Some People Need To Be Called ON There $h!+!

[Guest Walter]

In just the past two days I have read Traceman blaming Theo (and SAR) for the team failing with Big Dog and Diesel similarly citing both of these players and blaming JT for the team failing with Big Dog.

Whatever happened to Big Dog being responsible for how the team played with Big Dog is beyond this believer in the concept of personal responsibility.

Traceman, if Big Dog is not personaly responsible for his and (for his part) the team's play with him in the lineup because he, SAR, and Theo (the league's leading shot blocker and perhaps league best rotating center) aren't big enough, then how is a smaller frontline of Newble, SAR, and Theo so exceedingly more dominate in terms of wins and loses?

Diesel, if JT is so poor at playing with a "scorer" such as Big Dog (although I find the concept of scorer to be poorly defined to include a guy who only can shoot and shoot 20 shots to score, lacking any ability to drive), why the [censored] does it matter when the team wins 75% of its games without Big Dog and only 30% with him. Give me a team that wins 75% of its games PERIOD! Not one that wins 30% but has a Pg that knows how to defer to its shooting only scorer. The truth is JT can't TAKE THE BALL AWAY from Big HOG once he does pass it to him and you can't freeze Big HOG out, effectively playing with only 4 on offense. Big HOG is a H-O-G on offense. Even you say that the offense runs better without Big HOG! Why must that be JT's fault and not Big HOG, the player with the ever increasing reputation for being an offense killer should be beyond even the biggest Big HOG apologist.

All I know is this team would lose a considerable amount of games without JT and perhaps even more than it otherwise would without Ira. IN FACT, THE HAWKS ARE 6-14 WHEN IRA PLAYS 20 MINS OR LESS FOR A 33% WINNING PERCENTAGE! 29-32 FOR AN ALMOST 50% WINNING PERCENTAGE WHEN HE PLAYS M-O-R-E T-H-A-N 20 MINS! CAN ANYTHING LIKE THAT BE SAID ABOUT THE INFAMOUSLY WEALTHY BIG HOG?!?

NO!

THE HAWKS ARE 8-20 WHEN JT PLAYS 35 MINS OR LESS!

THAT MEANS THE HAWKS ARE 27-26 WHEN JT PLAYS MORE THAN 35 MINS! FROM AN UNDER 30% WINNING PERCENTAGE WHEN JT DOESN'T PLAY OVER 35 MINS TO AN OVER 50% WINNING PERCENTAGE WHEN JT PLAYS OVER 35 MINS!!! CAN ANYTHING LIKE THAT BE SAID FOR BIG HOG?!?

NO!

The team wins when Big Hog doesn't play and a former CBAer starts in his place. It's not SAR's, Theo's, or JT's fault. They win at a remarkable clip without him. He is responsible for how the team plays with him just as the team is responsible for how they play without him. How simple that is to grasp.

W

[cynic]

And I agree with every word, assuming the given statistics are valid.

[KB21]

Yep. I agree.

Did you know the Hawks are 23-17 since Dion Glover was inserted into the starting line up?

They are also 6-2 in games that Ira and Dion start together. One of those losses was a game where Glenn came off the bench, and the other loss was an OT loss to Detroit.

Defensively, the Hawks only give up 93 ppg when Dion and Ira start together. Though it is a small sample, it is a 4 point improvement over their regular season average.

[Gray Mule]

Yep. That's a good one.

Hawks do have some very good players. They are not

that far away from being a very good team, as we have

noticed in the last few games {Without Big Dog } !!

It just doesn't happen to be a winning night for everyone

when Big Dog is missing. They are a team then. They

look like a team, they act like a team and they win like

a team.

So many things will be going on this off season. So many

questions that must be answered. Most everyone may

be back for another season. I hope so. On the other

hand we may see a different coach and 12 new players

in a Hawk uniform next season. Someone might buy them

and move them somewhere else. They might not even be

the Atlanta Hawks next year. They may follow the Expos

and become the new NBA franchise down on the Island.

