Hawks near .500; SWilliams making positive impact

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Be a man Walter. All you've been doing for the last year and a half is crying about our draft picks. Here we are, obviously a much better team, and what are you doing? Still crying about draft picks. The above statement by you is the biggest chicken squirt statement I've read around here in a while. If you're going to run around for over a year with pockets full of sour grapes, at least be man enough to admit it. Then again, you've never done it before, why start now right?

---

Add a #2 and #5 pick to ANY team in the NBA. Tack on $25 million in cap space. Add that we were a 13 win team to begin with. How can we not be "much better"? There is utterly no circumstance where a 13 win team adds a #2 pick and a #5 pick, no matter how poorly they draft, and has $25 million in cap space, no matter how poorly they use it, and has already acquired some young talent, no matter how slowly they develop, that wouldn't be a "much better team". NONE.

---

Chicago Bulls 2001-02

Cap Space: Tons

Recent picks leading into the year: #1, #4, #4, #8, #15

Performance: 21 wins (bad enough to earn the #2 pick overall)

LA Clippers 1988-89

Cap Space: Need you ask?

Recent picks leading into the year: #1, #3, #4, #6, #8, #13, #14, #19

Performance: 21 wins (bad enough to earn the #2 pick overall)

Conclusion: Neither team was a much better team.

[Nicholasp27]

yes, in general there should be selection bias in those

but i'm not sure that's the case this year

against charlotte he had 7 points in the opening 5-7 minutes and then was pulled until the 2nd half...he was on a roll to get a good stat line that night, but didn't get even 20 mins that game

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Are you saying top power forwards should always be drafted in the 2nd round, like Antonio Davis, PJ, Rodman, Sally etc.? You know, many good ones like Oakly, Dale Davis, Laetner, Horace Grant were drafted in the lotteries.

---

"Should"?!? No. But can. "Should" isn't the issue here, but when you can get MUCH more value for your pick, do so.

I am saying that yes, you can get a "top notch", role playing Pf outside the lottery, particularly when you are selecting amongst under-height, under-reach Pfs (excluding Simmons, assuming we were looking at a Pf) which SW, Millsap, and Smith all are. I am saying in this draft you could get this level of contribution in the 2nd rd. In this very draft TWO "top Pfs" or at least ones equal to SW WERE drafted in the 2nd rd. I doubt any of these three become "top Pfs" whatever that means, but it certainly cost less to draft Smith and Millsap than SW when all are simply quality role playing PFs.

We of course didn't try out Millsap or Smith. Draft promise mistake.

---

Have you seen Millsap enough to know that he's playing awesome defense like SW, and playing as smart as him? Or are you just stat watching? All PFs are not the same, you know.

[Nicholasp27]

Quote:

---

Per 48 minute production per game:

26+ minutes - total: 15.24 pp48, 16.26 rp48

11/25 20.8 pp48, 10.4 rp48

11/22 24 pp48, 15.6 rp48

11/14 6.4 pp48, 24.2 rp48

11/3 4 pp48, 16.5 rp48

---

(20.8+24+6.4+4)/4=13.8, not 15.24

[AHF]

Quote:

---

yes, in general there should be selection bias in those

but i'm not sure that's the case this year

against charlotte he had 7 points in the opening 5-7 minutes and then was pulled until the 2nd half...he was on a roll to get a good stat line that night, but didn't get even 20 mins that game

---

I agree that has happened more than once this year but the aggregate shows a selection bias where his best games as a group were definitely in the games where he got more than 26 minutes a night - especially in rebounding. There will be examples of games where he wasn't that great but got a lot of minutes and games where he was great and didn't get enough time but the aggregate shows you enough bias that you can't view the numbers for the games in which he has gotten more than 30 minutes per game and use those to predict what he would do if his minutes were increased to 30+ per game. Shelden played almost the same number of minutes in games with more than 26 mpg (133 minutes) and games with 17-25 minutes per game (130 minutes) but the rates of production are significantly larger in the games with the most minutes.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Per 48 minute production per game:

26+ minutes - total: 15.24 pp48, 16.26 rp48

11/25 20.8 pp48, 10.4 rp48

11/22 24 pp48, 15.6 rp48

11/14 6.4 pp48, 24.2 rp48

11/3 4 pp48, 16.5 rp48

---

(20.8+24+6.4+4)/4=13.8, not 15.24

---

That would be bad math to add them and divide by four. To use the pp48 rate you have to multiply the pp48*minutes per game and then divide the total by the total minutes played in those games. Alternatively, you could add the total points in those games, multiply by 48 and divide by the total minutes and you would reach the same results.

You have to weight them based on the playing time. Since Shelden played more minutes in some games than others they weigh in different amounts towards the cumulative total.

