Your Atlanta Hawks now have the 3rd most efficient offense in the NBA.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

What team do you currently think is getter better production out of hte offense with worse players? I mean if coaching is holding the Hawks back there should be other coaches getting more out of less. There are plenty of teams that I think have better players than the Hawks where Woodson is getting more production and of course I think he deserves credit for that. I think too often coaches end up shooting themselves in the foot by doing ridiculous things on offense and many would be better off just getting back to basics.

I mean seriously- the Hawks have a better offense than the Celtics, Cavs, Magic, and Lakers. Do you think that all of these teams also have terrible coaching?

Spot . . . they just don't like the ISO offense, regardless if it produces points or not. And as you know, we don't run ISO all the time anyway. But when we do, and JJ or Crawford either misses a shot . . . or they pass to an open shooter and they miss a shot . . . then the offense is bad ( even if it got a wide open look to one of our "shooters" )

[spotatl]

the Hawks do NOT have a better offense than those teams you named.

They have less productive offenses. All I care about is how often the Hawks get points when they ahve the ball. I don't care if its pretty. I don't care if its boring. All I care about is the results this season. And this season Woodson has gotten more production out of the offense than those other teams. Of course he deserves credit for it. He has gotten more production with less talent. The bucks have the 23rd best offense in the league. That you would use that as an example shows how clueless you are being on this.

I absolutely believe that if Woodson changes team this offseason the Hawks will get worse production out of the offense next season. Seriously- if the Hawks had the #1 offense in the league you are so biased that I still don't think you would give Woodson any credit. Woodson has gotten remarkable production out of the offensive personnel he has.

Edited April 6, 2010 by spotatl

[Sothron]

They have less productive offenses. All I care about is how often the Hawks get points when they ahve the ball. I don't care if its pretty. I don't care if its boring. All I care about is the results this season. And this season Woodson has gotten more production out of the offense than those other teams. Of course he deserves credit for it. He has gotten more production with less talent. The bucks have the 23rd best offense in the league. That you would use that as an example shows how clueless you are being on this.

I absolutely believe that if Woodson changes team this offseason the Hawks will get worse production out of the offense next season. Seriously- if the Hawks had the #1 offense in the league you are so biased that I still don't think you would give Woodson any credit. Woodson has gotten remarkable production out of the offensive personnel he has.

Do you know even know whose on the Bucks roster? Do you expect them to score 115 a game? :cant believe:

[spotatl]

The Bucks have the 23rd best offense in the league- thats pretty much exactly where I would expect them to be. They are winning because of their defense.

Edited April 6, 2010 by spotatl

[spotatl]

The list of teams with worse offenses than the Bucks this season

Bobcats

Twolves

Pacers

Clippers

Bulls

Bobcats.

The Pistons, Kings, and 76ers all have better offenses than the Bucks. I just don't see this as the massive accomplishment that you do.

[AHF]

They have less productive offenses. All I care about is how often the Hawks get points when they ahve the ball. I don't care if its pretty. I don't care if its boring. All I care about is the results this season. And this season Woodson has gotten more production out of the offense than those other teams. Of course he deserves credit for it. He has gotten more production with less talent.

If they maintain their 3rd best position in the post-season (not the same stats but the same relative ranking), then I will post a thread congratulating Woodson and admitting I was wrong about the iso offense this season for sure.

[spotatl]

i don't think that the Hawks will have a higher offensive rating than the team they face in the second round- the Hawks will have to face a much stronger defense than their opponents will. I think its the Hawks defense that is going to let the team down in the postseason. And whatever your defensive rating in a game is, your opponent has the same offensive rating.

[Sothron]

The list of teams with worse offenses than the Bucks this season

Bobcats

Twolves

Pacers

Clippers

Bulls

Bobcats.

The Pistons, Kings, and 76ers all have better offenses than the Bucks. I just don't see this as the massive accomplishment that you do.

There you go with "better" again. Define "better" for us. More efficient? Best paced? Worst paced? Just flat out who scores the most? The Bucks are doing what they are doing because their head coach is getting more out of them on both ends of the court. He actually calls plays for offense and doesn't let his guards do it for him. Woodson doesn't do ANYTHING on offense. He doesn't deserve any credit accordingly and he deserves all the blame he gets because he SHOULD be doing something.

[spotatl]

The better offense converts posessions to points. I don't care if they do it fast or slow. I don't care if they do it flashy. I don't care if they do it pretty. How often do you score points when you have the ball? What other measure of an offense could you possibly use? There is only 1 ball- both teams get the same number of possessions. How often do you convert those possessions to points.

If you are someone that thinks the Warriors have a great offense just because they score a lot of points then please go ahead and say that. To me they are a mediocre offense and the fact that they play a quick pace doesn't change that.

Edited April 6, 2010 by spotatl

[Sothron]

The better offense converts posessions to points. I don't care if they do it fast or slow. I don't care if they do it flashy. I don't care if they do it pretty. How often do you score points when you have the ball? What other measure of an offense could you possibly use? There is only 1 ball- both teams get the same number of possessions. How often do you convert those possessions to points.

If you are someone that thinks the Warriors have a great offense just because they score a lot of points then please go ahead and say that. To me they are a mediocre offense and the fact that they play a quick pace doesn't change that.

You actually think teams get the same number of possessions in a game? Do you know what a "turnover" is? The only reason the Hawks are #3rd in efficiency which is only ONE way to measure offense is because of lack of turnovers and transition points. This team does not actually do well against teams with high paces as our losses to Golden State, New York and Phoenix clearly show. If we had a decent head coach who actually bothered to care about offense we would be able to play better accordingly.

