All this "all star" talk got me to think of the time I was voting like crazy for Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy to be all stars
We have a great squad and have had many in the past, but JO was an MVP candidate and Reggie did (mostly on clutch plays) make the HOF. That's why they started, not because the NBA was different back then.
I mean are we seriously going to question the NBA and the fans for picking Jordan over Reggie, or Ewing over Smits? I mean how many Pacers have even been multiple AS players? Reggie and JO (mentioned already), Detlef made 2 more with Seattle later, B Miller made a 2nd one in Sacto, and...
If you are only making the team once as a reserve, then why should we expect you to be a starter for that one season. That's not realistic and has ZERO to do with "poor whittle Indy doesn't get a shot".
Indy has never had "OMG, this dude is one of the greatest ever and must start, but he got jobbed for being in Indy." Just like no elite FA has ever said "oh, the money is more but screw Indy". The only guy close is Nash, who passed up even more money in Toronto to specifically be near his child (needed a West region team).
David West and slightly less Steve Nash are the only times Indy has been in the competition for a top FA, ie had the cap space to spend for a realistic offer. They've NEVER had a strong case for an AS starter who got overlooked, with Artest being the closest case I can think of.
Indy just builds balanced teams, quality teams, winning teams. I'm sure they might look at stars for trades, but they had Reggie locked up and kept that roster around him, then focused on JO, they weren't trading either of those guys + 2 other starters to get an Iverson, Barkley or Karl Malone.
Their high picks have been busts, but they had pick positions in the 80s high enough to have caught a Durant level player and just missed. You hit one of those picks and you have your Durant and your AS starter.
i simply don't care if any pacers make that meaningless game. just one less pointless exhibition for them to get hurt in as far as i'm concerned.
if others want to take the risk- so be it. i haven't bothered with watching the all-star game in many years anyway.
It's not even that I somehow think marginal Pacer players deserve being starters, it is that as long as players so injured they don't play before the ASG get the nod, the voting is clearly not based on performance for that season. It is solely based on popularity. That's fine, but means that getting voted in is more a matter of exposure than it is ability.
I just wish people would give as much (or more) credit to getting in on the coaches' vote as they do to getting voted in by a 10-million strong fanbase who can vote as fast as they can click a mouse button.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
I don't like this rule. There are always going to be all-star snubs. It's just the nature of the beast.
They should do the same for pg and sg position. That way, more talented pgs can get in.
Oh, the day will come with nothing but pgs and pfs in the all-star game. And some Asians mixed in.
All-Star game is officially a joke now for me.
My offseason FA wishlist:
Sergio Rodriguez (backup pg)
Thomas Robinson (backup pf)
Andray Blatche (starting pf - replacing West)
Corey Brewer (starting sg/sf - interchangeable w/ PG)
Personally I don't think it is unrealistic to think the Pacers, if lucky, could have 3 players selected in George, Granger, and Hibbert. Obviously the odds are slim, but it doesn't take much imagination to think up a scenario where each of them get in.
I'm from way back. It used to be that you had fowards and guards. Somewhere along the way there developed that you had a player who "jumped center", meaning the jump ball at center court for the start of each half. Usually the teams tallest player did this.
I don't know if it was sportswriters doing it or basketball coaches/strategists but all five players got defined as to position; C, PF, SF, PG, SG, like we have today.
I heard Jalen Rose in a interview years ago when asked which position he fit better with PG, SG, or SF. He said that positions were for the fans and sports casters. That when the coaches and players practiced and played they played match ups and didn't use the now traditional definitions.
I know in my limited HS playing experience I played guard. The guy on the floor who could run the play the coach wanted to run brought the ball up the court. But then again my experience was VERY limited.
Like most sports all star games, it is meaningless. Players do not play their best.
The last one I watched was Magic's last all star game. Stupid. It was little more than a beauty pageant with ugly (if you are hetero) contestants.
Which is why Jalen spent his entire career whining about playing "point" because that was *HIS* position.
Edit- there are definitely positions, just not as defined as many like to see it- point-wing-big is accurate -
Find me on the internets @mattiecolin
Read it and weep:
When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%
Anybody think this evolution is related to adding the three point line?
I think it has hurt the creativity and consistency of the game. And now its tradition.
"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."
The only reason they're doing this is because the era of the big man is over...and there is no sign of its return.
well, it is over in that the cycle of capable players that are of authentic center size and who know how to really play that spot is currently at a low point. 20 years ago, we had a practical golden age of them with guys like hakeem, the admiral, mutombo, shaq, zo, ewing, daughtery etc.
one day, it will be back- just not now.