REHawksFan

@NBASupes Do you still feel like trades for Bertans and Adam's will happen so long as neither team gets a bigger offer between now and the deadline? Or is there a legit possibility OKC or Wiz pull players back and wait til summer? Moreso for Adam's since Bertans is a FA.

Speaking of, why dont Wiz have any interest in re-signing him? 

19 minutes ago, AHF said:

Plus / minus is a highly contextual number.  A single game also means nothing.  It seems obvious to me that we are largely comparing +/- of a rebuilding lottery team against playoff rosters with much deeper talent pools.  That doesn't translate well as a proxy for a direct comparison of Trae's style versus "traditional" point guards without accounting for that context.

Exactly.  

It's kinda ridiculous to judge Trae on plus minus when the context of the surrounding parts is so different. 

6 minutes ago, KB21 said:

When you decide to voluntarily get on the lottery spin cycle, it’s hard to get out of that cycle.

It's not easy but it can be done.  Just have to evaluate players correctly and be willing to change the focus from "asset accumulation" and "player development" to "player production".  So long as the mindset within the organization shifts away from stockpiling "assets" to acquiring actual NBA players that can contribute, I'll live with the inevitable results.  Good or bad. 

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think 99% of the board falls outside of these groups of outliers on both of these, however, and rejects both of these extremes.

Agree. The majority is some reasonable combination of the two extremes. But then, there's still plenty for us to agrue / banter about as well with regard to the timing of getting out of the lottery spin cycle. How long do we stay in? When is the appropriate time to cash in and go for more experience? Etc...  The great thing about the internet.......there's no shortage of *hopefully friendly* debates. 

15 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

So just using the numbers you posted, the Hawks are 4 - 7 when at least 2 out of the 3 of Trae, Collins, or Huerter won their matchup.  That's a 36.4% winning percentage.  So even when our best guys are winning matchups, we're still losing.  That's an indication that others have to still help them.

Most statheads and new analytic people hate the NBA Efficiency stat, because it's skewed toward players that play more minutes or players that produce a lot of raw numbers.  But those numbers DO matter.  If it didn't, the stat ( when looked at from a team standpoint ), wouldn't be so accurate in predicting who wins and loses a game.

 

This is the Hawks profile

  http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/atlanta-hawks/team/profile/20/1

 

When the Hawks win the NBA Efficiency battle, the Hawks are 9 - 1.  When they lose it, we're 1 - 31.  And that 1 win came at San Antonio the other night, via Huerter's late game 3.  But let's dive all aspects of the team to see how the profile changes.

• Backcourt:    22 - 21 . . . . . .( Hawks record in wins:  10 - 12 . . . Hawks record in losses:  0 - 21 )
• Frontcourt:   11 - 32 . . . . .  ( Hawks record in wins:    7 - 4 . . . . Hawks record in losses:  3 - 29  )
• In The Paint: 16 - 26 - 1  . . ( Hawks record in wins:    4 - 12 . . . Hawks record in losses:  5 - 21 )
• Out of Paint: 13 - 30 . . . . .  ( Hawks record in wins:    9 - 4 . . . . Hawks record in losses:  1 - 29 )
• Starters:        13 - 30 . . . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:    8 - 5 . . . . Hawks record in losses:  2 - 28 )
• Bench:          17 - 26 . . . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:    7 - 10 . . . Hawks record in losses:  3 - 23 )

 

• PG:     28 - 13 - 2 . . .. . . . . .  ( Hawks record in wins:  10 - 18 . . . Hawks record in losses:  0 - 13 )
• SG:     16 - 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:    4 - 12 . . . Hawks record in losses:  6 - 21 )
• SF:        7 - 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:    5 - 2 . . . . Hawks record in losses:  4 - 31 )
• PF:      16 - 24 - 3 . . . . . . . .  ( Hawks record in wins:     3 - 13 . . . Hawks record in losses:  6 - 18 )
• C :      16  - 26 - 1 . . . . . . . .  ( Hawks record in wins:     4 - 12 . . . Hawks record in losses:  6 - 20 )

Looking at these profiles from a team standpoint, it just drives home even more how our fortunes live and die with our backcourt, and why it is so important for Huerter and now Teague, to play well on a nightly basis.  The 0 - 21 record when the backcourt loses the efficiency battle, is directly related to shooting.

I wonder how those sensitivity numbers wrt the backcourt will change once we have a legit starting C on the roster. Would have to think that's part of the issue. That along with JC being out 25 games and the rookies being rookies. Give me a stronger starting C, more seasoned Cam and Hunter, and a full-time JC and I'm guessing A LOT of pressure will be taken off of Trae and Kev. 

