Kyle

[Jody23]

I appreciate what Joe and Marvin were to this team, but Korver is a flat out better fit here than both of them and clearly a better shooter than both of them.

[Admin]

I appreciate what Joe and Marvin were to this team, but Korver is a flat out better fit here than both of them and clearly a better shooter than both of them.

Not to mention that Korver absolutely kills it on 2K13! I never could get too good with Marvin or Joe at shooting from deep but I'm a mid-high 50's shooter with Korver and he doesn't need much space at all. I guess Korver being a better shooter in real life is cool too though LOL

[taz]

I appreciate what Joe and Marvin were to this team, but Korver is a flat out better fit here than both of them and clearly a better shooter than both of them.

And once again he's cheaper. You may ask as a fan why that matters but go google 3d cameras and the NBA. That's why money matters teams with extra cash can in turn invest that money back into the team

[Admin]

And once again he's cheaper. You may ask as a fan why that matters but go google 3d cameras and the NBA. That's why money matters teams with extra cash can in turn invest that money back into the team

Oh man you're likely to unleash a hell upon this topic by those who truly hate the ASG unlike any you've seen by suggesting the ASG might invest money back into the team!

[taz]

In theory!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I appreciate what Joe and Marvin were to this team, but Korver is a flat out better fit here than both of them and clearly a better shooter than both of them.

Jody, this is silly.

There's no way that Korver could be a #1 option or even a #2 option in an offense, like JJ was. JJ had to score, distribute, and guard the best wing on the team at times . . . heck, even guard PGs at times.

The disrespect of Joe Johnson and what he did do while he was here, is just mind boggling. JJ was NOT a superstar and he couldn't get us to the next level. But that dude flat out won A LOT of games for us. People forget that Teague's rise to fame came when he literally destroyed Kyle Korver in the 2011 playoffs, and rendered him useless for that series because he couldn't guard neither JJ, nor Teague.

Kyle is good for what he is . . . a long range specialist who is a spot up shooter. But hyping up Kyle for more than he really is, would be like hyping up Ivan over Al Horford.

[benhillboy]

To your boy's credit North, his advanced team stats are much better than I would've thought. The Nets are +17.2 net when he's on the court as opposed to off, 8 points better than their next player in Lopez. Korver is tops for us at 9.6, 1.1 points better than Teague. Next on our team is Horford. Compare that with Stackhouse next for their squad! Get that man some more minutes!

Edited February 7, 2013 by benhillboy

[Jody23]

Jody, this is silly. There's no way that Korver could be a #1 option or even a #2 option in an offense, like JJ was. JJ had to score, distribute, and guard the best wing on the team at times . . . heck, even guard PGs at times. The disrespect of Joe Johnson and what he did do while he was here, is just mind boggling. JJ was NOT a superstar and he couldn't get us to the next level. But that dude flat out won A LOT of games for us. People forget that Teague's rise to fame came when he literally destroyed Kyle Korver in the 2011 playoffs, and rendered him useless for that series because he couldn't guard neither JJ, nor Teague. Kyle is good for what he is . . . a long range specialist who is a spot up shooter. But hyping up Kyle for more than he really is, would be like hyping up Ivan over Al Horford.

No where in my post did I say or even imply that Korver was a better player than Joe. I said he was a better FIT and SHOOTER than both Joe and Marvin, and he is. That's neither silly or disrespectful to Joe. It's simply the truth. Korver has the ability to be impactful on a game without having to dominate the ball like Joe did. This clearly has allowed Teague to step forward and be more effective. It also has been a factor in this team becoming one of the top assists teams.

[benhillboy]

No where in my post did I say or even imply that Korver was a better player than Joe. I said he was a better FIT and SHOOTER than both Joe and Marvin, and he is. That's neither silly or disrespectful to Joe. It's simply the truth. Korver has the ability to be impactful on a game without having to dominate the ball like Joe did. This clearly has allowed Teague to step forward and be more effective. It also has been a factor in this team becoming one of the top assists teams.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Korver surely has less tools than Joe, but I'll take his overall approach and thoughtfulness of the game over Joe 8 days a week. He's much more efficient (+.130 true shooting), yet never controls the ball more than 3 seconds and can't dribble. His year has just been phenomenal.

