worst way to start out playoffs

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Cue Dolfan or northcyde for saying some of the following:

1) Man, and you call yourselves fans? We are in the playoffs!

2) It's all the players' fault

3) We didnt want to lose 3 games in a row. That's why the bench didnt get more PT

4. Acie Law, Solo, and J Rich dont deserve more than 2:45 mins of PT right now. 2:45 should be enough.

5. Now is not the time to be developing players

Oh wait, and my fave...

6. Everyone just needs to CALM DOWN!

In 3...2...1...

I'm glad we made the playoffs. Being the first hawk fan in 3 years to UNDERestimate their win total (I predicted 34), it still isn't surprising that they made the playoffs after looking at how awful the EC has become. I didn't think it could get any worse. If this means Woody comes back we will regret. Otherwise, I can't get too excited about it because it's still a fatally flawed rebuild. Hoping for the best, realizing the best will remain (possibly lesser) mediocre.

W

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Really? Cause had we won 4 more games, we'd be 41-41. I am confused.

If they had 4 more games to play and won all of them they would be 41-45 which is still a losing record.

Assume it is the beginning of the season and the Hawks record is 10-10. they win a game tonight to go 11-10. What is their record now?

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

You can't calculate the end of the season record like that. There are 82 games. A .500 record would be 41-41, therefore the Hawaks are 4 games below .500 for the season (41-37=4).

But the sentiment that this team is not a winning team is correct. We are a sub-.500 team and in the playoffs. I am happy that the team made it by winning some games down the stretch, but the fact remains there is a long way to go to get this club in contention for an NBA title- and that MUST be the goal.

----To the general board not Ex in particular------

Woodson again showed why he is a bad head coach. Woody coaches by emotion and feel. He has no long-term strategies. This is why he plays his trusted players to death on a nightly basis. Good coaches recognize that players have to rest AND the bench has to be developed and kept sharp. If the bench didn't matter, as some here suggest, playoff teams wouldn't make trades to get depth on the bench. Boston and LA won so many titles in the 80s because they had a bench that went 9-11 players deep. Detroit's winning teams also had several guys that came off the bench and played important minutes.

As Sekou says, it was inexusable that Woodson had the starters playing in the last half of last night's game. The bench should have been given the minutes. Woodson just doesn't understand how to manage and that is why he needs to be replaced.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You can't calculate the end of the season record like that. There are 82 games. A .500 record would be 41-41, therefore the Hawaks are 4 games below .500 for the season (41-37=4).

I don't see the distinction between the end of the season and the middle of the season.

if the season was still going on they would have to win 8 straight games to get to .500.

Basically you are saying that the Hawks were 7 games below .500 before the Miami game but 4 games under .500 after the Miami game, which they lost. That doesn't make sense.

I notice you didn't answer this question.

Quote:

---

Assume it is the beginning of the season and the Hawks record is 10-10. they win a game tonight to go 11-10. What is their record now?

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

So lets put it another way. What was the Hawks record before the Miami game?

A) They were 7 games under .500

B) They were 3 1/2 games under .500

[frosgrim]

You calculate end of season based on the total number of games.

There are 82 games in the NBA regular season.

To win half of those games, means you win 41.

The Hawks won 37 games

41-37=4

That is the formula, as there is no other way to talk about it since the number of games is fixed. Your method assumes there are an unlimited number of games.

What it comes down to in the end is that the Hawks won 45% of their games (37/82). This number should have been closer to 50% IMO with the talent on the team this year.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

So lets put it another way. What was the Hawks record before the Miami game?

A) They were 7 games under .500

B) They were 3 1/2 games under .500

???

[JackB1]

Quote:

---

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

So lets put it another way. What was the Hawks record before the Miami game?

A) They were 7 games under .500

B) They were 3 1/2 games under .500

Let me end this silly argument you two are having. You are talking about 2 different ways of looking at the record.

For example...if we are 44-50, people will say that you are "6 games below .500". That means if you win your next 6 games, you will be 50-50 or at .500.

On the other hand...when we are 44-50, if you say had we won 3 past games instead of losing them, we would also be at .500 or 47-47. But that DOESN'T MEAN we are '3 games below .500" at that point.

You guys are talking about 2 different things...., but the generally accepted way of calling

a 44-50 record is "6 Games Below .500".

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Really? Cause had we won 4 more games, we'd be 41-41. I am confused.

If they had 4 more games to play and won all of them they would be 41-45 which is still a losing record.

Assume it is the beginning of the season and the Hawks record is 10-10. they win a game tonight to go 11-10. What is their record now?

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

In the standings if the first place team in the division had a 12-8 record, the Hawks would be 2 games behind at 10-10.

If they won their next game, they would be 11-10 which would be 1 1/2 games behind the 12-8 division leaders.

In terms of standings, that is a 1/2 game.

I agree this is all about semantics, though, since everyone understands what everyone else is talking about.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Cue Dolfan or northcyde for saying some of the following:

1) Man, and you call yourselves fans? We are in the playoffs!

2) It's all the players' fault

3) We didnt want to lose 3 games in a row. That's why the bench didnt get more PT

4. Acie Law, Solo, and J Rich dont deserve more than 2:45 mins of PT right now. 2:45 should be enough.

5. Now is not the time to be developing players

Oh wait, and my fave...

