niremetal

Did I say it is based solely on blocks? Is this a reading comprehension issue or what here? Should I have listed every single stat possible so that you could understand that ALL of them are a part of why a player is considered an All-Star or not?

How can I explain to you that defensive stats are just as much of a factor as offensive stats in analyzing whether a player is an All-Star or not if you don't already understand that?

You are familiar with Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutombo, correct?

Yup. Now tell me how factoring in defensive stats alters my analysis of Antoine Walker versus Jamison/Pierce in 2005 or Lopez versus Horford this year. Because I can't see any defensive stat other than blocks per game that indicates Lopez has anything on Horford. And even factoring in defensive stats, Walker still put up better numbers than Pierce and Jamison.

So as I said, I'll wait. Or maybe you're willing to qualify your initial statement about the importance of "All-Star numbers." But my guess is you're too proud to back down from what was clearly a hyperbolic statement.

You do realize that All-Star numbers isn't restricted to offense, right?

Feel free to admit that either you don't realize that or simply overlooked it in a rush to try and respond.

So your basis of Lopez's All-Star numbers is based solely on Lopez's blocks? No wonder you think he's a better defender than Horford.

Please, pray tell how factoring in defensive stats alters any of the above analyses. I'll wait.

What part of it is ridiculous exactly? What's ridiculous is that you compared me suggesting a guy who works hard on both ends of the floor for a bad team to a guy who was a lazy defender and a shot chucker.

Look at the part of your post that I quoted - the part where you said that the team's record "shouldn't have anything to do with it" as long as a player has "put up All-Star numbers." That is ridiculous. An example of why that is ridiculous is that if you use the same logic, then Antoine Walker should have been an All-Star in 2005. That year, he clearly put up All-Star numbers (21 and 9.5 at the time the reserves were selected). According to your quoted criteria - which you never qualified by saying "generally" or "unless the player is a poor defender" or "unless the player's last name is something other than Lopez" - Antoine Walker should have been an All-Star despite the fact that his stats came for a historically bad team.

Admit that the quoted language was an overstatement or qualify it appropriately, and we're golden. Leave it as it stands, and it's ridiculous.

And how is Horford a "MUCH BETTER" all-around defender than Lopez? I think that they are very comparable defenders but Lopez has a clear advantage because of his height and I believe he has a longer reach too, though I haven't gone and looked that up.

Lopez is two inches taller, but Al can jump 5 inches higher, is significantly stronger, does a far better job of maintaining position on the block, and shows better anticipation on help defense. Also, Lopez doesn't move his feet quickly enough to guard most 4s and doesn't have the mass to keep from getting backed down by most 5s. I won't assume that you haven't watched many Nets games, but you should go check out some Nets fan blogs. Their assessment of Lopez's defense is not kind. He actually is not a very good defensive player yet, although he has improved over last year and has the potential to be a very good defensive player in the future.

As far as their record goes that shouldn't have anything to do with it, this is the ALL-STAR game, not the MVP voting, and he's clearly put up All-Star numbers and should be in the All-Star game.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I suppose Antoine Walker should have been an All-Star in 2005. After all, his stats were better than Jamison's and Pierce's that year at the time the teams were selected (not to mention Ben Wallace - or are you really so up on Lopez or down on Al that you don't recognize that Horford is a much better all-around defender than Lopez right now?).

Wade is the better player. This should not be an argument. JJ can disappear a lot more than Wade over the course of a season. When I say a lot more I mean twice as much. With Wade he will do something to help your team on a bad shooting night. Things like lead the team in assist AND get to the line 15 times. JJ does not get to the line like Wade; so he does disappear when it comes to scoring more than Wade. Its that simple.

But this thread is not about who is better. Its about who we will keep. The only way to clear close to twenty million for one of the top tier free agents is to blow this team up and move JJ and Smoove for an expiring contract like T-Mac. Wade will not take us to the championship without Smoove and JJ in our lineup. And there is no guarantee Wade signs with us. Especially after trading away two of our best three players. Sund will only move JJ out of desperation. If he thinks JJ wants to stay here, and nothing he has said indicates anger toward our management or city, ( like when he was in Phoenix ) Sund is keeping JJ. Period End of Story.

I know I posted a JJ/Smoove for T-Mac fantasy trade; but thats all it was ..... a fantasy idea. We are one player away from a championship with our current lineup; could move as high as #2 in the east just by staying pat next season. Trade JJ and Smoove, miss out on a top tier free agent, we are back to a 30 win season or worse. Why would anyone risk that?

