PDA

View Full Version : Hawks Winning In A Way The League Has Never Seen??



Clippersfan86
01-29-2015, 08:30 PM
I was trying to think of such a dominant team that didn't have any 25 ppg scorers or clear cut superstars to be this good and I couldn't. The Pistons didn't have one big scorer, but they had multiple perennial all stars and a 4 time DPOY. The Hawks don't have one player who's anywhere close to a superstar on either end of the floor, yet they are dominating. People like to say they are "Spurs east" but fail to mention that the Spurs had a so called "Big 3" of superstars for the title runs. Has any other team you can think of been so good with no elite players?

goingfor28
01-29-2015, 08:35 PM
Pistons have to be the closest.

nastynice
01-29-2015, 08:40 PM
yea, that's pretty crazy. Pistons is only thing I can think of too.

jaydubb
01-29-2015, 08:52 PM
Celtics. PP was a 19 ppg scorer.. None of them were superstars but definitely had a few all stars

WOwolfOL
01-29-2015, 09:03 PM
Did the Pistons even win 60? They really weren't dominant. I think you will have an impossible task trying to find a team that did what Atlanta is doing.

kdspurman
01-29-2015, 09:08 PM
Spurs of last year... No one played 30 mpg (never been done), leading scorer was TP (16.7) and 6 guys averaged double figure scoring. (2 averaged 9ppg)

Yes they have a big 3, but they weren't used like a big 3 typically is. What were seeing from the Hawks is what we saw from the Spurs in their last run. And its not surprising with Bud and the kind of personnel they have. Hopefully more teams play this way,especially those who can't go get a superstar or attract FA's

tredigs
01-29-2015, 09:18 PM
Spurs of last year... No one played 30 mpg (never been done), leading scorer was TP (16.7) and 6 guys averaged double figure scoring. (2 averaged 9ppg)

Yes they have a big 3, but they weren't used like a big 3 typically is. What were seeing from the Hawks is what we saw from the Spurs in their last run. And its not surprising with Bud and the kind of personnel they have. Hopefully more teams play this way,especially those who can't go get a superstar or attract FA's

Was going to say, how is it any different than the Spurs philosophy of late?

Clippersfan86
01-29-2015, 10:10 PM
Was going to say, how is it any different than the Spurs philosophy of late?

Last year was the only year the Spurs did that. The idea that it's in their mold is a bit deceptive to me is what I meant, Although philosophically they may be similar. Last year was more of an anomaly to how the Spurs usually win. I mean Kawhi was a finals MVP out of nowhere. In the previous 3 Spurs titles, they were clearly superstar players. So beyond Spurs 2014 if you count them, who else?

tredigs
01-29-2015, 10:30 PM
Last year was the only year the Spurs did that. The idea that it's in their mold is a bit deceptive to me is what I meant, Although philosophically they may be similar. Last year was more of an anomaly to how the Spurs usually win. I mean Kawhi was a finals MVP out of nowhere. In the previous 3 Spurs titles, they were clearly superstar players. So beyond Spurs 2014 if you count them, who else?

Nah I think they've adopted that style for longer than that, ever since Timmy stopped being "dominant" really. Such a team mentallity over there, and they always crush it in the regular season + are a very tough out (if at all).

I do think the Hawks are adopting the new style of simply playing very team orientated/smart ball though, and their D has been great. It's sort of the new way of playing that a lot of elite teams are adopting. The Dubs are a little extra reliant on Curry offensively and Bogut defensively because their backups aren't in their stratosphere, but it's essentially the same idea there as well. A ton of passing/movement plus swarming D.

Howard_Zinn
01-29-2015, 10:34 PM
Did the Pistons even win 60? They really weren't dominant. I think you will have an impossible task trying to find a team that did what Atlanta is doing.

Weren't dominant??????? Go back and see how many times that team held opponents to under 70.. They embarrassed the Lakers in the finals too.. The best record they ever had in their run was 64-18.. Do some research.

Howard_Zinn
01-29-2015, 10:37 PM
Bridging the Gap

When the ball went up to begin the 2003-04 NBA season, the Detroit Pistons seemed to have all of the pieces necessary for a run deep into the playoffs…except support from NBA experts as a legitimate contender. The club had won 50 games in each of the previous two seasons. In addition to core players Richard Hamilton, Chauncey Billups, Tayshaun Prince, Ben Wallace, Corliss Williamson, Chucky Atkins, and Mehmet Okur, the team added Elden Campbell, Bob Sura, Darvin Ham, first round draft pick Darko Milicic, and resigned former Piston Lindsey Hunter. President Joe Dumars had assembled a balanced team that could dominate in the paint or the perimeter, play defense and rebound. Sound familiar? It should. This team was created in the image of its leader and his great “Bad Boy” teams of the late 1980’s. In the role of Chuck Daly, Dumars signed Hall-of-Famer Larry Brown as head coach.
Coach Brown was known throughout the basketball world for his focus on defense and rebounding. Though the Pistons previous coach Rick Carlisle had the same focus, Coach Brown brought over 30 years experience to the Pistons bench. Though he had never won a championship on the professional level (he won an NCAA Championship in 1988 with Kansas), many felt that his knowledge, combined with the talent on the roster would take the Pistons to new heights.

