Hollinger: Are Hawks better than Lakers?

[Admin]

http://insider.espn....=PERDiem-091228

Kobe may be the better player, but are Joe Johnson and the Hawks more likely to taste the title?

Of all the questions I've received about the Power Rankings and Playoff Odds this season, one dwarfs all the others: How can the Hawks be ahead of the Lakers? Atlanta is first in the Power Rankings, while L.A. ranks only fourth. And in the Playoff Odds, the gap between the two teams grows larger: As of Monday, the Hawks have a league-high 23.1 percent chance of winning the championship, while the Lakers are at only 9.4 percent.

At first glance, this doesn't add up. The Lakers are the defending world champions and have superstar power in the form of Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, not to mention a coach who owns 10 championship rings. The Hawks, meanwhile, have won one playoff series this decade. Their most decorated performer, Joe Johnson, has made multiple All-Star teams, but nobody considers him to be anywhere near Bryant's stratosphere in the star hierarchy.

Dig a little deeper, however, and there's some method to the madness. And for Lakers fans, there's something of a silver lining.

First, the basics. Both the Power Rankings and Playoff Odds are based on performances from only this season, so nothing L.A. did last season matters to those tools. And this season, the Hawks have been better -- they've posted a superior scoring margin despite playing a tougher schedule. Although the Lakers prevailed in their one regular-season meeting to date (118-110 in L.A. on Nov. 1), Atlanta has been stronger throughout the first third of the season; L.A.'s superior win-loss record at the moment is mostly a result of playing 19 of its first 29 games at home. And for the record, the two clubs' standing in both these tools has nothing to do with my residing in Atlanta, either, nor with any bias I might have toward Adandeville -- both tools are automated and don't account for any subjective factors.

Now, for the digging. How, exactly, could Atlanta's crew outrank L.A.'s star-studded cast? Bryant, as I mentioned, is a far better player than Johnson, and the Lakers' front line of Gasol and Andrew Bynum inspires a lot more fear than the Hawks' pair of Al Horford and Josh Smith.

Inspiring fear, however, is not what I measure. Performance is. And based on performance, Smith has been every bit Gasol's equal this season, and Horford's production has matched that of Bynum. Throw in that Mike Bibby has been more productive than Derek Fisher and Marvin Williams has almost exactly matched Ron Artest (13.30 versus 13.32, respectively, in the player efficiency rating department), and suddenly the starting lineup comparison doesn't seem so lopsided. In fact, Atlanta's starting five has a better PER than L.A.'s more heralded bunch, even with Bryant's near five-point advantage over Johnson.

And then there's the bench. If you're a Lakers fan wondering why your team is "only" fourth in the Power Rankings, look at the chart below. That's what your second unit is giving you this season, and it's pathetic.

Second units: Hawks versus Lakers

Pos. Hawks player PER Lakers player PER Difference

PG Jeff Teague 13.11 Jordan Farmar 12.03 +1.08

SG Jamal Crawford 17.85 Shannon Brown 11.35 +6.53

SF Maurice Evans 14.59 Sasha Vujacic 9.63 +4.96

PF Joe Smith 14.06 Lamar Odom 12.54 +1.52

C Zaza Pachulia 13.69 Josh Powell 9.29 +4.40

With Lamar Odom having an off season (8.7 points, 8.5 rebounds per game) and nobody else on the second unit stepping forward, L.A. takes a giant leap backward once the bench checks in. Further proof comes from the shockingly awful on-the-court versus off-the-court differentials of the Lakers' subs: According to 82games.com, L.A. is 21.6 points per 100 possessions worse with Josh Powell on the court, 21.5 worse with Shannon Brown and 19.2 worse with Sasha Vujacic. Yikes.

Atlanta, meanwhile, has had the league's most productive bench thus far this season; the disparity between its second unit and L.A's couldn't be more glaring. Atlanta's worst sub in terms of PER, Jeff Teague, would be the Lakers' best, while Jamal Crawford, Maurice Evans and Zaza Pachulia all enjoy massive advantages over their L.A. counterparts.

Boil it down, and L.A.'s advantages over the Hawks basically come down to this: The Lakers have Kobe Bryant, and the Hawks don't. At every other position, Atlanta's players are performing either just as well or, in some cases, dramatically better.

Now, on to the silver lining. Despite the depressing performance by L.A.'s bench thus far, there's some good news if you're a Lakers fan: You'd much rather be the team with the uber-star and the limited bench than the other way around, for two reasons.