As for GSW they need better ballhandlers and better big men and they could still keep their pace. Phoenix is playing great because their young bigs were finally showing up on both ends of the court this year. If the Knicks find someone to play center in that system I'm sure they will pick up as well.

[spotatl]

You actually think teams get the same number of possessions in a game? Do you know what a "turnover" is?

Sothron- you don't understand. When you turn the ball over that does count as a possession you wasted. Everytime one of your possessions ends your opponent starts one. (other than the end of quarters) You can increase the pace and increase the possessions in a game- but that increases them for both teams. All I care about is how often a team converts those possessions to points. I bet on basketball a ton- looking at things in terms of "per posession" instead of "per game" or "per minute" gives you a MUCH more accurate view of things.

Edited April 6, 2010 by spotatl

[Sothron]

Sothron- you don't understand. When you turn the ball over that does count as a possession you wasted. Everytime one of your possessions ends your opponent starts one. (other than the end of quarters) You can increase the pace and increase the possessions in a game- but that increases them for both teams. All I care about is how often a team converts those possessions to points. I bet on basketball a ton- looking at things in terms of "per posession" instead of "per game" or "per minute" gives you a MUCH more accurate view of things.

I disagree. A turn over is a wasted possession therefore it doesn't really count as a possession in the first place. The reason faster paced teams do better against us then we do against them is due in large part to Woodson's ineffective coaching. We simply can't keep up with them and it shows. A better coach would adjust our pace and try to slow down the other team's pace.

I don't see how gambling translates to how you want to view an offense as better or not but that's for another debate. I can say a team with a higher assist/TO ratio is better or a team with more inside scoring or a team that shoots more free throws or a team with a higher three point percentage. All are different ways of looking at the same thing just as "most efficient" is.

[AHF]

i don't think that the Hawks will have a higher offensive rating than the team they face in the second round- the Hawks will have to face a much stronger defense than their opponents will. I think its the Hawks defense that is going to let the team down in the postseason. And whatever your defensive rating in a game is, your opponent has the same offensive rating.

We'll see how it shakes out. The Raptors are the only team with a significantly different defensive rating than the other 5-8 squads in the East. We'll also likely have two rounds of data for comparison purposes. If we are #3 in the league after that, I'll give Woodson some over the top praise and if we are close I'll be surprised and happy.

As far as the statistics, I do think the turnovers are very important and think that points per possession is a fine metric - just not a "be all, end all" metric.

Edited April 6, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

A turn over is a wasted possession therefore it doesn't really count as a possession in the first place.

Well then you flat just don't understand the conversation that is going on. WHat is being measured is possessions- if you waste your possession by turning the ball over of course that should count against the offense. Everytime one of your possessions ends one starts for your opponents so both teams have the same number.

[spotatl]

And AHF- I just think its important to remember where the other eastern conference playoff teams are ranked as far as defense goes.

Charotte #1

Bucks #2

Magic #3

Celtics #4

Cavs #6

Miami #7

Atlanta #13

Toronto #30

I do think that the Hawks offense is going to slow down in the postseason because they are facing top defenses. The Hawks don't get to face the Raptors and they don't get to face the Hawks. I think any offense the Hawks run would slow down. I just look at the stats and I am far more worried about the Hawks defense letting the team down than the offense.

[AHF]

And AHF- I just think its important to remember where the other eastern conference playoff teams are ranked as far as defense goes.

Charotte #1

Bucks #2

Magic #3

Celtics #4

Cavs #6

Miami #7

Atlanta #13

Toronto #30

I do think that the Hawks offense is going to slow down in the postseason because they are facing top defenses. The Hawks don't get to face the Raptors and they don't get to face the Hawks. I think any offense the Hawks run would slow down. I just look at the stats and I am far more worried about the Hawks defense letting the team down than the offense.

Why would they slow down relative to other teams in the East other than the #1 seed? All those defenses are comparable except Toronto. I can understand the argument that every offense will slow down in the post season but they shouldn't slow down relative to the other teams - except the team that gets to face Toronto (i.e., Cleveland).

I fully expect they will slow down relative to other teams because our offensive numbers rely on fast break points and offensive rebounding more heavily than other teams and because our halfcourt offense is not very versatile and in the post-season when you are matching up against the same team over and over it is essential to be flexible and versatile so you can counter the defensive adjustments teams are making against you (which they don't really do in the regular season).

Edited April 7, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

I expect the Cavs to have a better offense than the Hawks because in teh first round they get to face the Raptors defense. I expect the Magic to have a better offense than the Hawks in the first 2 rounds because in the second round they get to face the Hawks defense.

I think that the interesting case to compare is Boston. They should face a similar schedule to Atlanta- and I will be surprised if the hawks don't have the better offense than them in the postseason.

[Plainview1981]

This $%#@ works!

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html

Very similar 4Factor stats to Portland, FWIW.

When you see all the blown 4th period leads and 4th period droughts you know these stats are useless.

[Atlantaholic]

Woodson may not be the worst coach in the NBA, but if you think we are ever sniffing a championship with that guy running the team then you are high IMO. We have no idea how to score when the game slows down. It has been this way EVERY single year he has coached our team. The first four years it was all "the team is young, we need veterans to help us close out games" now that the team is a veteran team, what are the excuses?