TheNorthCydeRises

It's the Golden State offense of 2010Ironically, this vid has quite a bit of Anthony Tolliver and Anthony Morrow in it.

Not really. You simply have two differing opinions. One opinion states that a 3 point shot in just about all situations is better than a long 2, because you get more points for a 3 than you do a 2. The other opinion states that an inconsistent 3 point shooter shooting a 3, is not better than a guy who can consistently make a long 2 maker. In other words A 44% shooter from long 2 ( Paul Pierce ) is taking a worse ( or less effective shot ) than a 31% shooter from three ( Jamal Crawford ), because the effective value of Jamal's 3 is 46.2%. If you truly believe this, then you'll disagree with my position and agree with AHF.

AHF . . I think you had a few factors coming into play back in the 1980s, that led to teams being better offensively back then. 1) There were only 23 teams back then, which had better players playing with each other. That means that you had a better chance for higher quality starters and most important, good backups playing with each other. I'm not quite sure how many players a team could carry back then. But if that number was 15 players per team, that means you had a 345 player league, instead of a 500 player league. So let's say that only the top 350 players in the league today would even make a roster back in the 1980s. Top 70 at their position. I'll be generous and say top 25 at their position would be starter quality . . top 50 would be 2nd team bench caliber players . . anything above 50 at their position would be bench warmers. Here's how our current team would look in a 23 team league Top 25 at their position based on last year's NBA Efficiency Rankings per position ( refer to hoopsstats.com ) - Smith ( 6 . . at PF ) - Horford ( 12 . . at C ) - Teague ( 20 . . at PG ) - Zaza ( 23 . . at C ) - Williams ( 17 . . . at SG ) 26 - 50 at their position - Harris ( 31 . . at PG ) - Morrow ( 43 . . at SG ) - Korver ( 47 . . at SG ) Above 50 - Ivan Johnson ( 53 . . at PF - Johan Petro ( 62 . . at C ) - Damion James ( 54 . . at SF ) Guys like Anthony Tolliver, Keith Benson, and Mike Scott probably wouldn't even make the final 15 man roster. A guy like Petro would be in danger of not making it either. Deshawn Stevenson ranked ( 71 at SG ), so he may be in danger of being left off the roster as well, unless teams really valued his defensive prowess, which is a good possibility. I do believe that John Jenkins could be a top 50 SG, so he'd make the team. But that would leave one or two spots in which the Hawks would have a higher quality player on the team, than they would right now. With the lack of SFs on the team, maybe the Hawks would have a top 25 SF like a Tayshawn Prince ( 20 ) and a top 50 SF like an aging Grant Hill ( 32 ) Each team had higher quality players back then. And they also had something else 2) Players back then were more skilled all around. That's why I keep posting actual game clips, instead of highlight clips of players. PFs and Cs back then actually had legit post games, instead of trying to go out and shoot from 15 - 23 feet. PGs weren't scared to drive to the basket to get to the FT line, instead of settling for low percenage 3 point shots that they can't consistently make. SFs could actually slash to the hole, or knock down 20 footers with ease. And you saw very few one dimensional players back then. There weren't any strictly 3 point specialists who could only do that, or lock down defenders who couldn't shoot. Heck, Michael Cooper was both in the same breath, and could run the floor and catch alley-oop dunks ( the Coop-a-loop ). Seriously . . . imagine Deshawn Stevenson or Kyle Korver being able to play lockdown defense, knock down 3s, AND be a beast in transition. That's what Cooper was. And he was a Defensive POY in 1987 . . coming off the bench . . which is almost unheard of today. 3) They simply played faster And this doesn't just meant that they simply run and gunned. It meant that they got into their offensive sets a lot faster and were qucker to take open shots that they could make. Some teams played the ISO game, but they normally played it from the post, and not necessarily out on the perimeter. And they definitely didn't play it from 25 feet out, like JJ, Kobe, and Lebron tend to do. If you play faster, you get more scoring attempts. And if you make a high percentage of your shots, you're going to score more. 4) The lack of a college 3 point line kept the emphasis of NBA scoring inside the line. I think that was the big thing you saw back then, compared to now. Back then, good shooters were guys who could knock down an 18 - 21 foot jumper off the dribble, or via a catch and shoot. These days, good shooters from 21 feet are encouraged to extend their range out to the 3 point line . . even if they can't consistently make that shot . . because of the reasons you cite. So they'll take less shots that they can make, in order to to make a lower percentage, but higher point value shot. If a guy is a 40% three point shooter, by all means bomb away. If a guy is a 30% three point shooter, he shoud have a lot more discretion on the frequency he takes that shot. What that 3 point line did, was make guys too one-dimensional. A Kyle Korver never developed a good post or midrange game, because all he focused on were 22+ foot jumpers. Jeff Teague is actually a throwback type of PG, because he tries to penetrate and get into the lane. But because he isn't a floor leader, and only was a scoring PG in college, he never developed true PG instincts from a playmaking standpoint. And a guy like Jordan Crawford, who has PG like passing and ball handling ability, kills his efficiency because he falls in love with a 3 point shot he can't even make 30% of the time.

