niremetal

I actually predict JJ will not make it. Only one All-NBA appearance (and on the Third Team). Never appeared in a conference finals except a few garbage time minutes in Houston in his last season. He racked up a ton of career points, but I think he'll go the same way as Mark Jackson and Tom Chambers--respected and with great career totals, but not elite enough at his peak to make it in. He's a close call, but I just don't see him quite making it.

I think the sad part is that with just a bit of work and a mental adjustment late in his career, he could have been a lock. With his shooting ability, length, and strength, he could have easily become a very good 3-and-D player in his later years if he ever put the work in--Shane Battier, but with a bit more offensive pop. That would have both extended his career and raised his efficiency. If he retired with 22,000 career points with 46/39/80 shooting numbers instead of 20,405 and 44/37/80, I think he'd have made it. But he never learned to play without the ball in his hands. Instead, he just became a slower version of who he was in his prime.

Mind you, I'm saying this as a dude who bought 2 JJ jerseys and defended his max contract to the bitter end. He was my favorite player in the whole league for a good while. But I think he ends up in the Hall of Good* rather than the Hall of Fame.

* Hall of Good is a thing on FiveThirtyEight, @Sothron and @bird_dirt...the full title is "Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players." It's mostly baseball players, though. Most famous Atlanta guy in there is Andruw Jones.

7 minutes ago, niremetal said:

Crazy. I was just thinking a couple weeks back about how clotting disorders seem surprisingly common among basketball and tennis players (kinda like @JayBirdHawk, I was thinking in particular about Bosh and Serena). I was wondering if that is because there's something about the constant grind on their lower bodies, which I have to think does weird stuff to blood flow...or if it's simply a matter of, "clotting issues are common in everyone, but we catch them more often in pro athletes because pro athletes are more attuned their bodies and/or because they have a team of medical professionals that keep a constant eye on their physical condition."

Hope Brandon can get a clean bill of health--ideally clean enough for him to play professionally again but, if not, at least enough that he can be healthy and happy.

FWIW, this was an interesting read on the subject:

https://www.med.uvm.edu/home/2016/07/12/cushman_discusses_why_elite_athletes_can_get_abnormal_blood_clots

Any of these could apply to Goody:

Quote

 

Risk Factors for Blood Clots in Athletes

• Athletes who use their arms heavily, like tennis players, baseball pitchers and basketball players, are at risk of clots involving the arm veins. These clots can occur when a structure at the base of the neck next to the shoulder called the thoracic outlet is narrowed. The vein, artery and nerve supplying the arm has to pass through this outlet, which is lined by muscles and bony structures. For athletes, especially those using their arms, the muscles can get large and contribute to the narrowing of the outlet. In this situation, repetitive injury to the vein going through that narrowed outlet sets the stage for a clot forming in the vein. These clots can cause swelling and pain of the arm, and sometimes numbness. Like leg clots, they can travel to the lungs causing pulmonary embolism. Treatment is with anticoagulant medications and often surgery is used to open up the outlet so that clots might not form again. 
• Injuries are a major source of risk for clots, especially leg injuries that result in leg immobility afterwards. The worst example of this is a leg fracture with casting. However, minor injuries also can increase the risk somewhat; this is likely a factor for hockey players as they often get hit by the puck.
• Surgery greatly increases the risk of blood clots for a period of several weeks. The risk is greater for orthopedic than general surgery, so it is a factor for athletes. In 2013, NBA Star Anderson Varejao's great season with the Cavaliers was cut short when he developed back and chest pain from a PE shortly after surgery on his quadriceps. His case proved that this condition doesn’t have to end a sports career; Varejao apparently had a finite treatment with anticoagulation and is currently playing for Golden State in the NBA playoffs.
• Travel: We know that long travel slightly increases the risk of clots, and pro athletes travel a lot.

