Statistically, Ball has a strong argument. He ranks fourth in the East in points per game, ninth in assists, and 13th in rebounds among guards. Those numbers suggest an All-Star-caliber season, especially when compared to some of the players who did make the cut.
Fan support was also on his side. Ball led all Eastern Conference guards in fan voting, outpacing his peers by nearly 500,000 votes. Player voting also had him high on the list, ranking third among guards. However, the media and coaches ultimately decided against selecting him.
One of the biggest hurdles for Ball was Charlotte’s record. The Hornets have struggled this season, and historically, team success plays a role in All-Star selections. Winning teams were rewarded in this year’s voting—Cleveland, for example, had three All-Stars despite none of their players leading in fan voting.
While there’s no official rule that an All-Star must come from a winning team, coaches have consistently favored players contributing to successful seasons. This raises a broader debate: should individual excellence outweigh team performance in All-Star selections?
The Eastern Conference has no shortage of elite guards. Players like Tyrese Haliburton, Jalen Brunson, and Damian Lillard were locks. Trae Young, another high-volume scorer and playmaker, also faced scrutiny for his omission.
Ball’s case is compelling, but with limited spots, someone was always going to be left out. The question becomes: should he have made it over a player from a winning team?
Ball’s exclusion highlights a long-standing debate in sports: should All-Star selections prioritize individual stats and fan interest, or should they reward players who contribute to winning teams? There’s no clear answer, but Ball’s case is one of the strongest for reconsidering the criteria.
If an injury replacement opportunity arises, Ball could still get his All-Star moment. But for now, the debate remains open—was he snubbed, or did the selection process simply favor a different set of priorities?