TheNorthCydeRises

I want to hear the argument for Nene over Horford. Both have different styles that they bring to the table.

Good lord. So because JJ forces the issue a few times in the 4th quarter, he's a ball hog? i don't know what it is about this dude that turns people off so much. It's like people don't watch the other main guys across the league that do the exact same thing. Sometimes they are unsuccessful. Sometimes they're very successful. But it's like people look for reasons to dog JJ at times. In that 4th quarter last night: - he shot an air ball on a floater at the beginning of the quarter, in which Mike Breem ( the play by play announcer ) said that it was a lot of contact on the play. JJ should've been on the line. He doesn't air ball his floater unless he is fouled. - he misses another floater in the lane in which he actually got past Pierce a little . . . a shot that he makes over 50% of the time. - Pierce poked the ball away from JJ on a good defensive play. Shot clock was at 8 when Pierce made the play. ((( NOTE: you then have Jon Barry complaining about the Hawks going one on one isolation again, after Boston got the steal and the basket. Keep in mind that the shot clock was at 14 seconds ANYWAY, when the Hawks inbounded the ball. When JJ received the ball and dribbled to the top of the key, the shot clock was at 12 seconds. As JJ did his probe dribble to draw the double team, the guy that is open is Josh Smith, just to the right of the top of the key. JJ is NOTORIOUS for throwing the ball to Smoove when he's wide open on the perimeter. He's done it ever since he's been a Hawk. There's no way JJ would've taken a shot there, because he had both Pierce and Rondo in the area, because it would've been hella forced. There's no doubt in my mind that JJ was about to pass that ball out to Smoove for a 20 foot jumper at the top of the key. Unfortunately, JJ dribbled the ball off his leg from the Pierce poke-away, and the C's go the other way and score. Two possessions later, JJ is going to get the ball in an ISO situation AGAIN. Bibby has the ball and gets JJ the ball via a dribble handoff. As JJ receives the ball, Horford sets a light screen that JJ goes around. With Pierce a little behind him, and Perkins shadiing toward JJ ( who is dribbliing toward the lane ), JJ passes to Smoove, who is open on the right side, just outside the top of the key ( about 20 feet away ). Smoove gets the pass . . . takes an open shot . .. the crowd screams NOOOOOOO as the ball is in the air . . . and of course, the shot goes in ))) - JJ fouls Pierce on a shot ( announcers talk about how Pierce complained to the refs the entire time on the previous possession, in which Pierce thought he got fouled ) - JJ dribbles and comes around a Bibby screen . . then a Horford sets on Pierce, JJ shoots the ball from about 20 feet . . a semi-open look . . but he misses the shot. Smoove hustles, and gets the rebound . . and passes it out to Bibby. Because we're up 5 with about 2:20 to go, Bibby then holds the ball for 10 - 12 seconds, before waiting for a pick from Horford. Bibby drives left, gets stuck . . but throws a great pass to Smoove down on the block, when he flashed to Bibby's side. Smoove has his shot blocked by Wallace, but grabs his own rebound with 5 seconds left on the shot clock. Smoove then alertly sees that JJ is somewhat open in the corner. JJ catches the ball with 4 seconds on the clock, dribbles past Pierce on the baseline ( who was coming at him ), and takes a 15 footer with 3 seconds left on the clock. So some of you are mad at JJ for THIS PERFORMANCE in the 4th? Really? He missed 2 shots that's usually money shots, a tougher 20 footer, and a floater that the refs didn't call a foul on. Sorry folks, this is nit picking, So basically, people are mad because he didn't make the shots that he normally makes? Of the 6 "mistakes" he made in the quarter, the Celtics got 5 points. People call it ball hogging, but the "ball hooging" is the same reason why he had 8 assists. He had the ball in his hands all game and made good decisions throughout. His shot just wasn't falling in the 4th, and he couldn't get a call to take away one of those misses. It's funny . . . when he's killing people, nothing is said about how bad ISO JJ is. But when he misses a few shots, it's a big problem? LOL . . he's ball hogging, but he passed to open shooters far more than he shot the ball. Even passed a ball to Smoove for an outside shot, that he made in that quarter. The guy is our scorer. Scorers are going to force shots and miss shots at times. The two floaters in the lane and the shot he got from 15 feet, are shots I'll take from JJ any day of the week. And like I said, he should've been on the FT line on one of those missed floaters. I've seen far worse out of JJ in the 4th quarter of a game, than what I saw last night.

