Should there be a team win total associated with All-Stars?

I read an article earlier where there was criticism about players selected for the All-Star game that were on teams that were, well...terrible. The article specifically mentioned Dwyane Wade and Jason Kidd, who obviously play for teams that are in big trouble in the win-loss column. Of course, the beef is that they really shouldn't be "all stars" if they can't lead their teams to big wins and show that they are, well, indeed all-stars.

I really can't agree with the criticism, though. For one, the logic is not that you have to have the cream of the crop to have a winning record. Yes, you have good players, but does that necessarily mean that because Wade has basically guys who can't do anything that he has to pay the price for it? Not one man can win every game, despite what many thought of Michael Jordan. I don't think it's really logical to think that if Kidd averages near a triple-double and has the best overall numbers in terms of guards that he can't play.

Plus, you have to consider that as long as you keep it in the fan's hands, it is a moot point. Fans don't fill out all-star ballots because they take into consideration the shooting percentage of games on the road versus three point accuracy in the fourth quarter from player to player--it's a popularity contest, and while Pro football is done based on statistics (kind of), baseball and basketball will always have the most known players on the all-star squads.

Deal with it. It could be worse.

Picture Source: ESPN.com

( Add your comments )

Recent Entries:
· Hornets making it look easy
· Jazz trying to knock out pesky Rockets
· Mavericks start cleaning house at the top

[ READER COMMENTS ]

Should there be a team win total associated with All-Stars?

Add your comments...

We kindly ask that you keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Abusive or inappropriate comments or comments that are specifically promotional in nature may be removed.