How complete is Joe’s game? Lebron-esque yet?

[playstation]

You have defined "passive" to mean "not trying to get to the rim at all costs," and I just don't think that's a useful definition. Jordan's greatness didn't come from driving to the hoop on every play. It came from being able to do other things when that option wasn't available.

Great players take the best shot that the defense gives them. If Jordan thought that heading for the rim every time was his best option, that's what he would have done. But he understood that sometimes another weapon was more likely to be effective. Too bad he isn't still on the Bulls; maybe you could watch a few more of his games and eventually pick that up.

you said it yourself, great players take what the defense gives them. however, they can only do it if they have the ability to. Apparently, it is very rare to see any defense give JJ a lane to the hoop where he can draw contact, since he rarely does it. My contention is that JJ is unable to take advantage of taking the ball to the hoop and drawing fouls. I am not saying that it is the only thing that is required for greatness, I am saying that it is one of the requirements, and is conspicuously missing from JJ's repetoire.

jordan hits jumpers, jj hits jumpers. jordan gets to the hoop and draws fouls/finishes, jj does not. i scrutinize the differences, since we already know what jj's strengths are.

 

[lancelet's cousin]

All this talk about comparisons is pretty rediculous. Why are Kobe, TMac, James, etc. the standards by which Joe must be compared?

Joe is pretty unique. He's a 6'8", 240 lbs shooter that can fill in at 3 positions (offensively and defensively) that can create his own shot. With a shooter's mentality. He's not "soft", hes a shooter, not a finisher. He doesn't have the handles of those other guys, but they are what they are. Joe is a unique combination of shooter/defender with the body of a large small forward. He doesn't have a huge vertical and doesn't need one. Neither does Ray Allen-because he is a pure shooter too.

Joe doesn't need to dunk on people when he has the most unstoppable floater in the game. TMac's dunk on Bradley makes every highlight reel, but Joe's floater over Yao the last time they played was a better shot. It just won't make the highlight reel. Why can't we have unique players that don't have the same skills of others? Especially when those other guys don't have Joe's game in trade.

He won't make the highlight reels but what is a shooting guard supposed to do? Not dunk on everybody and try to "take over the game". Only Jordan has ever done that with enough consistency to carry teams to the title from the guard position. It's a misconception that TMac and Kobe should be able to take over games at the rate that they will carry a team to the playoffs.

Michael Jordan defined what the modern superstar guard is, unfortunately. And now anybody with similar skills is supposed to be able to do the same.

Joe should be the definition of what a team SG can be. Maybe that won't make him a "superstar" (which is what everyone is getting at IMO), but he does his job better than anyone else would on our team-oriented Suns.

I just love the guy. Just be glad he won't be spending the offseason working on his dunking-leave that to the forward positions. That's the greatness of this team. Everyone does what is asked out of their positions offensively.

And he will never ever cause us trouble. Leave the gangsta snarls to TMac and the soap operas to Kobe. I'll take Joe on this team any day.

And he is an All-Star, regardless of what voters say. He has been underrated since getting minutes after the Marbury trade.

 

[playstation]

JJ may not take it to the rim like Kobi or TMac but he can take you off the dribble and hit that floater every time, for the same results 2 points (maybe 3).

Also by him not going to the rim it may increase his longevity, in fact the only time that he has missed games due to injury was when he went to the rim, Kobi and TMac have missed many games due to injuries from going to the rim. This has some merit.

the ability to hit the floater is good, but there are times when something stronger is needed. taking it strong to the hoop puts the pressure on the other team because they either give away free points or pile up fouls (see amare). floaters do not do this, and it is seldom that you see JJ go to the hoop with a stronger mindset.

 

[yotes1921]

I agree 100% with lancelet's, well put

 

[elindholm]

my point is that as the dunk is the most efficient shot in the league, and the ability to get to the hoop and draw fouls/finish results in the highest offensive efficiency.

Offensive efficiency is measured by statistics, not appearances on highlight reels. Stockton, for instance, probably couldn't dunk at all, but he's one of the most efficient offensive players of the last 20 years. (Yes, I understand that he wasn't a shooting guard.)

