TheFormerJJBacker

That was an easy switch. Good luck JJ.

I've jumped on over the years to defend Joe against his various haters... but July 4, 2010 - I'll be celebrating my own independence. My independence from "Backing" Joe. 6 years, $120 M is way too much to pay my boy. Don't get me wrong - I've always maintained Joe was an All-Star caliber player... just not a "super-duper" star. I still think he's an All-Star caliber player. When he got here, the Hawks had won 13 games. They've improved their win total each year he's been here. He was an All-Star 4 out of his 5 years with the Hawks. He's had moments of brilliance (4th Q vs. C's a few years ago; out-playing DWade in Game 7 in 2009 - albeit after getting outplayed the other 6 games that series) that make us proud to have him. But those flashes have been just that - flashes. His career thus far reminds me of Ray Allen with the Bucks and Sonics. Good scorer, didn't get to the line a ton, wasn't really able to lead a team very far as "the guy" (I feel the same way about Bosh, too btw). I've already said if Joe's your best player - that's not necessarily a bad thing (there's a bunch of teams that don't have a guy as good as Joe as their "best player") - but Joe has always been a guy that would be a ridiculous "Robin" to someone else's "Batman." He'd be the best #2 option in the league if teamed with LeBron, Wade, etc.. as is - he's maybe a Top 15-20 player as the "#1." Ray Allen and Michael Redd signed 6 yr, $96 million "max" extensions back in 05. An extension like that would have been acceptable for Joe this summer (because I view him as very similar to both of those guys... but a little bit better as a ball-handler/creator... and not quite as good as either in their prime as a "scorer"). 6 years, $120 million will make my former boy one of the more overpaid players in the league. That's a contract worthy of LeBron, Kobe, Wade, etc. - AKA's "super-duper stars." Joe's not a $20 M a year player, plain and simple. He's more of a $15 M a year player. Nonetheless - Hotlanta, etc...JJBacker's days are done of "backing" JJ. He was a no-show last year against the Magic. He was anything BUT a leader of men. He came off as a whiner after the playoffs, and distanced himself from the fans even more than he already is distant. He seemed to have one foot out the door on the way to Chicago, etc. Ultimately, if the Hawks would have offered him 6 years and $96 (or an even $100 M) - I think he would have left. And I wouldn't have blamed the Hawks at all for the offer. He's getting 2 additional years and $40M more than Dirk. He's not even better than Dirk. He stayed because the Hawks were going to pay him the most... plain and simple. I don't think he even really wants to be here, honestly. In short - Bad (REALLY Bad) contract. Joe won't live up to it. My "Backer" days are done. Good luck, Joe... but you can't really be "my boy" when even I think you're overpaid. M PS - Gotta figure out how to change my screen name now lol

