"Fools Gold"

[Guest Walter]

Woodson's comments about "fools gold" apply best to many of the fan's notion's of this team's capacity. If I'm wrong correct me, but since BK became GM never has ANYONE at HS including myself UNDERestimated the win total of the Atlanta Hawks!?! There are some who like me OVERestimate their win total LESS THAN others, but never has anyone UNDERestimated it?

Year in and year out I read about 38, 40, 42, 44, even 50 (usually a year removed) wins and year in and year out we fall WELL short. This year we are on pace for 34 wins despite the weakest EC I can ever remember and the fortune of playing many teams without their top player(s). Even I'm disappointed in the Hawks this year and I predicted the current 34 win pace we are on. We as HS Hawk fans are batting .000 when it comes to being realistic about this team's capacity. It is many years overdue time for a reality check and EVERYBODY needs to have one.

Certainly Woody loses more games than he wins for us, but my fear is this...Just as people wanted to suggest that Mike Bibby was the answer for us (he's not), people will want to suggest that a new coach is the answer for us (answer for what?). I feel the problem goes much deeper.

Mike Bibby brings some things we didn't have prior but Mike Bibby is no longer a game changer overall. Defensively he is a liability, offensively he is a good fit for us particularly with his shooting, but he is not a pure Pg, is on the decline at his age and the wear and tear his relatively long pro career has had on him, and he's AT BEST stop-gap at his $14.5 mil cost and age. This team needs MUCH more. I was of the mind that even a player like Gasol (certainly far more valuable than Bibby), while one of our best shots, would likely not be enough to significantly improve this team and that is about all we could hope for.

While a new coach might make the playoffs with this roster, we simply are not a team designed for today's NBA game nor, and more importantly, are we talented enough to contend. I pointed out that last year the top 2 players on the top 10 teams were all better than our top 2 players. In fact, the top 2 players on the top 15 teams were all better than us. It's for this reason I suggested that we seek out a potential superstar, mismatch advantage in Yi over Horford. Whether or not it would have worked out over the next 3 years will be determined, but as we stand, our two best starters are even worse this year.

Atlanta Hawks' top two player (JJ/JS) Roland Rating for 2008 = +5.35

Average of the top 2 starter Roland Ratings for the league's top 10 teams in 2008

Eastern Conference

Boston = +10.75

Toronto = +7.9

Detroit = +9.7

Cleveland = +11.1

Orlando = +8.85

AVG = +9.66

Western Conference

Houston = +6.3

LA Lakers = +11.7

Pheonix = +9.65

SA = +11.05

New Orleans = +10.05

AVG = +9.75

Total top 10 team's AVG Roland Rating averages for their top 2 players= +9.705

Remaining winning teams

Dallas = +10.35

Denver = +6.95

Utah = +4.4 - but they have SEVEN players with positive Roland Ratings!

Portland = +3.55

GS = +6.05

AVG = +6.26

Remaining teams with better winning percentages than us

Philadelphia = 2.95

NJ = 5.2 (Kidd counted for NJ not Dallas)

Washington = +9.95

SAC = +6.4

AVG = +6.125

Remaining teams...ALL with worse winning percentages than us

NY = +3.5

Milwaulkee = +4.15

Char = +4.1

Miami = +5.05 (Shaq counted for Miami not Pheonix)

Seattle = +.55 (Wilcox and Watson)

Minny = +2.15

LAC = +5.5

Memphis = +5.4 (Gasol counted for Memphis not LA)

AVG = +3.8

Let me summarize this for the Hawk fans that think we are too talented to have this poor of a winning percentage...

Our top 2 player's Roland Ratings are...

1) Considerably worse than the EACH AND EVERY ONE OF A-N-D the AVERAGE OF the top two player's Roland Ratings on the top 5 teams in the EC, WC, and the top 10 teams overall!

2) Worse than the AVERAGE OF the top two player's Roland Ratings of all teams with winning records.

3) Worse than the AVERAGE OF the top two player's Roland Ratings of all teams with better records than ourselves.