EDITS- Jason Williams averaged 5.1 threes in that 2003 - 04 season- the NY Knicks eFG% was 49.9%. . . not 49.5%- James Poseu = James Posey

1983 - 84 NY Knicks http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1984.html PPG - 106.9 FG% - 49.5% eFG% - 49.9% . . . . ( 42.7% from 3 . . . 50% from 2 ) Pace - 99.0 OFF Rtg - 107.0 Hubie has this guy in 1984, a Hall of Famer who isn't in the Hall, because sportswriters are stupid as hell. No way he was going to allow a bunch of inconsistent to bad 3 point shooters to jack up shots, when he had a guy who was guaranteed to make 57% of his shots . . as a SF. This clip also features a Hall of Fame PG lighting it up from midrange. http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLi-9ENtTM 2003 - 04 Memphis Grizzzlies http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2004.html PPG - 96.7 FG% - 44.5% eFG% - 47.9% . . . ( 51% from 3 . . . . 47.1% from 2 ) Pace - 91.4 OFF Rtg - 104.8 Unfortunately, when you look at that Memphis Grizzlies team, he had one guy on his team that thought he was better than what he really was. This guy http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjFjIGi0p4 As the clip shows, he CAN be good at times. Very good. But what was the fatal flaw of Williams? The 3 point shot. He's basically a guy that shot 33% ( 50% eFG ) from 3 that year ( and just below that for his career ). The real problem is that literally 1/2 of his shots came from 3. That means that you have a 33% three point shooter literally taking 6 shots per game from 3. Despite his superior ball handling abilities and his speed with the basketball, he'd settle for some of the worst shots in the world. Sometimes he'd make those shots, enticing him to just jack them up at anytime . . ( which actually used to drive Hubie crazy and eventually drove him to retirement ). But he was such a good passer, Hubie had to live with his antics, even if he didn't like J-Will taking all of those bad shots and all of the flash in his game. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/sports/pro-basketball-williams-and-grizzlies-come-of-age-together.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Brown wants him to drive more on offense, ''to get into the paint,'' instead of settling for 3-point shots. His number of free-throw attempts this season was, to Brown, an indication of what some see as a reluctance to risk injury from contact around the basket, although Williams was out nine games with a strained back. Williams had 98 free-throw attempts in 2,115 minutes this season, compared to 138 free-throw attempts in 1,669 minutes for the backup point guard, Earl Watson. That's 40 fewer attempts for Williams in what amounts to nine games of minutes. ''Earl doesn't have half the talent that Jason does,'' Brown said, ''but Watson plays with all heart all the time. He's a lunch-pail player. I guess that's his way of making up for what he doesn't have. But it's all about effort.'' Brown had also been critical of Williams's accountability -- for being responsible about what he does and when he does it. On March 16, in a home game against Philadelphia, Watson replaced Williams in a close game in the fourth quarter and ''put the clamps'' on Allen Iverson, as Brown recalled. Williams did not return to the game and the Grizzlies won. Williams was noticeably miffed afterward. The next morning Williams did not show for practice. Brown announced a fine of $5,000, the league maximum for the violation, and said Williams would not start the next game. ********* Brown had a reputation for precise basketball, which would give little leeway to the likes of Williams. ''I thought I'd be on a tight leash with Hubie,'' Williams said. ''I wasn't looking forward to it.'' But, in most cases, they have meshed. ''When we got into one of our first huddles,'' Williams said, ''Hubie looked at me and said, 'Let those 3's fly.' He wanted me to play my game! He wanted the ball in my hands, though he made it clear that it wasn't just running and gunning. You've got to push the ball up, and try to get open shots for anyone who's open. ''You know, Hubie and I are a lot alike, as strange as that might seem. We both hate to lose, and sometimes we both get impatient when we're not winning.'' *********************** And that was the dilemm with Hubie concerning Jason. Reign him in too tight, and you may lose what made him a good PG. Let him play too lose, and he'll shoot you out of the game. So Brown would let Jasn play his game, until he needed some stability at the point. If Jason couldn't give it to him at that time, he turned to Earl Watson. And Jason wasn't cool with that at all. The Hubie dilemma eerily sounds like the dilemma Drew has with Josh Smith. As for the 2004 Grizzlies, that was a squad that didn't have any superstars, just a bunch of good players. The only true shot creators, were Gasol, J-Will and Bonzi Wells. And despite Mike Miller and James Poseu being better 3 point shooters, it was the faciliator ( Jason ) who took the most 3s, often off of a fast break and ill-advised. Hubie wanted the Griz to take open shots. Not just jack them up. And as the numbers show, the 1983 - 84 NY Knicks - shot a better percentage from the field - shot a better eFG percentage - scored more points per game - played at a quicker pace - and had a better offensive rating Alll that talk about threes being worth more than two doesn't mean a hill of beans if you can't shoot a high percentage from 3. The league average eFG% in 1983 - 83 was 49.5% ( which is ironically what that Knick team placed at ). The league average eFG% in 2003 - 04 was 47.1% Teams took and MADE better shots at a higher percentage.

