Deron says JJ is big reason he changed his mind and went back to the Nets

[Supporter]

Dude, no one is putting words in your mouth. Someone said that JJ is a top 3 SG in the league. In response, you said this: You clearly were listing players that you thought were, right now, better players than JJ. No one in the NBA world thinks that Jason Terry - who never made an All-Star Game even in his prime - is better than JJ. They aren't even in the same league. You justify it by giving JET handicaps for pace and minutes played. But I guess you're ignoring the fact that JJ is double-teamed every time he touches the ball whereas JET hasn't seen a double team in so long that he'd probably drop a deuce on the court if he saw one. Oh, and defense. Yeah, that half of the game. And about a billion other things that makes putting them in the same league absurd, and saying JET is better than JJ mindbogglingly laughable. Brandon Roy is not healthy. He will never be healthy again. He has no cartilage in his knees. It's bone on bone. Bringing a "healthy Brandon Roy" up as someone who is better than JJ is ridiculous because there will never, ever, ever be a healthy Brandon Roy unless someone invents a way to manufacture cartilage and implant it successfully in the human body. Which is about as likely to happen in the next year as someone inventing the transporters from Star Trek. No one's putting words in your mouth. Your post was absurd on its (lack of) merits, and it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Sorry.

Take the youngin to school Nire

[KB21]

Here is the biggest downfall on win shares. On our team Josh's value will obviously be much higher than if he were playing next to Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum. Josh is more valuable to us than he is to the Lakers, Heat, OKC etc..... Win/Shares shows us the obvious, big deal .... Period end of story. Link http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Win_shares

Of all the advanced stats out there, win shares gets the best look at what the player actually contributes to winning games, which is the bottom line. PER looks mostly at offense, because it doesn't penalize players for taking bad shots. I like PER to an extent, but I like win shares and adjusted +/- more. I think both of them give you a better indication of what the player actually means. As far as the 6 time All Star argument goes for Joe and against Josh, this is the traditional way of thinking in the NBA. The NBA rewards volume shooters. It doesn't reward players who do the things that contribute to winning though, like rebounding, limiting turnovers, forcing turnovers....etc. I always laugh at the argument that you have to watch the tape to understand Joe's impact on the game. Somehow, his impact cannot be measured in numbers apparently.

[Admin]

Of all the advanced stats out there, win shares gets the best look at what the player actually contributes to winning games, which is the bottom line. PER looks mostly at offense, because it doesn't penalize players for taking bad shots. I like PER to an extent, but I like win shares and adjusted +/- more. I think both of them give you a better indication of what the player actually means. As far as the 6 time All Star argument goes for Joe and against Josh, this is the traditional way of thinking in the NBA. The NBA rewards volume shooters. It doesn't reward players who do the things that contribute to winning though, like rebounding, limiting turnovers, forcing turnovers....etc. I always laugh at the argument that you have to watch the tape to understand Joe's impact on the game. Somehow, his impact cannot be measured in numbers apparently.

Josh attempted 1.5 more shots per game last year than Joe so how is Joe a volume shooter and Josh isn't? And efficient? Josh has the efficiency of a SG and yet he's a PF. I can't understand why you're glossing over those facts.

[DatWerkk]

Dude, no one is putting words in your mouth. Someone said that JJ is a top 3 SG in the league. In response, you said this: You clearly were listing players that you thought were, right now, better players than JJ. No one in the NBA world thinks that Jason Terry - who never made an All-Star Game even in his prime - is better than JJ. They aren't even in the same league. You justify it by giving JET handicaps for pace and minutes played. But I guess you're ignoring the fact that JJ is double-teamed every time he touches the ball whereas JET hasn't seen a double team in so long that he'd probably drop a deuce on the court if he saw one. Oh, and defense. Yeah, that half of the game. And about a billion other things that makes putting them in the same league absurd, and saying JET is better than JJ mindbogglingly laughable. Brandon Roy is not healthy. He will never be healthy again. He has no cartilage in his knees. It's bone on bone. Bringing a "healthy Brandon Roy" up as someone who is better than JJ is ridiculous because there will never, ever, ever be a healthy Brandon Roy unless someone invents a way to manufacture cartilage and implant it successfully in the human body. Which is about as likely to happen in the next year as someone inventing the transporters from Star Trek. No one's putting words in your mouth. Your post was absurd on its (lack of) merits, and it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Sorry.

