TheNorthCydeRises

I agreed with everything you said, until you came to this statement. Because what happens in sports, is that even if the analytics favor a player, your biases can deter you from bringing him in. And it can work the opposite way as well. If you don't like a person, the numbers almost have to overwhelm you in his favor, in order for that person to set aside the negative beliefs, and see what he actually does. That's why the Carmelo Anthony debate is so baffling to me. That dude played at a 1ST TEAM ALL-NBA level last year, but didn't make a single All-NBA team, because the negative bias against Melo saw him as a guy who can't elevate his team to the next level. But this is what the raw AND analytical numbers showed about Melo's game last year. 27.4 ppg 8.1 rebs 3.1 asst 1.2 stls 0.7 blks FG% - 45.2% 3FG% - 40.2% FT% - 84.8% PER - 24.4 TS% - 56.1% eFG% - 50.3% ORtg - 113 DRtg - 108 Win Score - 10.7 Win Score/48 - .172 Matter of fact, the last 2 seasons that Melo have had, by analytic standards, were 2 of his best seasons of his career. But because of the negative perception of Carmelo as a star in this league, people act like he's underachieving or not good enough. That's why he calls himself "the most underrated superstar in the league", and people have a damn fit when he says it. IF they actually looked at the numbers, they'd see why he says that about himself. The reality of the NBA is this though. Without other All-Star talent around you, you're not winning a damn thing in this league . . no matter who you are.

I hate to break this to you, but Jefferson at 13.5 million compared to Millsap at 9.5 million, isn't much of an issue. Not when we're still 5+ million under the salary cap right now. Instead of looking at it like it's Millsap + Thabo + DMC . . you should look at it like it's Millsap + Brand + Antić. Those are the "bigs" on the team. You subtract those 3 ( which equals about 12.75 million for this season ) and the difference between them and Jefferson is a mere $750,000. This is your team if we'd added Jefferson, but not had Millsap, Brand, and Antić Starters PG - Teague G - Korver F - Carroll PF - Horford C - Jefferson Bench G - Mack G - Schröder G - Jenkins G - Bazemore G/F - Sefolosha F - Scott F - Payne F/C - Muscala That's 13 players on the roster, with the ability to add 2 more if need be. And like I said, you'd still could play Horford at Center with the 2nd unit, in a lineup like this PG - Mack/Schröder G - Jenkins F - Sefolosha PF - Scott C - Horford And you'd have much more opportunity to develop the young bigs like Payne and Muscala if need be, if you wanted to give them more time at the backup C spot, or play them as a stretch PF. Maybe a mixed lineup like this. PG - Teague G - Korver F - Sefolosha PF - Payne C - Jefferson Or a really big and active lineup like this PG - Mack G - Sefolosha F - Carroll PF - Horford C - Jefferson A lot of the people on this very board argue that "positions don't matter anymore". Yet, whenever the subject comes up with moving Horford to PF, while still playing him spot minutes at center, excuses come out the woodwork as to why we couldn't add a center on the team. I think deep down, most of the fan base knows we blew a great chance to really balance out this team and create a very good and versatile frontline that could play in a variety of ways and against a variety of teams. I don't put much stock in preseason, but the Detroit game is a prime example of how lack of size can affect the Hawks at times. As soon as Horford went out of the game, the team looked like crap, because the Detroit bigs were just too big and powerful to contain. And honestly, if Van Gundy can find a way to maximize the effectiveness of his 3 big players, Detroit becomes a dark horse team to make the playoffs. I'm assuming that he's going to tell Josh to be a playmaker when the other 2 are in the game with him, and a scorer around the rim when one of them are out.

And that's why we're in the spot we are in now. Millsap's "metrics" were better than Al Jefferson's "metrics". But if you swap Jefferson for Millsap, the Hawks are a top 3 seed in this conference . . hands down. Why? Because Jefferson's "metrics" provides everything that the Hawks lack. Elite defensive rebounding. Elite post scoring. A big body that could move Horford to PF, while also giving them the "flexibility" to also still play him at center at times.

No he's not, because I was one of the people who were saying that Harden was going to be a star. His analytic numbers were off the charts. The main problem with analytics, is that people try to compare the stats of players who may play the game in two entirely different ways. Kyle Korver is a much better shooter than Kobe Bryant. But he isn't a better SCORER than Kobe, because Kyle can't get his shot off vs pressure defense, nor create his own shot on occasion. So when you see shooting statistics that say that Kyle is a better shooter, people have to keep in mind that a spot up shooter's game is far different than a "main scorer's" game. Kyle isn't asked to score 20 points a game. He's simply asked to make open shots. Kobe is not only asked to score 20 points a game, he's asked to make extremely difficult shots ( sometimes even during crunch time ). As for Harden, that dude had star scorer all over him. He could handle the rock, shoot off the dribble, go strong to the hole, and even be a playmaker if need be. I saw that in him even before the numbers validated what he was. As for Joe Johnson, the same remains when talking about him. While people may love Kyle Korver and see him as a better shooter ( which he is ), he isn't a better SCORER than JJ, and can't make the difficult crunch time plays that JJ can. If people simply didn't leave Korver open, his effect on a game is greatly diminished. But for scorers, they can have an effect on a game even if they are double teamed at times. That's why so-called "chuckers" make much more money than spot up shooters. Those shooters are actually dependent on the chuckers to draw people toward them, so that the shooter can receive a pass from the chucker for a wide open shot.