The only way Josh Smith averages 25 ppg, is if Horford, Williams AND Teague go down with major injuries, which would enable Josh to jack up a ton of shots ( 21+ shots per game )Reasons why Josh won't average 25 ppg ( or even 22 ppg )- too many decent players on the team who can score- doesn't shoot AND make enough free throws- doesn't shoot and make a high volume AND percentage from 3 point range.Only 4 players in the league last year averaged 25+ ppg:- Kobe- Durant- Lebron- LoveAll of those guys made almost 7 FTs per game and shot at least 76% from the line. Smith has never done either of these things.One thing is for sure, Josh can't play the way he's played in the previous 8 years, and expect to average 22 ppg, let alone 25 ppg.

Stop being so scary. Those "thugs" or "poor people" aren't paying attention to you when you go to Braves games. You talk like crime is a huge problem at Braves games. ATL Police is around that stadium, and there is little to anything going on when people leave the stadium anyway, because nothing has been built. If the stadium was in Gwinett Co., people still would make excuses to not go to games.

The Lingere Football team will win a title next year. Gotta be some superior female athletes all throughout Metro Atlanta.As far as moving sports teams out of ATL, that isn't necessary. Just move some of them.Keep the Hawks in ATL, because it gives me a reason to come to the city ( other than the women ). Move the Braves to Nashville, and we'll give you the Predators of the NHL, since some of you miss hockey. Move the Falcons to Birmingham, since the Lingere team is coming to ATL. - Hawks- Predators- Dream . . ( even though they choked too this year )- Lingere teamWonder if the Hawks would receive top billing as the #1 pro sports franchise, if the Falcons and Braves were gone, and they had to go up against those teams listed above.

As for coaches today being idiots. I'll just put it like this. Any coach that allows Josh Smith to take 250+ three pointers in 2 seasons, instead of forcing that dude to take it inside . . or design an offense in which he can't drift out to the perimter . . is an idiot.Any coach that isn't trying to get Al Horford more touches on the offensive end, when he's one of the best midrange shooters in the game . . is an idiot.An old school coach like Hubie Brown would never allow some of the stuff we've seen out of the Hawks the past 3 - 5 years.

1988 EC SEMIFINALS - Game 7 - 4th Quarter - Hawks vs Celtics

Better defenses today? Come on AHF. The players today just can't shoot or take horrific shots. And the majority of post players today are garbage. How hard is it to play defense, when you're letting Josh Smith take wide open jumpers he can't make? He "self-checks" himself by settling for those shots, instead of taking it to the rim.As for how the game used to be played . . .1986 WC FINALS: Game 5 - 4th quarter - Lakers vs Rockets