15 minutes ago, txsting said:

@benhillboy you are one of the best posters here, but I think you may have simply found some numbers that back up the thoughts and fears you are already having, and might be suffering from a little confirmation bias in this case.

Traes on/off plus-minus is actually through the roof.  Check 82games.com (they are back baby).  Maybe that is due to a poor backup PG situation, and we will find out now that we have a much stronger situation with JT.

However, 30ppg players are rare.  He is doing all the work to get those numbers.  Very rarely does he get a catch and shoot.  

We have no choice but to build around Trae, unless somebody offers a trade we can't refuse.  As far as I'm concerned the whole roster should be available to find the best complementary players for Trae.  That includes Collins.

I agree that everyone but Trae should be available for the right price.  I'm not looking to trade the core, but I wouldn't be opposed to it for the right players. 

2 minutes ago, marco102 said:

I just don't understand the rush of trading the pick when we have tons of capspace to pick up really good role players in the off season. 

I'd rather package the pick for something better than a role player than keep the pick and overpay in FA for role players. IF there were players worth the $80M they will have in FA then my attitude on the pick would likely be similar to yours. In general, I like to keep high picks and use them. I just don't see it with this particular draft and where the Hawks are right now.  

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It’s the allure of the unknown player.  The Hawks will have a top 3 pick, again, and a lot of fans who have bought into this tanking idea truly believe that amassing several top 3 picks will lead to a championship caliber team.

I was on board with that the first year. But now they have their budding super star (Trae), budding all star (JC), and multiple role players (Kev, Cam, and Hunter). It's time now to infuse the experienced talent. If there's not a sure fire, immediate impact all star level player in this draft, I don't see the benefit in keeping the pick. But that's just me. I'd rather let some other team bet on the potential of a young player. We have enough "potential" bets going already. 

18 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

To begin, I'll post where I'm getting my information from.  This is Trae Young's player profile on hoopstats.com:

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/atlanta-hawks/players/trae-young/profile/20/1/16

 

Here's what you're seeing on this site:

• All of Trae's raw stats, in order to calculate his NBA Efficiency number.
  • NOTE:  NBA efficiency is a volume intensive stat in which the more raw numbers you put up, the higher your efficiency number will normally be.
• Every opponent that Trae is directly going up against at his position . . if both players have played at least 25 minutes in the game
• Each player's NBA Efficiency number in that game
• The difference between the profiled player, and the player he's going up against, expressed in a won - loss record
• And the record of the team overall, when he wins or loses the matchup

 

So let's dive into the data.

Overall, Trae Young ranks 17th in the NBA, with a 25.6 NBA Efficiency rating and is 4th among PGs behind Doncic, Irving, and Lillard.

When you look at Trae's personal profile, and the parameters that hoopsstats.com has put forth, Trae has won his matchup vs the PG he's going against 19 times.  He's lost his matchup 10 times.  And on 8 occasions, he's tied in efficiency vs the opposing guard. 

Trae's record:  19 - 10 - 8

For a comparison:

• Giannis ( the top NBA Efficiency player in the league ) is 28 - 3 - 6
• Luka is 31 - 2 - 4 . . which is an absolutely ridiculous number that is mainly boosted by Luka's rebounding
• Kyrie is 8 - 4 - 2
• Lillard is 26 - 9 - 7

One of the flaws in calculating this, is that we all know that Trae didn't guard the opposing PG the entire time he was on the court, and vice versa.  This website simply calculates their NBA Efficiency number for the game, and quantifies it as a "matchup" if both players have played at least 25 minutes in the game, regardless if those minutes were against each other or not.  Despite that, it is a decent way to compare production in a game, and who's production actually contributes to wins and losses because these players are mainly going up against each other.

To me, there's 2 ways you can look at Trae's 19 - 10 - 8 number.  You can say that Trae has played even or above his opponent 27 out of 37 times ( 73% ).   Or you can say that Trae has played even or below his opponent 18 out of 37 times ( 49% ).  While the site kind of dismisses the ties or playing to a draw, you kind of have to factor those in, at least from a team W - L standpoint, something they do not do.

The interesting thing that this website does with these numbers, is that they also have a "sub-record" of how the team did when a player either won or lost their matchup.  So let's look further at Trae and the Hawks.