4) Worse than the average of the top two player's Roland Ratings of 14 of the league's top 16 teams.

In short, we are not that talented! In much the same way we as HSers consistently overestimate our team's likely win total prior to the start of each season, we HSers overestimate our team's level of TALENT! At best, like last year, we have middle of the pack TALENT as represented by our top two players (we only have 4 with positive ratings).

Put another way...

You cannot EXPECT to be a better than we are in this league of superstars and mismatch advantages when all the teams better than we are have better superstars and mismatches!

You cannot EXPECT to have a winning record in this league of superstars and mismatch advantages when all the teams with winning records have better superstars and mismatches!

You cannot EXPECT to contend (top 10 team) in this league of superstar and mismatch advantages when all the contenders have SIGNIFICANTLY better superstar and mismatches!

We are not THAT talented. This isn't the entirety of the problem, but it is the part most overlooked. We are also lacking many skill-sets, the most important center position, and, yes, coaching, but we most often rationalize this with "we've got the talent". While this may be hope reassuring. It is as accurate as our win/loss predictions are conservative. We are NOT that talented.

Lastly, my other concern is that we can much more likely expect to become less talented. With no 1st rd pick this year and with JC much more likely to go elsewhere, due to our extremely high cap figure for the other 9 remaining guaranteed players regardless of what the ASG wants you to believe, we are more likely to become less talented.

So to summarize, while the Pg position and coaching (and the center position and other skill sets...) were problems and by next year may be (at least somewhat) addressed, it is the notion of talent, which many at HS inaccurately characterize as "enough" or "significant", that is our greatest impediment to being better, winning, and especially contending. Even if we could fix all our other problems we do not have the talent. Of course, we cannot hope to fix the problems having spent $14.5 million on Bibby, but even if we could, TALENT is our greatest obstacle and it appears it will only become even more of an obstacle without a 1st rder and with JC likely to leave.

The solution(s)?

First, we need a new GM to evaluate this team and a new coach to evaluate it under. New ownership is an impossible dream.

Second, we need to determine whether we need to demolish and rebuild (see "nuclear option" of another poster) or retool. This should be determined by whether we can get at least one better top player, preferably one that isn't a forward, without losing both JS and JJ. The time to do this is next year before the trade deadline, utilizing Mike Bibby's contract and a young prospect (or two). If we cannot get said player by then utilizing the massive expiring contract leverage, then we cannot expect to have a bargaining chip like that for some time and should SERIOUSLY consider the "nuclear option". That too also depends somewhat on the draft classes of 2009 and 2010.

Everyone here needs to reevaluate the Atlanta Hawks as they see them. We have all been 100% wrong about their won/loss record for the past 4-5 years, all erring in favor of OVERestimating the Hawks. The same is true about OVERestimating their talent. Without accepting this, we cannot make the changes necessary in order to contend. We won't even be able to make marginal moves like the move for Mike Bibby given our cap situation so this is going to take bold, creative action to extract ourselves from the lesser mediocrity we are aimed towards and our talent has become.

W

[AtLaS]

Well Horford and Smith will still improve much further, and I think Acie will get alot better when he actually gets a chance. I also don't see JJ shooting this poorly for the rest of his career. Marvin I'm not so hopeful for, and that's why I'd love to trade him for the right deal.

Regardless, we definitely DO need some upgrades if we want to be a top team, and it starts with getting a new GM which will in turn get us a new coach. This team has the potential to be a Detroit like team with pretty good players at every position (only b/c of BK screwups, he's passed up all of our star opportunities), not a team with 2 stars and a bunch of role players.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Well Horford and Smith will still improve much further

Horford would have to improve MUCH further to even be remotely as good as JS. Horford has a -2.4 Roland Rating. He's a good rebounder for his size, but he's simply not great at anything and is certainly not a potential superstar (unless, you again wish to OVER-value yet another Hawk). JS, while very good, is more of a complimentary star and no more than a 3rd option preferably on offense.

