Uh-Oh Stat Geeks Who Swear By Joe...

[benhillboy]

My link

I can (and will) kill Joe's hollow resume, game, and this brainless let's-see-how-we-can-look-like-morons contract offered by the hawks brass till I'm blue in the face, but who cares. What you all really care about is Premier Stat Geek Hollinger's opinions and mathematics.

It would seem to me that just looking at Joe play, one could easily realize that paying him anything close to 120 million dollars is not an option UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES for someone with common sense and knowledge of what a $100 mil + player is supposed to look like. But again, some of us need similar comparisons, numbers, and statistics because maybe we need glasses or something, hence the link from the smartest, most informed person on the NBA (sike). I don't know.

I still can't believe this. We are stuck with Joe while alienating Al at the same time because he knows as well as we do that the ASG won't have the funds necessary to lock him up. Being that Al is my favorite Hawk and Joe is....you get me.

Somebody wake me up when the nightmare is over.

Edited July 5, 2010 by benhillboy

[AHF]

I would love to see the reaction had it been the Bulls signing JJ rather than the Hawks.

[sturt]

My link

I can (and will) kill Joe's hollow resume, game, and this brainless let's-see-how-we-can-look-like-morons contract offered by the hawks brass till I'm blue in the face, but who cares. What you all really care about is Premier Stat Geek Hollinger's opinions and mathematics.

It would seem to me that just looking at Joe play, one could easily realize that paying him anything close to 120 million dollars is not an option UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES for someone with common sense and knowledge of what a $100 mil + player is supposed to look like. But again, some of us need similar comparisons, numbers, and statistics because maybe we need glasses or something, hence the link from the smartest, most informed person on the NBA (sike). I don't know.

I still can't believe this. We are stuck with Joe while alienating Al at the same time because he knows as well as we do that the ASG won't have the funds necessary to lock him up. Being that Al is my favorite Hawk and Joe is....you get me.

Somebody wake me up when the nightmare is over.

Give dolf your e-mail address and we'll be sure to invite you back to the board in a few years, then.

Until then, nighty-night.

[HawksBalla]

The Bulls wouldn't have given him 120 million, so Hollinger wouldn't have reacted the way he did. Hollinger is right, the Hawks will regret this trade. JJ's game will be in decline in 2/3 years but we'll be stuck overpaying him for far longer.

[exodus]

This is the same guy who said the 37 win Hawks would suffer a falloff after Childress walked.

Edited July 5, 2010 by exodus

[niremetal]

Anyone who thinks Hollinger is a god amongst stat geeks deserves eternal downratings.

[mrhonline]

Ad hominem attacks aside, there's nothing distinct about what Hollinger said. I've mentioned six of these comparables myself (Hamilton, Carter, Rose, Finley, Stackhouse, and Houston).

Here's his comments:

The stat geeks have always said not to pay Joe Johnson like a superstar, and now that the Hawks are poised to do just that, John Hollinger (Insider) does some more explaining as to why that's a bad idea:

Virtually every shred of evidence indicates that Johnson's next six years will be dramatically worse than the previous six. He's 28 years old and already has more than 25,000 minutes on his odometer. Trolling through my similarity database, I find that the 10 most comparable players are Michael Finley, Richard Hamilton, Jalen Rose, Vince Carter, Jamal Mashburn, Steve Smith, Glen Rice, Jerry Stackhouse, Allan Houston and Glenn Robinson.

None of them made an All-Star team after age 30. Johnson will be paid like an All-Star -- check that, a superstar -- until he's 33.

A few days ago, Kevin Pelton picked this contract as a strong candidate to become the worst in the NBA in a couple of years. If this contract proves to have been a mistake, the stat geeks will have to be credited with seeing something the NBA market does not. And if not ... well, at least they're giving Johnson some good bulletin board material.

Edited July 5, 2010 by mrhonline

[sturt]

The Bulls wouldn't have given him 120 million, so Hollinger wouldn't have reacted the way he did. Hollinger is right, the Hawks will regret this trade. JJ's game will be in decline in 2/3 years but we'll be stuck overpaying him for far longer.

This simple. We're paying Joe six years of salary for the success we're going to enjoy, or not, over the next 3-4 years.

It's easy to worry about years 5-6 if you're a sports pundit with no heart in the discussion.

But as a Hawks FAN, I'm happy to be more concerned about years 1-4.

I've been on the other side of this discussion, by the way. For YEARS, I pleaded for us to be patient and to TAKE THE LONG-TERM VIEW...

And now that we've endured all those years building up to this?

Well, SOMETIMES the short-term view SHOULD weigh more heavily.

THIS is one of those times.

[mrhonline]

Well, SOMETIMES the short-term view SHOULD weigh more heavily.

You're absolutely correct. This is where you're incorrect:

THIS is one of those times.

[sturt]

Why do you say that, mrh?

I say what I say b/c history supports that these things happen in cycles... taking a step backward most usually raises the odds of hurtling back toward mediocrity. I say that b/c we have a few assets at our disposal that, arguably, could propel us beyond our 2009-2010 level of play.

That's all wrong? Explain.

[Buzzard]

If Hollinger says we are in trouble; this will no doubt turn out to be as solid a move as we have made in over a decade. Thanks John for your pessimistic view; we can count on your predictions to be absolutely incorrect 99.999 % of the time.

