PDA

View Full Version : Define "All Star"



Swashcuff
02-08-2010, 07:45 PM
First off let me begin by saying this is about the reserves NOT the starters whom were voted upon by the fans. What is the criteria for being an "All Star" in the NBA? I don't 100% agree with the notion that to become and "All Star" reserve has to be on a winning team. Winning says ALOT but are you trying to say that if Joe Johnson was on the Nets and lets say they one 5-10 more games he would be said to be undeserving cuz he plays on a bad team. I have realised that alot of posters say that guys like Evans, Brook, Kaman etc (I know they all cant be) are not deserving because their teams suck. I am of the OPINION that if a guy puts up All Star numbers he should be an All Star. The thought of Andrew Bynum or Nene being all stars THIS year on their teams right now is puzzling me. The are not All Star caliber (YET). Bynum will one day though. So in closing what defines an All Star??? How big a role does team performance and record play in determining who is most deserving of being called and "All Star"?

MacFitz92
02-08-2010, 08:00 PM
Being an All Star should based purely on one's talent, BUT...

There are only certain ways to tell who is better than who.(In order IMO).

1). Watch them play, see their talent.

2). The success they have on their team, and the success of their team.

3). Stats. The reason I have this at 3, is because, sometimes stats can trick you.

But, yea Bynum and Nene are good centers, but shouldn't be regarded as the best centers in the West. I'd go with Al Jefferson, Stoudamire, and Chris Kaman. Yes Kaman is better than Nene and Bynum.

ink
02-08-2010, 08:21 PM
All Star = the annual pretend democracy festival of the NBA. If you like voting, you can do it again and again. Even better if you're voting for someone who hasn't played a meaningful game in 1-3 years. :p

All Star = having enough lead time from the judges so you know if you're the winner in the dunk contest or not. Minimum 3 weeks so you can order your superhero suit and win without appearing foolish.

td0tsfinest
02-08-2010, 08:22 PM
All Star = the annual pretend democracy festival of the NBA. If you like voting, you can do it again and again. Even better if you're voting for someone who hasn't played a meaningful game in 1-3 years. :p

All Star = having enough lead time from the judges so you know if you're the winner in the dunk contest or not. Minimum 3 weeks so you can order your superhero suit and win without appearing foolish.

lol.

ink
02-08-2010, 08:31 PM
How big a role does team performance and record play in determining who is most deserving of being called and "All Star"?

Serious answer ... it plays a bigger role than it should. They should adopt the MLB approach to the All Star game and have a star from every single team. I think it's essential to spreading the feeling of success to struggling teams.

IMHO the All Star game is meaningless anyway except as a promotional exercise, so why not use the opportunity to give exposure to ALL stars from ALL teams?

Oh, and if they could eliminate the result fixing that would be good too. i.e. dunk contest.

Swashcuff
02-08-2010, 08:47 PM
Serious answer ... it plays a bigger role than it should. They should adopt the MLB approach to the All Star game and have a star from every single team. I think it's essential to spreading the feeling of success to struggling teams.

IMHO the All Star game is meaningless anyway except as a promotional exercise, so why not use the opportunity to give exposure to ALL stars from ALL teams?

Oh, and if they could eliminate the result fixing that would be good too. i.e. dunk contest.

Good post but of course with the NBA there 12 players per team so that will not happen. That would also negate all the accolades with someone being called an All Star. I mean Andre Igoudala and Rodney Stuckey are having pretty ok years but All stars not so much.

ink
02-08-2010, 09:01 PM
Good post but of course with the NBA there 12 players per team so that will not happen. That would also negate all the accolades with someone being called an All Star. I mean Andre Igoudala and Rodney Stuckey are having pretty ok years but All stars not so much.

Well, there are 12 spots PER SIDE, so 24 available spots. And then there are the same spots available for the Rookie/Sophomore game. Somewhere in there every team should be represented. Besides, for the sake of the All Star game, they could increase roster sizes. Nothing is real anyway right?

I don't really get the accolades with being called an All Star anyway. If an injured player whose only current worth is as an expiring almost makes it to the All Star game from the guard rich Western Conference, it's obviously not just a measure of merit to be named.

I don't want to derail your thread. It's just that the phoniness of the whole thing is too much to take.

philab
02-08-2010, 09:04 PM
An "All-Star" is a player who is elected to play in the All-Star Game. I'm not sure how you could argue it to be anything different.