Quote:

---

I think Acie will get alot better when he actually gets a chance.

He'll never be a superstar or mismatch advantage. Come on.

Quote:

---

I also don't see JJ shooting this poorly for the rest of his career.

He shot very well last year but still we couldn't smell the top 15 with our top two players. At some point you have to STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR OUR TALENT!

This is all simply more of the same "we are very talented, I swear, despite the evidence to the contrary, we are, believe me even if I consistently OVERestimate the team's winning percentage by 10 games I'm not OVERestimating its talent." The fact is that in a league that favors superstars and mismatch advantages we have neither and talent-wise the average of teams merely better than us, with winning records, and the top 10 teams (5 from each conference) all have more or significantly more talent amongst their top two players.

Quote:

---

Regardless, we definitely DO need some upgrades if we want to be a top team, and it starts with getting a new GM which will in turn get us a new coach. This team has the potential to be a Detroit like team with pretty good players at every position (only b/c of BK screwups, he's passed up all of our star opportunities), not a team with 2 stars and a bunch of role players.

This team doesn't have the potential to be a Detroit-type team, but even if it did, that is NOT a likely means to being a contender in the NBA. The notion that we can be "the next Detroit" is merely another means to deluding one's self as a HS Hawk fan. First, it's we'll win 40 games when we win 30 and 42 games when we win 34. Next it's "we're talented enough if only we had a Pg". Next it's "we're talented enough if only we had a coach". Next it's "we may not be talented enough amongst our top two players but neither is Detroit" EVEN WHEN Detroit's top two players ARE significantly more productive (+9.7) than JS/JJ (+5.35) and we do not compare otherwise.

W

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Horford would have to improve MUCH further to even be remotely as good as JS. Horford has a -2.4 Roland Rating. He's a good rebounder for his size, but he's simply not great at anything and is certainly not a potential superstar

Sorry, but I have alot of faith in a rookie who is essentially averaging a double double. I have no doubt he will improve a lot further. There isn't much blind hope in that, and that isn't a blind Hawk fan speaking, Horford is uniformly seen around the league as a soon to be good future big man who is already pretty good.

Quote:

---

He'll never be a superstar or mismatch advantage. Come on.

I'm saying that Acie will get alot better, who said he'd be a superstar? Most top teams don't have a superstar at PG.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I also don't see JJ shooting this poorly for the rest of his career.

He shot very well last year but still we couldn't smell the top 15 with our top two players. At some point you have to STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR OUR TALENT!

Yeah, and last season Smith wasn't as good as he is this year, and JJ is worse.

Quote:

---

This team doesn't have the potential to be a Detroit-type team, but even if it did, that is NOT a likely means to being a contender in the NBA. The notion that we can be "the next Detroit" is merely another means to deluding one's self as a HS Hawk fan. First, it's we'll win 40 games when we win 30 and 42 games when we win 34. Next it's "we're talented enough if only we had a Pg". Next it's "we're talented enough if only we had a coach". Next it's "we may not be talented enough amongst our top two players but neither is Detroit" EVEN WHEN Detroit's top two players ARE significantly more productive (+9.7) than JS/JJ (+5.35) and we do not compare otherwise.

I'm saying Detroit like in that we'd be a pretty good team that had good players at all positions. I never said we'd be as good as Detroit, BK has screwed that up too bad. After seeing what LAL gave up for Gasol, it pisses me off that BK was willing to trade for Bibby and not Gasol when they make roughly the same money.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Sorry, but I have alot of faith in a rookie who is essentially averaging a double double. I have no doubt he will improve a lot further. There isn't much blind hope in that, and that isn't a blind Hawk fan speaking, Horford is uniformly seen around the league as a soon to be good future big man who is already pretty good.

...and who plays the same position as JS. Horford is not a superstar in this league. You do know this, don't you. Potentially good? Yes. But he's no superstar.

Quote:

---

I'm saying that Acie will get alot better, who said he'd be a superstar? Most top teams don't have a superstar at PG.

