto the All Star team once in the last decade. I never really got the sense that fans outside of his hometown really liked him; in fact I generally got the sense that he was underrated by mainstream fans during his career. Chipper's good enough that his presence in the game won't be a travesty, but I was just surprised by all of the sudden public adulation. Is this something we do for all great players in their final seasons (looking up Jeff Bagwell, the answer is no)? Like I said, if you want to give him a royal send-off during All Star weekend, that's easy to do without having him take up a roster spot.

I can't really see the point in arguing for the exclusion of someone who is undeniably a huge star.

Well, my point is there are huge stars who are better than Jones who aren't on the roster. I'd be arguing for their inclusion, I agree simply arguing for Chipper's exclusion doesn't make sense.

I don't know what a "routine All Star" is, by definition All Stars should not be routine players (unless they're only on the roster because their team needs a representative).

I mean someone who is routinely good enough to be an All Star. I should have said "All-Star caliber" player.

I can't see any argument for Chipper over Johan Santana or Matt Holliday, just to name two guys who are undeniably "stars" and are having great years but weren't even on the final ballot.

Chipper's having a really good year and this is his final year. That's reason enough to take him over Matt Holliday, who's also having a really good year but is not going into the Hall of Fame in 5 years.

Like I said, if you want to give him a royal send-off during All Star weekend, that's easy to do without having him take up a roster spot.

Given the dross that is taking up roster spots in general, I would rather have Chipper here. And since his "Indian Summer" of 2007-08, a lot more people have realized just how good a player Chipper has been, and for how long.

And hell yes, I'd rather see him than Johan Santana or Matt Holliday.

I am definitely not a Braves fan. However, I do consider Chipper to be about as close to a "national treasure" as any active baseball player. In fact, among those that have never played for the White Sox, Chipper is probably my all-time favorite player.

Chipper had one of the best games of his career tonight...5 hits, a steal, and an amazing defensive play at third (seriously).

Not saying he was quieting the All-Star doubters...but...

And since his "Indian Summer" of 2007-08, a lot more people have realized just how good a player Chipper has been, and for how long.

And without those 2 seasons at ages 35-36, he would have "literally" no black ink at all. With a couple fewer singles in 2008, he loses both the batting title and the OBP title to Pujols. And with a couple fewer hits in 2007, he loses the OPS and OPS+ title to Fielder. And that is the sum total of his black ink. Yes, he's still a HOFer had he fallen a strategically placed handful of hits short in his career, but that's remarkable.

I mean someone who is routinely good enough to be an All Star. I should have said "All-Star caliber" player.

Truly All Star caliber players (i.e. players who are good enough to do it for multiple years, not just one-year wonders) are really good. They are usually potential Hall of Famers. The main difference between "routine All Stars" and "future Hall of Famers" is that the latter kept doing it for a longer period of time.

Given the dross that is taking up roster spots in general, I would rather have Chipper here. And since his "Indian Summer" of 2007-08, a lot more people have realized just how good a player Chipper has been, and for how long.

Perhaps, but each year since then he's been beaten in the All Star voting -- by Wright, then Rolen, and then Sandoval. I can't find the full vote results for this year but Jones finished at best third in the voting this year.

By contrast, looking at the examples from post #28:

- When Aaron made the All-Star game in 1975, he was coming off a run of 20 straight All-Star appearances and 10 straight years being voted in as a starter.
- Brooks Robinson, from 1972-74, was voted in by the fans, and that was part of a 15-year All Star run in which he was voted to start 11 times. In 1983, Yaz
- Yaz, when he made the team in 1983, was coming off a run of 17 All-Star appearances in 20 years.

Those guys who seem to have a better claim on "beloved national treasure" than Chipper Jones. And on the other side of the ledger, we have guys like Craig Biggio (didn't play an AS game in his last 9 seasons), Bagwell (7 seasons), Frank Thomas (11 years), George Brett (5 years), etc. Plenty of great players who didn't get any special treatment in their final seasons.

And hell yes, I'd rather see him than Johan Santana or Matt Holliday.

Why? Not saying your viewpoint is wrong, but just curious why you care about seeing Chipper in the game? I think it's pretty easy to explain why I want to see the best baseball players play in the All Star game, because seeing all of the game's best players in the same game is not something you can see any other time. But you can see Chipper play any night you want, and it's not like he needs the accolades or recognition.

I am not an All-Star Game fan, but I guess it's because Chipper Jones' HOF resume is already more than sufficient, and Santana and Holliday aren't there yet?

Those guys who seem to have a better claim on "beloved national treasure" than Chipper Jones. And on the other side of the ledger, we have guys like Craig Biggio (didn't play an AS game in his last 9 seasons), Bagwell (7 seasons), Frank Thomas (11 years), George Brett (5 years), etc. Plenty of great players who didn't get any special treatment in their final seasons.

