Hatertots

I got cable tv for the first time in four years yesterday, just in time for Atlanta's playoff push and UT's big game against Memphis. As a Tennessee student, I'm obviously a little biased on this one, but I think a lot of these ESPN guys are sleeping on Tennessee. UT's played the 11th most difficult schedule in the nation (as opposed to C-USA scrubs) and if they play like they're capable of- knocking down 3's, applying full-court pressure, and getting points in transition- they have a much better chance than a lot of people think to end Memphis' run. Regardless, it's gonna be a hell of a game! I can't wait.

Not that you can really go wrong with any of the aforementioned guys, but I'm gonna toss Gary Payton's name out there as one of the all-time great point guards. He gave Stockton everything he could handle and then some in the 1996 Western Finals. The Glove defined getting it done on both ends of the court.

I'm not opposed to trading J Chill as part of the right deal. So many trades I see proposed (mainly over at realgm) would send Childress off and only fetch back mediocre talent in return. One of the problems with the current roster is we have too many good players (a nice problem to have) but unfortunately there's no great players. Joe, the Joshes, Marvin, Horford; that's five guys right there and there's no way you can pay all of them. Every championship caliber team has three guys that pretty much do it all. Rather than send off a valuable piece for not much in return, I'd rather see the Hawks package some of their young players for a true superstar. Easier said than done? Of course. But it's definitely a possibility, especially when you have the kind of chips the Hawks have.

Hawksfanatic, I've been reading his blog for about half a year or so now, but I haven't read the book yet. Now that the semester is winding down I'm going to give it a go. I agree that the wins produced stat is a stronger indicator of player performance than win score, but like you said it involves more advanced statistical techniques. If I recall correctly, however, wins produced also indicates that Joe is slightly above average (I think a wins produced per 48 of .115). As you also said, it's not bad (or good) to be average, especially at the level of the NBA.

Based on data taken from the 1993-94 through the 2004-05 seasons, the average NBA shooting guard posted a per 48 minutes win score of 6.1. Per 48 minutes played, Joe posted scores of approximately 8.28 in 2004-05, 6.72 in 05-06, and 6.9 in 06-07. In 06-07: Kobe Bryant's win score per 48 was 11.29 Dwayne Wade posted a 11.49 mark per 48. Ben Gordon posted a 5.30 Rip Hamilton posted a 5.80 Ray Allen posted an 8.20 I just picked a few out, I don't know which SG were better or worse than Joe, but here's a site with all the scores calculated if you wanna check it out.