I can't believe I keep letting you silly folks bait me into posting things on here... but this whole Joe vs. Crawford concept is so ridiculous. Ya'll watch too much "Mean Girls" or something? Why must everything be some sort of soap opera? Joe likes having Crawford around. Craw loves having Joe. Both these dudes are happy. Both these dudes root one another on. A few general points before I actually put numbers on here (those tend to either be ignored or a thread killer): 1) This article is lame. Northcyde and I have been saying this for a while... but I love how "Iso Joe" is a problem. Has Bradley not watched another team play hoops? Has anyone watched a Heat game? Or a Cavs game? Or a Laker game? Or a (fill in team with All-Star caliber wing player) game? Every team in the NBA runs "Iso __________" - where that blank is "random superstar x." I mean we lost to the Knicks with the Knicks running "Iso Nate." Was Bradley around in the 80's and 90's? This isn't some new phenomenon. Typically in crunch time, a team gives the ball to their best perimeter player and says "do your thing." This isn't new. This isn't a Hawk specific problem. I love how Bradley makes this "when Joe's on, Iso Joe wins. When he's off - it loses" statement. Um - thanks for the news flash, dog. If Nate isn't white-hot - we don't lose to the Knicks. If Kobe's cold in the 4th (as he was much of the game) vs. Celts on Sunday - Lakers lose that game. All NBA teams (not just the Hawks) somewhat live and die by their better players. When the Wade is off - most games, the Heat lose. I mean truly - an absolutely worthless article. Hey NBA fans! When you're star is off - it's hard to win! Where's my Pulitzer? 2) People on here discuss how Joe doesn't get many assists to Crawford. Could that possibly be due to the fact that both guys do most of their scoring with the ball in their hands? Or that they do spend much of the first 3 quarters not really being on the court at the same time? I mean when Crawford has the ball - it's a lot of dribbling - and a penetrate and kick or penetrate and dish inside... or a shot. Joe's pretty much doing the same thing. Does anyone consider Crawford a "spot-up shooter?" I mean sure - he can hit an open bucket... but typically when he gets the ball - he's slashing to the hoop. He's more likely to shoot a pull-up 3 off the dribble than catch and shoot. I don't think this is that crazy of a generalization for me to make. If I'm having to argue this point to anyone - I give up. Both Joe and Crawford do their best work off of the dribble. It's pretty simple. 3) With that being said - people say Joe gets assists to Bibby more than Crawford. Is that a surprise? Pretty much all Bibby's doing these days is hanging around the 3 point line and shooting 3's out of Joe's double team. Bibby's a different player than Crawford is. If Joe passes to Crawford out of that double team - Crawford's driving hard to the hoop and looking to get an easy bucket or assist. Bibby? He's jacking up a three. It's pretty safe to assume that Joe would get more assists to Bibby than Crawford. Because they're two different players. It's not because Joe likes one guy more than the other. (NOTE: I have no idea why no-one brings up the fact that Joe and Jamal basically do the same thing with the rock. That's why Joe doesn't have a ton of assists to Crawford. Cause he passes to Crawford and it becomes Iso Crawford or Crawford's dribbling with the ball for a bit and either shooting or passing again. I'll touch on this later) So - because I enjoy looking at numbers, and subsequently posting them on here only for nobody to care about them other than Northcyde... while the rest of you either skip my post completely or read it and act as if it never happened... here's the raw 2010 data (I didn't feel like doing all season). Joe's Assists 2010: Total Assists - 69 Distribution: Josh Smith - 19 (27.5% of Joe's assists) Mike Bibby - 18 (26.1%) Marvin Williams - 13 (18.8%) Al Horford - 12 (17.4%) Jamal Crawford - 5 (7.2%) Mo Evans - 2 (2.9%) Joe seems to get more assists to our high-flier or a "spot up shooter" that's always wide open from 19 feet (:-) ), a spot up shooter (Bibby), another mostly spot-up shooter (Marvin - at least that's what I would assume most of these assists are), our Post guy that runs the floor well (Horford). Crawford has 5 buckets off of Joe passes (remember this number... as it will be important later). I keep mentioning that due to the nature of what Jamal does - he doesn't really lend himself to anyone (let alone, Joe) getting assists off of his makes. That's because, like Joe, Jamal does a lot of iso work - and scores unassisted buckets. I'll give you a game log: 2/2 - Jamal Crawford makes 3 shots. One is assisted by Mo Evans. One is assisted by Joe Smith. The Third? Unassisted. 1/30 - Jamal Crawford makes 6 shots. One is assisted by Joe Johnson. The other 5 are all unassisted. 1/29 - Jamal Crawford makes 9 shots. One is assisted by Jeff Teague. One is assisted by Zaza Pachulia. One is assisted by Al Horford. The other 6 shots are all unassisted. 1/27 - Jamal Crawford makes 10 shots. One is assisted by Jeff Teague. Two assisted by Josh Smith. His other 7 makes? Unassisted. 1/25 - Jamal Crawford makes 6 shots. ZaZa Pachulia assisted on one. The other 5 makes? Unassisted. 1/22 - Jamal Crawford makes 8 shots. ZaZa Pachulia assisted on one. Jeff Teague assisted on one. Al Horford assisted on one. Joe Johnson assisted on one. Mike Bibby assisted on one. The other 3? Unassisted. 1/20 - Jamal Crawford makes 7 shots. Joe Johnson assisted on 2. Jeff Teague assisted on one. Al Horford assisted on one. ZaZa Pachulia assisted on one. The other 2 makes? Unassisted. 1/18 - Jamal Crawford makes 4 shots. Josh Smith assists on 1. The other 3? Unassisted. 1/15 - Jamal Crawford makes 6 shots. Mo Evans assists on 1. The other 5? Unassisted. 1/13 - Jamal Crawford makes 9 shots. Jeff Teague assists on 1. Joe Johnson assists on 1. Josh Smith assists on 2. Mike Bibby assists on 1. The other 4? Unassisted. 1/11 - Jamal Crawford makes 4 shots. Al Horford assists on 1. The other 3 makes? Unassisted. 1/9 - Jamal Crawford makes 4 shots. All 4 are unassisted. 1/8 - Jamal Crawford makes 7 shots. Mike Bibby assists on 1. The other 6 are unassisted. 1/6 - Jamal Crawford makes 10 shots. Jeff Teague assists on 2. Josh Smith assists on 2. Al Horford assists on 1. Mo Evans assists on 2. Joe Smith assists on 1. The other 2 - unassisted. 1/5 - Jamal Crawford makes 5 shots. Josh Smith assists on 1. His other 4 makes were unassisted. 1/1- Jamal Crawford makes 2 shots. Al Horford assists on 1. The other was unassisted. So in 2010, Jamal Crawford is 100/223 (44.8% FG's). Of those 100 makes - 61 were unassisted. That leaves 39 makes in 2010 by Jamal Crawford that had an assist attached to em: Josh Smith - 8 assists to Crawford Jeff Teague - 7 assists to Crawford Al Horford - 6 assists to Crawford Joe Johnson - 5 assists to Crawford ZaZa Pachulia - 4 assists to Crawford Mo Evans - 4 assists to Crawford Mike Bibby - 3 assists to Crawford Joe Smith - 2 assists to Crawford Joe and Josh have basically averaged the same number of assists per night in 2010 (Joe has 69 assists in that time, Josh has 68). Over 16 games, Josh has 3 more assists to Jamal than Joe? You factor in that Joe and Jamal typically have periods of time in which one is in while the other is out (so the Hawks still have a "scorer" on the court at all times)... and Joe "doesn't ever pass to Jamal?" Again - I know numbers can scare some of you guys... so you'll immediately want to change the subject... but you want to see assists on Jamal's buckets. Sothron can't remember an assist from Joe to Jamal. Can anyone really remember any assists to Jamal? 24 of Jamal's last 34 makes have been unassisted! Earlier in my post I mentioned that Jamal does most of his work "solo"' so there's no real assists to be had. He's made 100 shots in 2010. 61% of them are unassisted. Josh leads the team during that span with eight assists to Jamal. He has 3 more assists to Jamal than Joe does. 3. 3 assists in over a month is the difference between leading the team in assists to Jamal in 2010 and being Joe and apparently never passing to Jamal, and having some deep-seeded, uber-hatred for Jamal fueled by jealousy. Get a grip people. Earlier in the post I tried to make the statement that both Joe and Jamal are at their best when they have the ball, and run similar "iso" offenses. I showed who Joe passes to. Let's look at who Jamal passes to (I'm betting it looks pretty similar): Total assists - 50. Al Horford - 14 (28% of Jamal's assists) Josh Smith - 12 (24%) ZaZa Pachulia - 7 (14%) Joe Smith - 5 (10%) Joe Johnson - 5 (10%) Mo Evans - 4 (8%) Mike Bibby - 2 (4%) Marvin Williams - 2 (4%) Jeff Teague - 1 (2%) For those of you with short memories (or an inability to scroll) - Jamal has the same number of assists to Joe as Joe has to Jamal in 2010. 5. They've each assisted on 5 of each others makes. So if Sothron can't remember a Joe assist to Jamal... I'm guessing he shouldn't be able to remember a Jamal assist to Joe... because they've happened the exact same number of times over the past 16 games. FYI - this isn't because they don't like each other. Or that Joe hates Crawford or is jealous. It's because they do a lot of the same things offensively. They're both best with the ball in their hands. They both create things off the dribble. They both get a boatload of un-assisted buckets (I'm guessing Joe has around 60% of his buckets unassisted... just like Jamal). It also means that when someone passes them the ball, a lot of times they end up dribbling it or doing something else with it (eliminating that prior players ability to get an assist). So again - Bradley's article is garbage. And I figured I'd actually bring stats into the equation as opposed to some sort of soap opera fantasy most of you people have about this Joe vs. Crawford issue that apparently exists. If you people knew as much about Basketball as you did about "HIgh School Musical" - you'd realize there's no issue. Quit trying to make something out of nothing... and remember if Joe gets four more assists to Jamal before Smoov gets another one... Joe will lead the team in assists to Crawford. In other news - you guys keep talking about Joe's game declining. There was a post earlier about these past 5 games being a test. Here's how Joe did during our "test:" 26.8 PPG 3.4 AST 5 REB 1.6 STL 54% FG 45.45% 3-PT FG 94.1% FT Joe's PER for 09/10 season (going into last night) - 19.59 (a career high). His usage (cause people say he's ball-hoggin it?) - 25.5 (lat year it was 25.2; in 06/07... which a lot of people regard as his best year here - 26.6). That usage stat ranks Joe 17th in the NBA. Not too shabby for a "ball hog that chucks." You talk about "iso-Joe" being a pandemic here in Atlanta? His usage rate is 17th in the league. What would Bradley have to say about the 16 teams and players above the Hawks? Think they use Iso - _____________ more than we do? Exactly. (PS - Usg Usage Rate is the number of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. Usage Rate = {[FGA + (FT Att. x 0.44) + (Ast x 0.33) + TO] x 40 x League Pace} divided by (Minutes x Team Pace)) Sheesh, now feel free to make believe this post never happened... cause it's easier to complain and make up theories than it is to look at stuff. M