[Diesel]

You're making an argument on games that don't matter.

However, I've give you this... TONIGHT. IF we can beat the Hornets away, I'll say that JT is what you think he is and that big Dog is not neccessary.

However, To talk about Home games against Slumping struggling teams is ridiculous.

Secondly, Specifically about Big Dog...> He hasn't done anything that we didn't expect. Did you really expect Big Dog to be a defensive standout? Did you really Expect Big Dog to be a Point Forward?

What we expected from Big Dog was a 20/6 player at SF who would take the pressure off of SAR so that SAR could be the best player he could be. Well, Big Dog gave us 20/6 as expected. However, there were continuity problems. I say that JT can't play with 2 20 point scorers. When you're not a natural PG, it's hard to figure out how to get the best out of everyone's game. However, you feel that it doesn't matter because we beat Cleveland, Toronto, and Washington at Home without Big Dog...

Give me a break?

If we played all of our games at Home against Sub .500 teams, it wouldn't matter. However, since we don't, it makes no sense to ignore it.

[Guest]

I understand some of what you are saying Diesel and

I understand this 7 out of 8 is very overrated...But

the only reason Robinson does average 20/6 anyway

is because he plays no defense and he is a I score

and my man scores player...It doesn't show up on

GR's statline, but you know watching games that

is the base.

GR is like a Ben Wallace...The only reason Wallace

averages so many rebounds is because he doesn't

make any effort on offense and saves it all for

defense...Well,Robinson saves it all for offense, and

that is why his 20/6 is overrated to start with.

If Robinson was putting up the numbers he does with

even ok defense I'd be more willing to give him credit,

but all I see is a player half@ssing it so that his stats

will look good.

[JTFan31]

First of all every game in the NBA counts, every team come every night to win, all these guys have too much pride and desire to win every game as possible. It doesn't matter if is against the Cavs or Mavs, these guys are pros and they want to win, just like we want to win pickup games. Now we all know the games we were losing early in the season against the scrubby teams , we are now taking care of business. Last season we had great hope coming into this season, but the addition of Big Dog really changed our team tremendously.

You are missing the point that Walter was trying to make, is not that we didnt know what to expect from Big Dog cus we all knew he can score 20 and 6 boards and play no defense, but the point Walter is trying to make is that Big Dog DOES not click with this team, he just doesnt fit in well, on the other hand Ira that avgs less than 10 ppg and Dion at the 2 makes us a better team than with Big Dog. We all know this, because the way we have been playing in the last 2 weeks or so, have been great. Its obvious that we have an identity now, a team thats plays solid defense and runs the heck out of the opposing teams, we never had an identity with Big Dog as a starter. We now got one........I sure hope this team can stay together and not be broken up except for Big Dog.

[Diesel]

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.a...s&oid=20509

In reply to:

---

“Some people showed up; some people didn’t,” Kidd said on Wednesday. “As a team, as a whole, there was no effort. It’s disappointing for what’s at stake.”

---

So much for too much pride....

In reply to:

---

You are missing the point that Walter was trying to make, is not that we didnt know what to expect from Big Dog cus we all knew he can score 20 and 6 boards and play no defense, but the point Walter is trying to make is that Big Dog DOES not click with this team, he just doesnt fit in well, on the other hand Ira that avgs less than 10 ppg and Dion at the 2 makes us a better team than with Big Dog.

---

And MY point was 2 fold..

First, I said that the competition that we played against in these last few games were weak. And the wins without Grob were HOme Games vs. Weak teams. Surely, that is not enough to base Ira and Glover as being "the answer".

Secondly, about Big Dog, I don't disagree.. He doesn't fit. However, he has the game that we expected. My problem is with people placing the blame on Big Dog. The blame is on the Blue Print. Again, Bring in a Floor Leader in place of JT and I gaurantee you that we would win also.... Probably more. Would that then mean that JT is the problem? Not neccessarily. We all knew that JT was not a PG. The Fact of the matter is that we have so Many problems that it's hard to hide all of them. Replacing Big Dog with IRa will lead us back to where we were last year. Predictable offense. Teams will just swoop down on SAR and they will double and triple him until he is no longer effective enough to beat them.