In a lot of those cases, it wasn't known that it was a guy's final season when the all-star game was played. If Chipper hadn't announced before the season that he was hanging them up at year's end, there wouldn't be the same kind of push for him here. But since we know this is the last time a sure-fire Hall of Famer could play in the all-star game, it's natural to want to see him suit up. And I'm sure many of those guys you mention would have gotten similar pushes if the circumstances were similar.

And without those 2 seasons at ages 35-36, he would have "literally" no black ink at all. With a couple fewer singles in 2008, he loses both the batting title and the OBP title to Pujols. And with a couple fewer hits in 2007, he loses the OPS and OPS+ title to Fielder. And that is the sum total of his black ink. Yes, he's still a HOFer had he fallen a strategically placed handful of hits short in his career, but that's remarkable.

And if he played his whole career in Coors Field he'd have like 600 homeruns.

He's a third baseman, who spent most of his career in a league with Bonds and Pujols. It's not remotely surprising that he didn't lead the league very often in the major categories.

And his 1999 was an all-time great season regardless of whether it produced any black ink.

Truly All Star caliber players (i.e. players who are good enough to do it for multiple years, not just one-year wonders) are really good.

Yes they are. In #20, are you saying you would rather see one having a bad season in the All Star Game than a HOFer having a good season? Because that what it reads like to me.

Well, Chipper's in for Matt Kemp now so go vote for Harper without reservation.

It's not remotely surprising that he didn't lead the league very often in the major categories.

Actually, it is. Look, I'm not dissing the guy. Of course he's a no brainer HOFer. But he came 'this close' to never having any black ink. How many HOFers, other than VC middle infielders and catchers, can say that?

Yogi Berra never had any black ink at all. He finished second once in RBIs.

Yogi Berra never had any black ink at all. He finished second once in RBIs.

I believe he was a catcher. I might be wrong.

I couldn't tell whether you meant "VC middle infielders and VC catchers," or "VC middle infielders and any catchers." I thought it was the former.

#40, I'm saying that I'd rather see a guy who is an everyday 140-150 OPS+ talent but happens to be putting up a 120 and maybe missed some time with an injury, than a guy who has a HOF resume but is now a 120 OPS+ talent and can't play everyday.

If Chipper hadn't announced before the season that he was hanging them up at year's end, there wouldn't be the same kind of push for him here.

Fair enough, but everyone knew he was retiring when they voted in the fan vote, right? He still didn't do that well, which is why I was surprised by the attitude here.

I am not an All-Star Game fan, but I guess it's because Chipper Jones' HOF resume is already more than sufficient, and Santana and Holliday aren't there yet?

But again, so what? Chipper's had a HOF resume for years. That's what his HOF induction will be for. A-Rod, Pujols, and Jim Thome also have HOF resumes at this point too but I don't think any of them made the team this year...

Understandable. The latter.

#40, I'm saying that I'd rather see a guy who is an everyday 140-150 OPS+ talent but happens to be putting up a 120 and maybe missed some time with an injury, than a guy who has a HOF resume but is now a 120 OPS+ talent and can't play everyday.

Fair enough, although I'd say we don't know if a player who fits the former is actually now the latter.

Fair enough, but everyone knew he was retiring when they voted in the fan vote, right? He still didn't do that well, which is why I was surprised by the attitude here.

Well, he is leading the final vote. Do we know how many votes behind Sandoval he was?

How many HOFers, other than VC middle infielders and catchers, can say that?

Among non-catcher BBWAA inductees, just eyeballing them...

Barry Larkin has no black ink; he's a middle infielder. It's unclear whether VC is intended as a descriptor to middle infielders in your question or a separate category. Similarly, Ozzie Smith led the league in at bats once, and that's it.

Among players at harder-hitting positions, Pie Traynor led the league in triples once and sac bunts twice. The aforementioned Brooks Robinson led in RBI once, and no other major categories (minor ones include AB once, GDP twice, and sac flies 4 times).

Of course, they were still both defensive aces. But then, Dave Winfield led the league in RBI, total bases, and OPS+ all in the same year, and never in anything else. Eddie Murray led in HR and RBI in a strike year, BB and OBP in a different year, and if you want to count them, IBB three times, with nothing else. Tony Perez led the league in GDP once and nothing else.

So it's been done before.

But again, so what? Chipper's had a HOF resume for years. That's what his HOF induction will be for. A-Rod, Pujols, and Jim Thome also have HOF resumes at this point too but I don't think any of them made the team this year...

I'd be happy to see Pujols and Jim Thome in the All-Star game this year. They're big stars. (I'd rather not see any Yankee at any time, anywhere.) It makes much more sense to me to have guys like that in the game than the flashes in the pan like Bryan LaHair and Ryan Cook.

It seems like they used to rely a lot less on current-season stats in picking the team, and a lot more on reputation. Willie Mays was hitting .280 with 9 homers at the halfway point in 1969, but he still made the All-Star team. And well he should have: He's Willie Mays. Al Kaline was hitting .251 with 4 homers at the break in 1974, but still made the team.