Al Horford has posted a new entry in his rookie diary, which he is keeping exclusively for Hawks.com this season. In it, he talks about heading to New Orleans to participate in the Rookie-Sophomore game as part of All-Star weekend.

As you may know, we around these parts are quite enamored with Al's play, and believe he should be the front-runner for Rookie of the Year honors instead of Seattle's Kevin Durant.

In the spirit of championing his cause and getting a read on the prevailing national opinion of his ROY chances, I asked some prominent NBA bloggers to answer this question:

There is a lot of basketball left to be played, but if the season ended today, does Al Horford deserve to win Rookie of the Year honors in the NBA? Why or why not?

Here is what they had to say:

Tom Ziller, Sactown Royalty:
"I think, despite the great season Horford's had, it'd be difficult to give him the nod over Durant. KD's not run away with it because of his poor shooting figures and the team's lack of success. But Horford hasn't really done enough to make the argument for himself, especially on offense where Horford's shooting efficiency is barely better than Durant's .509 TS% [ed. note: TS% means true shooting percentage, a stat you can read about here] versus .499 for KD), despite taking tons fewer shots, playing at a position where shooting percentages are traditionally higher, and having a better cast around him. The rebounds are fantastic, and anecdotally the defense has been decent (though KD's defense has been good too). But Durant's being asked (forced?) to take an inordinate amount of shots at an unfamiliar position. His weaknesses are in large part (in my opinion) a factor of his circumstances, not necessarily anything he's done wrong. Horford, on the other hand, has been put in a rather good situation... and hasn't excelled on offense. It's a tough battle, but I think I'd give the edge to Durant and a firm smack on the hands to P.J. Carlesimo for helping make his superstar look bad."

Bethlehem Shoals, Free Darko:
"Going into this season, we were told that Horford would be the rookie who contributed right away. Well, Oden's not playing, and Durant's play is hazy and exploratory. Horford bangs, defends hard, plays bigger than he is at times and smaller than he is at others, and has some offensive repertoire. He's not as thrilling as some of the other Hawks, but he's that rock-solid feature (Rock-solid feature other than a point guard, of course) the roster has been lacking. He could be Boozer if he keeps improving.

I might think of giving it to Horford, just because he's actually playing basketball this season. Durant's team is terrible, coach is inept, and his season is like one long pre-season goof for him. Horford has helped make the Hawks semi-legit, and even if he does have an off-night shooting, contributes to the competitive efforts of a professional basketball team. That's a slight variation on "so and so's team made the playoffs" argument in the MVP race."

Henry Abbott, TrueHoop:
"Oh man, that is a fair question, but I have to be honest -- I don't know how you judge that kind of thing. I really don't.

I'll say this: I really like Horford's game. And I'm certain the award should be based on some kind of semi-objective measure of how a player actually performs, not some hybrid mix of expectations and shoe deals. Does that mean Horford is better than Durant? I don't know."

What do you think about Al's chances? Let us know in the comments...