The Hawks And The Superstar Theory...

[Diesel]

Something for the statheads

Let’s dwell on this point for a second. Consider the Atlanta Hawks, a team full of wonderfully talented players like Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith and Al Horford. In any other team sport, such a core of gifted young talent would suggest a possible title down the road. Get some seasoning, throw in a few veteran role players, and contend! In the NBA the Hawks have almost no prayer, unless one or two of the four emerges as a silver or gold medal superstar. It is already too late for Joe Johnson, so it comes down to the other three. The chances are slim, not because Horford and Josh Smith in particular are not good, but because the bar is so high. If Horford is simply an all-star, not a superstar, simply Elton Brand and not Kevin Garnett, the Hawks cannot win a title with this core. If Josh Smith is Alex English or James Worthy, and not Julius Erving or Elgin Baylor, the same is true. This logic applies to every other talented young team in the league.

[Swish]

i dont think im buying that.

[Beelzebob]

Who was the superstar on Detroit when the won their last title?

[Wretch]

Who was the superstar on Detroit when the won their last title?

Name another championship team like Detroit.

[Diesel]

Name another championship team like Detroit.

Houston 1994.

[coachx]

LOL....Houson ? Hakeem was probably the best in the game the 2 years Jordan missed.

1. He simply dominated in the playoffs. He is the only guy I can recall who dominated Shaq. Not once but schooled him 4 games in a row on the way to a Finals sweep in 94-95.

2. The next year he schooled David Robinson the same way in the playoffs on his way to back to back titles. (that year he got an aging Clyde).

3. Then he did the same to Ewing in the 95-96 Finals.

He was without question the most domiant player of his position (if not in the game) at that time.

The Rockets were not dominating teams in the regular season but b/c they had the most dominating center on both offense and defense. They were able to not only win but dominate playoff series where they pace usualy slows down.

If the Hawks had Hakeem in they would win it all too !

http://www.nba.com/history/season/19941995.html

Edited August 4, 2008 by coachx

[Guest Walter]

Something for the statheads

And he's right. I use the top 2 star-superstar players to make my argument and some have criticized me for not using a team's top 3 players, but a strong case could be made for even a single superstar player being the most important thing needed.

Detroit was the exception and not the rule and considering we're talking the entire history of the NBA there's alot of precedent for the rule.

W

[Beelzebob]

1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics

1977-78 Washington Bullets

It's more difficult to build a team of all-star to near all-star players like Detroit has done. It takes a lot of patience and player development. Free agency and the salary cap have limited the ability to keep a team like that together. It's much easier to win the lottery on a player like Tim Duncan and build around him.

[Wretch]

Houston 1994.

LoL, naw... :laughing5:

The closest team would be the 88-90 Pistons...and even they had some HoFers.

[crimedog]

yeah, but what do we do about it? Shaq is very obviously on the downside of his career so we have Tim Duncan, KG, and DWade that have been the best players on championship teams at their current level of play... and two of those guys have done that once. I know we aren't going to get any of them with the peices we have either.

Then you guess at who might be able to do it in the future. Bron', not gonna happen. Howard (less likely to bring one in) not gonna happen. Kobe, not gonna happen. Paul (hurts to say that, not too likely to bring one in), not gonna happen. Oden has the potential but we have no clue how his knees will hold up and we aren't gonna get him in a trade anyway.

The only way we are going to get the type of player that can actually lead us to a chip is to a) let this group ferment another year or two and win some games so it becomes an attractive destination for an aging star who wants to win and then trade one of our 3 best players depending on who is coming in, b) decide that we need to rebuild and trade Joe and Josh for picks, or c) get REALLY lucky in the draft and snag a gem.

We all know that there is no Magic/Michael/Duncan/Lebron on this team, thats not news. The question is what is there to do about it aside from get rid of our best players and aim for the number 1 pick in a year where a superstar is coming out?

[Traceman]

Something for the statheads

I think that drafting or trading for a superstar is the most expedient way to winning a title but doing so is obviously a lot easier said than done and it usually involves a lot of luck. What are the teams who don't get lucky enough to have the #1 overall pick in a year when a surefire superstar is available (Duncan, Shaq, LeBron, etc) supposed to do? Quit?

[Packfill]

I think that drafting or trading for a superstar is the most expedient way to winning a title but doing so is obviously a lot easier said than done and it usually involves a lot of luck. What are the teams who don't get lucky enough to have the #1 overall pick in a year when a surefire superstar is available (Duncan, Shaq, LeBron, etc) supposed to do? Quit?

This is why it is really important to not screw up when you have really high draft picks and franchise caliber talents available in the draft. Taking Marvin over Paul is one reason the Hawks are not likely to win a championship with the current core.

[Diesel]

LOL....Houson ? Hakeem was probably the best in the game the 2 years Jordan missed.

1. He simply dominated in the playoffs. He is the only guy I can recall who dominated Shaq. Not once but schooled him 4 games in a row on the way to a Finals sweep in 94-95.

2. The next year he schooled David Robinson the same way in the playoffs on his way to back to back titles. (that year he got an aging Clyde).

3. Then he did the same to Ewing in the 95-96 Finals.

He was without question the most domiant player of his position (if not in the game) at that time.

The Rockets were not dominating teams in the regular season but b/c they had the most dominating center on both offense and defense. They were able to not only win but dominate playoff series where they pace usualy slows down.

If the Hawks had Hakeem in they would win it all too !

http://www.nba.com/history/season/19941995.html

One man teams rarely win championships. That's why Barkley and Ewing never won it.

[NJHAWK]

JOE JOHNSON was superstar enough to almost single handedly bury Boston 3 times down the stretch of our home playoff games. Even when he was triple teamed by a team full of " superstars" NONE OF WHICH EVER WON JACK SHYYYT UNTIL THEY WERE ALL PUT TOGETHER. This league is really WATERED DOWN now. Its possible to win with JJ as the main cog, he just needs our young guys to grow and show up on the road.

[ATLBob]

And he's right. I use the top 2 star-superstar players to make my argument and some have criticized me for not using a team's top 3 players, but a strong case could be made for even a single superstar player being the most important thing needed.

Detroit was the exception and not the rule and considering we're talking the entire history of the NBA there's alot of precedent for the rule.

W

Very true, you certainly have been consistently correct in this regard.

The Detroit model is possible, just highly improbable.

I also disagree that its too late for JJ to be a bonafide star.

[Wretch]

One man teams rarely win championships. That's why Barkley and Ewing never won it.

I don't think anyone disputes that. However, the opposite is almost certainly the rule: Teams rarely win championships without that "one man."

[Joker]

This is why it is really important to not screw up when you have really high draft picks and franchise caliber talents available in the draft. Taking Marvin over Paul is one reason the Hawks are not likely to win a championship with the current core.

Hey maybe your right, but what are we going to about it now.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Im not buying that either.

The idea that we can't win a title if Al and/or Josh Smith are All-Stars and not Superstars aka top 2 at their position is ridiculous.

[Traceman]

This is why it is really important to not screw up when you have really high draft picks and franchise caliber talents available in the draft. Taking Marvin over Paul is one reason the Hawks are not likely to win a championship with the current core.

I don't think anyone would argue with that. Taking Chillz over Deng and Iggy and Shelden over Roy didn't help either.

[Packfill]

I don't think anyone would argue with that. Taking Chillz over Deng and Iggy and Shelden over Roy didn't help either.

Those didn't help either of course. The problem is that Chris Paul is the one who has demonstrated MVP potential to this point, and given the rarity of that type of talent, passing on him is likely BKs biggest blunder.

Hopefully the current Hawks prove this to be false.