Did Horford deserve to be an All-Star?

[lethalweapon3]

Again your math is off. It isn't like the people voting for Horford counted for only 1 vote while the people voting for Bogut counted for 5 or 3. They both were in the same voting system and both got the benefit of it. It isn't like Horford was under a different voting system.

The eyes of casual fans saw Horford as the most controversial pick in this years All-Star game. No other player generated anywere near the disent that the Horford pick did. There was a thread on RealGM about the worst All-Star selections of all time and Horford got several mentions.

Stop pretending like Horford has an advantage over Bogut defensively. Bogut was the defensive anchor of a much better defensive team than the Hawks.

Who needs to pretend? Bogut loses out due to winning and media-market indifference. Lee loses out due to winning and defense. And Bogut's defensive prowess became vastly more evident once Salmons fell into their lap. We're good!

Links, please! The RealGM worst all-star selection of all-time (lemme guess, two or three salty posters on an 18-page thread?) did pretty good for himself in limited minutes in Dallas.

And yes, the All-Star balloting and the All-NBA voting systems are indeed different voting systems by different types of people.

~lw3

Edited August 6, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[exodus]

Who needs to pretend? Bogut loses out due to winning and media-market indifference. Lee loses out due to winning and defense. And Bogut's defensive prowess became vastly more evident once Salmons fell into their lap. We're good!

Links, please! The RealGM worst all-star selection of all-time (lemme guess, two or three salty posters on an 18-page thread?) did pretty good for himself in limited minutes in Dallas.

And yes, the All-Star balloting and the All-NBA voting systems are indeed different voting systems by different types of people.

~lw3

The Bucks were much better than the Hawks defensively and they were 5.5 better defensively with Bogut in the game. Horford does not get an edge on Bogut defensively.

Again your analysis of the voting systems is flat out dumb. I could have voted for Horford dozens of times if i wanted to. But if someone in the All-NBA voting picks Horford he can only do it once.

Horford and Bogut were in the same voting systems. Horford was at an advantage in both due to higher visibility on a winning team.

It is funny how you try to make a strawman argumennt before you actually see a thread.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=986283

Edited August 6, 2010 by exodus

[lethalweapon3]

Let's look at all this for what it is. A discussion of outrage over Horford's All-Star selection (undoubtedly, the last selection by GMs and coaches in the East) arrived six months after-the-fact, and is expected when a team second in the East at All-Star picking time slides to a distant fourth when it's All-NBA picking time, then collectively blows chunks in the playoffs. Hawks make a decent run at the Eastern Conference Finals last spring and this Bogut-Horford argument (which, again, should be a Bogut-Lee argument) doesn't exist.

That said, if the question was. "If healthy, who would deserve a spot in the All-Star Game were it played today and everyone is healthy?" I'm taking Bogut. But that was not the question that was posed. Horford deserved to make it at the time, and he did.

~lw3

[exodus]

Let's look at all this for what it is. A discussion of outrage over Horford's All-Star selection (undoubtedly, the last selection by GMs and coaches in the East) arrived six months after-the-fact, and is expected when a team second in the East at All-Star picking time slides to a distant fourth when it's All-NBA picking time, then collectively blows chunks in the playoffs. Hawks make a decent run at the Eastern Conference Finals last spring and this Bogut-Horford argument (which, again, should be a Bogut-Lee argument) doesn't exist.

That said, if the question was. "If healthy, who would deserve a spot in the All-Star Game were it played today and everyone is healthy?" I'm taking Bogut. But that was not the question that was posed. Horford deserved to make it at the time, and he did.

~lw3

And as a Hawks fan you are obviously unbiased, right? In the opinions of a lot of NBA fans Horford was a bad selection. No player selected to either team generated as much criticism as the Horford pick. That isn't something that happened 6 months after the fact, either.

[lethalweapon3]

The Bucks were much better than the Hawks defensively and they were 5.5 better defensively with Bogut in the game. Horford does not get an edge on Bogut defensively.

Again your analysis of the voting systems is flat out dumb. I could have voted for Horford dozens of times if i wanted to. But if someone in the All-NBA voting picks Horford he can only do it once.

Horford and Bogut were in the same voting systems. Horford was at an advantage in both due to higher visibility on a winning team.