This kinda reminds me of the Iggy stuff. You want Caron and Heyward and see that as some sort of upgrade? What has Washington EVER done with a nucleus of Arenas, Butler and Jamison all in their prime at the same time? You could argue that's a better nucleus than JJ, Smith and Horf... So all of sudden if we get Butler in here in Joe's place we're a championship team all of sudden? Since Caron got to Washington here's what you're looking at: 05/06 - 42-40 (Lost in 1st Round in 6) 06/07 - 41-41 (Swept in 1st Round) 07/08 - 43-39 (Lost in 1st Round in 6) 08/09 - 19-63 (No playoffs) 09/10 - 14-28 (5th in Southeast Division) Oh - and Caron's game's played: 05/06 - 75 06/07 - 63 07/08 - 58 08/09 - 67 Average number of games played per season as a Wiz: 65.75 And he'll be a FA at the end of 2011... and he's older than Joe. Love these "long-term" solutions people can come up with on here. Keep those ideas coming! M

Only at Hawksquawk could a dude in a blow-out win get razzed about shot selection in a 4th quarter when his sports agency was doing a "raise money for Haitian relief" little promo. I mean really, people? Really? They were up big. He's donating money. The game was in hand. He chucked a little bit. Really? You're fired up over this? The Hawks won... you people realize that, right? And I love the "I call BS on ......" - really, dude? Really? Like it's some convoluted thing to bail out Joe from chucking up some threes? PS - I love how everyone talks about JJ's demise yet his PER is higher than it was last year and the year before. He's shooting 45.2% from the field. He's shooting 36% from behind the arc (which is higher than LeBron, Kobe, DWade, Monta Ellis, BRoy and Ray Allen... but if you read this board you assume he can't hit crap). His points per 40 minutes is higher than any year in his career other than 06/07. His Rebounds per 40 is at it's highest since he joined the Hawks, yet he's never active on boards according to this board. He averages 21, 5, and 5 whether it's against over .500 teams or under .500 teams. He gets to the line 1.5x more against the over .500 teams - but he's criticized for not being aggressive when we need it. He apparently doesn't show up vs. tough opponents: Bos - 24 pts, 4 reb, 4 ast Cle - 25 pts, 3 reb, 3.5 ast Dal - 31, 7 and 3 Den - 19, 6, and 7 Lakers - 27, 9, and 4 Miami - 20.5, 4, and 3 Orlando - 14, 6 and 2.5 <------ his lone stinky average performance vs. a "good team" Portland - 27, 6, 5.5 (Despite not being as good as BRoy according to this board) Not sure what you people want. You focus on the bad games... and don't realize that over time - a lot of this stuff kinda evens out. And again - it's the NBA... you act like you've never seen a player do some chucking? It happens ALL THE TIME. You make it about some competition with Jamal over alpha-dog status... I mean ya'll watch too many soap operas. Joe and Craw are cool. Joe wants another guy to take the burden from him. And to be annoyed with a dude that will have been an all-star 4 out of his 5 years with us... to be donating money to Haiti... and you guys wanna be critical... Man.. that's nuts. And then his peers (ya know... guys actually in the NBA) vote him "most underrated" in an SI poll... and you folks wanna say he's "overrated?" I'm guessing you think you know more than dudes playing in the league? I mean all that poll shows is local fans lack perspective (which is what I've tried to say on this thing for years). His own fans think he's overrated, but the NBA players think he's underrated? Sorry squawkers - I'm willing to wager NBA players know more about the NBA than you or I do.