You guys have forgotten the reason why Big Dog was neccessary. We needed scoring from the SF spot. IF Toni could have been counted on for the whole season, he is perfect for the position because he also takes JT's problems away... But when we brought in Big Dog... Lon played him as if he was Toni. Trying to run offensive sets through Big Dog.

When Lon was fired, you saw a team that was being retaught. Namely Stotts redefined the team and starting teaching roles. You saw Big Dog's TO's go down. The team still doesn't click because having that many scorers in one offense takes time to get the chemistry unless you have a good floor leader. JT is the Anti-Floor Leader. Again, in this Big dogless streak, who has stepped up as the lead scorer? Who's the goto guy? Who is the leader of these Hawks? IF you say Ira or Glover it's as big a joke as can be found... The problem and answer is that we still don't have answers to those things. We are just as bad off now as we were midseason... We're just able to hide it better because we are playing a lot of Lesser teams AT HOME.

[Guest Walter]

The record doesn't with and without him doesn't lie.

A $14 million dollar player shouldn't make you half as good as a $1 million dollar former CBAer. PERIOD!

W

[Guest Walter]

That's the point you shy away from. I showed how when JT plays more we win, when Ira plays more we win, and when Big Dog plays AT ALL we lose. How else do you ascribe responsibility and fault here but in reality?

W

[Guest Walter]

The stakes of not observing the obvious or attempting to obfuscate it, the stakes for not trading Big Hog and thus playing next season with him, will mark another lost season. However you want yourself to look in this debate, everyone knows that Big Hog is low dose arsinic to this team. He slowly kills it, but when you don't take it you feel oh so much better. The symptoms are clear, the diagnosis sure. Don't put yourself over the team or start blaming the likes of JT, Ira, and SAR. They may have hang nails as part of their games like even some of the best players but they're heart is fine.

Truth is, it is pathetic to go blaming other players obviously not at fault to make your own position look better. pathetic and ugly. I hope that tactic changes soon. I love the Hawks too much to see it's players wrongly accused.

W

[Diesel]

What did I say.

Sub .500 teams.... Home games.

Tonight we hung for a while but then couldn't find scores. [censored], we needed somebody who averaged 20 against the Hornets to step in and help. I thought the offense flowed much better with Ira in there. This is the second lowest output of the season 77 points. You know the first lowest output is 67 points against the Celtics in Boston. Again, that was a game that Big Dog didn't play in.

However, you do the math. NO Big Dog. No Home game. Hawks Lose because of a scoring draught. I know some of you will talk about that Detroit game... But remember, we had a sure victory going into the 4th qtr with them too. We lost that game because of lack of scoring down the stretch. Our offense is predictable when Grob is not there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Grob is our savior. I'm saying to you dumbasses that said Ira would suffice that you were ignorant to make conclusions based on games at Home vs. Sub .500 teams. History shows that we can be easily stopped when we lack that third scorer.

Ty Corbin Jr. is NO Fix.

[Traceman]

How a guy who never watches a game can know so much about what is going on is beyond me but let's put things in perspective:

Record without Dog: 9-4

Record without Dog at home: 8-0

Record without Dog on road: 1-4

Record without Dog versus non playoff teams: 5-0

Record without Dog versus playoff teams: 4-4

Record without Dog versus playoff teams on road: 0-4

The 4 playoff teams we beat without Dog were ORL, PHI, NO & NJ. We were 1-1 vs ORL WITH Dog and had a winning record vs them for the season. We were 2-1 vs Philly WITH Dog and when we beat them without Dog, they were in the midst of a horrible 4-14 stretch. We were 3-1 vs them for the season. We were 1-1 vs NO WITH Dog and when we beat them without Dog, they were without Baron Davis and in the midst of a 5-game losing streak. We were 2-2 vs them for the season. We were 0-3 vs NJ WITH Dog but when we beat them without Dog, they were in the process of losing 4 of their last 5 games of the season. We were 1-3 vs them for the season.