When Jordan came into the league, he didn't have much of a jumpshot, but his ability to get to the rim was already the stuff of legend. How did he mature into a "complete" offensive player? By becoming a great shooter.

although i am interested to see if you can come up with a sg who could not take it strong to the hoop and draw fouls/finish yet is still great...

You realize how ridiculous this is, right? I could suggest someone, and you'd say, "He isn't great, because he didn't take it strong to the hoop." You've defined "greatness" in one particular way, so of course there won't be any examples of "great" players who don't fit your definition.

 

[Cheesebeef]

JJ's a flat out stud - is he Bron, no. Not many guys are - but he's PERFECT for this club now and especially in the future. Amare will need to have a low-key superstar playing opposite because of his personality and JJ fits that mold PERFECTLY.

He needs to be resign at ANY cost - even if it means ultimately shipping off Marion - to me, he's worth more - now and especially in the future.

 

[elindholm]

Also, what's magical about shooting guards that requires them to have this "explosive" ability, but it's not required for players at other positions?

 

[playstation]

All this talk about comparisons is pretty rediculous. Why are Kobe, TMac, James, etc. the standards by which Joe must be compared?

Joe is pretty unique. He's a 6'8", 240 lbs shooter that can fill in at 3 positions (offensively and defensively) that can create his own shot. With a shooter's mentality. He's not "soft", hes a shooter, not a finisher. He doesn't have the handles of those other guys, but they are what they are. Joe is a unique combination of shooter/defender with the body of a large small forward. He doesn't have a huge vertical and doesn't need one. Neither does Ray Allen-because he is a pure shooter too.

Joe doesn't need to dunk on people when he has the most unstoppable floater in the game. TMac's dunk on Bradley makes every highlight reel, but Joe's floater over Yao the last time they played was a better shot. It just won't make the highlight reel. Why can't we have unique players that don't have the same skills of others? Especially when those other guys don't have Joe's game in trade.

He won't make the highlight reels but what is a shooting guard supposed to do? Not dunk on everybody and try to "take over the game". Only Jordan has ever done that with enough consistency to carry teams to the title from the guard position. It's a misconception that TMac and Kobe should be able to take over games at the rate that they will carry a team to the playoffs.

Michael Jordan defined what the modern superstar guard is, unfortunately. And now anybody with similar skills is supposed to be able to do the same.

Joe should be the definition of what a team SG can be. Maybe that won't make him a "superstar" (which is what everyone is getting at IMO), but he does his job better than anyone else would on our team-oriented Suns.

I just love the guy. Just be glad he won't be spending the offseason working on his dunking-leave that to the forward positions. That's the greatness of this team. Everyone does what is asked out of their positions offensively.

And he will never ever cause us trouble. Leave the gangsta snarls to TMac and the soap operas to Kobe. I'll take Joe on this team any day.

And he is an All-Star, regardless of what voters say. He has been underrated since getting minutes after the Marbury trade.

pretty much totally agree. he is not a 'superstar', nor is he complete (since i believe only one guy during one season was), but that doesn't take away from what he is: great for this team. he fills a role, and does it well. probably better than all but a handful of guys in the league. like i said, success for him = 3rd team all NBA, 2nd team all-defense.

 

[Cheesebeef]

my point is that as the dunk is the most efficient shot in the league, and the ability to get to the hoop and draw fouls/finish results in the highest offensive efficiency.

Offensive efficiency is measured by statistics, not appearances on highlight reels. Stockton, for instance, probably couldn't dunk at all, but he's one of the most efficient offensive players of the last 20 years. (Yes, I understand that he wasn't a shooting guard.)

When Jordan came into the league, he didn't have much of a jumpshot, but his ability to get to the rim was already the stuff of legend. How did he mature into a "complete" offensive player? By becoming a great shooter.

although i am interested to see if you can come up with a sg who could not take it strong to the hoop and draw fouls/finish yet is still great...

You realize how ridiculous this is, right? I could suggest someone, and you'd say, "He isn't great, because he didn't take it strong to the hoop." You've defined "greatness" in one particular way, so of course there won't be any examples of "great" players who don't fit your definition.

