TheNorthCydeRises

Quote: Quote: I understand statistics and probability perfectly. It's just that in the case of the lottery, probability has to take a backseat to actual outcomes. 1) No, you most certainly do not 2) Actual outcomes? Probability takes a "backseat" to "actual outcomes"? If I flip a coin 3 times and get 2 heads and one tail, does that mean it is a weighted coin? Or better yet, does it mean that tails is due? Those "actual outcomes" mean more than probability, according to you. 3) I refuse to read the rest of this extremely long, extremely thoughtless post. You are just not very smart, and you are wasting your time. LOL @ thoughtless. I'm anything but thoughtless sir. It's not my fault that I can explain away how less important probability is in the lottery, compared to actual odds and outcomes. Disprove my numbers . . that's all I ask you to do, if you're think I'm wasting my time. Your simple mind doesn't allow you to see how the lottery actually works. Nothing is equal or set in this lottery. The variable constantly changes as you go through the lottery process. The variable doesn't change, when flipping a coin. You can turn your bad analogy the other way. You have a 50% probability of a guy making or missing a free throw. Those are the only outcomes . . make or miss. But when you talk about Lorenzen Wright, the actual outcome is fare less than 50% most of the time. Conversely, when you talk about Steve Nash, the outcome is far greater than 50%. The variable between Lorenzen and Steve, is that Lo's FT mechanics and concentration levels are so bad, that it causes him to miss far more than he makes. Steve's FT shooting mechanics and concentration levels are so good, that he hardly ever misses. Yet . . the bare bones probability of making and missing a FT, is 50/50. But you have to take in accout of how the variables can change the outcome. That's how you have to look at the NBA draft lottery, plain and simple. LOL . . I understand it perfectly. And it won't be "luck" when a team outside of the top 3, breaks through in the lottery. Just hope that the team that breaks through, is us . . and hope we break through at #1.

