Sportswriters Are Idiots...
That's right, you heard it here first. Sportswriters are idiots. I've been keeping a close watch on who NBA "experts" think should be an NBA all-star reserve. And for the most part, the picks have been very close to my picks (see below). But the differences have been the most ridiculous things I've seen in some time.
After all, I expect for there to be injustice in the All-Star starting lineups. That's because fans vote for the starters and, let's face it, fans are idiots. But if you get paid to be an NBA expert and you still act like an idiot, I feel inclined to write your employer and have them send me your check.
So here it goes, the most idiotic all-star picks (both made by multiple professional sportswriters):
1. Rasheed Wallace should be an all-star. What? I mean really? Who really thinks this makes sense? I don't care if the Pistons are undefeated, they don't deserve FOUR ALL-STARS! Wallace's numbers don't even qualify him as a top 20 player in his conference, let alone top 12. Since the Pistons are already going to get Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton as All-Stars, they don't need another all star. I would even argue that all three of those guys don't deserve to be there, but since everyone has bought into the idea that team record indicates how good an individual player is, I guess we'll give Detroit three. But if the coaches pick Wallace ahead of Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, Paul Pierce or Michael Redd, I'm boycotting the All Star game. Those 4 have played great with essentially no help from their teammates and all of this bull shit about team records being a determining factor in all star nods is ridiculous. Hey assholes, they already have games that reward team success, they're called the mother fucking playoffs, bitches!!!
2. Chris Paul should not be an all-star. This is ridiculous. Other than Steve Nash, Paul is the best true point guard in the NBA. Again, if he doesn't make it, I'm boycotting the game. And if I read one more article that says "Paul should be there, but he'll have a lot more chances in the future," I'm going to fire bomb ESPN and Sports Illustrated. What does the future have to do with a player's performance in the first half of the season? Not a damn thing. If you took all of the teams in the west and figured out which player was most important to his team, Paul would be in the top 3. I think Kobe and KG might edge him out, but that's about it (notice I didn't include Steve Nash (he's got Shawn Marion) or Tim Duncan (Tony Parker/Manu Ginobli) or Dirk Nowitzki (Jason Terry/Josh Howard)).
These are my two biggest beefs...
My reserves:
East: Pierce, Redd, Billups, B. Wallace, Hamilton, Bosh, Howard
West: KG, Paul, Marion, Brand, Parker, Anthony, Ray Allen/Pau Gasol
After all, I expect for there to be injustice in the All-Star starting lineups. That's because fans vote for the starters and, let's face it, fans are idiots. But if you get paid to be an NBA expert and you still act like an idiot, I feel inclined to write your employer and have them send me your check.
So here it goes, the most idiotic all-star picks (both made by multiple professional sportswriters):
1. Rasheed Wallace should be an all-star. What? I mean really? Who really thinks this makes sense? I don't care if the Pistons are undefeated, they don't deserve FOUR ALL-STARS! Wallace's numbers don't even qualify him as a top 20 player in his conference, let alone top 12. Since the Pistons are already going to get Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton as All-Stars, they don't need another all star. I would even argue that all three of those guys don't deserve to be there, but since everyone has bought into the idea that team record indicates how good an individual player is, I guess we'll give Detroit three. But if the coaches pick Wallace ahead of Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, Paul Pierce or Michael Redd, I'm boycotting the All Star game. Those 4 have played great with essentially no help from their teammates and all of this bull shit about team records being a determining factor in all star nods is ridiculous. Hey assholes, they already have games that reward team success, they're called the mother fucking playoffs, bitches!!!
2. Chris Paul should not be an all-star. This is ridiculous. Other than Steve Nash, Paul is the best true point guard in the NBA. Again, if he doesn't make it, I'm boycotting the game. And if I read one more article that says "Paul should be there, but he'll have a lot more chances in the future," I'm going to fire bomb ESPN and Sports Illustrated. What does the future have to do with a player's performance in the first half of the season? Not a damn thing. If you took all of the teams in the west and figured out which player was most important to his team, Paul would be in the top 3. I think Kobe and KG might edge him out, but that's about it (notice I didn't include Steve Nash (he's got Shawn Marion) or Tim Duncan (Tony Parker/Manu Ginobli) or Dirk Nowitzki (Jason Terry/Josh Howard)).
These are my two biggest beefs...
My reserves:
East: Pierce, Redd, Billups, B. Wallace, Hamilton, Bosh, Howard
West: KG, Paul, Marion, Brand, Parker, Anthony, Ray Allen/Pau Gasol
posted by belville at 10:00 PM
1 Comments:
Paul: I agree. Future chances should not come into play.
Wallace: I disagree... with your concept, not your conclusion. Wallace aside, great players' stats are often diminished because they play on great teams. Is Kobe really that much better now, or does he just get more shots? Does he deserve to be an All-Star more because he scores 50 shooting 20/54 and 10/12? Nope. Stats are not the endall, beall of individual performance. They help and often do they job, but not always. And the playoffs are a good reward. I get it. But not an individual reward. Should players on great teams never get individual rewards just because players on shitty teams build up more stats? That doesn't make sense.
Post a Comment
<< Home