darthska
Staff member
- 44,607
- 28,263
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
How can the NBA Solve the debacle that is All-Star selection??
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by mrmoneyindabank,
- Start date
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,704
- 16,219
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
Yep.
I get that it's for the fans and it's supposed to be their game and they want to see certain fan favorites in there, but I'd much rather see an even split between fans, coaches, and players.
Sure it's great to see all the fan favorites year after year, but what about the guys who are having great, once in a career type seasons, they often get overlooked.
- 3,831
- 59
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
josh smith should be lookin at al horford, not gerald wallace.
- 157,132
- 137,000
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
OP OBVIOUSLY doesn't know who Gerald Wallace is
- 1,759
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
Like I said before, Pierce and Horford should not be on the team while Lopez and Lee should. Those two deserve it more than Josh Smith, IMO... Smith's numbers are good but not as good as Lopez's and Lee's.
- 19,391
- 899
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
Originally Posted by JAYFIEND
Ya'll need to calm down, It's not even that serious.
- 1,500
- 13
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- 21
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2001
No matter how or who they select as all stars someone willcomplain and make a case for a player that was left off.
- 74
- 14
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
fan voting is fixed anyways... the david stern cartel rules the nba world
- 2,328
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
Crash > the 2 players OP listed...
- 9,622
- 783
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
Updated: January 29, 2010, 12:15 PM ET
[h2]Smith got hosed in All-Star selections[/h2][h3]PER Diem: Jan. 29, 2010[/h3]
Comment http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-100129#/sendtofriend.espn.go.com/sendtofriend/SendToFriend?URL=http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insi...hn&page=PERDiem-100129&title=Hollinger: Hawks">http://sendtofriend.espn....title=H...le,noscrollbars,width=400,height=500');return false;">Email Print http:///a.espncdn.com/icons/share-icon-12x12.png)">http://a.espncdn.com/icons/share-icon-12x12.png) no-repeat scroll left top; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" rel="nofollow">Share
By John Hollinger
ESPN.com
Archive
Scott Cunningham/NBAE/Getty ImagesJosh Smith may be the Hawks' best player this season. So why isn't he making the trip to Dallas?
Whenit comes to critiquing Thursday's All-Star reserve selections, let'sstart with the positive: The coaches got it mostly right. In theWestern Conference, they chose the six no-brainers and then made thedefensible decision to add Pau Gasol over Chauncey Billups and Carlos Boozer. Billups should keep his cell phone handy; if Brandon Roy is unable to perform because of his nagging hamstring injury, one presumes he'll be chosen as the replacement.
In the East, they also made six strong choices. I would have gone with David Lee over Al Horfordas the backup center, but I can understand Horford's case -- he hasmore defensive value, he's having a good season, and he seriouslyoutplayed Lee in their three head-to-head meetings. And while DerrickRose's full-season stats fall short of typical All-Star standards, hewas so good over the last month and has such a clear reason for thesubpar play beforehand (a preseason ankle injury) that I can'tstrenuously argue against his selection.
Plus, the Easterncoaches officially distanced themselves from the ludicrous positionthat the team with the best record automatically gets two All-Stars,limiting the conference-leading Cavs to one. It's perfectly reasonablethat a team could post the best record while having only one of the 12best players in the conference, especially if that one happens to bethe best player in the world. Sorry, Mo Williams, but others deserved that spot more.
Unfortunately, the one error the coaches made was a whopper: omitting Josh Smith.I'd be hard-pressed to name another occasion when the best player on ateam that's on pace for 50-plus wins didn't make the All-Star team --much less when two less-deserving teammates made it over him.
Normally, when All-Star arguments pop up, the thing to do is to pick out the most marginal selection (Rose, perhaps, or Gerald Wallace), and craft an argument that the player you support is more deserving. You can construct a case for several snubees that way.
However, Smith's case is far more ironclad. I'm not saying he's better than somebody who made the All-Star team; I'm saying he's better than nearly everybody who made it as a reserve. Chris Boshwas the only reserve choice who has played better than Smith thisseason; the others fall demonstrably short. In a conference in whicheight of the 12 selections had a PER under 20 (compared to the mightyWest, where every player cleared 20), Smith somehow fell short despitea PER of 22.02 and a strong case for the All-Defense team.
