Official Game Thread: Hornets "at" Hawks

[Sothron]

13 hours ago, Atlantaholic said:

I don't mind the loss per se, but what the hell was the effort, especially by Trae. His tape of yesterday looks like that scene in Blue Chips where the scout is showing Nick Nolte how his star player was shaving points. It was sickening. 

If he's pulling a Penny Hardaway to get a coach fired then it would explain it. I'm not saying that is what it was but Trae looked like a zombie the entire game.

Fun fact amongst Squawkers: my parents got me a Trae Young Funko Pop for Christmas. I have every other Funko Pop out of the box but that one. I put him out to sit next to me to "watch" the games because I call him L'il Trae like old L'il Penny.  The game was so bad I literally turned L'il Trae around so his back was to the screen.

Mrs. Sothron said we couldn't teach L'il Trae to accept that level of play. 

[REHawksFan]

9 hours ago, AHF said:

Why would you just talk about one game when measuring efficiency?  What is good should be good pretty much regardless of sample size.  

Because it is significantly harder to do it for a whole season than for a single game. And it's even harder still to do it for an entire career.  

There were hundreds of games just last season where players posted over 1.26 efficiency (over 100 games just among Trae, Kev, JC, and Hunter). Yet there were only 50 or so players in the NBA that ended their season with a pps above 1.26. And I would guess even fewer still end their careers at that level.  

So if I'm going to talk about what is good efficiency, great efficiency, and historic efficiency (or just ok efficiency, bad efficiency, and horrible efficiency), I have to have the context of the sample size.   If a baseball players goes 2-5 with 1 RBI in a single game, it's considered a good game. Not a great game. Certainly not a historic game, but a good, solid game. But average .400 and 162 RBI for the season and he's an MVP. Do if for his career and he's a HOFer. Sample size matters when grading an accomplishment. 

If you want to just say efficient is efficient and say anything at 1.20 and above is efficient, then fine. I guess I can see that. But for me, I put gradation into it because when I see 19 pts on 15 shots or 38 pts on 30 shots, I don't think to myself, dang that was one efficient game.  Heck, there were certain posters on this board raggin on Trae last year because he had a few game where he put up 30 shots (and had well over 1.26 pps on those shots).  He's been called a volume scorer because of his high FGA. But by your definition, Trae is a historically efficient scorer. 

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

Anyone remember Trae hitting the back of his head on a players head, I think it was the Knicks game, he drove the ball, got fouled,  but the back of his head hit a Knicks players knee when he landed, he was slow to get up....he eventually did and missed the two freethrows- I wonder if he got a concussion from it. He just hasn't seemed right.

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Anyone remember Trae hitting the back of his head on a players head, I think it was the Knicks game, he drove the ball, got fouled,  but the back of his head hit a Knicks players knee when he landed, he was slow to get up....he eventually did and missed the two freethrows- I wonder if he got a concussion from it. He just hasn't seemed right.

I do remember and have wondered the same. But if he has a concussion, even a mild one, and the Hawks either don't know or know and are still playing him, that's pretty bad. 

[AHF]

43 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Because it is significantly harder to do it for a whole season than for a single game. And it's even harder still to do it for an entire career.  

There were hundreds of games just last season where players posted over 1.26 efficiency (over 100 games just among Trae, Kev, JC, and Hunter). Yet there were only 50 or so players in the NBA that ended their season with a pps above 1.26. And I would guess even fewer still end their careers at that level.  

So if I'm going to talk about what is good efficiency, great efficiency, and historic efficiency (or just ok efficiency, bad efficiency, and horrible efficiency), I have to have the context of the sample size.   If a baseball players goes 2-5 with 1 RBI in a single game, it's considered a good game. Not a great game. Certainly not a historic game, but a good, solid game. But average .400 and 162 RBI for the season and he's an MVP. Do if for his career and he's a HOFer. Sample size matters when grading an accomplishment. 

If you want to just say efficient is efficient and say anything at 1.20 and above is efficient, then fine. I guess I can see that. But for me, I put gradation into it because when I see 19 pts on 15 shots or 38 pts on 30 shots, I don't think to myself, dang that was one efficient game.  Heck, there were certain posters on this board raggin on Trae last year because he had a few game where he put up 30 shots (and had well over 1.26 pps on those shots).  He's been called a volume scorer because of his high FGA. But by your definition, Trae is a historically efficient scorer. 