First and more obvious, the latter problem is the easier of the two to fix. A cheap trade or waiver pickup could improve the bench enough to make a real difference, as it did for the Celtics two seasons ago when P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell landed on the roster for the stretch run. But nobody will trade the Hawks a talent to match Bryant.

Less obvious, however, is that when we talk about playoff contenders based on regular-season results, we're somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Not because of clutch ability or character or any of the other popular clichés, but because the way that teams use their rosters fundamentally changes. One characteristic that has been proved time and again to be of immensely greater value in a playoff series than in the regular season is superstar power … or more specifically, the power of a great starting unit, even if it contains no superstars. (The Pistons would be a good example here.) The bench, meanwhile, proves less of a factor, as the subs' minutes are usually cut down when the games matter most.

At this point, I would consider the Hawks a better regular-season team than the Lakers despite their lack of star power, simply because they're so much deeper. That depth is incredibly important in an 82-game grind through the regular season, and it's the reason the Hawks are likely to shrug off any calamity thrown their way without too much distress. Right now, Atlanta projects to win 59 games to L.A.'s 57, and based on the info above, that forecast doesn't seem like a big stretch.

But in a playoff series against L.A.? That's a different story. In a seven-game series you can play Gasol and Bryant 42 minutes a game -- as the Lakers did when tested by Denver in the 2009 Western Conference finals. Once they do that, there are only six minutes left for Powell and Vujacic to mess up. Conversely, it would mean fewer minutes for Atlanta's bench aces like Evans, Pachulia and Teague … the players who provide the Hawks with their best advantages over the Lakers (and the Cavs and Celtics, for that matter).

As a result, the Hawks' postseason odds are likely overstated, while the Lakers' are likely understated. As Lakers fans keep noting to me, it would take a wild-eyed optimist to conclude that Atlanta is more than twice as likely to win the title as L.A. There's a valid reason for the Playoff Odds tool to reach this conclusion, but teams with extremely bad (or good) benches tend to perform better (or worse) in the playoffs than the regular season because the bench becomes less of a factor. In this case it creates an artificial disparity between the two clubs' likely postseason success.

That said, there's some important information to be learned. Beyond its top four players, L.A.'s roster is a real problem; comparing its bench to the Hawks' serves to put a magnifying glass on the supporting cast's inadequacy. We still presume the Lakers will address the problem and present a much stronger case for themselves come May. However, whether by trade or internal improvement, the bench does need addressing, and if the Lakers don't, they'll have a much smaller shot at repeating than the general public believes.

[HawkItus]

Thanks Dolf, I've been looking for a posting of this all morning. This mirrors almost exactly what the ex-players have been saying about us all season. We are good regular season team now. What we need is a little something to get us over the hump in the playoffs. I wonder if a duo of say Jamal Crawford and Joe Johnson can tilt that superstar issue. A rested Joe plus a playoff starved Crawf might equal an elite player at that spot.

[Plainview1981]

http://insider.espn....=PERDiem-091228

Kobe may be the better player, but are Joe Johnson and the Hawks more likely to taste the title?

Of all the questions I've received about the Power Rankings and Playoff Odds this season, one dwarfs all the others: How can the Hawks be ahead of the Lakers? Atlanta is first in the Power Rankings, while L.A. ranks only fourth. And in the Playoff Odds, the gap between the two teams grows larger: As of Monday, the Hawks have a league-high 23.1 percent chance of winning the championship, while the Lakers are at only 9.4 percent.

At first glance, this doesn't add up. The Lakers are the defending world champions and have superstar power in the form of Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, not to mention a coach who owns 10 championship rings. The Hawks, meanwhile, have won one playoff series this decade. Their most decorated performer, Joe Johnson, has made multiple All-Star teams, but nobody considers him to be anywhere near Bryant's stratosphere in the star hierarchy.

Dig a little deeper, however, and there's some method to the madness. And for Lakers fans, there's something of a silver lining.

First, the basics. Both the Power Rankings and Playoff Odds are based on performances from only this season, so nothing L.A. did last season matters to those tools. And this season, the Hawks have been better -- they've posted a superior scoring margin despite playing a tougher schedule. Although the Lakers prevailed in their one regular-season meeting to date (118-110 in L.A. on Nov. 1), Atlanta has been stronger throughout the first third of the season; L.A.'s superior win-loss record at the moment is mostly a result of playing 19 of its first 29 games at home. And for the record, the two clubs' standing in both these tools has nothing to do with my residing in Atlanta, either, nor with any bias I might have toward Adandeville -- both tools are automated and don't account for any subjective factors.

