At Diesel's "request,"

[mrhonline]

Here are some more Dog #'s:

In the 13 games played w/o BD -

Wins vs.

1. Phi (2-1 record vs. w/ BD)

2. Hou (0-1 w/ BD)

3. NO (we also lost to them w/o BD, so I ruled it null...)

4. Was (0-2 w/ Dog, 2-0 w/o)

5. Mem (0-1 w/ BD)

6. NJN (0-2 w/ BD)

7. Cle (3-0 w/ BD, Thank God :> )

8. Orl (1-1 w/ BD)

Losses vs.

1. Mil (2-1 w/ Big Dog)

2. Bos (0-2 w/ Big Dog)

3. Det (2-1 w/ Big Dog)

4. NO (see above)

----

Overall, 4 of the 8 teams that the Hawks beat without Dog they had not been able to beat with him.

[mrhonline]

Home record with BD -> 18-15 (.545)

Road record with BD -> 8-28 (.222)

Overall record w/ BD -> 26-43 (.377)

Home record w/o BD -> 8-0 (1.000)

Road record w/o BD -> 1-4 (.200)

Overall record w/o BD -> 9-4 (.692)

[The home record speaks for itself, while the road record still sucks regardless...]

PPG scored w/ BD -> ~95 (I got lazy & rounded)

PPG allowed w/BD -> ~101

(-6 pt. diff. overall)

PPG scored w/o BD -> ~91 (4 ppg drop in scoring)

PPG allowed w/o BD -> ~89 (12 ppg drop in scoring allowed!)

(+2 pt. diff. overall)

[That's an 8 ppg swing!]

------------------

At home w/ BD -> -3 ppg diff. (pts. scored - pts. allowed)

On road w/ BD -> -6 ppg diff.

At home w/o BD -> +8 ppg diff.

On road w/o BD -> -9 ppg diff.

[so, on average, the Hawks play better at home w/o BD, while slightly worse on the road w/o him...]

Conclusions: The defense is one of the best in the East without Big Dog, but obviously there isn't enough scoring to win consistently on the road...(only 85 ppg in the 5 road games without Big Dog).

BTW, in those 4 road losses without BD, here's Newble's scoring -

1. Milwaukee - 22 min., 11pts. (JT/Wilks backcourt)

2. Boston - 21 min., 8 pts. (as a guard)

3. Detroit - 34 min., 11 pts.

4. NO - 33 min., 5 pts.

It's hard to tell about Newble considering the three different lineups, two different positions, varying minutes, et al., but a better-scoring SF probably would have resulted in only one more win on the road (Detroit). Bench scoring was the major problem.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

Home record with BD -> 18-15 (.545)

Road record with BD -> 8-28 (.222)

Overall record w/ BD -> 26-43 (.377)

Home record w/o BD -> 8-0 (1.000)

Road record w/o BD -> 1-4 (.200)

Overall record w/o BD -> 9-4 (.692)

[The home record speaks for itself, while the road record still sucks regardless...]

---

The home record ONLY Speaks when you consider the Average of the teams we played at home. We have home wins over Cleveland, Memphis, Washington and other below .500 teams at home.

Here's the completion of the project.

Take the home records with and without Big Dog and find the winning percentages for those teams.

You would agree with me that 6-0 vs. .323 is a lot different than 18-15 vs. .728 right???

[mrhonline]

What happened to Philly, Houston, New Orleans, New Jersey, and Orlando? Are you simply choosing to ignore those wins vs. quality opponents?

[KB21]

That's called the Glenn Robinson Apologist spin.

Even Stan Kasten realizes the team is better W/O Robinson. Look for trading Glenn to be the Hawks top priority this offseason. I really think Portland will make a play for him.

[Diesel]

I'm saying DO the math.

Even teams close to .500 like you mentioned don't stack up to themselves plus Sacramento, San Antonio, Utah, etc, etc.

[Diesel]

Isn't it logical, if you tell me we have a 1.000 average at home and a .200 average on the road without Big Dog that it makes sense to see exactly who are we playing at Home?

I mean of course... we beat some above .500 teams without big Dog but where's the spin in wanting to know the comparison of these random samples?

That's not Spin... That's Logic.

Sorta like finally realizing that MSU plays a Weak Schedule every year and get these Bloated Numbers and then when the NCAA turney comes, they lose in the first or second round?

Is that supposed to be spin?