I must rush to point out that I never said JJ was as good as Wade. He isn't. But if we traded everyone who wasn't at least as good as Wade, we would have been been fielding a 0-player team ever since Nique tore his achilles tendon. That's why it's a mistake to say "JJ is not as good as Wade. Therefore we should trade him."

I seriously doubt Lopez will make it because of how terrible the Nets are. There is the question of how much Lopez has been putting up numbers on a bad team. For example, when the talent upgraded with the return of Yi, Lopez saw his scoring average dive from 20 ppg to under 16 ppg. How many fewer opportunities would he be getting if he was playing with JJ, Crawford, Bibby, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, etc.? Horford is averaging more RPG and Lopez more BPG (both top 20). I don't think it would be a travesty if Lopez is an All-Star but he is certainly not so far removed from Al that I think it would be a terrible thing if Al or someone actually winning games was the All-Star rep.

Lopez has been playing with All-Star Devin Harris and has won 3 of 37 games. That pretty much rules him out in the minds of a lot of coaches, imo.

If you look at per 36 minute stats, the only areas in which Lopez leads Horford are in points (18.3 to 14.2), blocks (1.9 to 1.4), and free throw percentage (.835 to .764). Horford does better in rebounds (10.4 to 9.4), field goal percentage (.527 to .514), turnovers and (1.5 to 2.5), and fouls committed (2.9 to 3.3). I think Horford easily matches Lopez's scoring and block output and extends his lead in rebounding if they switch teams, though I think Lopez would end up winning the FG% battle in that case.

Oh, and did I mention that the Nets are 3-34?

People also tend to forget that being surrounded with bad players actually helps you in all non-efficiency stat categories. If you're surrounded by bad rebounders, you'll get more rebounds individually. If you're surrounded by poor help defenders, you'll get more blocks individually. Lopez's stats are questionable in every stat category simply because it's tough to see how much of his stats are simply a product of the fact that no one else is there to do those things and because he gets more minutes (1st in the East and 2nd in the NBA among centers) for want of a decent backup.

I'm not saying that Horford is definitely better than Lopez, and certainly am not judging who will be better 3 years from now (the latter of which is irrelevant in All-Star selection). But it sure as hell wouldn't be a travesty if Brook Lopez didn't make the All-Star team.

QFT. The grass is always greener on the other side.

The only player in my lifetime who has carried a team to a title without any All-Star caliber players alongside him was Duncan in 2003. Wade sure as hell isn't THAT good. He needs the right players around him to contend for a title. But I think you can also win a title with JJ as your best player if you surround him with the right people, same as with every other non-point guard who is a top 10-12 player. True, you might need slightly higher-caliber runningmates to do it, but the difference isn't as drastic as many people seem to think (especially when you consider that from the standpoint of defensive matchups, it's much better to have a 6'7 swingman at SG than a 6'3 combo guard).

JJ reminds me a bit of Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett c.2007 - both were perennial All-Stars, but neither was good enough to lead a team to a title on their own (you can add "anymore" to the end of that sentence in the case of Garnett). The Wolves took the approach of "well, we might as well trade KG for a younger semi-star because he isn't a top 5 player anymore." That hasn't so much worked out for them. But the Celtics didn't give up on Pierce simply because he wasn't LeBron - even though there were plenty of Celtics fans who were screaming to trade Pierce and rebuild around Jefferson. Instead, they made moves to surround Pierce with two other players of comparable caliber.

So it is with JJ. We shouldn't say "to hell with it" just because he isn't Kobe. And fortunately for us Hawks fans, Sund won't - no matter how much his haters say he should.

I fully agree with you and it's ridiculous to think how much better he can be. I honestly believe that he is the best all around player (scoring, defense, passing, rebounding) since Oscar Robertson and he's only what 25 years old?

If they get Jamison they could be a lot more difficult to beat, but it would depend on what they had to give up to get him. If it cost them Varejao or Big Z I don't know whether they would be better or not.

Magic > Oscar > LeBron

Michael > LeBron

LeBron has the potential to be better than all of the above, but doesn't have the maturity to know when to take over and when to trust his teammates. Honestly, I'm not sure he ever will. Too often, he isn't all business when he's out on the floor. And as much as I disliked Michael, dude was all business all the time.

That might be true although I've read several times that if we faced them in the playoffs that we'd have a shot at beating them and unless we're using the term "shot" very loosely I just don't see it because they are an awful match up for us. Orlando might be a worse match up because of their ability to shoot from deep but we could stop switching and play man defense against them and I think we'd have a lot more of a chance at beating them since we have size advantages in many areas and Dwight isn't always involved in the offense like Lebron is. I just think we've been out coached by the Magic recently but in a long series I'd like to think that we might be able to make adjustments. There's not a lot of adjusting we can do against Cleveland when they trot out Shaq/Big Z against Horford and Varejao against Smoove when it comes to them controlling the boards.

