Can the Hawks win a title with JJ as the #1 guy?

[sturt]

Started to respond to the 5 simple questions thread, and realize that maybe this is better suited for its own thread, given how I ended up my response...

Answering NineOh's question...

Yes, the team can win a title with Joe as 1a... with a 1b and 1c, which is like pretty much any other team.

That means, this team can win a title if Smoove and Horford continue to grow their games and increase their night-to-night consistency.

It's just hard to imagine that happening at the moment.

But stepping back...

What beat us vs. the Bulls, seemed to me, was that they had a deeper bench... Brewer and Asik, in particular.

Under the current CBA, those kinds of players one can obtain if they're willing to use their exceptions...

So, IF IF IF we had ownership that could afford Sund signing some exception players last off-season, it's certainly plausible that we end up play the Heat...

And then, I think it's plausible that we had better match-ups against the Heat than did the Bulls...

Which means that I think it's plausible that we actually could have snuck into the Finals, even without Smoove or Horford getting consistent results.

[AHF]

I don't think we can win a title with JJ as the best player on the team. I don't think he is in line for any more career growth so if we have already seen his best and his best in the future is maintaining a previous peak, then we need to either acquire one or more better players or we need to see one or more of our internal players significantly surpass him. Josh growing into a 1b (someone who is nearly on JJ's level) isn't going to be enough, IMO.

[DrReality]

I don't think we can win a title with JJ as the best player on the team. I don't think he is in line for any more career growth so if we have already seen his best and his best in the future is maintaining a previous peak, then we need to either acquire one or more better players or we need to see one or more of our internal players significantly surpass him. Josh growing into a 1b (someone who is nearly on JJ's level) isn't going to be enough, IMO.

Totally agree. He is the best allstar offense killer in the league. And everyone knows it.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Started to respond to the 5 simple questions thread, and realize that maybe this is better suited for its own thread, given how I ended up my response...

Answering NineOh's question...

Yes, the team can win a title with Joe as 1a... with a 1b and 1c, which is like pretty much any other team.

That means, this team can win a title if Smoove and Horford continue to grow their games and increase their night-to-night consistency.

It's just hard to imagine that happening at the moment.

But stepping back...

What beat us vs. the Bulls, seemed to me, was that they had a deeper bench... Brewer and Asik, in particular.

Under the current CBA, those kinds of players one can obtain if they're willing to use their exceptions...

So, IF IF IF we had ownership that could afford Sund signing some exception players last off-season, it's certainly plausible that we end up play the Heat...

And then, I think it's plausible that we had better match-ups against the Heat than did the Bulls...

Which means that I think it's plausible that we actually could have snuck into the Finals, even without Smoove or Horford getting consistent results.

I think it was Diesel that brought up the Paul Pierce example, which was a guy who was much maligned by the fan base as a guy who couldn't get the Celtics even to playoff level once Antoine Walker left. But once he got legit help in the form of KG and Allen, he all of a sudden became a more efficient, even iconic player for the Celtics. Because he didn't have to do it every night, he sacrificed some of his shots, but made the most of the shots he took.

JJ can't win it as him being the sole go-to guy . . no.

Could he be that 1a, if he were paired with someone like a Chris Paul ( who would lead the team in assists, but not necessarily in points )? I think so, if the 3rd guy was a scoring big. ( JJ - Paul - Horford or Smith . . . possibly )

Could he and Stoudemire get it done, alternating on who is "the guy" . . possibly, if the 3rd guy was a guard or a scoring/defensive small forward. ( JJ - Iggy - Amare . . . possibly )

One thing is for sure, a guy like Derrick Rose isn't winning anything, unless he gets a legit #2 or a 1a to play alongside him. Rose - JJ - Noah could get to the Finals.

Edited May 31, 2011 by northcyde

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The funny thing is . . . JJ has never played with a pass first PG in Atlanta who could set him up for good shots . . nor has he had the luxury of playing with a guy who could consistently score and draw a double team in the low post.

You just need multiple elements to win a title.

[RedDawg#8]

Joe needs to work on his game the way it was when he was in Phoenix. We don't need him to dominate the ball anymore, but we do need his shot to come back. With the emergence of Teague as well as the presence of Kirk, we need to let either of them completely run the floor at all times. Joe can still be "the man" (in his own mind) but he doesn't need the ball as much. All the passes that Smoove caught at the end of the clock on the perimeter need to be Joe now

[AHF]

I think it was Diesel that brought up the Paul Pierce example, which was a guy who was much maligned by the fan base as a guy who couldn't get the Celtics even to playoff level once Antoine Walker left. But once he got legit help in the form of KG and Allen, he all of a sudden became a more efficient, even iconic player for the Celtics.

