Everyone wants to talk about the all star game selections, it seems, with one of several stories being that the Magic got too many players in the game, that Mo Williams and Al Jefferson were huge snubs, and what the hell is David West doing there. All valid questions and concerns, I suppose, though the whole debate of who should or shouldn't be an all star seems ridiculous in a world where Allen Iverson is going to start in said all star game seems at best silly and at worst a complete waste of time.
It seems ludicrous to me that people would put serious stock in all star game appearances when the starters are voted in by fans, and the average basketball fan is only as knowledgeable as the various things shouted at them on 8am Sportscenter once a week. That's why Allen Iverson gets voted in over Devin Harris and Joe Johnson: people don't know any better. And if we're going to continue to have that kind of popularity contest once a year at the season's midpoint, why give it any kind of merit in terms of player v. player comparisons? It's not like the all star game itself has any integrity to begin with.
For all of the NBA and the media's constant harping on the "defense wins championships" motto, like a 64 year old hooker in Vegas who's still turning tricks because, well damn, it's all she knows how to do, they still make a big deal once day a year out of a game that promotes the idea that if you act "big" enough, you'll never have to defend in your career. I have no problem with an exhibition game where players show off their athleticism, and attempt to pull off overly elaborate superstar plays. That's fine. But if that's what you're going to do, do it. I guarantee that Rudy Gay could come up with much flashier plays than Tim Duncan, and if you're going to present the all star game as an exhibition of Sportscenter highlights, don't pretend the game itself has value.
After all, it's not like anyone thinks the winner of the allstar game is the best conference anyway.