Our injury-riddled playoff appearance against Cleveland aside, we have at least played the Cavs close in a few of our recent contests with them. Also, with Marvin healthy, we have 3 different defenders that can give LeBron different looks, and J-Coll is a boon against Shaq now that Woody seems to have figured out how to use him. No one else on their team has a tendency to step up when things get rough.

On the other hand, we don't have anyone who can even pretend to man up against D-12 (I think Collins would be liability against the much quicker and more athletic Howard) and simply don't defend the deep ball as well as we could (we're tied for 2nd-worst in opposing 3P%) which leaves us exposed against a team like Orlando that can hit treys in bunches. The issue against Howard is shared by every team in the league, but with the Hawks it is exacerbated by the refusal to strongly challenge perimeter shooters. Also. when Vince is healthy, Orlando also has the league's #1 Hawk killer. Dude just shreds us.

Really, we just don't have any systemic matchup problems with Cleveland like we do with Orlando. I don't think we match up WELL with Cleveland. But it's much easier to visualize a gameplan that would lead to us beating them than it is with Orlando.

I know that we've had leads against them and many competitive games the past 2 years and that we were injured when they swept us out of the playoffs last year but we match up terribly with them and they are capable of completely locking us down defensively when they need to PLUS they get the advantage of the superstar calls and they do have the superstar to make plays. I don't think that the Cavs are unbeatable by any means but they completely shut us down in both 4th quarters this year and I'm just not confident that we have the ability to change that this year.

In case we've forgotten we are 1-9 against them the past 2 years, including the playoffs.

I don't know that people are so convinced that we can beat Cleveland. Just confident that we'd do better against them than we would against Orlando.

I think Joe needs to realize when he's not on. Well...Joe and Woody both have to understand that the offense has to go through more guys if Joe is off. But last night vs the Gang Green JJ was everything we needed in a #1. The man is hard to stop when that Jumper is falling. No complaints from me on that performance.

I love how convenient some people's memories are, too. Rest assured, they'll forget about his performance last night by 3 weeks from now, and pretend again that Joe never has good games against good teams.

I can't stop staring at the thing in my signature.

Then in the name of all that is holy, DELETE IT.

What was that one guy's name who hit like 8 threes in one game on a ten day contract to help us beat the Bullets when they had Webber? Henry James? That game was amazing.

Yup, Henry James. Here's the game:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199701240ATL.html

Ah, Lenny Wilkens. The only guy who makes Woody look like he uses a deep bench...

Okay thanks, I hope they make a good choice about who to sign for the rest of the season.

Yup - if I'm not mistaken, they have until the 19th to sign someone.

Nice list. I'll never forget Truck Robinson helping us end the Lakers long winning streak in a big upset.

I don't have heights and colleges but here's some additions that I enjoyed watching. Not sure where to draw the line with "lessor". Guess I'll use as a standard, ones I don't hear mentioned. I'll leave out Pete since he was a superstar.

Lou Hudson

Walt Hazzard

Jimmy Washington

Bill Bridges

I don't think Sweet Lou qualifies as "lesser." He was the team's centerpiece for several years and should be in the Hall of Fame.

Wow. That's impressive. I go back less than a decade...

From recent years, my favorite was Chris Crawford, who got injured twice right when he seemed to be putting it together.

Going back, I'm a fan of Randy Wittman.

FYI, we cannot be a top 3 seed if orlando is...the top from each conference gets top 3 seeds, so even if we went 81-1, if orlando went 82-0, we'd be 4th seed

Actually they changed that rule a few years back after the Nuggets got an undeserved 3 seed. The rule now is that being a division winner only guarantees you one of the top 4 seeds, not the top 3. So if we finish behind Orlando but with a better record than Cleveland and/or Boston, we can still be in the top 3.

Sean Williams has the basketball iq of a tadpole.

Not happening.

Hey, come on. Be nice. What did tadpoles ever do to you?

It is the Woodson offense, and little changes when JJ is out of the game (insert Crawford, rinse repeat).