In the few and far between places where we Atlanta Hawks fans huddle in misery and (quietly) discuss the (mis)fortunes of our beloved team, a storm of whispers rages between two factions over slumping Hawks shooting guard Joe Johnson. Some in the “Go, Joe, Go!” camp have held Johnson up as a dynamic offensive playmaker and the most potent Atlanta scoring threat since the Human Highlight Reel rocked the Omni. Meanwhile, the “No, Joe, No!” faction claims that he’s just a glorified jump shooter, not even the next Jason Terry, let alone the next Dominique. As the debate continues, whenever, wherever, however, you can bet your subprime mortgaged house that one or more of the following theories will be offered up to explain why Joe’s game elicits as many cries of “whoa!” as cries of woe: “Joe gets double teamed constantly because none of his teammates is a credible offensive threat! If he played on a team with a real point guard or another player who could score…” “Everyone looks bad in Woodson’s junky offense! If Joe played in a better system…” “Joe plays so many minutes every night that he just wears down! If Woodson wouldn’t run Joe into the ground 40 minutes a night…” On the surface, all three of these theories seem quite plausible. In fact, I woke up this morning agreeing with all three of them. But, luckily, I also woke up this morning needing to write my Latin American studies term paper on democratic consolidation in El Salvador (fascinating country, by the by), which means I had plenty of time to do some research into Joe Johnson’s career numbers and write this overly long post about it. Before going any farther, let me say that I’m a basketball fan who comes from the Church of Stats, and I believe that boxscore data (when you have enough of it) can tell you a great deal about a player. Sometimes the stats tell you what you already know, like Dwight Howard is a freight train, and sometimes it surprises you, like Carmelo Anthony is just an average small forward. Cases like the former don’t really interest me; I already thought that Dwight was amazing. But cases like the latter intrigue me because they’re surprising. Now plenty of people don’t think statistics have anything valuable to say about basketball. Some of them don’t like statistics because (they claim) they were a four year starter at Duke and now coach women’s basketball at a Division II school. Their intuition regarding all things that combine leather spheroids with athletes of unusual stature has reached a level bordering on Zen enlightenment. When a tree falls in the forest these are the people who know which player didn’t rotate fast enough on defense. Still others don’t like statistics because (I suspect) they’re holding a grudge against a lousy math teacher. Take heart; he or she is probably dead by now. If you’re one of these people who don’t believe in statistics, that’s fine, but this post probably isn’t your tall boy of PBR. I’m not going to go to great lengths to try and change your mind. I’m all for agreeing to disagree. But if you do decide to stick it out with me through all my talky-talk, I’d like to say thanks and I hope you’ll read it with an open mind. After all, humanity has survived the knowledge that the Earth goes around the sun, that we all live in a gigantic energy soup regardless of what our senses tell us, and that an improbable number of American girls love Hannah Montana (I think it’s because it rhymes). Would it really be so shocking if Joe Johnson is only an average shooting guard? At least he’ll have ‘Melo to keep him company. Okay, finally, let’s get to it. David Berri’s research into sports economics has led him to make the following two observations about basketball: The performance of basketball players is very consistent from season to season. Winning in basketball is almost entirely a measure of player performance. These seem like simple, almost stupidly obvious points to make, but these conclusions lead to two inferences: If a player’s performance is consistent from season to season, even after moving to a new team, then player performance is independent of teammate performance. Teams win more by adding better players, not because new players make their old players better. If winning is all about your players, who perform consistently season to season, team to team, then things like coaches and systems don’t really have the impact that you’d imagine they do based on the media attention they receive. So Berri and conventional wisdom are running in opposite directions. Obviously. But do teammates and coaches matter? For the purposes of evaluating Berri’s arguments, I can think of no better case than that of Joe Johnson. His former team, the Phoenix Suns, is a fast-paced scoring machine loaded with talents like Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire, and Shawn Marion, All-Star caliber players who contend for titles. The Atlanta Hawks, on the other hand, have no players other than Joe Johnson to ever appear in an All-Star game. They achieve new records in futility running an offensive scheme notable for the many ill-advised shots it produces. Let’s take a look at Joe’s last two seasons in Phoenix and his first two in Atlanta, all the seasons in which he’s averaged 40 minutes a game and played at least half the season. Joe Johnson Career Stats 2003-04 Win Score average: 3.95 2004-05 Win Score average: 6.90 2005-06 Win Score average: 5.60 2006-07 Win Score average: 5.75 You’re probably familiar with every stat here except Win Score, which is one of the performance measures Berri has helped develop, and it ties player production to the generation of team victories. It’s calculated using this formula: PTS + REB +STL + (BLK/2) + (AST/2) – FGA – (FTA/2) – TO – PF It’s not really necessary, however, to understand anything at all about Berri’s model of performance evaluation to see if Joe was a better player when he played with the Suns. By and large, his averages over the last four remained fairly consistent. He hit around 45% of his shots, got about one steal per game, saw a slight increase with regard to turnovers and assists after he came to Atlanta, a slight decrease in rebounds, and more shots and points. So just looking at boxscore stats, it seems Joe’s stats have fluctuated slightly since signing with the Hawks, some stats up and some down each year, but on the whole Joe Johnson has been pretty much the same player in Atlanta that he was in Phoenix. In terms of Win Score, Joe’s most productive season came in 2004-05, when he posted an average of 6.90. In that season, Joe hit nearly half of his shots from beyond the arc, which is amazing. It’s also something he hasn’t accomplished before or since. In fact, the closest he’s come is hitting 38% of his threes, nearly ten percent less. So in his last season with the Suns, Joe was much improved at knocking it down from long range, but was he a better player? What is the difference between an average Win Score of 6.90 and the 5.60 he posted the following year with the Hawks? The answer is ‘not much.’ It’s a difference of about 1.3 rebounds per game, or points per game, or turnovers per game or any combination thereof. As a Suns player, Joe grabbed a few more rebounds and turned the ball over about one fewer times per game. With the Hawks, he shot more, scored more, and assisted more. On the whole, it’s basically a wash. It’s even closer when you evaluate Joe on more than just his best season with Phoenix. He posted an average Win Score per game of 5.425 in Phoenix and an average of 5.675 in Atlanta. Very, very close. “Joe gets double teamed constantly because none of his teammates is a credible offensive threat! If he played on a team with a real point guard or another player who could score…” “Everyone looks bad in Woodson’s junky offense! If Joe played in a better system…” “Joe plays so many minutes every night that he just wears down! If Woodson wouldn’t run Joe into the ground 40 minutes a night…” So would Joe Johnson be a better player if he could play in a better offensive system? Would his game elevate if he were paired with other stars, particularly a star point guard, who would keep him from seeing the double teams that have hindered his offensive capabilities since coming to Atlanta? Is Woodson moronically playing JJ into early retirement with these 40 minute nights? The historical evidence seems to suggest that Joe didn’t exactly blossom like the morning lotus playing up-tempo basketball alongside an All-Star cast headed by two time MVP point guard Steve Nash. He also averaged about 40 minutes a game sprinting his ass off out in the desert, so he can probably handle the 40 minutes of ballroom waltzing Woodson asks of him each night. There’s still the possibility that Joe actually has vastly improved during his time in Atlanta but the lousy play of his teammates is holding him back, that he really is “a jewel in a landfill” as Jeff Schultz of the AJC so delicately put it. But I’m dubious. Last season, Joe played in 57 games before he sustained a calf injury and missed the final 21 games. Over that time, the Hawks were 8-13, winning 38% of their games. Over the entire season, the Hawks only won 36.6% of their games. Pretty close. So why didn’t the landfill absolutely stink up the joint in the absence of the jewel? Why is KG almost exactly the same elemental force in Boston that he was with a cast of castoffs in Minnesota? Why will Lebron James be the same player with a bunch of losers in New York that he is with Eric Snow ‘n the Gang in Cleveland? I’m betting it’s because player performance doesn’t seem to depend on much other than the skill of the player and sadly, Joe Johnson might just be an average shooting guard making max money. However, that might only be the second saddest thing I’m going to write, because I just threw up a little on the inside thinking that Steve Belkin might have had a point.