 

Crazy. I was just thinking a couple weeks back about how clotting disorders seem surprisingly common among basketball and tennis players (kinda like @JayBirdHawk, I was thinking in particular about Bosh and Serena). I was wondering if that is because there's something about the constant grind on their lower bodies, which I have to think does weird stuff to blood flow...or if it's simply a matter of, "clotting issues are common in everyone, but we catch them more often in pro athletes because pro athletes are more attuned their bodies and/or because they have a team of medical professionals that keep a constant eye on their physical condition."

Hope Brandon can get a clean bill of health--ideally clean enough for him to play professionally again but, if not, at least enough that he can be healthy and happy.

Wonder if Lemon Pepper Lou could pull some...strings...at Magic City to sweeten the pot.

https://www.complex.com/sports/adult-site-free-membership-kyrie-irving-vaccine/

10 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Something that should be mentioned about social distancing. Why was 6ft chosen? The CDC actually recommended 10 ft, but White house said it was unworkable, so they went with 6ft. Very scientific, let me tell you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=6c2270f1e8e6

I don't think the 6ft number is completely arbitrary, despite what one person (who probably pushed for 10ft and is irked that he lost that argument) might have said. Six feet is the recommended distance that people with cystic fibrosis are supposed to stay apart from each other to prevent cross-infections, for example.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than any other line that you could draw...I mean, any time where useful guidance requires picking a number, the number you pick is bound to be somewhat arbitrary (because 6ft is not meaningfully different than 6ft and one inch, 10ft than 10ft and one inch, etc). 

12 hours ago, thecampster said:

No your legal eagle take is always welcome. I just don't see you around as much.

So let me see if I can unravel this (being more than a novice but less than an expert on legal jargon).  In general, a medical inquiry into an employee's health (transmissible disease) would be generally limited to either A) an employee demonstrates symptoms consistent with a medical situation (ie protecting an employer who administers CPR, sends a sick employee home, etc) or B.) In a general policy applied to the general worker population without prejudice (all employees must be drug tested, 6 weeks family leave with cause, etc)?

1. Would those 2 statements be true?

and

2. Can you come up with another circumstance/situation?

(1) I think both of those statements would be true--that is, an employer could inquire into whether the employee has COVID or another infectious disease (or if they have taken precautions, such as vaccination, against the disease) in those two situations.

For (2), the answer is also yes, other such situations exist. In fact, pretty much any health-related question to any employee is okay under the ADA as long as it doesn't seek info about disability status--and most COVID inquiries would not be viewed as seeking info about disability status. Even if a question does seek info about disability status, that's still okay as long as the inquiry is "job-related and consistent with business necessity," which has been interpreted pretty broadly to cover most situations where there is potential health/safety risks to other employees involved.

FWIW, I personally think employers have too much leeway to collect data on workers, pry into their lives, and control them. But historically, the default rules governing employer/employee relations in the United States are drawn from the old, pre-1776 British rules governing the relationship between (I kid you not) masters and domestic servants. As a result, while employees are on the clock, employers have very few limits on what info they can gather on employees, and employees' right to privacy is extremely limited. There has to be a specific law passed by Congress or a state legislature to limit employers' rights in that space. And unlike in Europe, the US has no general law granting workers a broad right to privacy. So the only real limits on what questions employers can ask come from laws with fairly limited scope, like the ADA.

28 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Why do we then say Freddie Mercury died of AIDS? Why do we not say he died of pneumocystis? 

A couple answers to that. First--you're moving the goalposts. Before you were talking about official COVID death statistics. Now you're asking why "people" say Freddie Mercury died of AIDS. It should be obvious that "what people say" is not the same as what epidemiologists include in mortality statistics.

That said, it's all about cause and effect. If the UK's mortality recordkeeping is like here, Mercury's death certificate probably has bronchial pneumonia as the immediate cause of death. But If the medical examiner determined that the bronchial pneumonia would not have happened but for Mercury having AIDS, then it would also say that the bronchial pneumonia was a result or consequence of AIDS (possibly with one or two intervening causes in between, e.g. an infection that he wouldn't have been susceptible to absent AIDS). At that point, AIDS is considered the cause of death because AIDS caused the bronchial pneumonia. That's why it would be counted as an AIDS death (though it might also be counted as a bronchial pneumonia death if the UK separately tracks such deaths).

