This is exactly what I'm talking about

[MaceCase]

Mace, even you have to admit though that when we lose games like this, there is a pattern that usually happens. That's why people say the things that they say. One of the things that became evident in that game last night, was that Zaza was the one that simply didn't have it. He wasn't rebounding on the defensive boards at all, and couldn't make point blank shots. But instead of Drew taking Zaza out at the 9 min mark of the 4th, he takes Ivan out to insert Smith. The lead continues to dwindle, and he takes Zaza and Harris out and puts in Deshawn and Teague. At this point, Drew is doing what he's always done . . . "when in doubt, I'm going to substitute offensive minded players to see if they can outscore the opponent and win us the game." The sad thing about last night's game, was that Cleveland was a top 5 offensive rebounding team even before last night's game, so Drew had to know that's part of what they do. That's probably why Ivan saw time at SF. But when push came to shove, Drew reverts to what he's always done . . . sub offense for defense/rebounding. It's annoying. And that's why people always can point to some baffling sub pattern as to why the Hawks may have lost the game.

OMG, North! A coach put in his best players to close out a game, what a shocking and unheard of revelation. I already stated and it's available for all to see http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20121130&game=CLEATL that LD began the 4th playing two incarnations of the big lineup. The Cavs didn't even have Varejao on the floor yet....the Hawks and their "big" lineups were getting torched...why? Because the Cleveland guards were going off, so what does LD do? Sub in guys that can defend the perimeter better whilst also being able to score. Yea, I have no idea what he was thinking on that one, he should of gone bigger.

This is what I talk about when it comes to preset scapegoats. People want talk about "oh he'll do this and do that" and just dismiss the actual current circumstance of which they are crawling out of their caves to begin spouting their old talking points anew. This thread was started BEFORE the game even began because Peoria was flabbergasted that LD was starting Deshawn over Zaza. Zaza goes on to be pure hot garbage in the game yet.....do you see a single admittance on being foolhardy by Peoria? No they're tap dancing with plus/minus and delving deep into coaching psychoanalysis to speak as if the game was already lost from the moment the starting lineup was announced because a "value" isn't being placed on rebounding. It's ridiculous.

Should Ivan get more time? Sure, absolutely, but here's the conundrum: at whose expense? See because according to some people Zaza has to be in a lineup at all times to signify an actual commitment to rebounding. And then to those that keep harping on the team being undersized, well does running 6'9" Josh, 6'8" Ivan and 6'10" Al solve that? I ask because the Hawks did the exact same thing with 6'8/6'9" Marvin/Joe for 6 years......yet were still called undersized. So, rather than admit any faults in our own logic, let's just all continue to build strawmen, throw out wild conspiracies and use unrelated events as evidence of our original positions being absolutely correct on a specific game.

Despite not being a good rebounding team....ever.....the Hawks have still been top 5ish in defense in the last 2 years. Who can that be attributed to?

Despite not being a good rebounding team the Hawks are still playing at a high pace and putting up more possessions than their opponents? What can we attribute that to? Turnovers, you know the aspect that having a smaller quicker team helps with. The Hawks win by valueing the ball and forcing their opponents to turn the ball over at a near league leading rate.

So what do we blame for the 4th quarter meltdown in Cleveland? The rebounding "issue" that has been around for nearly a decade? Or how about the fact the Hawks turned the ball over 7 times in that crucial quarter. You'd think that would of gotten some pub but no, everytime we lose "the lack of emphasis" on rebounding by the coach is to blame.

[Peoriabird]

I can agree with you that i'd like to see Ivan get more minutes. My feeling is that Ivan, even with his intimidating presence, isn't that great of a defender.

Exactly my point because Morrow isn't a good defender either...neither is Devin Harris or Lou William but they all get more minutes per game than Ivan because Drew values their shooting over Ivan's rebounding!

