Thanks, Phoenix. JJ is an ALL-STAR!

[AtLaS]

I'm done arguing with you, you obviously know nothing about basketball, it's pointless.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When the!r pretty close to the same players those th!ngs become d!fference makers.

---

Such a hypocrite. First JJ's a player who doesn't deserve to get in because he's just a player who puts up stats on a bad team, and now he's almost the same player as Vince?? So in other words, you're saying that Vince taking his team to the playoffs 4 years ago qualifies him to make the all-star game THIS YEAR, but JJ doesn't deserve a RESERVE SPOT, even AFTER KIDD IS INJURED??? Go get an argument, you're running out of sh!t to make up.

---

!'m say!ng that h!m tak!ng h!s team to the playoffs 4 years ago factors !n., yes. JJ was a 4th wheel !n PHX. He was product!ve, but d!sposable player for them... Here he's put up good numbers, but he s!mpy hasn't lead a team anywhere.

! feel you should be rewareded for accompl!sh!ng th!ngs. Scor!ng alot of po!nts on a bottom 3 team doesn't really qual!fy as a great accompl!shment !n my book.

---

First off, we aren't a bottom 3 team. But since it's pretty obvious you know nothing about basketball, let me break this down for you.

When you have 3 all-stars in front of you, and one of them is a PG (who is an MVP), isn't the pg going to have the ball in his hands pretty much exclusively? JJ played the role he was asked to play on that team, and still scored over 17 a game (and 5 assists) and shot like 48% from three. Why would JJ try to takeover in a system like that?? Hotlanta, you could put Ray Allen on Phx and he wouldn't average much more than 17 ppg, it just isn't needed in that situation, but obviously you don't realize that.

And please quit using those damn exclamations as I's..

---

Yes, The Hawks are a bottom 3 team. They're not even !n sn!ff!ng d!stance of .500 and they play !n a conference that has maybe ONE really good team (S!nce Webber jo!ned). That makes you a bottom feeder team.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

so losing Amare makes a difference, but Dallas losing Nash (2 time MVP) doesn't?? Again, such a hypocrite.

---

Dallas !mprovement comes from them focus!ng on the defens!ve end. Amare !s a player that can f!t !nto bas!cally any system. ! don't th!nk Nash has the ab!l!ty to play !n any system and look as good as he does now.

---

You're right, Nash wouldn't fit in near as well anywhere else. You do realize how bad Phoenix has been since Nash has been out right?? Nash is winning his 3rd MVP right now sitting on the bench.

---

You don't go from be!ng a good player to a "great" player at 30-31 years old w!thout the!r be!ng alot of factors. !f Nash was traded to Atlanta, ! f!rmly bel!eve you'd see the Nash that played for Dallas. H*ll he was a 16PPG 7APG player there... So that's not an !nsult.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

I'm done arguing with you, you obviously know nothing about basketball, it's pointless.

---

Try look!ng !n the m!rror.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Yes, The Hawks are a bottom 3 team. They're not even !n sn!ff!ng d!stance of .500 and they play !n a conference that has maybe ONE really good team (S!nce Webber jo!ned). That makes you a bottom feeder team.

---

Obviously you don't know what an 'injury' is. And in spite of that we are still only 4 games out of the playoffs (despite being the YOUNGEST team in the NBA), and are actually like the 10th worst team, not bottom 3.

But I don't care, just keep brightening your day with a fresh bashing of the Hawks and their players.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm done arguing with you, you obviously know nothing about basketball, it's pointless.

---

Try look!ng !n the m!rror.

---

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, The Hawks are a bottom 3 team. They're not even !n sn!ff!ng d!stance of .500 and they play !n a conference that has maybe ONE really good team (S!nce Webber jo!ned). That makes you a bottom feeder team.

---

Obviously you don't know what an 'injury' is. And in spite of that we are still only 4 games out of the playoffs (despite being the YOUNGEST team in the NBA), and are actually like the 10th worst team, not bottom 3.

But I don't care, just keep brightening your day with a fresh bashing of the Hawks and their players.

---

Every team has !njur!es. !t's the same excuses every s!ngle year. The Hawks are only 4 games out of a playoff spot because of how weak the east !s and not because they're actually close to be!ng a good team.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that a team's success is the function of a lot of moving parts and you can't discount JJ or Nash's value simply by looking at the change in their old team's total wins.

If you use that analysis, though, it is:

JJ's team loses 8 more games without him

Nash's team wins 6 more games without him

That comes off looking pretty good for JJ.

Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that they are both very good players.

---

Getting back to the issue of how you analyze a player's value, I think we should address this with the correction that Phoenix did worse after losing JJ than it did with him.

