Post by jrmzt on Jan 22, 2010 17:17:41 GMT -5
Chris Broussard and Ric Bucher spar over the All-Star selection process
________________________________________________________
The only thing Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard like to do more than report on the NBA is argue about the NBA. So we decided to combine those two skills with our weekly One-on-One series, in which they'll debate the hottest topics in the Association. We'll kick things off with an issue that has captivated fans and even motivated Ray Allen to speak out recently -- picking All-Stars, particularly in light of Allen Iverson's starting gig and Tracy McGrady's near miss.
QUESTION: Should the All-Star selection process be changed?
BUCHER: No. It's supposed to be an event for the fans, so they should be able to vote for whom they want to see. What we have to do is overhaul our perspective of what being an All-Star means. Back when the only way a fan could cast a vote was to go to a game and punch out a paper ballot, the percentage of informed voters had to be fairly high and only quality players made it as starters. Now that Internet voting has opened it up to fans worldwide -- some of whom see, at best, highlights -- it's much more of a popularity contest.
BROUSSARD: Sorry Ric, but we absolutely must revamp the All-Star voting. It's become a joke, especially with China voting. They're so pro-Rockets (because of Yao Ming) that I'm surprised Chase Budinger isn't starting over Melo at small forward. Fans will tune in and turn out if the best players are selected, regardless of whether they picked them. You're right in that this event is largely about the fans, so they should still have a role in the voting. That's why I think Ray Allen's suggestion is perfect. Have the fan vote count for 50 percent of the selection and then divide the other 50 percent between the media (25 percent) and the players (25 percent). The players know better than anyone who's really an All-Star, so they should definitely have a say in who's honored. Then you can let the coaches continue to pick the seven reserves.
And it's not exactly simple to "overhaul our perspective of what being an All-Star means." While being named All-NBA is actually more indicative of your ability as a player, making the All-Star team means more in the eyes of the public. All-Star appearances affect a player's chances of making the Hall of Fame, they affect his market value, they affect coaches' job security, they affect teams' marketing strategies. It's for those very reasons that we must cut in half the fans' power to select All-Stars. Being an All-Star has too many significant ramifications to leave it in the hands of uninformed fans.
BUCHER: You're blaming the good people of China for All-Star voting being out of whack? How xenophobic of you. If Budinger were getting votes, you might have a case. But T-Mac is hardly the first injured perennial All-Star to get a ton of votes based on his reputation. Vince Carter played in roughly a dozen games in the first half of 2002-03 and led all forwards in votes. (I'm guessing you'd blame Canada.)
All-Star status is an undefined award. Is it for the 12 best overall players from each conference? That's not it, because there's a minimum requirement of four guards, four forwards and two centers, with only two at-large choices. And it's not even the guys having the best seasons at their positions. It's the 12 most popular guys among fans and coaches; and unless we think of it as that and only that, someone is going to get a rash every year over who was and wasn't picked.
BROUSSARD: "Undefined award"? You're thinking of the MVP. It's very clear what an All-Star is: a player who's having an exceptional individual season, in terms of points, rebounds and assists, for a team that is at least reasonably competitive. In some instances, when the player is incredibly outstanding or has shown an ability to win in the past, his team's poor record won't hinder his All-Star status.
As for its being a popularity contest, well, that's because of the fans. While coaches, players and media members have their biases -- we're all human -- they would be far more likely to vote based on ability and productivity. The media proved decades ago that they could cast reasonably fair votes by selecting African-Americans as MVPs, ROYs, etc. during the overtly racist 1960s and '70s. The players understand the value and prestige of being an All-Star and would certainly not bestow that honor on unworthy players. They would also be likely to vote for deserving players who are under the public's radar because they know who's soft, whose heart pumps fear in the clutch, and so on. And the coaches, by and large, would also respect the game too much to make it the sheer popularity contest that it is to many fans.