What'sso vexing is that he met all the "rules" coaches have arbitrarily setwith past precedents: He's a key player on a winning team, he has amultidimensional game, and he has established he's not a flash in thepan. And, as noted before, the bar in the Eastern Conference isn'treally high these days.
So how is it possible that Smith was left off the Eastern roster? I can pinpoint four reasons:
1. The "best player" perception problem
Our definition of a team's "best player" is incredibly narrow. Somehowthe operative description has become "the player who gets the ball inlast-second half-court offensive situations." That's an absurdlylimited way to look at the game, yet many otherwise intelligent peoplemake the mistake of equating "last-second isolation play" value with aplayer's overall worth.
This proved damning for Smith, obviously, because Atlanta's go-to option in such cases is Joe Johnson,who made the team with hardly a dissenting vote. I mean no disrespectto Johnson, who at worst has been the third-best guard in the EasternConference over the first half of the season, but talk to anyone whohas been following the Hawks this season and they'll tell you there'sjust no way anyone but Smith has been the team's best player.
Smithhasn't scored as much as Johnson, but he creates a lot of shots for afrontcourt player and is vastly underrated as a distributor; among bigmen, only Lamar Odom and Marcus Cambyhave a better pure point rating. He also anchors the defense, rankingthird in the NBA in blocks, and has the quickness to switch onto guardson the perimeter, enabling the Hawks' "switch everything" defensiveapproach.
2. Checking boxes
The corollary to the coach's unwillingness to put anybody from a losingteam on the squad is that a .500 record magically propels marginalcandidates to the front of the line.
Butas a practical matter, there's very little difference between, say,Charlotte's 21-22 record when coaches submitted their ballots and 19-24… just switch the result of two of their four wins by two points orless, and you're there.
Such a record wouldn't have changedGerald Wallace's production or impact one iota, but I guarantee you hewouldn't have come anywhere near making the All-Star team if the latterrecord had been attached next to his name.
Wallace is having afine season, but neither he nor Rose has been in Smith's league.Unfortunately, including those two players allowed the coaches to have"representation" from each of the top eight teams in the East … andhelped crowd Smith out of the four potential slots available for aforward.
3. Reputations
Despite their success this season, the Hawks aren't yet a marquee teamthat gets a lot of TV dates. Without that, old perceptions take longerto die. That applies not just to the perception that Johnson is theHawks' star, but also the one that Smith is a bit of a knucklehead.
Thelast time many coaches saw him on the tube was when he was trying abetween-the-legs dunk in Game 5 of Atlanta's first-round playoff serieswith Miami last season, and that created a negative impression among agroup of folks who don't take kindly to such shenanigans. Such viewsoffset the positive impact of a stellar 20-point, eight-rebound,four-assist, two-block, two-steal performance in a key playoff game.
This factor applies in reverse to some other players. Boston's Paul Pierce,for instance, hasn't been anywhere near as effective as Smith has beenthis season. But he's built up enough of a reputation with the coachesthat the perception of his being an All-Star remains. As a result, thecoaches comfortably chose Pierce and Wallace for the forward spots ontheir ballots even though Smith had handily outplayed both.(Incidentally, this decision also leaves the East roster seriouslyshort of size for a second straight All-Star Game.)
4. Fan voting
Yes, the fan vote almost certainly hurt Smith, but not the one you think. Allen Iversonprobably had no impact on Smith, even though the Eastern coaches tookthree guards as reserves instead of just two. If Iverson had stayed inMemphis and if his votes had counted in the West, the player with thenext-most votes was Orlando's Vince Carter; after him came Boston's Ray Allen. So no matter what, an undeserving player would have earned one of the East's starting guard spots.
But Kevin Garnett'smaking it as a starter almost certainly cost Smith his spot. Garnettwas unlikely to make the team otherwise, and Bosh was the next playerin the voting. If Bosh had been voted as a starter, and thus not beenon the list of reserve choices, I think it's likely Smith was the nextplayer on the list for several coaches who didn't include him.