The same would not be true if, say, Freddie Mercury died in a terrible car accident two days before he otherwise would have actually died. In that case, his death certificate would probably say something like "multiple organ failure" as the cause of death, as a consequence of/resulting from blunt force trauma, etc, as a consequence of/resulting from a car accident. His death would be counted as due to a car accident. The fact he had AIDS might be mentioned in the notes, but it wouldn't be a cause of death. He would have been counted in the car accident mortality stats but not the AIDS mortality stats.

So with COVID. The death certificate would mention COVID if it's in the chain of causation, regardless of what might have been going on in the person's health in the background. That's not unusual. It's how epidemiological stats work.

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

It's true that death statistics are not cut and dry. If someone has stage 5 lung cancer and is positive for Covid at the time of death, is that a cancer death or a Covid death? Well traditionally that would have been labeled a cancer death, but nevertheless that would currently be tallied a Covid death. Seeing how Covid deaths are so strongly correlated with advanced age, it's a fair assumption most are associated with significant comorbidities. So these are fair points regarding Covid death statistics, it's not too minimize it, it's just to provide honest context. But even bringing this up will get you labeled a Covid denialist or some other strawman. 

It's just not true that if someone had a terminal illness but then died faster as the result of an acute illness, that the terminal illness would have been considered the immediate (much less the sole) cause of death. That's never been true, either medically or legally. Medical examiners would list the acute illness as the immediate cause, and only list the terminal illness if it appeared to play a direct role in the chain of causation. Either way, the acute illness would be listed as the more immediate/prominent cause of death.

Legally, it's even more cut-and-dried. If you drive drunk and kill someone who would have died the next day from terminal cancer, it's still vehicular homicide.

In any event, most of the people dying of COVID aren't terminally ill. There might be other risk factors involved that make many people more likely to die of COVID if they contract it, but that's true of pretty much any disease.

14 hours ago, thecampster said:

Hey @AHF can you weigh in on the legal rights (or not) of employers to know an employee's medical status/history/etc?  How black and white is it? How muddled?

You asked for @AHF, but as the junior employment lawyer on the Squawk...

(Note: I'm trying to make this not-too-technical, but lemme know if something isn't clear.)

Nationally, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is the main law that restricts employers from asking employees health-related questions. (There's also HIPAA, but that actually doesn't cover most health-related questions in the context of employment, and that  includes questions relating to COVID vaccines )

In theory, the ADA only protects workers with disabilities. But in practice, since an employer doesn't know (and usually can't ask--see below) which employees have disabilities, employers have to be pretty careful when asking workers about health-related stuff. That said, when it comes to transmissible diseases and things that can affect other workers, employers have more leeway to ask health-related questions.

Here's a bit more detail. The ADA limits an employer's ability to require employees to undergo "medical examinations" or to ask if the employee has a disability (or what type of disability an employee has, how bad it is, etc). Those restrictions aren't absolute, though--an employer can require a medical examination or ask about disability status if they have a legitimate job-related reason for doing so:

Obviously, there are a lot of terms in there ("medical examination," "inquiry," "job-related," etc) that have kind of fuzzy/imprecise meanings. But relevant to this conversation--based on my experiences working on cases involving the ADA, I'd be shocked if courts or agencies decided that the COVID pandemic did NOT give employers a good enough reason to ask employees questions related to COVID vaccination status, especially given the CDC guidance on vaccination status (to say nothing of the impending OSHA rules about vaccination for larger employers).

AHF can let me know if I'm missing anything nationally. If you've got a question about a specific state, I think between AHF and me, you have a ~1 in 10 chance that one of us will know the answer offhand

3 hours ago, sillent said:

How about everyone just go vegan. Alkaline your body and you don't have to worry about viruses or diseases.

Or is telling people what to put in there bodies their choice?

If not go vegan no more meat and dairy. Do that and then tell me who's worried about a vaccination.

If we can't tell you what to put in your body don't tell the next person. Simple as that. 

