Do die hard NBA fans hold the wrong perception of the all star game?

[esel1000]

http://www.nba.com/2015/news/12/25/kobe-bryant-leads-in-first-returns-of-nba-all-star-voting-2016/

So going through the first returns of the all star voting I almost puked. Literally. In the East Kyrie a starter. Rose and Lin ahead of IT and Reggie Jackson not even listed. Kobe leading the whole thing...What a joke.

So it got me thinking. While clearly fan vote isn't the only factor to entry into the game it is one and it's flawed. Players who don't deserve to sniff the floor are held in regards based on their names not their play. The fact that Kobe is going to get in means a more deserving player in the west won't. What of Kyrie makes it after having not played half the season and IT and/or Jackson are snubbed and clearly more deserving. If IT is snubbed for Kyrie are the Celts really still starless? And if our perception of a star is based on whether or not they make this game, are our perceptions flawed?

People for fan voting say it's who the fans want to see, thus irs a popularity contest. Those against see that as a problem, especially when we base a players merits off of this game. Obviously coaches voting will clean it up a bit but players like Kobe and Wade will make it over far more deserving players. Will those players careers and teams be scrutinized?

Whole thing is flawed. If it's going to be a popularity contest the game shouldn't be held in such high regard to a player's ability and whether or not a player is a "star."

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

All-Star selecting has always been controversial. I used to get annoyed with voters selecting Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith for years after they stopped being really good.

[hwangjini_1]

http://www.nba.com/2015/news/12/25/kobe-bryant-leads-in-first-returns-of-nba-all-star-voting-2016/

So going through the first returns of the all star voting I almost puked. Literally. In the East Kyrie a starter. Rose and Lin ahead of IT and Reggie Jackson not even listed. Kobe leading the whole thing...What a joke.

So it got me thinking. While clearly fan vote isn't the only factor to entry into the game it is one and it's flawed. Players who don't deserve to sniff the floor are held in regards based on their names not their play. The fact that Kobe is going to get in means a more deserving player in the west won't. What of Kyrie makes it after having not played half the season and IT and/or Jackson are snubbed and clearly more deserving. If IT is snubbed for Kyrie are the Celts really still starless? And if our perception of a star is based on whether or not they make this game, are our perceptions flawed?

People for fan voting say it's who the fans want to see, thus irs a popularity contest. Those against see that as a problem, especially when we base a players merits off of this game. Obviously coaches voting will clean it up a bit but players like Kobe and Wade will make it over far more deserving players. Will those players careers and teams be scrutinized?

Whole thing is flawed. If it's going to be a popularity contest the game shouldn't be held in such high regard to a player's ability and whether or not a player is a "star."

as the saying goes, the masses are asses.

[TheFlex]

Number of All-Star games played in is generally lower on the "star checklist" for an involved fan than it is for a casual fan. Involved fans care about what the player looked like when you tuned in for a random November game via legal/illegal streaming, what his win shares per 48 has been so far this season, what his true shooting percentage in the 4th quarter has been so far, etc. Casual fans care about whether or not the guy made the All-Star team last year or not.

edit: And to answer your deeper, implied question, RJax and IT are stars, capable of being somewhere between the 2nd or 3rd banana on a title winner. I tend to believe Jackson has greater 2nd banana potential, because he's younger and this is his first starting opportunity, whereas IT is older and has started consistently before. Regardless, both are stars and impact players.

[Who]

It's not about deserving the spot. It's about who the fans want to see.

[Eja117]

I'm not sure die hard fans have the wrong perception of anything in the game.

[bdm860]

I think the "outrage" over the All-Star game is usually way overblown.

In esel1000 example he's upset that Derrick Rose #6 and Jeremy Line #8 are ahead of Isaiah Thomas #9 and Reggie Jackson.  It wouldn't matter if Jackson and Thomas were #3-#4, because everything after #2 (or #3 for the front court) doesn't matter.

So there's 24+ guys selected to the All-Star game every year (with the + being injury replacements).  10 of those are voted by the fans, and even in this broken scenario only 2 of those 10 voted by the fans don't deserve to be All-Stars, and that number might even change to 1 out of 10 as Irving can easily get bypassed.

Most years all 10 guys the fans vote derserve to be All-Stars.  Some years maybe 1 out of the 10 don't belong.  Very rarely is it more than 1.

When was the last time fans voted in a player who had no business being in the All-Star game?  Allen Iverson in '10?

So once every 5-6 years a player or two gets voted in who doesn't belong?  Oh the outrage!  The system is so broken!

[max215]

It's not about deserving the spot. It's about who the fans want to see.

Then the Rose Rule should not exist.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What the NBA should do is have some sort of metric in some time interval in which they include players deemed worthy of being selected as starters for the All-Star and include them in the ballot. The rest, should be written in.

So if Kobe has that many fans he can get people to write him in then so be it. But this is like politics, people just pick players based on name recognition rather than merit, and not always because they're fan of the dude or want to see them play. Sometimes it's simply that they recognize him.

[mgent]

Give the people what they want.  Rome isn't the senate, Rome is the mob.

[mgent]

If it's going to be a popularity contest the game shouldn't be held in such high regard to a player's ability and whether or not a player is a "star."

I guess that depends on what you think the definition of a "star" is.

If you look at the "stars" of other entertainment businesses such as movies or music, the people with the most talent are rarely the most famed/talked about/highest paid.

Kobe Bryant = Kim Kardashian