Alltold, it was a perfect storm of events that conspired to keep a clearlydeserving player off the team, despite his appearing to clear all thehurdles that coaches have arbitrarily placed on All-Star picks. If aninjury crops up, Smith is the clear and obvious choice to add to theroster (with apologies to Lee); but until or unless that happens, Smithseems set to go down as one of the worst All-Star snubs in recent NBAhistory.
[h2]Smith got hosed in All-Star selections[/h2][h3]PER Diem: Jan. 29, 2010[/h3]
Comment http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-100129#/sendtofriend.espn.go.com/sendtofriend/SendToFriend?URL=http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insi...hn&page=PERDiem-100129&title=Hollinger: Hawks">http://sendtofriend.espn....title=H...le,noscrollbars,width=400,height=500');return false;">Email Print http:///a.espncdn.com/icons/share-icon-12x12.png)">http://a.espncdn.com/icons/share-icon-12x12.png) no-repeat scroll left top; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;" rel="nofollow">Share
By John HollingerESPN.com
Archive
Whenit comes to critiquing Thursday's All-Star reserve selections, let'sstart with the positive: The coaches got it mostly right. In theWestern Conference, they chose the six no-brainers and then made thedefensible decision to add Pau Gasol over Chauncey Billups and Carlos Boozer. Billups should keep his cell phone handy; if Brandon Roy is unable to perform because of his nagging hamstring injury, one presumes he'll be chosen as the replacement.
In the East, they also made six strong choices. I would have gone with David Lee over Al Horfordas the backup center, but I can understand Horford's case -- he hasmore defensive value, he's having a good season, and he seriouslyoutplayed Lee in their three head-to-head meetings. And while DerrickRose's full-season stats fall short of typical All-Star standards, hewas so good over the last month and has such a clear reason for thesubpar play beforehand (a preseason ankle injury) that I can'tstrenuously argue against his selection.
Plus, the Easterncoaches officially distanced themselves from the ludicrous positionthat the team with the best record automatically gets two All-Stars,limiting the conference-leading Cavs to one. It's perfectly reasonablethat a team could post the best record while having only one of the 12best players in the conference, especially if that one happens to bethe best player in the world. Sorry, Mo Williams, but others deserved that spot more.
Unfortunately, the one error the coaches made was a whopper: omitting Josh Smith.I'd be hard-pressed to name another occasion when the best player on ateam that's on pace for 50-plus wins didn't make the All-Star team --much less when two less-deserving teammates made it over him.
Normally, when All-Star arguments pop up, the thing to do is to pick out the most marginal selection (Rose, perhaps, or Gerald Wallace), and craft an argument that the player you support is more deserving. You can construct a case for several snubees that way.
However, Smith's case is far more ironclad. I'm not saying he's better than somebody who made the All-Star team; I'm saying he's better than nearly everybody who made it as a reserve. Chris Boshwas the only reserve choice who has played better than Smith thisseason; the others fall demonstrably short. In a conference in whicheight of the 12 selections had a PER under 20 (compared to the mightyWest, where every player cleared 20), Smith somehow fell short despitea PER of 22.02 and a strong case for the All-Defense team.
What'sso vexing is that he met all the "rules" coaches have arbitrarily setwith past precedents: He's a key player on a winning team, he has amultidimensional game, and he has established he's not a flash in thepan. And, as noted before, the bar in the Eastern Conference isn'treally high these days.
So how is it possible that Smith was left off the Eastern roster? I can pinpoint four reasons:
1. The "best player" perception problem
Our definition of a team's "best player" is incredibly narrow. Somehowthe operative description has become "the player who gets the ball inlast-second half-court offensive situations." That's an absurdlylimited way to look at the game, yet many otherwise intelligent peoplemake the mistake of equating "last-second isolation play" value with aplayer's overall worth.
This proved damning for Smith, obviously, because Atlanta's go-to option in such cases is Joe Johnson,who made the team with hardly a dissenting vote. I mean no disrespectto Johnson, who at worst has been the third-best guard in the EasternConference over the first half of the season, but talk to anyone whohas been following the Hawks this season and they'll tell you there'sjust no way anyone but Smith has been the team's best player.