AHF, I'm curious. When I asked if you'd rather give the ball to JR Smith for a bunch of long 3s, or Kevin Garnett for a bunch of long 2s . . you didn't answer the question. When I asked if you'd rather give the ball to Jeff Teague for a 3 to stop a 1st quarter run, instead of letting Al Horford shoot a 20 footer . . . you didn't answer the question. When I asked if you'd rather see Jordan Crawford, a 29% 3 point shooter, continue to jack up more 3s, than 2s, despite Jordan being able to shoot 42% from long 2 range . . . you didn't answer. If the eFG is such a solid stat, why not honestly answer those questions? Here's how scoring 110 points on 2s can be better than scoring 120 points on 3s in 100 possessions. And once again, you have to take everything in context. It's just not as simple as saying we're going to score this many points. It's WHEN you score the points. And you really can't use the hypothetical of "we're going to take 100 long 2s in a game vs 100 threes in a game" and compare it like that. That isn't realistic basketball, because no one will play a game like that. You'll have to look at the contribution you may get from a game by game basis. A good long 2 shooter that can consistently score points, may have a 10 game progression like this 16 - 23 feet ( 110 points ) 10 10 4 14 12 10 16 8 12 14 110 points An explosive but erratic 3 point scorer on a team may have a 10 game progression like this. 3 pt range ( 120 points ) 18 9 6 24 3 21 9 6 9 18 120 points The difference between consistent scoring and explosive scoring, is that you can count on the consistent player much more than you can count on the guy who might score you more points overall in bunches. That explosive scorer may take over the game and get you a ton of points at once, then sell you out in the next 3 games. The consistent guy is going to get you a steady stream of points in just about every game, enabling you to count on him. In essence, it's the difference between JR Smith and Kevin Garnett. But how about a more familiar name? Marvin Williams In 2007 - 08, Marvin was a consistent scorer in the 80 regular season games he played in. He only broke the 30 point mark one time that season ( the Seattle game ). But he only scored less than 10 points 13 times. What Marvin DID do that season, is get you 10+ points per game in 64 of the 80 games he played in. And he did it by relying on a pretty lethal midrange jumper, and by slashing to the hole and drawing fouls. And he only attempted 10 threes. So what happens? People start saying that he needs to expand his range out to 3 point land. So Marvin works on doing just that. He comes back in 2008 - 09, and initially shoots lights out from 3 in November ( 47% from 3 ). But he ends up struggling in 4 of the next 5 months from 3, and ends up with a 3 point FG% of just under 36%. But he had accomplished what people wanted him to do. He had expanded his range, while keeping his long 2% high ( 44% ). But the fact that he struggled from 3 after that red hot November, would foreshadow his next 2 seasons. By the 09 - 10 season, it was clear that he wasn't a good enough 3 point shooter to just sit out there on the perimeter and rely on that shot, like a Kyle Korver or Anthony Morrow. He not only struggled from 3 ( 31% ), he ends up struggling from the area that got him that contract in the first place, the long 2 ( 37% ). Combine that with his FT rate going down ( because he's trying to become a 3 point spot up shooter ), and his value to this team starts to plummet. The funny thing is, his 30.6 three point % translates into 45.9% on the eFG scale. Had he still been a 45% long 2 shooter, there's no way in hell people would've wanted him to continue to jack up 3s. But with his long 2 percentage dropping to 37%, it made him an even more liability . . . and more expendable. In 2010 - 11, he gets his midrange jumper back ( 44% ) but is still a below average 3 point shooter ( 33% ). Marvin went from a guy who we could rely on to get to the FT line, make midrange jumpers, and score 10 ppg in 80% of the games he played in . . . to a guy whose scoring would yo-yo erratically, see his FT rate stay well below 2008 levels, and score less than 10 points in 50% of his games. So by last year, when he finally started to put everything together ( 39% 3 point shooter ) the fans were done with him, and the coach was opting to play even more inconsistent shooters than Marvin, because the organization and fans had lost confidence in him. I truly think that Marvin's quest to become a 3 point shooter, did more of a disservice to his game, than helped him. It took away from the strength of his game ( mid-range shooting and slashing ), and made him way too passive as a player. It reduced him to a "stand in the corner and wait for JJ or Josh Smith to throw you the ball" type of player. With him being able to consistently make the 3 point shot last season, we'll see if he can get his touch back from mid-range. We'll see if he can also get some confidence back as a slasher. But as of right now, he's seen as a one-dimensional player on offense, and a decent defender on defense.

JORDAN CRAWFORD ( 2011 - 12 )16 - 23 feet: 42.2% FG3 point range: 28.9% FG . . . ( 43.4% eFG )You're telling me that you'd rather see Jordan jack up more shots from 3, than from long 2, just because his eFG% is better on his 3s?We've seen how he can do. He can be red hot and go 5 - 11 in 2 game stretch . . and then go 2 - 17 in a 4 game stretch from 3. Is that what you guys want on your team? A guy who MIGHT be hot for one game, but will sell you out with bad shot selection in the next 4?The fact that Jordan can shoot 43% from long 2, with him basically creating his own shot, proves that he can be a much more efficient player on a game by game basis, if he simply laid off of the 3 point shot, and took more shots in his range.But go ahead. Let the eFG dictate that Jordan is better off taking a 3, than a shot he can actually make more consistently.