If the vaccine worked like it should nobody would worry about who's vaccinated and who's not. It would just be "smart" people and dead people. Either somethings not working or somethings not right.

I see the unvaccinated homeless still alive and well. What kinda "free" country do we live in when there's no choice on what we put in our bodies?

Again if the vaccine works than good for the vaccinated but it obviously doesn't if everyone has to get it for it to work. Sounds like bs.

 

 

It's absurd to say that unless a vaccine is 100% effective at preventing infection, it doesn't "work." Almost nothing in medicine (including "natural" medicine, holistic health, etc) has 100% efficacy. Aspirin doesn't get rid of every headache. Penicillin isn't 100% effective against any bacterial infection. Acupuncture doesn't always cure...whatever acupuncture is supposed to cure.

It's especially absurd to hold vaccination to that standard, because vaccination is most definitely not like a head

3 hours ago, sillent said:

How about everyone just go vegan. Alkaline your body and you don't have to worry about viruses or diseases.

Or is telling people what to put in there bodies their choice?

If not go vegan no more meat and dairy. Do that and then tell me who's worried about a vaccination.

If we can't tell you what to put in your body don't tell the next person. Simple as that. 

If the vaccine worked like it should nobody would worry about who's vaccinated and who's not. It would just be "smart" people and dead people. Either somethings not working or somethings not right.

I see the unvaccinated homeless still alive and well. What kinda "free" country do we live in when there's no choice on what we put in our bodies?

Again if the vaccine works than good for the vaccinated but it obviously doesn't if everyone has to get it for it to work. Sounds like bs.

 

 

  It's absurd to say that unless a vaccine is 100% effective at preventing infection, it doesn't "work." Almost nothing in medicine (including "natural" medicine, holistic health, etc) has 100% efficacy. Aspirin doesn't get rid of every headache. Penicillin isn't 100% effective against any bacterial infection. Acupuncture doesn't always cure...whatever acupuncture is supposed to cure.

It's especially absurd to hold vaccination to that standard, because vaccination is most definitely not like a headache, or tetanus, etc. It's an extremely transmissible disease, which means a single vaccinated person can infect many others. That means a person's choice not to vaccinate affects many others. It's very much a public health issue, not just a private health issue. It's not like whether someone takes aspirin. It's more like whether someone washes their hands before handling food (which also isn't 100% effective at preventing the spread of foodborne illness, but it helps a whole heck of a lot).

We basically eradicated smallpox and polio in the United States by requiring everyone to get vaccinated. We had basically eradicated measles too--one of the few illnesses as transmissible as COVID--by requiring measles vaccines, until critical masses of anti-vaxxers created enough of a public health gap to allow small outbreaks to occur. It honestly baffles me that vaccination has become politicized.

3 hours ago, bleachkit said:

I thought anti-vaxxers were just all a bunch of racist White nationalist conspiracy theory believing right wing extremists? Guess not. 

Definitely not. The first major groups of anti-vaxxers that I knew about were anti-corporate/anti-pharma leftist types. The west coast (which is where I live) had the first measles outbreaks in decades as a result. Most of those folks are, far as I can tell, anti-vax about the COVID vaccine as well. But in terms of sheer numbers, the number of people resisting the COVID vaccines are an order of magnitude more, and thus not predominantly drawn from that "original" anti-vax population.

I suspect the phenomenon that's happening among NBA players that this article discusses stems from different stuff (there is understandable skepticism of traditional medicine in the US among some in the Black community), as the Rolling Stone piece kind of hints at. But since we don't know for sure what players are unvaccinated (Kyrie aside), no way to know.

17 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

I still love Nirvana. 90s was a Great era for music. Can't say the same thing for our current era unfortunately. 

First three letters of my username is an homage to Nirvana.

1 hour ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Teams played it safe because they couldn't miss. We could afford to make a splashy pick. Jalen was a slam dunk so far

 

Really? None of the 17 teams that picked before us were in a position to take a swing? Golden State (with two top-15 picks) couldn't? San Antonio (which took a big swing at Primo) couldn't? Memphis? OKC with its multiple lottery picks? None of them could afford to take a swing on someone who has the talent you think he has?

