Hollinger Predicts We Go 31-51, Last in SE Division

[TheNorthCydeRises]

One of the things about Hollinger, is that he's always been extremely high on Chill. Too high in my opinion.

He also doesn't expect Acie Law to do much of anything on the NBA level.

On top of that, he's never really been that high on JJ or Smoove for that matter either.

There is NO WAY that the Hawks finish last in the division and 13th in the EAST. NO WAY IN HELL . . . unless JJ or Smoove gets hurt for an extended period of time.

To be that bad, we'd have to consistently drop games against not only the good teams, but the bad teams as well. This team may still be schizophrenic on the road, but at home, we'll still be damn good.

One thing Hollinger isn't taking into account, is that Mo Evans is probably our best, or at least our 2nd best perimeter defender right now. This will help JJ out IMMENSELY, when both Mo and JJ are in the game. If Woody chooses to do so, he can match up Mo against either the 2 or the 3, and let JJ guard the weaker guy to give him a "rest" on the defensive end.

Plus, there is another team in our division that doesn't have much of a bench, but won 50+ games last year. And their bench even got weaker this year, with the loss of Dooling, Arroyo, and of course Mo Evans.

Like last year, all I ask is for both Smith and Williams to shoot close to 48% FG next year. And do it consistently. And God help the East if Marvin becomes an improved defender this year. They'll be chasing us in the Southeast, and we'll be chasing Boston, Detroit and Cleveland for one of those top 4 spots.

[Traceman]

One of the things about Hollinger, is that he's always been extremely high on Chill. Too high in my opinion.

He also doesn't expect Acie Law to do much of anything on the NBA level.

On top of that, he's never really been that high on JJ or Smoove for that matter either.

There is NO WAY that the Hawks finish last in the division and 13th in the EAST. NO WAY IN HELL . . . unless JJ or Smoove gets hurt for an extended period of time.

To be that bad, we'd have to consistently drop games against not only the good teams, but the bad teams as well. This team may still be schizophrenic on the road, but at home, we'll still be damn good.

One thing Hollinger isn't taking into account, is that Mo Evans is probably our best, or at least our 2nd best perimeter defender right now. This will help JJ out IMMENSELY, when both Mo and JJ are in the game. If Woody chooses to do so, he can match up Mo against either the 2 or the 3, and let JJ guard the weaker guy to give him a "rest" on the defensive end.

Plus, there is another team in our division that doesn't have much of a bench, but won 50+ games last year. And their bench even got weaker this year, with the loss of Dooling, Arroyo, and of course Mo Evans.

Like last year, all I ask is for both Smith and Williams to shoot close to 48% FG next year. And do it consistently. And God help the East if Marvin becomes an improved defender this year. They'll be chasing us in the Southeast, and we'll be chasing Boston, Detroit and Cleveland for one of those top 4 spots.

I think you are 100% right on Hollinger with regard to Chillz. He looks at Chillz' admittedly terrific PER and thinks that he is better than he is. No doubt Chillz is a good player but his PER would indicate that he is better than JJ and that is absolutely preposterous.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

I think you are 100% right on Hollinger with regard to Chillz. He looks at Chillz' admittedly terrific PER and thinks that he is better than he is. No doubt Chillz is a good player but his PER would indicate that he is better than JJ and that is absolutely preposterous.

How's looking at his PER indicated that he's better than JJ? Joe have a higher PER than Childress.

Hollinger and his stats predicted that the Hawks would make the playoffs last season... where everyone else thinks the Hawks will be bottom feeders. He may have some truths to his predictions.

Edited October 1, 2008 by DeerPark

[crimedog]

How's looking at his PER indicated that he's better than JJ? Joe have a higher PER than Childress.

Hollinger and his stats predicted that the Hawks would make the playoffs last season... where everyone else thinks the Hawks will be bottom feeders. He may have some truths to his predictions.

No doubt in my mind that he's the sharpest out of all of those cats. That doesn't mean he doesn't get things wrong every now and then. On top of that, his biggest issue with the Hawks this year compared to last year seems to be more subjective than numbers based because even if you do buy that Chil is worth 4 more games than Mo, Flip/Speedy gives you 3-ish games over Acie last season (or whoever was at the pg).

He thinks ATL is going to backslide a little, or at best stagnate.

[exodus]

How's looking at his PER indicated that he's better than JJ? Joe have a higher PER than Childress.