We were 26-15 at home this season including wins over playoff teams SAC, SA, DET, IND, UT & MIL WITH Dog. We were a very good home team for most of the season, the road is where we struggled and that didn't change with Dog out of the line up. We were 1-4 on the road without Dog.

There is no rhetoric there. Those are statements of fact.

The fact that we were 9-4 without Dog has a lot to do with WHO we played when he was out, WHEN we played them and WHERE we played them. Surely you don't think we would have won 56 or 57 games without Dog yet that is what you are suggesting by posting that ridiculous winning percentage crap.

Now, to answer the question Mr. "I don't have a freakin' clue what's going on because I don't watch the games." To state the obvious, Ira is a good defensive player and Dog is not. Even though Ira is a LITTLE smaller than Dog (both are 6'-7", Dog weighs 20 more pounds), the fact that Ira plays good solid D on his man allows Theo to not worry about Ira's man very much and to concentrate on helping Reef. Conversely, when Dog and Reef are playing together, Theo has to worry about covering for BOTH of them. DUHHHH! Take Reef out of the lineup and insert a player like PJ Brown, Dale Davis or Antonio Davis and Theo would be able to concentrate on helping Dog and not the bigger, stronger, better defending PF. Double DUHHHH! Calling Theo/Reef/Dog an "inherently larger frontcourt" than Theo/Reef/Ira is a joke. It's virtually the same size and BOTH are significantly undersized. It's like saying that Mike Wilks is a "big PG" compared to Earl Boykins!

Until I have seen the team play extended games with Dog in and Reef out, I still think it is that Dog and Reef don't compliment each other more so than it is either of their faults. Dog is doing for us what he has done for his entire career for Milwaukee. Did you think he was going to significantly change his game just because he changed uniforms? He did what he was brought here to do for the most part. It's not SOLELY his fault that the pieces around him are not the ideal fit for his game.

Dog only played in one game that Reef missed this year in the regular season and he had one [censored] of a game. Although we lost to NJ on the road, we gave them a good fight and Dog [censored] near had a triple double. When Reef came back and played limited minutes in the next 2 games, Dog was the go to guy and he ended up scoring 30+ in each game, garnering EC Player of The Week honors and leading us to victory in both games. We also blew out NO TWICE in preseason games in which Dog played and Reef didn't. That is not enough to say that we would be better off with Reef sitting but it does lend credence to my theory that Dog is more effective when playing beside a PF and Center who can defend (Theo and Hendu or Theo and Nazr) than he is playing against the defensively-challenged Reef.

Calling the Theo/Reef/Ira frontcourt "dominant" in relation to anything is a joke. Just because they beat non playoff and struggling teams at home doesn't mean jack.

I DO think the ball flowed more freely with Ira in and Dog out. I also think the defense was significantly better for obvious reasons. STILL, that doesn't mean that we would have lost those games that we won without Dog and it doesn't mean that we wouldn't have beaten some of the teams that we lost to without Dog.

If both Dog and Reef are back next year, whoever is coaching needs to figure out how to get the most out of them. I have been saying for months (you know, the months you were not here) that combo just doesn't fit for long stretches.

So before you try to call someone on ANYTHING, watch more than a couple of games during the season. Form an opinion based on something other than the boxscore. Know what the [censored] you are talking about!

I NEVER blamed Theo or Reef for Dog's shortcomings! Not once! I said that those 3 guys don't fit together and that their skills don't compliment each other very well. Conversely, YOU blame Dog for virtually ALL of this team's shortcomings.

[Guest]

The only reason Robinson is even a starter is

because of a jumper(which is abit overrated)but

he's so useless when it's missing..

