There is something that I feel like everyone puts too much emphasis on, and that's being an All-Star. That includes media and team front offices. The all-star game is worthless in my opinion--the way they are selected is just a popularity contest. It isn't a true representation of who deserves the honor. Heck, some casual fans just vote for Shaq because they don't recognise most of the other names on the list. And Yao will get in every year whether he plays well or not.

Instead, everyone should talk about whether a guy was All-NBA 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team. It isn't something that is as hyped as the All-Star game but is a much truer gauge of whether a guy is in the top of the league at his position. I'd just rather not hear someone talk about someone being a "four-time All Star" as if it really means something. "Four-time All-NBA" does mean something.

And the last thing I'd like to say about the subject is that I believe the best player should always be selected for All-NBA honors as well as MVP regardless of how his team does. A player has virtually no say in who the team drafts, trades for, or signs as free agents, so you can't put it on him that his team isn't doing well. There are just too many factors. Pick the best player overall, not just the best player on the best team.

Update [2007-7-31 22:18:6 by jamon51]: Found this article which backs up my opinion: Article