Hollinger and his stats predicted that the Hawks would make the playoffs last season... where everyone else thinks the Hawks will be bottom feeders. He may have some truths to his predictions.

This past season Chill's PER was 17.84 and JJ's was 17.34.

Hollinger panned the Hawks about the JJ trade and said we were way overrating JJ.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

This past season Chill's PER was 17.84 and JJ's was 17.34.

Hollinger panned the Hawks about the JJ trade and said we were way overrating JJ.

I see. Didn't realized Childress has a higher PER than JJ...could've sworn I read somewhere that JJ and Josh Smith have the highest PER on the Hawks.

[AHF]

Josh Smith had the highest PER on the team last year. JJ was down last year and Chillz was up because he played fewer minutes and generated better production in those minutes.

Chillz has the advantage for PER purposes of being efficient like a big man (i.e., no range on his shots = higher%s and efficiency) and not having his defensive issues captured statistically. For example, leaving your man open 3 times does nothing to hurt your stats but if you grab on offensive rebound and score a chippy on one of those plays it improves your PER significantly. If you simply get back on D every time, you don't get the benefit of the offensive rebounding and garbage baskets. The same goes for breaking out early to get ahead of the pack on defense - leaving your man doesn't hurt your PER and getting the breakout basket helps.

Childress was solid but the impact from his contributions was inflated for PER and the comparison versus JJ spells that out quite clearly.

[crimedog]

Josh Smith had the highest PER on the team last year. JJ was down last year and Chillz was up because he played fewer minutes and generated better production in those minutes.

Chillz has the advantage for PER purposes of being efficient like a big man (i.e., no range on his shots = higher%s and efficiency) and not having his defensive issues captured statistically. For example, leaving your man open 3 times does nothing to hurt your stats but if you grab on offensive rebound and score a chippy on one of those plays it improves your PER significantly. If you simply get back on D every time, you don't get the benefit of the offensive rebounding and garbage baskets. The same goes for breaking out early to get ahead of the pack on defense - leaving your man doesn't hurt your PER and getting the breakout basket helps.

Childress was solid but the impact from his contributions was inflated for PER and the comparison versus JJ spells that out quite clearly.

In my opinion Childress has benefitted statistically more than anyone from our offensive system because he is never (at least last season) asked to do anything outside his comfort zone, which was the immediate basket area. He got more high percentage looks than anyone else, more offensive rebounding opportunities, and was rarely asked to create shots for himself or others in a way that would put him at risk of TOs or taking a bad shot. Not to say that he didn't excel in his role, just that no one's role suited their strengths better.

With regard to JJ's PER, don't forget that Joe had a down year on the whole. We remember the last two-ish months where Joe's numbers looked a lot like Kobe's but for the first 3-ish months Joe's numbers looked a lot like Jamal Crawford's - lots of points and decent assist numbers but poor shooting efficiency.

Edited October 1, 2008 by crimedog

[Gray Mule]

Something that this old man thinks that will make a big difference doesn't show up in the roster. Look all you want. It's nott there.

Then, what is it? We now have a shooting coach. He may not be able to teach any of these Hawks anything. That would be so sad to contemplate that. Being the eternal optimist, I believe he will have a positve effect on the shooting of the entire team.

These guys are NBA players and know how to shoot. However, if there can be some fine tuning done to that part of their game, it can make the difference at the end of the game because they have shot at a higher % from the floor AND from the free throw line.

If our players become better in this aspect of their game, it might change the defensive assignments of our opponents - - Having a snowball effect on everything.

The strength or weakness of the Hawks, as everyone seems to agree, rests on how good our bench is and how they are used by Woodson. If they come thru, we're in great shape. If they fail, so will the Hawks.

[Diesel]

Again, I would never say that Mo is a better player than Childress. I would say that he is a better fit.

There will be things that we will miss about Childress, no doubt about that. That being said, the things that we were missing with Childress are things that Evans brings and the things that we lose with Childress leaving are things that existing players can fill.

Whether or not you think Smith, Williams, and Horford want to play more down low is immaterial when, for 30 minutes a night, they didn't have as much of a chance to because Childress took jumpers at a significantly lower rate than such marksmen as Chris Kaman, Sam Dalembert, Brendan Haywood, or Emeka Okafor. That isn't fluke man, coach Woodson didn't go out there and tell those guys, "Childress, I want you out on the perimeter and I want Al and Smith to be taking mostly inside shots"... there is a reason that Al and Smith took about twice as many (by ratio) jumpers as Chil and it wasn't all a lack of discipline... its because if you have 3 guys sitting under the basket (whatever mix of Chil-PF-C you have in there), it makes them easy to defend with 2 guys and you can just double someone else.

