EFF indicates we have TOO LITTLE TALENT

[Guest Walter]

Top 11 (2 are tied) teams top 2 player's EFF ratings per NBA.com

Pheonix

AS=27.56

SN=22.90

avg.=25.23

Cleveland

LJ=31.32

ZI=18.16

avg.=24.74

New Orleans

CP=27.31

DW=21.10

avg.=24.205

Utah

CB=25.32

DW=22.41

avg.=23.865

Orlando

DH=28.11

HT=19.59

avg.=23.85

SA

TD=25.40

MG=20.7

avg.=23.05

Boston

PP=20.12

KG=25.17

avg.=22.645

Houston

YM=25.53

TM=19.00

avg.=22.265

Dallas

DN=25.61

JH=18.68

avg.=22.145

Lakers

KB=26.37

AB=21.86

avg.=21.115

Detroit =

RW=16.9

CB=20.2

avg.=18.5

Average of the top 11 (2 are tied) teams top 2 player's EFF ratings per NBA.com = 22.87

...

Remaining teams top 2 player's EFF ratings per NBA.com with a >.500 winning percentage

Denver

MC=24.28

AI=23.61

avg.=23.945

Toronto

CB=24.65

JC=19.31

avg.=21.98

Golden State

BD=22.69

ME=19.75

avg.=21.22

Portland

BR=19.66

LA=18.76

avg.=19.21

Average of the remaining teams top 2 player's EFF ratings per NBA.com with a >.500 winning percentage = 21.59

...

Remaining team's top 2 player EFF ratings per NBA.com with a higher winning percentage than Atlanta.

Philadelphia

AI=19.63

AM=18.11

avg.=18.87

Washington

CB=23.65

AJ=21.92

avg.=22.785

Sacramento

BM=20.52

KM=19.45

avg.=19.985

Average of the remaining team's top 2 player EFF ratings per NBA.com with a higher winning percentage than Atlanta = 20.55

ATL

JJ=17.47

JS=20.61

avg.=19.04

The average top 2 player EFF rating per NBA.com of the top 11 teams, remaining teams with a > .500 winning percentage, and remaining teams with a winning percentage > the Atlanta Hawk's winning percentage are 22.87, 21.59, and 20.55. Each are greater than Atlanta's top 2 player EFF of 19.04 indicating that statistically, Atlanta has less top talent than all categories of teams with a higher winning percentage than the Atlanta Hawks. Furthermore, only 2 out of 19 teams (Detroit and Philadelphia) have a less talented duo than the Atlanta Hawks. Only 1 of these has a winning record (Detroit). Indicating that the likelihood of a team having a less talented duo than the Hawks while still having MERELY a winning record is (1/15) = 6.66%.

I have posted VERY similar if statistics leading to identical conclusions using Roland Ratings and I guarantee that ANY overall statistic will similarly demonstrate that the Atlanta Hawks are not as talented as the teams with better winning percentages, teams with > a .500 winning percentages, AND top 11 teams in the NBA.

I've also discussed the resistance within Hawksquawk to accept the obvious, statistically supported conclusion that, aside from all the other, more fan-friendly (easier to change) problems like the Pg, C, and coaching positions, the Hawks are simply not talented enough. Given not a single Hawksquawker including myself has UNDERestimated the Hawk win total over at least the last 3 seasons, each and every HSer must reexamine his own beliefs about the Hawks, its overall capacity and talent level, presumably reducing their expectations about its capacity and assessment of its talent level.

We Hawk fans need to accept that our talent level is our single greatest problem. Pg, Coaching, C, lacking skill-sets. They are all problems, too many to afford resolving given our cap situation frankly, but lacking top talent is our greatest one.

The solution(s)? I'll turn to my ending paragraph in the Roland Rating comparison of team's top 2 players.

Quote:

---

First, we need a new GM to evaluate this team and a new coach to evaluate it under. New ownership is an impossible dream.

Second, we need to determine whether we need to demolish and rebuild (see "nuclear option" of another poster) or retool. This should be determined by whether we can get at least one better top player, preferably one that isn't a forward, without losing both JS and JJ. The time to do this is next year before the trade deadline, utilizing Mike Bibby's contract and a young prospect (or two). If we cannot get said player by then utilizing the massive expiring contract leverage, then we cannot expect to have a bargaining chip like that for some time and should SERIOUSLY consider the "nuclear option". That too also depends somewhat on the draft classes of 2009 and 2010.