Now, for the digging. How, exactly, could Atlanta's crew outrank L.A.'s star-studded cast? Bryant, as I mentioned, is a far better player than Johnson, and the Lakers' front line of Gasol and Andrew Bynum inspires a lot more fear than the Hawks' pair of Al Horford and Josh Smith.

Inspiring fear, however, is not what I measure. Performance is. And based on performance, Smith has been every bit Gasol's equal this season, and Horford's production has matched that of Bynum. Throw in that Mike Bibby has been more productive than Derek Fisher and Marvin Williams has almost exactly matched Ron Artest (13.30 versus 13.32, respectively, in the player efficiency rating department), and suddenly the starting lineup comparison doesn't seem so lopsided. In fact, Atlanta's starting five has a better PER than L.A.'s more heralded bunch, even with Bryant's near five-point advantage over Johnson.

And then there's the bench. If you're a Lakers fan wondering why your team is "only" fourth in the Power Rankings, look at the chart below. That's what your second unit is giving you this season, and it's pathetic.

Second units: Hawks versus Lakers

Pos. Hawks player PER Lakers player PER Difference

PG Jeff Teague 13.11 Jordan Farmar 12.03 +1.08

SG Jamal Crawford 17.85 Shannon Brown 11.35 +6.53

SF Maurice Evans 14.59 Sasha Vujacic 9.63 +4.96

PF Joe Smith 14.06 Lamar Odom 12.54 +1.52

C Zaza Pachulia 13.69 Josh Powell 9.29 +4.40

With Lamar Odom having an off season (8.7 points, 8.5 rebounds per game) and nobody else on the second unit stepping forward, L.A. takes a giant leap backward once the bench checks in. Further proof comes from the shockingly awful on-the-court versus off-the-court differentials of the Lakers' subs: According to 82games.com, L.A. is 21.6 points per 100 possessions worse with Josh Powell on the court, 21.5 worse with Shannon Brown and 19.2 worse with Sasha Vujacic. Yikes.

Atlanta, meanwhile, has had the league's most productive bench thus far this season; the disparity between its second unit and L.A's couldn't be more glaring. Atlanta's worst sub in terms of PER, Jeff Teague, would be the Lakers' best, while Jamal Crawford, Maurice Evans and Zaza Pachulia all enjoy massive advantages over their L.A. counterparts.

Boil it down, and L.A.'s advantages over the Hawks basically come down to this: The Lakers have Kobe Bryant, and the Hawks don't. At every other position, Atlanta's players are performing either just as well or, in some cases, dramatically better.

Now, on to the silver lining. Despite the depressing performance by L.A.'s bench thus far, there's some good news if you're a Lakers fan: You'd much rather be the team with the uber-star and the limited bench than the other way around, for two reasons.

First and more obvious, the latter problem is the easier of the two to fix. A cheap trade or waiver pickup could improve the bench enough to make a real difference, as it did for the Celtics two seasons ago when P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell landed on the roster for the stretch run. But nobody will trade the Hawks a talent to match Bryant.

Less obvious, however, is that when we talk about playoff contenders based on regular-season results, we're somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Not because of clutch ability or character or any of the other popular clichés, but because the way that teams use their rosters fundamentally changes. One characteristic that has been proved time and again to be of immensely greater value in a playoff series than in the regular season is superstar power … or more specifically, the power of a great starting unit, even if it contains no superstars. (The Pistons would be a good example here.) The bench, meanwhile, proves less of a factor, as the subs' minutes are usually cut down when the games matter most.

At this point, I would consider the Hawks a better regular-season team than the Lakers despite their lack of star power, simply because they're so much deeper. That depth is incredibly important in an 82-game grind through the regular season, and it's the reason the Hawks are likely to shrug off any calamity thrown their way without too much distress. Right now, Atlanta projects to win 59 games to L.A.'s 57, and based on the info above, that forecast doesn't seem like a big stretch.