No. Smith and Garnett are the perfect comparison. Since the eFG is going to reward Smith .5 FG for every 3 that he makes, it will enable him to post a better eFG% over KG, even if he's actually shooting a much lower FG% from 3, than KG shoots from long 2. The numbers flat out show that a 33% 3 point shooting Smith will shoot a higher eFG from 3 ( 50% eFG ), than KG will shoot it from 2 ( because KG can get no eFG% boost from a 16 - 23 foot jumper. ) So under the logic of eFG, you should give Smith that ball over KG, because he is going to "effectively" score at a higher rate over time. Build the offense around Smith, let him gun away from 3 whenever he wants, and just rebound his misses. His makes are going to count a lot, so just let him gun away. But that's the issue AHF. What 30% shooter do you know can consistently shoot around 30% in just about every game he plays? A player like that is going to be erratic as hell ( as I pointed out with JR Smith ). You'll have games in which he's red hot, and games in which he can't buy a basket and will shoot you out of a game. And even if he shoots his average of 30%, he'd have to take 7 threes just to score 6 points ( 2 - 7 FG from three ) That's why we had to get rid of Jamal Crawford. As good as he was at times, his shooting from long range was so erratic, that we simply couldn't count on that dude on a game by game basis. When you look at stats, everything isn't an absolute. You can immediately tell who you can consistently count on or not, if you look at those FG%. This style of play is only effective if (1) you have good 3 point shooters on your team . . . and (2) you have a good to great rebounding frontline who can get offensive rebounds. If you don't have either of those 2 elements on your team, you're going to lose games. It worked for Orlando in 2009 because they had the best rebounding big man in the game who was also a low post threat, and they had decent shooters who could knock down a 3 pointer at a consistent rate. Nelson, Lee and Lewis shot at or over 40% from 3. And their most inconsistent guy ( Turkoglu ) shot a respectable 36% from 3. A schizophrenic 3 point shooting team can't get away with this . . like the 2012 NY Knicks Outside of the outstanding shooting of Steve Novak at 47% from 3, the team was stockpiled with a plethora of erratic 3 point shooters. And the two most erratic 3 ball shooters on the team were JR Smith and Carmelo Anthony. So when those 2 guys who shot above 50% eFG from 3 during the regular season, go 9 - 46 FG during the playoffs, you kind of see why the Knicks got bounced right out of the playoffs. It's the same situation we found ourselves in during the 2011 playoffs with Jamal Crawford. He was red hot in the Orlando series, and ice cold in the Chicago series. Why? Because that's what Jamal has always been . . a hot and cold player. As Charles Barkley always says . . . "if you live by the 3, you're going to DIE by the 3". Over the course of a game, you may need to make a critical basket to stop a team from going on a run to blow a game open. Teams that can consistently score on a possession, instead of always trying to get the maximum point value out of a possession, will tend to keep a game close. Especially if their 3 point shooters are erratic. So if a team has just gone on a 6 - 0 riun to go up by 9 points in the 1st quarter, and you need a basket, you better try to take the best possible shot you can, or get to the FT line. But if you can't do either, which option would you rather see happen? Al Horford take a 18 footer to try to stop the run . . . or Jeff Teague take a 3 pointer to stop the run? The eFG says that a 34% shooting Jeff Teague from 3, is effectively the "better value of shot". If he makes the shot, the decifit is down to 6. On the flip side, Al Horford is normally going to make around 45% of his midrange jumpers. If he makes the shot, you cut the lead to 7. Which shot do you take? And what did we see when they went to that style of thinking? The game slowed down. Shooting became even worse. Points per game were down for a long time. In the 1984 - 85 season, the Boston Celtics led the league in 3 point shooting at 35.6% The league average from 3 was a horrible 28.2%. Conversely, the LA Lakers led the league in FG% at 54.5% and Denver scored 120 ppg. League average FG shooting: 49.1% . . . League average eFG shooting: 49.6% In the 2011 - 12 season, the San Antonio Spurs led the league in 3 point shooting at 39.3% The league average from 3 was 34.9%. The Spurs also led the league in FG% at 47.8% and Denver led the league in scoring at 104.1 ppg. League average FG shooting: 44.8% . . . League average eFG shooting: 48.7% No way are offenses better today, than what they used to be. Better post play. Better midrange shooters. And people who had no business taking a lot of 3s, didn't take them. It made the flow of the game much better and much faster than what we see today. Josh Smith would've had his hand chopped off back in 1985, if he took 100+ threes in a season. So in other words, when you actually MAKE 3 pointers, instead of just indiscrimintely jack them up, it's good to take them. The Heat increased their attempts because they were actually MAKING their 3 point shots in the playoffs, especially in the Finals. Mike Miller playing throughout the playoffs, as opposed to 1/2 of the season, had something to do with that too. Lebron's 3 point attempts increased dramatically in the playoffs. But it's not like his 25% 3 point shooting ( oops . . 37% eFG 3 point shooting ) didn't do the Heat any good throughout that series ( outside of the one game in which he made back to back 3s in the Celtic series . . I think it was that series ). Miami goes 14 - 26 from 3 in Game 5 of the Finals. By all means bomb away, if you're going to shoot like that. With Dallas in 2011, even Deshawn Stevenson was making his 3 point shot at a 40% clip. That entire team could shoot. So of course if their percentage increased, it would be a good thing. They can actually make the shot a high rate. The Mavs shot a ridiculous 13 - 19 from 3 in Game 5 of the Finals and followed that up with an 11 - 26 from 3 performance in the series clincher. When you shoot like that, of course they should increase their attempts. As for that Lakers team, it was Kobe that dramatically increased his 3 point attempts. Why? Because he was MAKING the shot. On the flip side, Ron Artest dramatically increased his 3 point attempts too, but was clanking them big time . . until he made the biggest 3 of his life in the Finals. The Lakers only broke 90 points in 3 of the 7 games and shot 4 - 20 from three in that final game. Ironically, while Kobe was making his 3 point shot most of the playoffs, he went 0 - 6 from 3 and 2 - 9 on his long midrange jumper. The nature of playoff basketball is that you see better defense, and the game slows down. And if you have guys who gather a lot of attention ( like a Lebron or Wade ), someone is going to be open. If they happen to be LEGIT 3 point shooters, then they should definitely take the 3. It had nothing to do with the eFG of the shot. It had more to do with 3 point shooters being wide open, because so much attention were being paid attention to the superstars. And some of those 3 point shooters did what they were paid to do . . knock the shot down. Did Boston beat the Hawks with the 3 ball . . or with the midrange jumper?