 

Trae won his matchup 19 times:   Hawks are 6 - 13

Trae lost his matchup 10 times:  Hawks are 0 - 10

 

This tells us something that pretty much all of us who watch every game, know.  If Trae isn't putting up a HUGE number offensively, whether it be a lot of points, or a lot of assists, we're not winning the game . . . period.   Now why could that be?  Could it be that he doesn't have adequate help around him?  Could it be that Trae doesn't elevate his teammates to a higher level, and needs more than 8.5 assists to do so? 

Here are the matchup records of the Hawks players and Hawks W - L record in those games.

• Young:  19 - 10 - 8 . . ( Hawks record in wins:  6 - 13 . . Hawks record in losses:  0 - 10 )
• Collins:  6 - 4 - 6 . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:  3 - 3 . . . Hawks record in losses:  2 - 2 )
• Huerter:  8 - 8 - 4 . . . ( Hawks record in wins:  4 - 4 . . . Hawks record in losses:  0 - 8 )
• Hunter:  6 - 22 - 7 . .  ( Hawks record in wins:  1 - 5 . . . Hawks record in losses:  6 - 16 )
• Reddish:  1 - 17 - 5 .  ( Hawks record in wins:  0 - 1 . . . Hawks record in losses:  3 - 14 )
• Parker:  5 - 10 - 4 . . . ( Hawks record in wins:  1 - 4 . . . Hawks record in losses:  3 - 7 )
• Bembry:  8 - 4 - 1 . . . ( Hawks record in wins:  2 - 6 . . . Hawks record in losses:  2 - 2 )
• Len:  3 - 1 - 0 . . . . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:  1 - 2 . . . Hawks record in losses:  0 - 1 )
• Jones:  0 - 2 - 2 . . . . . ( Hawks record in wins:  0 - 0 . . . Hawks record in losses:  1 - 1 )
• Carter:  0 - 1 - 0 . . . .  ( Hawks record in wins:  0 - 0 . . . Hawks record in losses:  0 - 1 )

Bruno, Crabbe, Turner, and Goodwin have not had a game in which they, and their main opponent counterpart, have played 25+ minutes in a game.

 

When you look at those W - L profiles, it shows us what we all know, or should know.  We have very few players who can out perform their opponent on a nightly basis.  And despite Trae doing it more than anyone else, it didn't translate into wins, especially when Collins was out and Huerter wasn't still 100%.  He just didn't have any help.

The burden on Hunter and Reddish has been too much, from a production standpoint. Asking rookies who aren't in that elite tier of players to step right in and outproduce NBA vets, is unfair to them. That's why we needed our own vets who could at least do it on an occasional basis.  Surprisingly, Bembry has been the one vet ( when given the minutes ), who can outproduce his counterpart.  But even when he was doing it, the Hawks still lost more than they won.  

It's only when Collins came back into the mix, and Huerter finally snapped out of his funk, that they started outproducing their counterpart, along with Trae, that led to victories for the team.  Recently, the key to our wins has been Huerter outplaying his SG counterpart, which he's done 6 times since Dec 30th, leading to 4 wins.

 

Bottom line is that Trae is doing more than enough on offense, to have the team win more games than they have, even if his opponent is producing numbers as well.  But every star player needs help, in order to win in this league.

 

Fascinating data. Thanks for posting.

Also interesting to note the following:

• Trae / Huerter both WON: Hawks go 2-4
• Trae / JC both WON: Hawks go 1-1
• Huerter / JC both WON: Hawks go 1-1
• T/H/C all WIN: Hawks go 0-1 (only happened in Cleveland when JC came back from suspension)

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I don't watch college basketball.

Then how are you so confident that keeping the pick is the best way to go? If you don't know what level of player you could get in the draft, I'm not sure how anyone could make an informed decision on whether keeping the pick or trading it is better. 

15 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Only player I'd trade EASILY  for in that group for a top pick is is Jonathan Isaac, when I factor in age and current contract.

Beal and Jrue I give very minimal consideration, they always seem to be injured.

Do you really want to see a backcourt of Trae and Lavine? Easy Pass - unless they're including WCJr.

Middleton - think Joe Johnson, straight back to the treadmill. Paid like Batman but really a Robin.

Here's the other think to consider, these teams will want a young player attached to the pick.

Example: When Orlando traded Oladipo and #11(Sabonis) for Ibaka (Established player) - how'd that work out for them. 