[itsslomotionbaby]

damb benhill boy i never knew joe had this much effect on you,i can tell he caused you some night swets with his booty bumping with three guys in the paint the last play of the game for a fallaway jumper with one leg in the air miss as the busser goes off.man you can use a therapist,he frustrated me too.he still has to play 38 minutes just to get the points he scores.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

No where in my post did I say or even imply that Korver was a better player than Joe. I said he was a better FIT and SHOOTER than both Joe and Marvin, and he is. That's neither silly or disrespectful to Joe. It's simply the truth. Korver has the ability to be impactful on a game without having to dominate the ball like Joe did. This clearly has allowed Teague to step forward and be more effective. It also has been a factor in this team becoming one of the top assists teams.

This team as constructed right now would be a better team with JJ on it, than Kyle. It would be better because we'd have a proven guy who could get his own shot at any time and could knock down 3s. Of course JJ can't knock down open 3s at a higher rate than Korver, but he can do so much more offensively than Korver, that JJ would still be the better fit. All of that crying about the Hawks needing a SF would be eliminated if JJ were still on the team.

And that's even before we talk about the defensive side of the ball. Kyle isn't nearly as bad defensively than I thought he'd be, but he's still weaker defensively than JJ. And that was no more evident than in the Indiana game in which George destroyed Korver. On the flip side, JJ did a good job on George when the Nets played them about a month ago.

Kyle has been outstanding the past 10 games

- 38.8 minutes

- 15.3 ppg ( on 9.5 shots )

- 5.0 rebs

- 2.9 asst

- 1.2 stls

55% FG

54% 3FG

For a guy who is essentially a spot up shooter, you can't ask for anything better than that. And despite those great numbers, we're still just 5 - 5 over those last 10 games. And one of the reasons for this is because good teams can lock in and significantly limit the amount of touches and good looks that Korver gets. And without the ability to put that ball on the floor and score, Korver can literally be taken out of a game if a team focuses its defense to prevent him from getting wide open looks . . . like Indiana did.

What Diesel said was correct. The comparison should be between Marvin and Kyle . . not Kyle and JJ. Put a knockdown 3 point shooter on some of the past Hawk playoff teams, and we may have a shot to get to the Eastern Conference Finals. If Korver had to be the lead guy, or even the #2 guy, his efficiency would be significantly less. In his role right now thought, he's doing great.

But as far as "fit", just remember that JJ can play AND DEFEND both the 2 and the 3. And if he were here right now, we wouldn't be a worse team. We'd be a better one. But we still wouldn't be a championship level team.

[Admin]

Sorry but I don't agree that we'd be better off with JJ as he kills ball movement and slows down the offense to a crawl far too often. I'd much rather have Korver and him constantly moving without the ball then to watch JJ pound the ball into the court. Don't get me wrong I really liked Joe Johnson, but I like seeing our offense a hell of a lot more without him.

[Guest]

I don't know if we would be better or not but we would still be playing ISOJOE if he was here. Kyle prolly woudn't be shooting as much. Teague wouldn't be as agressive as he is now, he would be bringing the ball upcourt(when Josh didn't) and passing it to Joe (LD said that was Teague's role)

Edited February 8, 2013 by JayBirdHawk

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sorry but I don't agree that we'd be better off with JJ as he kills ball movement and slows down the offense to a crawl far too often. I'd much rather have Korver and him constantly moving without the ball then to watch JJ pound the ball into the court. Don't get me wrong I really liked Joe Johnson, but I like seeing our offense a hell of a lot more without him.

Dol . . I know it was a long time ago ( 12 months ), but do you remember how this team was playing BEFORE Horford went down last year? We were running far more at that time, than we're running now. The defense that team played was OUTSTANDING, compared to what we see now. And the Hawks split with Chicago and Miami during a 4 out of 5 game stretch in which we played them.

The fact was that the lineup of Teague - JJ - Marvin - Smith - Horford was consistent on both ends of the court in those first 10 games last year. And the bench was stellar most games. When Horford went down, we didn't fall off of a cliff, but we did lose some of our firepower as an offense.

Hawks were 7 - 3 before Horford got hurt in that Indiana game ( .700 winning percentage )

Hawks were 33 - 23 from the Indiana loss to the end of the season ( .589 winning percentage )

So while the Hawks didn't roll over and die when Horford got hurt, the difference probably was about 3 or 6 more wins with Horford, than without Horford. 46 wins would've put us in a tie with Miami for the SE Division and #2 seed.