I'm saying that without a superstar Acie doesn't matter and the league's evidence proves it. All the top ten team's top 2 player's Roland Ratings are nearly TWICE as high as those of JS/JJ. So no matter how good Acie gets, we still do not have the TALENT to contend and perhaps not the talent to win (given the average Roland Rating of winning team's top 2 players is also greater than JS/JJ).

Quote:

---

Yeah, and last season Smith wasn't as good as he is this year, and JJ is worse.

Even if we had the JJ of last season and the JS of this season they would not compare to the top 2 players of ANY of the leagues top 10 teams (5 ED, 5 WC)! You do realize this, don't you.

Quote:

---

I'm saying Detroit like in that we'd be a pretty good team that had good players at all positions. I never said we'd be as good as Detroit, BK has screwed that up too bad. After seeing what LAL gave up for Gasol, it pisses me off that BK was willing to trade for Bibby and not Gasol when they make roughly the same money.

But that's just it. Detroit, despite the notion that they are "a team of five guys", is a team with two players producing FAR GREATER than our top two guys are producing. Yes, Detroit is a TEAM but they also have superstars in terms of production. We don't and we aren't otherwise a very good team.

W

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

...and who plays the same position as JS.

Aren't you one of the advocates for JS at the 3?

Quote:

---

I'm saying that without a superstar Acie doesn't matter and the league's evidence proves it. All the top ten team's top 2 player's Roland Ratings are nearly TWICE as high as those of JS/JJ. So no matter how good Acie gets, we still do not have the TALENT to contend and perhaps not the talent to win (given the average Roland Rating of winning team's top 2 players is also greater than JS/JJ).

Yes, and I agree that we need to upgrade our talent. I have said that a ton of times. Marvin/Childress would've made great trading pieces but we just won't make any moves except smaller insignificant ones.

BTW, about the top 2 players on a team with Roland ratings. Is it consistent with the worst offensive teams in the league? We are a TERRIBLE offensive team, it's not a coincidence that the Roland ratings are this low. What about the other teams that are at the bottom, are their top 2 players also at the bottom? There are many factors that contribute to our lack of offense, one being the lack of PG (until recently) and Woodson's dumb coaching style.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

...and who plays the same position as JS.

Aren't you one of the advocates for JS at the 3?

Quote:

---

I'm saying that without a superstar Acie doesn't matter and the league's evidence proves it. All the top ten team's top 2 player's Roland Ratings are nearly TWICE as high as those of JS/JJ. So no matter how good Acie gets, we still do not have the TALENT to contend and perhaps not the talent to win (given the average Roland Rating of winning team's top 2 players is also greater than JS/JJ).

Yes, and I agree that we need to upgrade our talent. I have said that a ton of times. Marvin/Childress would've made great trading pieces but we just won't make any moves except smaller insignificant ones.

BTW, about the top 2 players on a team with Roland ratings. Is it consistent with the worst offensive teams in the league? We are a TERRIBLE offensive team, it's not a coincidence that the Roland ratings are this low.

Roland ratings reflect both offense and defense.

W

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Roland ratings reflect both offense and defense.

This is the definition of Roland Rating which is highly skewed in the way that you have been using it. It's basically a +/- stat which is HORRIBLY skewed anyway.

This rating isn't an absolute measure of a player's ability, but it does represent how successful a player is with a given team. In general the player with the best Roland Rating on a team is the difference maker (exclude the guys who play a statistically insignificant number of minutes). When the top guy is on the floor the team performs at a much higher level.

These ratings represent a player's value to a particular team and are not intended to be an accurate gauge of the ability and talent of the player away from the specific team.

[AtLaS]

Just so you know, players like Kidd (+2.9), Carmelo (+3.3), Deron (+3.4), Wade (+6.4), Roy (+4.5), Kevin Martin (+4.7), Redd (+6.3), Deng (+1.1), Ray Allen (+2.3), Tmac (+6.3), Yao (+6.3), Jermaine (+0.4), Iggy (+3.6), Arenas (+2.4) ALL don't have impressive Roland Ratings. It's a skewed stat and definitely not an end all means of evaluating a player. I guess those players just aren't talented enough?

