dlpin

The year they won the title he put up 10 and 5. Hardly a significant improvement over bibby/hinrich/teague. Right now? Yes. Back then? no. I've already said that the only way that JJ would be the best player on a title team is if it was a team like those pistons. Defensive player of the year, 3 on the all the defensive team, 4 all stars, etc. Really? You think that Perkins as a center makes the hawks title favorites? Even though Perkins couldn't take the Thunder, with a much better cast, to the finals? Noah makes the hawks a contender? All those players are worse than JJ. But none of them make the hawks a contender. 1- No, they wouldn't. Gasol not only has more all nba selections, but if you want to compare gasol in memphis to jj you have to look them at the same period. The last full, healthy season Gasol had in Memphis, 05-06, he was the best player on a 49 win team that had Mike Miller as the second best player. Joe Johnson was leading the hawks to 26 wins. I don't know anyone anywhere that would rather have JJ over Gasol. 2- Gasol and Johnson wouldn't win the title. Gasol and Kobe needed 7 games and a major injury to a celtics starter to win the 2nd title. 1- That was the weakest period in the east in a long time. The only reason they took the lakers to 6 was because Kobe was young and injured (missed almost 2 full games of the finals). If Kobe didn't miss game 3, that series would have been a sweep. 2- You are shortchanging those players with those numbers. 4 of those players had been all stars at one point in their careers, and Jalen Rose was the most improved player that year. But the question remains: which team would be both a contender and have JJ as the best player? I guarantee you can't come up with one short of putting 4 all stars/all defensive players of almost similar skill alongside him.

Huh? Are you really going to argue that superstars need as much help as JJ would need to win a championship? Would those 6ers teams with JJ instead of Iverson make the finals? Would those lakers teams with JJ instead of Kobe win two titles? Not to mention that if JJ was playing with Gasol, JJ wouldn't be the best player on the team anymore. Also, to recap, here's what Diesel said: Not just "help," but those specific skill sets. Who was the real PG in those lakers teams? Was Rondo a "real pg" when the celtics won the title? The only championship teams to have significantly better point guards than who JJ has played with are the pistons and the spurs. Rondo now is better, but sophomore rondo wasn't. Fisher isn't. 37 year old Payton wasn't. As for low post scorer and defender, the teams that had that had them as the best player on the team (shaq, duncan, hakeem). As for the examples you mentioned, Carter and Arenas were never superstars (0 1st team all nba selections for both of them) and T-Mac and Hill were unlucky in getting hurt during their primes. Again, no one denies that superstars need help. But players who aren't superstars need even more help. But let's end the diversion. Please construct a team that would satisfy the two following conditions: 1- it would be a favorite to win the championship and 2- JJ would be the best player on it. Name one low post player who is better than Horford but worse than JJ that would make the hawks a contender?

But this is what I am talking about. IF JJ is to be the best player on the team, he'd need a team that is good, all star or all defensive level 1-5. Which is rare (and why detroit was so good). Superstars don't need that much.

I think it's funny to say that using the zone means the win wasn't respectable. The zone wasn't legal and now is. On the other hand, the hand check and the charge area have changed as well, and few teams in nba history benefit more from those changes than this heat team. There is a reason why lebron and wade shoot free throws at a higher rate than even jordan did. Is it not respectable to force contact in the no charge zone like they do because that wasn't in the rules before? As for respectable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdvwepbKG9E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foaPMZxtzx4

Doesn't change the fact that the ABA was clearly inferior. All 4 teams that moved to the nba did worse than in the ABA. But the ABA/NBA discussion is besides the point. Even if you include the ABA in the discussion we are still talking about only 3 mvps in 60+ years of basketball not in the hall of fame. And all 3 not in the hall of fame had worse careers than KG. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that KG would be in the hall of fame even without boston. Just like everyone is sure that Nash will be there as well.

Diesel, no one denies that great players need help. The question was if JJ can be the best player on a title team, not whether he needs more help. Let me ask you two questions: - In which team, of all those you listed, would JJ be the best player? - Name 2 players who are worse than JJ and would transform Atlanta into instant title contenders if they came here? And I don't mean in addition to Horford and Smith, but instead of them. Because as I said, JJ can be the best player on a title team if the team has 4 other all star/all defensive nba type of players like the 04 pistons had.

He was MVP of the ABA. ABA which people pretty much universally recognized as being mostly inferior, and that only started having a dedicated committee in the hall of fame last year. Just as with Artis Gilmore (who got in because of the aforementioned just created ABA committee). ABA MVP is nowhere near the same thing as NBA mvp. Spencer Heywood is proof of that. 30ppg and mvp as a rookie on the aba, 20ppg and only 4 all stars in the NBA. Even then, only 3 aba mvps are not in the hall of fame. So yes, KG was a lock to be on the hall of fame before boston. Yes. KG was a much better player than anyone currently on the hawks, and was the best player on the celtics. It makes no sense to compare JJ to KG. So, to go back to the original question: the only way JJ is the best player on a title team is if the team is very well coached and every other starter on the hawks is very close to JJ in skill.