[Peoriabird]

OMG, North! A coach put in his best players to close out a game, what a shocking and unheard of revelation. I already stated and it's available for all to see http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20121130&game=CLEATL that LD began the 4th playing two incarnations of the big lineup. The Cavs didn't even have Varejao on the floor yet....the Hawks and their "big" lineups were getting torched...why? Because the Cleveland guards were going off, so what does LD do? Sub in guys that can defend the perimeter better whilst also being able to score. Yea, I have no idea what he was thinking on that one, he should of gone bigger. This is what I talk about when it comes to preset scapegoats. People want talk about "oh he'll do this and do that" and just dismiss the actual current circumstance of which they are crawling out of their caves to begin spouting their old talking points anew. This thread was started BEFORE the game even began because Peoria was flabbergasted that LD was starting Deshawn over Zaza. Zaza goes on to be pure hot garbage in the game yet.....do you see a single admittance on being foolhardy by Peoria? No they're tap dancing with plus/minus and delving deep into coaching psychoanalysis to speak as if the game was already lost from the moment the starting lineup was announced because a "value" isn't being placed on rebounding. It's ridiculous. Should Ivan get more time? Sure, absolutely, but here's the conundrum: at whose expense? See because according to some people Zaza has to be in a lineup at all times to signify an actual commitment to rebounding. And then to those that keep harping on the team being undersized, well does running 6'9" Josh, 6'8" Ivan and 6'10" Al solve that? I ask because the Hawks did the exact same thing with 6'8/6'9" Marvin/Joe for 6 years......yet were still called undersized. So, rather than admit any faults in our own logic, let's just all continue to build strawmen, throw out wild conspiracies and use unrelated events as evidence of our original positions being absolutely correct on a specific game. Despite not being a good rebounding team....ever.....the Hawks have still been top 5ish in defense in the last 2 years. Who can that be attributed to? Despite not being a good rebounding team the Hawks are still playing at a high pace and putting up more possessions than their opponents? What can we attribute that to? Turnovers, you know the aspect that having a smaller quicker team helps with. The Hawks win by valueing the ball and forcing their opponents to turn the ball over at a near league leading rate. So what do we blame for the 4th quarter meltdown in Cleveland? The rebounding "issue" that has been around for nearly a decade? Or how about the fact the Hawks turned the ball over 7 times in that crucial quarter. You'd think that would of gotten some pub but no, everytime we lose "the lack of emphasis" on rebounding by the coach is to blame.

I don't even know how to respond to this mess but all I said in this thread is that LD does not value rebounding and by starting Stevenson at small forward in this game was proof. And guess what Mace...I was right!!!!!!!!!!! They were fing out rebounded by 21! God only knows what is going on in that head of yours but i think you need to reread the initial post to get a better understanding of the topic before you post next time. Edited December 4, 2012 by Peoriabird

[MaceCase]

I don't even know how to respond to this mess but all I said in this thread is that LD does not value rebounding and by starting Stevenson at small forward in this game was proof. And guess what Mace...I was right!!!!!!!!!!! They were fing out rebounded by 21! God only knows what is going on in that head of yours but i think you need to reread the initial post to get a better understanding of the topic before you post next time.

You can't comprehend my post? What a shock coming from someone who believes that a starting lineup led directly to the team being outrebounded after 4 quarters.

Maybe I got lost on these gems

Ah, yes. Clearly I'm the one being unreasonable here. Forgive me, next time I'll be smart enough to regard your every proceeding post as utter bull shit with no bearing to the sanctity of your original post.

Edited December 4, 2012 by MaceCase

[Admin]

OMG, North! A coach put in his best players to close out a game, what a shocking and unheard of revelation. I already stated and it's available for all to see http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20121130&game=CLEATL that LD began the 4th playing two incarnations of the big lineup. The Cavs didn't even have Varejao on the floor yet....the Hawks and their "big" lineups were getting torched...why? Because the Cleveland guards were going off, so what does LD do? Sub in guys that can defend the perimeter better whilst also being able to score. Yea, I have no idea what he was thinking on that one, he should of gone bigger.

This is what I talk about when it comes to preset scapegoats. People want talk about "oh he'll do this and do that" and just dismiss the actual current circumstance of which they are crawling out of their caves to begin spouting their old talking points anew. This thread was started BEFORE the game even began because Peoria was flabbergasted that LD was starting Deshawn over Zaza. Zaza goes on to be pure hot garbage in the game yet.....do you see a single admittance on being foolhardy by Peoria? No they're tap dancing with plus/minus and delving deep into coaching psychoanalysis to speak as if the game was already lost from the moment the starting lineup was announced because a "value" isn't being placed on rebounding. It's ridiculous.

Should Ivan get more time? Sure, absolutely, but here's the conundrum: at whose expense? See because according to some people Zaza has to be in a lineup at all times to signify an actual commitment to rebounding. And then to those that keep harping on the team being undersized, well does running 6'9" Josh, 6'8" Ivan and 6'10" Al solve that? I ask because the Hawks did the exact same thing with 6'8/6'9" Marvin/Joe for 6 years......yet were still called undersized. So, rather than admit any faults in our own logic, let's just all continue to build strawmen, throw out wild conspiracies and use unrelated events as evidence of our original positions being absolutely correct on a specific game.