Quote: History is completely meaningless regarding the lottery. LOL. See the BDawg reply. Quote: So, you'd still rather have the #6 record? What gives? Compared to #1 or #2 . . of course not. But once you start talking about going down to 3rd through 6th, the significance of where you land, doesn't matter much. See the BDawg reply again. Quote: A statistical anomaly. This doesn't mean 5th is better than 1st. With a small sample size, we're likely to see something unusual. Corporations make decisions every day, based on 10 year trends. LOL @ small sample size. Not when you're talking about 36 separate selections in 12 years. There's a reason why the difference between teams 3rd - 6th isn't that great at all. See the BDawg reply. Quote: Actually, all of these things are equally unimportant, since history is completely meaningless. Regardless, the fact that someone in the top 3 will probably get unlucky doesn't mean anything. What's important is the top 3 teams do not have to GET LUCKY to pick top 3. They have to get unlucky to not pick top 3 (save #3, who is just a hair more likely to pick outside the top 3). LOL @ you still saying that history is completely meaningless. Luck has nothing to do with it. The odds clearly show that the odds are statistically stacked against them, during each selection. These teams are competing against the total number of combinations that each other team has left on the board. This isn't a head to head competition between the 3rd and 9th team . . or the 1st and 6th team. Quote: A total crap shoot would imply that the probability of each team (who is not the #1 team) is equal. Since the probability for the #2 team is far greater than that for the #10 team, for example, it is clear to almost everyone that it is NOT a total crap shoot. Please continue to insist it is, though. Someone will surely believe you eventually. Like I said, this isn't a head to head competition between teams, when talking about each selection. Each team is basically competing against the entire field. And the only thing that matters, are the percentage chance that they have overall. But each team must realize that there is a good chance that the field will overtake them, especially if they're not the #1 team ( and even they are at a disadvantage during that 1st selection ). The #2 team can deal with #1 being statistically better than them. But if anyone below #2 jumps ahead of #2, then a real problem arises. It's simple mathmetics and it's easy to see. Quote: What variables? You know your probabilities precisely before the draft. Thsoe are "constants". I guess you must mean the lottery balls themselves are variables. How exactly is that "too many"? How do they work against you? They don't know whose number they are drawing... See . . you and others are so obsessed with the "probability" aspect of your chances, that you don't see what "actually" goes on during the lottery. LOL @ what variables. - the fact that the total sample size ( number of combinations ) CHANGES, each time you go through the 3 pick selection process. - the fact that the outcome of the lottery can be significantly changed, depending on who gets that #1 pick, before the other 2 picks are decided. Those are the varibles that I'm talking about. There is nothing that is constant or fixed about this lottery. That's why it's been so unpredictable over the years. Oh I forgot, you don't look at history. Quote: OK. All in with KK vs. AK suited is almost precisely the probability that the #1 team gets a top 3 pick. You are wrong. Besides, I didn't say that KK vs 67 was "like the lottery". I was using that example to show how the fellow didn't understand probability. You are wrong again. Notice that I instructed him not to take my illustration literally and say "but we couldn't have been the worst team!" I did that because I knew that you concrete thinkers cannot think abstractly. Notice that you were not smart enough to avoid this error. Is it I that can't think abstractly, or is it you that can't think when given concrete numbers? It's funny, I can throw out statistics, FACTS and nubmers, even with different scenarios happening, to disprove what you guys say. But all you "tankers" can do, is throw out the probability numbers, try to use that as gospel, and not look at ANYTHING else to back up your claim. And none of you have yet to prove that what I'm saying is wrong. And I'm not even saying that your probabilities are wrong. I'm just saying that you're putting waaaaay too much stock in those probabilities, especially when it comes to the teams from 3rd - 6th. The nature of the lottery constantly proves that nothing is abstract, nor concrete, after that first selection comes down. Quote: This is still not entirely true. The #1 and #2 teams are LIKELY to get a top 3 pick. The #3 team is roughly 50/50. #1 is definitely likely to get a top 3 pick. The system is set up for them. If I said otherwise, I apologize. When it comes to #2 though, it really depends on if #1 is out of their way in the selection process. The 12 year trend of 2nd worst has show them pick #1 twice . . #2 once . . #3 once . . and #4 five times. Can you figure out why, or is the evidence too "concrete" for you to understand? Quote: Talking about having "a significant advantage compared to the field" is BS, too. Even if the #3 team is not more likely to get a top 3 pick than ALL OF TEAMS 4-14 combined, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYBODY (EXCEPT YOU) WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO PREFER BEING TEAM 14 (since team 14 is in the group 4-14, which is a favorite to get a pick over team 3). LOL . . of course I wouldn't want to be 14th. But that's not what you guys have been arguing over the past month. You guys have been selling that being #3 is significantly better than being at #5. And because of that, there is no other option for a team, but to get as low as they can, to increase their chances. My position all along, has been that a 3% or a 6% increase/decrease either way, really doesn't affect the outcome of the lottery, if you're not the worst team. Crying over being #5 as opposed to being #3, is silly. And that's what you guys have constantly done over the past month. At #3, the 2 worst teams in the draft have an advangage over you, as well as teams 4th - 14th. That's why if #3 doesn't land in that top spot, they're usually thrown completely out of the mix for a top 3 spot. The same goes with the # 5 team. LOL . . it's easy to understand. Quote: Let's turn around your silly logic. Let's use baseball, which is more of a numbers game. No one team in baseball is a favorite to win the world series. Even the best team is likely to not win the world series, due to the chance aspect of the game. Does that mean that you would prefer to not be the best team? Answer that question. It's not rhetorical. And another one of you guys problems, are that you use analogies that make no sense to your arguments. If you're going to use baseball, use this one. You the Atlanta Braves manager, and your opponent has a left-handed pitcher on the mound. You also have a man at 2nd base. You currently have a guy in Jeff Francour, who had the day off, who hits .300 against left handed pitching but also has a .429 average with runners in scoring position that you can sub in to pinch hit. Going to the plate, you have Chipper Jones, who is currently hitting .300 against left handed pitching, but only is hitting .222 with runners in scoring position. (( these are their actual numbers, by the way )) Your probability logic tells you that you'll probably replace Chipper with Chris, solely because he's more likely to get a base hit off of that left hander THIS YEAR and drive in a run, than Chipper will. My logic tells me that Chipper has been a big time player over the years, and it really doesn't matter to me if Jeff is more likely to get a hit THIS YEAR and drive the run in . . I'm still rolling with Chipper because I don't see a significant difference between the two. HISTORY has shown me that Chipper is the guy to have in this situation. And if the situation were reversed, I'd probably leave Jeff in to hit, instead of replacing him with Chipper, because Jeff can get it done as well. That's the difference between you and I . . and "tankers" and "anti-tankers". WE let things play itself out and roll with the consequences, whether it be good or bad.