Can't believe Hawks are shooting 50% from the field and 100% from the line and still down by 9.

Man, that's awesome, your little boy must've been so stoked!

And only 6 turnovers in his last 8 games. Whatever problems he was having at the start of the season, it looks like he's got a handle on it. Now, about that FT shooting...

Props to Smith indeed! And to Childress and Horford and Joe and Marvin! Team basketball >>>>> trying to create your own shot!

1. Dwight Howard 2. Lebron James 3. Chris Paul 4. Al Jefferson 5. Andrew Bynum

I'd love to work out a trade with the Griz for Pau. If they'd take Joe and Zaza/Shelden for Gasol and Damon Stoudamire, I'd be all for it. I'm more reluctant to part with either of the Joshes or Marvin though. They're all better rebounders than Joe and they score more points per field goal attempt too. I think that'd be a great trade for us; we'd get a big who can score and a veteran point guard that isn't terrible (like Lue and AJ) or wearing suits to games(a la "DNP-Silly Putty Knee" Claxton). Don't know anything about the Memphis roster though so I'm not sure how Joe and Zaza would fit in over there.

1. Too many missed free throws 2. Too many turnovers 3. Not enough ball movement They would start winning these close games more often if they could just address these three areas.

We'd have to make a very compelling offer given how highly they value Bynum. After all, what's not to love about a seven footer who averages a double-double on 58% shooting in 25 minutes a night off the bench? My feeling is if they wouldn't trade him for Kidd last season then he's probably not going anywhere.

Quote: Yes, we all saw that, BUT: Had we taken him, we wouldn't have Marvin. No problem, you say - OK. We would have won more games - True. That means, we would have lost our first pick this past year, Horford. Also, with a few more wins there is a good possibility we wouldn't have had our second pick, Acie Law IV. Remember, everything had to work out "Just right" for the Birds to get either pick. So, the real question is, would the Hawks be willing to trade Marvin Williams, Al Horford and Acie Law IV for this great Point Guard? Ask our worthy opponent if they would be willing to trade with us, three for one? At the end of the day, I think that more wins is really the only thing that counts. Also, how would our success have cost us Indy's pick this year? Unless I'm mistaken (always likely), that one was all about how the Pacers finished up. This last bit is more of a general statement than a direct response to you, Gray, but I think Paul is a great player. He's up there with Kidd and Nash as the best PGs in the NBA. To me, one really great player is more valuable than a couple of very good players and I'd take him, even if the opportunity cost is lost draft position/picks. But we've got Marvin and that's fine. Or at least, it's nobody's fault.

Quote: Hey if you can get Smoove to shoot as much as Rodman did (averaged 5.8 attempts over his career with a max of 7.7) then I am all for this. Fact is, Smoove has averaged 8.1, 9.7, 13.8, and now 15 attempts a game. This isn't the only reason a triangle won't work with this team, but I certainly agree that having a triangle offense would be better than what we have right now. Yeah, Josh would definitely have to shoot less, but he wouldn't see the ball as much in the triangle as he does now. And I really wouldn't mind him shooting the ball nine or ten times a game as long as the majority of those shots were coming on putbacks and easy looks around the basket, exactly the kind of looks I think he'd see in that offense. Of all the players on the Hawks, he's the one I think could benefit most from playing in the triangle as long as he buys into the system and stays down low and away from his outside shot. What are some of the other reasons you think the Hawks would have trouble with the triangle?