BUCHER: First, thanks for making me chuckle -- I wondered if I ever would after Berke Breathed retired. Your definition of an All-Star -- and you'll have to show me where it's ever been defined the way you just did -- says players with great numbers on decent teams are All-Stars, but past great players on currently bad teams are eligible, too. That makes a case that pretty much anyone can be an All-Star! Truth is, players having great individual seasons on competitive teams are overlooked all the time. Rod Strickland was never an All-Star, yet I covered him when he led the league in assists and had the Wizards vying for a playoff spot. Rasheed Wallace was not an All-Star in his best years; Derek Harper didn't make it once. There are all sorts of examples of guys passed over by the fans, who rarely vote based on what a guy is doing that season, and coaches, who view it as some sort of merit badge for guys who are good but aren't "difficult."
That's why coaches are on the phone to other coaches this time of year -- they can't vote for their own guy, but they sure can stump for him, or not. Let's face it -- it's a popularity contest with the coaches as much as it is with the fans. If reputation weren't a factor, Zach Randolph would be a lock as an All-Star this year, and an argument could be made for Stephen Jackson. I know the latter won't make it, and I'll be curious to see whether the former does.
BROUSSARD: Ric, the players you mentioned -- Jackson, Randolph, and even past guys like Strickland and Harper -- were victims of the numbers game (only 12 can make it), not necessarily coaches' biases. Jackson is having a terrific year, but whom are you leaving off to put him on? Dwyane Wade, Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce and Jackson's Bobcats teammate Gerald Wallace are all more deserving. Jax will get some consideration, but if he doesn't make it, I wouldn't chalk it up to "coaches have it in for him."
And how can you say "difficult" players don't make the All-Star game? 'Sheed made it four times, but he never started -- that means the coaches voted him in. Heck, Ron Artest made it as a reserve in 2004, and even Latrell Sprewell was selected by the coaches long after the choking incident.
What also needs to change is the ballot itself. Instead of guards, forwards and a center, players should be listed as point guards, wings (SG, SF) and bigs (PF, C). That would eliminate the annual problem of making an undeserving backup center an All-Star.
BUCHER: I proposed that very change to the NBA several years ago when I was a member of the ballot-selection committee; they haven't invited me to serve again ever since.
______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
The only thing Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard like to do more than report on the NBA is argue about the NBA. So we decided to combine those two skills with our weekly One-on-One series, in which they'll debate the hottest topics in the Association. We'll kick things off with an issue that has captivated fans and even motivated Ray Allen to speak out recently -- picking All-Stars, particularly in light of Allen Iverson's starting gig and Tracy McGrady's near miss.
QUESTION: Should the All-Star selection process be changed?
BUCHER: No. It's supposed to be an event for the fans, so they should be able to vote for whom they want to see. What we have to do is overhaul our perspective of what being an All-Star means. Back when the only way a fan could cast a vote was to go to a game and punch out a paper ballot, the percentage of informed voters had to be fairly high and only quality players made it as starters. Now that Internet voting has opened it up to fans worldwide -- some of whom see, at best, highlights -- it's much more of a popularity contest.
BROUSSARD: Sorry Ric, but we absolutely must revamp the All-Star voting. It's become a joke, especially with China voting. They're so pro-Rockets (because of Yao Ming) that I'm surprised Chase Budinger isn't starting over Melo at small forward. Fans will tune in and turn out if the best players are selected, regardless of whether they picked them. You're right in that this event is largely about the fans, so they should still have a role in the voting. That's why I think Ray Allen's suggestion is perfect. Have the fan vote count for 50 percent of the selection and then divide the other 50 percent between the media (25 percent) and the players (25 percent). The players know better than anyone who's really an All-Star, so they should definitely have a say in who's honored. Then you can let the coaches continue to pick the seven reserves.
And it's not exactly simple to "overhaul our perspective of what being an All-Star means." While being named All-NBA is actually more indicative of your ability as a player, making the All-Star team means more in the eyes of the public. All-Star appearances affect a player's chances of making the Hall of Fame, they affect his market value, they affect coaches' job security, they affect teams' marketing strategies. It's for those very reasons that we must cut in half the fans' power to select All-Stars. Being an All-Star has too many significant ramifications to leave it in the hands of uninformed fans.