But in a playoff series against L.A.? That's a different story. In a seven-game series you can play Gasol and Bryant 42 minutes a game -- as the Lakers did when tested by Denver in the 2009 Western Conference finals. Once they do that, there are only six minutes left for Powell and Vujacic to mess up. Conversely, it would mean fewer minutes for Atlanta's bench aces like Evans, Pachulia and Teague … the players who provide the Hawks with their best advantages over the Lakers (and the Cavs and Celtics, for that matter).

As a result, the Hawks' postseason odds are likely overstated, while the Lakers' are likely understated. As Lakers fans keep noting to me, it would take a wild-eyed optimist to conclude that Atlanta is more than twice as likely to win the title as L.A. There's a valid reason for the Playoff Odds tool to reach this conclusion, but teams with extremely bad (or good) benches tend to perform better (or worse) in the playoffs than the regular season because the bench becomes less of a factor. In this case it creates an artificial disparity between the two clubs' likely postseason success.

That said, there's some important information to be learned. Beyond its top four players, L.A.'s roster is a real problem; comparing its bench to the Hawks' serves to put a magnifying glass on the supporting cast's inadequacy. We still presume the Lakers will address the problem and present a much stronger case for themselves come May. However, whether by trade or internal improvement, the bench does need addressing, and if the Lakers don't, they'll have a much smaller shot at repeating than the general public believes.

Artest has had a far better season than Marvin. I think Hollinger's system isn't very good.

[Buzzard]

http://insider.espn....=PERDiem-091228

Kobe may be the better player, but are Joe Johnson and the Hawks more likely to taste the title?

Of all the questions I've received about the Power Rankings and Playoff Odds this season, one dwarfs all the others: How can the Hawks be ahead of the Lakers? Atlanta is first in the Power Rankings, while L.A. ranks only fourth. And in the Playoff Odds, the gap between the two teams grows larger: As of Monday, the Hawks have a league-high 23.1 percent chance of winning the championship, while the Lakers are at only 9.4 percent.

At first glance, this doesn't add up. The Lakers are the defending world champions and have superstar power in the form of Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, not to mention a coach who owns 10 championship rings. The Hawks, meanwhile, have won one playoff series this decade. Their most decorated performer, Joe Johnson, has made multiple All-Star teams, but nobody considers him to be anywhere near Bryant's stratosphere in the star hierarchy.

Dig a little deeper, however, and there's some method to the madness. And for Lakers fans, there's something of a silver lining.

First, the basics. Both the Power Rankings and Playoff Odds are based on performances from only this season, so nothing L.A. did last season matters to those tools. And this season, the Hawks have been better -- they've posted a superior scoring margin despite playing a tougher schedule. Although the Lakers prevailed in their one regular-season meeting to date (118-110 in L.A. on Nov. 1), Atlanta has been stronger throughout the first third of the season; L.A.'s superior win-loss record at the moment is mostly a result of playing 19 of its first 29 games at home. And for the record, the two clubs' standing in both these tools has nothing to do with my residing in Atlanta, either, nor with any bias I might have toward Adandeville -- both tools are automated and don't account for any subjective factors.

Now, for the digging. How, exactly, could Atlanta's crew outrank L.A.'s star-studded cast? Bryant, as I mentioned, is a far better player than Johnson, and the Lakers' front line of Gasol and Andrew Bynum inspires a lot more fear than the Hawks' pair of Al Horford and Josh Smith.

Inspiring fear, however, is not what I measure. Performance is. And based on performance, Smith has been every bit Gasol's equal this season, and Horford's production has matched that of Bynum. Throw in that Mike Bibby has been more productive than Derek Fisher and Marvin Williams has almost exactly matched Ron Artest (13.30 versus 13.32, respectively, in the player efficiency rating department), and suddenly the starting lineup comparison doesn't seem so lopsided. In fact, Atlanta's starting five has a better PER than L.A.'s more heralded bunch, even with Bryant's near five-point advantage over Johnson.

And then there's the bench. If you're a Lakers fan wondering why your team is "only" fourth in the Power Rankings, look at the chart below. That's what your second unit is giving you this season, and it's pathetic.

Second units: Hawks versus Lakers

Pos. Hawks player PER Lakers player PER Difference

PG Jeff Teague 13.11 Jordan Farmar 12.03 +1.08

SG Jamal Crawford 17.85 Shannon Brown 11.35 +6.53

SF Maurice Evans 14.59 Sasha Vujacic 9.63 +4.96

PF Joe Smith 14.06 Lamar Odom 12.54 +1.52

C Zaza Pachulia 13.69 Josh Powell 9.29 +4.40

With Lamar Odom having an off season (8.7 points, 8.5 rebounds per game) and nobody else on the second unit stepping forward, L.A. takes a giant leap backward once the bench checks in. Further proof comes from the shockingly awful on-the-court versus off-the-court differentials of the Lakers' subs: According to 82games.com, L.A. is 21.6 points per 100 possessions worse with Josh Powell on the court, 21.5 worse with Shannon Brown and 19.2 worse with Sasha Vujacic. Yikes.