Despite not being a good rebounding team....ever.....the Hawks have still been top 5ish in defense in the last 2 years. Who can that be attributed to?

Despite not being a good rebounding team the Hawks are still playing at a high pace and putting up more possessions than their opponents? What can we attribute that to? Turnovers, you know the aspect that having a smaller quicker team helps with. The Hawks win by valueing the ball and forcing their opponents to turn the ball over at a near league leading rate.

So what do we blame for the 4th quarter meltdown in Cleveland? The rebounding "issue" that has been around for nearly a decade? Or how about the fact the Hawks turned the ball over 7 times in that crucial quarter. You'd think that would of gotten some pub but no, everytime we lose "the lack of emphasis" on rebounding by the coach is to blame.

This is a terrific post and I could not agree more! But you're wasting your breath as LD is going to be the scapegoat to some in the same way that Josh is to others and nothing is going to change their minds about that.

There's no doubt in my mind that the 7 turnovers in the 4th quarter and the inability to stop their guards from penetrating at will is what cost us this game. I mean hell, we were getting slaughtered on the boards at halftime and through 3 quarters and yet we had big leads at the end of 2 and 3. The difference is that we were protecting the ball and forcing Cleveland into mistakes.

[Peoriabird]

Should I conclude that posters that are somehow arguing in favor of LD's decisions don't value rebounding either? And we are just fine getting out rebounded by 21 by the Cavs?

[Admin]

Should I conclude that posters that are somehow arguing in favor of LD's decisions don't value rebounding either? And we are just fine getting out rebounded by 21 by the Cavs?

Which was more costly, getting outrebounded badly, which didn't affect our big lead at all through 2 or 3 quarters. Or committing 7 of our 12 turnovers in the 4th quarter while we continued to get outrebounded by the same rate and yet somehow got severely outscored that quarter?

[MaceCase]

This is a terrific post and I could not agree more! But you're wasting your breath as LD is going to be the scapegoat to some in the same way that Josh is to others and nothing is going to change their minds about that.

There's no doubt in my mind that the 7 turnovers in the 4th quarter and the inability to stop their guards from penetrating at will is what cost us this game. I mean hell, we were getting slaughtered on the boards at halftime and through 3 quarters and yet we had big leads at the end of 2 and 3. The difference is that we were protecting the ball and forcing Cleveland into mistakes.

Yea, I just don't see why rebounding get's looked at as the top issue for this team and as some sort of new development under LD.

Here are the Hawk's ranking in defensive rebounding% dating from our first playoff team in 2007.

07-08 26th

08-09 24th

09-10 24th

LD takes over

10-11 11th

11-12 7th

12-13 21st

Yes, Woody had the Hawks crash the O-Boards more but those are lower % opportunities and they had the inverse effect of making our defenses terrible because guys were crashing rather than getting back. Also note that despite having the same personnel the dramatic increase in both defensive boards and overall defense. Wouldn't that be a sign of a coach actually "valuing" rebounding?

So now instead he's been given 5 guards under 6'7" over 6'8" G/Fs but are all skilled and deserving of time but it's somehow irrefutable evidence that he doesn't value rebounding? What, because a stat based on a very limited sample size says that Korver and Josh are a greater defensive wing duo than Pippen and Jordan? That despite it being argued ad-nauseum on this site and others and with plenty of historical evidence to back it up demonstrating that the big lineup (a lineup that LD implemented in the first place) offers just as many holes as any other lineup because Josh is not as effective a wing. Did the team both getting outscored and outrebounded in the first half of the 4th quarter that featured the big lineup not help show that that is not some sort of magical bean to solve all problems? Why does a coach "who doesn't value rebounding" even play a big lineup for half of a pivotal quarter anyway? Mysteries we'll never have the answer to.....because we know for fact that LD doesn't value rebounding.

[Peoriabird]

Which was more costly, getting outrebounded badly, which didn't affect our big lead at all through 2 or 3 quarters. Or committing 7 of our 12 turnovers in the 4th quarter while we continued to get outrebounded by the same rate and yet somehow got severely outscored that quarter?

So the Answer to my question is obviously yes. I just needed clarification thanks.

[Admin]

So the Answer to my question is obviously yes. I just needed clarification thanks.