BUCHER: You're blaming the good people of China for All-Star voting being out of whack? How xenophobic of you. If Budinger were getting votes, you might have a case. But T-Mac is hardly the first injured perennial All-Star to get a ton of votes based on his reputation. Vince Carter played in roughly a dozen games in the first half of 2002-03 and led all forwards in votes. (I'm guessing you'd blame Canada.)
All-Star status is an undefined award. Is it for the 12 best overall players from each conference? That's not it, because there's a minimum requirement of four guards, four forwards and two centers, with only two at-large choices. And it's not even the guys having the best seasons at their positions. It's the 12 most popular guys among fans and coaches; and unless we think of it as that and only that, someone is going to get a rash every year over who was and wasn't picked.
BROUSSARD: "Undefined award"? You're thinking of the MVP. It's very clear what an All-Star is: a player who's having an exceptional individual season, in terms of points, rebounds and assists, for a team that is at least reasonably competitive. In some instances, when the player is incredibly outstanding or has shown an ability to win in the past, his team's poor record won't hinder his All-Star status.
As for its being a popularity contest, well, that's because of the fans. While coaches, players and media members have their biases -- we're all human -- they would be far more likely to vote based on ability and productivity. The media proved decades ago that they could cast reasonably fair votes by selecting African-Americans as MVPs, ROYs, etc. during the overtly racist 1960s and '70s. The players understand the value and prestige of being an All-Star and would certainly not bestow that honor on unworthy players. They would also be likely to vote for deserving players who are under the public's radar because they know who's soft, whose heart pumps fear in the clutch, and so on. And the coaches, by and large, would also respect the game too much to make it the sheer popularity contest that it is to many fans.
BUCHER: First, thanks for making me chuckle -- I wondered if I ever would after Berke Breathed retired. Your definition of an All-Star -- and you'll have to show me where it's ever been defined the way you just did -- says players with great numbers on decent teams are All-Stars, but past great players on currently bad teams are eligible, too. That makes a case that pretty much anyone can be an All-Star! Truth is, players having great individual seasons on competitive teams are overlooked all the time. Rod Strickland was never an All-Star, yet I covered him when he led the league in assists and had the Wizards vying for a playoff spot. Rasheed Wallace was not an All-Star in his best years; Derek Harper didn't make it once. There are all sorts of examples of guys passed over by the fans, who rarely vote based on what a guy is doing that season, and coaches, who view it as some sort of merit badge for guys who are good but aren't "difficult."
That's why coaches are on the phone to other coaches this time of year -- they can't vote for their own guy, but they sure can stump for him, or not. Let's face it -- it's a popularity contest with the coaches as much as it is with the fans. If reputation weren't a factor, Zach Randolph would be a lock as an All-Star this year, and an argument could be made for Stephen Jackson. I know the latter won't make it, and I'll be curious to see whether the former does.
BROUSSARD: Ric, the players you mentioned -- Jackson, Randolph, and even past guys like Strickland and Harper -- were victims of the numbers game (only 12 can make it), not necessarily coaches' biases. Jackson is having a terrific year, but whom are you leaving off to put him on? Dwyane Wade, Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce and Jackson's Bobcats teammate Gerald Wallace are all more deserving. Jax will get some consideration, but if he doesn't make it, I wouldn't chalk it up to "coaches have it in for him."
And how can you say "difficult" players don't make the All-Star game? 'Sheed made it four times, but he never started -- that means the coaches voted him in. Heck, Ron Artest made it as a reserve in 2004, and even Latrell Sprewell was selected by the coaches long after the choking incident.
What also needs to change is the ballot itself. Instead of guards, forwards and a center, players should be listed as point guards, wings (SG, SF) and bigs (PF, C). That would eliminate the annual problem of making an undeserving backup center an All-Star.
BUCHER: I proposed that very change to the NBA several years ago when I was a member of the ballot-selection committee; they haven't invited me to serve again ever since.
______________________________________________________