The early season did nothing to change those expectations. After an Opening Night loss to the Indiana Pacers and former Pistons head coach Rick Carlisle, the Pistons ran off five consecutive wins, including an impressive win against the defending Eastern Conference champion New Jersey Nets. After a three game road losing streak, the Pistons won nine of their next eleven games. As 2003 rolled into 2004, the Pistons got hot, matching a club record winning streak of 13 games. Over the next six weeks, the team sandwiched three- and six-game losing streaks around four consecutive wins. As the trade deadline approached, the club needed another player or two to add some consistency. On February 19, President Joe Dumars found the answers.

In a move that still confounds many, Dumars managed to acquire All-Star forward Rasheed Wallace from Atlanta and Mike James from Boston for Bob Sura, Zeljko Rebraca, Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter, two draft picks and cash. Dumars had acquired a proven inside player, while clearing $9-10 million in salary cap space. Just one week later, Lindsey Hunter was placed on waivers and resigned by the Pistons. Rasheed Wallace was just what the team needed. The team finished the season winning 20 of its final 26 games, while setting two NBA records, five straight games holding teams under 70 points and winning eight straight games by at least 15 points. When the regular season ended, the Pistons had the second best record in the Eastern Conference at 58-24.

First up for the Pistons was the Milwaukee Bucks. After a 26-point victory in Game One, the Bucks bounced back to win Game Two 92-88 and steal the home court advantage. With the Pistons trailing by 10 midway through the second quarter of Game Three, Tayshaun Prince blocked Toni Kukoc’s breakaway dunk attempt. During the next 90 seconds, Prince scored seven consecutive points, helping the Pistons to a 95-85 win. After winning Game Four in Milwaukee, Prince took over The Palace during Game Five, scoring a career playoff-high 24 points, and adding nine rebounds, eight assists and two steals as the Pistons clinched the series. Next in line were the defending Eastern Conference champion New Jersey Nets. Not only did the Pistons want to avenge the 2003 Eastern Conference Championship sweep at the hands of the Nets, the Nets also broke the Pistons streak of five consecutive games allowing under 70 points. Though the Nets had lost the game by 18 points, they did so laughing and celebrating on the bench.

The Pistons went right to work, holding the Nets to a franchise low19 field goals in a 78-56 Game One victory. The Pistons also turned up the defense in the second half of Game Two, outscoring the Nets 61-34, en route to a 95-80 victory. As the series moved to New Jersey, the roles of the individual teams changed. It was the Nets who supplied the defensive intensity and the offensive effort, winning both Games Three and Four to even the series at two. Game Five at The Palace was an instant classic. With the Pistons trailing by three, Chauncey Billups hit a 40-foot three pointer of the glass to send the game into overtime. By the end of the third, yes, third overtime, all ten starters except Billups had fouled out. The Nets won the thriller 127-120 to take a three games to two lead heading back to New Jersey. Led by bench players Mike James, Lindsey Hunter, and Mehmet Okur, the Pistons went on a 27-11 second quarter run and held on to win Game Six 81-75. This series had now come down to a single game at the Palace. The game, however, would not live up to the hype of the last four. The Pistons began the second half with a 17-4 run and won the game going away, 90-69. Awaiting the Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals were Central Division rivals the Indiana Pacers and former Pistons head coach Rick Carlisle.

Right from the opening tip of Game One, everyone knew that this series was going to be a defensive battle. A late Reggie Miller three-pointer helped seal a 78-74 Game One victory for the Pacers. Realizing that his poor Game One shooting performance was one of the culprits in the loss, Rasheed Wallace proclaimed his now famous Game Two guarantee. “They will not win Game Two. I guarantee it. You can write it.” Game Two was moving in the same direction as the previous tilt, a defensive struggle for both clubs. With the Pistons leading 69-67 with under 30 second to play in the game, Reggie Miller came away with a loose ball and streaked for what seemed like an easy lay-up. As Miller elevated, the long left arm of Tayshaun Prince came from seemingly nowhere to make what is now simply known as “The Block,” preserving the Pistons 72-69 Game Two victory. Led by Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton’s 20 points each, the Pistons returned to The Palace to win Game Three. The Pistons followed that with perhaps their worst performance on the playoffs, losing 83-68. The roles reversed as the teams went back to Indianapolis for Game Five. The Pacers had no answer for Richard Hamilton’s 33 points in a 83-65 Pistons win. Game Six was the ultimate in defensive intensity. The Pistons struggled to a 69-65 win to advance to their first NBA Finals since 1990. Their opponents would again be the Los Angeles Lakers.

Unlike the 1989 championship run, this group was heavy underdogs. This Pistons team was made of no-name players who relied on defense, passing, and team play to be successful. They faced a Lakers team that started four future Hall-of-Famers and was led by a 10-time NBA Champion head coach in Phil Jackson. There was no one on the planet, who believed that the Pistons could win this series. That is, except the ones who mattered, the Pistons.

The series began with a 87-75 Pistons win in Los Angeles. They won this game just as they had all season, with contributions from every player on the roster. The Lakers on the other hand got just 16 points from any player not named Kobe or Shaq. The Lakers faced a must-win situation in Game Two. With the 2-3-2 NBA Finals format, they could not afford to go to Detroit facing a 2-0 deficit. Game Two seemed to be in hand with the Pistons leading by three in the finals seconds. Then, with 2.1 seconds on the clock, Kobe Bryant hit a game-tying three pointer to send the game into overtime. The Lakers dominated the extra frame, ultimately winning 99-91. As the series moved to Detroit, the Pistons received an incredible lift from the deafening sound of fans banging 44,000 thundersticks at The Palace. The Pistons dominated the Lakers, winning Game Three 88-68.