It is funny how you try to make a strawman argumennt before you actually see a thread.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=986283

Someone in the All-NBA picks once for Bogut second team and it counts three times. They get more weight than fans for some reason (A.I. the All-Star? I think that's where the real outrage was last season)...

And did you look at the numbers and vote for Bogut hundreds of times? No? Neither did anyone in Milwaukee apparently.

What's funnier is that I read your ESPN article and critiqued it thoroughly before you even posted it as 'evidence'. And I stand corrected... it wasn't an 3 salty posters on an 18-page thread, it was 4 salty posters on a three-page thread, including a salty Raps fan (Bargs much?) and a Knicks fan (Lee much?). Once more, no comparative stats to back their arguments up, just a fume session, not exactly damning evidence from at most 2 independent posters.

~lw3

Edited August 6, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[lethalweapon3]

And as a Hawks fan you are obviously unbiased, right? In the opinions of a lot of NBA fans Horford was a bad selection. No player selected to either team generated as much criticism as the Horford pick. That isn't something that happened 6 months after the fact, either.

No mistake, I'm VERY biased. And yet I'm making the case for Bogut as the hands-down pick in April that he was not in January. Again these couples of NBA fans brought no evidence beyond petty fuming ("OMG!" is not an argument). Their (also biased) petty arguments were not enough to get David Lee more votes for forward than Michael Beasley, even though, as you note, they can vote hundreds of times if they wanted to. And apparently the GMs and coaches didn't seem to care about a couple fuming homers.

~lw3

[exodus]

Someone in the All-NBA picks once for Bogut second team and it counts three times. They get more weight than fans for some reason (A.I. the All-Star? I think that's where the real outrage was last season)...

And did you look at the numbers and vote for Bogut hundreds of times? No? Neither did anyone in Milwaukee apparently.

What's funnier is that I read your ESPN article and critiqued it thoroughly before you even posted it as 'evidence'. And I stand corrected... it wasn't an 3 salty posters on an 18-page thread, it was 4 salty posters on a three-page thread, including a salty Raps fan (Bargs much?) and a Knicks fan (Lee much?). Once more, no comparative stats to back their arguments up, just a fume session, not exactly damning evidence from at most 2 independent posters.

~lw3

The most points anyone can get from one person for All-NBA birth is 5. As far i know there is no limit on how many times one person can vote for a player in an All-Star game. And you still cant seem to grasp that both guys were in the exact same voting systems so there is no way Bogut had any advatage in either.

Funny that you should bring up stats since Bogut had more points, rebounds and blocks than Horford as well as a better defensive +/- rating on a better defensive team.

It is also funny how you accuse the fans of other teams as being biased, as if you don't have a pro-Hawks bias.

[lethalweapon3]

The most points anyone can get from one person for All-NBA birth is 5. As far i know there is no limit on how many times one person can vote for a player in an All-Star game. And you still cant seem to grasp that both guys were in the exact same voting systems so there is no way Bogut had any advatage in either.

Funny that you should bring up stats since Bogut had more points, rebounds and blocks than Horford as well as a better defensive +/- rating on a better defensive team.

It is also funny how you accuse the fans of other teams as being biased, as if you don't have a pro-Hawks bias.

Links, please! On the season-ending plus-minus Horford ranked sixth, and was even higher earlier in the season. Do you see Bogut anywhere in the top 50?

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus/plusminus_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=22009&split=9&team=

Bogut's net 48-minute PER by season's end? +7.1. Horf's? +10.9. And Horf was better pre-All-Star Game.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09MIL18.HTM

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL11.HTM

I'm sure Bogut did have more blocks and boards. How many more? Enough to get his team out of the doldrums of third place in a weak Central Division? Apparently not. You look to your left and have Josh Smith. I look to my left and have Ersan Ilyasova. Your top scoring guard is on his way to an All-Star berth and mine is in crutches, again. I'd darn well better have more blocks, boards, points, and floor burns than you! And if I wanna be an All-Star it had better be a ton more, especially on a losing team! When the stats in the paper are negligible, the GMs and coaches pick based on factors that have more to do with PER and WinShares.

And I'll say it again, I'm VERY biased. Just like the NBA other fans. And if I cared enough to get Horford to start, I can ballot stuff the same way they and every other NBA fan (unlike those coaches and execs, who I don't believe can even vote for their own players) can. Yet that still wasn't enough to help Lee or Bogut make a case until after the fact.