You really have to ask? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdiefeNfg1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL7Uh8_yl-4

I do it all the time. People just hate the players ( the non-superstar, but All-Star caliber type players ) I come up with.

Can't see the stats when they are left alone, but nba.com does provide player tracking stats on catch and shoot shots and pull up jumper shots Catch and Shoot % on all jumpers Korver - 51.1% . . ( 5.9 FGA ) Curry - 48.9% . . . ( 3.0 FGA ) Dirk - 47% . . . . . . ( 7.5 FGA ) Durant - 39.7% . . ( 4.8 FGA ) Catch and Shoot % on 3 pointers Korver - 49.9% . . ( 4.8 FGA ) Curry - 48.2% . . . ( 2.5 FGA ) Dirk - 39.9% . . . . ( 3.7 FGA ) Durant - 38.2% . . ( 3.2 FGA ) Pull Up Shots on all jumpers Dirk - 47.4% . . . . ( 5.0 FGA ) Curry - 43.7% . . . ( 10.3 FGA ) Durant - 42.8% . . ( 8.2 FGA ) Korver - 39.4% . . ( 2.0 FGA ) Pull Up Shots on 3 pointers Durant - 41.1% . . ( 2.7 FGA ) Curry - 39.5% . . . ( 5.2 FGA ) Korver - 38.5% . . ( 0.6 FGA ) Dirk - 36% . . . . . . ( 0.3 FGA ) Just by looking at this, I may have to change my mind and say that Curry is the most versatile shooter.

Kyle is the best pure shooter. Dirk, Curry, and Durant ( in that order ), are the most versatile shooters in the league

Honestly, that writer is no more than an "expert" than some of the hardcore bloggers on this site. He's doing some of the same things some of us have done over the years to prove our arguments "right", or try to disprove the arguments of others. The article is factual in the sense that Horford is a very good 2 way player that is extremely important to this team. And he posts very good numbers from the center position. I believe that he is a legit All-Star and a borderline top 20 player in the NBA. The writer's argument is a valid one, as are the arguments that some of the people have given on this site about Horford playng center. But this management team can't keep rationalizing NOT bringing in a decent quality center here, just because Horford puts up numbers at the center position. Why? Because this team is still in the lower half of EAST playoff teams. And when things get extremely tough in the playoffs, it's our frontcourt that routinely gets exposed as being undersized and not tough enough. One of the main character traits of a "superstar", is a guy who possesses the OFFENSIVE ability to put a team on his back during crunch time, take over the game, and win the game in the closing moments ( if need be ). It's no coincidence that some of the playoff series we've lost over the years ( Boston, Chicago, Indiana ) featured big and/or physical frontlines that are defensive minded, which the Hawks simply couldn't overcome. Then add the fact that a few of those teams ALSO had a "superstar" on the team, you see what the problem is. This is Horford at his "center" best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSbGoD7Z2dk Maneuvering around the rim and scoring. Getting on the boards. Using his speed to beat or get around other centers. THAT'S "superstar" Horford that you're seeing right here.But ask yourself this: is this the norm ( or even close to the norm ) for Horford at center? IF he played like this on more nights than not, you wouldn't hear anyone talking about him moving to center. To start calling Horford a "superstar", at the minimum, he needs to be a legit 20 point - 10 rebound a game player. So let's see how the Hawks fare when he plays at that 20 and 10 level . . . opposed to when he doesn't. When he scored 20 points or more, the Hawks were 10 - 3 When he scored less than 20 points, the Hawks were 6 - 10 How about rebounding? Hawks are 7 - 3 when he grabs 10 rebounds or more Hawks are 9 - 13 when he grabs less than 10 rebounds He only hit that 20 and 10 level in 5 games last season. Hawks were 4 - 1. How about when he barely missed it ( >20 points but 8 or 9 rebounds . . or 18 - 19 points and >10 rebounds ) . . . Hawks were 5 - 1 So that's basically a 9 - 2 record when Horford is playing at, over, or very close to the 20 point - 10 rebound level. The problem is . . . that only represents 38% of the games he played in. When he didn't play at the 20 and 10 level in the other 62% of games, the Hawks were 7 - 11. It would be very nice if the Hawks had a guy here that could legitimately be a starting center, while moving Horford to PF . . . and also give us the ability to play Horford at C when the starting C is not on the floor, keeping the lineup balanced on the frontline. Instead, we play and start Horford, but have a HUGE dropoff when he comes out of the game, because we're depending on one dimensional players to be the backup. If we're going to keep going with Horford at center, Mike Scott has to develop to the point in which he's not hurting us on either end of the floor. He essentially has to become a good enough player to be the #1 scorer on the 2nd team, that can CONSISTENTLY scorer at a starter's level, if need be.