As for the topic, we can talk about "style of play" all we want. The issue is if the "style of play" has us playing winning basketball? As of right now, this team is winning at even less of a clip than the team without Horford last year ( .563 winning percentage ). We're shooting more jumpshots this year, than ever before. It ain't just Josh Smith . . it's EVERYBODY taking jumpers.

As of right now, last year's offense is virtually the same as this year's offense, when it comes to PPG and Offensive rating. The major difference in this team, is that we can't stop anybody at times.

All I know is that if the Hawks wanted to, they could've constructed this team.

PG - Teague

G - Harris

F - Johnson

PF - Smith

C - Horford

6th - Lou ( G )

7th - Zaza ( C )

8th - Ivan ( F )

9th - Jenkins ( G )

10th - Scott ( F )

We could've constructed that here. And I'm taking that team, over this year's team.

Moving JJ for contract reasons was justified. But we're not a better team on the court without him. That's just a fact.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I don't know if we would be better or not but we would still be playing ISOJOE if he was here. Kyle prolly woudn't be shooting as much. Teague wouldn't be as agressive as he is now, he would be bringing the ball upcourt(when Josh didn't) and passing it to Joe (LD said that was Teague's role)

Then that's on the coach ( which we all know ).

At no time has JJ talked bad about Teague or not supported him. Heck, he was one of his MAIN supporters. And he had no problem deferring to Teague at times. We couldn't have had Kyle on the team if we kept JJ. But let's say that by some way we got him here. Didn't JJ WILLINGLY pass the ball to Mike Bibby all the time for open jumpers? If that's the case, wouldn't JJ do the same thing if he had Kyle? Contrary to popular belief, JJ was NOT a selfish ballplayer. In fact, he was a little TOO unselfish at critical times.

Heck, most of the 3s that Jerry Stackhouse has made this season as a Net, has come via JJ passing him the ball. JJ would do the same thing if he had a shooter the caliber of Korver on the team.

ISO JOE is also one of the most misunderstood things ever. ISO only went into effect when the Hawks couldn't score quickly or off of the initial play. So when JJ got the ball with 10 seconds or less on the clock, it was up to him to either create a shot for himself, or a shot for others. ISO JOE led to a lot of contested long 2 point misses . . but also led to a lot of shots ( floaters ) by JJ in the paint. But some people act like JJ got the ball with 15 seconds, and just held the ball for 14, then made his move.

Every team goes ISO. And JJ was one of the better ISO players in the league. So what would people had rather seen last year? JJ going ISO to try to get into the lane to shoot a floater? Or JJ moving the ball to pass the ball to a wide open Marvin Williams or Josh Smith for a 20 foot jumper?

Offensive basketball is about getting the best shot ( preferably the highest percentage shot ), at any given moment. To me, it wouldn't matter if it came via great ball movement, or isolation basketball. Just get the best shot to put the ball in the hole.

Edited February 8, 2013 by northcyde

[Admin]

North we have a ton of injuries this year and a bunch of new guys playing on one year contracts who didn't have 5 years of developed chemistry with their teammates so I wouldn't expect us to be as good as we were before. Although before Lou, Harris and Zaza went down we had a better record at that point this year than we were last year. I know that you were one of the bigger JJ supporters on here but I can't imagine how you could possibly like the previous offense vs what we've seen this year. And sure we looked decent in our 10 game stretch prior to Horford's injury but that's a pretty small sample and we've beaten some pretty good teams this year without having JJ.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

North we have a ton of injuries this year and a bunch of new guys playing on one year contracts who didn't have 5 years of developed chemistry with their teammates so I wouldn't expect us to be as good as we were before. Although before Lou, Harris and Zaza went down we had a better record at that point this year than we were last year. I know that you were one of the bigger JJ supporters on here but I can't imagine how you could possibly like the previous offense vs what we've seen this year. And sure we looked decent in our 10 game stretch prior to Horford's injury but that's a pretty small sample and we've beaten some pretty good teams this year without having JJ.

It's not about "liking" an offense. It's about seeing which offense produces the desired results. Some of you are acting like because we move the ball more, that the offense is much better. The numbers across the board says that there really isn't a significant difference in production or efficiency between either team.