For example:

Game 1 - 1 minute 0 points = 0 pp48

Game 2 - 1 minute 0 points = 0 pp48

Game 3 - 1 minutes 0 points = 0 pp48

Game 4 - 8 minutes 10 points = 60 pp48

Total = 43.6 pp48

Total does not equal 15pp48 (0 + 0 + 0 + 60/4)

[Nicholasp27]

ok, so u are doing weighted averages to say his per48 is 15ppg whenever he plays 30+ mpg...that makes sense

however, i think the fact that all 3 groupings are virtually identical in ppg when you do an unweighted average shows that it doesn't matter how many minutes he plays, he tends to average 15ppg if he played 48mpg

in all of them, he averages a double double...take it down to 30ish mins instead of 48 and he is still close to a double-double machine

bottom line: he needs more minutes

(and we need a larger sample size anyway)

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Chicago Bulls 2001-02

Cap Space: Tons

Recent picks leading into the year: #1, #4, #4, #8, #15

Performance: 21 wins (bad enough to earn the #2 pick overall)

LA Clippers 1988-89

Cap Space: Need you ask?

Recent picks leading into the year: #1, #3, #4, #6, #8, #13, #14, #19

Performance: 21 wins (bad enough to earn the #2 pick overall)

Conclusion: Neither team was a much better team.

---

Come on are you really going to let FACTS get in the way of such a convincing argument?

[AHF]

Quote:

---

ok, so u are doing weighted averages to say his per48 is 15ppg whenever he plays 30+ mpg...that makes sense

however, i think the fact that all 3 groupings are virtually identical in ppg when you do an unweighted average shows that it doesn't matter how many minutes he plays, he tends to average 15ppg if he played 48mpg

---

I have to disagree with that statement. He only averages 15 pp48 minutes for the group of games where he plays more than 26 minutes per game. I do agree that the difference is not huge in pp48, though, with less than a 3 pp48 difference. The difference is more significant in rebounding, though.

Quote:

---

in all of them, he averages a double double...take it down to 30ish mins instead of 48 and he is still close to a double-double machine

bottom line: he needs more minutes

(and we need a larger sample size anyway)

---

Agreed that he needs more minutes and we need a larger sample size.

Going down to 30mpg and he wouldn't average a double double in any group of games, although he would be very close for the games in the 26+ mpg category.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Chicago Bulls 2001-02

Cap Space: Tons

Recent picks leading into the year: #1, #4, #4, #8, #15

Performance: 21 wins (bad enough to earn the #2 pick overall)

LA Clippers 1988-89

Cap Space: Need you ask?

Recent picks leading into the year: #1, #3, #4, #6, #8, #13, #14, #19

Performance: 21 wins (bad enough to earn the #2 pick overall)

Conclusion: Neither team was a much better team.

---

That post would shut me up if I had previously disagreed.

[chillzatl]

So basically you expect it ALL right now eh? I've read it all from you before. What you're saying now is exactly what you were saying two years ago, nothing has changed. You've been running this "building for mediocrity" song and dance for nearly two years now. The difference is that you've modified it slightly as improvement has come.

Billy's moves weren't the moves you wanted, so it's all for mediocrity. That's what you think and that's why you think it. You have no interest in taking a 'wait and see' approach. That would rob you of valuable time trolling this site, posting the same crap day after day.

I assume you're not a stupid person. Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I assume so. So why, year after year, do you keep acting stupid by pretending that this team:

1. has to be a contender right now

2. Has to contend AS IS

3. Can't make changes once this lineup "peaks" to keep going further

That is the natural progression of teams in the NBA and sports in general. You, like everyone else, should know this. I've raised the question to you numerous times, which went unanswered, and I do so yet again. Are you just that stubborn? Are you so self absorbed that you can't get beyond the notion that moves that you don't agree with could actually work out? That's really what it comes down to, right?

You don't come around here to be a Hawks fan anymore, if you were one to begin with. Every post you make is the same as the last.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Shelden Williams, Craig Smith, and Paul Millsap are playing very well, and I think a lot of that is because these guys came in as polished players whose game translated to the NBA. I believe that if Woody would start going to Shelden more offensively, we'd have ourselves a power forward that averages a double double.

---

In fairness to Woody, it took Coach K a while to run plays for Sheldon as well.

Sheldon was a 4 year college starter at an elite program so you would expect that his transition to the pros would be alot smoother then most other draftees.

[thesheedera]

Quote:

---

it took Coach K a while to run plays for Sheldon as well

---

Coach K never ran plays for Shelden. He actually ran less when SW was a senior than when he was younger. K became more and more dependent and obsessed with Redick all the time, and that's why the program fizzled out each season of their 4 years. JJ and Shelden we're a part of one of Dook's most hyped freshman classes, and they left without a championship...thank goodness.