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

Just so you know, players like Kidd (+2.9), Carmelo (+3.3), Deron (+3.4), Wade (+6.4), Roy (+4.5), Kevin Martin (+4.7), Redd (+6.3), Deng (+1.1), Ray Allen (+2.3), Tmac (+6.3), Yao (+6.3), Jermaine (+0.4), Iggy (+3.6), Arenas (+2.4) ALL don't have impressive Roland Ratings. It's a skewed stat and definitely not an end all means of evaluating a player. I guess those players just aren't talented enough?

*crickets*

Thank God someone disproved his ranting about our top two players...blah...blah...blah... crap. Hopefully I won't have to read the the words "Roland Rating" in another post of his. It's quite annoying. Although I should know better.

[DrReality]

Fool me onec . . . shame on you. Fool me twice . . . . . shame on me. I no longer count myself to be one of the fools.

As I've said before it's like the fairy tale where the king is standing in his underwear. No illusions about that.

[Guest Walter]

The top ten team's top 2 players had an AVERAGE Roland Rating of 9.7. That means in many cases a player with a +4 Roland Rating was paired with a 14 Roland Rating or a +6 was paired with a +12 Roland Rating. Furthermore, many of the players you mention are either well past their prime (Kidd, Ray Allen), hype (Ray Allen), defensively challenged (Carmelo Anthony), having the worst season of their career (Wade), injured or coming off injury (O'Neal, Wade, Arenas), or (still) very good as their ratings indicate (Yao @ 6.3, Tmac @ 6.3, Redd @ 6.3, Wade @ 6.4).

There is NO ARGUING with the fact that ALL the NBA'S TOP TEN TEAM'S have two players that statistically DOMINATE the Hawks, last year AND this year. None! Yes, injured, aged if not ancient, hyped, defensively challenged, players aren't as likely to make it amongst the list of the league's most all-around productive no matter what their names are. However, even if we pair JJ's best (2006-2007) year with JS's best (2007-2008) year (which would suggest that they aren't injured, aged, ancient, hyped, defensively challenged), their average falls short of the league's top 10 team's top two players. If you want to swim with the big fish you can't be a bunch of guppies! There is similarly little use arguing that this is a league favoring the superstar and mismatch advantage.

Rather than people defending their own chronic, significant OVERestimation of this teams win total year in and year out perhaps people should accept that they are OVERestimating the team PERIOD. Similarly, rather than attempt to defend the fact that the top two starter Roland Rating average of the top 10 teams, the remaining teams with a winning record, or even the remaining teams with records merely better than ours all average BETTER THAN the top two players for the Atlanta Hawks, people should accept the [censored] obvious conclusion. We aren't nearly as talented as we would like to think just as we aren't nearly as good as we predict!

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Thank God someone disproved his ranting about our top two players...blah...blah...blah... crap. Hopefully I won't have to read the the words "Roland Rating" in another post of his. It's quite annoying. Although I should know better.

That's a funny little pathetic comeback DSinner. Emotionally driven drivel. You don't like me, fine. I couldn't give a d@mn about you. But, you simply do not address a single point of the argument. I guess you have no point except ad hominem bullshit.

Regardless, and I'll make this simple, name me a HSer that has UNDERestimated the Hawks' win total for the last for years. Just ONE. If you can I will accept that HSers aren't universally better at OVERestimating the Hawks and their talent. However, if over the last 2-3 years, a vast majority, perhaps even EACH and EVERY HSer including myself has OVERestimated the Hawks' win total for that year, then a reasonable man, a betting man can only assume that we too as a whole similarly OVERestimate our talent especially in the face of statistically overwhelming evidence that our top two players are not nearly (+5.35 vs +9.7) as talented at the league's top ten team's such players.

