I HATE the Hawks !!!

AHF · April 10, 2007

You can come up with combined numbers to get our total chance of landing a top 3 (or top 2) pick based on the total number of possible outcomes and the relative likelihood of each outcome. However, in the actual drawing - you are right that it will be concrete numbers. If we finish forth, for example, if the first place team wins the first pick our odds of landing the second pick go from 11.9% to 15.9% and if the second place team wins the second pick our odds of landing the third pick jump to 21.6%.

If we finish forth and the 7th place teams wins the first pick our odds increase only to 12.4% for the second pick and if the 5th place team wins that our odds of landing the third pick are only 13.7%.

I think the most meaningful way to look at things right now are using the composite numbers that weight the outcomes (i.e., the first scenario above is much more likely than the second scenario).

TheNorthCydeRises · April 10, 2007

Quote:

That is that we do land the #3 pick.

We get some guy... Honestly, there are not too many difference makers after Oden, Durant... But we take some guy with "potential" or something like that.

Do you realize that with a guy who is not a difference maker and with this team of ours who the tankers have no faith in, that we have set ourselves up to lose the pick next year period.

That means next year, if the draft is MORE STACKED than this year... then we have NO PICK...

But not to worry. The tankers can always blame the GM for picking somebody who was "not the right pick"... They can always point to the rookie of the year and say " it's ___________'s fault that we didn't get him".. More than likely the GM...

LOL . . EXACTLY !! Landing #3 might be the worst case scenario for us. I mean, even some of you guys pointed that our about the Marvin selection. If we had landed at #3, we'd almost surely take Paul or Deron, because it's a good possibility that Marvin was definitely going at #2 no matter what. Dropping one spot actually may have done us more harm, than dropping 2 spots. This year, we either have to get that top spot, or have a pretty good idea who to trade for, if we get the #2 spot.

At #3, there's no telling who BK would take. If you take Noah or Horford, who goes to the bench . . Marvin? And if that's the case, how does he continue to develop at the rate that we need him to develop? LOL . . and that pushes Shelden even further down the line.

Maybe Hibbert declares, and he takes him. If you believe anybody about Hibbert, believe the patriarch of G-Town basketballm, John Thompson, Jr, about Hibbert. I listened to that entire G-Town vs Ohio St game over the radio. When comparing Oden and Hibbert, he made the comment that both should probably stay in school to develop the part of their games that are the weakest. In Hibbert's case, it was his defense and rebounding. That's the last thing this team needs . . another big man who is weak on the defensive end, and isn't a "go-getta" on the boards.

Maybe BK, with all of the criticism about a PG, goes to the extreme, and takes either Conley or Law at #3. LOL . . I can see this board now if that happened.

And we're not even going to mention the MOP of the Final Four, Corey Brewer. I can see it now. Brewer being a BEAST at the Portsmith pre-draft camp, and elevating his stats to top 5. BK will try to resist his talent and potential, but can't. So he selects him at #3, selling us that he might be the next Kobe.

For that reason, it's a quest to get one of the top 2 selections, not one of the top 3 selections. If we get slotted at #3, there's no telling what could happen.

So I guess the tank crowd need to plug in the numbers, and tell us what THEIR probability is of us obtaining one of the top 2 picks.

TheNorthCydeRises · April 10, 2007

Quote:

The odds of missing a contensted 3 pointer are over 70%.

However, if you could improve your odds of hitting that shot by 7% you would do it everytime.

Does this mean if Smoove increased his 3 point shooting from 27% to 34% that I want him taking the shot more?? Do you really think that? and if he increased his 3 point shooting from 27% to 34% do you think I want him working on just his 3 point shooting?

That's what the tankers argument is right now.

The tankers says "Smoove go out there and ONLY work on your 3 point shooting. We have to improve your lowly shooting percentage as much as possible" The problem is that maybe it would be better for Smoove to focus on something else. I can deal with a 27% 3 pt shooting as long as other areas of his game improve and he doesn't shoot the 3 pt shot so much.

To say that Smoove needs to only focus on shooting 3 pters is really saying that we don't have any other player who can hit three pointers. What the antitankers are saying is don't ruin Smoove's game by having him shoot the three pointer only because we believe that we don't have to have Smoove's 3 pt shooting to win games. SO even if Smoove got his 3 pt shooting up to 34%... That's cool, but at what price? The shot is still going to miss more than it hits.

Do you realize that someone shooting 34% from 3pt range is an effective field goal percentage of 51%? Not that bad.

I agree we should be doing more than simply tanking but that is the team's biggest potential payoff (by far) so that would be my top priority at this point in the season.

Developing young guys like Shelden, Solomon, Salim, etc. should also be a focus during this period.

Playing T.Lue 50+ minutes should not happen (unless it is the only way to lose).