Swashcuff
02-08-2010, 09:25 PM
Well, there are 12 spots PER SIDE, so 24 available spots. And then there are the same spots available for the Rookie/Sophomore game. Somewhere in there every team should be represented. Besides, for the sake of the All Star game, they could increase roster sizes. Nothing is real anyway right?

I don't really get the accolades with being called an All Star anyway. If an injured player whose only current worth is as an expiring almost makes it to the All Star game from the guard rich Western Conference, it's obviously not just a measure of merit to be named.

I don't want to derail your thread. It's just that the phoniness of the whole thing is too much to take.

I still believe that there is a history behind being name to an all star team that has to be held sacred. I agree with your point on the McGrady issue though. No doubt there is a double standard. There is no way of fixing that.

This is my question to you now. What would you do to right the wrongs that are in the All Star teams selections.

JasonJohnHorn
02-08-2010, 09:30 PM
An all-star is a player who:
1. Makes his/her team better.
2. Can play on par with anybody else at his/her position.
3. Plays at a consistently high level.

ink
02-08-2010, 10:03 PM
This is my question to you now. What would you do to right the wrongs that are in the All Star teams selections.

1. Fans only get a small % of the total vote.
2. GMs and coaches get the major say in starters and backups.
3. All teams represented.
4. No props other than ball, court, and backboard in dunk competitions.
5. Reward players who are having a great season regardless of whether they have a massive fan base behind them.

Swashcuff
02-08-2010, 10:16 PM
1. Fans only get a small % of the total vote.
2. GMs and coaches get the major say in starters and backups.
3. All teams represented.
4. No props other than ball, court, and backboard in dunk competitions.
5. Reward players who are having a great season regardless of whether they have a massive fan base behind them.

I really have to strongly disagree with this one. I like your points otherwise.

ink
02-08-2010, 10:23 PM
I really have to strongly disagree with this one. I like your points otherwise.

Like I said, since none of it is real, they should just expand the roster size. It doesn't really cost anything. Besides, after the Superman/Kryptonite debacle last year, the "tradition" argument can no longer be used. Time to set a new tradition that includes all franchises. Better for everyone, better for the league.

albertc86
02-08-2010, 10:38 PM
Basically, to me, an all-star is the one or two players from every team that stand out above the rest, strictly from a talent standpoint. A superstar, on the other hand, is an all-star that stands out among the rest of the all-stars. I don't like the NBA's criteria. As other posters have alluded to, there are more all-stars in the league that aren't in the actual game; it's a popularity contest.

Swashcuff
02-08-2010, 11:08 PM
Like I said, since none of it is real, they should just expand the roster size. It doesn't really cost anything. Besides, after the Superman/Kryptonite debacle last year, the "tradition" argument can no longer be used. Time to set a new tradition that includes all franchises. Better for everyone, better for the league.

I dont think its better for the league if the not so all star calibre players from some of the more "mediocre" teams take part. I mean don't get me wrong I'd love to see every team represented at all star weekend but then that means more deserving players will get sacked. Lets say they allow a max of 18 players (thus defeating the purpose of calling it them the "All Star Team"making it silly) then that means there is a possiblilty that someone like a Rodney Stuckey may get in instead of say Rajon Rondo.

I hear your argument but this is not baseball there are 12 man rosters not 25 it cant work. Expanding the rosters is not a wise option.

It will be great though if all the teams can somehow be represented in the various all star weekend events.

tMoNEy24
02-08-2010, 11:18 PM
Im not sure if this has already been discussed but my friend and I were debating over the recent "snub" of Monta Ellis. Chauncey Billups was chosen over Monta , So please help clarify. Does Team Record have THAT much of an impact? Should it? Or should it be who has done there best to help there team? This isn't a debate about Monta , just used him as a recent example. Thanks

albertc86
02-08-2010, 11:23 PM
Are you serious? Lol. Dude, look like a few threads below yours.

tMoNEy24
02-08-2010, 11:23 PM
Lol , My bad.. Hahaha

ink
02-08-2010, 11:23 PM
I dont think its better for the league if the not so all star calibre players from some of the more "mediocre" teams take part. I mean don't get me wrong I'd love to see every team represented at all star weekend but then that means more deserving players will get sacked. Lets say they allow a max of 18 players (thus defeating the purpose of calling it them the "All Star Team"making it silly) then that means there is a possiblilty that someone like a Rodney Stuckey may get in instead of say Rajon Rondo.

I hear your argument but this is not baseball there are 12 man rosters not 25 it cant work. Expanding the rosters is not a wise option.

It will be great though if all the teams can somehow be represented in the various all star weekend events.