Bus . . plus we were finally starting to get people off of injury, especially our PGs ( Lue and Speedy ). It's just a shame that we couldn't win a few more of those games after the All-Star break. The San Antonio and Phoenix games pretty much went down to the wire. And we just flat out blew the New Orleans, Washington, New York games. That 4 game win streak in early March, could've very easily have been a 7 out of 8 game win streak, if we'd held the lead in those 3 games that we blew. Yet, this loser crowd wanted to give up in January, just for a "chance" to get Oden or Durant. That loser mentality can go right out the door as far as I'm concerned.

Quote: CBA, I have to give you credit for responding to each and every one of these people who simply don't understand statistics. I wouldn't have the patience. The funny thing is that these people DO understand stats in certain contexts. Like you said, they know they'd rather have JJ take the last second shot than Ivey, even though both JJ and Ivey MIGHT make it and both JJ and Ivey MIGHT miss it. So they inherently get the concept that you want to go with the higher odds even if it's not a sure thing. But somehow, when it comes to the NBA lottery, they refuse to follow that same path of logic and just throw their hands up in the air and say "it's a lottery!" (( spinning merry-go round )) I understand statistics and probability perfectly. It's just that in the case of the lottery, probability has to take a backseat to actual outcomes. That's all my position has been on this from the jump. What you guys try to do, is make like a 10% increase in probability to get a top 3 pick overall, is some significant difference. The past 12 years of the lottery pretty much debunks that, because the difference between #3 and #5 isn't that significant at all. That's why out of the 36 possible spots to get a top 3 pick in the past 12 years, the #4 and #5 teams have gotten into the top 3 9 times, while the #2 and #3 teams have solidified top 3 picks 10 times. The #1 team has locked down a top 3 selection 11 times. Breakdown of 36 possible draft positions in the top 3 for the last 12 years. worst - 11 times ( 2 times at #1 ) 2nd - 4 times ( 1 time ) 3rd - 6 times ( 4 times ) 4th - 3 times ( 0 times . . hopefully, that will change for us ) 5th - 6 times ( 3 times ) 6th - 14th - 5 times ( 2 times ) Here are some more interesting numbers. Here are the number of times a particular team lands in the 2nd or 3rd position, if they don't secure the #1 spot, during the last 12 years. worst - 9 times 2nd - 3 times 3rd - 2 times 4th - 3 times 5th - 3 times 6th - 14th - 3 times We can spin those numbers any way we want, to fit our own arguments. What it tells me though, is that the #1 team has a significant advantage over the rest of the teams. Their chances of landing at #2 or #3 can increase to around 30 - 40% per position selection, by the time that 2nd and 3rd selection comes around. When you talk about those other teams, their best chance to crack the top 3, actually comes in the very first selection for the #1 spot. And why is that? It's because it's the only time that the #1 team will have just 1/4 ( 25% ) of the ping-pong ball combinations. If the 5th worst wants to crack into the top 3, this is the time where they are most likely to do it. As the selections go on, it becomes increasingly more difficult for those teams outside the top 3 to crack through. The funny thing is, I'm not disagreeing with you guys about the probabiliy that each team has to get a top 3 pick. I know that they increase, depending on how bad your record is. And I can even understand your rationale about how you can have some hope in the probability aspect of the draft concerning getting a top 3 pick. What I am disagreeing with you guys about, is the significance of those probabilities, when it comes to getting a top 3 pick. To me, there is a difference between being worst and 4th. But there is very little difference between being 3rd and 4th . . or 4th and 5th, because you're only moving up a few percentage points per selection. Yet, some of you guys have whined and cried about every single position that we moved up or down . . when it has been pretty clear for a while now, that we were going to land somewhere between 3rd and 5th. If you're the worst team, you're chances of landing at at least #3 increase significantly, if the #2 or #3 team lands in the top spot. Why? Because the number of possible total combinations decrease by about 15 - 20%. But if someone outside the top 3 lands in that spot, it puts the #3 team in extreme jeapordy of landing outside the top 3, with the #2 team on pins and needles. You guys talk about the probability of a top 3 pick, like the top 3 positions are set after the first set of numbers are drawn. Like the top 3 positions in this draft are chosen simultaneously. If that were the case, I'd be in total agreement with you guys. But it's not. It takes 3 sets of combinations of numbers to complete the draft lottery in a given year. And the past 12 years have proven that the lottery is significantly influenced by what team gets that #1 slot. If a team outside of the top 3 gets that #1 slot, the draft has been affected tremendously over the years. And if you go by the "small" sample size that we've seen over the past 12 years, that's happened 42% of the time. And here's what's funny about that. If you actually look at the chance of the top 3 teams getting that #1 pick in the 2007 draft . . worst - 25% 2nd - 20% 3rd - 16% total: 61% . . you'd clearly see that the chance of a team outside of that top 3 landing #1 this year, is around 39% . . which is pretty close to the statistical average that has been shown over the past 12 years. LOL . . so much for the small sample size. So when you're the #3 team, you can live with the worst or 2nd worst getting that #1 pick, because they collectively have a 45% chance in doing so. But when the 3rd team stacks their 16% chance up against the 4th - 14th teams, which have a 39% chance, you see how that could be a problem. And when you look at it like that, you can even see where the worst team ( 25% vs 39% ) has had problems securing that top spot over the years. Like I've always said. I wish this entire process were shown live, selection by selection. You'd clearly see what I'm talking about. Those are just facts . . not probabilities.

