What does it mean for the NBA, if anything, that there are no All-Star starters from either conference's best team (and the two best teams in the NBA)?
What does it mean for the NBA, if anything, that there are no All-Star starters from either conference's best team (and the two best teams in the NBA)?
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingShea Zellweger - "thanks" for this post
1. The voting system is flawed.Originally Posted by Jeremy D. Scott
2. Neither team has an MVP caliber player, but that may be the exact reason, the Celtics and Spurs play team basketball.
3. Gregg Popovich is the best coach in the NBA.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think the last part of the article gives a clue at least to the writer's mindset, and may reflect that of the fan.
"In a rarity in fan voting, the East vote seems entirely right. Stoudemire, James and Wade are all in the league's top five in scoring, and Rose and Howard are right there with them as MVP candidates."
Only individual accomplishments being recognized here.
"The West vote was flawed with the election of Yao, who despite missing nearly the entire season continues to earn a huge vote total from his native China. West coach Gregg Popovich of the San Antonio Spurs will pick one of his reserves to start."
I think you have to chalk this one up to China, not the NBA, though I don't know how close Duncan was to Yao in the voting and I can't find any stats on the issue at ESPN. If Duncan wasn't second then it may mean something about the NBA also. The trend of high statistical performers reappears with the other four starters for the West.
So I guess I'd have to say that the NBA All-Star Game is about who's jersey is more likely to be bought by a fan, than a jersey that will have earned NBA championship(s). For the NBA I guess it means that the money is going to keep flowing, but the understanding that basketball is a game of systems and strategy seems to be lost and instead individual skill and stats are how people recognize "good" players.
That's the reason why I don't watch the NBA anymore, the game has changed into something I don't like watching.
I think we have to give the fans some credit. The All-Star game does not ask people to vote for the best team, but the best players at each position. At the same time we need to reserve judgment on who the best team is. I believe the best team is the one who wins the title, not the one with the best record. Since the 2000 season, only 4 teams can claim to have won the title and had the best regular season. At the same time, only Shaq and Tim Duncan can claim the title of winning the championship and MVP award in the same season for the decade.
So while I think the Celtics and Spurs are the teams with the best records, they have to prove that they are the best teams come June. So since this is an All-Star game, I think the only possible "snub" is Ray Allen not being a starter (he is quitely putting up a huge statistical season as far as percentages), but it will be hard to chose him over D-Wade. Who on Boston or San Antonio should start ahead of those named (obviously except for Yao)? Duncan is not even laying 30 minutes a game as he is obviously resting for a playoff push. Rondo can dish but he cannot shoot to save his life (I think Boston fans have to be scared about their PG not being able to shot form the outside or free throws in the playoffs. I think come May and June we will see that those who are starters for the All-Star teams will represent the top 10-12 teams in the league and will have an impact on the playoffs.
I think this is the most overplayed, overblown pile of baloney that I've ever heard and continue to hear. Does he have a very good shot? No. But he shoots efficiently. He's having the best shooting season of his career. He picks his shots well and gets to the rim, which is a large reason his assists are so high.
The fact is that Rondo has never had a problem scoring 16 points a game on relatively efficient shooting. What more are you looking for out of a point guard on that team? He helps anchor the defense with Garnett, gets to the rim, gets to the line (getting opposing bigs in foul trouble), causing defenses to collapse and dishes all over the court, meanwhile never struggling to put up 16 points a game on efficient shooting.
And all the while they're the most successful team in the NBA for the 4th year running right now when healthy. The fact of the matter is that Rajon Rondo does not need to be able to shoot well to be effective and Boston has nothing to be afraid of if Rondo is effective.
The only thing that team needs to worry about is health. It is the only thing standing between them and a championship. It could be an insurmountable obstacle, though, as it was the last two seasons - particularly last year.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Disputable. Lakers and Spurs are right there, if not in front of them.
Stew, by referring to the fact that the best team won't be decided until June, you are missing the spirit of the question. I have no problem saying that the best team of 2010-2011 will be determined in the Finals. Of course. But what you're saying misses the point of the question. If it makes you feel better, I can rephrase: "What does it mean for no players from the two teams with the best records to be on the All-Star starting team?" Better? I wasn't complaining for any of the Celtics or the Spurs, but questioning the state of the NBA and what this might mean.