As Game Four began, people began to realize that maybe a 13-man team can defeat four guys; perhaps previous championship experience doesn’t mean much. Players and fans could see the Lakers starting to break, each player believing that he, individually, could win the game. The Pistons had exposed the Lakers in winning the game 88-80. The Lakers had no answer for Chauncey Billups. They were fighting both in the media and on the court. A win in Game Five would have given the Pistons not only their third championship in franchise history, but given the fans their first opportunity to witness a championship celebration at The Palace, as both previous rings were clinched on the road. By halftime, everyone knew the celebration was just a matter of time. Leading 55-45 at the break, the Pistons had essentially wrestled the Lakers into submission. When the final buzzer sounded, the scoreboard said 100-87, but the result was so much bigger.

Chauncey Billups became the first non-All-Star to win NBA Finals MVP since 1989 when Joe Dumars accomplished the feat. The 1990 Bad Boys were the first team to win all three road games in the 2-3-2 format. The 2004 Pistons were the first team to win all three games at home. Larry Brown became the first coach to win both an NCAA and an NBA Championship.

Joe Dumars had created a team in his image, a team that won with defense, rebounding and timely shooting. As players, the Bad Boys seemed to always be trying to prove that toughness, defense, and teamwork was the way to win championships. This team was no different. Each player had his own story of trials and tribulations to get to this point. Dumars had assembled a team of player who wanted to prove that they belonged. Not only did they belong, the believed that they could be champions. These guys played the “Pistons Way” just as the Bad Boys had years earlier.

http://www.nba.com/pistons/history/champions_200304.html

Unless Hawks get a chip - They are not the team Detroit was.

L8kers4life
01-29-2015, 10:44 PM
Last year was the only year the Spurs did that. The idea that it's in their mold is a bit deceptive to me is what I meant, Although philosophically they may be similar. Last year was more of an anomaly to how the Spurs usually win. I mean Kawhi was a finals MVP out of nowhere. In the previous 3 Spurs titles, they were clearly superstar players. So beyond Spurs 2014 if you count them, who else?


Jeff Teague is on the verge of stardom, you don't have to average 25 to be a star.

WOwolfOL
01-29-2015, 10:49 PM
Weren't dominant??????? Go back and see how many times that team held opponents to under 70.. They embarrassed the Lakers in the finals too.. The best record they ever had in their run was 64-18.. Do some research.
They had a dominant defense but overall they won 54 games and finished 7 back in their own division. I just don't consider that dominance. The Wallace trade was a grand slam though.

Also that Lakers team was very overrated to me. Too many cooks in the kitchen, and Malone and Payton were well into their respective declines. I never felt like they were gonna win a title with all those guys.

IndyRealist
01-29-2015, 11:06 PM
Jeff Teague is on the verge of stardom, you don't have to average 25 to be a star.

Not about Clippersfan specifically, but I find it funny that the same people who say stats are stupid are the first people to quote points per game when talking about how important a player is. Everybody uses stats, some people just use dumb ones.

JasonJohnHorn
01-29-2015, 11:08 PM
I guess now they have three All-Stars... Detroit only had one that year ;-) And Big Ben lost the DPOY to MWP.

But yeah... love ATL... hope to see them excel in the playoffs. What is amazing is that 7 of their losses came in the first 13 games.... since they they'v only lost one: 24-1 in the last 25? AMAZING!!!!

Clippersfan86
01-29-2015, 11:34 PM
Not about Clippersfan specifically, but I find it funny that the same people who say stats are stupid are the first people to quote points per game when talking about how important a player is. Everybody uses stats, some people just use dumb ones.

Actually I counted Ben Wallace as one in my example. Not all about PPG. I was giving an example. They have no clear go to player or player who's clearer better than the others.

FlashBolt
01-29-2015, 11:34 PM
I'm iffy with Teague. He's sat out 4 games and in those 4 games, they all won. In two of those games, they destroyed their opponent. In the other two, they beat Rockets/Dallas. Hawks are just a well coached team with players who buy into the system. No ego, just good and efficient basketball. Spurs 2.0.

mightybosstone
01-29-2015, 11:41 PM
I was trying to think of such a dominant team that didn't have any 25 ppg scorers or clear cut superstars to be this good and I couldn't. The Pistons didn't have one big scorer, but they had multiple perennial all stars and a 4 time DPOY. The Hawks don't have one player who's anywhere close to a superstar on either end of the floor, yet they are dominating. People like to say they are "Spurs east" but fail to mention that the Spurs had a so called "Big 3" of superstars for the title runs. Has any other team you can think of been so good with no elite players?

The Spurs in the early to mid 2000s had multiple superstars, but what about that Spurs team last season? There wasn't a clear cut top 20 guy on that entire roster last season, and they were the most dominant team in the league by a mile.

L8kers4life
01-30-2015, 12:04 AM
Not about Clippersfan specifically, but I find it funny that the same people who say stats are stupid are the first people to quote points per game when talking about how important a player is. Everybody uses stats, some people just use dumb ones.


