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

[crimedog]

Oh, Well, I guess then it completly makes sense. :shock11:

...he is uncreative on offense...

Do you disagree? Did Woody force Smith into the role of a go-to guy, 20ppg scorer or not? Did he pull him out of that role and immediately go back to isoing Joe every play down?

Not that one is better than the other, just how Woody does business on that end.

[Swatguy]

...he is uncreative on offense...

Do you disagree? Did Woody force Smith into the role of a go-to guy, 20ppg scorer or not? Did he pull him out of that role and immediately go back to isoing Joe every play down?

Not that one is better than the other, just how Woody does business on that end.

I'm saying what options has he had?

[Diesel]

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.

That's some fouled up logic there crime dog. By your logic, JJ, Bibby, Horf, Smoove, and Marvin didn't fit into our team need either. I mean.. if you're talking about somebody shooting a three point shot when we need it... then isn't that applicable to everybody? Chillz did what he does. That's like blaming Shaq, Chandler, Amare, and Duncan for not shooting threes when the team needed it.

Logically, the measure of how Chillz "fit" on the team was his shooting percentage. Dude shot 57% from the field. Regardless of where he took the shot...weather it was inside or a 3 pter.. he could be counted on to hit.

Just to farther show you how bad your logic was...

Let's take a player like Ricky Davis. Ricky Davis could come here and he could score a gang of points, he could put up a three pointer whenever he felt it was needed... and he'd probably shoot about 38% from the field and 18% from three point. However, by your logic if he shot the ball from three when we needed a three then he fits our need. NO... He doesn't fit our need. His inefficiency takes the ball out of the hand of somebody that could have done something better with it. Let's just get to the bottom line. When Chillz shot the ball... more than 1/2 the time it went in. A possession with Chillz was not a wasted possession. However, You're trying to punish him for shooting a high percentage?? Come on? Just because he left doesn't mean you have to piss on what he did here. When the season rolls around, you will see what we miss.

[crimedog]

That's some fouled up logic there crime dog. By your logic, JJ, Bibby, Horf, Smoove, and Marvin didn't fit into our team need either. I mean.. if you're talking about somebody shooting a three point shot when we need it... then isn't that applicable to everybody? Chillz did what he does. That's like blaming Shaq, Chandler, Amare, and Duncan for not shooting threes when the team needed it.

Childress was a wing player who couldn't hit jump shots. Our interior players were not particularly good jump shooters... Most good wing players are at least competent at jump shooting. Childress did not take jumpers, at all. His inability to take (not hit, take) jump shots made it harder for other guys to get inside and score. The other guys who would be getting inside and scoring were primarily our PF and C, neither of whom is a good jump shooter but since they are power players, the expectation for them to be jump shooters isn't really there.

If we had kept Chil and lost Smith but replaced him with Aldridge, it would have been a much better fit on offense because Lamarcus posts up and slashes a lot less than Smith and is a far better jump shooter.

I'm not pissing on what Chil did by saying Mo fits with the rest of our players better. To say Dre' Miller was a better fit in Philly isn't pissing on AI is it? How many times do I have to say Childress is the superior player for it to sink in.

[Diesel]

Childress was a wing player who couldn't hit jump shots. Our interior players were not particularly good jump shooters... Most good wing players are at least competent at jump shooting. Childress did not take jumpers, at all. His inability to take (not hit, take) jump shots made it harder for other guys to get inside and score. The other guys who would be getting inside and scoring were primarily our PF and C, neither of whom is a good jump shooter but since they are power players, the expectation for them to be jump shooters isn't really there.

If we had kept Chil and lost Smith but replaced him with Aldridge, it would have been a much better fit on offense because Lamarcus posts up and slashes a lot less than Smith and is a far better jump shooter.

I'm not pissing on what Chil did by saying Mo fits with the rest of our players better. To say Dre' Miller was a better fit in Philly isn't pissing on AI is it? How many times do I have to say Childress is the superior player for it to sink in.

What I'm saying is that you can't go by normal definition when you look at our team. For instance, who was our inside scorer? Horf is not consistent and Smoove is not an inside guy unless it's on the break.