Off Rating: 104.9 ( 2012 ) . . . 104.2 ( 2013 )

Pace: 90.2 ( 2012 ) . . . 91.5 ( 2013 )

PPG: 96.6 ( 2012 ) . . . 96.5 ( 2013 )

FG%: 45.4 ( 2012 ) . . . 45.9 ( 2013 )

3FG%: 37.0 ( 2012 ) . . . 38.1 ( 2013 )

3FGA: 20.2 ( 2012 ) . . . 23.2 ( 2013 )

FT%: 74.1 ( 2012 ) . . . 70.1 ( 2013 )

FTA: 21 ( 2012 ) . . . 19.3 ( 2013 )

eFG%: 50.0 ( 2012 ) . . . 51.4 ( 2013 )

TO/gm: 14 ( 2012 ) . . . 15.1 ( 2013 )

OReb%: 23.9% ( 2012 ) . . . 23.1 ( 2013 )

% of games scored less than 80 points: 12.1% ( 2012 ) . . . 6.2% ( 2013 )

% of games scored 80 - 89 points: 21.2% ( 2012 ) . . . 22.9% ( 2013 )

% of games scored 90 - 99 points: 19.7% ( 2012 ) . . . 20.8% ( 2013 )

% of games scored 100 or more points: 47% ( 2012 ) . . . 50% ( 2013 )

So the "better style of play" sees more ball movement that's leading to more 3s being taken, but less free throws being taken. We shoot a little better, but turn it over a little more. Neither offense is better, when it comes to results on the court.

As far as injuries, we had a lot of injuries last year too. Only Smith and Teague played all 66 games last year. JJ missed time. Zaza missed time. Marvin missed time. T-Mac suffered from ( DSD ) "Deshawn Stevenson Disease". And from a shooting standpoint, Willie Green was the poor man's Kyle Korver . . and he missed time.

Looking better and playing better are 2 different things. It's not like were running and gunning like the Houston Rockets. This year's offense isn't even better than the really ISO heavy offense of JJ and Jamal in 2010, mainly because they got to the FT line a lot more, and didn't turn the ball over as much. Plus our bigs actually crashed the offensive boards.

[Admin]

Looking at those numbers it seems clear to me that we're a much more consistent offense and that is all we can ask for with the talent level that we have. Just the fact that we've got half as many games percentage wise of scoring under 80 speaks volumes about that. With our old offense if JJ wasn't having a good game then we were doomed and we saw it time and again in the playoffs. It's one thing to put up nice regular season stats but the ISO-JJ offense that we saw the past 7 years did not and would not work in the playoffs. I truly hope that you aren't looking back on those years with rose colored glasses and not remembering that is exactly what our offense was, ISO-JJ with everyone else standing around and watching. Because if you are I am happy to pull up any number of TNT clips of them dogging our offense in those halftime shows from the playoffs or most of our nationally televised games where we got smoked.

[benhillboy]

Looking at those numbers it seems clear to me that we're a much more consistent offense and that is all we can ask for with the talent level that we have.

I know right? It's usually my job to point out Joe's unfavorable numbers, but North did himself! Unbelievable. It was clear to the naked eye watching the games that his team edition is better. Having the numbers to back it up certainly doesn't hurt. Great post, North!But you forgot one major difference, brother:2012 cap situation: fu@ked up2013 cap situation: lovelyI know Ferry shipped your boy out overnight and unceremoniously. I know it hurt bad. But some day you gotta admit that he's the man for clearing cap space while crafting an equally if not more efficient team. Someday. Edited February 8, 2013 by benhillboy

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I know right? It's usually my job to point out Joe's unfavorable numbers, but North did himself! Unbelievable. It was clear to the naked eye watching the games that his team edition is better. Having the numbers to back it up certainly doesn't hurt. Great post, North!

But you forgot one major difference, brother:

2012 cap situation: fu@ked up

2013 cap situation: lovely

I know Ferry shipped your boy out overnight and unceremoniously. I know it hurt bad. But some day you gotta admit that he's the man for clearing cap space while crafting an equally if not more efficient team. Someday.

I didn't forget anything. I acknowledged in a previous post that the JJ move from a financial standpoint was justified.

My purpose for posting those numbers were to illustrate that overall, there is basically no difference between the two teams from an efficiency standpoint. But to further drive that point home, let's look at 2 teams last night.

This is what the Hawks did last night in key offensive categories.