I'll also note that in the Hawksquawk thread I linked earlier, I indicated that I preferred that Smoove make it, were it a decision among those two. But it wasn't, so I understand the choice that was made to take Horford.

~lw3

[exodus]

Links, please! On the season-ending plus-minus Horford ranked sixth, and was even higher earlier in the season. Do you see Bogut anywhere in the top 50?

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus/plusminus_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=22009&split=9&team=

Bogut's net 48-minute PER by season's end? +7.1. Horf's? +10.9. And Horf was better pre-All-Star Game.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09MIL18.HTM

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL11.HTM

I'm sure Bogut did have more blocks and boards. How many more? Enough to get his team out of the doldrums of third place in a weak Central Division? Apparently not. You look to your left and have Josh Smith. I look to my left and have Ersan Ilyasova. Your top scoring guard is on his way to an All-Star berth and mine is in crutches, again. I'd darn well better have more blocks, boards, points, and floor burns than you! And if I wanna be an All-Star it had better be a ton more, especially on a losing team! When the stats in the paper are negligible, the GMs and coaches pick based on factors that have more to do with PER and WinShares.

And I'll say it again, I'm VERY biased. Just like the NBA other fans. And if I cared enough to get Horford to start, I can ballot stuff the same way they and every other NBA fan (unlike those coaches and execs, who I don't believe can even vote for their own players) can. Yet that still wasn't enough to help Lee or Bogut make a case until after the fact.

I'll also note that in the Hawksquawk thread I linked earlier, I indicated that I preferred that Smoove make it, were it a decision among those two. But it wasn't, so I understand the choice that was made to take Horford.

~lw3

Do you even know what defensive +/- is? Apparently not. Boguts was -5.5 and Horfords was -3.4.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09MIL18.HTM#onoff

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL11.HTM#onoff

You are the one that has repeatedly mentioned defense as a reason why Horford was picked over Bogut. The fact that Horford plays next to Smith just makes your defensive argument that much weaker.

Not only did Bogut have a better defensive +/- on a better defensive team, he also had more rebounds on a better rebounding team. The Bucks were 7th in the NBA in rebounding.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortable_team_statistics/sortable2.html?cnf=1&prd=1

The Bucks were picked to be a cellar dweller before the season. They were surpassing expectations before the All-Star game inspite of injury problems.

[lethalweapon3]

Do you even know what defensive +/- is? Apparently not. Boguts was -5.5 and Horfords was -3.4.

...which Horford made up for on the offensive end. (Net is one line down, and it's +10.7 per 100 possesions for Horford and +8.0 for Bogut, despite all his points,blocks, boards, etc). It's not the All-Defensive-Star team.

Not only did Bogut have a better defensive +/- on a better defensive team, he also had more rebounds on a better rebounding team. The Bucks were 7th in the NBA in rebounding.

Annnd unfortunately they were 7th in the NBA in giving up rebounds. I trust you know the link.

You are the one that has repeatedly mentioned defense as a reason why Horford was picked over Bogut. The fact that Horford plays next to Smith just makes your defensive argument that much weaker.

Again, read above where I clarified that Horf got "snubbed" over Bogut for winning and media-market indifference, and over Lee for winning and defense. I apologize for lumping them together for convenience without thinking somebody needed more parsing. Here it is again from earlier on this page:

Who needs to pretend? Bogut loses out due to winning and media-market indifference. Lee loses out due to winning and defense. And Bogut's defensive prowess became vastly more evident once Salmons fell into their lap. We're good!

GMs and coaches making the pick could care less about one side of the ball or the other unless there is a significant gap to pay attention to. There was none here. And being a handful of surprising games ahead of the Pacers doesn't merit All-Star consideration when the numbers are negligible. Being a half-game above the preseason favorite for the Southeast Division does. Just win, baby.

It's a shame that Bogut (like Bogut and every other center) couldn't do it all by himself. If he could... well, he'd have been an All-Star! He'll just have to "settle" for 3rd Team All-NBA, which I'll say again with my loudest homer voice, he deserved.

Edited August 6, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[lethalweapon3]

Just gonna note... I know this thread bores the living hell out of the rest of you, I understand!