Good news Hawksquawk - I think I finally figured out why your anger/over-react to every little thing that goes wrong attitude gets me annoyed... Do you ever hear about a good movie... then all of your friends start raving about it... you finally go see it and it doesn't come anywhere close to your expectations? Let's say in a vacuum that movie is an 8/10. With all the hype, you go into it thinking it'll at least be a 9. Because you're disappointed it didn't meet expectations you almost grade it worse than what it actually is? So you give it a 6 or a 7 and say something like "it was ok I guess... but I'm not sure what all the fuss is.. it wasn't that good." Sound familiar? With regard to this post (which is a GREAT one) - I've seen a few of you typically negative posters (I'm talking to you MVP23 lol) thinking we're going 3-2, etc... folks - that ain't happening. And if/when we don't go 3-2... that doesn't mean anything negative about the Hawks, Joe, Josh, whatever. @Hou - They're the scrappiest team in the NBA. They're 13-6 at home. They have wins at home vs. Portland (before all of the injuries), Cleveland, Dallas, OKC, Dallas, New Orleans (with CP3). They've stumbled lately and are just .500 with a loss to the Bulls... However, we're still not a particularly good road team... and we definitely have moments where we're not scrappy at all. This one will be close... and the Hawks might win it... but I just figure the Rockets will get it going (as noted Brooks is a really bad match-up for us), the crowd will get into it... the Rockets will want to beat a "top 4" team from the East... and Rockets win. However... keep in perspective - Season record vs. Rockets - 1-1 with both teams winning at home. @SAS - Spurs are definitely beatable. They've already lost their last two home games to Utah and Houston. But that may be the problem in this one. The Spus are still 25-17. They're still 17-8 at home. They're not bad enough to lose three out of four at home in a row are they? They play the Bulls the same night we play the Rockets... and you gotta figure they get a little mojo back after losing the first two on their home-stand. I just assume this one will be another close one and had it been in the ATL the Hawks would find a way to make plays and win... but in San Antonio I just figure the Spurs will make the plays late and hold on for a close victory. Saying this - I figure in March when we play the Spurs again at home... we'll get the win. So again - keep in mind: Predicted season record vs. Spurs - 1-1 with both teams winning at home. vs. Bos - KG's back. And I just don't see the Celtics letting us go 4-0 against them. They're all probably really sick of hearing about us and I can see this one just being a statement by the Celtics. But keep in mind: Season record vs. Celtcis - 3-1. @ORL - 2nd half of a back-to-back... coming off tough loss to Bos the night before... and in the midst of a possible 3 game losing streak? This one definitely has the potential to go South... REAL quick. Sure the boys could rally and take the same attitude that Celts will take on Friday night.. a sort of "ok guys - I'm sick of this crap." But we really don't have the crusty veteran presences to make that happen. I figure we lose this one, too. That being said - I figure we beat Orlando in March at home in our own "statement game." So... keep in mind: Predicted season record vs. Magic - 1-3. @OKC - I figure there will definitely be a team meeting at some point... we'll be heading into Oklahoma City and be their 4th straight home game. They play Chicago, Denver and Golden State prior to us coming there... so they have the potential to have some mojo working for them by the time we walk in. We'll be bumming and slouching our shoulders... their crowd will be pumped. The Thunder will want to make a statement in their get-away game. I figure this is another tough, close loss with Durant making big buckets down the stretch and his confidence and chest bumping riling up the crowd and his teammates. My final prediction - 0-5... a five game losing streak... a lot of quotes about from Hawks in ajc talking about "being tested, needing to rise up to challenges, this is what it's like to have a bull's eye, there are no easy ones, etc..." (NOTE to people that don't follow the NBA - these types of crappy stretches happen all the time in an 82-game season. Sure, really "elite" teams don't have stretches like this... but we're not really "elite." We're in that next tier of "we're top four or five in a conference... and we can beat an elite team at home... but we're not really an elite team ourselves." Kinda like every other team during the Bird/Magic era. If you weren't the Celtics or the Lakers... you weren't elite. During Bulls/Pistons era - if you weren't Bulls or Pistons or Magic or Lakers... you weren't elite. I mean every era has a 2-3 "elite" teams... and everybody else is just trying to make things difficult. We're currently in an era with Lakers, Cavs, Celtics (when healthy). Everyone else is just trying to make things difficult. Denver's not elite. Neither is Orlando. Portland, Dallas, San Antonio, Utah, Phoenix... etc... none of those teams are winning a championship. However, all of those teams are definitely capable of getting a big win at home vs. an elite team... but none of those teams are elite themselves. And all of those teams are capable of having junky stretches where they lose a few in a row.) (2nd NOTE - the Hawks will still be .500 vs a combination of HOU, SAS, BOS, ORL and OKC - who's combined record is currently 130 - 84 - which is a winning percentage of .607. That collective winning percentage would be 8th-best in the league right now. So essentially we're .500 vs a top 8 team... which would make us top-8 as well. I'm ok with that. That means we're better than 3/4 of the NBA. In perspective - that's not really a bad thing. That means there's 22 other cities that wish they had what we have. Again keeping the last 30 years of NBA basketball as a "perspective" - there's only ever 2-3 elite teams per decade. There's no shame in not being one of them.) (3rd NOTE - you guys are right - we're only going to go as far as Joe can take us... and I've said all along - Joe is a super star... he's just not a super-duper superstar. Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Gary Payton, Clyde Drexler, Alonzo Morning, Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins - all were fantastic players. All got paid the BIG BUCKS. They all got Superstar money. But they never won a ring... and none of em was MIchael. Joe is kinda in the same situation. He's a fantastic player... but he's not Kobe nor LeBron. If you played in the 80's and weren't a Celtic or Laker - you likely didn't win a Championship (other than the Bad Boys finishing the decade with 2 straight... but a team like that would never win these days with the way the game is played and the emphasis on offense). In the 90's, if you weren't a Bull with MJ... or a Rocket while he played baseball - you didn't win a championship. In the 2000's - if you weren't a Laker or a Spur? You didn't win a Championship. Sure the Heat had a funky Championship in the middle of the decade... but for the most part - every era has a 2-4 teams that "elite" and everyone else is just playing to make things funky). So.. in conclusion - I guess I now know why I think all of you guys that rail on everything and get so pissed about everything are they way you are.. you're going into the movie with too many expectations. You lack any kind of perspective. I go into our next 5 games assuming we'll be lucky to win one. If we go 0-5 my thoughts will be "meh... rough stretch, but about what I expected. We'll rebound and win our next 3 against Clips, Bulls and Wiz.. and our record will be 31-19." If we win 2 out of these 5 that's really not too bad. If we win 3 out of the 5, I'd be thrilled. But again - I have perspective. And I don't think us losing all five makes some big statement that we don't already know. If we lose 5 - what do we learn? We're pretty good, we're better than 3/4 of the NBA, but struggle a bit on the road against above average teams? Don't we already know that? Again - not trying to diminish anything... or be any kind of buzz kill... but we already kinda know what we are at this point. We're a top 4 team in the East who's goal this season is to build off of last season and try and make it to the Eastern Conference Finals. And if we get there, we'll see what happens. 1st round in 08, 2nd round in 09... ECF in 2010... pretty organic growth. And losing 5 in a row with this schedule doesn't really mean we can't make it to Eastern Conference Finals.. In fact only thing we'll really learn is if we win a bunch of these next five. If that happens I think it means we're a little closer to the Cavs and Celtics in the East. So I look at this 5 game test as an opportunity for Hawks to show us something... but if they lose it doesn't necessarily damn the Hawks or anything... it'll pretty much confirm what we already know. Just my .02 M

I never said he "must." And Shawn Marion wasn't "random." He came to mind because Iggy's biggest strength is his athleticism. Both he and Shawn (in Shawn's hey-day) were top-notch defenders that could defend anyone from a PG to a PF with no problem. Shawn was also a All-Star caliber player during his hey-day... so it's not like I'm comparing Iggy to a nobody... I was just taking a look at a guy (who had a lot of similarities) and how his performance has gone as he aged... and started to lose his biggest attribute (athleticism). I happened to agree with Northcyde's point that as a result of Joe not possessing nor relying on ridiculous athleticism now... he likely will be able to continue to score in similar ways going forward as he's scoring today. It was suggested that Iggy was a solid fit for a greater chunk of time... and I've yet to see Iggy's offensive game come as a result of anything other than athleticism... Shawn Marion was very similar. He didn't get his 18-20 ppg by being a "scorer." In fact, he would often complain that plays weren't drawn up for him... but it was funny because when they were - he couldn't actually create his own shot. He had no post game. He had no face-up game. He had no consistent shot. I said above that Iggy has better handle and is a better passer - so it's not a perfect comparison. But Shawn happened to come to mind because he was extremely valuable to the Suns, was extremely athletic, yet also had many flaws. I see Iggy the same way. I guess I could run some sort of matrix and come up with a huge selection of comparisons... but Shawn just came quickly to mind. And I never said he has to follow that trajectory... the main argument presented in my post (guess I need to spell it out for you) was: Thus far in his career, Iggy's biggest strength is athleticism. He's not a pure scorer, passer, ball-handler. He's super athletic. People are assuming he's a better long-term player than Joe. Typically, as you age, your athleticism declines. Joe doesn't rely on said athleticism now, so he should be able to age fairly well. Iggy is extremely reliant on athletic ability at present. Shawn Marion was a contemporary player that also relied heavily on his athleticism. In the case of Shawn, as his athleticism declined, so did his productivity. This also might happen to any NBA player that relies so heavily on athleticism. Thus far in his career, Iggy has been reliant on his athleticism more than this "game." Are we really sure that he's a better long-term fit than Joe. Hope that little breakdown helped, homie. M