You guys are forgetting a plethora of teams, namely out West.

He had his lowest Defensive rating in the 2011 - 12 season, when he posted a defensive rating of 96. That rated him 5th in the league. He also had 4.9 defensive win shares, which was #1 in the NBA that year. In his final 4 years in ATL, Smith had Defensive Ratings of 101 - 102 - 96 - 101 Millsap has never had a Defensive Rating lower than 102 at any point in his NBA career. Millsap is by far and away the better offensive player, and overall, slightly better than Smith.

It's a belief by a few ( not most ) but a few fans that we're doing something really groundbreaking here. That Bud's system can conquer all, even if he don't have many high level players on the roster.

I'm not forgetting anything. Maybe you're forgetting that Smith was one of the best help defenders in the league. Or that Smith routinely guarded 3 positions on the floor at times. On defense, Millsap can't hold a candle to Smith. And vice versa when talking about Smith on offense compared to Millsap. I'm sorry man. But until this current regime of players actually accomplishes SOMETHING, I'm not going to let people just trash the former group of players like they were garbage players or something. They may have all driven us crazy at one point or another, but they were DAMN GOOD for the most part, when they were here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdR5wJlPeR4

Hilarious. People around here should know better to make sweeping judgements off of preseason, especially after just one preseason game. The first one at that. And let's not panic over Schröder just yet. Honestly, the only thing I'm looking at during preseason, is if guys can do what they're "advertised" to do. And by the final few preseason games, is the team looking like they're ready for the regular season.

Maybe offensively. Definitely not defensively. Smith is definitely better defensively than Millsap, while Millsap is definitely better offensively than Smith. The difference of the overall team impact between Smith and Millsap is small. On a scale of 1 to 10 . . . . if Smith rated as a 7, Millsap would be a 7.5

It's such a clean look. The logo pops right out at you. I love the blue out of bounds with the white lettering, as opposed to the brown out of bounds with the blue lettering. It's easily one of the better looking courts in the league.

Be careful what you wish for. You sell 100% to an owner who has no real reason to commit fully to Atlanta, and it could lead to disaster for the city and the franchise. Especially when you have 3 markets ( Seattle, Kansas City, and Anaheim ) that could easily support another team. While Gearon SHOULD be gone, if I'm picking a faction of ownership to roll with, it's definitely the Atlanta group. They're the ones that could at least advise the new ownership on what the Atlanta market is all about. A sole owner who has enough money to buy everybody out, is also a guy with enough money to buy the Hawks out of their lease at Philips, and move the team. While improbable, that scenario is not impossible. And whose to say that a new owner keeps ANY of these guys in power . . . from Ferry, to Bud, to even Koonin and Nique. The NBA may say RIGHT NOW that they're committed to Atlanta, but this league has always followed the money trail. They've allowed 4 franchises to move just in the past 15 years, more than any of the big 4 professional sports leagues. If you guys don't trust the mayor's involvement in this, or trust that the Atlanta people within the Hawks organization right now can't be trusted, how can you trust an owner who may be a complete outsider to Atlanta?

They signed an insurance policy to a 3 year deal?