@ Crawful . . . . right on the money Damn . . . should I even mention that they lost AGAIN? Blew a 10 ptlead @ Washington in which they go on a 23 - 5 run in the quarter? Vince Carter did get hurt in the game in the 2nd qtr though. not sure about his status tomorrow. So after all of the drama over the holiday weekends, if we win tomorrow night, we're 24 - 12 . . .3rd in the conference . . and most important, 1st in the division.

Man please. Marvin had a very solid game tonight. Crawford did a great job in holding the ship steady in the 4th qtr. Hawks really took care of business in the 3rd, and held on in the 4th. Good win.

It is what it is. Go through a little adversity, and some in the fan base will always panic. Like the team hasn't shown them enough that they're actually good. Just because this team loses focus against bad teams sometimes, doesn't mean that they're not good. Orlando has lost a little focus lately, but they're still good. Same with us. Division showdown tomorrow night!

He'll be in the top 15 because he jacks up a ton of 3s. 30 - 40% of his shots will come from 3 in a particular season. It's not that he's shooting well, it's because he's jacking up tons of 3s, much like Gilbert Arenas does. And Cassell was a playmaker. Had a few 6 or 7 assit seasons in Milwaukee and Minnesota. Most important, he was a guy who used his midrange shot to keep the offense on a steady path. If they needed a score, he could usually give it to them via his midrange game. Gilbert is the poster child for the eFG. A guy whose star poweris bolstered because he gets red hot in games. Then he goes ice cold, taking the same shots he did in the red hot game ( usually a ton of 3s ). But that's OK. The eFG% will save him. Meanwhile, people don't realize that in that 3 - 8 3FG game that he had, that he actually was 1 for his first 6, shooting the Wiz out of the game. A guy like him, that can get within 15 feet of the basket, should always look to take that shot when he starts out 0 - 2 from three. But they don't. It's bombs away from 3. Meanwhile, the other team just went on a 8 - 2 run, because you took two ill-advised 3s in 5 possessions. That's the essence of my beef with the eFG, when it comes to mediocre shooters. It's funny though. Barkley routinely says "you live by the 3, you die by the 3". I've seen few teams that shoot 33% from three, actually be successul from living by the 3.

A lot to address, So let's go through the important points: - You're stuck on the "long 2 argument", while my argument is midrange jumpers period. As Sam Cassell so eloquentlly pointed out, the midrange game is also from the free throw line extended, in the paint ( just inside the FT line ), on the wing, and on the baseline. And as Sam pointed out, the "lost art" of the midrange jumper is gone. I personally blame the college 3 point line, and the fact that 6-10 guys would rather take 14 - 20 footers, than to bang down on the blocks and get scores around the rim. The reason why you see all of these supposedly good shooters fail on the pro level, is because they were never taught how to create their own shot from midrange, especially from 14 - 18 feet that Sam Cassell focused on. - I was talking about Kobe and Jordan. Both guys utilized the midrange shot the way you're supposed to. As for your statement about Bird and Jordan, that's flat out wrong. Neither of those guys fired away from 3, because they always tried to get good shots from closer in. Bird would work the baseline, posting people up to either drive or shoot the fadeaway jumper. He didn't jack up 4 - 5 threes a game, like today's players routinely do. The most he ever shot in a season was 3.1 Same with Jordan. He was a slasher, not a shooter. But once he got old, the 14 - 20 foot jumpshot was his calling card. He knew that his 32% three point shooting was a detriment to his game at times, so he made a point to get closet to the rim. And if he couldn't get to the rim, he was posing after a made 15 - 18 foot jumper . . whether it was over Craig Ehlo or Bryon Russell Neither Bird nor Jordan used the 3 point shot more than 25% of the time, unlike today's "shooters". Get to the rim, or shoot the midrange jumper, was their game. - It is misleading to keep describing 10 - 23 foot shots, as being part of the eFG. What you actually shoot from that range, is going to be your eFG% regardless. No adjustment needed. So it's an unfair comparison to then bolster the 3 point shooting with an eFG%, and comparing that to the actual shooting in other areas. Adjustment or not, the 3 point line is still the most missed shot in basketball. JJ and Crawford really picked up their shooting from 3 point range last month, after starting off the year "Smoove-like" from 3. But then again, that's the schizophrenic nature of mediocre 3 point shooters. Great one minute . . . horrible the next. - As for your supposed "dagger", it only proves that shots from that area aren't offensively rebounded as much. Easy explanation for that though, which I've already alluded to . . and this is also the main argument others have made against Smoove taking any type of jumper. It's because you not only have guards and SFs shooting from that range, you have more PFs and Centers shooting from there as well ( especially the PFs ). Add to the fact that the guards and forwards who do shoot from that range, may have not fully developed their game in that area. That's the major beef with Marvin right? He was a guy that had a pretty good midrange shot. He was told to develop the 3, and he did just that last season. Then his shooting from that area started to slide. This year, we've seen just about everything fall off . . . except his mediocre 3 point shot. - he's having trouble making the open 20 footer - he hasn't developed the off the dribble 15 footer, to create CONSISTENT ( i'll get back to that word shortly ) offense for himself - and he's getting to the FT line less often than in previous seasons So now we have a Marvin Williams that either needs to get to the rim . . . or we're screwed if he can't make his first few jumpers. His shots have been reduced, so he has to maximize his attepts. So no, that isn't a "dagger" stat in my opinion. It depends on who is taking the shots from that area and who is under the basket when the shot is taken. Your big people are going to be near the basket when a close range shot or a 3 pointer is taken. But because big people are also expect to shoot 15 - 20 footers in today's NBA, they may not be at the rim. So when they take a shot, the big man closest to them is in better position to get the rebound. That's why most of us don't want Josh Smith taking ANY kind of jumpshot. Like I said . . . simple explanation, according to who is taking the shot.