He's simply Rodney Rogers with a more consisant

jumper and is more scoring minded.GR's youth

years are behind him and as the SF's get quicker

and stuff he will be more useless.

[Guest Walter]

Regardless of how you "spin", the presence of a $14 million dollar player costs us >30% more games lost than his absence.

Ouch!

You're right, it's Theo's and even SAR's fault that that the front line is so small with they and Big Hog that it can't be expected to win, yet does win so much more when it's even smaller with Ira.

I'm still confused. How is it Theo's fault again that the Hawks win with him when Big Hog is out and not when he is in?

Ira is 20 Lbs lighter and you make this not significant. How significant does it have to be when your point was that it was Theo's fault that the team didn't win with Big Hog because the front line was too small???????????????????????????? D@MN man! Your point was insulting and pathetic. We win witha smaller lineup and a $1 million doallr player verses a $14 million dollar one. How little of a clue you must have or desperate you must be to try and pass off such nonsense.

Now, onto your stats. If we were 26-15 at home overall and 8-0 (100% winning %age) without Big Hog, we were 18-15 (54%) with Big Hog. That means we were almost twice as good without Big Hog when playing at home.

We were .500 against playoff teams without Big Hog. Now what were we against playoff teams WITH Big Hog? I dare say we weren't ANTWHERE near that record, even when we were already effectively eliminated and the games didn't matter for us (but seeding-wise it did for them).

Come on man. Get a grip and a clue. Big Hog is the team's main flaw. No attempt to blame Theo, SAR, or JT (in Diesel's case) should detract from that and should be seen as a pathetic, desperate, insulting attempt. Why you would choose to blame Theo for the loses when the fact is we WIN without Big Hog (and with a smaller, CBA player in his stead) is lost on everyone but you.

Watch a game? I do and Lord knows it doesn't take watching a season-worth to see just how lame Hog is and the team is with Hog as well as just the opposite with Ira (and DG). I mean, just how blind and desperate are you to not see this and to blame Theo (and SAR) for it!?! I'm done.

W

[Guest Walter]

Diesel, Big Hog only played in one of our wins over NO. He was injured during the other. We are 1-1 against them with or without Big Hog (of course, we had less to play for against them and they more against us this last game).

The "best" argument for Big Hog just went belly up.

We win more with Ira, a lesser (SMALLER...eh hem, Traceman) player, 1/15th the cost and there is not one series in which we do better with Hog than without him.

W

[Diesel]

If we're a better team without Big dog, why couldn't we win without him? Why did we win with him?

Again, with Big Dog, we have had substantial wins.... Sac, San Antonio, Orlando, and Philly.

Without him, the best team you can call is a NJ team that was on a 5 game slide... IN Atlanta.

Secondly, Big Dog isn't the only problem. There are other things that causes us to lose and it's more than Big Dog and if we replace Big Dog with "I got 5 on it" Ira then I guarantee that these other problems will show up as well as us not being able to score.

Notice our Losses without Big Dog.

We lacked Scoring.

Against Boston, they beat us like 89 - 66.

Against N.O. we could only muster up 77 points.

Against Detroit, they came back from a 21 point deficit to beat us in OT.

Notice the lack of scoring. It's the same thing we experienced last year when Toni was out. We had good starts but in the 3rd teams would shut us down and outscore us. We all agreed that we needed another scorer. Now you say, you want to go back to that?

[cynic]

"If we're a better team without Big dog, why couldn't we win without him? Why did we win with him?"

This isn't good logic, D. In fact, it's horrible logic.

For an easy example. If the Spurs are a better team with Tim Duncan, then why did they win all those games in the season before they got him (lottery season). Why do they lose games to mediocre teams sometimes now that they have him?

If the 72-win Bulls team of '97 was so good, why did they lose 10 games? Silliness. I may have my numbers wrong, but you get the point.

Nobody is saying that we are championship quality without Big Dog (and thus would win almost every game) or that we are the worst team ever with him (and thus would lose almost every game).