Didn't we go through this with Teague? Just go team by team and see where he would possibly start. Boston - NO Brooklyn - NO Philly - NO Toronto - Hate to say it, but NO . . he's not better than Calderon New York - YES ( but playing under Woody . . . I don't know ) Chicago - YES ( but straight to the bench when Rose came back ) Indiana - NO Milwaukee - NO Detroit - YES ( I would hope he could beat out Brandon Knight ) Cleveland - NO Miami - YES Charlotte - NO ( Kemba Walker will play the point this year ) Washington - NO Orlando - He's not overtaking Jameer Nelson yet . . NO Atlanta - YES ( but I can definitely see a scenario in which Harris overtakes him if he struggles ) New Orleans - if they don't play Eric Gordon at PG . . YES Houston - NO Dallas - Good battle between he and Darren Collison . . I'll say YES San Antonio - NO Memphis - NO Oklahoma City - NO Utah - NO . . ( but if Mo Williams struggled shooting, he could replace him ) Denver - NO Minnesota - YES ( but not when Rubio comes back ) Portland - Great battle between he and rookie Damian Lilliard . . I say YES LA Lakers - NO LA Clippers - NO Golden St - NO Sacramento - NO Phoenix - YES So 10 of the 30 teams Teague would start on. But it could be as little as 6 teams. The facts about this team are this - Smith and Horford are by far our best players and have All-Star potential - Our next 3 best players are all PGs - Zaza is barely a starter level C, but a good backup C - Guys like Korver, Morrow, and Stevenson are one-dimensional specialists - Ivan is the wild card of the bunch, but can he get enough playing time to really be effective - Jenkins may be buried on the bench, unless the small guard lineup is truly ineffective - The rest of the roster should be in street clothes

So I'm watching this parody, and I wanted to see what all of the "facts" scrolling on the screen were saying. They were moving by so fast, that I had to pause the vid every second to read them.If you're a Democrat, you may find the spoof amusing. If you're a Republican, not so much.But pause the vid at 4:55, and see what they said about the Hawks.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mSellTTXJ8

LOL . . let's jack those numbers down a bit. 23.5 ppg 10 rebs 1.5 blks 1.3 stls 52% FG 75% FT In the history of the NBA, the only people who have done that are - Kareem - Wilt - Barkley - Bird http://www.basketbal...at=&order_by=ws That's it. So if Josh were able to do that, not only would somebody give him a MAX deal, we'd be kind of stupid ( or get heavily ripped for it ), if we didn't. I agree.