Just a little pertinent update: Tonight - Sixers lost at home vs. Knicks (we know about that one lol).. Iggy's line: 40 minutes 2/9 FG (including 0/6 from 3) 0/0 FT 4 PTS 8 AST 5 REB 1 STL He has a contract which pays him $56.5M over the next 4 years (2010/11 - 2013/14). Just a litlte FYI - ya know... cause JJ's an over-paid bum and Iggy's "perfect for us."

I'm with Northcyde most of the time... and this conversation follows suit. It happened in Phoenix, it's happened here. If Joe had a different personality, dunked, etc... people would be all on his jock on the reg. Unfortunately for him - he's very understated... and his game is very much a throwback. I've stated on here many a time - he doesn't have much of an "above the rim" game. In fact - he has no "above the rim" game. This causes some of you to not really understand how good he is. And it causes him to have the inability to get bailed out with foul calls (a la DWade, Kobe, etc.) on a bad shooting night. Do you guys realize Kobe shot 4-21 the other night? Even the best have stinkers from the field.. Joe just doesn't get to the line (and crash into people when the play breaks down - see Wade, Dwayne). He just goes about his biz. He's a plus ball-handler, passer, shooter and defender. Not a whole lotta holes. This Iggy stuff cracks me up. Andre Iguodala is a great defender. He's not a great shooter nor scorer, though. His athleticism allows him to get his buckets (a ton coming close to the hoop), and he occasionally can get hot from the perimeter. But all-in-all - this guy isn't anywhere on the same planet as JJ offensively. You think he'd fit in great on our offense? As is - we have 2 guys that can create their own shot off the dribble in a half-court set. Swap JJ for Iggy - we have 1. And what's Iggy gonna do while Crawford does his 4,000 crossover combination? Be our spot up 3-point shooter? Iggy's a career 32.5% shooter from behind the arc. I'll mention it again (because he deserves his credit) - Andre Iguodala is a phenomenal defender. He can match-up with all sorts of shapes and sizes. He's got the right kind of "grind it" attitude. He doesn't pout. He doesn't commit silly fouls. He's a 1st Team All-NBA caliber defender. However - you people keep talking about who's worth "the max" - this kid is not a scorer. He's not taking over games in the 4th. You can't just get the ball to him and say "do your thing." Offensively he's more like a Shawn Marion (with the Suns) - but a better ball-handler and passer. Andre averages 18 a night. Shawn did too in Phoenix. Shawn filled up the stat sheet with rebounds and steals and blocks (kinda like Andre fills them with assists, rebounds and steals). But neither guy (despite being VERY valuable to a team) was/is a real number one option. Iggy has had 15 games this season in which he scored 16 points or fewer. Upset about JJ's 2/9 the other night? On Jan 3 - Iggy went 2/9, too (and was 4/8 from the FT line). Iggy also had a 3/11 vs. Orlando on Opening Night November: 4/14 vs. Nets 4/13 vs. Utah 5/17 vs. Mem 6/22 vs. Cle 2/10 vs. Was 7/18 vs. ATL 7/18 vs. SA 6/17 vs. Dal As a side note - Philly won 3 games in November. December?: 6/18 vs. Char 4/20 vs. GS 6/15 vs. Bos 6/14 vs. Clippers 6/16 vs. Utah 4/12 vs. Clippers Side note - Philly won 4 games in December If Joe's throwing up these nights - you guys all go nuts... but somehow Iggy's the answer to our prayers? Other random things to look at: For as crappy as Joe's been this year (based on the vibes on this board): Joe's shooting 45.6%; Iggy's shooting 43.1% Joe's shooting 82.7% from the line; Iggy's shooting 77.4% Joe's shooting 37.1% from 3; Iggy's shooting 32.7% Iggy's getting 2 steals a game; Joe's getting 1 Joe takes roughly 3 more shots a game than Iggy (but Joe's apparently a "chucker") Joe averages about an assist less a game; but turns it over less, as well - which actually gives Joe a slight edge in Assist:Turnover ratio. Iggy pulls down 7 boards a game to Joe's 5. Joe's PER: 19.79; Iggy's PER: 18.91 Joe has a 54 TS% while Iggy has a 53 and change TS% Just as an interesting note (cause it helps with projections) Shawn Marion when he was 26: 19.4 PPG, 11.3 RPG, 1.9 AST, 1.5 BPG, 2 STL PG, 47.6% FG, 33% 3pt PER= 21.71 I make the Shawn Marion comparison because it fits. Given - Iggy's (as stated previously) a better ball-handler and a better passer than Trix in Trix's hey... but Northcyde made a very good observation about Joe's game. Because he's not reliant on being "above the rim" - his game will actually age better. He's not counting on dunking on anyone right now - so he won't have to worry about losing that aspect of his game as he ages. He will be able to age like a Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, etc. He'll still get his buckets as he ages. Iggy's biggest strength is his athleticism... so let's look at Shawn Marion again (because his greatest strength was also his athleticism): PER in 04/05 - 21.71 (Age 26) PER in 05/06 - 23.66 (Age 27) PER in 06/07 - 20.87 (Age 28) PER in 07/08 - 19.10 (Age 29) PER in 08/09 - 16.02 (Age 30) PER in 09/10 - 15.47 (Age 31) Notice anything? Iggy's turning 26 in a few weeks. His offensive game really hasn't developed over the years. I saw a few quotes along the lines of "0-3 years JJ is the better player, but beyond that Iggy...." Are we really so sure that "beyond that" Iggy's gonna be the man? He'll be 29 in three years. He'll still be functioning at an All-Star or slightly below All-Star level... but if his career arc follows Shawn's at all - once the freakish athletic ability starts to die down - so does their game. Also of note: In 2013 (3 years from now) - Iggy's due to make $14,718,250... 200K less than the "over-paid" Joe Johnson makes this year. Oh - and in 2013/2014? Iggy's got a player option for $15,904,750 (a cool million MORE than JJ makes this season). So while JJ can't dunk worth a darn... he's going to be able to throw up 20 a night into his 30's without any real problem. Iggy's yet to average that in a season. And although he is a better ball-handler and passer than Shawn Marion - their games (Iggy now, Shawn at Iggy's age a few years back) - are pretty similar. Super athletic. Very good defenders. Very versatile. Neither was a top option, yet both were very valuable to their teams. With Shawn's fall-off over the past two-three years... I'm not sure how investing in Iggy instead of JJ seems like a good idea. People are talking about "Iggy for 8 years?" Once that athleticism goes a little bit - what will Iggy really be able to do? Do any of you remember the kind of freak Shawn was when he was 25-26? He's 31 now... and he's averaging 11 ppg and 6 rpg. After averaging 2 steals a game for years and years (kinda like Iggy does?)... he's now averaging less steals a night than JJ. He only can really play 30-32 minutes a night at this point. He's 31! We're talking about a perennial all-star when he was 25-26... Iggy's not even a perennial all-star now. Shawn's PER averaged 21.45 over a 5 year span when he was ages 24-28. Iggy's right in the middle of that - he's never had a per above 19.09. It's safe to say that when Shawn was Iggy's age - Shawn was the better player. 5 years down the road? Shawn's averaging 11 and 6! So again - Northcyde said it - grass is always greener... or you get hyped over dunks, etc... but I'm not sure how anyone knows Iggy's gonna be some 8 year solution at the 2. Just my .02

