Is this an all-star....all-time first?

[John8204]

East -
1. Miami - no starters
2. Chicago - DeRozan
3. Cleveland - no starters
4. Brooklyn - Durant
5. Philadelphia - Embiid
6. Bucks - Giannis
7. Hornets - no starters
8. Celtics - no starters
12. Hawks - Trae Young

West
1. Phoenix - no starters
2. Golden State - Curry, Wiggins
3. Memphis - Morant
4. Jazz - no starters
5. Mavs - no starters
6. Denver - Joker
7. Clippers - no starters
8. Timberwolves - no starters
9. Lakers - Lebron James

The top two seeds have no starters, you have as many players below the 4 seed (5) as above (5)

[HunterSThompson]

Bam or butler will start in place of durant most likely

[L.Kizzle]

East -
1. Miami - no starters
2. Chicago - DeRozan
3. Cleveland - no starters
4. Brooklyn - Durant
5. Philadelphia - Embiid
6. Bucks - Giannis
7. Hornets - no starters
8. Celtics - no starters
12. Hawks - Trae Young

West
1. Phoenix - no starters
2. Golden State - Curry, Wiggins
3. Memphis - Morant
4. Jazz - no starters
5. Mavs - no starters
6. Denver - Joker
7. Clippers - no starters
8. Timberwolves - no starters
9. Lakers - Lebron James

The top two seeds have no starters, you have as many players below the 4 seed (5) as above (5)
I doubt it. The 60 win Hawks didn't have no starters.

[John8204]

I doubt it. The 60 win Hawks didn't have no starters.

That's the east but the west had GS and Curry starting

[Spurs m8]

Shows even further, its nothing to be taken seriously

It's a joke of a weekend

[fsvr54]

I've seen you say this multiple times. While I agree that All star weekend sucks and is mostly boring, the players themselves take all star very seriously, evidenced by the many campaigns and meltdowns by players in the past. They use all-star selections as a ranking criteria for greatness, just as the fans do.

Plus, I know certain contracts might give a player money-incentives for being all stars...or is that just all-NBA?