It's obvious to most folks that we play better without him. However, we all know that we need more scoring in his absence. Sure, Big Dog provides that scoring, but the overall contribution to the team is a negative one.

[Diesel]

The Spurs were a lottery team the year before they got Duncan.

Duncan made them better.

However, the argument has been that we are a better team when GRob doesn't suit up.

However, all of our wins against Good teams occured while he played. When he didn't play (and it wasn't the home game) we lost and couldn't score enough. 77 points, 66 points, let Detroit come back from a 21 point deficit in the 4th. All of these things are definite signs that Grob is needed. The problem is trying to fit all of our pieces together so that they can work the best.

Let me give you one illustration.

If your car is not running well... is the first thing you look to change your expensive tires? Just because my car is not running at full power doesn't mean I throw out my Expensive Tired and get some cheaper Gaurdsmen from Sears.

That's the equivalent of getting rid of Big Dog. We can all agree that Big Dog is not the only problem that we have on this team. However, in my estimation Big Dog gave us exactly what we should have expected...His whole career he was a 20/6 player who didn't play Stellar defense. If you want to outline the problems, we have a whole list of them:

1. JT is not a PG by nature. (maybe Sizewise, but he's a natural 2).

2. SAR doesn't have a scorers mentality. Sometimes he gets in the zone, but unlike Nique, he won't demand the ball.

3. Theo is undersized at C and is a weak rebounder.

4. SAR, Big Dog, and JT are bad defenders.

5. Big Dog does have a scorers mentality but doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a scorer.

6. We lack good ball handlers.

7. We lack good 3 pt shooters.

8. Ira and Dion are good BUs but really not complete enough to hold down the starting SG spot.

9. We lack Role players.

This is just a few things. Yes Big dog has his faults, but so does everyone else. IF you really want to be precise, the fact that JT is not a PG effects the whole team. Now it is a must that we find another ball handler to take over some of the offensive duties that JT can't. Haven't you ever noticed that we played the best when:

Wilks, Kngiht, Vaughn, and Coles was able to split time and share the court with JT? AND we had less talent on the team when there was Coles and Knight. Heck, I bet money that if you replaced JT with Vaughn, we would have won maybe 6 more games than we did. That's not a slight on JT, it's just fact that a Real (experienced) PG would be able to get Grob and SAR into the game.

Call Orlando see if they still want Nazr? I'd take Vaughn/Girecek.

[KB21]

Jacque Vaughn, all 8 points and 3 assists per game of him, somehow will make the Hawks 6 games better than Jason Terry's 17 points and 7.4 assists?

That's the biggest crock of [censored] I've read on this board in a while!!

You are an apologist!! You are a Glenn Robinson apologist, and you were a Lenny Wilkens apologist back when he was coaching here. You make flim flam excuses for why they didn't get the job done.

Face the facts!! This is a better team without Glenn Robinson because they actually play as a team without Glenn Robinson. The defense is better, and the ball moves better offensively without him. We are a more up tempo team without him. Instead of having him scoring 21 points on 9 for 21 shooting, we have 5, sometimes 6 different players scoring in double digits. Theo is more involved offensively. Dion is more involved offensively. Ira is more involved offensively. We get better contributions from Alan Henderson and Dan Dickau off the bench offensively. And the result of not having Glenn on the court is a .692 winning percentage.

It's not that hard to see this, for Christ's sake!

Look at the stats mrHonline showed. When Glenn shoots the ball a lot, Atlanta loses. When he shoots the ball less than 14 times or doesn't play, Atlanta wins.

In reply to:

---

1. 18+ shots, the Hawks are 12-27 (= .308)

2. 15-17 shots, the Hawks are 6-9 (= .400)

3. 12-14 shots, the Hawks are 8-5 (= .615)

4. Under 12 shots, 0-2

5. DNP, 9-3 (= .750)

---

Atlanta minus Glenn Robinson is a playoff team.