What are you talking about? When Crawford comes into the game, it's totally different. Instead of JJ shooting fadeaways with 4 seconds on the clock, Jamal pulls up for a contested jumper with 17 seconds left on the clock. It's totally different! :snowballfight:

It is most certainly Woody's "style" of offense. On the Hawks, there is no offensive system in place designed to create ball movement and off-ball movement. Thus, it is up to the individual players to create ball movement and off-ball movement. JJ and Jamal are not point guards; they are scoring wings. So when you put the ball in their hands and ask them to create without an offensive system in place, of course they are going to look to shoot first. That's what shooting guards do. Kobe, Kevin Martin, Michael Redd, D-Wade, Brandon Roy (seriously, go look at a Blazers Edge blog during Blazers games sometime, and it's eerie how similar their critiques of Roy are to those of JJ around here), Ray Allen/Paul Pierce, Vince Carter...etc, etc, etc.

The difference is that Wade is the only guy on that list who is asked to initiate the offense on a significant number of possessions while he's in the game (you can add Kobe to that list in the 4th quarter of a close game). And whaddya know? People deride Wade as a ballhog too.

Usually, a shooting guard works off the ball when the offensive set begins. But in Atlanta, JJ and Jamal (and formerly Flip) are asked to initiate the offense almost as often as Bibby when they are in the game. When you ask a shooting guard to do that without implementing a motion offense (Triangle, Princeton, flex, etc) of some kind, you shouldn't act surprised when the ball stops on a lot of possessions.

In Phoenix, JJ played off the ball when Nash was in the game, and played lead guard when Nash was resting - but he did it in the context of D'Antoni's system that emphasized rapid ball movement and constant off-ball movement to create open shots as early in the clock as possible. JJ was always considered an unselfish player in Phoenix, as D'Antoni himself has said. But in Atlanta, JJ and Jamal are playing in a "system" where neither ball movement OR off-ball movement (much less both) is engrained. In that type of system, you can't ask shooting guards to initiate the offense and expect them to play like Chris Paul.

Hawks should look at Sean Williams

...and then point and laugh.

I love AJ on halftime and post game reports, he trips me out. I love how he says Vince "Kotter", its like one word is in yankee and all the rest in dixie.

I love how AJ sounds like a member of Alvin and the Chipmunks. No matter how many times I watch shows with him, I'm a little surprised when his voice first comes on.

Who is the masked man that put a Negative on all my posts in this thread?

I think I was being rather reasonable.

Warn't me, believe it or not.

Personally I find it hard to criticize our best players in a back and forth with another poster.

If you watched the 4th quarter when it got ugly Joe was largely the cause of it . Woodson take the blame around here but it was largely either Joe or Crawford not passing the ball.

The difference, Crawford (in this particular case) was making shots.

And I suppose the 50% of the game where we were, you know, playing defense are irrelevant? Because on several of those plays, you could very easily argue that JJ saved us the game. As I said, you have to watch damned selectively to come to the conclusion that Joe was the cause of us almost losing. You also have to willfully ignore the other plays where JJ rotated the ball to his teammates and only took two shots (both on the same possession, neither off an ISO and both good looks, although admittedly from the inefficient mid-range) in the final six minutes.

Oh, and on those three (yes, three) plays where JJ went ISO in the fourth? On only one of them did he have a teammate moving meaningfully to get open. And in the end, he only took 4 shots in the quarter and committed one turnover. If you want to selectively zero in on the two-minute stretch where he executed two unsuccessful ISOs (and Crawford missed one ill-advised shot on the possession before) and zero in on those three consecutive bad possessions as the cause of us almost losing...well, that's focusing only on the plays that you want to focus on. Someone else could just as easily focus on the Hawks' defensive lapses during the first 6 minutes of the quarter, virtually none of which can be blamed on JJ if you re-watch the game tape.

Yeah the other guys on the team got the missed shot or the turnover as he passed it with 5 seconds left on the clock in the 4th.

DVR the game and watch it with no emotion.

I'm happy to have Joe on our team he hits some ridiculous shots but he goes 5-16 with regularity.

Fortunately this isn't the 2005 Atlanta Hawks. They can win when Joe is off if other players are getting the ball.

I did watch it without emotion, at least with respect to JJ. And I re-watched it on DVR. I actually am not some huge JJ booster. He's no better than my third favorite starter after Horf and Bibby. But he's also the player (along with Marvin) who gets the most flak around here. Tonight it was undeserved.

The game is on espn360. you can watch it as many times as you want. see how joe almost cost us the game in the 4th quarter.

JJ was not hogging the ball in the fourth quarter. He did not almost cost us the game. You only can come to that conclusion if you watch the game looking for plays where Joe messed up. But people remember the plays they want to remember. That's the way it goes, but I'm gonna call BS on it.