Rick Sund is blowing smoke!

[LastDon]

So we take him. He plays 5, maybe 10 minutes a night behind Al and Zaza at center, and we still can't stop anyone on the perimeter because we ignored the most glaring weakness on this team - perimeter defense.

Perimeter Defense was address when we made the decision to turn Mike BIbby from the worst defending point in the league to possibly the best backup point in the NBA.

[Gray Mule]

:write a letter: BPA - NEED.

BPA is fine. if he's THAT good, take him. We can all probably agree with that.

I believe teams have a point system to rate draft prospects. Position needs gander more points

than positions that are already filled.

If the Hawks have a need for center, for example, that calls for 10 points.

If we don't need a small foreward, that is 2 points. PF is more a 4 point need.

Now, when rating BPA, they are all rated by numbers. If any player is high enough in the numbers.

there is no question, take him - Position doesn't matter.

What if 2 players are close in the BPA. Then, need will overbalance the scale to that player needed.

A center will have 10 points added. The PF will have 4 points added. Now, draft the highest number.

:conversation:

[Tumbleweed]

This thread seemed to start out going in about five different directions at once, but has

settled into a common theme come draft time every year. Drafting for need or BPA?

The Falcons are the best run sports org. in town, and they always draft for need, and

that certainly has worked for Dimitroff.

But, the NBA is an entirely different animal. In the NBA you only get a shot at a truely

impactfull player maybe once every three or four drafts, not three or four in a draft, like

in football. So I contend you have to draft BPA in NBA drafts, no matter what position

you are picking. One miss (Paul, Roy) can set you back ten years. We sure did not

need Roy at the time of that draft, but man what a mistake it was not to take him.

[DJlaysitup]

Quick question for verification: If I'm not mistaken 1st round pick contracts are guarranteed and 2nd rounders are not.

The reason I ask this is that if the ASG is really as cash strapped as it seems - and we would just be taking a flyer on a pick who may never see many minutes due to our solid and pretty young core right now - why bother? If you are looking at a center who would be third string anyways (starter: Horford, Backup: Zaza...both young and better right now than anyone we could draft at #24).

Could we use the 24 to get a journeyman PG in case Teague needs more time?

I realize we need a big center badly - but I'm really concerned about handing the starting role to JT right off the bat. If he struggles we will need more PG depth. I can't see Craw as a true PG in a motion offense.

[Buzzard]

Quick question for verification: If I'm not mistaken 1st round pick contracts are guarranteed and 2nd rounders are not.

The reason I ask this is that if the ASG is really as cash strapped as it seems - and we would just be taking a flyer on a pick who may never see many minutes due to our solid and pretty young core right now - why bother? If you are looking at a center who would be third string anyways (starter: Horford, Backup: Zaza...both young and better right now than anyone we could draft at #24).

Could we use the 24 to get a journeyman PG in case Teague needs more time?

I realize we need a big center badly - but I'm really concerned about handing the starting role to JT right off the bat. If he struggles we will need more PG depth. I can't see Craw as a true PG in a motion offense.

This is a problem with determining need in my mind. Its not just the questions concerning Teague; but also JJ. If we lose JJ, Craw starts instead and our SG depth goes caput. I am with Sturt on to many questions still needing to be answered. But it is this reason alone that BPA is our best strategy in the draft IMO, instead of drafting for position. When no one knows at the time of the draft what our biggest needs will be.

These things have all been mentioned as needs:

A BU PF/C

A BU PG

A BU SF/Shooter

And lose JJ, we will then need a BU SG as badly as any other position.

One draft pick, get the best player available to fill a slot and then move on to our next set of challenges in free agency.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Buzzard

[MaceCase]

DJ, due to our lack of cap the 24th pick actually serves as a manner for us to add cheap depth with some upside without having to rely entirely on our MLE or other exceptions to pick up talent usually barely even worth those amounts.

[DJlaysitup]

DJ, due to our lack of cap the 24th pick actually serves as a manner for us to add cheap depth with some upside without having to rely entirely on our MLE or other exceptions to pick up talent usually barely even worth those amounts.

That's true - but how cheap is it and is it really effective depth? If a drafted center (the good ones aren't going to last till #24) the others aren't any better than Zaza (our backup) and only have the potential 1st year to supplant Collins or Randmo - why bother?

Don't get me wrong - if we had solid ownership I would be a bit excited about this draft as far as which "diamond in the rough" we could get. But the fact is (as far as comparative NBA ownerships) we live in a single-wide on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. If a #24 pick is gonna cost a million a year or so with no reasonable expectations NOW...I just don't see that it is worth it. A million or so is pocket money for most owners - but not for ours.

Even though we need a center - having Zaza gives us a bit of a safety net. I don't see us as totally desperate at that position.

[MaceCase]

Thus the argument, DJ. We don't want or expect the team to select any ole Center at 24 for the sake of picking one but rather management do their due dilligence of determining what player at whatever position gives the team the greatest return at that guaranteed salary.

[coachx]

The numbers just do not back up the premise that Atlanta's biggest need is the center position. Atlanta was actually a middle of the pack team when it came to defending shots at the rim. They held teams to a FG% that was right at the average of the NBA, which was about 61%. The Hawks interior defenders were certainly not as bad as Minnesota's, who had the worst defense in the NBA on shots at the rim and one of the worst interior defenses overall. Not only that, but Atlanta had the 6th best defense in the NBA at defending shots in the less than 10 feet range. The NBA average is 44.1% while Atlanta held teams to 41.4% shooting from inside ten feet.

Now, we get to the Hawks real problem. Defending the perimeter. The Hawks had the 5th worst opponents FG% in the 16-23 feet range. They allowed the opposition to hit 41.1% of their jump shots in this range. The NBA average opponents FG% in this range was 39.6%. The only teams worse than Atlanta at defending this area of the floor were the Pistons, the Knicks (who completely ignores defense), the Nets, and the Hornets.

It's very clear when looking at the numbers that Atlanta's perimeter defense is what needs to be fixed first, and hopefully, the best player available will be a long armed, athletic guard/wing.

No one cares about regualar season averages and statistics vs. awful teams.

We are in a division with D. Howard. To beat D. Howard in the playoffs we need more size at the center position.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Normally, the value pick this late in the 1st round, is either going to be an undersized, but very good in college PF . . or a high scoring guard who has the ability to create and make his own shot. Centers that are taken below the top 20 are almost doomed to fail, or not be nearly as effective as people would want to think.

When you see stuff like "after the top 15 or 20 picks, we don't know where these guys are going", that doesn't mean that it's a "deep draft". It means that these NBA scouts really don't see any difference between a guy projected to be #20 and a guy projected to be #40. That's why you're just better off taking the best player available.

Two interesting articles to check out from draftexpress are these:

Situational Statistics: This year's Power Forward crop

Situational Statistics: This year's Center crop

And if you think we need a small foward ( who might be a BPA ), see what they say about them as well:

Situational Statistics: This year's Small Forward crop