And for him being "a slam dunk so far"--he has accomplished nothing so far, so that's just a weird statement.

I think Jalen was a great pick precisely because if he turns out to be a bust, it'll be no biggie given where we were picking in the draft and the amount of young talent we already have. But there's no way to know which he is until we see him for an extended stretch against NBA rotation players (assuming he earns that opportunity, which in itself depends on how well he plays in the preseason and in College Park).

I'll make mine:

(1) Bogi finishes top 10 in 3P%.

(2) Neither JJ nor Coop average more than 15mpg over a full month (barring major injuries or a consolidation trade).

(3) Schlenk wins Executive of the Year.

12 minutes ago, niremetal said:

I think it's 3.

Remember, the fact that his contract is guaranteed for $5M doesn't mean that $5M would actually be on our books. Instead, Gallo would become a free agent, and his cap hit for the Hawks would be partially reduced by whatever another team signs him for:

So realistically, unless Gallo suffers a bad enough injury or regresses to the point that no team is willing to give him at least the taxpayer MLE ($5.9M this season and likely a fair bit more next season), going with option 3 means his cap hit will be a good bit less than $5M.

My caveat is that if Gallo's contract is needed to acquire a star, we obviously could/should move him before the deadline. But I'd imagine that if we do that, Clint, JC, or Bogi might be more likely than Gallo to be the key salary-matching piece.

I think it's 3.

Remember, the fact that his contract is guaranteed for $5M doesn't mean that $5M would actually be on our books. Instead, Gallo would become a free agent, and his cap hit for the Hawks would be partially reduced by whatever another team signs him for:

Quote

 

If another team signs a player who has cleared waivers, the player's original team is allowed to reduce the amount of money it still owes the player (and lower its team salary) by a commensurate amount. This is called the right of set-off. This is true if the player signs with any professional team -- it does not have to be an NBA team. The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum salary for a one-year veteran during the season in which the player is waived (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).

For example, suppose a fifth-year player is waived with one guaranteed season remaining on his contract for $5 million. If this player signs a $2 million contract with another team for the 2017-18 season, his original team gets to set off $2 million minus $1,312,611 (the minimum salary for a one-year veteran in 2017-18), divided by two, or $343,694. The team is still responsible for paying $4,656,306 of the original $5 million. Note that between his prior team and new team the player will earn a combined $6,656,306, which was more than he earned prior to being waived.

 

 

So realistically, unless Gallo suffers a bad enough injury or regresses to the point that no team is willing to give him at least the taxpayer MLE ($5.9M this season and likely a fair bit more next season), going with option 3 means his cap hit will be a good bit less than $5M.

43 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Yes.  

You're braver than me--Delon and Lou bang knees in practice three days before the break and you could have a pooping elephant as your avatar for awhile 

3 hours ago, AHF said:

I don't know if Jalen has all the physical tools that Josh Smith did - will have to watch more of him to truly assess.  But what I do love in this comparison is that Josh had Grand Canyon sized holes in his game that with his stubborn nature were ultimately were his undoing as a player.  I don't see any real holes in Jalen's game.  Not that he is amazing at everything at this point but I don't see the glaring weaknesses that would make the parallel to Josh Smith really complete.  Because as great as Josh was at so many things, his jumper and insistence on emphasizing jump shooting overshadows every one of his gifts.

It is so early in Jalen's career that I'm not really putting expectations on him at this point.  He is a very exciting upside talent that could be a huge value pick for the Hawks.  I'm just eager to see him come along.

Josh was also a mediocre-at-best on-ball defender. Had trouble moving his feet on the perimeter and bit on too many pump fakes in the post. It's the reason why he was never taken all that seriously for all-defensive teams despite being perennially among the leaders in blocks and getting lots of steals for a forward too. Jalen doesn't have Josh's instinctive nose for the ball on help D, but he has the potential to be a much better on-ball defender if he has the work ethic, perseverance, and discipline. We'll see if he does.