Marvin, is that you? Sorry I thought that we'd seen the last of DUCKing on Hawksquawk.

[Admin]

Yea, I just don't see why rebounding get's looked at as the top issue for this team and as some sort of new development under LD.

Here are the Hawk's ranking in defensive rebounding% dating from our first playoff team in 2007.

07-08 26th

08-09 24th

09-10 24th

LD takes over

10-11 11th

11-12 7th

12-13 21st

Yes, Woody had the Hawks crash the O-Boards more but those are lower % opportunities and they had the inverse effect of making our defenses terrible because guys were crashing rather than getting back. Also note that despite having the same personnel the dramatic increase in both defensive boards and overall defense. Wouldn't that be a sign of a coach actually "valuing" rebounding?

So now instead he's been given 5 guards under 6'7" over 6'8" G/Fs but are all skilled and deserving of time but it's somehow irrefutable evidence that he doesn't value rebounding? What, because a stat based on a very limited sample size says that Korver and Josh are a greater defensive wing duo than Pippen and Jordan? That despite it being argued ad-nauseum on this site and others and with plenty of historical evidence to back it up demonstrating that the big lineup (a lineup that LD implemented in the first place) offers just as many holes as any other lineup because Josh is not as effective a wing. Did the team both getting outscored and outrebounded in the first half of the 4th quarter that featured the big lineup not help show that that is not some sort of magical bean to solve all problems? Why does a coach "who doesn't value rebounding" even play a big lineup for half of a pivotal quarter anyway? Mysteries we'll never have the answer to.....because we know for fact that LD doesn't value rebounding.

Ugh you and your proof and facts to back up what you're saying, it just burns me up!!

[Jody23]

Which was more costly, getting outrebounded badly, which didn't affect our big lead at all through 2 or 3 quarters. Or committing 7 of our 12 turnovers in the 4th quarter while we continued to get outrebounded by the same rate and yet somehow got severely outscored that quarter?

I don't think we can label the turnovers as "more costly" than being outrebounded. For example, if the Hawks prevent just one or two of their offensive rebounds where they scored, then the end result of the game is different despite the turnovers. So in truth, yes the turnovers were costly, but being severely outrebounded was just as costly if not more.

[Peoriabird]

Marvin, is that you? Sorry I thought that we'd seen the last of DUCKing on Hawksquawk.

???

[Admin]

I don't think we can label the turnovers as "more costly" than being outrebounded. For example, if the Hawks prevent just one or two of their offensive rebounds where they scored, then the end result of the game is different despite the turnovers. So in truth, yes the turnovers were costly, but being severely outrebounded was just as costly if not more.

I get your point, but I can't agree that the rebounds were more costly because the fact is that they were dominating the glass through 3 quarters and we had a comfortable lead in spite of that because we were protecting the ball and forcing them into turnovers and stopping their guards from killing us. Then in the 4th we start giving the ball up, stop taking it away, and start letting their guards take the game over. If you look at the game that's the only thing that changed throughout the 4 quarters as the rebounding was a consistent major negative for us throughout.

[Admin]

???

You just ignored, or DUCKed, my question. See the reference to Mr. Duck, Marvin?

And before you say that I ignored yours first, I've already said in this thread that the rebounding difference was a big issue. Now I would like for you to consider whether or not the bigger issue from the Cavs game is whether or not the only things that changed in the 4th quarter were the real reason we lost. Those being in the 4th we start giving the ball up, stop taking it away, and start letting their guards take the game over. Because up until the 4th, we were the smaller team and were getting killed on the glass and yet we still had a comfortable lead.

[Peoriabird]

I don't think we can label the turnovers as "more costly" than being outrebounded. For example, if the Hawks prevent just one or two of their offensive rebounds where they scored, then the end result of the game is different despite the turnovers. So in truth, yes the turnovers were costly, but being severely outrebounded was just as costly if not more.

Make sense to me...They have 6 more turnovers than we do and 21 more rebounds so obviously our turnovers lost the game

[Admin]

Make sense to me...They have 6 more turnovers than we do and 21 more rebounds so obviously our turnovers lost the game

Let's see if this makes sense to you then. Color coded for even easier comprehension!