Great point. Since when is 25 points for a PG a requirement to be a star? leading scorer on his team, good defender for PG, and the leader of a team that is second in the NBA in wins and riding a 17 game winning streak. His PPG is 17.0 and Chris Paul is 17.5 and the dude brings up the Hawks have 0 stars. So what Clipper fan is saying basically, is if Jeff Teague can up his scoring average .5 points like Chris Paul, he would be a star. LOL, hilarious.

Dude also said Kobe in the ALL star game is the reason the all star game sucks, even though Kobe is not playing and somebody will replace him...

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 12:06 AM
Great point. Since when is 25 points for a PG a requirement to be a star? leading scorer on his team, good defender for PG, and the leader of a team that is second in the NBA in wins and riding a 17 game winning streak. His PPG is 17.0 and Chris Paul is 17.5 and the dude brings up the Hawks have 0 stars. So what Clipper fan is saying basically, is if Jeff Teague can up his scoring average .5 points like Chris Paul, he would be a star. LOL, hilarious.

Dude also said Kobe in the ALL star game is the reason the all star game sucks, even though Kobe is not playing and somebody will replace him...

Good strawman, easily picked apart though. Jeff Teague is a scoring PPG, not an all around player like Chris Paul. Paul is an all time great PLAYMAKING PG, never been a huge scorer outside of two seasons where he cracked 20 ppg. Superstar isn't defined by scoring, but more often than not stars score a lot. I never said 25 ppg was the only way to be a superstar, I already clarified. Ben Wallace was a superstar IMO. Hawks to have an elite player or superstar on EITHER end of the floor IMO. Korver you could say, but he's not a true star really, he's getting a huge boost from the system. He's scored something like 7 buckets this year that WERE NOT assisted.

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 12:07 AM
The Spurs in the early to mid 2000s had multiple superstars, but what about that Spurs team last season? There wasn't a clear cut top 20 guy on that entire roster last season, and they were the most dominant team in the league by a mile.

Yea the guys pointed that out. I didn't count them because as I said, it's the first year they did it and it was not by design, so much as by circumstance. Spurs have always had superstars in the Duncan/Pop era.

L8kers4life
01-30-2015, 12:07 AM
I'm iffy with Teague. He's sat out 4 games and in those 4 games, they all won. In two of those games, they destroyed their opponent. In the other two, they beat Rockets/Dallas. Hawks are just a well coached team with players who buy into the system. No ego, just good and efficient basketball. Spurs 2.0.


I hear what your saying, but regardless, he is the best player on that team and the leader of that team, and a top 2 PG in the east.

L8kers4life
01-30-2015, 12:11 AM
Good strawman, easily picked apart though. Jeff Teague is a scoring PPG, not an all around player like Chris Paul. Paul is an all time great PLAYMAKING PG, never been a huge scorer outside of two seasons where he cracked 20 ppg. Superstar isn't defined by scoring, but more often than not stars score a lot. I never said 25 ppg was the only way to be a superstar, I already clarified. Ben Wallace was a superstar IMO. Hawks to have an elite player or superstar on EITHER end of the floor IMO. Korver you could say, but he's not a true star really, he's a product of the system. He's scored something like 7 buckets this year that WERE NOT assisted.

HAHA, how is he a scoring point guard, but averages less shots than CP3 but scores .5 points less than CP#. Also, Teague doesnt have lob city or the same talent that the clippers have, so the fact he only averages 2 less assists, hardly quantifies scoring pg. Nice try though.

Jeff Teague averages 17.0 and 7.5 assists just about the same in steals and averages more blocks than CP3. CP# 17.5 and 9.7. As I said earlier, Teague is a future star and he is on the brink now, I didn't say he was on Chris Pauls level, but putting up similar stats on the second best team record wise in the NBA, means Jeff Teague has arrived.

kdspurman
01-30-2015, 12:19 AM
Yea the guys pointed that out. I didn't count them because as I said, it's the first year they did it and it was not by design, so much as by circumstance. Spurs have always had superstars in the Duncan/Pop era.

from what ive seen, it's been like this from like 2012. that's why Budenholzer was able to implement so quickly in Atlanta. he and Ferry had a vision of what they wanted to do based on his last couple years with the Spurs. it just took time to get the right pieces in place, and the last year is when it started to all click. but they started playing faster, and less reliant on tim/tony/manu

Bud went to the right situation, with the right personnel, and a front office that will back him from day 1

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 12:21 AM
HAHA, how is he a scoring point guard, but averages less shots than CP3 but scores .5 points less than CP#. Also, Teague doesnt have lob city or the same talent that the clippers have, so the fact he only averages 2 less assists, hardly quantifies scoring pg. Nice try though.

Jeff Teague averages 17.0 and 7.5 assists just about the same in steals and averages more blocks than CP3. CP# 17.5 and 9.7. As I said earlier, Teague is a future star and he is on the brink now, I didn't say he was on Chris Pauls level, but putting up similar stats on the second best team record wise in the NBA, means Jeff Teague has arrived.

1. I'm not saying Teague isn't an all star worthy player or anything, I said he's not a superstar, not sure how you disagree. You yourself are admitting he's a "future star" and on the brink.