With Chil gone there will be more space underneath, someone will be able to fill it. They probably won't do as good of a job as Chil but they will do a better job filling in for Childress than whoever was taking the outside shots last season.

That is a long rambling explaination but the point is that its less about pure talent and more about replacement level ability.

I have to disagree.

Chillz didn't need the ball to score. Chillz scored where we needed him to. Chillz was a ballhandler when we needed it. Chillz scoring was at an eyepopping efficiency.

Mo is a standstill jumpshooter who can score on the break. If we had a low post scoring threat, Mo would be great. However, without that consistent low post scorer, Mo is just another guy standing on the perimeter with his hands out! Bibby will dominate the perimeter shooting, so Mo will not be much of a factor.

[Diesel]

In my opinion Childress has benefitted statistically more than anyone from our offensive system because he is never (at least last season) asked to do anything outside his comfort zone, which was the immediate basket area. He got more high percentage looks than anyone else, more offensive rebounding opportunities, and was rarely asked to create shots for himself or others in a way that would put him at risk of TOs or taking a bad shot. Not to say that he didn't excel in his role, just that no one's role suited their strengths better.

With regard to JJ's PER, don't forget that Joe had a down year on the whole. We remember the last two-ish months where Joe's numbers looked a lot like Kobe's but for the first 3-ish months Joe's numbers looked a lot like Jamal Crawford's - lots of points and decent assist numbers but poor shooting efficiency.

No, I see it differently.

You have to look at it from his career as a Hawk.

In his second year..

His efficiency was 13.66. He shot 55.2% from the field and 49.2% from 3. He shot 65 3 pters in that year.

In his 3rd year..

His efficiency was 16.31. He shot 50.4% from the field and 33.8% from 3. He shot 70 3 pters in that year.

Last Year..

His efficiency was 14.73. He shot 57.1% from the field and 37% from 3. He shot 60 3 pters last year.

What the numbers should tell you is that Chillz is just an efficient player. In his second year, he had the luxury of playing with Al Harrington. Harrington was a ball hog in the post. That left room for Josh Childress to be wide open from the perimeter. That translated into 49.2% from three pointer.

IN his 3rd year, he was not healthy. Didn't play as many games as before and when he did get into games, the post threat was gone. His 3 pt shooting suffered but he was still very efficiency.

In his 4th year (last year), he just adapted. We started to see the opportunistic Chillz. Still as efficient as ever, but now he's being efficient where we needed him to be. Last year, he average 1.249 points per field goal attempted. That's huge.

For those of you who says he has no range, his 3 pt% is right behind Posey and Ginobili and he doesn't have a KG or a Tim Duncan playing next to him. IF Childress was to play with a dominate big, it's no telling what his 3 pt % would be I'm guessing 42+%.

[AHF]

Childress 3pt percentage would not be affected by playing with a stud big. He only shoots wide open 3s as it is. How can you get any better than that?

When he shoots contested jumpers (in the midrange) you see his shooting ability. Perhaps those numbers improve if he has a big like Duncan. However, saying a dominant big would help his 3pt% is like saying a dominant big would help his FT%. In both cases, the big man isn't going to make the shots any better than they already are.

[crimedog]

You could see all year how badly we needed solid jump shooting but Childress only took a quarter of his shots from outside the immediate hoop area. Less than centers. If it were a case of Chil adapting to our team needs, he would have been able to take more jumpers but the fact is he didn't. Part of the reason he has such a high shooting % is because he is a good finisher but the bigger reason is because he plays like Biedrins and Chandler.

Whether or not you think other guys will want to take those inside touches doesn't negate the fact that they couldn't do it with Childress sitting under the hoop the whole game.

The reason Horford and Smith's efficiency went up when Bibby came was because they were getting more easy looks inside. The reason Joe's efficiency went up when Bibby came was because, to a large extent, Bibby was there to take pressure off of him with the threat of a 3 ball. If Childress could have hit the 3 all season if he wanted to, we would have asked him to because the fact that we went, what, 7-1 without him made it obvious that other guys could, if necessary, step in and fill that role.

Again D, I'm not sure if you are misinterpreting what I'm saying here. Childress is a good player. We will miss him. However what he brings is more easily replaced by our current players than what he didn't bring.