The year Pierce won a title he was 3rd team All-NBA and the Celtics added 1st Team All-NBA (and #3 in MVP voting), Kevin Garnett.

If the Hawks can add a 1st Team and top 3 MVP candidate to the team, I'll happily concede that we could compete for a title.

That would fall into the category of adding a player that is clearly superior to Joe.

Edited May 31, 2011 by AHF

[macdaddy]

Yes without a doubt but it does take money. I sincerely believe we could compete for a title with the right additions but just looking at recent history suggests otherwise. Just this year every other team that made it just as far as we did had an mvp or potential mvp candidate if not a hall of famer. (Well except Memphis I guess).

We're still holding out that the Pistons model will work for us, mainly because that's our only option right now. But, its called the Piston's model because they are the only ones to pull it off.

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

No.:beathorse:

[GameTime]

Yes without a doubt but it does take money. I sincerely believe we could compete for a title with the right additions but just looking at recent history suggests otherwise. Just this year every other team that made it just as far as we did had an mvp or potential mvp candidate if not a hall of famer. (Well except Memphis I guess).

We're still holding out that the Pistons model will work for us, mainly because that's our only option right now. But, its called the Piston's model because they are the only ones to pull it off.

They were extremely lucky with this model and it only really worked once. Ben Wallace, Billups were no where near who they were before Detroit. Depending on a Detroit model that failed more than it succeeded (really only once) is not good.

Edited May 31, 2011 by GameTime

[AHawks89]

If Josh can play like this:

&

This:

[Deeman]

If Josh can play like this:

&

This:

So thats a No.

[sturt]

The year Pierce won a title he was 3rd team All-NBA and the Celtics added 1st Team All-NBA (and #3 in MVP voting), Kevin Garnett.

If the Hawks can add a 1st Team and top 3 MVP candidate to the team, I'll happily concede that we could compete for a title.

That would fall into the category of adding a player that is clearly superior to Joe.

Wow... it's Disagree With AHF Day... :) ...not sure this has ever happened before...

And specifically, I disagree with that last line and the notion that, simply based on those platitudes (re: All-NBA and MVP voting status), Garnett was "clearly superior" to Pierce and Allen. They were almost instantly referred to as "The Big Three" for a reason... they were the epitome of what I mean by "1a, 1b, and 1c." In other words, if we have two other players who we acquire or who rise to play consistently at the level that Joe has more-often-than-not played at over his career, we're at least Finals material, and a threat to win a title.

But I think it's hard to see that because as northcyde suggests, first we've never yet had someone on the floor with Joe who was his bona fide equal... and second, it would be necessary that at least one of those is an All-Star low-post scorer... in other words, it can't be our version of Hardaway/Richmond/Mullins.

[AHF]

Wow... it's Disagree With AHF Day... :) ...not sure this has ever happened before...

And specifically, I disagree with that last line and the notion that, simply based on those platitudes (re: All-NBA and MVP voting status), Garnett was "clearly superior" to Pierce and Allen. They were almost instantly referred to as "The Big Three" for a reason... they were the epitome of what I mean by "1a, 1b, and 1c." In other words, if we have two other players who we acquire or who rise to play consistently at the level that Joe has more-often-than-not played at over his career, we're at least Finals material, and a threat to win a title.

But I think it's hard to see that because as northcyde suggests, first we've never yet had someone on the floor with Joe who was his bona fide equal... and second, it would be necessary that at least one of those is an All-Star low-post scorer... in other words, it can't be our version of Hardaway/Richmond/Mullins.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Garnett was by far the most valuable of the 3, IMO. You could have replaced Allen or Pierce with a number of other guys and gotten some big scoring. Garnett was the interior presence and defensive identity that led them to the championship. I think the All-NBA first team status accurately reflects how much more important he was to the team than Allen or Pierce.

For example, Garnett's 2007-08 PER was 25.3. Pierce's was 19.6. Allen's was 16.4. This is also reflected in the win shares/48.

Using Garnett as the 100% standard, Pierce was 77% of Garnett's PER and 78% of his win shares/48. Allen was 65% of Garnett's PER and 67% of his win shares/48.

None of these numbers fully reflect how Garnett changed the team defensive culture.

He was by far the best and most important player on that team, IMO.

Joe Johnson's career best season of 2009-10 (by the advanced metrics) was 77% of Garnett's 2007-08 PER and 53% of Garnett's 2007-08 PER. If you take JJ's second best win share number it is only 42% of Garnett's 2007-08 win share/48 figure.

Thus adding a player of Garnett's caliber to the team would be wildly better than anything we have seen from JJ.