You guys keep taking about it's the "dumbest shot in basketball" . . . yet . . . the greatest player in the game absolutely kills people due to the fact that he makes a point to take midrange shots, instead of wasting more attempts from three. And the greatest player EVER, dominated people from midrange. If they couldn't get to the rim, they made sure that they developed their midrange shot to a high degree. The three point shot, to them, was used to simply enhance their game. In Josh Smith's case, it's definitely a "dumb shot", because he can't shoot from anywhere. For others, it's a matter of simply taking timely threes, not taking threes just for the hell of it. You know what . . . don't take my word for it though. Let one of the better midrange shooters ever in the NBA explain it to you. This is gospel folks. NOTE: This guy was a CAREER 33% three point shooter . . but only averaged 2 three point attempts per game, instead of the almost 5 per game that Crawford averages in his career. Crawford could EASILY be this guy from an offensive standpoint.

Very true. Now answer this . . . Why do people hate our offense?

Just tell the real truth is all I'm saying. JJ: ( 10 - 15 ) - 49% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 39% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35% Kobe: ( 10 - 15 ) - 49% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . ( 3pt ) - 32% Dirk: ( 10 - 15 ) - 46%. . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 46% . . . ( 3pt ) - 39% Roy: ( 10 - 15 ) - 47% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 43% . . . ( 3pt ) - 34% Deron: ( 10 - 15 ) - 32% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 49% . . . ( 3pt ) - 38% Melo: ( 10 - 15 ) - 45% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 38% . . . ( 3pt ) - 36% Zach: ( 10 - 15 ) - 29% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 46% . . . ( 3pt ) - 25% If you're going to tell what these guys shoot from a certain range, tell the real numbers. I have no problem with you guys telling how many points they get from each area. But just tell the truth about the shooting. And let me drive home my point about Jamal Crawford: ( 10 - 15 ) - 50% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35% Jamal is basically a mid-range terrorist. I mean, look at those percentages from 10 - 23 feet. That's as good as Dirk or Kobe. But what messes him up? His love for the 3 pointer. His 4.7 attempts from 3, is .1 more than his combined attempts from 10 - 23 feet. ( 4.6 ) And you guys wonder why he's so streaky? You guys wonder why people say he has horrible shot selection? But . . wait. His eFG from 3 is 51.3%. So I guess that justifies Jamal to continue to jack up 3s. Trust your eyes folks. Don't get blinded by what the eFG tells you.