Eric - you could have just as easily said - Reggie Miller, Rip Hamilton - both of those guys are great - Reggies a HOFer and Hamilton was the man along with Billups who ran the Lakers out of the gym and neither of them takes it the hole strong.

JJ is GREAT - his game is smooth, his ability to play under pressure is pretty sick(at least this season) - I don't think you have to be an attack the rim guy to be "great" - but I think to ultimately be at the highest of high levels you do - that's the littlest bit of separation between JJ and others mentioned IMO.

 

[Chaplin]

Another question is how do we know JJ couldn't be an attack-the-rim kind of guy? He isn't now, but not because he can't--he doesn't because he doesn't need to.

 

[playstation]

my point is that as the dunk is the most efficient shot in the league, and the ability to get to the hoop and draw fouls/finish results in the highest offensive efficiency.

Offensive efficiency is measured by statistics, not appearances on highlight reels. Stockton, for instance, probably couldn't dunk at all, but he's one of the most efficient offensive players of the last 20 years. (Yes, I understand that he wasn't a shooting guard.)

When Jordan came into the league, he didn't have much of a jumpshot, but his ability to get to the rim was already the stuff of legend. How did he mature into a "complete" offensive player? By becoming a great shooter.

although i am interested to see if you can come up with a sg who could not take it strong to the hoop and draw fouls/finish yet is still great...

You realize how ridiculous this is, right? I could suggest someone, and you'd say, "He isn't great, because he didn't take it strong to the hoop." You've defined "greatness" in one particular way, so of course there won't be any examples of "great" players who don't fit your definition.

alright, so exactly what is YOUR point? i stated my point to you, and you disagree with it, thats fine. are you saying that taking it strong to the hoop is not required to be called great? you keep bringing up dunking, but i only refer to it as a way to get to the hoop and either finish or draw fouls.

how do you quantify efficiency? i quantify it through adjusted field goal % and points per shot, along with the ability to self-create the shots one takes. this is because, assuming you're not a point guard, your ability on the offensive end has a lot to do with the efficiency with which you score. the best way to have a high efficiency, then, is to at least have the ability to take it strong to the hoop (you don't have to do it every time, just have the ability). JJ doesn't have this. are you saying that he does have this ability, or that you are basing your judgement on other criteria?

 

[lancelet's cousin]

I think one of the main differences is that JJ isn't trying to fit the role that Jordan created. The league has too many of those, and most end up with Desmond Mason careers.

If he wanted to go for career highs he would have had a few 40 point games by now. But he never tries to follow his many 12-15 pt quarters by trying to force a repeat thinking "this is my game". He just lets the game come to him.

He could have easily tried to go for a career high in the Denver game where he started out with an 18-pt 1st quarter. But he ended up with 26 or so and we won. Once the opposing defense collapses on him he passes the ball. Smart player, not superstar material, but smart.

I just think peopleis (and player's) idea of a great guard is one that must hog the ball and take over a game. But that strategy only worked once (ok, six times). Remember how many pundits thought the Lakers would still make the playoffs just because of Kobe? He couldn't even get them close. Its a terrible strategy and I glad Joe has the mentality that he does.

 

[playstation]

Eric - you could have just as easily said - Reggie Miller, Rip Hamilton - both of those guys are great - Reggies a HOFer and Hamilton was the man along with Billups who ran the Lakers out of the gym and neither of them takes it the hole strong.

JJ is GREAT - his game is smooth, his ability to play under pressure is pretty sick(at least this season) - I don't think you have to be an attack the rim guy to be "great" - but I think to ultimately be at the highest of high levels you do - that's the littlest bit of separation between JJ and others mentioned IMO.

so what you define as 'the highest of high levels' is what i call 'great'.

 

[playstation]

I think one of the main differences is that JJ isn't trying to fit the role that Jordan created. The league has too many of those, and most end up with Desmond Mason careers.

If he wanted to go for career highs he would have had a few 40 point games by now. But he never tries to follow his many 12-15 pt quarters by trying to force a repeat thinking "this is my game". He just lets the game come to him.