I don't have a deep knowledge of basketball and I'm not going to pretend like I do, but it seems to me like the triangle offense matches our personnel pretty well. We've got: a PG who can score (Law IV, more on his rep outta college, I haven't seen enough to say if he's a NBA scorer) a SF who can shoot, pass, and has a high BBIQ (Chillvin) a SG who's a scorer (Joe) and a center who can pass (Horford) It seems to me like this offense would help out our PG's since it keeps their options simple- pass it to Al or pass it to Chill or bust the 3 if you're open (possibly gives Salim a defined role?). In the two man game with JJ and Smoove, the triangle would allow Joe to shoot or drive and reduce the number of double teams he sees. Smoove would get opportunities for easy points by staying near and cutting to the basket and taking advantage of the passing lanes created by the triangle's floor spacing. More importantly, it keeps him inside the arc, from now until eternity. It seems like an offensive system the fits the Hawks' strengths pretty well (I guess by 'strengths' I'm referring to JJ's game and Horford's passing ability) and help to mask how weak our PGs are (I hope). So why not the triangle offense? Like I said, I'm no basketball expert so what are some problems the Hawks would have trying to run the triangle? I could see Al needing a more refined post game to make the offense work, but he seems hardworking and intelligent and he comes from a winning background. He's a solid bet to improve. And honestly, even if there were kinks to work out, could it be any worse than the offense we have right now? Hit a basketball novice up with your wisdom, you sages of Hawksquawk!

Quote: Exactly, FG% means absolutely NOTHING for a player who takes alot of threes. NOTHING. It's funny seeing how many people don't realize that. By 'NOTHING', I assume you mean shooting .333 from 3 is as good as shooting .500 from 2 from a points per shot perspective, and I do realize that. I agree that Durant is an above average 3 point shooter so far. At everything else, however, he's been below average, and therefore, he's been a below average player to this point. He doesn't score efficiently (even with his 3s) and he hasn't rebounded well (in preseason or summer league). Did anyone expect a raw 19 year old rookie to be anything more than a volume scorer? Well, yes, based on his pre-draft hype, people did expect more out of Kevin but he hasn't produced. Listening to sports journalists talk about how great he's been, though, I get the impression that they're just seeing what they want to see. He's been great for a skinny rookie. Which would be fine if it had been a 3 player draft and the only other rookies were Brandan Wright and Spencer Hawes. In the category of teenagers who need protein shakes and more college experience, he makes those two guys look like bums. No one is going to mistake Durant for Lebron in the near future, however, because in the category of NBA players, Durant still needs some work to get up to par. He'll probably end up winning Rookie of the Year, though the NBA should change it to 'Highest Scoring Rookie' since that is pretty much what determines who wins the award, and that's apparent looking at any 'RoY' standings, where KD is almost universally #1 and 'points!' (and nothing else) is given as support for Durant's supreme rookie awesomnicity. Again, Kevin Durant will probably be a great player some day, and it may be that many years from now we'll be talking about the times we saw Kevin put up 'points! and rebound, steals, and assists!' But this year, Durant will shoot his way into a nice trophy for his case at home and a top 5 pick in next year's draft for the Sonics.

Looking at his numbers, Ex, I can't think of a case to be made that he's actually been a good player through six preseason games. He hasn't contributed much (rebounds,assists,etc) other than his 18 ppg, and those points are coming on sub-40% shooting from the field and sub-70% shooting from the line, which doesn't just look bad, it is bad. He's probably gonna be a great player one day when he's not a 19 year old kid who weighs 97 lbs, but I don't think that day is today.

Quote: Best rookie Kevin Durant, Seattle SuperSonics If he gets hurt or struggles dramatically, it will have proven to be the most over-hyped draft in NBA history. Since top overall pick Greg Oden is out for the year after microfracture knee surgery, there's no choice but Durant, who was the best freshman college basketball player since Lew Alcindor. He moves like Tracy McGrady, but plays bigger. And yet, he is just 19 and very skinny. On such a young team with nobody to take their share of the load, it could be rough. Nonetheless, he is incredibly gifted. Should Durant suffer, Al Horford (Atlanta) and Corey Brewer (Minnesota) will both have ample opportunity to excel on bad teams. It's ironic that in a column about overrated players, he lists Kevin Durant as the best rookie. He may move like Tracy McGrady, but so far he hits shots like Eric Snow.