You say that Mo will be a better fit. NO... Mo will be one more guy on the perimeter waiting for the ball to come his way. That's not a better fit. Teams that live by the three also die by the three. Teams that can find consistent scoring inside, tend to do more. Our team will live and die by the development of Horf.

Now if you want to find something that don't fit... according to your agument.. you got to look at Marvin. Marvin shot only 10 three pointers on the year (he's a wing right)... and he hit only 1. At least Chillz put up 65. As far as Mo goes, you know he's a 69% FT shooter?

[AHF]

So the Princeton offense will not work in the NBA.

The Princeton offense will not work in the NBA?

Versions of the Princeton offense have been run by the Los Angeles Lakers, New Orleans Hornets, New Jersey Nets, Sacramento Kings, and Washington Wizards in the NBA. It was introduced by Rick Adelman to the Houston Rockets for the 2007-08 season.

Pete Carril[, the architect of the Princeton offense,] was an assistant coach for the Sacramento Kings of the National Basketball Association for 10 years until his retirement in 2006. When Rick Adelman became Sacramento's head coach before the 1998-1999 season, Carril helped Adelman install the Princeton offense and oversaw the Kings' development into one of the NBA's best, most talented, and most potently offensive teams.

Is it because variations of the Princeton offense won't work in the NBA that Carrill worked for two different teams in the NBA for over a decade specifically to help those teams run variations on the Princeton offense?

There are a lot of offenses that can be run in the NBA. A pick and roll is not rocket science. Motion offense is not rocket science.

It seems we agree that Woodson never installed a coherent offense but differ as to whether that was possible. Is that right?

[Diesel]

The Princeton offense will not work in the NBA?

Is it because variations of the Princeton offense won't work in the NBA that Carrill worked for two different teams in the NBA for over a decade specifically to help those teams run variations on the Princeton offense?

There are a lot of offenses that can be run in the NBA. A pick and roll is not rocket science. Motion offense is not rocket science.

It seems we agree that Woodson never installed a coherent offense but differ as to whether that was possible. Is that right?

I thought the main virtue to the Princeton offense was to slow the game down and run back door cuts.

You're right, that's not rocket science... And it will not work in the NBA.

The new rules favor a faster game.

The thing that Carrill realized is that he could neutralize athleticism with ball control. That doesn't work because the league changed all the rules that would allow for ball control and motion.... and THE PLAYERS are much faster than on the college level. Good PGs (especially defensive ones will disrupt a princeton offense).

What will work is an offense similar to what the Championship Celtic ran and one like Paul Westhead developed for the Lakers. A well conditioned team running up and down the floor with discipline will work in this league.

[crimedog]

What I'm saying is that you can't go by normal definition when you look at our team. For instance, who was our inside scorer? Horf is not consistent and Smoove is not an inside guy unless it's on the break.

You say that Mo will be a better fit. NO... Mo will be one more guy on the perimeter waiting for the ball to come his way. That's not a better fit. Teams that live by the three also die by the three. Teams that can find consistent scoring inside, tend to do more. Our team will live and die by the development of Horf.

Childress was the guy who scored the most on the break. This stuff is documented, 56% of his shots came in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

You keep saying Smith isn't an inside guy except in transition. Are you saying that slashing in is "outside"? Either way, you get inside and draw contact and score in the paint.

Smith's transition numbers were the same as Horford's, Williams', and Johnson's. They all scored about 37% of their shots in that first 10 seconds.

[AHF]

I thought the main virtue to the Princeton offense was to slow the game down and run back door cuts.

You're right, that's not rocket science... And it will not work in the NBA.

The new rules favor a faster game.

The thing that Carrill realized is that he could neutralize athleticism with ball control. That doesn't work because the league changed all the rules that would allow for ball control and motion.... and THE PLAYERS are much faster than on the college level. Good PGs (especially defensive ones will disrupt a princeton offense).

What will work is an offense similar to what the Championship Celtic ran and one like Paul Westhead developed for the Lakers. A well conditioned team running up and down the floor with discipline will work in this league.

It has worked in the NBA. The NJ Nets ran it when they went to the NBA finals; the Kings ran it during their best years; the Rockets ran significant elements of the Princeton offense last year; etc.