I will also offer you a chance to prove yourself in another means. If you don't like the Roland Rating, fine pick ANY overall statistic. PER, TENDEX per48, other. I'll do the work for you if you're too lazy. Just name your "method". Certainly, if we are so talented then it will demonstrate itself somewhere and not just in the universally OVERestimating minds of HSers.

Please, do something besides be a dumbass. Offer something of substance please. I've offered two opportunities to show up.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Fool me onec . . . shame on you. Fool me twice . . . . . shame on me. I no longer count myself to be one of the fools.

As I've said before it's like the fairy tale where the king is standing in his underwear. No illusions about that.

...but it's time we woke up. We as a forum are on average 5-10 games off what the Hawks actually win and I believe we are similarly far off in terms of our top player's and the team's talent. The sooner we wake up, the sooner we can do something about it. Moves like getting Bibby aren't bad, but they don't address the real problem. Moves like getting Gasol might have, but even they might not. This pig may not need lipstick (Bibby or a new coach), it may only be good for bacon (rebuild or heavy retooling).

W

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

The top ten team's top 2 players had an AVERAGE Roland Rating of 9.7.

I guess Utah and Houston aren't top 10 teams.

Quote:

---

That means in many cases a player with a +4 Roland Rating was paired with a 14 Roland Rating or a +6 was paired with a +12 Roland Rating. Furthermore, many of the players you mention are either well past their prime (Kidd, Ray Allen), hype (Ray Allen), defensively challenged (Carmelo Anthony), having the worst season of their career (Wade),

If you don't think that Carmelo and Wade are star players (even with Wade's season this year), than I honestly don't know what to tell you. Even if Wade's numbers are down, he's still a TOP player in this league, and his numbers indicate that.

Quote:

---

There is NO ARGUING with the fact that ALL the NBA'S TOP TEN TEAM'S have two players that statistically DOMINATE the Hawks, last year AND this year.

Of course they do. Even with our predictions, NOONE expected us to be a top 10 team, it's just not possible considering how young we are. Portland doesn't have good Roland ratings either, I guess they aren't a potential top team?

BTW don't confuse me with defending BK at all, I've gone on record saying that I'd rather have Isiah. But that doesn't mean we don't have a ton of talent, albeit poorly constructed.

Quote:

---

We aren't nearly as talented as we would like to think just as we aren't nearly as good as we predict!

I agree, we definitely need to add another top player, we definitely need to make a big trade, but saying that this team doesn't have talent is rediculous. The team is definitely poorly constructed, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't have talent. What is the average age of all of those top 10 teams (8 out of 10, you were wrong there) top 2 players? GUARANTEE they are WAY older and more experienced than our top 2.

BTW why didn't you say anything about Deron, Roy, and Kevin Martin's Roland ratings?

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

name me a HSer that has UNDERestimated the Hawks' win total for the last for years. Just ONE.

Well I don't know his exact prediction, but I'm sure Hotlanta qualifies here. If I'm not mistaken TroyMcclure probably did also.

[thefloydian]

I will agree that in order to be a "contender" we will have to pull off some sort of minor miracle. It's just not going to happen anytime soon with the current contracts. That isn't really the issue for me, though. The East is so bad, it would be nice if this team would just play to its full potential. If they did, they could be at least as good as a team like Orlando.

I'd like to see a contender, but I'm realistic.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I guess Utah and Houston aren't top 10 teams.

What's the pillepalle for except to demonstrate you didn't read the initial post of this thread. Neither Utah or Houston are top 10 teams when you take 5 from each conference as I did.

Quote:

---

If you don't think that Carmelo and Wade are star players (even with Wade's season this year), than I honestly don't know what to tell you. Even if Wade's numbers are down, he's still a TOP player in this league, and his numbers indicate that.

Uh, hello, anyone there....Regarding Wade, 1) Wade's +6.3 Roland Rating is higher than either of out top two player's Roland Ratings so yes, even in a bad year coming off injury, Wade is a star player GREATER THAN our star players, 2) This is BY FAR Wade's worst year so to think he WAS a star player and WILL BE a star player if he fully recovers from his shoulder and knee injuries and surgeries is considerably different that HOPING that players that can't best Wade's production during his worst year will do so by more than +3.4 Roland Rating's points on average, and 3) Miami is the worst team in the league so let's not insist Wade is a mega-superstar THIS YEAR when his team is god awful.