But I do agree with the first part of your answer that caught the spirit of the question: I can jive with the notion that the All-Star starters should be the best player in their positions. I have little to no argument with the starting five in the East, but Yao Ming is a joke. Kevin Love should definitely be starting over him. Love is having an awesome season. But that still wouldn't put any Spurs or Celtics on the starting five (and I don't necessarily think that any of them should be). I think Derrick Rose is a great player and definitely can be argued to be on the starting team. I think the Bulls are a great team (tied with Miami, by the way), and Rose is the lynch pin.
As for the comments on Rondo - he isn't a great shooter, but he has hit shots when he's needed to in the past. And his shooting has improved every year that he's been in the league. The much greater concern when it comes to the postseason is his foul shooting, which is atrocious for his position.
David - What Ben said was that the Celtics are the best when they're healthy. It's quite a fruitless and mostly impossible debate to have, but I definitely think it's true. And if by "fourth year running," Ben meant the last three and a half years (beginning with 2007-2008), then the Spurs are not even close to being in the discussion with the Celtics or the Lakers (the latter of whom have easily been the best team in the NBA, all things considered). While the Spurs absolutely OWNED the Celtics in Tim Duncan's career span prior to 2008 (I think he may have even been undefeated until that point against the Celtics), they are 2-5 against the Celtics since then.
(Oh, and I forget where you said it, but Greg Popovich is not the best coach in the NBA. He's very good, but he's not the best...not when the greatest NBA coach of all-time is still in the league.)
Anyone who shoots 45% from the free throw line is a huge liability. The Lakers took advantage of the Celtics last year with Kobe playing ten feet off of Rondo in the finals.
Okay...now you're over-stating it.
Why do the Spurs have the best record in the toughest NBA conference this year? Because they are healthy. Health and age have been their biggest competition with 2 of the big 3 (Parker and Ginobili) missing some significant time in the last few seasons. When the Spurs are healthy, they are as dominant as anyone. Of course for the Celtics to be in the discussion, we have to limit the timeframe to the beginning of the '07-'08 season...classic.
And yes, Pop is the best coach in the NBA right now. I'm going to guess that you are going with Phil Jackson...and I will give him props. BUT....MJ, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe.........Spoelstra could win championships with those guys. Pop does a lot with a little* in a small market, and has had one losing season since he first entered the league (1996 - when David Robinson only played 6 games).
*I realize saying this may draw some fire. Of course he had David Robinson and still has Tim Duncan. Robinson was on the downside of his career, and Duncan has already entered that phase. Outside of those two players, he hasn't had any other stand outs (both Parker and Ginobili were 3rd Team All-NBA once).
The fact that MJ, Kobe and Shaq had exactly zero titles before Phil Jackson seems to suggest that coaching talented players is not as easy as it seems.
Listen, I was the first to say that the Spurs look great this season over in the other thread. I think they're great. That wasn't what we were talking about. (Though it might be noted that they didn't beat the Celtics the one time thus far this season and that was without Garnett OR Perkins.)
David!!! BEN picked the time frame!
Greg Popovich is a great coach. He's just not better than Phil.
And I wanted to extend the time frame. Not sure why we always have to go with the first one given. Ok to expand it?
That is a good suggestion...but the players have more to do with this. A great example is Doc Rivers with Boston. He is an excellent coach, but it took adding Ray Allen & Kevin Garnett to win a championship. I don't believe he found the secret elixir somewhere.
15 of the last 20 championships have been won by Phil Jackson (11) and Gregg Popovich (4). They have both had players, that by the time it's all said and done, will be considered among the best of all time (MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Robinson, Duncan). While I don't buy into the whole Zen thing, Phil has had an uncanny ability to make a team gel...he was however in the right place at the right time.
I am a fan of the Spurs, I appreciate their fundamental defense, team approach, and how they fly under the radar all the time, but have been one of the most consistent teams for the last decade.
Are you joking me right now? PLease tell me this is a joke.
You do realize that the Celtics had a massive roster overhaul that year? A new coach too!? It's a new team. This Celtics team can only be judged from the 2007-8 season and on.
And since then, when all 5 starters have been healthy, their record is better than any other team or 5-man unit in the NBA (Best all-time if I remember correctly. Tomorrow I will do some digging for you), and they've yet to lose a playoff series.