Oh I agree with you. No way you want Smith taking 3s. I was just saying that, because that's the logic that was being used for JJ's 51% eFG from three. Smith, however, didn't take or make enough threes to even justify shooting from that area.

I understand it. But I also understand basketball. I understand that a 35% three point shooter is streaky as hell, and that it may be in his best interest to take the jumper that he'll make a higher percentage of. If the game is coming down to the wire, and we're down 1 . . . and we're planning to run JJ off of a screen to free him for a jumper, I don't want him taking a 3, because the eFG says that he's a 51% eFG shooter from 3. No He's actuallty a 35% shooter from that range. I want him taking the higher percentage shot . . . even if that means it's a 20 footer that he only makes 39% of the time. 39% is higher than 35%. That's REAL MATH. LOL . . the next time I'm in chat during a game, and JJ or Crawford is 1 - 5 3FG . . . and everybody is bytching and crying about one of them continuing to shoot long jumpers . . . I'll remind people to not worry . . . because if he hits his next 3, he'll be 2 - 6 3FG . . . "effectively" a 50% shooter.

08 - 09 season: NASH - 66% eFG from 3 SMOOVE - 45% eFG from 3 Interesting. And the league average is supposed to be 52% eFG from 3? Which means that a horrible shooter like Smoove was a lot closer to the league average, than a great shooter like Nash was. I just trust my eyes when watching games folks. If the league average on 3 point eFG is 52%, that's basically saying that the average 3 point shooter is a 33 - 34% actual shooter. This means that a guy known for his horrible shot selection, Jamal Crawford, was the average 3 point shooter. i.e. - a Streak Shooter from hell When JJ goes 2 - 6 from three, people aren't happy. Why? Because 33% three point shooters ( oh . . excuse me . . . ) 50% eFG three point shooters . . are inconsistent shooters who might shoot you out of a game in short stretches. Isn't that excactly what JJ and Jamal do when they settle for long jumpers, whether they be 3s or 21 footers? So for Josh Smith last year, he either should've been going to the rim, or jacking a ton of threes, with a 45% eFG from three.

And that's my beef with the eFG%. You know good and well that you can't figure in the eFG% anywhere but on 3 point shots. So why not tell what JJ REALLY SHOOTS from 3 point range? He's a 35% shooter. So he actually shoots a worst perxentage from 3 point range. Of course the value is greater, because it's a 3 point shot. But why bump it up to 51%, to may like he's making 1 out of every 2 shots from that range? Why "effectively" lie about his 3 point prowess? Misses shots are missed shots. It's funny though. If you make a 3, it counts as 1.5 FGs. But if you miss a 3, it's just one miss. Maybe guys should be "effectively" pentalized for jacking up 3's and missing. A 1.5 FGA penalty if you miss. I fully understand the intent and the purpose of the eFG%. But if people are going to put big time stock in the number, some parameters need to be given to show what is a good eFG% and what isn't a good eFG%. As far as what is a midrange jumper, I consider shots from 12 feet on out to be midrange. But if you want to use the 16 - 23 feet parameter, I'm not going to fight you on that. I need to see something though. I need to compare the eFG% of a bad 3 point shooter, to that of a great 3 point shooter. So I wonder if I looked up Smoove's shooting in the 08 - 09 season, compared to . . .um . . Steve Nash, how much of a disparity in the 3 point eFG% would I see? Yeah, let me check that out.

Wow. Both JJ and Crawford KILL PEOPLE when they take midrange jumpers Kobe Bryant makes a living from midrange. So does Dirk. so does Brandon Roy. So does Deron Williams. Carmelo is a lethal scorer based off of his midrange prowess. Rip Hamilton's entire offensive game is the midrange jumper. Zach Randolph, a guy that used to jack up his share of 3's, is now a midrange MONSTER. If Iggy had a midrange shot, he'd be better than JJ. Monta Ellis, Chris Bosh, Luou Deng . . . Wow . . . seriously? You devalue the midrange jumper that much, even though you watch JJ night in and night out pretty much kill people with it?