In short, our talent limitations necessitate we need bigger changes than I think most people realize or are willing to accept.

W

P.S. This is why I wanted a player like Gasol (23.4 EFF) and see a player like Bibby (13.27) as a name and not an improvement relative to cost. We needed a superstar. While Gasol may be a borderline one, he is highly efficient ...

[Lascar78]

You can try to pull every obscure stat you want, they all have MAJOR flaws. And no stat can account for the poor coaching and how well the exact same players would be doing if the had the right offensive system, which in turn would get them the right shots.

There is no way to measure talent through stats because all you can see through stats is how the players are performing in the current system in the way that they are currently being used.

All those stats show is that under Woody, our players are not efficient. No sh!t.

We have tons of talent. We have absolutely no offensive system and the players have to grind their way through a 1-on-1-fest to get points.

[Lascar78]

And that's not even mentionning the aberration of using only the top 2 players when you're trying to show the overall talent of the whole team.

[Cwell]

i'm sick of all these stupid stats.It's like somebody pulled something out of their azz and made a website.They have a dumb stat for every damn thing and I know they don't prove anything.There's prolly a stat for PPBB (points per bathroom break).I'm sick of this 82games crap or whatever.people run their,don't watch games and try to have an argument about something.OMG THIS STAT SAYS THIS THEREFORE WE AREN'T TALENTED.OMG LOOK AT HIS +-=*****##### RATING HE SUCKS.

[Lascar78]

Yeah I don't mind stats that have a direct meaning, like effective FG%, or other stats where you're trying to adjust a normal stat for different factors (pace of the game, 3s, FT's...). But anytime you are trying to qualify how well a player plays with a single stat, it won't work. It's just pointless. What does a EFF of 20 mean? Who knows. Watch the games and you'll see what's going on.

[DJlaysitup]

I need you tonight,,,,I need you tonight!

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You can try to pull every obscure stat you want, they all have MAJOR flaws.

HSers are batting .000 when it comes to not OVERestimating their beloved Hawks. These "flawed" stats are FAR closer to the reality of this team than the opinions of HSers are. No stat ever batted .000.

Quote:

---

And no stat can account for the poor coaching and how well the exact same players would be doing if the had the right offensive system, which in turn would get them the right shots.

This sounds alot like "and no stat can account for the poor Pg play and how well the exact same players would be doing if they had the right Pg running the show, which in turn would get them the right shots." See how well changing Mike Bibby has gone for us.

Quote:

---

There is

no way

to measure talent through stats because all you can see through stats is how the players are performing in the current system in the way that they are currently being used.

Stats aren't absolute, but they are certainly more able to measure how the players are performing than your opinion.

Quote:

---

All those stats show is that under Woody, our players are not efficient. No sh!t.

Pree-Bibby trade...."All those stats show is that under AJ...!"

Quote:

---

We have tons of talent. We have absolutely no offensive system and the players have to grind their way through a 1-on-1-fest to get points.

Pre-Bibby trade..."We have tons of talent. We have absolutely no Pg..."

When are Hawk fans going to run out of excuses for their excuse making for the franchise.

First, "we're too young", then "we don't have a center", then "we don't have a Pg", then "we don't have a coach"...all to avoid the most painful realization, after all of this bullshit under BK WE STILL ARE NOT NEARLY TALENTED ENOUGH!

W

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

And that's not even mentionning the aberration of using only the top 2 players when you're trying to show the overall talent of the whole team.

Get a grip Lascar!

1) This is most definitely a league of superstars.

2) I already posted last year where our 4th and 5th starters weren't statistically as good as those at least amongst the top 10 teams in the league.

3) Even you can see the better overall teams in the league have better top players (which is why the average EFF of a team's top 2 players decreases as the quality of the teams decreases from 22.87 for the league's top 11 teams, 21.59 for the remaining teams with winning records, to 20.55 for remaining teams with records better than ours).

How lame.

W

[Lascar78]

Somehow in your brain, "our top 2 players are not currently playing as efficiently as the top 2 players on better teams" translates to "our whole team is not as talented as other teams". There's no getting around that. You are the masters of pulling up stats that show one thing and drawing a different conclusion. Knock yourself out.