Just for the record (and I'm baffled as to why nobody pointed this out): DWade is making $15,779,912 this season, Joe is making $14,976,754. When DWade signs his contract in summer - whether he stays in Miami or leaves - he'll be at over $20M per (because we know he'll get the max)... Just thought I'd bring facts to the table... in response to the "This guy gets paid more than D Wade" comment above. Mainly because - it's not true. Additionally, this idea of "I'd rather give DWade 16 than Joe 14" makes sense, unfortunately: There's no doubt DWade is getting $20M+ per this summer - so not only can we not afford DWade (our offer would have to be on the upwards of $100M over 5 years).. but, but assuming he stays in Miami - he'll actually be likely getting a 6 year offer at $133 M total (assuming around a $64M salary cap). If we keep Joe - is Joe a "bad deal" at 6 years and $96M if DWade is 6 years and $133M? Just curious. M

I don't know anywhere in this thread where I overblew his performance in the series. You said it wasn't great. I said in comparison to two bonafide "superstars" is was fine. Can you please find where I said he was great in the series? I said he was clutch in 3 and 4... and his numbers in 6 weren't great but he did hit that 3 to put the nail in the coffin. Honestly I don't think anybody goes nuts about his good performances any more or less than you like to go nuts on his bad performances. In fact this is the first time I've really seen you on here after a win. Your specialty is waiting for a loss to type "smoke and mirrors" and stuff like that.... Any my bad on the 4 games at or above 40%,,, I was seeing that he averaged 44.7% in April... and factored that in... so yes - 3 games of 40% or above... my bad... but still one more than both Kobe and LeBron. I touched on the "if you shoot three's you don't turn it over" myth in my other post... I do agree that if you're taking it to the hole you might have more turnovers... but if you remember - Kobe actually settled on a lot of outside jumpers and didn't really take it to the hole as much as you would expect. Perhaps that had to do with it being his 4th series of teams doing everything they can do to make him miserable.. but nonetheless... he wasn't in attack mode and constantly getting to the paint. And you keep mentioning "hair splitting" - but again - I wasn't trying to show that Joe was better than anyone... all I wanted to show was that despite you labeling his performance vs the Celtics as "ho-hum" in comparison to some super-duper stars in the NBA... he held his own. So if it's splitting hairs? That means it's close. All I was trying to show was it was close. Then you close out saying Kobe and JJ was a draw. And that he was better than LeBron. You just took what I was trying to say and went further with it. I (nor will I ever) say that Joe Johnson is in the same league as Kobe nor LeBron. Ever. Those guys are the super-duper stars of the NBA and are going to get the Superstar max money of $20 million per. You're now saying in a postseason that you considered "meh" - that Joe out-did LeBron against the same competition? One would assume then if that's the case Joe's clearly more in Kobe and LeBron's class than I thought (at least according to your 07/08 vs. celtics vacuum study).... yet you think he turned down "superstar" money of 4 years and $60 million? Puh-leeze. I don't know how you don't get that 5 years and $80 or 6 years and $96 is market value then for a guy that's somewhere in between pretty good and great. M PS - apologies on the 4 games vs. 3... I'm a tool. (at least I can admit it)

I love how you give a link that show's you didn't look at it: There's actually 2 games over 40% and one right at 40%... which is why I was saying in my posts above - that Joe Johnson had 3 games at or above 40%... while Kobe and LeBron both had 2. Again - do you maybe want to re-read what I wrote. I know you saw a lot of words and numbers and that got you a little bored because it's easier to say "Joe doesn't deserve LeBron money!"... but seriously... just check what I typed, Hotlanta. Thanks for the link though. M

He took so many threes? You're wrong on a couple of fronts - 1) JJ took 36 3's in 7 games and shot it at a 44% clip. He averaged 5.14 3pt attempts per game. Joe had 28 assists and 16 turnovers in 7 games LeBron took 39 3's in 7 games and shot it at a 23% clip. So, LeBron actually took more three's than JJ.... had 53 assists and had 37 turnovers in 7 games Kobe took 28 3's in 6 games and shot it at a 30% clip. Kobe averaged 4.67 3pt attempts per game. Kobe had 30 assists and 23 turnovers in 6 games. What's this show? 3 point shooting didn't have a lick to do with asst:turnover ratio because all three took about the same number of 3's per game. They were all fairly close. (which again... was what I was trying to show in my first post) (2) You also seem to think taking 3's means you don't turn the ball over? Danny Granger leads the league in 3 point attempts. He's also in the top 20 in turnover's per game Ariza's second - he's in the top 35 Al Harrington's 7th - he's top 50 in turnovers Aaron Brooks is 8th in 3's attempted - he's also 8th in the league in turnovers Mo Williams is 9th in 3's - he's 29th in turnovers Jennings is 14th in the league in 3's attempted - he's tied for 16th in turnovers Arenas is 15th in the league - 6th in turnovers Jason Kidd is 19th in 3pt attempts - 24th in turnovers So 8 of the top 20 guys in 3 point attempts are also in the top 50 in turnovers (including 5 of which that are in top the top 20 in 3's and top 25 in turnovers?) What's this mean? Taking threes doesn't have that much of a correlation to turning it over or not turning it over. I appreciate your knee-jerk "uhhhhh he took a lot of threes" as an explanation for ball security, though. Very non-fanboy of you, Hotlanta. Cause you know... just making up stuff and not looking at stats first would kinda be a "fanboy" kinda thing to do... and you hate those guys. m

