Edgy DC wrote: See, I don't think there's any rule, nor should be, that says the best guys over the first few months have to be the All-Star team. you're entitled to that opinion, what you're not entitled to do (well, you are, but not if you want to avoid being justifiably ridiculed) is say that one guy doesn't belong on the team because of his past bad numbers while another guy doesnt deserve a spot for what he did good in the past, which is it? does the past matter or not?