[molson]

I think its OK if the All-Star game is a popularity context. That is, if it includes the biggest stars in the game regardless of how they're doing this season. I think that was the original intention of the game. Because making the team doesn't really work as a merits-based award when only, at best, half the season is considered, and hell, voting actually starts in late April. So if it should strictly be a performance based thing, which seems to be the majority view these days, its really only somewhere between a few weeks and a few months' worth of performance. Not really anything to get worked up over. I'd say leave the awards that matter for the end of the season when performance for an actual whole season can be considered, and let the All-Star game be a fun exhibition with the games' biggest stars.

But, this Royals thing has strayed hilariously even from a popularity-contest ideal, because these aren't close to the biggest stars in the game. Considering how easy it is to vote hundreds of times, the fact that there's only double the usual total votes (as opposed to say, 100X), makes me lean towards an newly enthusiastic fanbase rather than a bot. You don't need a huge fanbase to double the vote total when individual fans can legit vote as often as they want. Most regular fans stopped caring about the All-Star game and voting a long time ago. I buy that the Royals fans are the only ones that care in any large number.