Sothron wrote:
As I said in another thread, I wish this silly notion of "this team "deserves" X All Stars" is done away with at some point. There is no actual argument there. The All Star selection by its very nature is about individual accomplishment. That is the only criteria to determine who should be All Stars or not. Josh Smith's numbers are clearly better than the other reserve forwards and as a result he should be an All Star. The same argument applies to Joe Johnson versus other two guards and Al Horford (when he's healthy) over other centers.
As for "why the Hawks have not been a better team" are you kidding me? The Hawks make the second round of the playoffs for several seasons in a row. That by itself puts them in the top eight teams in the entire NBA. How much "better" should they be? As I said that argument has no water to it.
There is no specific amount of All-Stars per win formula. But there is a correlation between a great player who helps his team win vs a player who puts up nice stats, but does not always lead their teams to wins....and most people can tell the difference.
And yes, why have the Hawks not been a better team? In your mind, or at least by your own criteria, the Hawks have 3 legit All-Stars.
How many teams out there have 3 legit All-Stars and are not, nor have been, actual legit contenders?
2008-09 - 47-35, swept out of the 2nd round.
2009-10 - 53-29, swept out of the 2nd round.
2010-11 - 44-38, lost in the 2nd round in 6 games.
Going a combined 2 and 12 over the 3 years in the 2nd round with so many "deserving" is a bit on the underachieving side....especially when Crawford won the 6th man of the year award in 09-10 as well.
As someone else mentioned, there are more All-Star level players than All-Star spots. Deal with it.
Smith is the guy I would choose as an injury replacement over Melo...but if he does not get in....he does not get in.