2. Stats don't define what a player is necessarily. Jeff Teague has always been a scoring PG first, playmaker second. Russell Westbrook averages 8.5 apg PER 36 and 7.5 on the year like Teague, would you say he's similar to CP3 too? See what I'm getting at here? To see the difference between players like Teague and CP3 you need to dig deeper than "only 2 apg difference". CP3 is posting a statline combination matched by only himself in 2008 and Magic/Big O in the history of basketball. What makes him so special as a playmaking PG isn't raw PPG so much as his overall impact with his passing. The Clippers are almost 20 points better when CP3 is on the floor in differentials and his A/TO leads the league in a landslide.

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 12:23 AM
from what ive seen, it's been like this from like 2012. that's why Budenholzer was able to implement so quickly in Atlanta. he and Ferry had a vision of what they wanted to do based on his last couple years with the Spurs. it just took time to get the right pieces in place, and the last year is when it started to all click. but they started playing faster, and less reliant on tim/tony/manu

Bud went to the right situation, with the right personnel, and a front office that will back him from day 1

I wasn't very clear in the OP I think. I was mainly trying to compare them to champions, not just any random team every year. The Spurs like you said moved this way in 2012 when they became a more up tempo, offensive oriented team with less defined stars, but they didn't win a title until 2014 that way. In my Spurs comment in OP I mentioned the title runs specifically.

L8kers4life
01-30-2015, 12:29 AM
1. I'm not saying Teague isn't an all star worthy player or anything, I said he's not a superstar, not sure how you disagree. You yourself are admitting he's a "future star" and on the brink.

2. Stats don't define what a player is necessarily. Jeff Teague has always been a scoring PG first, playmaker second. Russell Westbrook averages 8.5 apg PER 36 and 7.5 on the year like Teague, would you say he's similar to CP3 too? See what I'm getting at here? To see the difference between players like Teague and CP3 you need to dig deeper than "only 2 apg difference". CP3 is posting a statline combination matched by only himself in 2008 and Magic/Big O in the history of basketball. What makes him so special as a playmaking PG isn't raw PPG so much as his overall impact with his passing. The Clippers are almost 20 points better when CP3 is on the floor in differentials and his A/TO leads the league in a landslide.

Those are good points but the question here is, do you think Teague is the same player this year he always has been? He has evolved, and yes you are correct I said future star, but right now at this moment he is a star. An All star actually and the coaches agree. So technically he is a star.

And please don't bring up CP3 in the same sentence as Big O and Magic, I get it, he is a great player but his greatness has never been seen in the playoffs, in actuality his game shrinks in the playoffs and I don't think he has ever been out of the second round, maybe once in New Orleans. Your boy CP3 is good but until he can carry his super talented team with a great coach out of the second round, don't compare him to Magic and Big O. I would argue he is the most over rated PG in the game.

FlashBolt
01-30-2015, 12:48 AM
Those are good points but the question here is, do you think Teague is the same player this year he always has been? He has evolved, and yes you are correct I said future star, but right now at this moment he is a star. An All star actually and the coaches agree. So technically he is a star.

And please don't bring up CP3 in the same sentence as Big O and Magic, I get it, he is a great player but his greatness has never been seen in the playoffs, in actuality his game shrinks in the playoffs and I don't think he has ever been out of the second round, maybe once in New Orleans. Your boy CP3 is good but until he can carry his super talented team with a great coach out of the second round, don't compare him to Magic and Big O. I would argue he is the most over rated PG in the game.

That's such a misnomer. Part of the reason why CP3 hasn't made it to the NBA Finals is due to the fact that he really had no help in New Orleans. Yes, his team was good but not good enough to compete against other teams on a consistent basis. When he came to the Clippers, West skyrocketed in terms of competition. You can't knock CP3 when he's going against arguably the toughest conference in any era. I mean, on a daily task, he's forced to play against the most elite of PG's. Against Spurs, TP. Against OKC, RW. Against Portland, Lillard. Coming out of round 1 in West is certainly not easy.Also, where did CP3 shrink in the playoffs? His numbers are actually consistent with his regular season. Some are even higher. His WS is down but that's expected in the playoffs. His TS% is the same. His PPG increased. His RPG increased. His APG/SPG are marginally the same. There were a couple of games that were headscratchers but he's been consistent in terms of career averages. CP3 is the most efficient PG. He's led the league in steals 6x. He's been on All NBA, All defensive teams. He's far from being the GOAT PG but he's certainly one of the greatest. I wouldn't mind taking CP3 any day of the week.

L8kers4life
01-30-2015, 12:54 AM
That's such a misnomer. Part of the reason why CP3 hasn't made it to the NBA Finals is due to the fact that he really had no help in New Orleans. Yes, his team was good but not good enough to compete against other teams on a consistent basis. When he came to the Clippers, West skyrocketed in terms of competition. You can't knock CP3 when he's going against arguably the toughest conference in any era. I mean, on a daily task, he's forced to play against the most elite of PG's. Against Spurs, TP. Against OKC, RW. Against Portland, Lillard. Coming out of round 1 in West is certainly not easy.Also, where did CP3 shrink in the playoffs? His numbers are actually consistent with his regular season. Some are even higher. His WS is down but that's expected in the playoffs. His TS% is the same. His PPG increased. His RPG increased. His APG/SPG are marginally the same. There were a couple of games that were headscratchers but he's been consistent in terms of career averages. CP3 is the most efficient PG. He's led the league in steals 6x. He's been on All NBA, All defensive teams. He's far from being the GOAT PG but he's certainly one of the greatest. I wouldn't mind taking CP3 any day of the week.