LOL @ 22/7 players being a 2nd option on a team. Those numbers are usually what the main option guys get, and it gets you borderline all-star consideration. I think we all know that Marvin was the "wrong" pick, simply because Paul could've stepped in and immeadiately been a starter at PG. Marvin would've had to be very, very good right out the gate, to displace Al or Smoove out of that 3 or 4 spot. Paul, on the other hand, only had to beat out Lue. That's easier said than done, because Woody likes his vets, and Lue, when going offensively, isn't a bad player to have on the team. Having said that, I can't complain too much about Marvin, because he's probably progressing exactly at the rate he should be progressing, seeing that he isn't looked at as being the go-to-guy, like Lebron, Melo, Carter, and Big Dog were. With Smoove probably firmly establishing himself as the #2 option, people may have to settle for Marvin being a 13 - 17 ppg scorer and a 5 - 7 rbg guy, unless Marvin becomes an aggressive slasher, as well as a good mid-range shooter. But I want to see that FG% dramatically increase to around the 47% - 50% range. No more 43% shooting from the 3 spot after this season.

That definitely has to be the most points this season in a quarter . . at least in the first quarter. Great to see Marvin, Smoove and Shelden ALL having very good games up to this point. Let's see if the Hawks will dial it down once the end of the 2nd quarter comes.