You can change the subject to predictions or AJ all you want, even though it has nothing to do with this. The fact is that those stats have nothing to do with the conclusion that you draw, and the lack of efficiency on our team has been caused by the complete lack of any offensive system for the past 3.5 years.

Have fun changing the subject again.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Yeah I don't mind stats that have a direct meaning, like effective FG%, or other stats where you're trying to adjust a normal stat for different factors (pace of the game, 3s, FT's...). But anytime you are trying to qualify how well a player plays with a single stat, it won't work. It's just pointless. What does a EFF of 20 mean? Who knows. Watch the games and you'll see what's going on.

What do you think EFF accounts for but "FG%, or other stats".

Fact is that HSers cannot accept the simple fact that we are not as talented as we would like to think just as we never win as many games as we as a whole (including me) predict.

"Watch the games" and HSers repeatedly predict the Hawks win 5-10 more games than they always do. Now that's "what's going on", as accurate as a pin the tail on the Lascar.

Lascar, I know you predicted 38 wins two years ago. I'm not sure about this year. That should give you some inclination of your own accuracy and in what direction it errs (OVERestimation of the current Hawks).

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Somehow in your brain, "our top 2 players are not currently playing as efficiently as the top 2 players on better teams" translates to "our whole team is not as talented as other teams". There's no getting around that. You are the masters of pulling up stats that show one thing and drawing a different conclusion. Knock yourself out.

What kind of nonsense is this. THESE 19 TEAMS ARE THE BETTER TEAMS because they ALL HAVE THE HIGHER WINNING PERCENTAGES THAN US! As far as more TALENTED teams I feel like we remain a mediocre team in terms of talent IF ONLY because in a league where teams generally concentrate on having 2, maybe 3, stars-superstars, our two simply do NOT measure up to the upper half of the league. Moreover, IF our TEAM overall is somehow better, then SHOW IT. Don't assume it. DEMONSTRATE IT. You may not like a stat because it doesn't say what you want to hear, but at least if you believe the team is better it should show itself somehow statistically. SOMEHOW!

Quote:

---

You can change the subject to predictions or AJ all you want

No, you can beg the question all you want. The upgrade from AJ to Bibby was supposed to be the answer...Now, it's ALL the coach?...The premise you want to believe is that "we are talented enough IF ONLY"...Then you merely proceed to change the IF ONLY every time one of your IF ONLYs doesn't work out. First we were "too young", then "too small", then "without a Pg", "now without a coach"...Christ, it's a begging the question party. First, PROVE we ARE talented enough before arguing under what conditions our relative talent can succeed. No opinions please. You guessed 38 wins last year. Who knows how many this year. The whole of HS is a good 5-10 games off OVERestimating the Hawks. What good at making the case is an opinion that is this wrong?!?

W

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Moreover, IF our TEAM overall is somehow better, then SHOW IT. Don't assume it. DEMONSTRATE IT.

Hey numbnuts, it can't be done. That's the point. Every single stat available under the sun can only show how they perform in Woody's system which is atrocious. You can't show their flat out talent or how they would perform in a different system.

The fact that even I underestimated just how horrible Woody is has nothing to do with the talent. Talent is the individual talent of each piece. The W-L record and efficiency ratings only show how the talent has been used.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Hey numbnuts, it can't be done. That's the point.

The imperfect argument is not an argument for or against anything. It is merely an argument for the potential for a better objective assessment in this case, WHICH YOU CANNOT and DO NOT PROVIDE!

Meteorologists cannot indicate exactly where lightning will strike, but does that mean one doesn't heed extreme weather warnings? [censored] no! These stats indicate we are a team on top of a cell tower on the highest point of land in a perfect storm top tier talent-wise. We better listen to the weather man and not the blind, deaf, mute of mere casual observations!

Reality is IMPERFECT. Statistics are no different. However, in this case there is no BETTER case being made about the relative talent level of this team and the ONLY case being made for our talent being "good enough" (for WHAT I don't know) is by some HSers who incessantly claim the Hawks are 5-10 games better than they really are. WHO THE [censored] to believe about "talent", the PROVEN over-eager, inaccurate and biased fan OPINION or NBA.com statistics that purport to accurately represent the overall productivity of a player.

