Mo Williams: The Non-Star All-Star
Mo Williams is an All-Star?
Here I was assuming the All-Star game was where the best of the best played.
Yes, it's just a glorified pickup game, but it's still a spectacular one where the, hypothetically, 24 best players in the league put on a show to astonish us for a couple of hours.
So how does one Mo Williams fit into this picture?
He shouldn't, ideally. He's far from a star player, averaging only 17 PPG. That puts him 39th on the list, a far cry from the top 24. He only averages 4.1 APG, putting him 41st. Again, far away from the top 24. At 3.3 RPG, he's 183rd in the league. Miles and miles away from the top 24.
All things taken together? He's barely a top 50 player, let alone top 24. Yes, he's a fantastic complimentary player, helping King James and the Cavaliers reach new heights, but can anyone not blinded by Cavaliers fanboyism (I don't blame you Cavaliers fans. It's what fans should do) argue Mo Williams is an All-Star?
Sure, people can argue that he's James' Pippen, and Pippen was a perennial All-Star. But are you seriously comparing Mo to Pippen? Pippen averaged over 20.0 PPG, 7.0 RPG, and 5.0 APG during his tenure with Chicago.
There is no comparison.
The players from those teams were either voted on by the fans (which Mo wasn't) or had stats that backed up their All-Star pedigree (which Mo doesn't). Can anyone seriously argue that Mo Williams is as good a player as the likes of Tony Parker, Pau Gasol, Rashard Lewis, David West, or Paul Pierce?
Just because those teams have multiple players doesn't mean the Cavs somehow "deserve" another spot. The All-Star game means All Star-caliber players, not secondary options to LeBron James.
So what Eastern Conference players are more deserving based on individual skill and statistical accomplishment?
He's still capable of wowing, plus he bests Mo in almost every major statistical category.
Yes, I know—he's a rookie. And yes, I know he's a better player than Mo Williams.
The man's a double-double machine, at 16.8 PPG and 11.8 RPG. I don't personally consider him an All-Star—but again, I'm just comparing him to Mo Williams.
The diamond in the Wizards' rough. He's gone under the radar because of his team's horrendous play, but at 22 PPG and 9.0 RPG, he's got the individual talent for an event based on individual achievement.
I know this must all sound like an anti-Cleveland and anti-Williams rant, but it's not. It's more a rant against the selection of an obviously non-star to the All-Star team because the other top teams have multiple picks.
Being a viable second option shouldn't equate being a star. Just compare his stats to any of the others on the two rosters and you'll notice a rather blatant discrepancy in quality.
Or look at it this way—he's playing worse this year than last, and he didn't make it then.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?