Atlanta, meanwhile, has had the league's most productive bench thus far this season; the disparity between its second unit and L.A's couldn't be more glaring. Atlanta's worst sub in terms of PER, Jeff Teague, would be the Lakers' best, while Jamal Crawford, Maurice Evans and Zaza Pachulia all enjoy massive advantages over their L.A. counterparts.

Boil it down, and L.A.'s advantages over the Hawks basically come down to this: The Lakers have Kobe Bryant, and the Hawks don't. At every other position, Atlanta's players are performing either just as well or, in some cases, dramatically better.

Now, on to the silver lining. Despite the depressing performance by L.A.'s bench thus far, there's some good news if you're a Lakers fan: You'd much rather be the team with the uber-star and the limited bench than the other way around, for two reasons.

First and more obvious, the latter problem is the easier of the two to fix. A cheap trade or waiver pickup could improve the bench enough to make a real difference, as it did for the Celtics two seasons ago when P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell landed on the roster for the stretch run. But nobody will trade the Hawks a talent to match Bryant.

Less obvious, however, is that when we talk about playoff contenders based on regular-season results, we're somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Not because of clutch ability or character or any of the other popular clichés, but because the way that teams use their rosters fundamentally changes. One characteristic that has been proved time and again to be of immensely greater value in a playoff series than in the regular season is superstar power … or more specifically, the power of a great starting unit, even if it contains no superstars. (The Pistons would be a good example here.) The bench, meanwhile, proves less of a factor, as the subs' minutes are usually cut down when the games matter most.

At this point, I would consider the Hawks a better regular-season team than the Lakers despite their lack of star power, simply because they're so much deeper. That depth is incredibly important in an 82-game grind through the regular season, and it's the reason the Hawks are likely to shrug off any calamity thrown their way without too much distress. Right now, Atlanta projects to win 59 games to L.A.'s 57, and based on the info above, that forecast doesn't seem like a big stretch.

But in a playoff series against L.A.? That's a different story. In a seven-game series you can play Gasol and Bryant 42 minutes a game -- as the Lakers did when tested by Denver in the 2009 Western Conference finals. Once they do that, there are only six minutes left for Powell and Vujacic to mess up. Conversely, it would mean fewer minutes for Atlanta's bench aces like Evans, Pachulia and Teague … the players who provide the Hawks with their best advantages over the Lakers (and the Cavs and Celtics, for that matter).

As a result, the Hawks' postseason odds are likely overstated, while the Lakers' are likely understated. As Lakers fans keep noting to me, it would take a wild-eyed optimist to conclude that Atlanta is more than twice as likely to win the title as L.A. There's a valid reason for the Playoff Odds tool to reach this conclusion, but teams with extremely bad (or good) benches tend to perform better (or worse) in the playoffs than the regular season because the bench becomes less of a factor. In this case it creates an artificial disparity between the two clubs' likely postseason success.

That said, there's some important information to be learned. Beyond its top four players, L.A.'s roster is a real problem; comparing its bench to the Hawks' serves to put a magnifying glass on the supporting cast's inadequacy. We still presume the Lakers will address the problem and present a much stronger case for themselves come May. However, whether by trade or internal improvement, the bench does need addressing, and if the Lakers don't, they'll have a much smaller shot at repeating than the general public believes.

Agree 100% and great post! We are a superstar away from going after a title and just maybe Smoove becomes that star by the end of the season.

[RedDawg#8]

I guess this makes since. Im reminded of our 2007-08 squad that had no bench and struggled through the year, but was able to push Boston to 7. Why? We had a tight 7-man rotation that didnt allow the likes of Acie, Solo, Jeremy Richardson, and whoever else to see the court come playoff time. Our current starting 5, Chillz and Zaza were really pretty much the only players we used unless it was the 4th quarter of those blowouts in Bos.

Id say his assumption is accurate

[Joker]

Artest has had a far better season than Marvin. I think Hollinger's system isn't very good.