---

Amare was out last year. ! bel!eve they would have went to the f!nals and probably w!n the t!tle !f Amare !sn't out. H*,, they gave the west a run for !t's money w!thout h!m.

---

So are you saying that Phoenix did get worse but because a hypothetical Phoenix team with Amare not injured would have done better than 62 wins that JJ's absence was not felt? This just seems like it is veering farther and farther from a reliable analysis.

[AtLaS]

he will say yes to that question.

All he does is look for something negative to find in each post, and he posts it, completely ignoring everything else. I don't think I've ever seen him say anything positive about this team.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that a team's success is the function of a lot of moving parts and you can't discount JJ or Nash's value simply by looking at the change in their old team's total wins.

If you use that analysis, though, it is:

JJ's team loses 8 more games without him

Nash's team wins 6 more games without him

That comes off looking pretty good for JJ.

Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that they are both very good players.

---

Getting back to the issue of how you analyze a player's value, I think we should address this with the correction that Phoenix did worse after losing JJ than it did with him.

---

Amare was out last year. ! bel!eve they would have went to the f!nals and probably w!n the t!tle !f Amare !sn't out. H*,, they gave the west a run for !t's money w!thout h!m.

---

So are you saying that Phoenix did get worse but because a hypothetical Phoenix team with Amare not injured would have done better than 62 wins that JJ's absence was not felt? This just seems like it is veering farther and farther from a reliable analysis.

---

!t's not all JJ's fault that he was a d!sposable player. All he bas!cally d!d was shoot open shots. Amare be!ng an !ns!de scorer and rebounder makes h!m way more !mportant to the Suns than JJ.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that a team's success is the function of a lot of moving parts and you can't discount JJ or Nash's value simply by looking at the change in their old team's total wins.

If you use that analysis, though, it is:

JJ's team loses 8 more games without him

Nash's team wins 6 more games without him

That comes off looking pretty good for JJ.

Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that they are both very good players.

---

Getting back to the issue of how you analyze a player's value, I think we should address this with the correction that Phoenix did worse after losing JJ than it did with him.

---

Amare was out last year. ! bel!eve they would have went to the f!nals and probably w!n the t!tle !f Amare !sn't out. H*,, they gave the west a run for !t's money w!thout h!m.

---

So are you saying that Phoenix did get worse but because a hypothetical Phoenix team with Amare not injured would have done better than 62 wins that JJ's absence was not felt? This just seems like it is veering farther and farther from a reliable analysis.

---

!t's not all JJ's fault that he was a d!sposable player. All he bas!cally d!d was shoot open shots. Amare be!ng an !ns!de scorer and rebounder makes h!m way more !mportant to the Suns than JJ.

---

JJ was their defensive stopper and backup PG which is a lot more than a perimeter shooter like Kyle Korver.

See e.g.,

Quote:

---

PHOENIX -- The Phoenix Suns have plenty of reasons to be excited about having Joe Johnson back for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals on Saturday night.

The biggest involve easing the huge burden the team has placed on Steve Nash -- at both ends of the court.

On

defense

, Nash will no longer have to chase San Antonio point guard Tony Parker. He'll be Johnson's problem. Instead, Nash will get to cover the Spurs' last scoring option, Bruce Bowen.

When the Suns have the ball, Nash will no longer be the

second scoring option

after center Amare Stoudemire. That'll be Johnson's job, too, as will

running the offense

so Nash can have some rare time off to catch his breath.

---

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/8510160

Quote:

---

The Phoenix Suns get their

relief point guard, their best perimeter defender, one of their top three-point shooters

and their bench back intact for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals Saturday at San Antonio.

That's the four-pronged package Joe Johnson brings to the court when he rejoins his team following a six-game absence.

The 6-7 guard, out since May 11 with a broken eye socket, returned to full five-on-five practice Thursday wearing a mask. He said afterward that he was ready to play after watching the Suns lose the first two games of the best-of-seven series at home.

"This is what I live for," said Johnson, who awaits only the official green light after a medical exam Friday before the team heads for Texas and the next two games.

Game 4 is Monday. "There's no question I'll be out there," he said. "I'm good."

"He looked just like old Joe," Suns coach Mike D'Antoni said.

The Suns were 3-3 without Johnson and sorely missed him in the two games they lost down the stretch to the Spurs.

"Joe's a soldier," forward Shawn Marion said. "This is a big boost for us."

Offensively, Johnson brings his deadly three-point shot back into the mix of the league's highest-scoring team. He was eighth in the league in the regular season with a career-high 177 three-pointers made and was leading the playoffs in three-point accuracy (56.5%) when he landed on his face in Game 2 of the Suns' six-game conference semifinal series victory against the Dallas Mavericks.

