Just isolating the sport of baseball here, what on equal levels would you consider more prestigeous winning a World Series or All Star team? The politically correct answer you'd get from players I think would be wiining a world series. The interesting variableis that the all star game does have some signficance though with home field advantage and it is not viewed as a competition rather than guys going through the motions like Kruk did in the 1990's.

However, assuming everything equal, think about these points.
Guys that had pedestrian careers and showed up in the post season would be a strong argument against ALL star selection being more prestegious for example Jim Leyritz, Mark Lemke, or even Kirk Gibson who himself had a very sound career, but is known for a WS moment. What do you think Bill Buckner thinks is better?

-Winning 7 world series' would not guarantee a player a hall of fame induction, 7 all star games would make you much more strongly considered ; i.e. Paul Molitor was a 7x time all star

-My fav player Mr. Hinske was in 3 consecutive WS, winning 2 of them with NYY and Boston, one of the handful of players to do that all time in BOS and NY. Also, only Don Baylor was the only other player to play on 3 different WS teams in 3 straight years in MLB history. A quirky tidbit, but true. With EH though, I think more fans know him for being Rookie of the Year (also an individualized award), the number of ROY auto's of his on the market out weigh the WS signed balls of his on the market, largely becuase of him being a role player on all 3 WS teams.

- MLB is not the like the NFL, where the main judgment is winning a Super Bowl. MLB is individual stat based and winning a WS isn't held against you. Actually, another favorite of mine, DON MATTINGLY never played in a WS, and in some way, I believe it helped his appeal to Yankee fans. I also think more fans know the last 5 all star game MVP's before they will know the last 5 pro bowl MVP's.


- A drawback against the arguement for All Star being more prestigeous than a WS, is the 58 players are elected to the all star game each year. WS has a firm 25 man roster, so 50 would be the limit with no inguries.

- Think of the end of the roster guys on a WS team compared to the back end roster guys on the all star game (the Robert fick type guys that get on because each team needs a representative).

- Each WS is not the same for each player, most all star games are all prestigeous. Take for example Jose Canseco and being deemed a 2000 World Series Champion. He down played it and felt the Yankees got him, so he wouldn't hit against them. I am not saying that is true but Jose believed that and is not really viewed at a true yankee. Jose is probably more proud of his 1989 WS championship than 2000. Didn't Grey Flannel even sell of his 2000 WS ring a few years ago, come to think of it?

---

Like I said, I think the PC answer players would give would be a WS, because by saying All star game, there would be a lot of fans that would not think that player is a "team" player and only cares about himself and his own acheivements, etc.

This would be interesting to get a TRUE 100% honest answer from a ball player that never had won a WS or gone to an AS game and was at the end of his career.

Would you rather go to the All star game and play or be a role player on a world series team and go 0-3 with 3 K's over the entire series and have your team win it and be a role player throughout the season with nothing very memorable?

I also think from a player's POV that an all star selection can be celebrated more in the moment with their family and friends.

---

And as a fan what would you rather have your team win the WS or your favorite player go the all star game. I think the overwhelming majority would choose a WS win for their team even over their fav player even being an all star game MVP.