Salim shoots 36% from 3 now. Guys that shoot 35% and under from 3-point range, are usually very streaky shooters. They'll hit 3 - 5 one game, and go 0 - 5 the next. That's exactly what Salim does. And that's exactly how Smoove's shooting from 3 goes.

When you talk about your guys that are around 40% and over, they're at that mark a lot more consistently. You don't see too many horrible shooting games from the good 3 point shooters.

What Diesel is trying to illustrate, is that if the percentages are bad to start with, slightly increasing those percentages really doesn't help much. That's why stressing out over 3% swings in our draft odds, really isn't worth stressing over at all.

But you guys go ahead and do what you do. Just don't be devestated once draft night comes and things don't fall our way, because it's a very good possiblity that it won't. You have the right mindset. Don't put all of your hopes and dreams about the Hawks, into the lottery.

A continued commitment to developing our core guys, along with "good" acquisitions in the future, will see this team reach playoff level very soon . . . if everybody on the team doesn't get hurt at the same time.

TheNorthCydeRises · April 10, 2007

Quote:

You can come up with combined numbers to get our total chance of landing a top 3 (or top 2) pick based on the total number of possible outcomes and the relative likelihood of each outcome. However, in the actual drawing - you are right that it will be concrete numbers. If we finish forth, for example, if the first place team wins the first pick our odds of landing the second pick go from 11.9% to 15.9% and if the second place team wins the second pick our odds of landing the third pick jump to 21.6%.

If we finish forth and the 7th place teams wins the first pick our odds increase only to 12.4% for the second pick and if the 5th place team wins that our odds of landing the third pick are only 13.7%.

I think the most meaningful way to look at things right now are using the composite numbers that weight the outcomes (i.e., the first scenario above is much more likely than the second scenario).

And that's all my position has been on this AHF. It's just that people act like it's a huge difference between having a 14% chance, and a 20% chance. It is an increase, but good Lord, it's so slight that it's still a major crapshoot just to land where you want to be. And when you look at those percentages in reverse ( 80% - 86% against obtaining the pick ), it shows you just how this thing is stacked against us. And that's why I can't stress out over what games the Hawks win or not.

Wins and losses aren't my main concern now. But I do want to see certain players play hard, and see if they can elevate their games somewhat. It wouldn't hurt me one bit to see Marvin and Shelden have good games and lead the Hawks to victory tonight. But I'm not going to stress if they lose either.

AHF · April 10, 2007

Quote:

You can come up with combined numbers to get our total chance of landing a top 3 (or top 2) pick based on the total number of possible outcomes and the relative likelihood of each outcome. However, in the actual drawing - you are right that it will be concrete numbers. If we finish forth, for example, if the first place team wins the first pick our odds of landing the second pick go from 11.9% to 15.9% and if the second place team wins the second pick our odds of landing the third pick jump to 21.6%.

If we finish forth and the 7th place teams wins the first pick our odds increase only to 12.4% for the second pick and if the 5th place team wins that our odds of landing the third pick are only 13.7%.

I think the most meaningful way to look at things right now are using the composite numbers that weight the outcomes (i.e., the first scenario above is much more likely than the second scenario).

And that's all my position has been on this AHF. It's just that people act like it's a huge difference between having a 14% chance, and a 20% chance. It is an increase, but good Lord, it's so slight that it's still a major crapshoot just to land where you want to be. And when you look at those percentages in reverse ( 80% - 86% against obtaining the pick ), it shows you just how this thing is stacked against us. And that's why I can't stress out over what games the Hawks win or not.

Wins and losses aren't my main concern now. But I do want to see certain players play hard, and see if they can elevate their games somewhat. It wouldn't hurt me one bit to see Marvin and Shelden have good games and lead the Hawks to victory tonight. But I'm not going to stress if they lose either.

Fair enough.

At the end of the day, it is much more important to be lucky than to finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. in the lottery.

Ask Portland, Charlotte and Milwaukee in 2004!

bfwolf · April 10, 2007

I'm not sure how you can objectively look at a 6% increase in our chances of getting what is likely to be a franchise player as nothing to get worked up over. That's a pretty big difference.

If you look at our franchise, it's clear that the odds are against us no matter what. When you're one of the worst teams in the NBA, and you've bungled a couple of high draft picks, and you've got an unprecedented ownership squabble, there are NO scenarios that create a 50% chance of being a championship-caliber team in 3 or 4 years. So you throw around numbers like the odds being 80% against us and act like that means we shouldn't worry about increasing our odds. Well Northcyde, I've got news for you, the odds are AT LEAST 80% against us no matter what. So if you want good odds of rooting for a great team, go become a Mavericks fan. Your odds will be fantastic there. But if you're going to be a Hawks fan, then you've got to root for making the most of the crappy odds we've got. Otherwise, why care about ANYTHING the team does?