Funny how you didn't answer the dang question. And that's exactly why it's a garbage stat. If the eFG% is such a great stat, then flat out say that you'd give the ball to JR Smith more than you would Kevin Garnett. Don't go all around the Mulberry Bush. Just say that you'd give the ball to JR instead of KG. Like AHF said, you have the numbers right in front of you. And even I stated that JR ( by the numbers ) would "effectively" score slightly more than KG. So just say that you'd give that ball to JR. Stop the childish insults, and just say that you'd give that ball to JR Smith for a 3 pointer, more than you'd give that ball to Kevin Garnett for a long 2. *************************** @ AHF: You know what my real problem with the eFG% is? My problem is that while the adjustment is made for a made 3, that same adjustment for the percentage isn't made in people's minds. In no universe would anyone call a 33% three point shooter, a "good shooter". But in the world of eFG, a 33% 3 point shooter is a 50% eFG shooter . . all because a made 3 is worth more than a made 2. But it doesn't make that shot a "good shot", because 33% 3 point shooters will flat out shoot you out of a game, and lose more games with their shooting than they will win. But fans and statiscians refuse to make the proper adjustment to what the percentages actually mean. They simply say . . a 3 is worth a 2, so even if you shoot 33% from 3, that's equal to 50% from 2 . . so it's OK that you shoot 33% from 3. no . . no . . no . . no . . no 25% 3FG = 37.5% eFG . . . very bad 33% 3FG = 50% eFG . . . below average 40% 3FG = 60% eFG . . . good 45%+ 3FG = 67.5% eFG . . . excellent So let's re-visit JR Smith once gain. http://www.hoopdata.com/gamelog.aspx?player=J.R.%20Smith&month=&ha=&sort=threfg 35 games played last year - 20 games in which he had an eFG% of 50% or more . . . . ( 57% of games ) - 14 games in which his eFG% was above 50% . . . ( 40% of games ) - 17 games in which he made 2 threes ( 6 points ) or more . . . ( 49% of games ) - 12 games in which he actually shot 40% 3FG ( 60% eFG scale ) . . . ( 34% of games ) - 11 games in which he shot less than 25% 3FG ( 37.5% eFG scale ) . . . ( 31% of games ) Let's do Kevin Garnett, since he's a prolific long 2 point shooter. And we'll use the same 5 criteria that I used for JR Smith. http://www.hoopdata.com/gamelog.aspx?player=Kevin%20Garnett&month=&ha=&sort=lefg 60 games played last year - 37 games in which his eFG was 50% or more . . . ( 62% of games ) - 27 games in which his eFG was over 50% . . . ( 45% of games ) - 36 games in which he made 3 shots+ from 16 - 23 feet . . . ( 60% of games ) - 20 games in which he shot 60%+ FG . . . ( 33% of games ) - 8 games in which he shot less than 25% FG . . . ( 13% of games ) No adjustments needed for KG. Translation: JR Smith is a "feast or famine" type player. Kevin Garnett will give you more consistency. And in the world of the NBA, people value consistency more than they value inconsistency. Guys like JR are "hired guns" that you can't count on all the time. Guys like Garnett are solid rocks you can build your team around. The funny thing about this discussion is this. On a shot by shot basis, even most of you would admit that you wouldn't want a guy who just shot 50% eFG from 3, to take a critical shot, over a guy who can knock down a long 2 at a 45%+ rate. But also remember that games aren't played on a 100 possession or shot basis. And most volume shooters may get 12 - 20 times to even shoot the ball. And when you break it down by shot locaiton for a "shooting specialists", you're only talking about 4 to 8 shots from a particular location in any game. So if the eFG isn't any good to be used on a shot by shot basis . . or even on a game by game basis . . what use is the stat? Is it there just to discourage people from taking long 2s . . even if they can make that shot?

JR SMITH: 32.7% 3 point shooter . . . . 48.9% eFG% GARNETT: 47.7% FG shooter from 16 - 23 feet Who are you giving the ball to the vast majority of the time? The guy who can "effectively" score slightly more than KG, or the one who you know can consistently score the basketball at a much higher rate?

I guess they do stay the same.All I know is that any stat that tries to claim that JR Smith is "effectively" a better shooter than Kevin Garnett, simply because JR jacks up a ton of threes to boost his percentage, is a garbage stat.The only people the eFG benefits, are inefficient 3 point chuckers.Real shooters don't need an eFG adjustment to make them look better than what they really are.

And some people wonder why Josh takes so much criticism at times.Then again, that's just Midrange Shawty doing what he's always done....work on his jumper. Hope he's working just as hard on his post game.I wonder if Al did the 3 point drill as well?

At what rate are 3 point misses rebounded, compared to long 2 point misses? If it's not a significant difference, then 7 of those 8 possessions may be lost anyway. And one of the major factors in getting that offensive rebound, is if your PF/C or guard/wing is shooting that 3. If Lou Williams is jacking up that 3 pointer and he misses, it's a good bet that Josh Smith may be near the rim to rebound the basketball. It'll be Josh + another big man in the area to grab the board, and your chances are higher that they may get that offensive rebound. But if Josh Smith is jacking up that 3, you now have a situation in which one of your best rebounders is nowhere near in position to miss the shot. Now you'll only have one big man, and maybe one wing/guard near enough to even be in the area to get that rebound. Your chances to get an offensive rebound dwindle in that case. When the statistical analysis of missed 3s being rebounded at a higher rate than missed long 2s, they never take into account which player(s) are shooting that shot. As for long 2s, the same concept applies. Today's PFs routinely take that shot. So once again, you'll have a situation in which only one big man may be around the rim to grab a rebound, compared to a long 2 taken by a guard or wing. All I know that in a situation in which I need a basket to stay in a game, and Josh Smith is taking that shot, I want him shooting in these areas first - at the rim - in the paint - from long midrange - from short midrange - 3 point When a guy only makes 25% of his shots from a certain area, you don't want him taking a shot from that area, if you really need a basket, regardless of what his eFG% is. I'd much rather have the 70% shot at the rim. But if I have to take the 37% shot from midrange at that time, I'll take that over the 25% shot from 3.