Nobody said anything about having inferior players in the ASG. I personally don't have any problem with the best from a weaker team beating out one of the almost All Stars from another team. It happens in other sports and it's not so bad. And you say that expanding rosters is not "a wise option" but there's no good reason for that to be true. Like I said, the ASG isn't real anyway so it doesn't really matter. Take the votes out of the hands of the fans and represent the entire league and you'll have a better, more inclusive experience. Works in several other leagues than baseball. Right now, one of the biggest problems the NBA faces is the fact that only a few franchises get decent profile every year. That's no way to run a business. When you run an organization you do everything you can for every single member, whether they're in Memphis or Los Angeles. This is a no brainer. My 2 cents.

TheDetroitBlue
02-08-2010, 11:37 PM
In todays NBA it's all about who the fans want to see this making it more of a popularity contest then anything which I don't like personally

JackB
02-08-2010, 11:49 PM
A player that gets voted in because his home town team stuffed the ballet box.

samxeyeam
02-09-2010, 12:11 AM
Agreed with TheDetroitBlue... Its just a sad popularity contest... If they want to really have an "allstar" contest, they should let the coaches of the TeamUSA organization pick out the 24. Thats why I refer the great players as "superstars" instead of "all-stars"

philab
02-09-2010, 12:25 AM
People take All-Star games and nominations WAAAYYY too seriously.

It's supposed to be a fun game. It's supposed to be a game people will watch.

Let the fans vote in starters. Let the players play basketball.


I know guys see it as an honor (and they do get paid, I'm pretty sure; expanding the roster is a bad idea), but an All-Star nomination means basically **** in the scheme of an NBA season. The NBA has the best All-Star game of the four major sports BY FAR -- let's stop complaining about how bad it is.

ink
02-09-2010, 12:49 AM
Let the players play basketball.

They can't. It's the All Star Game. :cool:


and they do get paid, I'm pretty sure... let's stop complaining about how bad it is.

They get a bonus from their team. So, yes, they're paid. I don't see how that small amount should be any kind of deciding factor. Pointing out that over half the league's franchises are in trouble and they could do something about it by giving the weaker clubs profile is not complaining. Other sports do it better that's all. The NBA could learn a lot from other leagues, just as another poster was saying about the NFL today.

philab
02-09-2010, 01:08 AM
They can't. It's the All Star Game. :cool:

I have no clue what this means.



They get a bonus from their team. So, yes, they're paid. I don't see how that small amount should be any kind of deciding factor. Pointing out that over half the league's franchises are in trouble and they could do something about it by giving the weaker clubs profile is not complaining. Other sports do it better that's all. The NBA could learn a lot from other leagues, just as another poster was saying about the NFL today.

But other sports don't do it better. The Pro Bowl, the MLB ASG . . . they suck horribly. The NBA ASG is at least fun to watch.

If we're trying to help weaker clubs out financially, increased revenue sharing is where it's at. Diluting the ASG is not the way.


A representative from every team means at least 15 per team. When multiple representatives are factored in, we're looking at about 20 players on each side. It's not going to be a whole lot of fun to watch Brooke Lopez, Chris Kaman, and Caron Butler when we could be watching LeBron, Kobe, Dwight, and Wade. The ASG will be less profitable and that will negate your entire goal of helping out weaker teams.

ink
02-09-2010, 01:15 AM
I have no clue what this means.

It means what they play in the ASG is a bit of a joke.


But other sports don't do it better. The Pro Bowl, the MLB ASG . . . they suck horribly. The NBA ASG is at least fun to watch.

That's a matter of opinion. Baseball is far better IMO.


If we're trying to help weaker clubs out financially, increased revenue sharing is where it's at. Diluting the ASG is not the way.

The talent difference is not as great as you make it out to be so it isn't really that much of a dilution.


A representative from every team means at least 15 per team. When multiple representatives are factored in, we're looking at about 20 players on each side. It's not going to be a whole lot of fun to watch Brooke Lopez, Chris Kaman, and Caron Butler when we could be watching LeBron, Kobe, Dwight, and Wade. The ASG will be less profitable and that will negate your entire goal of helping out weaker teams.

You'd be watching both the Kobes, Dwights, Wades, and the others -- who btw are deserving of being seen by broader markets. We've already seen enough of the over-hyped NBA players. It would be great to see some of the deserving players who don't get the exposure. Long term this would have benefits everywhere there is an NBA basketball market. We don't have to limit the reach just to the ASG night itself. Besides, it's only a matter of adding a few extra players which would not have remotely the negative impact you're suggesting.

philab
02-09-2010, 01:36 AM
It means what they play in the ASG is a bit of a joke.


