miller31time wrote:I have no idea what you consider "good" but if Nick Young's stats are considered "bad", then so are Green's. After all, he got his with an extra 8 minutes per game on a crappy team. Adjust Young's numbers to account for the 8 minutes more Green played and Young suddenly becomes a "good" player by your standards.
My definition of good: You get regular playing time and you put up decent stats. Nick Young doesn't fit either category. The reason Gerald Green made it to the All-Star game was because he was at least putting up decent stats (It didn't matter if he was doing it in 8 extra minutes. Whoever picks dunk contest contestants doesn't take that into consideration.
) and he had a lot of hype. He was coming staright out of high school, he was given titles like the next Tmac, and he had had very nice dunks during the season and summer league.
miller31time wrote:But your original statement was inaccurate anyway. It doesn't matter how good or bad you are. All that matters is can you dunk or not? If you're a good dunker, you're in contention. If not, then you won't be mentioned.
Yes, being a good dunker is the most important thing, but they won't invite some no name rookie who doesn't have any hype around him, doesn't get any mention from the national media, and doesn't get regular playing time. The NBA wants people to watch the dunk contest, that's why they pick people who get talked about a lot. And that is the reason Gerald green was picked.