~lw3

[exodus]

...which Horford made up for on the offensive end. (Net is one line down, and it's +10.7 per 100 possesions for Horford and +8.0 for Bogut, despite all his points,blocks, boards, etc). It's not the All-Defensive-Star team.

Annnd unfortunately they were 7th in the NBA in giving up rebounds. I trust you know the link.

Again, read above where I clarified that Horf got "snubbed" over Bogut for winning and media-market indifference, and over Lee for winning and defense. I apologize for lumping them together for convenience without thinking somebody needed more parsing. GMs and coaches making the pick could care less about one side of the ball or the other unless there is a significant gap to pay attention to. There was none here. And being a handful of surprising games ahead of the Pacers doesn't merit All-Star consideration when the numbers are negligible. Being a half-game above the preseason favorite for the Southeast Division does. Just win, baby.

It is a lot easier to win when you didn't lose your leading scorer to a season ending injury. Your whole argument always comes back to winning. I wonder how much the Hawks would win if JJ or Smith went down with a season ending injury.

The worse your backups are the better your +/- will be. Horford has garbage cans playing behind him. Bogut had Kurt Thomas behind him.

[lethalweapon3]

It is a lot easier to win when you didn't lose your leading scorer to a season ending injury. Your whole argument always comes back to winning. I wonder how much the Hawks would win if JJ or Smith went down with a season ending injury.

The worse your backups are the better your +/- will be. Horford has garbage cans playing behind him. Bogut had Kurt Thomas behind him.

When a GM or coach making an All-Star reserve pick get down to the qualitative merits of Kurt Thomas versus Zaza Pachulia, it's well past time to vote. And the results are history. Fortunately, for all of us, the selectors don't "wonder" when it's time to pick the final All-Stars.

~lw3

Edited August 6, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[exodus]

When a GM or coach making an All-Star reserve pick get down to the qualitative merits of Kurt Thomas versus Zaza Pachulia, it's well past time to vote. And the results are history. Fortunately, for all of us, the selectors don't "wonder" when it's time to pick the final All-Stars.

~lw3

And they were wrong in the opinion of a lot of NBA fans at the time. The Horford pick got plenty of criticism 6 months ago. It is not something that just started no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. No pick got more criticism than Horford's.

Put JJ or Smith out for the year and there was no way Horford goes to Dallas.

Fortunately the All-NBA voters did their best to rectify Boguts All-Star snub.

Edited August 6, 2010 by exodus

[lethalweapon3]

And they were wrong in the opinion of a lot of NBA fans at the time. The Horford pick got plenty of criticism 6 months ago. It is not something that just started no matter how much you try to pretend that it is. No pick got more criticism than Horford's.

Looks like we'll agree to disagree, then. If a handful of smitten homers on message boards constitutes "a lot," who's to say differently. We have more discussion of the merits of Bogut v. Horford on this thread than was produced in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta and Milwaukee-Waukesha homervilles combined. And the fact that just you and I are the sole folks fussing, then and now, tells you how much anyone cares or should care about it. No Sporting News/ESPN/FoxSports/NBATV analysis from January or February showing why this was a bad selection? Just OMGs from RealGM and InsideHoops hit-and-run posters? Says it all.

But it takes it back to what was the issue at hand, then, once it was accepted that another big was needed on the East. It was not Horford v. Bogut. It was Horford v. Bogut v. Lee v. Lopez v. Bargnani (if Raps fans are to be believed) And when the comparative numbers get negligible, the selectors look at the standings. And picked. If the argument boils down to whether we ('da fans") should have liked it or not, then Bogut reinforced their arguments with a strong second half worthy of adulation, that was at least coincidental with the Bucks becoming legit playoff contenders.

~lw3

[exodus]

Looks like we'll agree to disagree, then. If a handful of smitten homers on message boards constitutes "a lot," who's to say differently. We have more discussion of the merits of Bogut v. Horford on this thread than was produced in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta and Milwaukee-Waukesha homervilles combined. And the fact that just you and I are the sole folks fussing, then and now, tells you how much anyone cares or should care about it. No Sporting News/ESPN/FoxSports/NBATV analysis from January or February showing why this was a bad selection? Just OMGs from RealGM and InsideHoops hit-and-run posters? Says it all.