He could have easily tried to go for a career high in the Denver game where he started out with an 18-pt 1st quarter. But he ended up with 26 or so and we won. Once the opposing defense collapses on him he passes the ball. Smart player, not superstar material, but smart.

I just think peopleis (and player's) idea of a great guard is one that must hog the ball and take over a game. But that strategy only worked once (ok, six times). Remember how many pundits thought the Lakers would still make the playoffs just because of Kobe? He couldn't even get them close. Its a terrible strategy and I glad Joe has the mentality that he does.

hogging the ball is one thing, taking it strong to the rim is another. you can attack the hoop without being selfish.

 

[lancelet's cousin]

hogging the ball is one thing, taking it strong to the rim is another. you can attack the hoop without being selfish.

I agree. But that shouldn't define what a great player is. I know that in the NBA it does, but greatness is too often defined by ESPN. Arenas became a near-superstar because he hit a game winning playoff shot that was asthetically pleasing to the camera. And then the announcer annointed him a superstar. That happens too often. Saying that JJ's finishing move (floater) excludes him from the "superstar" status is correct. Because "superstar" is a marketing term. He doesn't draw fouls and get to the line. But he doesn't lose the ball by trying to draw fouls. Shouldn't that even out?

Unfortunately it doesn't. Not to be a superstar. But it doesn't makes him a lesser player. I really can't explain myself better, so I hope that makes some sense.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Remember how many pundits thought the Lakers would still make the playoffs just because of Kobe? He couldn't even get them close.

in fairness to Kobe - when he went out injured for a month, weren't the Laker s like 24-19 and the six seed in the Western Conference and then Odom missed the last 15 games of the season (they were the 8 seed with as few as 17 games left in the season).

That team was DECIMATED by injuries all season long - don't get me wrong - I LOVED it and they WERE NOT a good team by any stretch but if they had decent health, KObe still would have taken that team to the playoffs this year - even with his coach quitting early in the season.

 

[elindholm]

alright, so exactly what is YOUR point? i stated my point to you, and you disagree with it, thats fine. are you saying that taking it strong to the hoop is not required to be called great?

Yes, my point is that taking it strong to the hoop is not required to be an elite player. I'll leave out the question of "complete," since your standard for that is impossibly high. If only one player a decade can be "complete," then no, Johnson isn't it.

how do you quantify efficiency? i quantify it through adjusted field goal % and points per shot, along with the ability to self-create the shots one takes.... {and} the ability to take it strong to the hoop (you don't have to do it every time, just have the ability). JJ doesn't have this.

I'd say that's a reasonable way of quantifying it. It would be nice to figure assists into it somehow, but I'll leave that chore to the guy who writes those fastidious analyses for Insider.

Since Jordan isn't playing anymore, we can't do a direct comparison of his efficiency to Johnson's. But my guess is that Johnson's is comparable to the league's current elite wing players. Remember that since he shoots threes so well, his points per shot statistic gets a big boost.

Also, it's not true that Johnson "doesn't have" the ability to throw it down in traffic. It has happened a couple of times this season -- plays that made me go "Wow, I didn't realize Johnson could do that!" I don't remember the circumstances, but there have been some very authoritative, extremely aggressive plays, taking it right at the defense. Maybe someone else following this discussion -- if there's anyone left, that is -- can refresh my memory.

Of course he does not do it nearly as much as someone like Jordan, and it would be better if he did it more. Maybe in a year or two, if he stays with the Suns and becomes the #2 offensive option, we'll see more of it.

 

[Cheesebeef]

just to completely throw a monkey wrench into this whole debate - can we agree that Marion ISN'T a Superstar?

I wanted to kill him in the fourth quarter - he's the exact opposite of Joe Cool. Great in the third, but come 4th quarter, the Matrix becomes Skittish Shawn.

Love JJ - love his game and don't care that he doesn't overpower people - Hamilton didn't, Byron didn't, Reggie didn't, Dumars didn't... that's the type of player I see JJ as being - well, not Reggie (those are pretty HUGE shoes to fill) but much like the others as far as their style/emotion.