As is the usual.... you're missing the point. My point was - you claimed JJ didn't do much vs. the Celts. My point was "with respect to what other players better than JJ, did - he didn't do terrible." You keep saying "splitting hairs" - but you're making mine. JJ did pretty much what Kobe did vs. the Celtics. And we both know the Lakers of 07/08 were better than the Hawks. So with a "lesser supporting cast" JJ's Hawks lost in 7. Kobe's Lakers lost in 6. And Kobe was covered by Posey, Allen, and Pierce... same as Joe (although Joe mostly faced Posey and Allen). Then you say "it's below his regular season numbers" - Same thing happened for LeBron and Kobe. Does that mean they didn't rise to the occasion? No... it means during the regular season you catch teams on second halves of back-to-backs... you catch em resting someone, etc... In a 7 game series, typically coaches will attempt to game-plan to take away what makes an opponent comfortable. A lot of times this means making things miserable for an opposing team's best player. LeBron wasn't immune to it. Kobe wasn't immune to it. Nor was Joe. You talked about JJ getting his teammates to play better on the road. How many wins did the Cavs have in Boston that series? What about Kobe's Lakers? Didn't the Celtics beat the Lakers by almost 40 to close out the Finals? Didn't Kobe shoot 7 of 22 with one assist and 4 turnovers? (Note: the answer to the "how many winds did the Cavs have in Boston, etc.... was ZERO). I do agree that that Celtics team hadn't played a playoff game before running into us in the first round. I also believe they thought they'd walk all over us... So I do agree that had we have faced the Celts further down the line we wouldn't have done as well as we did. That being said... If the Celts were firing at a maybe a 6 or 7 for us... and they were firing at a 8 for the Cavs... and a 10 by the finals.. wouldn't the opponents also be playing better, too? You don't think the Cavs played better in the 2nd round than they did in the first? You don't think the Lakers were well oiled and respecting the Celts. We were a motley crue that won 37 games and were happy to be there... so while the Celts might have been playing at a 6 or 7... we were probably only a 6 or 7 opponent. You said if we would have played them down the road we would have lost worse... but if the Celts would have played the Cavs or Lakers in Round 1 - the Celtics likely would have lost... so I would actually say that due to our level of competition we did ok. Once again - you always fail to look at anything but the Hawks and how they did. You don't think of anything else. Each round the Celtics advanced they played better... but they also faced tougher opponents... so their level of play was pretty much equal to that of their opponents in all three cases - the Hawks, the Cavs and the Lakers. So this makes your impact that your trying to attribute to Kobe's stats or LeBron's stats a little negligible. Not entirely, though... because I do agree 100% that the Celts blew the Hawks out in the first 2 and figured they could set it on cruise control. The Hawks slapped em in the mouth, got a little momentum, etc... Your whole post pretty much made my point for me, though. All I was attempting to show was despite JJ's numbers being 20, 4, and 4 (modest)... his counterparts posted similarly modest numbers vs. the Celtics that post-season, as well. I wasn't trying to say JJ is GOD or that he's better than LeBron and Kobe. I was attempting to show that he did about as well as Kobe or LeBron did (with less of a supporting cast, on a younger team, with virtually zero playoff experience). So while you want to say "he didn't do much outside of his 5 minutes" vs the Celtics... I would say he did just fine in 07/08 in playoffs. And there's always a "yeah but" with you Hotlanta. You just like to be negative. You talk about rings with D-Wade. His FT parade and a meltdown by the Mavs got him a ring with Shaq. So in 05/06 he won a ring with Shaq. What has he done since? 06/07 - Swept in the 1st Rd vs. Chicago Bulls 07/08 - No playoffs (injured) 08/09 - Lost in 1st Rd vs. Atlanta Hawks 09/10 - 1 game over .500 If you want to try and say that the Heat don't have as much talent around DWade - their payroll is $10 million higher than ours - so they're spending money on something. Oh yeah - it's almost $23 million for Jermain O'Neal. Again - trying to make a point. You think at $15 million per, JJ is a rip. What's O'Neal at nearly $23? Bad contracts are a part of the NBA. Every NBA team is littered with them. And you can laugh that Philly spent a ton of money on Elton Brand... but at the time they were paying for a guaranteed 20/10 PF. His career has gone completely downhill since (a la TMAC)... but there's really no way to predict an injury. Look at the raw deal the Magic got on Grant Hill. Got one of the better players in the NBA... he was hurt his whole Magic career... has been fine since coming to Phoenix. There's no way to know. If Brand could have stayed healthy in Philly - he's still throwing up 20 and 10's and the deal makes sense. I laugh all the time at bad deals, too... But the bottom line is Ray Allen and Michael Redd have both made more money since the summer of 05 than Joe Johnson. Larry Hughes signed a similar deal. It could be said that Joe and Ray have been pretty close to one another... with Joe being a superior investment for the Hawks than Redd has been for the Bucks or Hughes was for the Cavs/Bulls/Knicks. As all of them become (or have the option to become) free agents - Joe's going to get the best deal. Ray and Redd both signed 6 year, $90 million dollar extensions to stay with the Sonics and Bucks in 05. Joe will have been an all-star in 4 of his 5 seasons in Atlanta. The market didn't bat an eye when Redd and Allen signed their extensions 5 years ago... you think someone's gonna think the Hawks got jobbed if they offer Joe the same thing Redd and Allen got in 05? This whole last paragraph is laughable: "If JJ wants superstar money he should play like one. You can't expect him to get superstar money and have lower expectations from him than you have for Lebron James or Kobe. Sorry, that just doesn't work. Some fans want to cuddle these players far too much. Fanboy behavior makes me sick. I don't care about what GM wants to spend what and to whom. I decide for himself if I think the player is worth the money that they're getting paid. If Not, their overpaid to me. The foolishness of NBA GM's don't decide my opinion. Look at Philly with Elton Brand.... I'm laughing at the them for spending 15 million a year on a 2nd tier PF that wasn't even healthy when they signed him. And now they want rid of his contract. That's what they get for being stupid." He does play like one. He's always among or around the top 10 in scoring. Every opposing team we play gameplans for him. He draws the other teams best perimeter defender. He typically needs to guard the opposing teams best player. And he didn't turn down "superstar money." Kobe isn't signing 4 year/ 60-some extensions. LeBron won't be getting a 4 year/$60 million offer from the Cavs. I'm willing to wager DWade gets something more than 4 years/$60 million this summer. You keep saying "superstar money." Ben Gordon got $11 per Hedo got $11 per James is going to be getting 6 years and $133 million (or thereabouts) if he stays with Cavs. He'll get 5 years and $102 (or so) if he leaves. Hotlanta - that's over $20 million a season. $20 million a season is "superstar money." Joe won't get that. He won't ask for that. If a team's dumb enough to give him that - they're nuts. I'm with you he's not worth $20 million. But is he on some tier between Gordon/Hedo and LeBron? Why yes he is. What's halfway between 11 and 20? 15.5? What's that times 6? Hey! That's $93 million! 6 years and $93 million isn't "superstar money" in 2010... That's "he's somewhere between LeBron and Hedo" money. That's not cuddling. That's understanding how economics and free market works. That's not "fanboy" behavior... that's understanding the business of the NBA. If anything simply pouting, throwing your hands in the air and saying "you're not as good as LeBron, but you want superstar money" or after every missed shot saying "if you wanna get paid you gotta make that." Um actually no, fanboy - he doesn't. Ben Gordon is a 43% career shooter that has averaged over 21 points per game once in his career... and he got $11 million a year. He's 2 years younger than Joe. He's never been to an all-star game. Hedo Turkoglu is a 43% career shooter that's never averaged over 20 ppg in a season. In fact he's averaged over 18 a night once. He got $11 per. And he was 30. And he's played in zero all-star games. If these types of guys are getting $11... and "super-duper stars" are getting $20... doesn't it make sense that guys somewhere in-between Hedo and LeBron get $15.5? And you say you decide for yourself if a guy is over-paid. Who's the fanboy now? If that's the case pretty much everyone other than Kobe and LeBron are over-paid. But those that aren't "fanboys" understand the business of the NBA and understand economics. It's not what Hotlanta says is market value... it's what the MARKET says is the value. If the Market says Michael Redd and Ray Allen were worth 6 years and $90 million back in 05... then that's what they're worth.... That's the same reason we got Joe by-the-way. Robert Sarver applied the "Hotlanta Fanboy Method of Economics" and said "Joe we'll give you 6 years and $54 million. That's $9 million a year. When Redd and Allen got $90+ over 6... and the Cavs were giving Larry Hughes $72 million over 5... Arn Tellem looked at Robert Sarver and said - "you want Joe to take $9 a year when these other guys are getting all this?" Billy Knight knew what to offer (the same offer as Cavs gave Hughes)... and the rest is history. And I agree that you don't have to take a foolish GM's word for it.. and assume they're valuing players correctly. Heck, Jerome James parlayed one post-season for the Sonics into a 5 year, $30 million deal with Knicks... And I don't even remember what the Magic paid to keep Gortat... there's certainly bad deals out there. But if you think Joe left "superstar money" on the table with a 4 year/$60 million offer... you're nuts. The Superstars will all be signing $100 million contracts this summer. Northcyde and a few others have recommended something along 5 years and $80... or mine - 6 years and $93... in the summer of 2010 that'll be "you're not quite a super-duper star... but you're a heckuva lot better than Ben Gordon and Hedo." And that Hotlanta (fanboy) - is all Northcyde and I are trying to do around here... to provide some perspective... to eliminate the knee-jerk, "fanboy" responses of "if you wanna get paid, you need to do better than that" - cause all that is to me... is ignorant commentary from somebody that doesn't really understand the bigger picture and the business of basketball; nor do they understand that Joe Johnson would be the best player on somewhere between half and two-thirds of the NBA teams right now. Sure stack him up against LeBron or Kobe, etc... and say he's not a super-star.... but over 25 teams in the NBA don't have a player that stacks up against either of those two either. And that's not "cuddling" Joe Johnson. That's being realistic. Typically the issue with "fanboys" is that they lose touch with reality and are biased one way or another. Accepting that LeBron's on his own planet isn't a "fanboy" thing to say... it's realistic. And giving Joe a pass for not being LeBron isn't "fanboy" - it's understanding LeBron's Top 5 of ALL TIME GREAT. For someone that "hates fanboys" - your lack of understanding reality and constantly railing on things comes off a bit "fanboy." M