Factoring in minutes played, we can take a look at win score per minute to evaluate production per minute played rather than total production: Horford- .346 Childress- .309 JJ- .289 Smith- .266 Marvin- .251 Zaza- .124 Shelden- .068 D. Howard- .376 Now Marvin looks nearly as good as the Joshes and JJ, which is what I originally expected to see based on how well he's played this preseason. What really stood out to me is how outstanding Horford has played. On a per minute basis, he's nearly as productive as Dwight so far, much more productive than I could've dreamed on draft night. For those of you who've never used/heard of Win Score, it's calculated using the following formula: PTS + REB +STL +1/2BLK +1/2AST -FGA -1/2FTA -TO -1/2PF Basically, it gives credit for every positive contribution a player makes for a team, made shots, rebounds, etc., and penalizes players for negative contributions, such as missed shots and turn overs. His blog is overall pretty interesting. His writeup about the Hawks is worth a read, and his article about the legend of Kobe Bryant upset some of the Kobe faithful over at espn.com

Wages of Wins Journal Using Win Score

Here's the win scores by game for some Hawks of note through the first seven preseason games. So far, it seems that JJ's productivity has been greater than I would've guessed while Marvin has been a little less productive than I'd hoped. The Joshes and Horford look solid. And poor, poor Shelden. Smith- 16, 10, 6.5, 1.5, 4, 2.5, 13.5 Marvin- 6, 4.5, 6, 10.5, 5, 4.5, 10.5 Chill- 6, 12, 5.5, --, --, 12, 14.5 Horford- 5.5, 8, 10, 9, 11, 19, 10.5 JJ- 10, 13.5, 15, 0, 5.5, --, 9.5 Shelden- -1.5, 1, -1.5, 1, 3.5, --, 4.5 Acie- 2.5, -3, 5.5, --, --, -1.5, -- Zaza- -2, 1.5, 1, 5.5, 10.5, -2, --

I guess I never really thought of Vick as the face of Atlanta sports. For me, that title always belonged to Braves players since they were the ones always competing for titles. Josh Smith is my favorite Hawk, but I don't think that Smoove can have the same impact as Michael Vick because basketball and football are so radically different that you can't equate the accomplishments. In basketball, it's not uncommon for a really lousy team to get a really good player and then make the playoffs. One player can totally transform a franchise. In the NFL, putting a star player on a bottomfeeder team (ala Edge James to Arizona) doesn't make that team into a contender. You'll get nowhere with Peyton Manning and a pack of scrubs. And yet that's pretty much what Vick did in 2002, mostly because he's the only player that can turn a 5 yard loss into a 20 yard gain. The only other areas of the team that weren't a total trainwreck were the LB corps, Warrick Dunn, and Crumpler. The lines, the secondary, and the receivers were all disasters, as we were reminded in 2003 when the Falcons went 2-10 while Vick was injured and then 3-1 when he came back. A basketball player couldn't just get a team to the playoffs to rival Vick's accomplishment, they would have to do something unparalleled in the sport. Lebron might be the closest thing currently, but even he is a sort of poor comparison, IMO. Magic was the same kind of versatile manchild that Lebron is, only Magic was, way, way better. Vick's physical gifts are completely beyond anything that Cunningham, Young, or any other scrambling QB ever brought to the table. Actually, he's like Barry Sanders, if Barry could shoot a deep ball out of a cannon.

I'd say Time Warner is less popular as far as ownership groups go, for two reasons. First, they had to follow up Ted Turner, probably the best owner of any team in Atlanta sports history, certainly the most successful. So when they slashed payroll and emphasized profit over winning, turning a perennial World Series contender into a postseason afterthought while raising ticket prices year after year, that generated a substantial backlash and led fans to mutter "If Ted still owned the Braves..." The second is that the 1990s Braves were the most popular team in Atlanta history. Even the Falcons in the inaugural Vick campaign with $100 season ticket prices or the Super Bowl year didn't come close to matching the excitement of the 1991 World Series run. So basically, Time Warner came in and turned gold into crap and Atlanta sports fans hated them for it with the fire of 1000 suns. When ASG bought the Hawks and Thrashers from Time Warner, the worst they could do was continue a downward spiral into mediocrity for the Hawks, as they had the "luxury" of only being compared to the Babcock era. And as far as the Thrashers go, no one will care regardless of how they play. They could go undefeated or winless and the reaction would hardly change. ASG is certainly more incompetent than Time Warner, or at least maybe it seems that way since TW could just give JS X millions of dollars and let him work his GM magic. But if we're just talking about "which Hawks owner has been the worst?" then ASG is running away with the title.