LOL @ calling a 33% 3 point shooter "a sharpshooter". If the shooting in the NBA is at a point in which GMs are calling 33% 3FG guys "sharpshooters", then it just proves just how much good shootng has disappeared in the NBA. You did prove that people may not think that 33% is bad though, so I have to give you props on that. So let me ask you this? Would you add a 33% 3FG shooter to the Hawks lineup, as opposed to a 6-11 guy who could shoot 50% FG? LOL . . in other words, would you bring Salim Stoudamire back?

I agree with this as well. Smoove will be in much better position to rebound his own miss, if he were taking a 16 foot jumper, compared to a 24 foot jumper. Overall though, I just have a huge problem with the notion that the midrange shot is the most useless shot in basketball. If anything, it's the most underutilized shot in basketball. You have a ton of bad shooters just jacking up 3 point shots, just for the hell of it. Those guys would be much better off just taking the more makeable 2 point shot. In Smoove's case, he shouldn't take any jumper, because it's such a low percentage shot for him, regardless of where he shoots it. Instead, I like him when he embraces the playmaker role. He may be our best passer on the team in regards to vision.

Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?

Who are the great Hawk coaches that we've had here? And were they great as the coach of the Hawks? You can place those exaggerations on me all you want, but I'm not the one concerned about a 22 - 12 team that has proved that they can play at a high level against the top 10 teams in the league. I'm not the one who questions our soon to be 4-time All Star player, and expects him to play like Kobe on a nightly basis. I'm not the one questioning every single move of the coach, like it negatively affects the team every time he does ( or doesn't ) do something. I'm not the one worrying about the teams behind us, when they haven't made a significant move to even look like they can catch us. On the contrary sir, I'm enjoying this season. This is easily one of the most stress-free seasons I've ever experienced as a Hawk fan. As long as Sund doesn't mess it up by tradng JJ for 1 or 2 decent, but non-star players, I'll keep enjoying the season. If I can quote the "great" Dennis Green, these "elite" teams aren't who we thought they were. So if they're not elite, I'm not worried about falling behind them . . because they won't pull away from us. It's easy Buzz. The difference between you and I, is that you have no faith in Woody and JJ . . and I do. So we'll always be at opposite ends of the spectrum on this.

Exactly. Pop pretty much came in on the perfect situation, when he had both Duncan and Robinson. Then he was able to assemble a team that could effectively shut down people, while having Duncan as the offensive centerpiece. And Jerry Sloan is a perfect example. Everybody respects him as a coach, and believes that he may be one of the top 5 coaches in the league. Having said that, UTAH hasn't posted a winning record on the road since the 2000 - 01 season. That's almost an incredible stat for a coach that respected. From the time that Jordan pushed Bryon Russell out of the way to beat them in the 1997 NBA Finals, Utah has: * Been to 1 WC Finals * Lost in the WC Semis 3 times * Lost in the WC 1st Round 4 times * Missed the playoffs 3 times In that span, Sloan has had three 50+ win teams. It's not a bad resume from him at all, but maybe not one that lends someone to believe that he's a great coach. Good coach? Definitely. Great coach? No way. But he hasn't had a top 10 player in the league since Karl Malone and John Stockton were real good back around 2000. Deron is a very good player, but like a JJ, he needs consistent play from his supporting cast. Utah can beat anybody at home, and lose to anybody on the road, because of that quality. Bottom line . . . good coaches can't turn mediocre talent into champions . . . without a great player.