He also will spell Steve Nash at point guard. Because of Phoenix's thin bench, Nash logged 86 of a possible 96 minutes in the first two games.

"He'll definitely help me," Nash said.

Said D'Antoni: "The biggest thing is I can really rest Steve a lot, because Joe takes a lot of the playmaking responsibilities off him. He's another guy that can break the defense down."

Defensively, Johnson will guard Spurs point guard Tony Parker, and Nash will switch to Bruce Bowen, who is not a big offensive weapon.

Parker averaged 26.5 points in the first two games and shot 59.5%. Now the 6-2 Frenchman will have a bigger body on him, and that could slow him down.

"I'll just make it tough for him," Johnson said. "He hurt us by getting in the lane and shooting those floaters. By me guarding him, maybe he won't get those easy shots. It's a challenge, but I'm up for it."

---

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/...practices_x.htm

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that a team's success is the function of a lot of moving parts and you can't discount JJ or Nash's value simply by looking at the change in their old team's total wins.

If you use that analysis, though, it is:

JJ's team loses 8 more games without him

Nash's team wins 6 more games without him

That comes off looking pretty good for JJ.

Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that they are both very good players.

---

Getting back to the issue of how you analyze a player's value, I think we should address this with the correction that Phoenix did worse after losing JJ than it did with him.

---

Amare was out last year. ! bel!eve they would have went to the f!nals and probably w!n the t!tle !f Amare !sn't out. H*,, they gave the west a run for !t's money w!thout h!m.

---

So are you saying that Phoenix did get worse but because a hypothetical Phoenix team with Amare not injured would have done better than 62 wins that JJ's absence was not felt? This just seems like it is veering farther and farther from a reliable analysis.

---

!t's not all JJ's fault that he was a d!sposable player. All he bas!cally d!d was shoot open shots. Amare be!ng an !ns!de scorer and rebounder makes h!m way more !mportant to the Suns than JJ.

---

JJ was their defensive stopper and backup PG which is a lot more than a perimeter shooter like Kyle Korver.

See e.g.,

Quote:

---

PHOENIX -- The Phoenix Suns have plenty of reasons to be excited about having Joe Johnson back for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals on Saturday night.

The biggest involve easing the huge burden the team has placed on Steve Nash -- at both ends of the court.

On

defense

, Nash will no longer have to chase San Antonio point guard Tony Parker. He'll be Johnson's problem. Instead, Nash will get to cover the Spurs' last scoring option, Bruce Bowen.

When the Suns have the ball, Nash will no longer be the

second scoring option

after center Amare Stoudemire. That'll be Johnson's job, too, as will

running the offense

so Nash can have some rare time off to catch his breath.

---

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/8510160

Quote:

---

The Phoenix Suns get their

relief point guard, their best perimeter defender, one of their top three-point shooters

and their bench back intact for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals Saturday at San Antonio.

That's the four-pronged package Joe Johnson brings to the court when he rejoins his team following a six-game absence.

The 6-7 guard, out since May 11 with a broken eye socket, returned to full five-on-five practice Thursday wearing a mask. He said afterward that he was ready to play after watching the Suns lose the first two games of the best-of-seven series at home.

"This is what I live for," said Johnson, who awaits only the official green light after a medical exam Friday before the team heads for Texas and the next two games.

Game 4 is Monday. "There's no question I'll be out there," he said. "I'm good."

"He looked just like old Joe," Suns coach Mike D'Antoni said.

The Suns were 3-3 without Johnson and sorely missed him in the two games they lost down the stretch to the Spurs.

"Joe's a soldier," forward Shawn Marion said. "This is a big boost for us."

Offensively, Johnson brings his deadly three-point shot back into the mix of the league's highest-scoring team. He was eighth in the league in the regular season with a career-high 177 three-pointers made and was leading the playoffs in three-point accuracy (56.5%) when he landed on his face in Game 2 of the Suns' six-game conference semifinal series victory against the Dallas Mavericks.

He also will spell Steve Nash at point guard. Because of Phoenix's thin bench, Nash logged 86 of a possible 96 minutes in the first two games.

"He'll definitely help me," Nash said.

Said D'Antoni: "The biggest thing is I can really rest Steve a lot, because Joe takes a lot of the playmaking responsibilities off him. He's another guy that can break the defense down."

Defensively, Johnson will guard Spurs point guard Tony Parker, and Nash will switch to Bruce Bowen, who is not a big offensive weapon.