I dunno, Hotlanta... 20, 4, and 4 against the Celts that season thru 7 games despite having pretty much the entire defense focused on stopping him isn't too bad. He was OK in Game 1; pretty pathetic in Game 2 (as was the entire team); good (and clutch I might add) in both games 3 and 4; a lone bright spot in game 5 (a blowout back in Boston); a non-factor in Game 6; and the only bright spot in the first quarter of the blowout in game 7. Keep in mind - LeBron James faced the Celtics in the following series and shot 35.5% from the field in that series (Joe shot 40.9%), including Bron going 9/39 from 3 (Joe was 16/36). LeBron only had 2 games in the entire series in which he shot at or above 40%; Joe doubled that with 4. Joe had a higher assist to turnover ratio than LeBron that postseason, as well. So yes - while Joe's numbers don't look all that hot for the series - you need to put things in context. In the Finals that year - Kobe Bryant shot 40.5% against the Celtics (lower than Joe). He too, only had two games out of 6 in which he shot at or above 40%. He was 9/28 from behind the arc. Joe had a higher assist to turnover ratio than Kobe, too. Kobe Bryant is arguably the best player in the NBA and he averaged 26, 5, and 5 against the Celtics and his team lost in 6 games. So lemme get this straight - the Hawks weren't as good as a team as the Cavs nor the Lakers that season. Joe's not as good as LeBron nor Kobe.... yet against the same opponent: Joe has a higher FG %, a higher 3-PT %, a higher assist:turnover ratio and had the same amount of games shooting at or above 40% as Kobe AND LeBron COMBINED. Joe had 40% or above in 4 games out of 7. Kobe and LeBron had 4 total out of 13? Yet he wasn't that good that postseason? I dunno... I'd say he did just as well for himself or was just as efficient if not more on a stinkier team than either Kobe or LeBron. Again hater-nation - you've got to keep things in perspective! Were Joe's numbers vs. the Celtics in 07/08 great if you just look at em? No. But when you stack em up against some other players vs. the Celtics - he did pretty well for himself. M PS - Superstar money is dictated by market... not if you're actually a superstar. If the Bucks are gonna spend $18 million on Michael Redd next year - you can bet they'd much rather be spending $15 million on Joe. Whether he's worth it in your eyes or not.