100 points

- 94.3 pace

- 47.3 FG% . . ( on 74 shots )

- 54.2 3FG% . . ( on 24 shots )

- 56.1 eFG%

- 73.9 FT% . . ( on 23 FT attempts )

- 30 assists

- 5 offensive rebs . . ( out of 33 total rebounds )

- 17 turnovers

Total Offensive Rating: 106.1

Now let's look at another team from last night. This team also reached the 100 point mark

100 points

- 86.2 pace

- 46.9 FG% . . ( on 81 shots )

- 30.8 3FG% . . ( on 26 shots )

- 51.9 eFG%

- 80.0 FT% . . ( on 20 FT attempts )

- 19 assists

- 10 offensive rebs . . ( out of 42 total rebounds )

- 8 turnovers

If you use the "eye test", you'd think that the Hawks were more efficient than the team above. However, you would be wrong.

Total Offensive Rating: 116.0

The team above are the NY Knicks. The Mike Woodson coached team that relies on isolation play from their superstar and their gunning 6th man.

But . . but . . this can't be. The Hawks had way more assists and shot much better from the field. The ball movement was great because we had 30 assists. There's no way the Knicks should've had a better offensive rating than the Hawks. Well . . they did. And the reason why they did is because they grabbed 5 more offensive rebounds than we did and turned the ball over 9 less times. Despite the horrible night from 3 point range, they were still able to shoot almost the same percentage from the field as the Hawks.

When I look at our game last night, the first thing that jumps out at me, is that despite the great shooting night we had, we ONLY scored 100 points. And we only got to that mark because of a late dunk by Josh in the last seconds. So how do you only score 100 points when you shoot 47% FG . . make 13 threes . . and make 17 free throws? By only getting up 74 shots and making just 35 FGs. When you only make 35 shots in a game, you better be making a lot of 3s, or getting and making a lot more free throws. The Hawks did neither last night.

And the reason why they only got up 74 shots, is because they turned it over 17 times and only got 5 offensive rebounds.

Points breakdown

2 point: 22 - 50 . . . 44% . . . 44 points

3 point: 13 - 24 . . . 54.3% . . . 39 points

free throw: 17 - 23 . . 73.9% . . . 17 points

Hawks scored 7 points when they got a 2nd possession due to an offensive rebound.

Conversely, the Hornets last night scored 18 points when they got a 2nd ( or 3rd ) possession due to an offensive rebound

There's the 11 point difference in the game folks.

Offensive rebounding not only gives you a chance to score again, it also eats a little more time off the clock, even if it's just for a few more seconds. So instead of being one and done because of a missed 20 foot jumpshot, you get that 2nd opportunity to score.

@ Dolfan . . . if you think this offense is going to be successful in the playoffs, think again. Larry Drew has continuously tried to insert jumpshooters and scorers into a game to bail him out, when the Hawks couldn't defend the other team and fell behind in points. Our bigs do not "bang" or fight for points on the inside. Both of them stay on the outside 60% of the time, and fire away those midrange jumpers. If and when they miss, there is no one in the paint to rebound the basketball. That means we're going to be a 1 possession offense the vast majority of the time.

At that point, all it takes is for a 6 minute cold stretch to see things completely unravel. The team isn't strong enough defensively to withstand a drought like that, nor do they play a style of ball that can get them to the FT line or get offensive rebounds when the jumper isn't falling. And that's exactly what happened last night.

Just to end this . . . a team that plays the style that we play, has to not only take care of the ball, we must be able to get 2nd chances at possessions or get to the FT line. We've been losing for the past month, because we haven't did this on a consistent basis. And it will continue to happen as long as Drew prefers to play "fake shooters" over guys who can rebound.

Note: Josh Smith statistically had a great offensive game. We'll take 23 points - 6 rebounds - 8 assists and 47% FG from Josh all day. So why was his Offensive Rating "only" 103?

- only 2 FT attempts ( thank God he made both FTs )

- 4 turnovers

- extremely high usage 29.7%

- 0 offensive rebounds

Without even looking at it, I would almost bet money that the Hawks are far more successful when Josh grabs 10+ rebounds, than when he scores 20+ points. And the reason for that is we desperately need him rebounding, more than we need him scoring. If we can get both, that's great. But if we had to choose one or the other, it would have to be the rebounding.