I agree with you on all points, I just don't think CP3 is in the category of Magic and Big O

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 12:55 AM
I didn't compare CP3 to Magic or Big O, his stats did that. I'm just saying that he's statistically in rare company. So is Teague a future star or star now? I'm really confused. Again, I'm talking about superstars and franchise players, not necessarily all stars. Hawks have a few borderline all star caliber talents in any given season. This isn't a knock on them, I actually find it incredible and maybe the greatest NBA story ever if they finish the job in June. Just don't try to convince me that the Hawks are star studded or that Teague is a legit superstar.

PowerHouse
01-30-2015, 01:06 AM
We dont even know what the Hawks are going to do in the playoffs yet.

We should slow our roll big time if we are gonna start comparing a team playing nicely in the reg season to a championship ball club like the '04 Pistons.

FlashBolt
01-30-2015, 01:14 AM
I agree with you on all points, I just don't think CP3 is in the category of Magic and Big O

And let me guess why; rings. I don't look much into rings. I tend to follow the idea that if you have a team that is miles above the rest of the league, your rings are just meaningless. Not to discredit some players but Magic played with Scott, Worthy, Kareem (who was still a dominant force for some years), and the great Pat Riley. Bird played with Parish, McHale, and Maxwell. Those teammates were far greater than what Paul has had and they weren't in a conference as tough as Paul is in. Certainly rings hold an important value but it has to be interpreted. Simply not fair to give some players credit over rings they SHOULD win over players who have zero rings when they have absolutely no chance of winning. Imagine NBA where no one wins rings. Can you honestly sit there and say Paul isn't almost as good as Magic/Robertson? I mean, why not? He's probably the 4th best PG right now IMO behind Robertson/Stockton/Magic.

tredigs
01-30-2015, 01:19 AM
Kawhi is a star, just not in the classic definition. I'd take him top 12 in a fantasy draft. After Popovich, before Melo.

MTar786
01-30-2015, 05:39 AM
They had a dominant defense but overall they won 54 games and finished 7 back in their own division. I just don't consider that dominance. The Wallace trade was a grand slam though.

Also that Lakers team was very overrated to me. Too many cooks in the kitchen, and Malone and Payton were well into their respective declines. I never felt like they were gonna win a title with all those guys.

no offense but ive seen a lot of errors in your posts. firstly, the pistons post rasheed wallace trade became a dominant team. the seasons after the trade prove that. Also the lakers werent over rated. they had the talent. yes, gp started a pretty fast decline towards the end of that season. malone was still pretty good, but he was injured most of the year AND missed the finals basically. the lakers back up pf was out for the year too they had to start slava in the finals lolol. kobe had way too many personal issues with his case and you could tell his game suffered that seaosn because of it. horace grant, russel, fox were all out for the season.. ALL those injuries and they STILL won 56 games in a SUPER tough western conference.. I dont even need to add the fact that shaq and kobe were pretty much DONE with eachother during the season because of all the comments they made publicly of eachother that year. Trust me man, that laker team would have been CRAZY good without those factors. and i do mean all time good. the potential they had was crazy. they just never really played with eachother.

you cant be over rated if you go through a loaded spurs and twolves team which had the best records in the league and then make the finals all with all of these issues i stated above. talent alone took them to the finals

mightybosstone
01-30-2015, 08:49 AM
Kawhi is a star, just not in the classic definition. I'd take him top 12 in a fantasy draft. After Popovich, before Melo.

To each his own I suppose. But I think that's a huge stretch. If you honestly think Leonard is a top 12 player in the league I'd love to see that list. I can't imagine putting him anywhere close to my top 20 right now.

2-ONE-5
01-30-2015, 09:54 AM
Celtics. PP was a 19 ppg scorer.. None of them were superstars but definitely had a few all stars

since were KG and Allen not super stars? KG was averaging 22/12/4ast the year ebfore he got to Boston and Allen was avg 26/4/4

valade16
01-30-2015, 10:02 AM
To each his own I suppose. But I think that's a huge stretch. If you honestly think Leonard is a top 12 player in the league I'd love to see that list. I can't imagine putting him anywhere close to my top 20 right now.

It's because people have this new fascination with top shelf defensive players who are also adept at offense. I can't imagine Kawhi on any team but one as talented and deep as the Spurs and being the best player and winning a title.

Bron
KD
AD
Curry
Harden
Westy
CP3
Wall
Lowry
Klay
LMA
Blake
Cousins
Marc

I'd be curious which of these guys he would bump. And that's not including guys I'm positive most agree are superior who he would many/most likely say are not such as Lillard, Melo, Wade, Howard, and I'm sure theres others.

Hawkeye15
01-30-2015, 10:38 AM
they are the Spurs of the last 3 years.