[99PROBL3MS]

I am about as big an analytical basketball junkie as you will find. I appreciate what he has done but smirk at his attempts to become something he isn't. JJ has no where near the injury history of guys like Houston, Finley etc. That will help his long term projections and shelf-life. I want to see how jj operates in Coach Drew's scheme and how our team operates before I declare the sky is falling. As far as I am concerned we are on the upswing.

[jerrywest]

If the lockout forces the contract to transform into around 4 year 60 mill, Hawks will be OK. The total contract will be like 5 year $80 mill.

$120 mil for 6 is ridiculous.

[MaceCase]

The Bulls wouldn't have given him 120 million, so Hollinger wouldn't have reacted the way he did. Hollinger is right, the Hawks will regret this trade. JJ's game will be in decline in 2/3 years but we'll be stuck overpaying him for far longer.

They wouldn't because they couldn't under the CBA but they still would of offered him the MAXIMUM AMOUNT they could. All we did was throw him an extra year above what every other team could. Joe could be sitting in any one of these cities right now with the same deal Amar'e has and the media would be lauding that team as the new team in the championship picture instead of how awful he'll be in 2 years.

[Flight]

I would love to see the reaction had it been the Bulls signing JJ rather than the Hawks.

If JJ signed anywhere but ATL for the max it would have been considered a great pickup.

[mrhonline]

You allow your short-term goals to dominate when the potential reward is significant. Getting drubbed in the second round two seasons in a row hardly promises anything "significant."

I do not hide the fact that I would have preferred watching this team suck with Horford/Smith for a few years than plod along with Joe. The ASG are betting that most of you who spend money on the team will disagree with people like me. They've staked their money that you don't really care whether your team is an elite team; they think you'll still attend games and spend money on hot dogs and beer as long as the team isn't terrible.

For their part, they didn't hide the fact they are going to have to dump Joe and start this thing over in a few years anyway. It couldn't be clearer that they've gambled the team's long-term success for the short-term. The problem, which so few on this site seem to want to address because so many have deluded themselves into thinking that elite players like Carmelo or Paul are available for pennies on the dollar, is that the short-term they've invested in has major flaws.

[buckeye242424]

You allow your short-term goals to dominate when the potential reward is significant. Getting drubbed in the second round two seasons in a row hardly promises anything "significant."

I do not hide the fact that I would have preferred watching this team suck with Horford/Smith for a few years than plod along with Joe. The ASG are betting that most of you who spend money on the team will disagree with people like me. They've staked their money that you don't really care whether your team is an elite team; they think you'll still attend games and spend money on hot dogs and beer as long as the team isn't terrible.

For their part, they didn't hide the fact they are going to have to dump Joe and start this thing over in a few years anyway. It couldn't be clearer that they've gambled the team's long-term success for the short-term. The problem, which so few on this site seem to want to address because so many have deluded themselves into thinking that elite players like Carmelo or Paul are available for pennies on the dollar, is that the short-term they've invested in has major flaws.

And then what? Be terrible for a couple for more years, let Smoove get close to where Joe's age is now....and do what, roll the dice in the lottery, gambling? Man, I had enough of that stuff. I've enjoyed the last few years, having success in the regular season, and the opportunity at the chance to be a contender. Granted the playoffs have been disappointing, but the regular seasons have been great. We have Joe, Smoove, Horf. Three SOLID pieces to continue what has been started. Why speculate where we're gonna be in 2014-15? So much can happen by then. We all should be excited about 2010-11. The Hawks are going to be good again, and that's sweet....

[mrhonline]

Granted the playoffs have been disappointing, but the regular seasons have been great.

The difference between you and me is that I'm no happier with the 53-win team that couldn't beat a real title contender in the playoffs than the 37-win team that couldn't beat a real title contender in the playoffs.

To each his own, they say, but it's a little like a married couple that can't agree on whether to have kids or not. It's a pretty serious disagreement.

[sturt]

The difference between you and me is that I'm no happier with the 53-win team that couldn't beat a real title contender in the playoffs than the 37-win team that couldn't beat a real title contender in the playoffs.

To each his own, they say, but it's a little like a married couple that can't agree on whether to have kids or not. It's a pretty serious disagreement.

If that's how you feel, then yes, I'd rather be the 53-win team than the 37-win team since the end result is the same.

And why?

Because if the 53-win team has some assets to improve themselves even a little bit and makes a coaching change, I like their chances to get in the NBA Finals sometime within the next 3 years better than I like the 37-win team's chances to do so in the next 10.

Again, if you're not going to think short-term now, following years of gradual build-up, pray tell, when would you think short-term?

[exodus]

Ad hominem attacks aside, there's nothing distinct about what Hollinger said. I've mentioned six of these comparables myself (Hamilton, Carter, Rose, Finley, Stackhouse, and Houston).

Here's his comments:

I don't have a problem with Hollinger but his predictions about the Hawks have been consistently wrong. He panned the trade that brought JJ here in the first place and that was one of the few good moves that BK made (assuming of course the Suns would have matched) .

Having said that JJs contract could turn out to be a very bad one. However the alternative of letting him walk isn't very inviting either. If you let him walk you might as well blow up roster and start over because the worst place to be is around .500. You can't draft high enough to make a major improvement through the draft and you have no chance of being a legit contender.

I am sure you would argue that the Hawks don't have a chance to be a legit contender right now. Certainly they would have to make some good moves to get there but it isn't out of the realm of possiblity.