The MVP-Title connection is really very strong. In NBA's entire history, only 6 mvps never won a title, and that number will reduce soon (malone, barkley, nash, iverson, nowitzki, lebron). Conversely, the only nba champions that did not have an MVP are the1951 Rochester Royals, the 1979 seattle supersonics, and the 04 pistons. Which is why I said that for JJ to be the best player on a championship team it would have to be something like the 04 pistons, where the team has a top notch coach and all 5 players are sort of equivalent all stars (the one starter to never make an all star, Prince, was in the all defensive teams multiple times). Short of that, it is very, very unlikely that JJ wins a title as the best player.

No. Just no. Every single eligible NBA mvp is in the hall of fame. Even those who did not win a title, like Malone and Barkley. KG would not be the first one out.

Pierce and Allen only became 1st ballot hall of famers because of playing with KG and winning a title. Before that, they were borderline at best. Reggie Miller still isn't in, and if you look at Allen's career pre Boston they were very similar.

I see that you used numbers for the Cassel part and not for the Sprewell part. Is that because 33 and 34 year old Sprewell in MN poster PERs of 14.7 and 12.1? (league average being 15). That team, other than Cassel at 22.8, had no one esle even at PER 16. Their 3 point specialists and "dirty work" bigs are the sort that are a dime a dozen. Hassell is still relatively young and hasn't been able to find the same minutes anywhere else in the NBA. So even if I grant Cassel, Horford, Smith and Crawford are still better than anyone KG played with during his peak years (post 2000) in MN. Not to mention that in 7 of those first round exits, 4 times it was to the western conference champion and some of the all time best teams. And all 7 of them much better than any team the hawks have faced in the 1st round with the exception of Boston. Point being that, yes, great players do need good supporting casts, but in the case of Joe Johnson we are talking about supporting casts that are already almost as good as him. Any better and he becomes the "supporting cast."

I think you guys are mixing up the arguments a bit. One side seems to be arguing that it is not Joe's fault that the team hasn't moved beyond the 2nd round, and the other is arguing that Joe cannot be the best player on the team if the hope is to win it all. The thing is that both those statements can be true. As far as the debate itself, the comparison to the celtics is not a good one. At least 2 of the big 3 were better than what Joe Johnson currently is. If the hawks are looking for a blueprint, the 04 pistons would be a much better model to emulate. Lots of borderline all stars, good coherent unit and good coaching. That should be the goal. As for the celtics, as the board's resident celtics fan, let me address a few things: Paul Pierce was never maligned by the fanbase. Antoine Walker was. Pierce made the playoffs the first year without Walker (03-04), and when the celtics failed to make the playoffs the two years after Walker's second stint with the team, the fanbase maligned Doc (in 05-06) and in 06-07 everyone knew the team was tanking for the draft. JJ plays with much better players than KG ever played with in MN. Horford alone is better than anyone he played with there. KG made it to the conference finals with a team that started a 34 year old Sam Cassell, a 33 year old Sprewell, Trenton Hassel (who in any other playoff team wouldn't even be in the rotation) and a 36 year old Ervin Johnson. None of these players hold a candle to Crawford, Horford, and, on good days, Smith. No, it is actually the opposite: KG doesn't get enough credit. Paul Pierce is still playing at a similar level that he was in 08. Same for Allen. Rondo is much better. And yet the celtics are much worse. Why? KG has slowed down considerably because of injuries. When KG went down in 09, the celtics started allowing 9 points more per game. A single player being responsible for a 9 point swing in one end of the floor is incredible. This was a team that in 09 was 27-2 when he first got hurt. And he continued playing hurt, and when he aggravated the injury the celtics were 44-11. They finished 62-20. So fully healthy KG: 27-2 ; KG playing injured or out, 35-18. I do agree that there is no symmetry between the two teams. Yes, he was considered a superstar. And no, KG was never seen as statpadder. In fact, one of the knocks against him was precisely that he wasn't aggressive enough in looking for his shot. Criticism of him was precisely because he hesitated to "take over" offensively. The reason they traded him was never because he never met the promise. If anything, he exceeded the promise of a 5th pick. He was traded because the Wolves were going nowhere fast, so they wanted to rebuild and get cap space instead of losing him for nothing.

Imagine the career he would have had if he always stayed in shape, instead of playing himself into shape like he started doing when he joined the lakers...

It helps that this was the weakest playoffs in a long time. The spurs were old (see their losing streak down the stretch) and ginobli was hurt. The lakers were old and imploding, and the thunder are a few years away.

I think people are expecting too much of Rose. The kid is 22 years old in the position that it takes the longest to learn in the NBA. At 22 Nash was scoring 3 points a game.