 

[lancelet's cousin]

He better not start dunking in this playoffs. Dunking make the highlight reels, and highlight reels boost a players value.

Cuban said as much on his blog. He said that people would be suprised how much owners rate players by the media-he stated that he and every owner must value players this way.

 

[coloradosun]

Joe Johnson is more like Scottie Pippen or Steve Smith in their primes but probably turn out to be a much better 3pt. shooter than those two. Pippen ended up on the top 100 of all time NBA players, Joe could push Pippen out.

 

[elindholm]

Great in the third, but come 4th quarter, the Matrix becomes Skittish Shawn.

That's not really fair: Remember the end of Game 6 against Dallas. But I agree that Marion was out of control in the fourth quarter last night, and that generally his offensive game (mechanically flawed shot, avoidance of contact) doesn't lend itself well to crunch-time circumstances.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Joe Johnson is more like Scottie Pippen or Steve Smith in their primes but probably turn out to be a much better 3pt. shooter than those two.

I'd go with Steve Smith, but not Pippen only because JJ hasn't shown the ability ot be an absolute lock down defensive player like Pippen was, nor does he have Pip's explosiveness. However - your for damn sure he ain't gonna get no faux "migraine headaches" before a Game 7 or basicaly just dissappear and let everyone else do the work like Pippen did in the most of the Finals.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Great in the third, but come 4th quarter, the Matrix becomes Skittish Shawn.

That's not really fair: Remember the end of Game 6 against Dallas. But I agree that Marion was out of control in the fourth quarter last night, and that generally his offensive game (mechanically flawed shot, avoidance of contact) doesn't lend itself well to crunch-time circumstances.

ah ha! It's not TOTALLY fair - but if you actually remember correctlyt in the 4th against Dallas, Marion was HORRID - missing reverse layups, going to the hole soft, throwing that weak crap up over Dirk that hit front rim when we were down one - missing the and one when we were down 5 which led to Amare's last foul with a minute left. IT was only once Nash got us the lead in the OT that Marion got hot. He kept us in the game through 3 no doubt, but in the 4th he played much like what we saw last night. Once we got the lead and were rolling, he was unbelievable in OT though - can't take that away from him.

I just see him more of a front-runner than a crunch crunch time player like Nash, Amare and JJ. Great through 3 but come the 4th, I am scared to death when he gets the ball - and from the looks of it, so is he.

 

[Chaz]

just to completely throw a monkey wrench into this whole debate - can we agree that Marion ISN'T a Superstar?

I wanted to kill him in the fourth quarter - he's the exact opposite of Joe Cool. Great in the third, but come 4th quarter, the Matrix becomes Skittish Shawn.

Love JJ - love his game and don't care that he doesn't overpower people - Hamilton didn't, Byron didn't, Reggie didn't, Dumars didn't... that's the type of player I see JJ as being - well, not Reggie (those are pretty HUGE shoes to fill) but much like the others as far as their style/emotion.

I thought Marion was pretty good overall in the second.

Once they put Bowen on Johnson to keep him from abusing Parker.

A double-double with 14 reb is pretty good production. I know Marion is making "superstar money" but with his contributions this year we don't get this far. I think he has earned whatever he makes.


Johnson is not quite the consistant 'take over the game' type player we wish he were. The point is none of the Suns are. They are a collection of five guys that complement each other. Nash and Johnson are the creators and everyone passes the ball because they know they will get it back if they are open. I think having only 4 starters hurt the Suns more than many people realize.

Amare and JJ are the long term future of this team IMO. With Johnson and Stoudemire signed the starting five is locked in for a few years. They will just need more bench players that can run, rebound, and are a threat to score.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I thought Marion was pretty good overall in the second.

sorry - for me, you have to play TWO good quarters in order to be ghood for an entire half. Shawn was GREAT in the 3rd - awful in the fourth. 11 points from a guy who averages 20 just doesn't cut it. If he had shown up in the first two games, even without JJ this series would be tied.

But you're right - we wouldn't be where we are without him but we are where we are (down 3-1) largely becaus eof him as well. It cuts both ways.

See... there - all of a sudden a JJ thread is about Shawn Marion!