It was the last question he was asked on a great interview that took place yesterday on Sirius/XM - NBA Radio. The hosts basically asked who were his picks for the NBA Finals. He thought for about a second, and said "How about this. Atlanta and San Antonio." Nique is always representing for the Hawks. From my memory, here were the highlights of the 15 minute or so interview, which covered all topics concerning his career and the Hawks. - He's very excited about having his statue at Philips, and said that it was 7 years in the making . . and a long time coming. Didn't reveal which dunk pose it will be, but I think most of us have an idea of what it will be. The Windmill Dunk. - When asked about his new position in the organization, he said that he's now going to be involved with the basketball AND business side of the Hawks. He said the expanded role was, once again . . "a long time coming". As far as being part of an ownership group, he didn't elaborate on if he would or wouldn't be part of a group. - When asked about the Ferry situation, he said that he was a forgiving person, but said "measures have to be put in place so that never happens again". To me, what was interesting about his extended answer to this question, was not only did he stop short of saying that he forgave Ferry, he kept going back to saying that "right is right and wrong is wrong". Doesn't sound like much forgiveness coming from Nique concerning Ferry. Kind of wonder that if there is a lot more animosity there that we don't know about. - Said that his favorite Hawk team to play on, were those mid-80s Hawks teams, and that the 80s era of NBA basketball was the best era. Described it as a MONSTER, because you were going up against a legendary player every night. Even bad teams were good enough to beat you on a nightly basis. - While saying that he feared no one out on the court, the guy that really gave him a lot of trouble was Bernard King. He cited how hard it was to stop King. Interesting that he didn't say Jordan or Bird, but King. The one guy he looked forward to playing against, was Kelly Tripucka. - Said that Lebron and Durant are so good, that they could play in any era. He gushed about the shooting ability of Durant at 6-11 . . and how Lebron was an all-time great athlete. - When talking about the Hawks, he basically gushed on and on about Al Horford as a player and as a leader. Basically said that the entire season hinges on his health. - Is still bugged that he didn't make the 50 Greatest NBA Players of all time list, despite being 6th or 7th leading scorer in NBA history at the time. Felt he was penaltized for his lack of playoff success. and never reaching the Conference Finals ( I cited earlier in the week that Nique was 3 - 8 all time in playoff series ). The hosts of the radio show compared this to Chris Paul, who is a great player, but has never reached the Conference Finals. - Nique and the hosts also cited that he never played with a great player in his prime. Nique feels that hurt his legacy as a player as well. While a few guys made some All-Star teams, only Kevin Willis made an All-NBA team during Nique's tenure as a Hawk. But that was partially because Nique got hurt 1/2 way into the 1991 - 92 season, which enabled Willis to be the focal point of the Hawks, and be 2nd in the league in rebounding, only behind Dennis Rodman. ************* This was arguably the best interview I've ever heard from Nique. The guy doesn't lack confidence, and it showed in his voice when talking about his basketball career, and talking about his executive duties being expanded. Sirius NBA Radio doesn't have the entire interview ( from what I can see ), but they did have this snippet of when Nique was talking about the statue and his expanded position with the Hawks. https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmnba/dominique-wilkins-on-nba-today-discusses-his-statue-and-the-latest-in-the-hawks-leadership

Now all we need are some statistics on 1st free throw missed or made by each player, to see how that would affect scoring.

No it can't be fixed by simply telling everyone else to rebound more. If that were the case, all we had to do last year was to tell people to rebound better. Rebounding is about positioning, desire, toughness, and smarts. Positioning you can coach up. The other 3 attributes are normally internal player traits, with desire being the most important attribute of them all. The great rebounders all wanted to go after that ball and get it ... at all costs. As good as a Horford - Millsap frontcourt is ... a Horford - DeAndre Jordan frontcourt could be dynamic, and turn Horford into an elite PF.

Big mistake if he starts shooting a "ton of 3's". If he starts taking timely 3s, I'd have no problem with that, if he could make a high percentage. The last thing we need though, is another guy looking to jack up 3 to 4 threes a game, and only shooting a mediocre percentage from that range. Horford is a midrange MONSTER. I don't want to lose the efficiency from that area of his offense, just for the sake of expanding his range. We saw EXACTLY what it did to Chris Bosh. He was a guy that went from attempting an acceptable 74 threes . . . to 218 threes ( shooting 34% from that range ). If Horford can't shoot in the high 30% range from 3, we don't need him jacking up a ton of 3s just to be doing it.

Too many coincidences huh? No expanded role or statue for Nique before all of this. Once the shyt hits the fan though, he gets an advisory role right next to the CEO, and his statue . . . with the other 2 guys ( Levenson and Ferry ) out of the picture? Just too many coincidences, I guess.

Dirk's shot chart is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think I've ever seen a chart like this before. Especially not from a #1 option type scorer. http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=1717 And even with the red spots in the corner, you can virtually negate that, seeing that he hardly ever takes corner 3's, which is surprising for him. Imagine he and Korver on the same team, with a few athletic slashers and a low post scorer on the team. Korver's chart is ridiculous too. Just wished he had an off the dribble game, so he could get off more shots. http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=2594

Did you look at the numbers to see if it actually validated your beliefs? If not, you may not like the shot charts on Millsap. http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=200794 http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=200794&zone-mode=basic http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/plus/shooting.cgi?player_id=millspa01&year_id=2014&is_playoffs=0 I think what shocked me the most, was how much he struggled from the midrange. I knew he wasn't great, but not that bad. From the midrange, even Josh Smith was a much better shooter in 2013, but far worse from 3 point range. Luckily for us, Millsap didn't spend a lot of time taking midrange shots, which helped his efficiency as a shooter. If Millsap had Mike Scott's midrange game, he'd really be lethal. But by looking at the numbers, I'd have to say NO . . . he isn't the most versatile scoring PF in the game. And you're forgetting 2 guys . . 2 Hall of Famers actually. This guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXCSNcmCLv0 And this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVzJoSE3iV4