Now, you can argue all you want about what other teams were or were not healthy, blah blah and I give the Lakers all the credit last year. They won. Congrats. But the fact remains, no 5-man starting unit has a better record and they haven't lost a playoff series yet. They're, as far as winning goes, the best team in the league for 4 years running right now.
You don't have to like it. You can talk about other years... but this team didn't exist before then, and I'm talking about the time period since they came into existence. Sheesh!
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I'm not trying to joke about anything. But you need to clarify the "haven't lost a playoff series" statement. They've won one title in the last 3 years (since the team came into existence), so they lost two playoff series. Perhaps I am not reading you correctly, so please clarify this.
And as far as winning goes, you might need to retract your best team for four years running as far as winning goes bit.
2007-08 to Present (regular season):
Lakers: 212 wins
Celtics: 207 wins
Spurs: 199 wins
I will take the strength of a Western Conference team over a few more wins from an Eastern Conference team.
The same could be said about the Lakers as well. The last playoff series they lost was to the Celtics in 08 and they were missing Bynum for the entire playoffs. They got creamed in the rebounding in that series. Bynum is a lot like Perkins in that they do not light up the stat sheet, but their size is a huge factor as they are a big part of the team defense concept. It would be nice to see a Lakers/Celtics series that featured a healthy starting five on both sides. Perkins and Bynum are both coming off knee surgery this year but it would be nice to see them in the Finals again.
Ben's main point was the starting five. Garnet missed the Orlando series two years ago and Perkins went down in game 6 last year. So his argument is the starting five. However, as we all know, Basketball is also about the bench and injuries happen. Having a deep bench is important in the team game as well. I would argue that when San Antonio was winning titles, they had one of the deeper benches in the league. Having a superstar, a solid number 2 and 5-6 other solid players is a formula for success in the NBA. Looking at the NBA right now, I see only three teams having something like this: The Lakers, Celtics and Spurs. Last years Finals would have been a joke except the Celtics bench of Big Baby and Nate Robinson exploded in game 5.
Remember that between the 12 championships between 1994 and 2005, 11 of those teams had either Robert Horry or Steve Kerr on the team.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is helpful, and looking back over Ben's post, I can see where I missed the distinction. I'm just not sure how a discussion of the current selection of NBA all-stars got narrowed down to who had the best starting 5 in the last 3 1/2 season in 5 posts.
One of the interesting aspects of the voting is that you do not see any of the "greats of the game" who are no longer at the top of their game receiving enough votes to get in. On other years you would have seen a Tim Duncan or a Kevin Garnett - who are still playing outstanding ball, with key roles in their teams' success, be chosen.
This may be the result of aging superstars staying at the top of their game longer, as Bill Simmons notes here
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...8&sportCat=nba
"Fully embracing the Gospel, fully engaging the world"
That same article was in part the reason for my other thread on Shaq. I literally laughed out loud at his reasoning for John Stockton's longevity.
Ha! Leave it to a Colts fan to only look at the regular season.
As for the Celtics, my numbers gave me 213. Not that it means much.
Me too. I have no idea how that worked its way into a story.
His FG% and 3PT% are higher than ever, but his free throw percentage is his worst since his rookie year. He's also 16 3 PTs away from over-taking Reggie Miller on the all-time list.
I do have 4 titles in the last 11 years to fall back on. Not to shabby!Ha! Leave it to a Colts fan to only look at the regular season.
As for the Celtics, my numbers gave me 213. Not that it means much.
It was a direct response to Stew's post about Rajon Rondo's lack of shooting ability. My point was that when healthy, the Celtics have been better and more successful than any other team when healthy. My point was not that somehow that means the Celtics will be the best team. In fact, my point was exactly that health is a very real concern for the Celtics, seeing as how they have played so much of the last 3 1/2 seasons without key starters and only have 1 championship.
My point was that Rondo's shot is not a concern, health is. Health is a very real concern. However, it is the Celtics' only concern, IMHO. If healthy, they are the team to beat.