[DrReality]

Here's hoping we have an offense to run and Mo and Flip will be more versitile to make it work.

[AHF]

Here's hoping we have an offense to run and Mo and Flip will be more versitile to make it work.

I wouldn't hold your breath if it depends on Woody. The lack of structure and versatility in our offensive sets has been one of the hallmarks of his first four years as coach of this team. I hope the player's natural improvement and Bibby/JJ's experience will give us something more effective this season.

[Plainview1981]

While I certainly think this team should win around 42 games. I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop to 34 wins. 31 wins seems harsh.

In terms of the defense. I have been thinking on this (and maybe that is a bad thing). But, with a full training camp with Bibby and Woodson being able to see what to do to cover for Bibby's defensive problems, I don't think the defense will be as bad as it was after the trade last year. I certainly have critized Woody harshly over the years, but if he can do anything, it would be getting the defense to work together as a cohesive whole. If the Hawks can keep opponents to 97 a game I think they will win at around a .500 clip. Anything above 99 the Hawks are in a world of trouble (and Woodson should be fired).

The defense hasn't improved that much in Woody's tenure at the head coaching position. Don't see how that is going to change now. The Hawks are at their best when running on offense... But that also exposes the defense more. The Hawks don't have the star power or execution of a Suns team to win alot of games on offense alone.

If Bibby plays 334MPG then the Hawks will be unable to put pressure on the other team from the PG position. Law and Speedy should be able to help in this area. That's why Bibby should play about 30MPG or so.

[frosgrim]

The defense hasn't improved that much in Woody's tenure at the head coaching position. Don't see how that is going to change now. The Hawks are at their best when running on offense... But that also exposes the defense more. The Hawks don't have the star power or execution of a Suns team to win alot of games on offense alone.

If Bibby plays 334MPG then the Hawks will be unable to put pressure on the other team from the PG position. Law and Speedy should be able to help in this area. That's why Bibby should play about 30MPG or so.

I agree, Bibby should look to play 30 minutes a night over the season. This would be a great advantage to the Hawks and Bibby come the playoffs as, hopefully, Bibby will be fairly healthy and rested for a playoff run.

That all said, I am really leaning towards trading Bibby at this point due to his complete lack of defense.

[Swatguy]

I wouldn't hold your breath if it depends on Woody. The lack of structure and versatility in our offensive sets has been one of the hallmarks of his first four years as coach of this team. I hope the player's natural improvement and Bibby/JJ's experience will give us something more effective this season.

This thinking is flawed. Knowing we have had limitations with talented (or lack of) point guards, but you expect "Woody" to have overided the limitations.

It Dont Depend on Woodson !! It depends on the guys first having the talent and second guys committed to playing at a high level All the Time.

This aint playstation.

[Swatguy]

That all said, I am really leaning towards trading Bibby at this point due to his complete lack of defense.

I don't think that is a fair statement. Bibby showed late in the season that he can keep guys honest. He is not a lockdown guy (there are not many). Defending the point is more by defensive scheme. The advent of the Zone defense in the NBA allows less man up defense. You saw a guy stepping into a new team with not having the knowledge of the guys behind him and their tendencies. Bibby is a pro. Defending the point is more than the point guard.

[AHF]

This thinking is flawed. Knowing we have had limitations with talented (or lack of) point guards, but you expect "Woody" to have overided the limitations.

It Dont Depend on Woodson !! It depends on the guys first having the talent and second guys committed to playing at a high level All the Time.

This aint playstation.

Which is why Jim Harrick had a functioning offensive system with 18-22 year old kids within months of being named head coach at UGA that blows away anything the Hawks have run in 4 years under Woodson. Woodson couldn't have matched that with an All-Star shooting guard known for his playmaking from the wing; veteran PGs (AJ, Lue); and a mix of vets (Al Harrington, Antoine Walker, etc.) and young, raw talent in the frontcourt.

Sorry I am not buying that excuse machine. I would if there was an offensive system put in place and it broke down so many times over a few years that he had to go to a "give it to JJ and clear out" system but when have you seen this team trying to run pick and rolls, motion offense, etc.?

Milwaukee can run its system with Ramon Sessions as its PG but we can't function without a stud PG even with years to put something in place? There is just zero chance that coaches like George Karl, Don Nelson, Mike D'Antoni, Rick Adelman, etc. would not have a coherent system in place way before Bibby arrived.