ManningToTyree
01-30-2015, 10:46 AM
I think we should probably wait until they win something before we talk about how unique they are. If they fizzle out in the playoffs then are they just another good team who didn't have enough star power to get it done? I like what they are doing but a little early for this

JustinTime
01-30-2015, 10:55 AM
ATL are basically a younger version of the Spurs.

jaydubb
01-30-2015, 11:32 AM
since were KG and Allen not super stars? KG was averaging 22/12/4ast the year ebfore he got to Boston and Allen was avg 26/4/4

They were superstars at one point but not the year they won the championship.. This thread is about championship years. Unless you think 18/9/3 and 17/3/3 are superstar numbers.. Again, like i said, all stars yes definitely, but not superstars.. I mean the Hawks have players that average similar numbers to that

2-ONE-5
01-30-2015, 11:59 AM
They were superstars at one point but not the year they won the championship.. This thread is about championship years. Unless you think 18/9/3 and 17/3/3 are superstar numbers.. Again, like i said, all stars yes definitely, but not superstars.. I mean the Hawks have players that average similar numbers to that

they were still stars. As you know when 3 stars join forces their numbers are going to dip some but that doesnt change the fact they were in fact, stars. Scoring numbers dont make a player a superstar anyway

D-Leethal
01-30-2015, 12:02 PM
Not about Clippersfan specifically, but I find it funny that the same people who say stats are stupid are the first people to quote points per game when talking about how important a player is. Everybody uses stats, some people just use dumb ones.

And some people use unproven, infant math formulas to draw flawed conclusions such as Kevin Love is the best PF in the league.

D-Leethal
01-30-2015, 12:04 PM
I think people have to give Al Horford his due. That man is a star.

70s Knicks had a similar philosophy, but they were more of the Spurs mold where all stars watered their games down to adopt the 5-as-1 team philosophy. Hawks aren't really watering their games down, they are adopting that philosophy and playing at their respective peak levels while doing it.

IndyRealist
01-30-2015, 12:25 PM
Really didn't expect this to devolve into an argument. For the record, I was not talking about Clippersfan86.


And some people use unproven, infant math formulas to draw flawed conclusions such as Kevin Love is the best PF in the league.
"Unproven" in the same way evolution is "just a theory". The rhetoric is thick here.

Some models, like PER, +/-, etc. are junk. Their creators, after years of critiques and outright criticism, have abandoned them. Other models are validated through regression analysis, et al, and peer reviewed by PhD's in Sports Economics (i.e. people who watch games, too). Some models are 95% accurate for ALL years in the NBA back to the addition of the 3pt line (which drastically changed scoring). But yeah, they're unproven.

Goose17
01-30-2015, 12:27 PM
When does Horford, Millsap etc become "stars"? After they've played the all star game?

D-Leethal
01-30-2015, 12:27 PM
Really didn't expect this to devolve into an argument. For the record, I was not talking about Clippersfan86.


"Unproven" in the same way evolution is "just a theory". The rhetoric is thick here.

Some models, like PER, +/-, etc. are junk. Their creators, after years of critiques and outright criticism, have abandoned them. Other models are validated through regression analysis, et al, and peer reviewed by PhD's in Sports Economics (i.e. people who watch games, too). Some models are 95% accurate for ALL years in the NBA back to the addition of the 3pt line (which drastically changed scoring). But yeah, they're unproven.

95% accurate at what exactly? How can you determine the accuracy of their ability to judge a players value?

Please elaborate because it sounds to me like you're saying a whole lot of nothing outside of "smart guys said this new wave of metrics are good!".

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 12:31 PM
When does Horford, Millsap etc become "stars"? After they've played the all star game?

I guess we should first establish what a star is, although I was more talking about superstars than just guys who can make an all star team. Franchise players, perennial all stars.

Sly Guy
01-30-2015, 12:38 PM
I keep asking myself, when will the hawks lose so that washington/toronto can make up ground against them in the east. Every time, I'm disappointed in the fact they just keep winning. They're on quite a roll, but they've got some tough games coming up, so I've got hope still.

TrueFan420
01-30-2015, 12:41 PM
Jeff Teague is on the verge of stardom, you don't have to average 25 to be a star.

As well as the fact that Al Horford is a star. He just doesn't get the talk as much cause one he's in the ATL and two he's hurt a lot. But when healthy he's a star and can play both sides of the ball.

TrueFan420
01-30-2015, 12:43 PM
I guess we should first establish what a star is, although I was more talking about superstars than just guys who can make an all star team. Franchise players, perennial all stars.

Horford has been just that. It's just that he's had a lot of injuries.

Goose17
01-30-2015, 12:45 PM
I guess we should first establish what a star is, although I was more talking about superstars than just guys who can make an all star team. Franchise players, perennial all stars.

And are we talking specifically "stars" on the offensive end? Or are we including defensive specialists? As for "franchise" players you're talking about building a team around a star, surrounding him with talent that suits his play style?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said I just want to clarify exactly what PSD views as a "star". Someone brought up Garnetts stat line in the championship season isn't dissimilar to what some of the Hawks are putting up. So are we considering "big names" as opposed to actual production? I mean if Brooklyn was to buy out Garnetts contract tomorrow and he signed for the minimum in Atlanta do they then have a "star"?

I would argue that Al Horford is a star, you could even argue for Millsap to an extent. Millsap has now been in two consecutive all star games. Does that make him a star?

Interestingly I think Teague has an argument. He's only playing 31 minutes per game, his Per 36 numbers are; 19.5 PPG, 8.7 APG, 2 SPG.

If he was to play more minutes and get to that sort of stat line isn't that a star point guard type of production?