[mrhonline]

With BD:

a. Total wins at home - 18

b. Average winning % - 0.476

c. Wins vs. +.500 teams - 10

d. % of total wins vs. +.500 teams of total - 55.6%

a. Total wins on road - 8

b. Average winning % - 0.387

c. Wins vs. +.500 teams - 3

d. % of total wins vs. +.500 teams of total - 37.5%

a. Total losses at home - 15

b. Average winning % - .518

c. Losses vs. -.500 teams - 6

d. % of total losses vs. -.500 teams of total - 40.0%

a. Total losses on road - 28

b. Average winning % - .513

c. Losses vs. -.500 teams - 10

d. % of total losses vs. -.500 teams of total - 35.7%

Without BD:

a. Total wins at home - 8

b. Average winning % - .474

c. Wins vs. +.500 teams - 5

d. % of total wins vs. +.500 teams of total - 62.5%

a. Total wins on road - 1

b. Average winning % - .451

c. Wins vs. +.500 teams - 0

d. % of total wins vs. +.500 teams of total - 00.0%

a. Total losses at home - 0

b. Average winning % - N/A

c. Losses vs. -.500 teams - N/A

d. % of total losses vs. -.500 teams of total - N/A

a. Total losses on road - 4

b. Average winning % - .558

c. Losses vs. -.500 teams - 0

d. % of total losses vs. -.500 teams of total - 00.0%

Conclusions:

1. Home wins - The Hawks won more games vs. tougher opponents at home without BD.

2. Road wins - Too small a sample for "no-BD" games (1, vs. Washington)

3. Home losses - No home losses in 8 games without BD, while they lost 40% of games vs. -.500 teams with BD.

4. Road losses - All four road losses without BD were vs. +.500 teams, while they lost 36% of games vs. -.500 teams with BD.

5. Winning percentage - In every applicable category, the winning percentage of teams faced was higher or equal in the games played without BD. (Note: .474 ~ .476)

OVERALL - They performed better at home without BD, and although they lost four games on the road without him, all four were against playoff teams.

They were 3-18 on the road vs. +.500 teams with BD, and 0-4 without him. So you can't solely blame BD for the road woes, but you also can't claim he made any difference when he WAS playing.

In light of the improved home record without BD, and without evidence that he improved the team's performance on the road, I say "Trade him." Now, where did I place Stan's phone number? Maybe Archie44 knows? ;>

[Diesel]

In your numbers...

You describe our home wins and losses with and without Big Dog.

With Big Dog we beat teams who won 47.6% of their games.

Without Big Dog we beat teams who won 47.4% of their games.

The first point is that these numbers are the same. That means that the quality of opponents that we beat with and without big dog at home are very similar. It further suggests that if Big Dog would have played, we would have won anyway. But here is the truth..

We lost at home with Big Dog to teams who won: 51.8% of their games.

The best we could do at home without big Dog is still those teams that won 47.4% of their games. IN other words, we didn't really play many good teams without Big Dog.... or better stated.. .In our home losses with Big Dog, we played Better teams than we played without Big Dog.

[KB21]

Hello!

62.5% of their home wins without Big Dog came against +.500 teams!!

5-0 record.

They were 3-0 against sub .500 teams without Big Dog.

[Diesel]

Hello again.

The average was still .474 to .476. The opponents who we beat with and without big dog were around the SAME.

[mrhonline]

In reply to:

---

The first point is that these numbers are the same. That means that the quality of opponents that we beat with and without big dog at home are very similar. It further suggests that if Big Dog would have played, we would have won anyway.

---

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by pointing this out b/c it's a great argument FOR trading Big Dog. Why pay a guy $10.7M next year when you have just as good a chance of winning with Ira "CBA" Newble? Trade Dog for role players that will increase your chances of winning on the road.

In reply to:

---

In our home losses with Big Dog, we played Better teams than we played without Big Dog.

---

I would love to contrast that with the home losses without Big Dog, but in 8 games, THERE WEREN'T ANY!

Look at the home games this way:

Philly - 79-77 Win w/o Dog, 110-89 Loss w/ Dog

Washington - 91-89 Win w/o Dog, 109-99 Loss w/Dog

New Jersey - 97-92 Win w/o Dog, 101-94 Loss w/Dog

Orlando - 100-84 (+16) Win w/o Dog, 97-89 (+8) Win w/ Dog

Cleveland - 109-89 (+ 20) w/o Dog, 96-91 (+5) Win w/ Dog

Five wins without Robinson

VS.

Three losses & two tighter wins with Robinson.

----

One more thing,

In games lost at home to EC playoff teams w/Dog:

1. Boston, lost by 10

2. Detroit, lost by 4

3. New Jersey, lost by 7

4. Philadelphia, lost by 21

When you consider that we beat New Jersey AND played better vs. Detroit WITHOUT BD, your argument falls through.

