In 1963, there were only nine teams in the NBA but 24 spots available in the All-Star Game, observes Lev Akabas of Sportico (subscription required). Sixty years later, the league’s number of teams has more than tripled, to 30, but the league still only names 24 All-Stars per season (barring injuries).
An expansion of All-Star rosters is long overdue, in Akabas’ view, since players are putting up record-setting scoring numbers in the current era, meaning many with All-Star caliber résumés find themselves on the outside looking in.
Akabas points out that 21 players who are averaging at least 20 points per game this season weren’t named All-Stars. Not all of them had strong cases, but many did — James Harden, for instance, is averaging 21.4 PPG while also leading the NBA in assists per contest (10.8) for a 38-19 team, but didn’t qualify as an All-Star.
Besides leaving out worthy candidates, naming just 24 All-Stars across 30 teams hurts fan engagement, contends Akabas, since there will always be a number of clubs who don’t have any players in the game. He singles out Atlanta and Washington to illustrate this point — those are two of the NBA’s top 10 media markets, and the Hawks and Wizards rank among the East’s top 10 teams in 2022/23, but neither club will be represented in this year’s All-Star Game.
Akabas also argues that, since some players’ contracts include All-Star bonuses, there’s a significant amount of money on the line, and with just 12 All-Stars selected per conference, a snub can have a major financial impact on a player.
Additionally, Akabas says, a player’s career number of All-Star appearances goes a long way toward determining his legacy, and the fact that players from previous generations had an easier path to the game when there were fewer teams – and fewer players – in the NBA makes it more difficult to compare stars from different eras.
I don’t find Akabas’ point about All-Star bonuses particularly compelling – those contracts were negotiated with the current format in mind – but the rest of his case is reasonable. Certainly, with teams permitted to carry up to 13 active players in a normal regular season game, it makes sense to at least expand All-Star rosters by one in each conference, increasing the total number of players from 24 to 26.
Still, that bump to 26 or more players often happens naturally. In each of the last three seasons, three All-Star replacements have been named for injured players, and we have to go all the way back to 2005 to find the last All-Star Game that didn’t feature at least one injury replacement. Those substitutions often allow the NBA to rectify the year’s most egregious snubs.
We want to know what you think. Do you like the fact that the NBA still names only 24 All-Stars per season? Does the fact that it’s more difficult, statistically, to make an All-Star team now than it ever has been in the past add to the event’s appeal by making the All-Star roster a more exclusive club?
Or do you think it makes sense to increase the All-Star rosters – if only by one spot per conference – to account for the grown of the league’s player pool that has occurred over the decades?
Head to the comment section below to share your two cents!