In theory, I am in favor of a hard cap. But in reality, I don't think a hard cap is going to work in the NBA. The NBA is a lot more like the MLB than the NFL in that only a few franchises can truly be profitable. In the NFL, even the Lions, which had the worst revenue of any NFL franchise the year before last, made more money than 28 of the NBA teams. The NFL, because of the popularity of football, makes a lot more money. Meanwhile, in the NBA, like the MLB, only a few markets are big enough to allow teams to truly make a profit. A Forbes piece from a few years ago claimed that only 5 NBA franchises made a profit before counting money from the luxury tax, but that the luxury tax was enough to put a whole bunch of teams in the black. New York, LA, Boston, Chicago and Dallas can all spend close to 100 million in payroll, get bounced from the playoffs early, and still make a substantial profit. Other franchises struggle even when spending a fraction of that money. As such, the solution is to redistribute money some way, and a soft cap with a luxury tax does that. In the MLB the tampa bays and the st louis cardinals of the world compete by getting money from the yankees and red sox of the world. In an ideal world, all teams would spend the same. In the nba, it is better to have some redistribution of income like that.

the decline in popularity had less to do with the perception of athletes as thugs and more with the decline of big market teams. People who see nba players as thugs aren't fans anyways. Ratings for finals since 96 NBC 1996 Chicago Bulls 4, Seattle Supersonics 2 16.7 NBC 1997 Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2 16.8 NBC 1998 Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2 18.7 NBC 1999 San Antonio Spurs 4, New York Knicks 1 11.3 NBC 2000 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Indiana Pacers 2 11.6 NBC 2001 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 1 12.1 NBC 2002 Los Angeles Lakers 4, New Jersey Nets 0 10.2 ABC 2003 San Antonio Spurs 4, New Jersey Nets 2 6.5 ABC 2004 Detroit Pistons 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1 11.5 ABC 2005 San Antonio Spurs 4, Detroit Pistons 3 8.2 ABC 2006 Miami Heat 4, Dallas Mavericks 2 8.5 ABC 2007 San Antonio Spurs 4, Cleveland Cavaliers 0 6.2 ABC 2008 Boston Celtics 4, Los Angeles Lakers 2 9.3 ABC 2009 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Orlando Magic 1 8.4 ABC 2010 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Boston Celtics 3 10.6 Unsurprisingly, the lowest ratings came during the era when the 4 biggest basketball markets in the nation (la, ny, chicago, boston) were not competitive.

Superstar is a loose definition. In my mind, superstars are the mvp caliber players who can carry teams by themselves. In that case, no, Paul Pierce has never been a superstar. That said, and trying hard not to sound like a homer, Joe Johnson's career is not on the same level as Pierce's, even before the big 3.

I am not so sure. A hard cap is going to kill the thunder. And non guaranteed contracts means that new york and LA can chase free agents any year they want. Shorter, non guaranteed contracts might lead to new york and LA getting everyone every year.

I'm pretty sure that if the hawks started discussions with Dalembert's agent that would be considered tampering.

Too bad those picks are in one of the worst drafts in recent memory.

Sure, it is early in the process. But we are a few weeks away from free agency, and if 45 million is the starting offer, then they are very far apart. The median team payroll now is 68 million, so we are talking about cutting salaries by about 1/3. As a comparison, the NFL wants to reduce payrolls by about 18%, and the lockout has been ongoing for 2 months with no sign of ending. And unless there is a decisive legal victory for one side in the NFL lockout which would discourage one of the sides in the nba from continuing, I see the nba lockout lasting a lot longer.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-16/sbj-nba-proposes-45-million-hard-salary-cap#ixzz1MY8wVC6I First proposal includes non guaranteed contracts and 45 million hard cap. Which means that every team but the kings (current payroll at 44 mill) would have to cut between 7 million (clippers at 52) to 46 million (lakers at 91). Given how far apart the sides will likely be after this, I expect a long lock out. Just look at how much smaller the difference is in the nfl and how long their lock out has been going on. And I will say that I side for the most part with the players. How can the NBA be losing as much money as they claim when there have been so many attempts at buying some of the bottom feeding teams rejected? Someone bought the nets for 300 million in 04 and sold a controlling share (but not all of it) to the Russian billionaire in exchange for 700 million to build the Brooklyn arena. From 300 to 700 in 5 years is a pretty good investment.

The Bulls experiment is an study in how luck matters. They were one of the front runners to get KG and didn't get him because they didn't want to throw both Ben Gordon and Luol Deng in the mix. And so Ben Gordon left for free and Luol Deng is widely considered to be overpaid. Then they hired an overmatched nobody in Del Negro. And they have a looong history of draft busts (Eddy Curry, Marcys Fizer, Chris Mimm. They traded away Lamarcus Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas. Then they got lucky. 1st pick that got them Rose, Thibodeau got passed for headcoach by half a dozen teams, and their original favorite, D'antoni, picked the Knicks. They are a prime example of why in the nba it's better to be lucky than good.

Just to clarify, this wasn't a poll. This is a contest where you win prizes if you guess several correct results in a row. In cases where the question is about margin of victory, espn tends to follow the vegas lines pretty closely.