They play basketball and have fun. I know there's a lot of goofing off and everything, but it's an All-Star game.



That's a matter of opinion. Baseball is far better IMO.

Yeah, it is a matter of opinion. But c'mon . . . pitchers only going 1-2 innings, hitters getting 1-2 ABs, the game determining HFA for the World Series? It's pretty awful.



The talent difference is not as great as you make it out to be so it isn't really that much of a dilution.

Huh? The talent difference between LeBron and Kobe and Lopez and Kaman is astounding. Especially when you consider it being LeBron AND Kobe vs. Lopez AND Kaman.



You'd be watching both the Kobes, Dwights, Wades, and the others -- who btw are deserving of being seen by broader markets. We've already seen enough of the over-hyped NBA players. It would be great to see some of the deserving players who don't get the exposure. Long term this would have benefits everywhere there is an NBA basketball market. We don't have to limit the reach just to the ASG night itself. Besides, it's only a matter of adding a few extra players which would not have remotely the negative impact you're suggesting.

Yes and no. Starters usually play together the majority of the time. This would be especially true when starters are only getting 20 minutes to play. You know that 20 players averages out to 12 minutes of playing time per player, right? Either the fan favorites are getting little playing time or the Caron Butlers are riding the bench the whole game. The latter doesn't seem to do much for your goal of exposure.

I think you've completely lost track of what an All-Star game is. If there were ever a place to DENY the "less exposed" players a chance to play, that place is All-Star game. Don't mess with the All-Star game just in some vain hope of making up for the failings of TNT and ESPN. The game is meant to be fun and not to be taken too seriously. All in all, ASGs are pretty god-awful. The NBA has the best BY FAR. Why change it?

ink
02-09-2010, 01:44 AM
I think you've completely lost track of what an All-Star game is.

Not really. I just like a different brand.


All in all, ASGs are pretty god-awful. The NBA has the best BY FAR. Why change it?

All a question of taste. The overhyped NBA produces the second worst ASG, only behind the Pro Bowl. And the only reason the Pro Bowl is worse is because it's filled with behemoths playing tag football.

Raph12
02-09-2010, 01:55 AM
All Star:

1. A player voted in by fans on an online/paper ballot.

2. A player voted in democratically by a certain number of coaches.

ChiBulls91
02-09-2010, 02:34 AM
I don't see why some of you think that each team shouldn't/can't be represented on the All-Star team.

They SHOULD be represented because above all else, the NBA is a business. It is there to entertain and make money for the owners. So why the owners don't want all teams to be represented is a bit baffling. It would increase the teams' marketing which would in turn help the several struggling franchises.

They also CAN be represented by simply augmenting the roster size to 15. Like it was said before, the game is meaningless so an official roster size should not matter.

streetballa
02-09-2010, 02:59 AM
All Star:

1. A player voted in by fans on an online/paper ballot.

2. A player voted in democratically by a certain number of coaches.

3. A player selected by the commissioner to replace an injured 1 or 2


I think it has become a joke no matter what though (Iverson REALLY!?). A true all-star is someone who is playing outstanding basketball for the year.

My proposed change....
Fan vote for 2 captains, the two captains select their teams, are limited to 1 player from their respective teams to pick. Captains act as player coaches. I think it would be more fun that way.

Chronz
02-09-2010, 03:26 AM
Im not sure if this has already been discussed but my friend and I were debating over the recent "snub" of Monta Ellis. Chauncey Billups was chosen over Monta , So please help clarify. Does Team Record have THAT much of an impact? Should it? Or should it be who has done there best to help there team? This isn't a debate about Monta , just used him as a recent example. Thanks
No your just looking at the wrong stats, Monta isnt in Billups class as a player or a leader.



Being an All Star should based purely on one's talent, BUT...

There are only certain ways to tell who is better than who.(In order IMO).

1). Watch them play, see their talent.

2). The success they have on their team, and the success of their team.

3). Stats. The reason I have this at 3, is because, sometimes stats can trick you.

But, yea Bynum and Nene are good centers, but shouldn't be regarded as the best centers in the West. I'd go with Al Jefferson, Stoudamire, and Chris Kaman. Yes Kaman is better than Nene and Bynum.

Watching a player on any given night can fool you just as easily as stats can.

As a Clippers fan, No Kaman IS NOT better than Nene or Bynum.

Ovratd1up
02-09-2010, 03:38 AM
All Stars should be the 12 players in each conference having the best seasons. :shrug: