NBA All-Star Appearances Matter, So Should The Voting

By Max Seng | Jan 25, 2017

February 15, 2015; New York, NY, USA; (EDITORS NOTE: caption correction) Eastern Conference forward LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers (23) and Eastern Conference guard Chris Paul of the Los Angeles Clippers (left) before the 2015 NBA All-Star Game at Madison Square Garden. Mandatory Credit: Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports /

NBA All-Star voting is important because it’s a tool to measure a player’s career within his own era. There will always be snubs and legacy votes, but we owe it to the players to get it right if we’re going to judge them for it in the future.

Last week, the NBA All-Star starters were announced for each conference. Among a couple of other qualms the general public had, the biggest outcry came from Russell Westbrook not being named as a Western Conference starter. Other than the obvious enjoyment from watching the awkward interactions between Westbrook and Kevin Durant, I wasn’t frustrated by it at all.

That’s because years from now, when we evaluate both Westbrook and Stephen Curry‘s career, the guard voted over Westbrook, we won’t look at All-Star starts, but All-Star appearances as one barometer for them.

Under the new voting instituted this year, fans have 50 percent control of the vote for the starting five, while media and players get 25 percent each to make up the other half. The hope is that this will help weed out any undeserving players from getting into the game.

Everyone seems to have a different criteria for their All-Star voting, and that’s good. It’s a reflection on the basketball viewing population at large and provides balance to the voting process.

More from NBA

Some reward past performance and overall impact on the league, whereas others look at potential and future impact. Some go by the “Van Gundy doctrine,” voting in players whose teams are over .500, rewarding translating outstanding play into wins. Then there’s the mindset of voting in the most watchable and entertaining players, as ultimately the NBA is entertainment, with the All-Star Game serving as a showcase of the agency’s best talent.

Personally, I try to determine my ballot by picking the best 12 players from the first 40-45 games. I go by that because when going back to look at a particular player’s career, that’s what I presume when I see All-Star selections.

Of the 58 players with eight or more career All-Star appearances, per Basketball-Reference, the only one that is not (or will not) be in the Hall of Fame is Larry Foust, whose career spanned from 1950-62 and career averages were 13.7 point and 9.8 rebounds per game.

As one scrolls down the list, the waters get murkier, with players who have less than five All-Star appearances having little to no chance of making the Hall of Fame without championships, notable collegiate success or a Bo Jackson-esque impact on the game in a short span.

Consider Amar’e Stoudemire and his six All-Star appearances, whose retirement from the NBA earlier this year sparked the conversation: Is Stoudemire a Hall of Famer? Other contemporaries with six All-Star selections such as Pau Gasol and Tony Parker have championships to back up their legacy and case for the Hall of Fame.

Had Stoudemire made just one or two more All-Star games, that may be the criteria to push him over the top into a probable Hall of Famer. However, without championships his case will be a hard one to make, even with his impact on the “Seven Seconds or Less” Phoenix Suns. His lengthy injury history robbed him of a couple of seasons where he put up outstanding numbers, but he simply didn’t play enough games.

Next: 2016-17 NBA Power Rankings: Week 14

So, when you cast your ballot in the future, weigh those fringe players extra heavily. The distinction of Hall of Famer may be resting on your decision years down the road.