2 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

Yeah, I don't understand that one -- supes either thinks we're winning it all no matter what or we're not going to exit in the 2nd round lol

I mean, if it's what I think it is, it's a prediction I agree with. The Hawks' depth makes them a good bet to do well in the regular season (which I think will still have more players missing games than usual because of health/safety protocols, etc). But depth is less important when rotations shorten in the playoffs. 

I think Kerr has to be the frontrunner for the USAB head coach slot. I honestly hope it's not Nate. The Hawks aren't good/experienced enough yet to be put on cruise control while their coach's attention is divided.

30 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

1. Trae will be a MVP candidate. 

2. Hawks will be 1st overall in the NBA but I don't know if that will help them in terms of where they finish. 

3. Bogi will join Trae at the All Star game. 

 

Things to look into: 

1. Cam's development

2. Dre's health for the entire season. 

3. Can our bench be the best in the NBA, I think so. 

Does this mean you think they'll finish with the best regular season record, but may not live up to that seeding in the playoffs?

It's a dice roll, but personally, I'd put anyone on our roster (except Trae) on the table in a trade for MPJ. His ceiling is--no exaggeration--as high as anyone in the league right now, including Luka and Trae. He has superstar potential. That's true of no one else on our roster aside from Trae. I love Dre and Cam, but I don't see them turning into All-NBA caliber players even if everything breaks right.

It's kind of crazy, but MPJ is the only player in league history to average 40% from deep over his first two seasons while also averaging more than 5 rpg. He blew by those numbers too--he averaged 44% and 6.1 rpg.

The risk is, of course, that he's something of a modern-day Derrick Coleman, blessed with an unmatched combination of size, athleticism, and shooting ability, but never willing to focus on his game enough to reach anything resembling his potential. The fact that he doesn't play defense and doesn't pass are red flags. I'd leave to TS and MPJ's old AAU teammate who just happens to be our franchise player to decide whether he can mature and work on his game to the point where he can reach his insane ceiling.

Anyway, moot point. Denver ain't letting him go.

Kind of perplexing to me, even if he's a more skilled player than Solo. Wing is the position where we have the biggest glut in terms of guys under (guaranteed) contracts--Bogi, Hunter, Cam, and Huerter are primarily wings, Wright can play the 2, and then JJ and Solo (and even Gallo) can play the 3.

Makes me wonder if the Hawks are worried about how Hunter's rehab is progressing, or that there's an unreported lingering issue from the playoffs with Bogi or Cam 

2 hours ago, Blunt91 said:

Why not bring in someone decent now if they are available?  It doesn't have to be Hamilton it could be someone else, Hartenstein etc.  I just don't like being thin at a position, but that's just my opinion on it.

Definitely a reasonable position. But my take (and presumably TS's, since he seems in no rush to fill that last spot) is that there's no real difference between the guys left on the market now and the guys we'd be able to scoop up in a few weeks or months, if we get hit with a frontcourt injury. Better to keep the flexibility than tie up a roster spot with a guy who, if we ever had to actually play him in situations that mattered, we'd be in trouble.

19 minutes ago, Blunt91 said:

I don't think Hamilton needs to blow everyone's mind to get an NBA deal, just be able to rebound and play some solid defense.  I doubt he is looking for a G League deal since he played there in 18/19 season.   If he is that bad, then Shlenk needs to bring in another "big" because Capela & Dieng alone will not suffice until OO gets back.  We never know when Capella might get injured or have to miss some games.

Sorry, but guys don't just go from Montenegran League rejects to NBA rosters without something that triggers a pretty radical change in their valuation.

What Hamilton is "looking for" doesn't matter as much as what teams are willing to give him. No one is offering him a roster spot, so he's not in a position to turn his nose at a G-League offer if he wants to stay stateside. 

Capela and Dieng will be just fine for 3 months. Collins can slide over to the 5 as needed, like he did last year. Even Gallo can play the 5 in a pinch. Small ball is a better option than being forced to play a scrub. If one of the two true centers gets hurt for an extended period, we can cross that bridge when we come to it and probably find someone better than Hamilton on the waiver wire.