Quote: Hibbert and it's not even close. Why? Brandan and Julian Wright and Horford are the next best players but they all are 6'9. We can't have Smoove with somebody the same height as him in the frontcourt. We just can't. Hibbert at 7'3 allows Smoove to play the 4 finally giving us a legit interior presence at 5 for the first time since Mutombo. And speaking of Mutombo, Hibbert has the Georgetown pedigree. Gotta like his chances. Totally agree with you Bus. And I'll definitely do this, if we have both the #3 and #11 - #12 pick. If you have both picks, you address both issues at PG and C. If not, you probably go best player available. Ironically, the BPA after Oden and Durant, may very well be Corey Brewer, who will be an absolute defensive terror in the NBA. You take Hibbert at #3 and you take Acie Law at #11 or #12. If you take Conley #3, who do you take at #11 or #12? If you believe the "experts" at Draftexpress.com, the next 2 best centers are . . - Tiago Splitter ( 7-0 . . 245 . . 20 yrs old . . TAU Vitoria ) - Spencer Hawes ( 7-0 . . 240 . . freshman at U. of Washington ) If you believe nbadraft.net, the next 2 best are . . - Yi Jianlian ( 7-0 . . 230 . . 22 yrs old . . Guangdong Tigers combo PF/C . . who's NBA comparison is Pau Gasol, but won't be available after the top 10 according to them. Interesting . . his defensive and strength ratings are a 6 out of 10, pretty weak for their ratings system. ) - Roy Hibbert ( 7-2 . . 278 . . 20 yrs old from Georgetown . . who they compare to Joel Przybilla . . or to Big Z on other websites, with athleticism and quickness being his weak points. His strength is his size. He won't be available after the top 10 according to them either. ) So I think we'd risk getting some scrub big mam who can't play a lick of defense and might be limited on offense, if we pass on Hibbert at #3. There's no indication that Thabeet is coming out. Otherwise, we could gamble on him falling out of the top 10, and go ahead and take Conley #3. But right now, Thabeet is strictly a one-dimensional shot blocker that a team wouldn't dare risk picking at #3 or in the top 5 for that matter. If we go Hibbert - Law, you're at least bringing guys who are pretty good offensively, and aren't terrible on defense. Both guys should be able to contribute right away off the bench, with Hibbert maybe getting the start at center by default. Law could give us everything that Lue or Salim gives us, plus a little extra on defense. The Hibbert-Law combo is the safest route to go, if we wanted to effectively address both issues at PG and C. And you're definitely right Bus. Hibbert alongside Smoove should definitely help him. LOL . . but all of this speculation just shows you how uncertain that #3 pick is. Teams aren't "tanking" to get into the top 3. They're doing it for a chance to get into the top 2.

Quote: Quote: Quote: What if we get lucky and get #1 pick in the draft from 4th worst record?? Than you will be wrong right? You never know! This is incredibly poor logic. If we get the #1 pick with the 4th worst record, we will have gotten lucky. If we got the #1 pick with the worst record, we would have gotten lucky. In hindsight, in either case, we would look back and say we wouldn't have done it any other way. However, looking forward, we can say for certain that to get the #1 pick as the worst team requires far less luck than to get it as the #4 team. BTW, I know you're already thinking about replying with "but we couldn't have been the worst team". Before you do that, please consider that I was using the #1 and #4 worst records for the purposes of an illustration. I am just saying that there is no point in arguing over 3rd or 4th worst record. You can still get #1 pick with both spots and you can drop also. I know we have couple of percents more if we get 3rd worst but it's eithier you lucky or not. It's lottery for god sake. (( clapping )) Exactly. It's a lottery.

LOL . . you better check your history then. History shows that the top team gets in that top 3 almost 75% of the time. History also shows that the 5th team has had more top 3 picks, than both the 2nd and 3rd place teams. LOL . . hell, history has shown that finishing #3 is acutally better than finishing #1, seeing that the 3rd team has gotten the top pick twice as many times as the worst team. More importantly, the history shows that a team outside of the top 4, will enter that top 3 almost 70% of the time . . which means that someone in the top 3 is going to drop completely out of the mix. Translation = the lottery is a total crap shoot if you're not the #1 team. There are too many varibles in this system that work against you, to secure the position that you really want. And that poker scenario is bogus. There is NEVER a situation in this draft, where your odds = having a K-K. Never. It's more like having a pair of 5's or a J-8. No one team has a significant advantage in the lottery, compared to the field. And that's who you're competing against . . the entire field . . not team by team.

LOL @ far less luck. Even the #1 team has a 75% chance of NOT getting that top pick. That's why the #1 team has only gotten the top pick in the draft only 2 times since they've changed the lottery format in 1995. They have better odds than each team. But in reality, the field is stacked against them. Even you acknowlege that the #1 team has to get "lucky" to get that #1 pick. And you're exactly right with that statement. The system is nothing but a luck system that relies solely on the fall of the ping pong balls. With the way Boston obviously tried to lose games after Pierce went down, and could've brought back Pierce probably 2 weeks earlier than they did . . it would serve them right to fall to #4, and be forced to take a redundant player like an Al Horford or a Noah, instead of acquring a stud like Durant or Oden. (( top Draft conspiracy theories )) 1. Because the league needs Boston to be good, they end up with the #1 pick in the draft. Oden would immeadiately improve Boston to playoff status. 2. Because of Chicago's loyalty as a basketball town, they "magically" end up with the #1 pick, via the Knicks. It would be the ultimate slap in the face to Isaiah, plus, it would give the East a team to elevate to the level of the top western teams for years to come. 3. Because the league severly punished McHale and because they feel sorry for KG ( much like the league felt sorry for David Robinson during the 90s ), the T-Wolves land the #1 pick, and draft Oden 4. Because of Hurricane Katrina, the NBA feels the need to throw the Hornets a "bone", and give them the #1 pick. If the Hornets took Oden, their version of the Twin Towers ( Oden and Chandler ) could make them instant title contenders. If they chose Durant, they may become one of the more exciting teams in the league. In ether case, it's a win-win for the NBA and New Orleans. - - - - 39. Because the NBA feels sorry for the Hawks, they give them the #1 pick.