Quote:

---

Of course they do. Even with our predictions, NOONE expected us to be a top 10 team, it's just not possible considering how young we are. Portland doesn't have good Roland ratings either, I guess they aren't a potential top team?

While we would like to think our young players will get better (and not just more minutes and the inflated stats that come with that), for the most part their primary young players have considerably less professional experience and are on average better producers at this stage in their professional careers. Portland is still 31-30 and without Oden or another superstar upgrade I would not like their contention (top 10 team) chances in the future.

Quote:

---

I agree, we definitely need to add another top player, we definitely need to make a big trade, but saying that this team doesn't have talent is rediculous.

I never said it didn't have talent. I said that the talent of it's top two players is ON AVERAGE less than the talent of the league's top 10 team's top 2 players, the REMAINING winning team's top 2 players, and EVEN the remaining top two players on teams with better records than us! There are a few teams with lesser top two players. Utah and Portland, both teams with winning records, and Philly and NJ (with Kidd), both teams with better records than us, are the ONLY such teams who do not have two players with better productivity than Josh Smith and JJ. Not a single top 10 team has a less productive duo. The point? Utah might have the best coach in the game. Portland is excellently designed. We aren't going to get the best coach in the league and even if better designed we likely won't be well designed. Even so, these teams are on the outside looking in despite their inspiring play.

Quote:

---

The team is definitely poorly constructed, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't have talent. What is the average age of all of those top 10 teams (8 out of 10, you were wrong there) top 2 players? GUARANTEE they are WAY older and more experienced than our top 2.

Guarantee, huh? JJ and JS average out to 4.5 years of NBA experience.

Toronto's Calderon and Bosh average 3 years of NBA experience. Paul and West similarly average 3 year's of NBA experience. Could it be that players like Bosh and Paul are simply much MUCH more talented than either JJ or JS? Orlando and Cleveland aren't far off with 6 and 6.5 years of NBA experience.

Quote:

---

BTW why didn't you say anything about Deron, Roy, and Kevin Martin's Roland ratings?

There isn't anything wrong with their Roland Ratings. In fact, they are very good. However, they do not constitute the productivity of superstars. While their teams aren't bad, they aren't great either. Utah has teh best coach in basketball so that helps them. Most importantly, I'm not faulting ANY player here. I'm simply indicating that we are not as talented AS WE (here at HS, especially) THINK WE ARE. Perhaps they can appreciate the fact better than you can regarding the LEVEL of talent on their teams.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

name me a HSer that has UNDERestimated the Hawks' win total for the last for years. Just ONE.

Well I don't know his exact prediction, but I'm sure Hotlanta qualifies here. If I'm not mistaken TroyMcclure probably did also.

Ask them then. Don't assume. Even I predicted 34 wins last year.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Roland ratings reflect both offense and defense.

This is the definition of Roland Rating which is highly skewed in the way that you have been using it. It's basically a +/- stat which is HORRIBLY skewed anyway.

This rating isn't an absolute measure of a player's ability, but it does represent how successful a player is with a given team. In general the player with the best Roland Rating on a team is the difference maker (exclude the guys who play a statistically insignificant number of minutes). When the top guy is on the floor the team performs at a much higher level.

These ratings represent a player's value to a particular team and are not intended to be an accurate gauge of the ability and talent of the player away from the specific team.

Isn't this the key issue?

If it is a stat that is similar to +/-, it is a given that the top teams will have guys with high Roland averages because they win games. Isn't that why this is the case for Detroit even though they don't have a guy who could make an All-NBA team?

You can make Walter's argument without resorting to Roland rating (that the top teams all have better 1/2 guys than we do) but it is circular logic to make that argument if it is a plus, minus stat. While imperfect, per is a significantly better measure of individual value.