1st quarter

Cavs: Rebounds (11), Turnovers (2), Points (27)

Hawks: Rebounds (7), Turnovers (3), Points (29)

Quarter Difference: Rebounds (-4), Turnovers (-1), Points (+2)

Game Difference: Rebounds (-4), Turnovers (-1), Points (+2)

----------

2nd quarter

Cavs: Rebounds (9), Turnovers (7), Points (29)

Hawks: Rebounds (9), Turnovers (1), Points (38)

Quarter Difference: Rebounds (0), Turnovers (+6), Points (+9)

Game Difference: Rebounds (-4 to -4), Turnovers (-1 to +5), Points (+2 to +11)

----------

3rd quarter

Cavs: Rebounds (19), Turnovers (6), Points (26)

Hawks: Rebounds (6), Turnovers (1), Points (24)

Quarter Difference: Rebounds (-13), Turnovers (+5), Points (-2)

Game Difference: Rebounds (-4 to -17), Turnovers (+5 to +10), Points (+11 to +9)

----------

4th quarter

Cavs: Rebounds (10), Turnovers (3), Points (31)

Hawks: Rebounds (6), Turnovers (7), Points (20)

Quarter Difference: Rebounds (-4), Turnovers (-4), Points (-11)

Game Difference: Rebounds (-17 to -21), Turnovers (+10 to +6), Points (+9 to -2)

Final Totals: Rebounds (-21), Turnovers (+6), Points (-2)

----------

Averages (Rebounding):

-5.25 rebounds per quarter and lost the 4th by 4 rebounds, which is +1.25 better than the total game average and +1.667 better than the average of -5.667 through 3 quarters. Bottom line, Hawks improved their average rebounding in the 4th quarter when compared to the 1st 3 quarters.

Averages (Turnovers):

+1.5 turnovers per quarter and lost the 4th by 4 turnovers, which is -2.5 worse than the total game average and -7.333 worse than the average of +3.333 through 3 quarters. Bottom line, Hawks worsened their average turnovers in the 4th quarter when compared to the 1st 3 quarters.

Averages (Points):

-.5 points per quarter and lost the 4th by 11 points, which is -10.5 worse than the total game average and -8 worse than the average of +3 through 3 quarters. Bottom line, Hawks worsened their average points in the 4th quarter when compared to the 1st 3 quarters.

----------

Final Analysis: Hawks improve rebounding but get worse in turnovers and points in the 4th and lose their comfortable 9 point lead and lose by 2. Deciding factor, the massive difference in turnover differential in the 4th quarter, leading to the massive point differential.

[/thread]

* Source - attached game book

0021200227_Book.pdf

Edit - just realized that probably 1/3 of you viewing this post won't even be able to tell that it's been color coded since I used red and green LOL

[MaceCase]

I don't think we can label the turnovers as "more costly" than being outrebounded. For example, if the Hawks prevent just one or two of their offensive rebounds where they scored, then the end result of the game is different despite the turnovers. So in truth, yes the turnovers were costly, but being severely outrebounded was just as costly if not more.

So.....you want to play the "if they just made/grabbed 1 more steal/block/free throw/basket" game? Lol, you can play that "what if" game with anything. As I've pointed out, rebounding has been an issue for donkey years but explain how is it that the Hawks have won way more than they've lost over this span? It's like a guy who's always had asthma yet still plays basketball. One game he misses 7 shots in a row and losses a pick up game, what was to blame? The missed shots or the fact he had asthma all his life?

You are trying to utilize an overarching problem to explain an individual result. The Hawks were winning despite being outrebounded (just like ALWAYS) but they started losing in the 4th when some curious phenomena occured that was not present in any of the other quarters. Now what would that be? The final play came down to Josh on a SF anyway, what was the result? Isn't that the penultimate matchup that is supposed to cure all of the Hawks woes? So you have 6 minutes of a big lineup and Josh on a SF to end the game....yet the Hawks lost.

The Hawks were outrebounded in the 3rd quarter by 13.....yet only scored 2 less points than the Cavs in that quarter. They were outrebounded by 4 in the 4th....yet scored 11 less points. You people reaallly and I mean really need to start looking at things at the micro level instead of trying to attribute macro issues to everything. Through 3 quarters the Cavs had a +20 rebound advantage on the Hawks yet were down 9, why? Would the 15-5 turnover disadvantage have anything to do with that because by the end of the 4th the Cavs rebound advantage remained the same yet the turnover difference went from 15-5 to 17-12. This evidence leads to only one conclusion, rebounds.

[MaceCase]

Oh damn, Dol. Here I was trying to explain the exact same point while you were already hitting them off with the numbers.

[Peoriabird]

I guess we don't need Dwight Howard if rebounds don't matter.