Quote: your disappointment is based on draft pick expectations and Marvins own inability to be consistent in the post at this point in his career. Woodson hasn't turned him into anything, he's simply using him in the way that's going to get the most consistency out of him at the NBA level and at this point in his career. Marvin's strong suit up to this point hasn't been post play, it's been his smooth jumper (and even that has failed him at times) and his ability to take people off the dribble and get into the paint (which improved a good bit as the season went on). Marvin's development is coming along just fine and would likely be further along if it were not for the injuries. Despite the differences in their games, you need not look any further than Josh Smith for proof of this. His second year stats are almost a mirror of Josh's in his second season and just like Josh, Marvin still has a lot of improvement left in him. Nobody is disappointed in what we've gotten from Josh this year and they shouldn't be disappointed in Marvin. It's hard not to put high expectations on him because of where he was drafted, but we have to keep it all in perspective. He was drafted as a young, raw player with lots of potential and we have to keep that in mind when placing expectations on him. Excellent post. These cry-baby fans see #2 pick, and think he should be a superstar right away. Well, most #2 picks aren't. I'd gladly take 13 ppg and 6 rebs from Marvin this year. But I wanted the FG% to be higher, at least over 45%. Let's see if he'll become a more efficient scorer next year and possibly get to the line a little more. If he can do that, it'll help this team tremendously, espeically if a guy like JJ or Smoove is having a bad night.

Exactly. These cry-baby fans kill me. But they make me laugh at the same time.

And this is what you tankers obvously don't realize. Who do you give AJ's minutes to? Who do you play and not play? And if you're obviously trying to sabotage the lineup in order to lose games, do you completely lose the respect of a guy like Smoove or Chill ( before he got hurt )? I'm surprised with all of this basketball knowledge on the board, that some of you continue to say the most ridiculous things. If you shut down one player, you give opportunity to another player. And when you do that, you'll normally see the bench player rise to the occasion, and play way better than anyone thought he could play. The AJ deal was a very good one to make for a team that was a mere 5 games out of 8th place, with the 6th and 8th place teams at the time ( Orlando and Indy ) freefalling like a skydiver jumping out of a plane. To give up at that point, when a 4 game win streak could cut that gap to 2 - 4 games ( which is exactly what happened in March . . we cut the gap to 3.5 games ), is a LOSER'S MENTALITY. But who do you give AJ's minutes to? A guy like Salim, who had been struggling all year and always had trouble playing the point? 15 games since JJ went down: 12.8 ppg 50% FG ( highest of his career in a 15 game span ) 42% 3 FG 1.1 turnovers ( which is an incredible number for Salim ) **** Do you give them to Shelden Williams, a guy who has fought injury all year and struggling to find his niche? Shelden's numbers the past 7 games. He's played at least 26 minutes in the past 7 games: 11.6 ppg 12 rpb 56% FG ( highest of his career in a 7 game span ) *** How about ZaZa? Do you give him more minutes? Numbers since JJ went down: 15 ppg 7.7 rebs 54% FG **** And what you obviously haven't figured into the equation, are the injuries. - Does JJ still get hurt in your "tank" scenario? - How about Childress? - Does Lue get his legs back under him, and start playing decent ball? - What about Smoove? You can't tell athletes not to play hard, because the athlete himself has to look out for his best interest. It's always in the player's best interest to go all-out, if not for anything, for a team to possibly become interested in acquiring him. Because of that, a team will have to convince ( or pay off ) their team doctor to basically lie to the athlete, making a sprained ankle an injury that needs 2 - 3 weeks rest, instead of 2 - 3 days of rest. You make a calf injury, that may need 2 - 3 weeks rest, an injury that requires 2 months rest. I guarantee you that's exactly what they're telling some of these guys right now, in order to keep them off the court. They're probably telling them to err on the side of caution. Don't come back too soon, because you could do more damage to yourself. And it's probably just not us doing that, the entire league is probably doing that. That's how you effectively tank . . . . keep your best players off the court by LYING to them about the severity of their injuries . . or you trade them away altogether. Otherwise, all of those methods you talk about, could easily backfire and lead to wins, with a healthy Hawks squad. LOL @ still crying about a 3% chance per position, when the odds clearly state that the rest of the teams have an 80 - 90% chance of landing that particular pick, before you do. Don't be shocked when 5th worst gets the top pick . . 1st worst gets the 2nd pick . . and 6th worst gets the 3rd pick. The lottery has NEVER fell in order since they've changed the format. And the only time it's come close to doing that, was when Charlotte was basically handed the 2nd pick, and the worst team got #1 and the 2nd worst got #3. I think one other time, you had two teams tied for either 1st or 2nd, and they both got into the top 3. Every other time, some team outside the top 3 worst, has jumped one, two, or all 3 teams, and landed a top 3 pick.