 

TBH, I started not to respond with any list of players and this is exactly why. It's just too easy to poke holes in any player I throw out. BUT, BUT, BUT.....unless you are trying to assert that there are NO players in the league worth trading a Top 7 pick for (I don't think you are saying this but could be wrong), then this exercise is completely unnecessary.  I'm not the GM. I trust TS to identify the established players that would: A. help the Hawks; B. are available; and C. are on decent contracts. Surely such a player exists. 

Now back to that philosophy I spoke of. I will turn the tables a bit on you and ask you to tell me which of the potential draft players (Top 7) you think would be an immediate impact player for the Hawks??  That's the point here. I'm not suggesting I'd feel the same way if there was an actual immediate impact player like Luka, Zion (if he's ever healthy), or Ja in this draft. But I don't see one. So I *think* I'm willing to trade in my asset for an established player that can help the Hawks and is on the same timeline as Trae, JC, Kev, and the rest of the core. 

And it doesn't have to be a 1-1 deal. Like you said, it could include other players. I'd trade 1+Len + Parker for Isaac + Bamba today. 

29 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

There are ton of 'Established' players, who are some established players you have in mind (forget their availability for a minute) that you would trade a top pick for?

Not guys like Giannis, KAT types etc. that's easy.

 

I'd trade a top 7 pick in THIS YEAR'S draft for these players off the top of my head (I haven't looked at these contracts so this is ignoring whether they are on a bad contract or not and whether they are available or not):

• Bradley Beal
• Jonathan Isaac
• Jrue Holiday
• Zach LaVine
• Kris Middleton, etc...

I'm sure there are others. 

11 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Who is the established player that is AVAILABLE for a top #7 pick?

I don't know at this point. Maybe not anyone until the summer. I would think that holding the pick til the draft could open up some opportunities to trade it for an established player. Who that exactly is, I'm not sure. 

I'm more just speaking to the philosophy of adding another high lotto pick vs adding an established player. IF the ceiling for whomever would be available with the Hawks pick this summer is DeAndre Hunter then I just as soon trade the pick for a player that can contribute sooner. And again, as of right now, I'm just sort of leaning that way. I'm getting tired of the developmental players. 

8 minutes ago, JTB said:

Well I would say wiseman has legit star potential but he’s 3-4 years away....by the time he’s ready to contribute Trae would be ready to leave .

but as far as keeping our own pick ...if we somehow land the number 1 pick I believe the only player that can provide some type of instant impact is Edwards. Wiseman and LaMelo aren’t ready yet 

I'm starting to lean toward a preference of trading the pick for an established player. Or at least strongly considering that move. I'm just less and less impressed that there's anyone in this draft that will end up elite. Hawks need more immediate impact players and I dont see that so far from the draft. 

6 hours ago, Watchman said:

If we are truly trying to win a championship, we have to do better than assemble "a good team."   As someone said earlier, there is an element of luck involved.  I don't really think LAC can win a championship.  They are a good team, but probably not good enough.  Likewise with Houston, Denver, or Utah.  Maybe the Lakers can do it.  I have to question whether Philadelphia, Boston or Miami can do it.  Milwaukee?  Maybe.  My point in this is that I am not sure that Reddish, Hunter, Heurter or even Collins or Trae can get up to that level.  

You literally just discounted every contending team in the NBA. Only problem is someone is going to win a title this year. So even by your standards you sont have to be a perfect team to win one. 

It sure sounds like you are angling for some perfect team that just isnt realistic. Let TS use the assets he has to put the best team on the floor and see what happens. Personally, I like the idea of Adam's and Bertans. Even if it comes as overpays.  

The reality is the Hawks have 6 players under contract next year and have to fill out their roster. They also have $80 M to do it. With a weak FA market, they are going to overpay players unless they do a lot of trades. You might as well get used to it now. 

3 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Since we are not a free agent Mecca, we have to make worthwhile trades.  Doing nothing is more reasonable than perpetuating the current "get as many bad contracts as we can" philosophy, so we can perpetuate the current situation.

Preaching to the choir on that one. I want to make good trades and build the roster through trades because there aren't any elite FA this summer worth spending big money on. My point is you dogging the Adams or Drummond trades means little if you aren't willing to put forth other viable options. 

40 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Someone other than Adams, Horford, Marvin, and the other guys Supes mentioned earlier.  Should we give up a first round pick just to get Adams for a season?  

Criticism without an alternative is empty.  It's real easy to object to every suggestion when you don't have to provide an alternative. But your criticism holds little merit without said alternative 

5 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

They know that already 

They know. And we know that they know. Doesn't make it sting any less when we have to watch them get abused in the paint. 

2nd of a b2b strikes again. They all look awful