Feature photo courtesy of Bryce Edwards.

I’ve always felt the MLB All-Star Game was the best in North American professional sports because it was the only game of its kind that meant something. In the NFL, the players who feel like showing up hardly make contact with one another, instead opting to play a half-spirited game of rough touch. Defense is a sin in the NBA and NHL, as this year’s contests both broke scoring records by ending 163-158 and 17-12, respectively. But MLB’s midseason celebration of the game’s best was different.

Players seem to understand the honor that comes with being named an All-Star. The league’s long history plays a big role in that distinction. Today’s players grew up watching Derek Jeter, who watched Cal Ripken, who watched Hank Aaron, who watched Ted Williams. For a long time, pride played an active role in the competition, as everyone wanted to prove either the American League or National League was superior, back in the days before interleague play.

When winning became less important, former commissioner Bud Selig decided to make the game worth home field advantage in the World Series. The unprecedented incentive has stuck since the 2003 contest, and even if it provides potentially season-deciding weight to one summer exhibition game, I’ve supported it because it’s kept players fighting for something, making the contest competitive and watchable.

But after the events leading up to the creation of this year’s rosters, I’m questioning the system. There are a lot of moving parts in this machine, with a fan vote naming offensive starters, reserves being selected by other players and the managers in charge of each squad, and then another fan vote for the last player to make the roster. The Kansas City Royals, through their fans and manager Ned Yost, have pointed out the major flaws in this process.

The Royals fanbase stuffed ballots in masses this season, putting the team in position to place eight All-Stars in the 10-man starting lineup. Those eight Royals led until about a week before the rosters were officialized, and it took 60 million all-Royal ballots being disregarded by Commissioner Rob Manfred and a national voting push to limit Kansas City to four starters. In the end, the Royals chosen were fair picks: Salvador Perez is the best catcher in the AL; Alex Gordon and Lorenzo Cain are outstanding outfield gloves; and Alcides Escobar is a fairly good player at the AL’s weakest position, shortstop.

It was the players who nearly started who first got everyone thinking: Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Kendrys Morales and Omar Infante. The first three players on that list have had respectable years, albeit not exactly worthy of starting over the league’s best. Infante, on the other hand, is one of the AL’s worst players, if not the worst. His offense makes him half as competent as a league-average player, according to Baseball Reference’s OPS+ metric.

The rest of Yost’s All-Star roster really got the ball rolling for me. Kelvin Herrera’s inclusion was not necessarily unwarranted, but it was unexpected. Herrera may be one of the game’s better relievers for the sport’s best bullpen, but he’s the seventh-inning guy, and most relievers in the All-Star game are closers and sometimes eighth-inning setup men. It’s no coincidence Herrera plays for Yost’s Royals: The manager was throwing him a bone for his work on the team over the last year and a half. Ditto for NL manager Bruce Bochy and his selection of his Giants second baseman, Joe Panik. Yes, Panik has put together a nice season, but is he as good as Howie Kendrick or Kolten Wong? Probably not, and if winning the game is the top objective, Panik is a misfire.

Panik’s roster spot doesn’t necessarily have to be given to a second baseman; it can be filled by anyone. The loaded NL Final Vote field promises snubs, even though at least four of the candidates are inarguably better than Panik (Jeurys Familia is a reliever and harder to compare). You simply can’t tell me the NL roster would be stronger with Panik than Troy Tulowitzki, Clayton Kershaw, Johnny Cueto or Carlos Martinez.

The arbitrary rule that every team needs a representative steals more roster spots. The idea is to give every fanbase something to watch, but how many Phillies and Brewers fans are going to be convinced to watch the game just because closers Jonathan Papelbon and Francisco Rodriguez are there?

“I wasn’t going to watch the All-Star Game, but then I was told the closer for my 29-58 team might have a small chance of pitching a third of an inning, so I changed my mind,” an imaginary fan said.

Plus, wouldn’t Tulowitzki, Kershaw and Cueto be more appealing to fans across the country than Panik, Papelbon and Rodriguez anyway? We’re talking about baseball’s best shortstop, best pitcher and a hometown ace and comparing their appeal to a sophomore, one of the league’s least likable players and a small-market closer.

Which leads us to the all-important question: What is the true purpose of this game? Is it for fans to fawn over their favorite players or to determine World Series home field advantage? Is it about positive name recognition or winning with whatever players can best get the job done? It seems to be getting harder to have both.

If it’s about winning, Alex Rodriguez would be playing. But as a fan, I don’t want him anywhere near Cincinnati. If it’s about the fans, Yost doesn’t include Red Sox utility man Brock Holt and limits the number of relievers he includes on the team, with Herrera and Orioles setup man Darren O’Day being the first cuts. Relievers aren’t as exciting to fans, unless Mariano Rivera is in his last All-Star game or Aroldis Chapman is breaking out his 100-plus mph heat. But in terms of late-game strategy, Holt is a great fit because he can play whatever position is needed, and O’Day is dominant in the final few innings.

Maybe the fans can’t be trusted to create the roster most likely to clinch home advantage. Royals voting machines have already been called out, and I admit I shamelessly picked Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant as starters, even though Paul Goldschmidt and Nolan Arenado were the better selections. Giving the manager of the All-Star squads might not be working either, as favoritism can run rampant (it is a little suspicious that Panik and Madison Bumgarner are on the team and Dodgers rivals Kendrick and Kershaw aren’t, right?). Mandatory representation from every team further weakens the All-Star rosters, and I personally would rather not have a sad lone wolf there who doesn’t even find the field (Travis Wood for the 66-96 2013 Cubs comes to mind). It can be more of an embarrassment than an honor for a losing fanbase.

The Royals may have brought baseball’s All-Star Game to a crossroads. Which direction should the event head in: appeasing the fans or winning with the best rosters? If it’s done right, fans can be happy because they’re watching the best teams compete. It will take an overhaul of the current system and an unbiased selection process, but the effort is worth it to preserve the Midsummer Classic.