Don't get me started on the eFG% . . one of the most misleading stats in basketball. Because what you have to keep in mind is that there is really no such thing as an eFG% on a shot that is not a 3 pointer. The eFG% is simply the statistical adjustment given to 3 point shot make. You can't make an eFG adjustment on a 19 footer. If you shoot 3 - 6 from 16 - 23 feet, it's 50% FG shooting and 50% eFG But if you shot 2 - 6 from 3 point range, that's 33% FG shooting, but an eFG% adjustment to 50%, since the eFG counts 3 point makes as 1.5 FG made. So which is better? Missing 3 shots to score 6 points . . or missing 4 shots to score 6 points? So take Josh's regular season shooting last year. 16 - 23 feet: 37% FG . . ( 37% eFG ) 3 point range: 25.5% FG . . ( 38.3% eFG ) So the 3 point shot is the better shot, right? Ummm, no. Out of 100 shots, Josh is going to make 37% ( or 37 of 100 shots = 74 points ) from 16 - 23 feet Out of 100 shots, Josh is going to make 25.5% ( or roughly 26 out of 100 shots = 78 points ) from 3 point range. The eFG adjustment simply illustrates that Josh is going to score more points in 100 shots, if he just shot 3s at those percentages. What it DOESN'T tell you is that Josh is going to miss 11 more shots, just to score 4 more points. Or better yet, look at it like this. How many 3s would Josh need to take, in order to score the same number of points ( 74 ) Josh can make off of taking 100 shots from 16 - 23 feet? Answer: 97 shots . . ( 25 made 3s and 75 points ) So you're still talking about Josh going 26 - 97 FG . . . and missing 71 shots . . just to get the same number of points. While Josh would only miss 63 shots to get 74 points. That's why you'd rather him taking that long 2, instead of a 3. On a possession by possession basis, he has a much better chance of making that long 2, than a 3, even if he shouldn't be shooting either shot. He's also more likely to get fouled on a 2, than he is a 3. I forget who I went back and forth about this on this board back in the day, but this is why I say that the eFG% flat out LIES. A guy that is a 50% eFG shooter from 3 point range, is really not a good 3 point shooter, because he only actually shoots 33% from 3 point range. And a guy like Josh, who is a poor shooter from 3, definitely doesn't need to be taking that shot as much as he did last year. Rule of thumb. If a guy shoots 10% lower from 3 point range, than he does from long 2 range, he's probably better off taking the long 2 than a 3, no matter what the point value of the made FG is.

And to add to this, it was JJ that felt the team need more "tough guys" because he felt the Hawks weren't tough enough. The fact that the ASG used the Luxury Tax line as the ultimate excuse for not going all out to build a winner in ATL, while almost every single championship team the last 6 years was a taxpaying team, proves JJ right. People blame JJ's contract for the reason why Jamal Crawford couldn't be brought back. No it wasn't. If the ASG REALLY wanted Jamal back, they could've offered him an MLE contract, gone over the tax, and brought him back. And they goes for any free agent they could've brought in, for that matter. Instead, the Hawks brought in what . . . 6 vet minimum guys, just so they can stay under the tax? In Brooklyn, money is no object. They're bringing in and paying for the pieces they think can win them a title. In Atlanta, we're shopping at the Dollar Store, simply hoping that we can put an entertaining product out on the court, forget even making the playoffs. Like I said when JJ was traded . . . a REAL championship level franchise would've never dumped a 6 time All-Star that can still play ball, for a bunch of expiring contracts.

You don't understand it? Well I'll break it down for you. What city did JJ play in? . . . . . ATLANTA Does the Atlanta media care about the Hawks? . . . . . Well they cover the Hawks, but they care much more about the Falcons, Braves, even the Bulldogs, than they do the Hawks Do the Hawks get criticized when they lose? . . . . . YES, but even then, it's only for a short time ( a day or two ), because the media and most sports fans in ATL care more about the Falcons, Braves, and Bulldogs Do the Hawks get celebrated when they win? . . . . . For the most part, NO. Because once again, the media and fans care more about the Falcons, Braves, and Bulldogs. Like it or not, JJ's comments here are more of a reflection of the laid back fans and lackadaisical media in ATL. ATL is NOT a passionate sports town, no matter how much locals want to believe otherwise. It just isn't. As great of a player Chipper Jones was for the Braves, it's not like Braves fans worshiped the dude like St Louis Cardinals fans did Mark McGuire and Albert Pujols or even how Cubs fans loved Ryne Sandberg. As for the ASG, can you really say that their goal the past 2 years was to win a championship? The ASG paid JJ all of that money to keep them at playoff level. There was no one out on the market that could've replaced what JJ brought to the table, so they paid him the money. Contrast that with Brooklyn, who has literally gone all out to build what they think is a championship caliber team. Even got the coach that WE should've picked up 2 years ago, instead of going the cheap route and hiring Drew. Like it or not, JJ knows that there will be no issues with crowd attendance at Net games this season. There will be no complaints about late arriving crowds because of traffic. There won't be 5,000 fans from an opposing team cheering for their team, instead of the Hawks. That entire area is buzzing with excitement. While in Atlanta, the NBA season arrives with the Hawks being 4th on everyone's sports radar, behind the Braves playoff run, the undefeated Falcons, and the undefeated Bulldogs. It's not until February that the Hawks become #1 on the sports radar. And even then, the interest is lukewarm at best.