Parker averaged 26.5 points in the first two games and shot 59.5%. Now the 6-2 Frenchman will have a bigger body on him, and that could slow him down.

"I'll just make it tough for him," Johnson said. "He hurt us by getting in the lane and shooting those floaters. By me guarding him, maybe he won't get those easy shots. It's a challenge, but I'm up for it."

---

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/...practices_x.htm

---

Defensive Stopper

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that a team's success is the function of a lot of moving parts and you can't discount JJ or Nash's value simply by looking at the change in their old team's total wins.

If you use that analysis, though, it is:

JJ's team loses 8 more games without him

Nash's team wins 6 more games without him

That comes off looking pretty good for JJ.

Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that they are both very good players.

---

Getting back to the issue of how you analyze a player's value, I think we should address this with the correction that Phoenix did worse after losing JJ than it did with him.

---

Amare was out last year. ! bel!eve they would have went to the f!nals and probably w!n the t!tle !f Amare !sn't out. H*,, they gave the west a run for !t's money w!thout h!m.

---

So are you saying that Phoenix did get worse but because a hypothetical Phoenix team with Amare not injured would have done better than 62 wins that JJ's absence was not felt? This just seems like it is veering farther and farther from a reliable analysis.

---

!t's not all JJ's fault that he was a d!sposable player. All he bas!cally d!d was shoot open shots. Amare be!ng an !ns!de scorer and rebounder makes h!m way more !mportant to the Suns than JJ.

---

JJ was their defensive stopper and backup PG which is a lot more than a perimeter shooter like Kyle Korver.

See e.g.,

Quote:

---

PHOENIX -- The Phoenix Suns have plenty of reasons to be excited about having Joe Johnson back for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals on Saturday night.

The biggest involve easing the huge burden the team has placed on Steve Nash -- at both ends of the court.

On

defense

, Nash will no longer have to chase San Antonio point guard Tony Parker. He'll be Johnson's problem. Instead, Nash will get to cover the Spurs' last scoring option, Bruce Bowen.

When the Suns have the ball, Nash will no longer be the

second scoring option

after center Amare Stoudemire. That'll be Johnson's job, too, as will

running the offense

so Nash can have some rare time off to catch his breath.

---

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/8510160

Quote:

---

The Phoenix Suns get their

relief point guard, their best perimeter defender, one of their top three-point shooters

and their bench back intact for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals Saturday at San Antonio.

That's the four-pronged package Joe Johnson brings to the court when he rejoins his team following a six-game absence.

The 6-7 guard, out since May 11 with a broken eye socket, returned to full five-on-five practice Thursday wearing a mask. He said afterward that he was ready to play after watching the Suns lose the first two games of the best-of-seven series at home.

"This is what I live for," said Johnson, who awaits only the official green light after a medical exam Friday before the team heads for Texas and the next two games.

Game 4 is Monday. "There's no question I'll be out there," he said. "I'm good."

"He looked just like old Joe," Suns coach Mike D'Antoni said.

The Suns were 3-3 without Johnson and sorely missed him in the two games they lost down the stretch to the Spurs.

"Joe's a soldier," forward Shawn Marion said. "This is a big boost for us."

Offensively, Johnson brings his deadly three-point shot back into the mix of the league's highest-scoring team. He was eighth in the league in the regular season with a career-high 177 three-pointers made and was leading the playoffs in three-point accuracy (56.5%) when he landed on his face in Game 2 of the Suns' six-game conference semifinal series victory against the Dallas Mavericks.

He also will spell Steve Nash at point guard. Because of Phoenix's thin bench, Nash logged 86 of a possible 96 minutes in the first two games.

"He'll definitely help me," Nash said.

Said D'Antoni: "The biggest thing is I can really rest Steve a lot, because Joe takes a lot of the playmaking responsibilities off him. He's another guy that can break the defense down."

Defensively, Johnson will guard Spurs point guard Tony Parker, and Nash will switch to Bruce Bowen, who is not a big offensive weapon.

Parker averaged 26.5 points in the first two games and shot 59.5%. Now the 6-2 Frenchman will have a bigger body on him, and that could slow him down.

"I'll just make it tough for him," Johnson said. "He hurt us by getting in the lane and shooting those floaters. By me guarding him, maybe he won't get those easy shots. It's a challenge, but I'm up for it."

---

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/...practices_x.htm

---

I'd don't remember h!m be!ng all that great for them as the backup PG.

[AHF]

The bottomline is that the Suns viewed him as their second offensive option; the guy who defended the opposition's best offensive player on the perimeter; and their second ball-handler. That is a lot more than the limited jumpshooter you were trying to make him out to be for Phoenix.