Cool story, bro! I guess unlike you I am not 100% convinced that Brandon Roy will never be healthy again. I know you're not his doctor, because doctors have given him the go-ahead to play, so you MUST have a time machine. Unless, of course, you think you know more about Brandon Roy's health than Brandon Roy and his doctors. I hope it's the time machine. As for Jason Terry, he's not as good as JJ. Fine. Way to take such a difficult stance! I took a shot in the dark and I was off, but I wasn't as far off as you'd like to lead some to believe. Adjusting for pace and minutes played isn't handicapping, it's normalizing. It's comparing apples to apples. It's not laughable unless you don't care AT ALL what the metrics say. For all the talent JJ has, he's been underperforming. NN*L. I bet you were one of those guys who were killing Mike Smith for going for it on that 4th down against the Saints, huh? What's more important, in my opinion anyway, is that I named another 4 guys who are all better than Joe Johnson and another 1-2 who are arguably better as well. Maybe I should have stopped at those 6 guys, since the crux of the argument was that Joe Johnson is a not a top 3 SG, but I thought it'd be more fun if I could make a list of 10 just to point out how absurd it is that someone would consider 2012 Joe Johnson a top 3 SG. So sue me. Got you to page 5 in this thread, though, now didn't it? =)

[KB21]

Josh attempted 1.5 more shots per game last year than Joe so how is Joe a volume shooter and Josh isn't? And efficient? Josh has the efficiency of a SG and yet he's a PF. I can't understand why you're glossing over those facts.

I've never argued that offense was Josh's main thing. However, when you look at Josh's shooting numbers, he absolutely roasts Joe Johnson's efficiency when Josh is the go to guy early in the set. The offense actually put Josh into a position to be a spot up jump shooter though, which is what Joe's role should have been. Josh was assisted on 75% of his 16-23 foot jump shots this past season, and his efficiency declined as the shot clock went on. What that tells me, and what the "tape" also tells me is that the offense did more to put Josh in a position to fail than it did to put him in a position to succeed. I'd venture to guess that if you broke down Josh's perimeter shots, more than half of them came in the waning four seconds of the shot clock after Joe has pounded the ball for 15 seconds in isolation sets. But, I haven't made the argument that Josh's offense is the reason he contributes to winning. It's all the other things he does. Josh Smith was the only player in the NBA this past season to have a PER greater than 20, TRB% greater than 15, DRB% greater than 20, and AST% greater than 20. Josh also has a BLK% of 3.8 and a STL% of 2.2 on the year, both among the tops in the league. Basically, Josh rebounds, defends, and gets his teammates involved where all Joe does is score.

[KB21]

I will also add that it will be easier for Josh to become a more efficient offensive player than it will be for Joe to become an effective player without the ball in his hands, an above average rebounder, a better playmaker, and an elite defender. The thing is, a more efficient scoring Josh would suddenly have his 8-9 win shares increase to about 12-13 win shares, which Joe has never come close to doing. Based on the analysis of the numbers, Josh will become a more efficient scorer without Joe around. My evidence at this point is a 6 game stretch this past season without Joe where Josh suddenly became the guy the Hawks went to early on. In that stretch, Josh averaged almost 11 shots per game inside 10 feet compared to 6 shots between 16-23 feet, his TS% was around 57%, and his eFG% was 53%. Josh is better when the offense is run through him because he attacks the basket when that happens, and he's also the best facilitator of offense for his teammtes.

[Admin]

I've never argued that offense was Josh's main thing. However, when you look at Josh's shooting numbers, he absolutely roasts Joe Johnson's efficiency when Josh is the go to guy early in the set. The offense actually put Josh into a position to be a spot up jump shooter though, which is what Joe's role should have been. Josh was assisted on 75% of his 16-23 foot jump shots this past season, and his efficiency declined as the shot clock went on. What that tells me, and what the "tape" also tells me is that the offense did more to put Josh in a position to fail than it did to put him in a position to succeed. I'd venture to guess that if you broke down Josh's perimeter shots, more than half of them came in the waning four seconds of the shot clock after Joe has pounded the ball for 15 seconds in isolation sets.

But, I haven't made the argument that Josh's offense is the reason he contributes to winning. It's all the other things he does. Josh Smith was the only player in the NBA this past season to have a PER greater than 20, TRB% greater than 15, DRB% greater than 20, and AST% greater than 20. Josh also has a BLK% of 3.8 and a STL% of 2.2 on the year, both among the tops in the league.

Basically, Josh rebounds, defends, and gets his teammates involved where all Joe does is score.

Adding qualifiers can make anybody look good or bad. So Josh looks good early in the set with one hand rubbing his belly and hoping on one leg. Fantastic!