Most of the teams in this league will not be championship-caliber in 3 or 4 years, so the odds are against an AVERAGE team, and we are a BELOW AVERAGE team. So if you tell me that we've got a chance to increase our odds from 14% to 20% of landing a franchise-caliber player like Oden or Durant, I consider that a BIG deal. Does getting the 3rd worst record mean that we're going to be a great team in 3 years? No. Does it even make it likely that we're going to be a great team in 3 years? No. But does it make it significantly more likely that we'll be a great team in 3 years vs. having the 4th worst record? YES!

Now, at this point in the season, it's really too late. We're going to end up with the 4th worst record. So root for whoever you want. But to act like we shouldn't care whether we get the 3rd worst or 4th worst record is just bizarre to me.

When you're in Vegas, and you've got a 16 vs. the dealer's 10, you don't throw your hands up and say "Well it doesn't matter what I do, I'm probably going to lose either way." You take a hit because even though you'll probably lose either way, your odds are a little better with another card.

AHF · April 10, 2007

Quote:

When you're in Vegas, and you've got a 16 vs. the dealer's 10, you don't throw your hands up and say "Well it doesn't matter what I do, I'm probably going to lose either way."

As a total aside, did anyone see how I Met Your Mother last night? One of the best lines ever. It went something like:

Guy 1 (Neal Patrick Harris or Doogie) - "That girl was a 15."

Guy 2 - "A what?"

Guy 1 - "A 15."

Guy 2 - "Like in blackjack, you're not sure if you'd hit it?"

Guy 1 - "Exactly."

drzachary · April 10, 2007

Quote:

They'll say . . "well . . I'd rather be at 84% than at 91%."

LOL . . when the odds are stacked against you like that, does it really matter?

Who cares if a player shoots 38% from the field or 45%? It is only 7%. How can such a small difference really matter?

You're comparing the percentages out of 100. We should compare them like this:

Going from 38% of shooting to 45% shooting is an 18% growth in shooting!

Going from an 84% chance to a 91% chance is a 8% growth in oppurtunity.

Going from 1% ROI per year to 7% ROI per year is huge. Going from 250% ROI per year to 257% ROI per year, not so much?

exodus · April 10, 2007

Quote:

"Like in blackjack, you're not sure if you'd hit it?"

LOL

TheNorthCydeRises · April 10, 2007

I had a reply typed, but I won't argue with you BDawg. We just see things totally different on this subject. When it's a situation in which you cannot control the varibles that will enable us to get the picks that we need, I can't strees over 3% percentage point decreases and increases. Even when we lose, we have to root for others to win ( who are trying to lose like we may be doing ), in order to increase our odds. At some point, it all becomes futile.

The history of the league shows that even when a team gets that franchise player, they have to do so many things after that, in order to achieve their goal as a championship caliber team.

So I'm sorry. If our chances for Oden stay where they're currently are at less than 12% for that 1st pick . . and our chances for Durant are at best less than 20% for that 2nd pick, I can't get hyped up about that.

I just hope that Indiana doesn't get extremely lucky in this draft, gets a top 3 pick, and knock us down to 4th. That's the worst case scenario right there.

AHF · April 10, 2007

Quote:

They'll say . . "well . . I'd rather be at 84% than at 91%."

LOL . . when the odds are stacked against you like that, does it really matter?

Who cares if a player shoots 38% from the field or 45%? It is only 7%. How can such a small difference really matter?

You're comparing the percentages out of 100. We should compare them like this:

Going from 38% of shooting to 45% shooting is an 18% growth in shooting!

Going from an 84% chance to a 91% chance is a 8% growth in oppurtunity.

Going from 1% ROI per year to 7% ROI per year is huge. Going from 250% ROI per year to 257% ROI per year, not so much?

By that rationale, moving from the 4th worst record to the 3rd worst record would improve our chances of a top 3 pick by roughly 24%.

bfwolf · April 10, 2007

I thought that was pretty funny, too, AHF. Although for the life of me I don't get why that show has become popular. I don't find it very funny. But on somebody's reco, I programmed it into my Tivo so I've been watching it.

AHF · April 10, 2007

Quote:

I just hope that Indiana doesn't get extremely lucky in this draft, gets a top 3 pick, and knock us down to 4th. That's the worst case scenario right there.

The good news for you is that if Indiana gets extremely lucky in the lottery, it is literally impossible for us to end up with the 4th pick.

AHF · April 10, 2007

Quote:

I thought that was pretty funny, too, AHF. Although for the life of me I don't get why that show has become popular. I don't find it very funny. But on somebody's reco, I programmed it into my Tivo so I've been watching it.

Most of the show is pretty generic but the Barney character lifts it up a level for me. For those who don't watch it but who have seen the Harold & Kumar movie, Neal Patrick Harris plays a total womanizer on the show. He is "awesome."

drzachary · April 10, 2007