JJ's career playoff 14.1 PER and .037 win share/48 figure is also dwarfed by Garnett's career playoff 21.7 PER and .151 win share/48. Notably, Garnett's numbers exceed JJ's career highs.

Stats are not everything, but here the point is that they (a) correlate with the league awards and (b) correlate what with I have seen with my eyes from each of these players.

To loop back to the original point, I don't think 3 JJs would cut it in part because I don't think Al Horford and Josh Smith are that far off from JJ's impact right now. They need to not just match but to absolutely blow by JJ for us to have a chance at being contenders with the current roster.

Edited May 31, 2011 by AHF

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sturt . . the sad thing about this thread is that of the games that we DID win in the playoffs, JJ was either THE REASON or the 2nd top reason why.

And people saw that, but rip into the guy because he couldn't do it for 12 games, instead of 6.

The fact is that if we had guys on JJ's level, especially if they're guys who can get their own shot . . with one of those being a big . . we probaly beat Chicago.

Because even if JJ was off, you'd have 2 other guys who could take the scoring lead.

People talk about KG in Boston, but the better comparison may be to talk about KG in Minnesota. KG in Munnesota was a very good player who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. 7 consecutive 1st round losses for him. And their fans talked about how he couldn't make game winning shots.

But lo and behold, as soon as he got complimentarty guys who had the ability to take over a game and make big shots, keeping KG from doing everything, the T-Wolves damn near made the NBA Finals.

( Talking about Cassell and Spreewell, of course ).

JJ and Jamal, when playing together, are essentially 1a and 1b. So imagine if we had a 1c that did most of his scoring down low? At that point, we may only need 2 of the 3 to be real good on any given night, to win a game. If all 3 were good, we'd be tough to beat.

We were 6 - 0 when JJ got 20 pts or more . . 5 - 1 when Crawford got 20 pts or more. If we had a 3rd guy that could get us 20 pts down low on ant given night, that would be the type of asset needed to get the Hawks to the next level.

[Supporter]

Sturt . . the sad thing about this thread is that of the games that we DID win in the playoffs, JJ was either THE REASON or the 2nd top reason why.

And people saw that, but rip into the guy because he couldn't do it for 12 games, instead of 6.

The fact is that if we had guys on JJ's level, especially if they're guys who can get their own shot . . with one of those being a big . . we probaly beat Chicago.

Because even if JJ was off, you'd have 2 other guys who could take the scoring lead.

People talk about KG in Boston, but the better comparison may be to talk about KG in Minnesota. KG in Munnesota was a very good player who couldn't get it done in the playoffs. 7 consecutive 1st round losses for him. And their fans talked about how he couldn't make game winning shots.

But lo and behold, as soon as he got complimentarty guys who had the ability to take over a game and make big shots, keeping KG from doing everything, the T-Wolves damn near made the NBA Finals.

( Talking about Cassell and Spreewell, of course ).

JJ and Jamal, when playing together, are essentially 1a and 1b. So imagine if we had a 1c that did most of his scoring down low? At that point, we may only need 2 of the 3 to be real good on any given night, to win a game. If all 3 were good, we'd be tough to beat.

We were 6 - 0 when JJ got 20 pts or more . . 5 - 1 when Crawford got 20 pts or more. If we had a 3rd guy that could get us 20 pts down low on ant given night, that would be the type of asset needed to get the Hawks to the next level.

Horford was supposed to be that guy..

[thescout5]

Chicago is a team the Hawks need to get past but right now Miami is better . How do the Hawks beat both the Bulls and Heat? I noticed Dallas kept it close vs Miami because of their size in the middle it seemed. Where are the Hawks going to find that size?

[99PROBL3MS]

I can say with a straight face that if JJ had Doc Rivers and two players as great as Allen, Pierce, or Garnett that he could win a title as the lead guy.

Not to mention a PG like Rondo. An enforcer like Perkins. A stretch 5 with a nice post game like Rasheed, Big Baby, P.J. Brown, Tony Allen etc. KG is getting a little too much credit. Surrounded by that kind of group JJ gets to the finals imo.

[DrReality]

JJ will do his own thing and that kills the offense, does not involve others. If he's hot and making his shots we are hot. If he doesn't then the offense goes down the tube. And in the playoffs the other teams are ready for his ISO Joe and we're sunk.

[NineOhTheRino]

Four thoughts I feel strongly about:

1. JJ has already peaked a professional athlete.
   
2. JJ has never been and will never be a leader.
   
3. As long as JJ is here the Hawks will not sign someone better.
   
4. Not only will the Hawks never win a title with JJ as the #1, but they will never win a title with him on the roster.
   

...and this is coming from a JJ fan.