Rethinking the All Star game

Hey, it's been a while since I posted here. Work, eh? I've probably bemoaned the idea of the all-star game in the past before. The NBA mid season showcase always brings about lots of arguments, because there are only 12 spots per conference. This year, conference imbalance seems to be the talk, but it's not the first time. Remember in 2001 when seven west teams won 50 games, and only three from the east? Or the next year, when the Nets finished first in the east with 52 wins? Or the next year when the Pistons finished first with just 50 and no one else got there? Or how about ... yeah, you get it, there have been lots of years recently in which one conference has been considerably stronger. Usually, it's the west. This year is no different; currently, seven teams are on pace to win 52 games, and Phoenix and Oklahoma City will have to fight it out just to get that last spot.  Last year, it was a similarly crazy race in the west, while everyone outside Miami and Indiana in the east was... not that good.

Once again, people are arguing about the all-star game and how it should be changed to reflect this. There are a lot of great players who will be snubbed from the west team, while the east team may struggle to find 12 really good candidates. As someone who can remember when the east all-stars started Anthony Mason and Antonio Davis as their big guys (2001, look it up) against Shaq and Duncan, I can tell you this is nothing new. I've always seen the conferences go up and down, and I used to complain about it, but then I stopped caring. I figured it would always be a little unfair somehow, and while I disagreed with certain selections, I didn't really push for major changes.

Until now.

This week, I was watching the Pro Bowl, by which I mean I was reading sportswriters' tweets about the Pro Bowl. The Pro Bowl sucks and is even more pointless in the week before the Super Bowl.... but it did add a kinda interesting wrinkle when they assigned two honorary captains to pick players, as opposed to just splitting them up by conference. While the NFL's all-star game is terrible and works much better on paper than in a real game, if they can feel fine with mixing up two conferences that have long been separated for everything, why can't the NBA? I also found out that the NHL tried something like this for their all-star game (I know almost nothing about hockey, so feel free to correct me on this) and was also considering having the teams be North Americans vs. Europeans. Maybe they already did that. I like that idea.

These two all-star games are not as fun or as big as the NBA's, but they showed everyone that old traditions can be changed and it might work better. I think the NBA would be more open to changes in the all-star process now, as they've already implemented several in the past few years. They made it so that centers and forwards go together, because it's hard to find true centers nowadays. This is now part of the selection process for the starters as well as the bench.

[If you're unfamiliar with the all-star process, fans vote for 5 starters, being 2 guards and 3 frontcourt players, in each conference. The biggest vote recipients in each category get to start the all-star game, no matter how unqualified they are. This has led to some very popular but not great players voted in when they shouldn't have been: Vince Carter after he quit on Toronto, a washed up Allen Iverson, and this year, a nearly-dead Kobe. The coaches in each conference then vote for the reserves.]

Hardcore fans hate the voting process because it leads to popular guys winning even when they shouldn't, as I noted above. Everyone is pissed that Kobe made it in this year, but the general public also recognized Anthony Davis and Marc Gasol, which is nice. Carmelo is a bit of a name pick, but it's not like the east has a ton of great forwards. Regardless, it's always been a bit of a problem for people who really follow the NBA, and I've always just taken it.

Now, though, since there have been some changes to the all-star process, and the league overall seems to be open to a lot of things under Silver's leadership, I am starting to think that maybe they would consider some more tweaks. Going with that idea that the NFL has with captains, I wonder if maybe the NBA would consider something like that.

Here is the basic proposal: What if we had two captains, still voted by fans, and then the rest of the players were all picked by coaches? Then those captains would select the players for their team, just like in a pickup game, without any conference restrictions. I know other people have suggested this before, and Bill Simmons made a whole column about it a few years back. I never really pushed for it before, but now, I think it would be way more interesting than the current setup.

Imagine how much better the rosters could be with this in place. Instead of trying to search for east big men who qualify, or wondering if 4 Hawks will make it in (they're playing great but NO) there would be balance and intrigue in these two teams. Better yet, this ensures that the top 25 players in the league are represented, and less deserving players are left out.

I made a mock draft of how this would go down. Since Stephen Currry got the most all-star votes overall, he's the top captain and gets the first pick. LeBron finished second, so he's the next captain and gets second pick, and then they go back and forth. It works out pretty well - Curry is an MVP favorite and on the best team, and LeBron has long been the dominant guy. Last year, the captains would probably have been LeBron and Durant, and how great would that be?

The coaches would then vote on the rest of the players, and this will hopefully give us the best guys in the league, regardless of conference. I don't think it would lean TOO much in favor of the west, because the east coaches would still want some of their guys represented. Here's how my mock draft looks:

1. (Curry): Anthony Davis
2. (LeBron): Harden
3. (Curry): Aldridge
4. (LeBron): Chris Paul
5. (C): Durant
6. (LB): Blake Griffin
7. (C): Wall
8. (LB): Marc Gasol
9. (C): Lowry
10. (LB): Jimmy Butler
11. (C): Lillard
12. (LB): Pau Gasol
13. (C): Boogie
14. (LB): Westbrook
15. (C): Dirk
16. (LB): Paul Millsap
17. (C): Duncan
18. (LB): Carmelo
19. (C): Klay Thompson
20. (LB): Bosh
21. (C): Mike Conley
22. (LB): Jeff Teague (he'd have taken his old buddy Wade, but he's probably sitting this out)

Which gives us these lineups....

TEAM CURRY - Starters - Curry, Wall, A Davis, Durant, Aldridge
Bench - Boogie, Dirk, Duncan, Klay, Lillard, Lowry, Conley

TEAM LBJ - Starters - LB, Blake, Marc G, CP, Harden
Bench - Pau G, Bosh, Millsap, Melo, J Butler, Westbrook, Teague

Doesn't that look awesome? It guarantees a lot of guys in tight spots will get in. Durant might not even make the west team this year because of all the games he's missed, and yet he's still probably more qualified than all the east forwards besides LeBron. Conley, Klay, Dirk, and Duncan will all be fighting for one spot, most likely, or maybe Boogie will be left out despite killer numbers. They all should be there.

I could see some arguments with the guys I took. This would knock out some of the east guys fighting for a spot in the current game. Love and Kyrie have been ok, and the Cavs are finally coming around now, but do they really all need to be in it? Horford has been getting back, but his numbers aren't amazing. Kemba Walker and Brandon Knight have been nice scoring guards for playoff-contending teams, but they're not really all-stars. Now, they don't have to be.

I know this would upset some people who want their east teams represented, and it would lessen the fan impact on voting, but man, would it make for a more interesting game. Plus, in the years where there are more good people in the east, they'll be there. I hope Silver and his people are at least pondering something like this. It would be nice if they get some inspiration from the other leagues and rethink the NBA all-star game.