I'm intrigued more by what people class as a star than what people think of the Hawks now :laugh2:

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 02:19 PM
And are we talking specifically "stars" on the offensive end? Or are we including defensive specialists? As for "franchise" players you're talking about building a team around a star, surrounding him with talent that suits his play style?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said I just want to clarify exactly what PSD views as a "star". Someone brought up Garnetts stat line in the championship season isn't dissimilar to what some of the Hawks are putting up. So are we considering "big names" as opposed to actual production? I mean if Brooklyn was to buy out Garnetts contract tomorrow and he signed for the minimum in Atlanta do they then have a "star"?

I would argue that Al Horford is a star, you could even argue for Millsap to an extent. Millsap has now been in two consecutive all star games. Does that make him a star?

Interestingly I think Teague has an argument. He's only playing 31 minutes per game, his Per 36 numbers are; 19.5 PPG, 8.7 APG, 2 SPG.

If he was to play more minutes and get to that sort of stat line isn't that a star point guard type of production?

I'm intrigued more by what people class as a star than what people think of the Hawks now :laugh2:

No, elite defensive anchors too. I mentioned Ben Wallace for example who I think was a legit superstar. I guess when I say franchise player or superstar I mean a guy you can build a team around and win titles, at least in theory, assuming you build it right. Can someone like Horford be the best player on a championship team etc.

C the G
01-30-2015, 02:46 PM
Celtics. PP was a 19 ppg scorer.. None of them were superstars but definitely had a few all stars

You're joking right? The C's had 3 future HOF's in their prime w/ Rondo being the 4th option...This has to be a joke

jaydubb
01-30-2015, 02:52 PM
You're joking right? The C's had 3 future HOF's in their prime w/ Rondo being the 4th option...This has to be a joke

Yes 3 HOFs.. But we aren't talking about HOFs, we are talking about championship runs by teams without 25 ppg scorers or a legit superstar..

That year none of the Celtics had a player score close to 25 ppg and none were superstars THAT YEAR.. Yes very good all stars but not superstars, that term is being used very lightly..

Kevin love was considered a superstar at one point but isn't now, same principal...

C the G
01-30-2015, 03:03 PM
Yes 3 HOFs.. But we aren't talking about HOFs, we are talking about championship runs by teams without 25 ppg scorers or a legit superstar..

That year none of the Celtics had a player score close to 25 ppg and none were superstars THAT YEAR.. Yes very good all stars but not superstars, that term is being used very lightly..

Kevin love was considered a superstar at one point but isn't now, same principal...


Dude, pay attention to what thread you're posting in....the thread is not about teams winning without a 25ppg scorer, the thread is about teams winning with no superstars. The C's had THREE superstars and another fringe all-star in Rondo. If you have 3 high volume scorers all playing 38 minutes a night together, OF COURSE their averages are going to go down. PP, Garnett, and Ray ALL had 25ppg years prior to reaming up, your example is way off base.

jaydubb
01-30-2015, 03:12 PM
Dude, pay attention to what thread you're posting in....the thread is not about teams winning without a 25ppg scorer, the thread is about teams winning with no superstars. The C's had THREE superstars and another fringe all-star in Rondo. If you have 3 high volume scorers all playing 38 minutes a night together, OF COURSE their averages are going to go down. PP, Garnett, and Ray ALL had 25ppg years prior to reaming up, your example is way off base.

1. Go back and read the OP, you won't get very far before you see where I got the idea of talking about 25 ppg scorers.. Maybe if you read first before you post you would have better discussions.
2. When did I ever say that a superstars numbers wouldn't go down if combined with other superstars? I know that, it's obvious..
3.this is my opinion, I think the word "superstar" is used too much.. When I think of superstar I think of one of the very best in the game and easily one of the best at their position, kg pp and RA all had players at their position that were clearly better THAT YEAR.. THAT YEAR.. I repeat THAT YEAR..

IndyRealist
01-30-2015, 03:23 PM
95% accurate at what exactly? How can you determine the accuracy of their ability to judge a players value?

Please elaborate because it sounds to me like you're saying a whole lot of nothing outside of "smart guys said this new wave of metrics are good!".
Correlating to team wins in a given year, given only the performances of the individual players in the metric. I get that you don't care to do the research on the models because you think they're all junk. 15 years ago, you'd be right. But 15 years is a LONG time in a quickly expanding field of study flooded with new data every day.

Metrics tell people things that aren't necessarily obvious, but in hindsight probably should be. In most circumstances, it's better to shoot standing behind the 3pt line instead of standing in front of it. Obvious, right? Yet it took years of data and arguments to get teams to realize it. This is really no different. And evolution is real. So is climate change.

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 03:47 PM
1. Go back and read the OP, you won't get very far before you see where I got the idea of talking about 25 ppg scorers.. Maybe if you read first before you post you would have better discussions.
2. When did I ever say that a superstars numbers wouldn't go down if combined with other superstars? I know that, it's obvious..
3.this is my opinion, I think the word "superstar" is used too much.. When I think of superstar I think of one of the very best in the game and easily one of the best at their position, kg pp and RA all had players at their position that were clearly better THAT YEAR.. THAT YEAR.. I repeat THAT YEAR..

KG was still a superstar in EVERY sense of the word. Pierce/Allen perennial all stars. He's right. Also I clarified that the 25 ppg thing was just ONE, very loose example multiple times.