Quote:

---

Every single stat available under the sun can only show how they perform in Woody's system which is atrocious.

Two weeks ago this same sentence read...

Every single stat available under the sun can only show how they perform with AJ at Pg which is atrocious.

Quote:

---

You can't show their flat out talent or how they would perform in a different system.

Two weeks ago this same sentence read...

You can't show their flat out talent or how they would perform with a different Pg.

It was youth, then lack of a center, then lack of a Pg, now the coach...the excuses are NEVER ENDING! NEVER ENDING! What delusion.

Quote:

---

The fact that even I underestimated just how horrible Woody is has nothing to do with the talent.

Wait. You want people to believe you are more accurate about the talent on the Atlanta Hawks when you were 8 games wrong about the win total last year and conceed how wrong you have been about Woody? Your bias has blinded you UP UNTIL THIS VERY POINT. Somehow you have the audacity to insist the Hawks are "talented enough" despite the overwhelming statistic indicating only 1 of 15 WINNING teams has a less productive duo than the Hawks? WTF!?!?!?!?

Quote:

---

Talent is the individual talent of each piece. The W-L record and efficiency ratings only show how the talent has been used.

This is meaningless jibberish. "Talent is the individual talent of each piece." Brilliant.

...

Hey, I know it's hard to accept, but we haven't gotten it right about this team yet and we can only seem to OVERestimate it's ability. We come up with more countless excuses for why we most certainly do have "enough talent" despite overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary. We need to get this right, not live out a fairy tale.

W

W

[BusBoyIsBack]

No offense but this is BS.

Some teams are talented beyond two players.

If you have 5 solid starters you don't need a guy in EFF of 25+.

And using that to determine we have lack of talent is absurd. Horford, Josh Smith, and Marvin Williams are all guys with great talent. The oldest being 22 years old. Saying they lack talent because of their EFF rating is implying that they will never improve in those areas for the rest of their career

[Lascar78]

Silence, you just don't understand, only Walter does. Clearly Marcus Camby is Denver's best player (Melo isn't in the top 2), we all know that TMac is worse than Hedo Turkoglu, efficiency is synonymous with talented, 2 players are the whole team, and so on. This is great stuff!

(Breaking news: In a shocking development, stats show that the teams that played less efficiently this year won less games! Brilliant!)

[txsting]

Not sure what "top 2" really has to do with it. The results and conclusions might be similar, might not, but I would prefer to see this data using the entire starting 5. I don't think anyone would argue we're built with top-line superstars but hopefully we're building toward having decent talent across the starting line up. A "top 5" reading would answer that particular counter argument.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I say 75%, because it's hard to base this just off of your top 2 guys. And since basketball is a team game, there are many other factors that the stats may or may not show, that enables a team to win or lose.

HOWEVA . .

Like Walter said, this is a superstar/star league. And most NBA Championship caliber teams have at least 2 all-star caliber players, plus a very good #3 guy, that leads them to victory night.

I wonder what Walter's assessment would look like, if he'd taken the top 3 EFF guys off of each team. That would give people a better perspective on what he's talking about.

Here's the problem with the Hawks.

JJ and Smoove have completely opposite roles on the team. Smoove is the all-around stat stuffer that affects games more from a defensive standpoint. JJ is the offensive star, whose efficiency is based almost solely what he can do on the offensive end.

But the main problem with JJ and Smoove is, unlike other teams, these two tend to not have good games at the same time. When JJ is on, very rarely will you see Smoove be on. And vice versa. One of the strangest things pointed out by JackB this season, is that when Smoove has a big scoring game, we almost always lose.

And Walter, this very thing is the reason why I wasn't as hard on Woody, than the vast majority of Hawksquawk.

Regardless of Woody's system, it doesn't cause them to miss wide open jumpers. It doesn't cause them to make all of those silly turnovers that they make. It doesn't cause them to not block out to secure rebounds. That's ALL on the players.

Bibby is a tremendous upgrade over AJ. The ofense has been better since he's been here. But with Bibby not 100%, he's Lue-like on defense. Without Acie to kind of balance things out at the point, it's hard to measure Bibby's true effect on this team.

Our guys are wildly inconsistent. Just look at JJ's EFF number. Of the players Walter listed, only Rasheed Wallace has a lower EFF.

