The two all-star games that seem to captivate the fans of each respective sport are for the MLB and NBA. The NFL's Pro Bowl doesn't really get discussion going. I mean, I've never heard an argument started because one player was voted to the Pro Bowl over another. But with baseball and basketball, the discussions can be relatively contentious, at least over a game that ultimately doesn't matter (well, the MLB one determines what league gets home-field advantage in the World Series but you get the idea). People will debate the merits of one player over another and why that player deserves to be an all-star instead of another. These debates are usually exacerbated because the fans, in both instances, pick the starting lineups. And, to be honest, the fans don't have the best track record on picking the best players from the given season and instead picking the biggest or most well-known names. Since the NBA All-Star Game is right around the corner and it's fresh in our minds, I want to focus on it this year and what the cost is of all this.
If you look at the West's starting lineup, it seems like the fans got it right (Nash, Kobe, Carmelo, Duncan and Amare) but the East's starting lineup shows just how much the fans vote for the "name" rather than the performance from year to year. The fans selected Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett to start the game, when there were clearly not deserving of a starting spot. Iverson has only played in 25 games while Garnett is only averaging 14.6 ppg and 7.4 rebounds per game. Meanwhile, the Hawks' Joe Johnson is averaging 21.4 points per game and the Raptors' Chris Bosh is putting up 24 points and 11 rebounds per game. Their biggest problem-- they either play in Toronto or they aren't Allen Iverson, one of the most recognizable basketball players of modern memory. If you put Bosh or Johnson on the Celtics, they would easily be in the starting lineup because people would know who they were since they played for one of the most well-known NBA teams.
This is what happens when you let the fans vote, and being able to vote multiple times (there's a cap, that you can vote like 10 times, but still that's a lot of times to vote). Yes, there are fans out there who vote based upon who is having the best year and has the superior numbers, but that's a very small minority. Not to get too political, but the same things happen during presidential elections. I like to imagine that people voted, like I did, because I listened to what the candidate had to say and followed them and firmly believed that their plan was the best for the country. But most people vote based upon one or two soundbites which might be accurate, but can also be misleading. If there isn't a real standout player (like LeBron or Kobe-- they're both big names but also deserve to start without a doubt), the majority of fans will go with a big name, even if it's faded, rather than someone who they would have to dig a little bit deeper to discover. Now, I don't have a problem with that on its own and I know the majority of people don't care as much about basketball as I do to really consider who is having the best season. But I believe our expectations about the All-Star game means that we need to take it a little bit more seriously.
Whenever one complains about these voting irregularities, someone playing in an all-star game because they have a greater name recognition even though they are statistically lacking, people point out that "the game doesn't count" and "it's just an exhibition." Well I think there are three reasons why that is a faulty approach to maintain. First of all, all-star appearances factor in when some of these guys are negotiating their contracts. It's used as one barometer for success and ability in the NBA, so we shouldn't be quite as flippant about its weight. One might also say "well, if he's not starting he'll be picked as a reserve so he'll make the team anyways." But then you're bumping out someone, like a David Lee or Paul Pierce this year, who is deserving and would get a reserve spot had the spots been more or less correctly distributed. Secondly, if everyone is all right with big names winning out over smaller names with superior stats, we should really change the name from "All-Star Game" to "Big Name Game." If you're presenting this as a display of the NBA's best players playing together, you can't have players in who aren't playing on that same level. If the fans really want to see a game where all the big names play even if they aren't playing a lot or having good seasons, guys like Garnett or Iverson or Tracy McGrady or Shaquille O'Neal, then make it the "Big Name Game" and don't tell me it's a true "All Star Game." Finally, people who have no problem with the way things are now say the game is "just for fun" and "a show" or "entertainment." To be honest, a lot of these people are involved in television so things like ratings matter. But wouldn't it be easier to sell if you had truly the most talented players playing? The product will clearly be better if you have only players who are playing at a high level together. If it's just a show, I think having Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh starting and playing more minutes would make it a much better and inherently more watchable one.
I'm not quite sure what the solution to this problem is. I clearly don't think the fans always get it right, as this year proves that point, but I do think it's good for the fans to have some say in the matter. Perhaps the fan's vote needs to be weighted somehow, split 50/50 with basketball writers for the starting lineup while the coaches would choose the reserves for each squad. I think that would allow the fans to have some voice but the writers (who are, ostensibly, authorities on such things) could correct irregularities in situations such as the one we had this year. I know I'm making a big deal out of something that is an exhibition, but if it's an exhibition why should we, as fans, care this much about our vote? We should be concerned with getting to watch the best display of talent on the basketball court. And while the fans have shown the ability to get most of it right, they also are able to get certain parts horrendously wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the weighted vote is a pretty logical solution. We have to remember that the NBA is a business, and David Stern and his cronies are trying to squeeze every last decimal out of the ratings. The Iverson thing is ridiculous, but as a moderate fan of the NBA, I would rather watch a player like Josh Smith throw down a ridiculous dunk than Paul Pierce shoot a turnaround jumper from the elbow. If Josh averaged 20 a game and Pierce 24, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with Pierce getting snubbed...he's kind of boring to watch.
ReplyDeleteHere's my actual solution to the NBA All-Star game. You have a team of all-Stars (Kobe, Lebron, Flash, Durant, and Amare) vs. a team of misfits (Stack Jack, Artest, Sheed, Gilbert Arenas armed, and throw in Ray Lewis). No refs. No rules. See what happens. That's entertainment.