FIBA b-ball is vastly different than NBA b-ball. Throw the best FIBA team in the NBA, and they'll struggle to win 20 games. Throw the Hawks in the FIBA world championship tournament, and they might be a top 4 team, if not win the entire thing.

It's not even about that mono. It's about how he plays on the NBA level. Just because a college kid can score 30 points a game in the Ohio Valley Conference, doesn't mean that he'll be a good player in the NBA. Now if he did that in the Big 12, he'll be the #2 pick in the draft.

That's a good point Gray. Until this ownership mess is solved, I'm sure that Belkin will try to get in the way of just about everything he has a small say over. If they fire Woody, they better have a competent replacement in mind, and not just some guy that wants an NBA job, without all of the NBA hassles. A vet coach would be a nice fit for us. Too bad we can't talk Hubie Brown out of retirement.

LOL . . Batista is a straight up bum on the NBA level. There have been plenty of international players that people thought would excel on the NBA level, only to have them completely turn into benchwarmers or spot role players. Remember the hype that Sarunas Jasikevicus got after the 2004 Olympics? People were sure that he could play on the NBA level and be one of the top guards in the league. Now look at him . . buried on the bench in G-State. We'll let Batista go, and that'll probably be his last stop in the NBA, until he shows that he can be a viable offensvie threat, and not just a defensive rebounding hack.

Quote: Given his rotations, too many minutes for JJ, not developing other talent as an option to JJ when other teams would double and triple team him, inept moves, etc, etc . . . . how many games do you think Woody cost us this year? I can think of a half-dozen pretty easy. LOL @ this thread. Smoove, Marvin, and Chill all improved this year, unless I missed something. But some of you guys are mad that Salim, Batista, and Solomon didn't develop? LOL. LOL @ blaming the coach for not having a 2nd option to go to whenever JJ was double and triple teamed. Funny, at the beginning of the season, teams wouldn't DARE do that to us, because Lue and Chill were knocking down shots. Isn't it ironic that we started to lose, once those two guys got hurt? Facts are facts fellas. Say what you want about Woody, but hardly any coach in this league could make this team any more better with the injuries we had. He's far from a great coach, we all know that. But he isn't clueless either. But it's hard to know how good of a coach he truly can be, with people constantly in and out of the lineup. Every team that suffered multiple and significant injuries, fell off the face of the earth, with the exception of the Houston Rockets. And the only reason they didn't fall off, is that they only really had one guy hurt this year. Other than Yao, none of their top people went down for more than 10 games this season. Matter of fact, most of their core people haven't missed more than 4 games this year. It's hard to develop any type of cohesiveness, when you constantly have guys getting hurt. Call it an excuse if you want. But it's an excuse that almost no coach in the league can overcome. Those are just plain facts. If we get rid of Woody, the guy that we bring in better have a better track record of success, either as a head coach or as an assistant, than Woody does. Firing him, just to be firing him, may be counterproductive at this point. And keep that bum Batista on the bench or off the team altogether. I'll never figure out the fascination that some of you guys have with him. I'd rather play ZaZa 48 minutes a night, than to see Batista set foot on the court.