Marvin was consistent in Nov - Dec, but now even he is struggling right now.

Smoove is easily the most overrated player on this team. Overrated in the sense that people believe that he is more than just a good player. A lot of Hawk fans think he's at all-star level.

The vast majority of all-stars in this league, are great ofensive players. Smoove just isn't that type of player. He's a Shawn Marion-like all-star. Definitely important to his team, but not good enough offensively to consistently carry his team.

Marvin is a close 2nd in being the most overrated. Childress, while efficient, is also wildly inconsistent. He can score 20 points one game, and 5 the next.

JJ is the same way. He's our main guy offensively. But because he's not the type to get to the line a lot, a bad shooting game is made much worse because he can't get some of those points back at the line. Other main guys can go 7 - 19 FG, but still get 22 - 25 points, because they're still getting to the line, and hitting 8 or more FTs. If JJ goes 7 - 19 FG, he MIGHT get to 18 - 20 points.

You guys can argue with Walter by him just using the top 2 players to make his case. But his argument that we have overrated our talent, is pretty much dead on. That's why a coaching change may or may not improve our situation.

The players either have to improve and stop doing the things that kill this team on a nightly basis, or we have to obtain better players who won't kill us.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Some teams are talented beyond two players.

Sure they are. Still, if their winners, their top two players are better than ours!

Quote:

---

If you have 5 solid starters you don't need a guy in EFF of 25+.

Maybe in college. Not the pros. "Solid starters" don't win jack in the NBA and everybody knows this including BBIB regardless of his rhetoric. It's a league of superstars and mismatch advantages for a variety of reasons. You've got the best of the best in this league so they've seen it all in terms of schemes, made it all in terms of adjustments, etc. ANY advantage that can be had is HUGE! Teams also have to be efficient in less than 24 seconds meaning 5 people don't even often touch ball on offense so on offense having 5 "solid" players isn't more important than having 2 all-stars or maybe 3 stars to superstars.

Quote:

---

Horford, Josh Smith, and Marvin Williams are all guys with great talent.

Yawn.

BBIB, how many games did you predict the Hawks would win this past season? It had to be in the low 40s. Am I right? Last season? High 30s? Get where I'm coming from? You have either no clue about this team, no clue about the NBA, no clue about basketball, and/or you are the one person who thinks an optimist dinghy (our talent level) can sail across the ocean (NBA contender).

Quote:

---

Saying they lack talent because of their EFF rating is implying that they will never improve in those areas for the rest of their career

No, it's implying that they will not improve (JJ), will not improve enough to make us contenders (JS), and will not improve enough to be better than JJ or JS and remain on the team (MW, Horford, JC).

...

Again, too many HSer live in fairyland and sprinkle fairy dust on their fairy toast every fairy [censored] morning. We'll win 5-10 more fairy games at the start of every fairy season with our fairy good talent and when we don't we'll hear fairy excuses about fairy youth, lack of a fairy center, lack of a fairy Pg, lack of a fairy coach, lack of fairy water boy, etc. before we hear the truth, this team simply isn't talented enough as demonstrated by the lack of talent at the top relative to top 10, remaining winning, and remaining better teams.

W

[Plainview1981]

I think I predicted 37 wins and as of right now that is what the Hawks are going to get. That's if they played .500 the rest of the way. Which they surely will not.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

A "top 5" reading would answer that particular counter argument.

No it wouldn't. People didn't like Roland Rating so I used EFF. Think they stopped whining and complaining? Hell no. They instead complain about statistics in general. I've got some statistics they can complain about. Year in and year out these same individuals OVERestimate the Hawks win total by 8-10 games! Hello?!? They can't criticize anything but themselves for falling for the pig with lipstick on it each and every year. Beer goggles and last call can't make this team look talented enough. Simply, "(they) can't handle the truth!" about how ugly the girl is they took home.

My argument is that this is a league of superstars and that to contend you need AT LEAST two that (together) compare favorably with the top two players found on the top teams in the league. Yes, you need "solid starters" as BBIB put it, but you need superstars MORE and they are certainly harder to come by.

I'm not insulting the team, but if we are going to contend we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that it's talent we have and a center, Pg, coach, etc. we don't have. We lack them all to the level we need to contend.

W