Offensively yes, defensively no. Marvin is a top 3 SF defender. The only offensive player at SF to give him fits was Melo even Melo struggled in Atlanta.

[Joker]

I guess this makes since. Im reminded of our 2007-08 squad that had no bench and struggled through the year, but was able to push Boston to 7. Why? We had a tight 7-man rotation that didnt allow the likes of Acie, Solo, Jeremy Richardson, and whoever else to see the court come playoff time. Our current starting 5, Chillz and Zaza were really pretty much the only players we used unless it was the 4th quarter of those blowouts in Bos.

Id say his assumption is accurate

I think we are built for the playoffs, just not for a championship. The Celtics and Lakers are the only teams built for a title. The problem is the Celtics kryptonite is the Hawks. Everyone else is either contenders, pretenders, lottery bound, or flat out suck.

[Buzzard]

I think we are built for the playoffs, just not for a championship. The Celtics and Lakers are the only teams built for a title. The problem is the Celtics kryptonite is the Hawks. Everyone else is either contenders, pretenders, lottery bound, or flat out suck.

Orlando, Orlando, Orlando!

[exodus]

Hollingers system also doesn't take into account injuries. Gasol missed 11 games.

I pay no attention to projections like this. During the last two season the Hawks fell far short of the win total that was projected at this time of the year. I remember last year someone saying the Hawks were "on pace" to win 53 games (or was it 55?). They ended up with 47.

To me the big news of this article is the relative strength of the Hawks bench.

Edited December 28, 2009 by exodus

[Joker]

Orlando, Orlando, Orlando!

Without a playmaker, no. contenders. Losing Hedo was huge. Sure, they have great individual talent but they need that playmaker to make everyone play their roles. J-Will is not that player anymore. He can do it for a game or two but not in the playoffs for a extended period of time. All we have to do is put Teague in and he will eat up J-Will. Same if it's Rondo or any playoff team was playing Orlando. I still think the biggest loss of the off-season was Hedo. He was their Steve Nash.

[Buzzard]

Without a playmaker, no. contenders. Losing Hedo was huge. Sure, they have great individual talent but they need that playmaker to make everyone play their roles. J-Will is not that player anymore. He can do it for a game or two but not in the playoffs for a extended period of time. All we have to do is put Teague in and he will eat up J-Will. Same if it's Rondo or any playoff team was playing Orlando. I still think the biggest loss of the off-season was Hedo. He was their Steve Nash.

Last time I checked Nelson is already back and will be worked into the starting rotation slowly. He actually came back ahead of schedule due to his solid practice. J-Will is a good backup also. A great pick up for them; as if they needed anymore help.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Buzzard

[Joker]

Last time I checked Nelson is already back and will be worked into the starting rotation slowly. He actually came back ahead of schedule due to his solid practice. J-Will is a solid backup also. A great pick up for them; as if they needed anymore help.

Nelson not the player he was last year because he has the playmaking responsibilities again. This is the same problem he had for most of his career till Orlando realized that Hedo was a playmaker and Nelson is not. Nelson is talented as an offensive player, but that team seriously needs a playmaker.

Edited December 28, 2009 by nbasuperstar40

[Buzzard]

Nelson not the player he was last year because he has the playmaking responsibilities again. This is the same problem he had for most of his career till Orlando realized that Hedo was a playmaker and Nelson is not. Nelson is talented as an offensive player, but that team seriously needs a playmaker.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Howard is the new Shaq/Ewing/Mourning etc... of the east; and you throw in Lewis, Carter, Nelson and whoever is hot as their 5th player and IMO they are the most talented team in the east; who also have a bench that compares with anyone elses including ours.

Celtics look good on paper but by the end of the season that paper is going to look really worn out. Cleveland is still a one man show with a complimentary Shaq making an appearance every now and then. Orlando will win the east again. We have a chance to beat the Celtics or Cavs; but we do not have the firepower to stop the Magic on either end of the floor.

Seriously how good is this....they lost there starting PG and still went 11 and 4 over their last 15 games. Could Cleveland, Boston, or our Hawks do that?

Edited December 28, 2009 by Buzzard

[MaceCase]

Artest has had a far better season than Marvin. I think Hollinger's system isn't very good.

I posted this in another thread comparing the other "big" free agent signings at SF from the summer.

Fact

Artest get's greatly overrated, no?

[Buzzard]

I posted this in another thread comparing the other "big" free agent signings at SF from the summer.

