The Hawks are built in the image of the Spurs, and it is a beautiful picture, but there’s something missing.
The Spurs have won all five of their NBA titles with Tim Duncan, a future Hall of Famer. Duncan teamed with David Robinson, a Hall of Famer, to win two titles. Duncan joined with Tony Parker, another future Hall of Famer, to win one with Robinson and then Duncan and Parker won three more without Robinson.
The Spurs’ legendary coach, Gregg Popovich, guided them to all of those titles. He’s also had a heavy hand in building the roster as a VP, along with right-hand man R.C. Buford.
The Spurs in the Duncan era have had legendary players playing an efficient style of basketball with a legendary coach orchestrating things. The Hawks have a very good team playing a similar style with a very good coach guiding them.
The Hawks do not have legends, though, and that’s no small thing when it comes to championship aspirations. The Hawks are Spurs East, but their true model may be those Pistons teams in the 2000s.
Detroit won the NBA championship in 2004 over the splintering Lakers and lost in the 2005 Finals (to the Spurs, of course) while making six consecutive trips to the East finals starting in 2003—all without a superstar player.
That’s the more likely blueprint for the Hawks, even if history is against them.
“I wouldn’t compare them to the Spurs at all—with all due respect—because of the future Hall of Famer in ‘Popp’ and also those in uniform,” said ESPN analyst Mark Jackson, the former NBA player and coach. “I agree they are closer to those Pistons teams. They (the Hawks) do it by committee. They are very supportive. They are very consistent every night. You don’t know who can play the starring role on any given night. They very well could come out of the East.”
By now, the “no superstar” narrative may feel like a tiresome one for the Hawks. But it’s relevant in the NBA, where winning a championship or even seriously contending for one without a superstar is rare.
There have been 65 NBA championship teams since 1950 and 60 of those champions had at least one player voted either first- or-second team All-NBA during the season they won it all. Only 16 of those NBA champions didn't have at least one player voted first-team All-NBA (a third five-man All-NBA team was added starting with the 1988-89 season).
Also, only 10 of the 65 finals runners-up failed to have at least one player voted among the top 10 in the league. That means just 15 of 130 teams to make the finals since 1950—11.5 percent—did so without a player voted as one of the league’s 10 best.
As noted previously by AJC colleague Mark Bradley, all of the NBA champions since 1990 save the aforementioned Pistons had a player who had already won an MVP or would win one later.
The current Hawks could make the All-NBA championship equation moot if one of their players is voted to the first or second team this season. I don’t think there’s a future MVP on Atlanta’s roster but, if the Hawks can copy Detroit’s formula, there doesn’t have to be.
Former Hawks GM Rick Sund always said the Pistons were the blueprint but he never assembled a roster that could emulate them. Now Sund’s successor, Danny Ferry, and coach Mike Budenholzer have built a team that compares favorably to the 2004 Pistons championship team.
The 2003-04 2004 Pistons ranked 18th in offensive efficiency (102 points per 100 possessions) and second in defensive efficiency (95.4). This season the Hawks rank sixth in offensive efficiency (109.7) and third in defensive efficiency (102).
Detroit's offensive four factors rankings during the 2003-04 season: 20th in effective field goal percentage, 20th in turnover percentage, ninth in offensive rebounding percentage and fourth in free-throw rate. Atlanta's current offensive four factors rankings: third in effective field-goal percentage, 20th in turnover percentage, 29th in rebounding percentage and 11th in free-throw rate.
The Pistons' defensive four factors rankings in 2003-04: second in effective field-goal percentage, sixth in turnover percentage, 13th in rebounding percentage and third in free-throw rate. The Hawks' current four factors rankings: 10th in effective field-goal percentage, fourth in turnover percentage, 18th in rebounding percentage and fourth in free-throw rate.
The current Hawks are a much better offensive team than the 2004 champion Pistons, in large part because they attempt 3-pointers at a much higher rate and make them at a much higher accuracy. Detroit's guards launched long two-pointers more often than Atlanta's current guards and wings. (Al Horford attempts a lot of long 2s but he should because he's long been one of the best from that range).
The Hawks are nearly as efficient on defense as the 2004 Pistons. They don’t have a post defender/rim protector the caliber of Ben Wallace, but the Pistons didn’t have as many rotation players who could get steals.
The Hawks this season are deeper than Detroit in 2004). I'd take Atlanta's top bench players (Thabo Sefolosha, Dennis Schroeder, Mike Scott, Pero Antic, Kent Bazemore) over Detroit's playoff bench in 2004 (Corliss Williamson, Lindsey Hunter, Mehmet Okur, Elden Campbell, Mike James).
As for chemistry it’s clear that the Hawks, like the 2004 Pistons, have lots of good pieces that create an excellent whole. They also have the same sense intangible sense of unity, though the tone is different.
The Pistons got their fuel from the fire of Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton. They were blue collar and barbed wire. Coach Larry Brown encouraged this street fight mentality and relished in antagonizing his foes (especially Stan Van Gundy) through the media.
From afar, this Hawks team seems to have that same spirit of togetherness but it’s more about uplifting one another rather than antagonizing foes. They compete hard but they aren’t out there scowling like Wallace, Billups and Hamilton. Budenholzer is low key, not keen on all of the attention his team is getting now, and doesn’t seem to be the type to get into media feuds.
The Hawks have a different mentality than those Pistons and that’s fine. What worked for Detroit probably wouldn’t work for Atlanta and, eventually, it stopped working for the Pistons.
I saw plenty of those Pistons because I was covering the Heat at the time. Detroit beat Miami in a hotly-contested, seven-game Eastern final in 2005. The Pistons' intensity and toughness were their greatest intangible strengths, especially when they played at The Palace.
But that passion eventually led to Detroit’s downfall. In 2005 Brown and his players complained about every call, melting down in tight games and blaming all of their playoff losses on the officials. When it became clear Miami was the better team in the 2006 East final the players scapegoated Brown’s successor, Flip Saunders, rather than admit they were outplayed.
The Pistons would make it back to the East finals in 2007 and 2008 with Saunders but each time they were vanquished by opponents led by superstars (LeBron James' Cavaliers in '07, Kevin Garnett's Celtics in '08). The Pistons were swept by James' Cavs in the first round of the 2009 playoffs and GM Joe Dumars went on to make a series of poor decisions that sent the Pistons into the wilderness where they remain still.
The Pistons had a hell of a run, though. These Hawks appear to have the mettle to start one of their own, especially if they can keep Millsap and Horford around. At the very least the Hawks appear to have what it takes to rise up and challenge for the championship this year.
“You don’t have to be a dynasty team to pop up and get one,” said ESPN analyst Jalen Rose, who played 16 NBA seasons. “This could be a year where the league is ripe for that to happen. If there is a year for it to happen, this could be a year for a team like the Atlanta Hawks to seize the moment.”