I agree with you about going more uptempo but I am simply pointing out that there are lot of systems that can be run in the NBA and we haven't tried to implement any of them.

[Admin]

Childress was the guy who scored the most on the break. This stuff is documented, 56% of his shots came in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

You keep saying Smith isn't an inside guy except in transition. Are you saying that slashing in is "outside"? Either way, you get inside and draw contact and score in the paint.

Smith's transition numbers were the same as Horford's, Williams', and Johnson's. They all scored about 37% of their shots in that first 10 seconds.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they were transition buckets though since an offensive rebound resets the shot clock and then a quick put back gives him a <10 second basket. Considering Chilly is an excellent offensive rebounder and terrific at getting put backs I'd bet that accounts for the majority of his <10 second baskets.

[crimedog]

That doesn't necessarily mean that they were transition buckets though since an offensive rebound resets the shot clock and then a quick put back gives him a <10 second basket. Considering Chilly is an excellent offensive rebounder and terrific at getting put backs I'd bet that accounts for the majority of his <10 second baskets.

That is true, and something I hadn't thought of. On the other hand, Horford grabs significantly more offensive rebounds but doesn't have the same splits.

... and the point was less about Chil's transition scoring and more about the assertion that we have no interior scorers b/c Smith only scores inside on the break.

Edited October 2, 2008 by crimedog

[Admin]

That is true, and something I hadn't thought of. On the other hand, Horford grabs significantly more offensive rebounds but doesn't have the same splits.

... and the point was less about Chil's transition scoring and more about the assertion that we have no interior scorers b/c Smith only scores inside on the break.

I wouldn't expect Horford's numbers to be as high as Chilly because for one he doesn't get the transition buckets and for another for most of his rookie season he didn't do a great deal of scoring and even in the playoffs after an offensive rebound he would look to reset the offense by passing out.

I don't think we'll have trouble scoring on the inside this year and in fact I believe we'll be better this year. Horford and Zaza are probably our only two classic post scorers but our 2-3-4 players all get plenty of buckets inside. I haven't looked up the numbers but I'd bet we are in the upper half of the league as far as scoring inside.

[crimedog]

I wouldn't expect Horford's numbers to be as high as Chilly because for one he doesn't get the transition buckets and for another for most of his rookie season he didn't do a great deal of scoring and even in the playoffs after an offensive rebound he would look to reset the offense by passing out.

I don't think we'll have trouble scoring on the inside this year and in fact I believe we'll be better this year. Horford and Zaza are probably our only two classic post scorers but our 2-3-4 players all get plenty of buckets inside. I haven't looked up the numbers but I'd bet we are in the upper half of the league as far as scoring inside.

I actually don't think Zaza is traditional, he is definitely a faceup guy in my opinion.

That being said, you are right, 3 teams score a higher proportion of their buckets inside.

[Traceman]

I think you can make arguments about these guys all day long, "Flip Saunder is worse than Woody because he was fired by teams with much better talent that couldn't get to the NBA Finals...No Saunders led both Detroit and Minnesota to the highest win totals in team history. He is clearly better than Woody's historically bad %....etc."

I agree that Woody's best quality has been managing to hold the team together and keeping the general respect of the team during multiple seasons with demoralizing results. That is something that is very unusual in the NBA.

That said, none of that really addresses whether Woody should have implemented a coherent offensive system by the start of year 4 with the Hawks. I am curious what your thought is on that more narrow issue. To me, his handling of the offense has been like Don Nelson's handling of the defense. Both deserve criticism for that aspect of their management.

I agree 100% that Woody needs to expand the offense. I think in the past, he has been hesitant to expand the offense beyond JJ because of the youth/inexperience of the players around him. All 5 of the starters are experienced and talented enough now to accept a set offensive role that sees them getting designed shots on a regular basis. If he expects Marvin to score around 18 ppg he had better run plays for him ALL game rather than just at the beginning of the game. He needs to go to Big Al in the low post on a regular basis as well. Bibby and Smoove are the two guys he won't have to run a lot of plays for because Bibby will get his in the flow and so will Smoove. Still. he ought to design a few sets for them as well.