In games lost at home to WC playoff teams w/ Dog:

1. Minnesota, lost by 10

2. Phoenix, lost by 14

3. Dallas, lost by 18

4. Portland, lost by 2 (OT)

5. LAL, lost by 17

With the exception of Portland, none of the games were remotely close. We may have played "better teams," but we lost pretty badly in the process.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

'm not sure what point you are trying to make by pointing this out b/c it's a great argument FOR trading Big Dog. Why pay a guy $10.7M next year when you have just as good a chance of winning with Ira "CBA" Newble? Trade Dog for role players that will increase your chances of winning on the road.

---

Here you give two illogical conclusions.

We are in agreement that had Big Dog Played, then we would have probably won because it's the same competition that big Dog faced...

However, Big Dog also played against Better competition and won. Here, I'm talking about San Antonio, Sacramento, and Philly.

The second illogical statement you make is get a role player in trade for big Dog and increase your chances of winning on the road? That deserves a HUH? With Ty Corbin Jr subbing for Big Dog we were 1-4 on the road. That 1 win was against a Slumping Washington team that was just ousted from the playoffs. Isn't Ty Corbin Jr. a role player?

The last thing you are forgetting is that this team has also played well when SAR was out of the lineup. Does that Mean that SAR is the problem? God NO. What it all means is that we have chemistry problems. Chemistry problems go away with Trust and Role players. It's just as easy to point the finger of blame at JT. It's been 4 yrs now... He's still not a playmaker. He wants lots of money... And his is the only contract of our big Player that is up for Renewal. So my rebuttal is this... Do you think if we traded JT For Miller and followed that up with signing a three point shooter that we would be better?

Do you think that if we went after a FA who can handle the ball like Antonio Daniels and played him as SG... Maybe a SNT using Nazr that we would be better.

Our team has far too many things wrong to just point the finger at Big Dog, who is an exceptional Scorer and rebounder at SF... He's no Ken Norman.

[mrhonline]

In reply to:

---

We are in agreement that had Big Dog Played, then we would have probably won because it's the same competition that big Dog faced...

In reply to:

---

Nope. Not what I said. I showed you five games to prove the exact opposite. Sure, they Hawks won a few tough games with Dog, but not once did they put together a consistent streak of wins vs. tough (or easy ones for that matter) opponents with him in the lineup. They did manage to win ALL eight home games with him NOT in the lineup.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

BTW, we were 8-28 with Dog on the road - hard to play much worse.

Road games:

1. Detroit - 102-99 (-3) loss w/o Dog, 91-80 (-11) loss w/ Dog

2. Milwaukee - 97-88 (-9) loss w/o Dog, 120-93 (-37) loss w/Dog

3. New Orleans - 92-77 (-15) loss w/o Dog, 106-94 (-12) loss w/ Dog

4. Boston - 86-66 (-20) loss w/o Dog, 105-98 (-7) loss w/ Dog

So the Hawks played better vs. two teams without Dog and better with him vs. two other teams. Not exactly conclusive evidence that they played better on the road with him, is there?

[Hawksman]

There is no question that Big Dog needs to go. We have and I mean have to resign Glover and Newble, along with JT. This should be our starting lineup.....

PG: Jason Terry

SG: Dion Glover

SF: Ira Newble

PF: Shareef Abdur-Rahim

C: Theo Ratliff

We have three defenders in Ira, Glover, and Theo and 3 good scorers in Glover, Terry, and Reef and at times Theo can light it up for a center. Ira can also be good on the offensive end.

[Guest]

all depends on what Glover wants. But his one healthy season out of four isn't reason to overpay for him...

[Guest Walter]

Good grief, the only thing more obvious than "Glenn Robinson must go" after that display of statsmanship is that Diesel will not only show his ass, he'll kiss it too.

To stare those stats in the face and claim that they justify keeping a $10 million dollar player who makes the team 8 PPG worse(!) and trading JT (the scapegoat who wins at a 67% clip without Boss Hog) or Theo (the other scapegoat when scapegoat one is so easily dismissed who also wins at a 67% clip without Boss Hog) is worse than lieing. I feel dirty and dirtier still knowing that Diesel probably doesn't feel a thing having wrongly accused JT, Theo, and even SAR earlier in his apologist stance for Big Hog and to save his own ass at the team's expense.

W

[Diesel]

http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/showflat....;o=14#Post25371

Try reading that thread again.

Or maybe you can make up some more lies to try to make a point for yourself?