In regards to Josh Smith, I agree . . .he shouldn't be shooting ANY jumpers. 27% from 3 is bad, because he's maybe only going to hit 1 three every other game. But I just like to throw around my disdain for the eFG%, because it lies. Like I said, you would never consider a 33% three point shooter a good shooter, while the 50% 2 point shooter would be praised as a great shooter. Same amount of points, yes, but not the same efficiency. And not the same psychological effect on a player. If Joe Johnson shot nothing but threes against Boston, and went 4 - 12, Hawk fans would rip him to shreads for that performance. Conversely, if he went 6 - 12 but shot nothing but 2's, he'd be looked at as having a good game. Why? Because missed shots are missed shots, in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you talk about jumpers. Missed shots means potential extra possessions for your opponent without you scoring, unless you secure an offensive rebound. Orlando tonight was 9 - 31 from three ( 29% ). That's 27 points made, but 22 missed shots from 3. From a 2 point perspective, the eFG would tell you that a 9 - 31 performance that generated 27 points, would be equivalent to a 14/31 ( 45% ) performance that generated 28 points. The difference is that the 2 point shooting team missed 17 shots . . . 5 less than the 3 point group. That's 5 less potential possessions that you're giving your opponent. Look at Jamal Crawford this year. Did you know that he's shooting 52.5% on his 2-point shots? That's 9th in the league amongst guards. That percentage is better than Kobe, Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy, and Jason Terry. But what drives people crazy about Crawford? His erratic 3-point shooting. And it's due to the fact that he takes ill-advised three's. Those ill-advised threes leads to those 2 - 10 . . . 4 - 14 nights that he has. Same with JJ, for that matter. Jamal would be a deadly midrange shooter, if he did that a little more, than shoot threes. Unfortunately, 36% of his shots are three pointers, compared with 26% of JJ's shots being threes. He and JJ are getting better. But at 35% 3FG, they're not setting the world on fire from that range. At least JJ will start driving, or taking midrange shots, when his 3-ball isn't falling. Crawford will keep gunning away. Damn .. . it may be time for me to do another Northcyde JumpShot Index.

So let me get this straight. You don't think we can catch Orlando, even though they're only 1.5 games ahead of us, and haven't been that far ahead of us all year. We've been closer to them, than any of the teams who are behind us, have been to us. But you're worried about those teams catching us? So in other words, you do believe that Orlando is an elite team. And because you believe that the Hawks aren't elite, we probably won't catch them. That's pretty much it, right? But you do know that the best way to keep those teams behind us, is to try to catch Orlando, and root for them to lose at just about any cost, right? The only reason why I use the term "excuses", is because when others on the board make "excuses" for the Hawks, they're immeadiately rejected by those who either don't like the coach, or a particular player that may have contributed to the loss, or the team in general. When Crawful posted that Orlando lost again, you immeadiately cited how much of a winning trend Toronto is on. While what you said was true, it was almost like you were trying to justify why Orlando lost to them. But when people try to do that with the Hawks, they're immeadiately shot down. It is what it is I guess.

That's the biggest lie perpetuated in basketball. Because a 33% 3-point shooter is NOT considered to be a good shooter. But a 50% 2-point shooter is. Yet, if they took 12 shots, they'd get you the same amount of points. Give me the 6 - 12 two point shooter over the 4 - 12 three point shooter any ay of the week. If Josh Smith shot 50% from.2-point range, he would be an UNSTOPPABLE offensive player. A guy like Dirk Nowitzki doesn't even shoot 50% on his 2-point jumpshot. But if Josh Smith shot 33% from 3, we'd complain like we do with Jamal and JJ, when they jack up a lot of threes. Both guys this year are mediocre shooters ( although tonight's performance may put both guys closer to 35% 3FG on the year. Marvin is a prime example of a guy who used to be money shooter from midrange, but is only a mediocre at best shooter from 3. Just about every star guard and wing in this league, is a mid-range assassin. If half of those guys would leave the 3 alone, or only take at most 2 a game, they'd be as great of shooters as you saw back in the 80s.

LOL . . why make excuses for Orlando though? Man, the Magic was down double digits to the Raptors for over 1/2 of that game. And Toronto is still one of the worst defensive teams in the league. But they did a niumber on Orlando tonight defensively until the final 6 minutes or so. So they almost came back and won the game ((( clapping ))) . . good for them. I just wish our fans were as sympathetic when the Hawks lose games they should've won. At least Nate Robinson had to play like Jordan for the Knicks to beat the Hawks. The Magic just laid down and died for Toronto for about 42 minutes in that game. I guess the magic question is this: Are the Hawks an elite team? And if not, is Orlando?

LOL . . . . but elite teams aren't supposed to struggle. Why are the Magic doing this? It looked like a carbon copy of the game they played vs Chicago, except Stan's adjustment for the Magic was to go ISO Dwight. Well he almost got a triple-double . . . oh wait . . . I guess I can't count the 9 TURNOVERS as part of a triple-double. Then he went to his bench, and tried to play Brandon Bass instead of Ryan Anderson. LOL . . that worked out well too. They're elite though. They'll be OK. But if the Hawks beat Boston on Friday, we could be tied for the division lead come Sunday morning, with a win @ Orlando.