Smithhasn't scored as much as Johnson, but he creates a lot of shots for afrontcourt player and is vastly underrated as a distributor; among bigmen, only Lamar Odom and Marcus Cambyhave a better pure point rating. He also anchors the defense, rankingthird in the NBA in blocks, and has the quickness to switch onto guardson the perimeter, enabling the Hawks' "switch everything" defensiveapproach.
2. Checking boxes
The corollary to the coach's unwillingness to put anybody from a losingteam on the squad is that a .500 record magically propels marginalcandidates to the front of the line.
Butas a practical matter, there's very little difference between, say,Charlotte's 21-22 record when coaches submitted their ballots and 19-24… just switch the result of two of their four wins by two points orless, and you're there.
Such a record wouldn't have changedGerald Wallace's production or impact one iota, but I guarantee you hewouldn't have come anywhere near making the All-Star team if the latterrecord had been attached next to his name.
Wallace is having afine season, but neither he nor Rose has been in Smith's league.Unfortunately, including those two players allowed the coaches to have"representation" from each of the top eight teams in the East … andhelped crowd Smith out of the four potential slots available for aforward.
3. Reputations
Despite their success this season, the Hawks aren't yet a marquee teamthat gets a lot of TV dates. Without that, old perceptions take longerto die. That applies not just to the perception that Johnson is theHawks' star, but also the one that Smith is a bit of a knucklehead.
Thelast time many coaches saw him on the tube was when he was trying abetween-the-legs dunk in Game 5 of Atlanta's first-round playoff serieswith Miami last season, and that created a negative impression among agroup of folks who don't take kindly to such shenanigans. Such viewsoffset the positive impact of a stellar 20-point, eight-rebound,four-assist, two-block, two-steal performance in a key playoff game.
This factor applies in reverse to some other players. Boston's Paul Pierce,for instance, hasn't been anywhere near as effective as Smith has beenthis season. But he's built up enough of a reputation with the coachesthat the perception of his being an All-Star remains. As a result, thecoaches comfortably chose Pierce and Wallace for the forward spots ontheir ballots even though Smith had handily outplayed both.(Incidentally, this decision also leaves the East roster seriouslyshort of size for a second straight All-Star Game.)
4. Fan voting
Yes, the fan vote almost certainly hurt Smith, but not the one you think. Allen Iversonprobably had no impact on Smith, even though the Eastern coaches tookthree guards as reserves instead of just two. If Iverson had stayed inMemphis and if his votes had counted in the West, the player with thenext-most votes was Orlando's Vince Carter; after him came Boston's Ray Allen. So no matter what, an undeserving player would have earned one of the East's starting guard spots.
But Kevin Garnett'smaking it as a starter almost certainly cost Smith his spot. Garnettwas unlikely to make the team otherwise, and Bosh was the next playerin the voting. If Bosh had been voted as a starter, and thus not beenon the list of reserve choices, I think it's likely Smith was the nextplayer on the list for several coaches who didn't include him.
Alltold, it was a perfect storm of events that conspired to keep a clearlydeserving player off the team, despite his appearing to clear all thehurdles that coaches have arbitrarily placed on All-Star picks. If aninjury crops up, Smith is the clear and obvious choice to add to theroster (with apologies to Lee); but until or unless that happens, Smithseems set to go down as one of the worst All-Star snubs in recent NBAhistory.
xtapolapacetl
Banned
- 6,841
- 126
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
I know Lee averages more ppg and shoots a higher percentage.
In a much more face paced offense that inflates stats. I also know that Wallace is on a .500 team, unlike Lee. And he's also a DPOY contender. Different people keep pointing out how wrong you are for questioning Gerald's all-star worthiness, but you try to come with some counter-arguments that don't work.
- 3,740
- 216
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
you don't think gerald wallace deserves to be an all-star?
- 1,964
- 141
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2003
i doubt that people always vote for somebody that shouldnt be there
but i rather see A.I. though he doesnt deserve it
im glad they didnt try to find a way to put that bum shaq in the game
- 26,898
- 383
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
There was a problem with Iverson getting in & possibly Mac, but besides that, it was fine. Every year there are snubs, it will ALWAYS be like that. I think it fine... The game is for the fans, let them vote.