Had Shelden been the center piece of K's last two teams, I think they would have won at least one title.

But I digress...K sucks.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

But I digress...K sucks.

---

The results suggest otherwise.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Should"?!? No. But can. "Should" isn't the issue here, but when you can get MUCH more value for your pick, do so.

---

The percieved value is the value that you place on guys who has "potential" according to the draft gurus... but have yet to prove anything as a real pro. Real value is what the Landlord bring to the workzone every night that helps make us winners...

Sure we could have gotten Roy and he could have been on the bench duplicating what we have in JJ and JC.

Sure we could have gotten Sene (as you suggested) and been the laughingtstock of the league.

What we did get...

was the best defender, rebounder in the class. Plus, I believe that his shooting will come around on the basis that he leads all rookies playing significant minutes in FT%...

---

Walter refuses to recognize the Hawks are winning basketball games right now. That is the reason they play the games, right? ?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You don't come around here to be a Hawks fan anymore, if you were one to begin with. Every post you make is the same as the last.

---

I'm tired of this character assasination. Accusing people who don't like the GM of not being fans because they don't think like or express like 'wait and see' you. Shame on you!

I don't believe that BK is a good GM. I have facts to back up my position. His history without a winning season, his joke of a coaching selection history, his ridiculous selection of MW over Paul and Deron in the best Pg draft in 10 years, his ridiculous selection of SW over the much more talented Roy when we didn't have a need at Pf and there were equally talented Pfs in the 2nd rd, all but nothing for Harrington, among other decisions suggest this.

It's not like I haven't explored the other side. I've posted several headings including one citing the "10 things BK has done right" and asked for those who believe either way, that BK is or isn't a good GM, to cite the things they respectively don't like or do like about BK. If this isn't open minded I don't know what is. I can recall at least one pro-BK poster who insisted that "BK has not made one mistake as GM". I found 10 things that BK did well. Hmmm? Who's close-minded here?

I don't have to 'wait and see' to know we're going in the wrong direction. I don't have to 'wait and see' to know that I don't want the same GM taking us in the wrong direction to make future decisions about our direction. I don't have to 'wait and see' to know how much better and more needed Paul (18/9)and Deron (17/9) are right now, how SW will remain a role player (even KB didn't until BK selected him), and how the talent on this team is poorly distributed. I don't have to 'wait and see' to know that this past offseason was the one with the best combination of draft, cap space, and trade capitol and flexibility and we didn't remake the team.

Chillz, get off your high horse. You've got alotta nerve questioning my team allegiance. I had my patriotism questioned several years back when I applied the precautionary principle to invasion of Iraq. Guess who the majority agrees with now. I can't say for certain that the majority will agree with me about BK's ideology and incompetence (meaning I can't say 'I'm right'), but I can say I believe his ideology is wrong, he has been often incompetent, and I'm right about these two things. I know you are not claiming "mission accomplished" when it comes to the Hawks' rebuilding effort like some. That is a valuable position to have stated. but I too have a valuable position, one that should be stated. and I'm stating it to your 'wait and see' ire. BK never was the GM to finish the job of rebuilding. We ALL know that. Unfortunately, he's demonstrated he wasn't the GM to have in the middle of rebuilding, making errors regarding scouting, NOT SCOUTING, simple drafting mistakes he shouldn't and that along with others have compromised our rebuilding effort.

W

[thesheedera]

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I digress...K sucks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results suggest otherwise.

---

He could win every game for the rest of his career and my opinion would not change. It just so happens that the only likeable dookie since Grant Hill became a Hawk, so I conveniently get to hate on K on behalf of my pro team. Life's good for a Tarheel fan.

[KB21]

Well, I liked Shane Battier and Elton Brand as well. Both seem like great guys, and I know that Battier did a lot in the Memphis community when he played for the Grizzlies.

Now, I can't stand JJ Redick or Greg Paulus!!

[thesheedera]

Actually I like Brand (according to tarheel lore he never liked dook and couldn't wait to get the F away from the program) and Jay Williams. Even though JW had a LOT of your typical dookie qualities, his game was as sick as I've EVER seen on the college level and he appeared to be a genuinely fantastic dude.

Battier was too into his future presidential candidate image and flopping for nonsense charges.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Actually I like Brand (according to tarheel lore he never liked dook and couldn't wait to get the F away from the program) and Jay Williams. Even though JW had a LOT of your typical dookie qualities, his game was as sick as I've EVER seen on the college level and he appeared to be a genuinely fantastic dude.

Battier was too into his future presidential candidate image and flopping for nonsense charges.

---

I do not believe that Shar-Peis, while a beloved AKC-recognized breed, are eligible to run for President.