My post and my point made complete sense in context, as a response to exactly what Stew had said (and exactly what I posed it as a response to). We ended up "narrowed down to" this sidetrack because you read my statement out of context and thought to dispute it by changing the criteria to suit your purposes
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I wasn't attempting to suit my own purposes. I still believe that the Lakers and Spurs (in the last 3 years) have just as good a starting 5 as the Celtics. While the Spurs may not have a title to show for that, they have an excellent track record of consistent success.It was a direct response to Stew's post about Rajon Rondo's lack of shooting ability. My point was that when healthy, the Celtics have been better and more successful than any other team when healthy. My point was not that somehow that means the Celtics will be the best team. In fact, my point was exactly that health is a very real concern for the Celtics, seeing as how they have played so much of the last 3 1/2 seasons without key starters and only have 1 championship.
My point was that Rondo's shot is not a concern, health is. Health is a very real concern. However, it is the Celtics' only concern, IMHO. If healthy, they are the team to beat.
My post and my point made complete sense in context, as a response to exactly what Stew had said (and exactly what I posed it as a response to). We ended up "narrowed down to" this sidetrack because you read my statement out of context and thought to dispute it by changing the criteria to suit your purposes
Looking back, I see where is took what you said out of context. While it can and should be a concern for the Celtics that Rondo is an inconsistent shooter, I agree that health is a much greater opponent for them. There are plenty of positives that can make up for one player's shooting abilities.
i think it is a testament, actually, to the spurs and the celtics, that they don't have any starters in the all-star game. both teams play 'unselfish' bball. its refreshing.
nothing profound going on here... move along.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, six members from the Celtics and Spurs made the reserves.
But I have to ask: Tim Duncan over Kevin Love? Really? Hopefully K-Love will be chosen by Stern to replace Yao.
It would be on thing if it was a fan vote, but I think many of the coaches see how important TD is to the Spurs. Unfortunately Kevin Love plays for an awful team. While I don't think that should stop a player from being listed as an All-Star, I'm sure it influences the selection. The joke is Yao being voted in by fans...if you haven't played you shouldn't even be on the ballot. I would go with Kevin Love to replace Yao over Lamar Odom and LaMarcus Aldridge.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think it's amazing that only 6 of 16 teams in the East have representatives at the game. The West is still king, talent-wise.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, I can tell you the real story is the LaMarcus snub. Unbelievable. The guy has been so productive in the paint. He's really stepped up. He deserves to play in LA. This whole All star thing is a hoax. Sometimes I wonder why we even have it. Like the NFL pro-bowl, it's just a little recognition thingey that we think we have to have.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What would you two prefer? No All-Star Game? I mean...for sure it's a "recognition thingy"...that's kind of the point.
I really don't have a preference one way or the other, just simply responding to Bob's post. I agree the game serves as a "recognition thingy," but it definitely needs to be tweaked. A player who has played in 5 games shouldn't appear on the ballot. Yao is more than able to appear on the I-Am-One-Of-Few-NBA-Players-From-The-Largest-Country-Population-Wise Ballot. It goes to show that it is more about the money, and less about the game and its players. There really is no way to change that, and I accept that. I just look at it as a nice break for the Spurs.
Why is everyone bothered by "it's more about the money"? It's about the fans. The fans are the only reason players have a job, and the all-star game is about honoring the fans by letting them pick who they get to see play. Of course it's going to be a big money-maker, but that's part of the deal of making fans happy. If the fans vote and want to see Yao play, then they should be able to do so.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
The fans knew Yao couldn't even play, so why vote him in? I would love to see players retired from the league come back and play, so should I be able to do so since I am a fan?
And please don't continue to kid yourself and others that "it's all about the fans." Professional sports let go of that many years ago.
I tend to think that you're both right, in part. It is about the fans...well, about the fans' money. The truth is that none of the professional sports leagues can survive without the fans (and their money). So each league would do well to "satisfy" the fans, to keep them coming to games, buying TV packages, jerseys, etc. (This is one of the things that makes me a horrible sports fan - I don't pay for any of these things anymore...though my kids did get new Sox hats for Christmas, now that I think about it (my mother bought them)).
But it's why the NFL is doing wonderfully and the NHL is struggling. Although, I think the way the NHL did the All-Star selection this year was intriguing. It would be interesting to see the NBA or NFL follow suit. Can you imagine Kobe & Garnett serving as captains and picking their teams? Fans would watch that.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
i would love to see that too jeremy, and i'ld love to see the fans 'ride' the kid who got picked last.
nothing profound going on here... move along.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote