All-NBA selections that had losing teams (40 wins or less), since 1980

[3ba11]

.
2nd options bolded:

1981 Dantley - 28 wins
1983 Isiah - 37 wins
1985 Jordan - 37 wins
1986 Robertson - 35 wins
1987 Lever - 37 wins
1990 Mullin - 37 wins
1991 King - 30 wins
1992 Willis - 34 wins
1993 Hardaway - 34 wins
1994 Richmond - 27 wins
1998 Richmond - 28 wins
1995 Richmond - 39 wins
1996 Richmond - 39 wins
1997 Richmond - 34 wins
2000 Marbury - 31 wins
2004 McGrady - 21 wins
2004 Lebron - 35 wins
2015 Cousins - 29 wins
2016 Cousins - 33 wins
2017 AD - 34 wins
2019 Kemba - 39 wins
2020 Lillard - 35 wins
2023 Luka - 38 wins

CONCLUSION: 2nd options need winning teams to make All-NBA, with only 3 exceptions in 45 years..

2nd options need winning spotlight to be seen as All-NBA because their performance isn't enough on it's own.. Otoh, 1st options routinely make All-NBA with losing teams because they dominate... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options and their dominance, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight.

Finally, if we run the numbers for 40-50 win teams, there are only a half dozen examples of 2nd options getting All-NBA with these records - 2nd options usually need much greater winning spotlight... Infact, Klay and Pippen needed 67-win teams to make their first All-NBA - the subsequent titles gave them the permanent "winner" status that Parker, Ginobili and Pau enjoyed to get their All-NBA selections as well.. The idea is to trick the dumb media by landing alongside a goat 1st option that can carry you to titles - the historical and statistical record shows that this is what these winning 2nd options did to make All-NBA.. TLDR: Pippen never played above a Shawn Marion or Paul George caliber, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade (many All-NBA).

[ShawkFactory]

This long discussion from another thread needed its own, huh?

[3ba11]

This long discussion from another thread needed its own, huh?

They corrupted the thread by acting like 3 minor oversights to the list invalidated the entire concept of 2nd options needing winning teams to make All-NBA - the historical record shows that they do.

And 2nd options usually need much greater winning spotlight, such as Klay and Pippen needing 67-win teams to make their first All-NBA

Winning spotlight helped Wiggins and Mo get all-star, or Klay and Pippen get All-NBA .. None of these pedestrian producers would get these accolades on losing teams It's intuitive.

[3ba11]

This long discussion from another thread needed its own, huh?

They corrupted the thread by acting like 3 minor oversights to the list invalidated the entire concept of 2nd options needing winning teams to make All-NBA - the historical record shows that they do.

And 2nd options usually need much greater winning spotlight, such as Klay and Pippen needing 67-win teams to make their first All-NBA

Winning spotlight helped Wiggins and Mo get all-star, or Klay and Pippen get All-NBA .. None of these pedestrian producers would get these accolades on losing teams.. It's intuitive.and historical record - 2nd options need winning teams to get All-NBA, and usually all-star too

[3ba11]

.
.
Thread Cliffs


1st options make All-NBA with far weaker records than 2nd options... 2nd options need winning records to get All-NBA, and usually good winning records, so the "winning spotlight" is a real thing.

Winning spotlight can be a lot of things, such as a team taking the league by storm, which allowed Mo to make all-star in 2009, or Wiggins in 2022, or Klay in 2015... Mo doesn't make jack sh*t if he's losing on the Bucks, or barely winning 40 games like the 08' Cavs... Similarly, Klay's "worse than Jeff Hornacek" stats wouldn't make a single all-star game without the winning spotlight, or Wiggins in 2022 is another great example of winning spotlight inflation.

History shows that 2nd options generally don't dominate, so they need winning spotlight and winning teams to make All-NBA, while 1st options routinely make All-NBA with losing teams because they dominate... Essentially, All-NBA is reserved for 1st options and their dominance, unless a secondary option has sufficient winning spotlight..

Ultimately, the media is tricked by 2nd options with winning spotlight.. If you want to find an overrated player, look no further than a career 2nd option that won titles (Klay, Pippen, etc).

[1987_Lakers]

Thread cliffs: Damage control thread for getting caught lying about Dantley being All-NBA in '80 & '82.

[3ba11]

Thread cliffs: Damage control thread for getting caught lying about Dantley being All-NBA in '80 & '82.

Using media awards to gauge a player's caliber is the same thing as referencing the opinion of Rachel Nichols and Skip Bayless, aka meaningless argument.

Otoh, the only thing that determines a player's caliber is their quality of PERFORMANCE, and Pippen never played above a Shawn Marion, Iguodala, or Nance level - that's his player type and caliber (dunker/defender)... Until someone finds me a series where he played above a Shawn Marion level, I will always **** on Pippen... No one benefitted from winning spotlight more than him, aka the most overrated player ever.

[warriorfan]

Regarding Klay Thompson and his first 2015 selection

This is off the top of my head but has there ever been a an All NBA shooting guard that scored under 16 points per game in the Finals? Or if they didn’t make the Finals, a major playoff series? (under league average efficiency too btw)

[RRR3]

Regarding Klay Thompson and his first 2015 selection

This is off the top of my head but has there ever been a an All NBA shooting guard that scored under 16 points per game in the Finals? Or if they didn’t make the Finals, a major playoff series? (under league average efficiency too btw)

Yes. Kobe in 2000.

[warriorfan]

Yes. Kobe in 2000.

Kobe was injured you either ignorant or disingenuous piece of shit. I know you carry both of those in spades so it’s probably a bit of both.