It seems like everyone else has an opinion on the All-Star Game, so why not me.

The short version is, I like it. I think it's fun, even if it is "irrelevant" in the grand scheme. The game itself and the skills competition are varying degrees of silly, but it doesn't really bother me. The fact that perennial All-Stars beg off actually showing up, to recuperate from whatever, doesn't bother me either. I like that the guys who do show up, especially the first-timers, seem genuinely excited and honoured to be a part of it. It's one of those things that make seem superstar athletes seem more real (nothing humanizes a person quite like humility, imho).

I'm a lot less enamoured with the YoungStars game. I think that format is better suited for basketball or baseball, mainly because forwards and defencemen develop at such different rates. Just look at the rosters: virtually all the forwards are already genuine Top-6 quality guys, in some cases worthy of being in the grown-ups game; the defensemen are mostly guys who are (or should be) platooned into the 3rd pair. Not to slag the individual D chosen, but at this point they're just not at the same level as the forwards. (Or, maybe Magic Beans Smid will break up a bunch of Malkin/Vanek 2-on-1's, and I'll look like an idiot.)

For the most part, though, this is all just a matter of taste. I certainly understand the take of many "serious" fans that don't care and won't watch. If there's one major element of the criticism that I think is objectively wrong, though, it's the bit about how it's just a big put-on for the corporate crowd, and that this is a bad thing (example: Dowbiggin).

No. This is a good thing. Everyone's always on the NHL to market their product better, so why is a "corporate schmooze" getting a hard time? Decisions by major corporations on sponsorship are made on the basis of all sorts of objective factors (size of target audience, demographics, tie-in opportunities, etc. etc.), but the fact is that in the end, they are made by humans who act for these corporations. Getting these humans to an event like the All-Star game, where they can meet players, have fun, see their abilities up close, and maybe decide that NHL hockey is pretty cool, is a terrific idea.

There's another reason why the ASG is good marketing; bear with me for a second here. Hockey has the same problem as most sports, but to a greater degree: national TV viewership is heavily dependent on what 2 cities are involved in the game. The NHL had trouble selling their national rights, and in fact are being paid by NBC on a profit-sharing basis. In the 30 individual markets, though, we haven't really seen this; even in some of the lousier NHL cities, they have a decently lucrative TV deal.

What this means, roughly: the much-discussed "casual hockey fan" is not someone who checks out the NHL once in a while but can take it or leave it. She is actually a fan of one of the 30 teams, and keeps up with that team at the rink or on TV/radio, but does not watch the NHL otherwise. In other words: she's already a hockey fan.

One of the ways she might change her habits (increase her NHL consumption) is if the NBC game involves a player who has impressed her; one of the obvious ways this might happen is from watching the All-Star game, where (A) one of her players is in it and (B) there are likely to be impressive individual performances. I realize that there's 15+ years of declining TV ratings proving me wrong, but there you go.

Addendum: it's just reality that, especially in the U.S., hockey fandom is tightly tied to individual teams. I happen to think the fact that the NHL (and most pundits) treat this like a bug rather than a feature is a big part of their problem, but that's a whole other post.