But it takes it back to what was the issue at hand, then, once it was accepted that another big was needed on the East. It was not Horford v. Bogut. It was Horford v. Bogut v. Lee v. Lopez v. Bargnani (if Raps fans are to be believed) And when the comparative numbers get negligible, the selectors look at the standings. And picked. If the argument boils down to whether we ('da fans") should have liked it or not, then Bogut reinforced their arguments with a strong second half worthy of adulation, that was at least coincidental with the Bucks becoming legit playoff contenders.

~lw3

That is just revisionist history. March and April weren't Boguts best. And the comments i posted were not just a handful homer smitten people. It was general disbelief among regular NBA fans who thought Horfords selection wrong. I didn't see many comments about other selections being a joke. And that was just a general nba board. Most of the comments weren't from fans of the Bucks or Knicks.

Even if every vote Horford got for All-NBA was 1 point and every vote Bogut got counted for 3 that would still give Bogut nearly a 3 times as many total votes as Horford. Twenty four games was not enough to create such a wide disparity.

[Diesel]

Stop pretending like Horford has an advantage over Bogut defensively. Bogut was the defensive anchor of a much better defensive team than the Hawks.

Actually, I have seen Bogut play Howard to a standstill. Howard shot over 80+% when Horf was on him.

[lethalweapon3]

That is just revisionist history. March and April weren't Boguts best. And the comments i posted were not just a handful homer smitten people. It was general disbelief among regular NBA fans who thought Horfords selection wrong. I didn't see many comments about other selections being a joke. And that was just a general nba board. Most of the comments weren't from fans of the Bucks or Knicks.

Even if every vote Horford got for All-NBA was 1 point and every vote Bogut got counted for 3 that would still give Bogut nearly a 3 times as many total votes as Horford. Twenty four games was not enough to create such a wide disparity.

Yeah, it wasn't a handful. More like a fingerful. :) Again, we'll agree to disagree unless you find some more evidence, other than three-page threads with the same posters arguing with each other, that this was an issue.

As a favor, on the RealGM thread can you bump the thread now that the posters with hurt butts have less of a stake, and see how many more say Horford now that the All-Star Game has actually been played?

And did I say something about April? I don't recall him playing much in April (thank Gawd), although I do recall his play in February and March. Actually, there were two times Andrew Bogut fell into our collective consciousness last season. One was serving up the pacifier to Big Baby and the Celtics. The other one, sadly, was when he went head-over-heels (in April). Both events allowed the media to highlight to the league Bogut's importance to Milwaukee's relevance in terms of competitive playoff contention. Neither occurred in time for All-Star contention. But they did occur right when it was time to start standing out for All-NBA.

I trust that his numbers were not that much different, but I do recall that Horford's went collectively down as the Bucks and Hawks inched closer to each other in the standings. Can anyone crank out the stats pre- and post-AllStar for both? Again, this assumes anyone cares.

Again, it comes back to winning. Improve your lot in the standings at a position lacking depth in the league and you get noticed. For Bogut and his Bucks, unfortunately, it happened a half-month too late.

One more self-correction, though. I keep harping on "media market" as a factor, as if Nielsen ratings have anything to do with it. It's "fan market" (Celtics, Knicks, Raps, Lakers) which accounts for reasons why, say, a David Lee gets a "personal leave replacement" pick over Andrew Bogut, despite Bogut's purportedly vastly outstanding factors. "Media market" implies that guys like Kaman and Iguodala get a leg up, which is not the case.

~lw3

[exodus]

Yeah, it wasn't a handful. More like a fingerful. :) Again, we'll agree to disagree unless you find some more evidence, other than three-page threads with the same posters arguing with each other, that this was an issue.

Again that is just nonsense. That is just you making stuff up. They were commenting on the All-Star selections and the Horford pick is the one that got repeated mentions as a poor pick. No other pick got nearly as much criticism.

Where are the same posters arguing with each other on the insidehoops link? You are just trying to make stuff up to dogde the fact that the Horford selection was heavily criticized.

Bogut's two best months were last year. This "surge" after the break is just something else you made up.

Edited August 6, 2010 by exodus

[exodus]

Oddly enough it was Horford who had his most productive month after the break.