Fact

Artest get's greatly overrated, no?

Artest is not having a good year. He is adequate on defense as always; but he requires touches to be effective on offense ( like Marvin or any other player for that matter) and with all of LAs firepower he is not getting them. The Lakers did not sign Artest to put up 16 ppg; they signed him for defense and depth. Him and Marvin are having very comparable seasons and Marvin is actually better on the boards.

[Joker]

You have your opinion and I have mine. Howard is the new Shaq/Ewing/Mourning etc... of the east; and you throw in Lewis, Carter, Nelson and whoever is hot as their 5th player and IMO they are the most talented team in the east; who also have a bench that compares with anyone elses including ours.

Celtics look good on paper but by the end of the season that paper is going to look really worn out. Cleveland is still a one man show with a complimentary Shaq making an appearance every now and then. Orlando will win the east again. We have a chance to beat the Celtics or Cavs; but we do not have the firepower to stop the Magic on either end of the floor.

Seriously how good is this....they lost there starting PG and still went 11 and 4 over their last 15 games. Could Cleveland, Boston, or our Hawks do that?

Agreed. As for Howard being the new Mourning/Shaq/etc, I agree, but it's a team game, it they cannot figure that out in the regular season, then they most definitely have issues. This is not the usual East of the 2000's. Teams like Atlanta, Cleveland, and Boston are too talented overall to have major issues coming into the playoffs. The Celtics are older but I when your older you understand the nuisances of the season, in other words, they are fine. The Cavs maybe a one man show on offense but that show is Lebron and no one in the NBA can stop that. You have four elite NBA teams in the East. Three of them have a MAJOR issue. The Celtics issue is minor to be honest. They also have a great bench.

No, because the players that play those positions have define roles whereas Nelson doesn't especially since the VC trade. The Magic could win without Nelson, he doesn't make them go. Only Dwight does. Cavs need Mo Williams and the Hawks need Mike Bibby. But if you took Marvin or Verejao in the regular season and it's the same results as usual.

Edited December 28, 2009 by nbasuperstar40

[Plainview1981]

Hollingers system also doesn't take into account injuries. Gasol missed 11 games.

I pay no attention to projections like this. During the last two season the Hawks fell far short of the win total that was projected at this time of the year. I remember last year someone saying the Hawks were "on pace" to win 53 games (or was it 55?). They ended up with 47.

To me the big news of this article is the relative strength of the Hawks bench.

The bench was good on the last home stand, but it's not as people as people think. Outside of Crawford. When Mo is shooting the ball well the bench looks good, but when he is not it doesn't look very good. ZaZa has been a let down so far. His play last year was way better even if the stats aren't that much different. But I guess that's the difference between playing for a contract and already having one.

[Joker]

The bench was good on the last home stand, but it's not as people as people think. Outside of Crawford. When Mo is shooting the ball well the bench looks good, but when he is not it doesn't look very good. ZaZa has been a let down so far. His play last year was way better even if the stats aren't that much different. But I guess that's the difference between playing for a contract and already having one.

Zaza looks better this season than last to me. As for Mo, that's always been the case. Teague is talented but raw. For a bench, this is a damn good one.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Rankings make sense as well as his playoff logic about tight rotation.

We may not have best record but our schedule has been much tougher.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The bench was good on the last home stand, but it's not as people as people think. Outside of Crawford. When Mo is shooting the ball well the bench looks good, but when he is not it doesn't look very good. ZaZa has been a let down so far. His play last year was way better even if the stats aren't that much different. But I guess that's the difference between playing for a contract and already having one.

This is one of the few things you and I agree on. Shoot, even in the last game we played against Indy, the bench was horrible. They single-handedly lost that 17 point lead that the starting unit had built up in the first quarter . . and they lost it almost instantly.

The PER of the bench is due to Woody ONLY playing them extensive minutes when we're up in games. Fortunately for us, we've blown out a lot of teams this season, allowing the bench to get extended minutes against the other team's 2nd unit.

The only people I trust off the bench this year, is Joe Smith and Crawford. And at times, I don't trust those two either. Woody already knows all of this though.

Having said that . . . the Lakers are currently down by 12 going into the 4th quarter at Phoenix.

No Artest . . Kobe has played the ENTIRE GAME so far ( and scored 32 points in 32 minutes ) . . and Adam Morrison has 5 of the bench's 11 points.