How do we know that Josh himself didn't put himself in a position to fail, since he continually camps out at his favorite spots for the long jumper? Sure that's also a coaching fail, but I don't see our other PFs doing that when they're in the game.

Josh does LOTS of great things but my point is you are arguing against Joe for his volume shooting and pretending as if Josh isn't guilty of the same thing, with a much poorer efficiency when you consider their floor positions. The point being there that if you want this guy to lead your offense then you're in big trouble.

[MaceCase]

I've never argued that offense was Josh's main thing. However, when you look at Josh's shooting numbers, he absolutely roasts Joe Johnson's efficiency when Josh is the go to guy early in the set. The offense actually put Josh into a position to be a spot up jump shooter though, which is what Joe's role should have been. Josh was assisted on 75% of his 16-23 foot jump shots this past season, and his efficiency declined as the shot clock went on. What that tells me, and what the "tape" also tells me is that the offense did more to put Josh in a position to fail than it did to put him in a position to succeed. I'd venture to guess that if you broke down Josh's perimeter shots, more than half of them came in the waning four seconds of the shot clock after Joe has pounded the ball for 15 seconds in isolation sets.

Issues, issues, issues. I respect a man who uses statistics but not when they use it solely to feed an agenda, are you basing "early sets" off of 82games shot clock usage? Because you'll need to realize that if you are then those "early sets" that Josh is dominating in....are fastbreaks. You would hope he has a higher FG% in that situation but he's terrible in everything halfcourt related. You are also putting the blame on Joe and the offense and failling to accept any culpability on Josh by using that tired old argument of him getting the ball with 1,2,3,4 seconds on the clock. If he's given the ball with 8 seconds and a lane to create a shot opportunity....and he decides instead to wait, measure and pull up for a jumper instead.....it's because he made the decision to. If he actually makes that shot, well since he didn't make any basketball moves after receiving the ball then yea, it's an assisted basket. You read some stats and then attempted to make a very biased conclusion, don't vacillate between fact and opinion. If you are going to be "that stat guy" then don't offer such a cheap copout and "guess" as to why his offensive efficiency is in the toilet, actually back it up. The rest that I cut out is just obfuscation.

I will also add that it will be easier for Josh to become a more efficient offensive player than it will be for Joe to become an effective player without the ball in his hands, an above average rebounder, a better playmaker, and an elite defender. The thing is, a more efficient scoring Josh would suddenly have his 8-9 win shares increase to about 12-13 win shares, which Joe has never come close to doing. Based on the analysis of the numbers, Josh will become a more efficient scorer without Joe around. My evidence at this point is a 6 game stretch this past season without Joe where Josh suddenly became the guy the Hawks went to early on. In that stretch, Josh averaged almost 11 shots per game inside 10 feet compared to 6 shots between 16-23 feet, his TS% was around 57%, and his eFG% was 53%. Josh is better when the offense is run through him because he attacks the basket when that happens, and he's also the best facilitator of offense for his teammtes.

I'm sorry, you can't use analysis of 6 games to overcome the fact that Josh has only been an offensively efficient player once in 8 seasons. That simply is not as easy to overcome as you make it out to be.

[LastDon]

"Deron says Joe was the Difference" which is EXACTLY why we should have pressed them out of Marshon Brooks..If it wasn't for us Deron Williams would be back in the Western Conference and all we got in return is a bunch of scrubs and a late first round pick..Another example of the piss poor job Ferry is doing.. Thanks Danny..

[niremetal]

"Deron says Joe was the Difference" which is EXACTLY why we should have pressed them out of Marshon Brooks..If it wasn't for us Deron Williams would be back in the Western Conference and all we got in return is a bunch of scrubs and a late first round pick..Another example of the piss poor job Ferry is doing.. Thanks Danny..

Yeah. I'm really going to losing sleep over the fact that we didn't land a 6'5 SG who has no skills other than being an above-average scorer. I mean, it's not like there aren't a zillion other players who fit that description in the NBA and D-League.

[Watchman]

Josh and Dwight would be THE easiest to stop duo ever. just foul them hard enough to make them miss their shot. They are probably the worst FT% combo conceivable to mankind.

Evidently I am the only person who thinks that Josh and Dwight can easily be stopped by fouling.

[Sothron]

Josh attempted 1.5 more shots per game last year than Joe so how is Joe a volume shooter and Josh isn't? And efficient? Josh has the efficiency of a SG and yet he's a PF. I can't understand why you're glossing over those facts.

Simple: because it blows his argument to shreds he choose to fall back on an "advanced" stat no one takes seriously in win shares.