 

 

Every game a baseball player goes 2-5 is a very good game.  Like you said, repeat it  for a year and you accomplish something no one has done in generations.

.400 is definitely not inefficient for batting average.  It is at a minimum good.

We don’t disagree that neither game is exceptional on a single sample size.  My point is that if you view every 2-5 as a failure or every 1.267 point per shot night as a failure then your standard is unreasonable, imo.   Most of Klay Thompson’s career is below that level.  He has been effective or good or most of his games not a minority of them.  (1.221 for his career)

[bleachkit]

8 hours ago, Cwell said:

No owner is picking an underachieving unaccomplished coach over their star player. Pierce loses that 1000% of the time.

Who says Trae is a superstar player? He might just be an empty stats guy. He hasn't won squat. Both Trae and CLP have a lot to prove, but i don't think Trae is intentionally sabotaging this after tough couple games 

[Gray Mule]

27 minutes ago, AHF said:

Every game a baseball player goes 2-5 is a very good game.  Like you said, repeat it  for a year and you accomplish something no one has done in generations.

.400 is definitely not inefficient for batting average.  It is at a minimum good.

We don’t disagree that neither game is exceptional on a single sample size.  My point is that if you view every 2-5 as a failure or every 1.267 point per shot night as a failure then your standard is unreasonable, imo.   Most of Klay Thompson’s career is below that level.  He has been effective or good or most of his games not a minority of them.  (1.221 for his career)

I believe, Ted Williams, Boston Red Sox, was the last major leaguer to accomplish this.

[gHost83]

8 hours ago, Cwell said:

No owner is picking an underachieving unaccomplished coach over their star player. Pierce loses that 1000% of the time.

This

[bleachkit]

29 minutes ago, gHost83 said:

This

Fine, fire CLP.  Hire a meaningless figurehead coach, and let Trae jack up all the 30 footers he wants. F it.

[AHF]

56 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Who says Trae is a superstar player? He might just be an empty stats guy. He hasn't won squat. Both Trae and CLP have a lot to prove, but i don't think Trae is intentionally sabotaging this after tough couple games 

He isn't a proven superstar but he is already shown to be the brightest star the Hawks have had since Nique.  LP has proven nothing as a coach.  If the two lock horns and management has to pick, I firmly believe they will jettison LP.  That may not mean they simply ask Trae to pick the next coach or anything but mission #1 in that context for the next coach would be to connect positively with Trae and push him forward in the right direction.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Fine, fire CLP.  Hire a meaningless figurehead coach, and let Trae jack up all the 30 footers he wants. F it.

First, I don't know that we are in a scenario where management has to pick.  So I'm assuming for the points below that this is or becomes the case. 

Second, I don't think it is a two option scenario of either standing behind LP and throwing out Trae or caving to Trae to let him do whatever he wants and getting rid of LP.  It could be something like throwing out Paul Westhead and bringing in Pat Riley or throwing out Doug Collins and elevating Phil Jackson.  Not that a coach necessarily needs to be as good as either of them were but the third option is to find a coach who does a better job of getting Trae to play the right way than LP.

If you have a dysfunctional dynamic between a star and a coach, it is much easier to replace the coach and try a different mix of personalities and approaches than to replace the star.

[JayBirdHawk]

Everybody is getting ahead of themselves withh all the trade Trae and fire LP stuff to give the reigns to Nate, yuck....it's a long season, buckle in for it.

[bleachkit]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

First, I don't know that we are in a scenario where management has to pick.  So I'm assuming for the points below that this is or becomes the case. 

Second, I don't think it is a two option scenario of either standing behind LP and throwing out Trae or caving to Trae to let him do whatever he wants and getting rid of LP.  It could be something like throwing out Paul Westhead and bringing in Pat Riley or throwing out Doug Collins and elevating Phil Jackson.  Not that a coach necessarily needs to be as good as either of them were but the third option is to find a coach who does a better job of getting Trae to play the right way than LP.

If you have a dysfunctional dynamic between a star and a coach, it is much easier to replace the coach and try a different mix of personalities and approaches than to replace the star.

CLP is trying to get Trae to play the right way. If he cant handle tough coaching, we might have a problem. Doug Collins let MJ take all the shots he wanted, it was Phil that insisted on a team approach to offense.  