- 1,500
- 13
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
In a much more face paced offense that inflates stats. I also know that Wallace is on a .500 team, unlike Lee. And he's also a DPOY contender. Different people keep pointing out how wrong you are for questioning Gerald's all-star worthiness, but you try to come with some counter-arguments that don't work.
The New York Knicks offense inflates stats? Riiiiight. If you botherd to read the thread an not just comment you'd see I said comparing Lee to Wallace is like splitting hairs.
- 7,309
- 3,922
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
First of all, for those that are saying it ISNT that serious bc its just an All Star game and its just a fun meaningless game..its more than just the game here. I do agree...the all star GAME itself is for the fans. BUT...its the title of an "ALL STAR" that is at stakes here. David Lee could've been "3-time All Star David Lee" oppose to just "David Lee" who never made an all star game.
When we think of players...we consider their resume. We often take All Star selections into consideration when comparing player a with b.
Secondly, the 1/3 idea (fans/coaches/players) seem to be a great idea. I agree with OP and think something should be done as well.
When we think of players...we consider their resume. We often take All Star selections into consideration when comparing player a with b.
Secondly, the 1/3 idea (fans/coaches/players) seem to be a great idea. I agree with OP and think something should be done as well.
- 954
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
Josh Smith was def. robbed. He should have made it over Horford. I also think David Lee was robbed big time too. I knew he was having a good season but I just looked up his game logs and WOW, he has been putting up amazing numbers.
The Homer inside of me says Monta over Zach Randolph but I understand theres just way too many guards in the West but I would have maybe put Ellis over Brandon Roy - Ellis is having a hell of a year.
The Homer inside of me says Monta over Zach Randolph but I understand theres just way too many guards in the West but I would have maybe put Ellis over Brandon Roy - Ellis is having a hell of a year.
- 27,986
- 9,077
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
Thats definitely the homer in you bro. No way Monta deserves it over ZBo. No freakin chance. In fact, he doesnt deserve it over Roy either. Its just a shame that a players team has so much to do with it, and the fact that the conferences are so uneven.
- 8,139
- 88
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
same question gets asked every year, its not gonna happen
The NBA isn't going change anything
The NBA isn't going change anything
- 1,736
- 25
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
This.
And I don't believe a veto system is a good idea. It's an honor to be an All-Star, and if you're named to be an All-Star, you're on the team. To be taken off the team because coaches don't deem you deserving looks bad.
I say 1/2 Fan Vote, 1/2 Player vote for starters. Keep the reserves they way they are.
And I don't believe that fans would not watch the ASG if they didn't have a say in voting. I'm sure the first couple of years would be rough because people would be upset they couldn't vote, so I say slowly integrate them out or take away their power to fully vote in starters.
OR we could limit how they vote. Online voting makes it a mess.
- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
I know Lee averages more ppg and shoots a higher percentage.
your talking about a small forward and a center though.....
theprocessofbelief
Banned
- 4,967
- 11
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
Garnett and Iverson being starters is ridiculous.
- 417
- 36
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
Originally Posted by MrMoneyInDaBank
Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Don't chop up half a statement. I said they shouldn't be on and Lee and Josh Smith not. Slow your roll.
EDIT: You're right about A.I. though definitely.
- 21,877
- 15,975
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
Nobody would stop watching if they couldn't vote. Besides, it would only change about 4-5 guys out of the whole 24 anyways. It would just prevent travesties like AI and KG where guys get in on reputation and name recognition alone. You can say it's a fan's game, the fans voted for who they want to see, but how many times have fans voted in injured players into the game? They didn't want to see Grant Hill or Alonzo Mourning, who couldn't even play in a regular game at the time, play in the game. They just picked the first 5 names on each team they recognized.
I agree with the 1/3 proposal, or even making you have to have a login and can only vote 1nce or any kind of authentication. Even more serious, what if you had to pass some sort of test or answer a trivia question proving you have a minimal level of nba knowledge first?
I agree with the 1/3 proposal, or even making you have to have a login and can only vote 1nce or any kind of authentication. Even more serious, what if you had to pass some sort of test or answer a trivia question proving you have a minimal level of nba knowledge first?