Quote: Quote: "The best big men." I think this is the statement that needs the most examination. Are they the best big men because they are on winning teams and doing well? What about the Other guys?? Let's name some: Dwight Howard. Zach Randolph. Andrew Bogut. Eddy Curry. Elton Brand. Jermaine Oneal. Kevin Garnett. Emeka Okafor. Tyson Chandler. I would say that all of these Big men are pretty good. Some Allstars, some should be allstars... Are you telling me that you don't consider these guys "good big men" because their teams are not elite? And if you consider them "good big men" why aren't their teams elite? I haven't opened up the comparison yet, but consider we take the best PG and the best big and compare their teams "eliteness"... What do you think we'd find? How many guys on your list are true centers? Most of those guys would be consider PFs in the old days. Randoplph on the list as a true center is especially laughable. Actually, most centers in the old days would be considered PFs in today's game. Olajuwon: 6-10 . . 250 ( smaller than ZaZa ) Moses Malone: 6-10 . . 215 ( thinner than Marvin ) Bill Laimbeer: 6-11 . . 245 Jack Sikma: 6-11 . . 230 James Edwards: 7-0 . . 225 The centers 20 years ago had the height, but few had the bulk that the PFs even have now. A guy like a Zack Randolph could've easily played center 20 years ago, because he has the weight to bang with people on the block, if need be. The game is different now. The glamour position is at SF and SG. That's where the majority of your talent in the league is located.

I'm just saying Walter. We saw how Larry Brown flat out refused to give his kids significant minutes in New York. With Woody being a Larry disciple, I could easily see a situation in which Paul and Lue split time, with Lue being the starter and the one in the game at the end. Chris would have to completely prove that he's better than Ty, to get the start. (( edit . . because I initially said this backwards )) 30 games may have given him enough time to earn that starting position, but that's only if the combination of Lue starting, and Paul coming off the bench, weren't enabling us to be a successful team. If not, then Paul probably plays a role coming off the bench in place of Lue, because this is what is successful. You never know though. I could easily see Woody playing Lue 30 minutes a game, and Paul 24.

Quote: I hope we win all four. At least get us over 30 wins this year. I know we need that top 3 pick but we proboaly wont fall that low anyways. Still the lottery gives us a chance doesnt it? NO. We have no shot whatsoever if we win the remaining 4 games. Shoot, we're at #4 right now. The off-season is a total failure.

Gotta factor in the coach too. Woody loves Lue, and would've played him over Paul, until Paul proved that he was an upgrade over Lue. Same goes for Roy, when comparing him to Chill or Marvin. People have to realize that Roy and Paul went to perfect situations for them to immeadiately have an impact on their teams. That may or may not have been the case here. A lot of times, it all depends on where a player goes, when you talk about success. Carmelo may or may not be the player that he is now, if he'd gone #2 like he should've, to the Pistons. He'd be the 6th man on that team because they probably don't sit Tayshawn Prince in order to play Melo, even if Melo is the better offensive talent. Prince's all-around game at that time was valuable for the Pistons, and he probably doesn't lose his starting job to a Rookie.

No they didn't. Most people thought Marvin COULD BE more talented than Deron or Chris. There is a difference. It's like saying that most people Olowokandi was more talented than Bibby or a Vince Carter ( who was taken #5 that year ). I don't think anybody believed that. But the Clippers that year desperately needed a big, and they believed that Olowokandi had the best POTENTIAL of any big in that draft that year. They didn't think a guy like Bibby or a Vince Carter would help them in the long run, more than Kandi would . . IF . . he developed into a nice big man.

. . to something written on this board about 3 - 4 weeks ago. http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/showflat....3738&Forum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Main=203738&Search=true&where=&Name=928&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post203738 LOL . . I wonder if we have a "Hawksquawk spy" on the ESPN payroll. In all seriousness, the article just points out the facts . . not probabilities or statistics. Big difference between "what if" and "what really is".

LOL. The cat is schizophrenic, I tell ya. Either that, or he's using NBA Live logic to assemble the Hawks.