[bleachkit]

17 minutes ago, AHF said:

He isn't a proven superstar but he is already shown to be the brightest star the Hawks have had since Nique.  LP has proven nothing as a coach.  If the two lock horns and management has to pick, I firmly believe they will jettison LP.  That may not mean they simply ask Trae to pick the next coach or anything but mission #1 in that context for the next coach would be to connect positively with Trae and push him forward in the right direction.

The next coach is going to preach to Trae the same thing as CLP, better shots, less turnovers, learning to move without the basketball, and more activity on defense. Trae is a star, but he's not an easy fix.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Anyone remember Trae hitting the back of his head on a players head, I think it was the Knicks game, he drove the ball, got fouled,  but the back of his head hit a Knicks players knee when he landed, he was slow to get up....he eventually did and missed the two freethrows- I wonder if he got a concussion from it. He just hasn't seemed right.

Not a concussion but he didn't like what JC had to say.

 

 

[Peoriabird]

I'm starting to see some cracks within the walls surrounding the LP apologist.  I might be able to criticize him now with less fear of a personal attack on me. Trae's wall is becoming unstable too. I call this progress!  Careful Schlenk...you're next if the Hawks lose Saturday night.

[macdaddy]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I'm starting to see some cracks within the walls surrounding the LP apologist.  I might be able to criticize him now with less fear of a personal attack on me. Trae's wall is becoming unstable too. I call this progress!

You must be so happy.

[Peoriabird]

10 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

You must be so happy.

Why would I be happy?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

Who says Trae is a superstar player? He might just be an empty stats guy. He hasn't won squat. Both Trae and CLP have a lot to prove, but i don't think Trae is intentionally sabotaging this after tough couple games 

I don't think he is either.   I truly believe that what we saw last game, is him trying to play the way the coach / coaches want him to play.  

Those coaches need to understand though, that Trae is the offensive scoring engine of the team.  And if they're simply asking him to distribute the ball to to others, while not asking others to get the ball to him in the right spots to score, we're still have times in which we will struggle on offense.

[Atlantaholic]

3 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

Because it is significantly harder to do it for a whole season than for a single game. And it's even harder still to do it for an entire career.  

There were hundreds of games just last season where players posted over 1.26 efficiency (over 100 games just among Trae, Kev, JC, and Hunter). Yet there were only 50 or so players in the NBA that ended their season with a pps above 1.26. And I would guess even fewer still end their careers at that level.  

So if I'm going to talk about what is good efficiency, great efficiency, and historic efficiency (or just ok efficiency, bad efficiency, and horrible efficiency), I have to have the context of the sample size.   If a baseball players goes 2-5 with 1 RBI in a single game, it's considered a good game. Not a great game. Certainly not a historic game, but a good, solid game. But average .400 and 162 RBI for the season and he's an MVP. Do if for his career and he's a HOFer. Sample size matters when grading an accomplishment. 

If you want to just say efficient is efficient and say anything at 1.20 and above is efficient, then fine. I guess I can see that. But for me, I put gradation into it because when I see 19 pts on 15 shots or 38 pts on 30 shots, I don't think to myself, dang that was one efficient game.  Heck, there were certain posters on this board raggin on Trae last year because he had a few game where he put up 30 shots (and had well over 1.26 pps on those shots).  He's been called a volume scorer because of his high FGA. But by your definition, Trae is a historically efficient scorer. 

 

 

Hmm.. I mean, like I said 19-15 is fine. not great, but quite good. If Heurter puts up those numbers every single game from here on out it would be a great season for him based on his career so far, and he would probably even get some All Star consideration.

Also on to Trae . He HAS been a very efficient scorer for someone with his volume. Historically so in fact. As volume increases efficiency decreases so people who score 30ppg don't usually have good efficiency. For reference: Trae's 59.5% TS% is better than Shaq's career 58.6% TS and way higher than MJ's 56.7% career TS%. In fact Trae's 59.5% TS would rank as MJ's fifth highest. Of course it's a different era of the NBA where Free throw trips and high volume three point percentage have boosted league wide efficiency, so maybe let's compare him to his contemporaries. Among 25ppg + scorers last year (there was 12) Trae ranked fourth behind Giannis, Dame, and AD in TS% ahead of the likes of Kawhi, Lebron, Luka, and Devin Booker. So ya. Trae was very extremely efficient for a high volume scorer last year.