As a PG, he was a good backup but a subpar starter. He was always their best perimeter defender and their top option as a perimeter shooter.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

The bottomline is that the Suns viewed him as their second offensive option; the guy who defended the opposition's best offensive player on the perimeter; and their second ball-handler. That is a lot more than the limited jumpshooter you were trying to make him out to be for Phoenix.

As a PG, he was a good backup but a subpar starter. He was always their best perimeter defender and their top option as a perimeter shooter.

---

Being the best defensive player on a team that gives up 105PPG doesn't mean a whole lot, does it... If ! remember r!ght, the only other backup PG they had was Barbosa and he was extremly young at the t!me. It's kInda like Lorenzen Wright or Royal Ivey starting.

Subpar starters, but they have to play a b!g role on the hawks because they don't have any legit backup big men or a good stable PG.

[Lascar78]

You clearly must not have watched the suns a lot at the time. When it came to crunch time in a close game, it became the Steve Nash and Joe Johnson show. Marion and Amare put up the most stats during the bulk of the game, but when it mattered JJ was their go to guy. I remember when JJ got injured in the playoffs the commentators were saying that you could tell who really follows basketball from people who just look at box scores based on whether they thought JJ (and his absence) was a really big factor for the suns. To say that he just shot open jumpshots is insane.

We all know you have an irresistible urge to bash anything hawk related that could provide hawk fans with any pleasure, but what's the point? You've posted more to bash JJ when he made the all star game than you have all year. Lighten up man.

We finally have a deserving all-star, who's also on the national team and a top 10 scorer in the league. No need to bash.

Do you still watch the NBA a lot? Because you always say how much you hate it and the hawks and that it's not worth watching, and yet you put in your opinion as if you're an expert who watches the bulk of the games. Which one is it?

[Sothron]

I just have to say that despite how negative I can be about the Hawks (and nine years of losing validates most of it) it is just outright bashing and hatred to find anything negative over a Hawks player getting an individual honor. I have to absolutely quesiton you as a fan if you do this.

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The bottomline is that the Suns viewed him as their second offensive option; the guy who defended the opposition's best offensive player on the perimeter; and their second ball-handler. That is a lot more than the limited jumpshooter you were trying to make him out to be for Phoenix.

As a PG, he was a good backup but a subpar starter. He was always their best perimeter defender and their top option as a perimeter shooter.

---

Being the best defensive player on a team that gives up 105PPG doesn't mean a whole lot, does it... If ! remember r!ght, the only other backup PG they had was Barbosa and he was extremly young at the t!me. It's kInda like Lorenzen Wright or Royal Ivey starting.

---

Dude, did you just say JJ was kinda like Ivey? or is it my beer?

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The bottomline is that the Suns viewed him as their second offensive option; the guy who defended the opposition's best offensive player on the perimeter; and their second ball-handler. That is a lot more than the limited jumpshooter you were trying to make him out to be for Phoenix.

As a PG, he was a good backup but a subpar starter. He was always their best perimeter defender and their top option as a perimeter shooter.

---

Being the best defensive player on a team that gives up 105PPG doesn't mean a whole lot, does it... If ! remember r!ght, the only other backup PG they had was Barbosa and he was extremly young at the t!me. It's kInda like Lorenzen Wright or Royal Ivey starting.

---

Dude, did you just say JJ was kinda like Ivey? or is it my beer?

---

I was basically saying JJ was the Suns backup PG mainly cause they didn't have any. If the Hawks had a steady PG Royal Ivey wouldn't get off the bench.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

You clearly must not have watched the suns a lot at the time. When it came to crunch time in a close game, it became the Steve Nash and Joe Johnson show. Marion and Amare put up the most stats during the bulk of the game, but when it mattered JJ was their go to guy. I remember when JJ got injured in the playoffs the commentators were saying that you could tell who really follows basketball from people who just look at box scores based on whether they thought JJ (and his absence) was a really big factor for the suns. To say that he just shot open jumpshots is insane.

We all know you have an irresistible urge to bash anything hawk related that could provide hawk fans with any pleasure, but what's the point? You've posted more to bash JJ when he made the all star game than you have all year. Lighten up man.

We finally have a deserving all-star, who's also on the national team and a top 10 scorer in the league. No need to bash.

Do you still watch the NBA a lot? Because you always say how much you hate it and the hawks and that it's not worth watching, and yet you put in your opinion as if you're an expert who watches the bulk of the games. Which one is it?

---

I watch games here and there. I watched a fair number of games last year (Non Hawks games) but haven't watched so many this year. All the losing just takes the interest out for me.