6. Everyone just needs to CALM DOWN!

In 3...2...1...

1) nope

2) Partially, but I can see why they really weren't into this game. JJ only took 6 shots. That wouldn't happen in a regular game.

3) The bench didn't get more PT, because Woody knows that he's not going to use those guys. To me, these last 2 games looked like an audition for Salim to crack the rotation and to see if Marvin can be a primary scorer with the 2nd unit with Bibby and JJ out of the game. That's why he's logged heavy minutes the past 2 games.

One of the things I've always said about Salim, is that he has the mentality of a go-to scorer, not a role-playing or spot-up shooter. He was pretty much the main offensive option when he was in the game, and shot the ball pretty well in that role. He's more of an old Earl Boykins "let me score by creating my own shot" type of player, than a Steve Kerr "let me catch and shoot when wide open" type of player.

LOL . . Woody is a lot smarter than some of you realize. If he is indeed seeing if Salim can be a primary scorer off the bench, it might change the dynamic a little vs Boston. We really couldn't experiment with him like that, when we were making the playoff push, because he's too streaky. But if he plays 10 - 12 minutes in a game, and we can get 8 - 12 points out of him, it'll give Boston just a little something else to think about.

4) Acie deserved more time, but Solo and J-Rich don't. Barring an emergency, J-Rich and Solo shouldn't play at all. And if Woody is planning on going with Salim over Acie, Acie won't play much either.

5) That's right. No developing should be taking place right now. Players who can make an impact on the game should be the only ones playing. Salim's two game totals of 30 points in 47 minutes is the type of production that can possibly impact a game. But he has to come into a game and immeadiately make shots. He can't start games 1 - 4 FG. He has to start them 3 - 4 FG, to justify him getting more PT.

6) Yep . . calm down. And I was right when I said that last week, because I knew Indy wouldn't be able to get it done. And there's no reason to stress even a little about last night's game, because we could've easily beat that team if guys played their usual roles. JJ could've easily hung 30 on the Heat, instead of opting to take 6 shots.

But there's obviously nothing I can type that can reduce the hysteria that some of you fans have. That's just what some of you do . . worry. The goal was to make the playoffs. We did that. Now we just have to view this series on a game by game basis.

I don't think there is anybody that thinks we can beat Boston in this series, so people just need to sit back and see what happens. People shouldn't be stressing about possible coaches to replace Woody, players who may or may not be leaving, or any other issue that has been discussed TO DEATH on this board. Just sit back and enjoy the fact that we're in the playoffs, and that you'll be able to see your favorite team on national TV.

No one thought the Nashville Predators could make their series vs Detroit interesting. The mighty Red Wings pretty much handled them the first 2 games of the series in Detroit. But when Nashville played them at home, they looked like a totally different team, and played their 2 best games of the year to tie that series at 2 - 2.

Now they play a PIVITOL Game 5 in Detroit. If Nashville can pull a miracle and steal that game, they'll have a chance to close the series at home. That would be the absolute best case scenario for that team. At the very least, they'll have a chance to extend the series to 7 games. When Golden St stole that early game vs Dallas in the playoffs last year, it changed the dynamic of that series.

I know you can't stop worrying, so I'll address this to the others:

Let's just see how this plays out. Because the one thing we do have going for us, is that JJ and Bibby haven't shot well vs Boston this year. If that trend continues, we'll probably get swept. If they're able to get it going, the series will get VERY interesting.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Really? Cause had we won 4 more games, we'd be 41-41. I am confused.

If they had 4 more games to play and won all of them they would be 41-45 which is still a losing record.

Assume it is the beginning of the season and the Hawks record is 10-10. they win a game tonight to go 11-10. What is their record now?

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

In the standings if the first place team in the division had a 12-8 record, the Hawks would be 2 games behind at 10-10.

If they won their next game, they would be 11-10 which would be 1 1/2 games behind the 12-8 division leaders.

In terms of standings, that is a 1/2 game.

I agree this is all about semantics, though, since everyone understands what everyone else is talking about.

That example has no relevance to the topic. We are discussing the Hawks record in relation to .500, not another team.

If the Hawks win a game they will always gain in relation to .500 but they will not gain on another team if the other team wins.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Really? Cause had we won 4 more games, we'd be 41-41. I am confused.

If they had 4 more games to play and won all of them they would be 41-45 which is still a losing record.

Assume it is the beginning of the season and the Hawks record is 10-10. they win a game tonight to go 11-10. What is their record now?

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

In the standings if the first place team in the division had a 12-8 record, the Hawks would be 2 games behind at 10-10.

If they won their next game, they would be 11-10 which would be 1 1/2 games behind the 12-8 division leaders.

In terms of standings, that is a 1/2 game.

I agree this is all about semantics, though, since everyone understands what everyone else is talking about.

That example has no relevance to the topic. We are discussing the Hawks record in relation to .500, not another team.

If the Hawks win a game they will always gain in relation to .500 but they will not gain on another team if the other team wins.

That is why I was comparing the Hawks to a team with a fixed record. A loss or a win = a 1/2 game change in the standings during the season.

Is a Hawks team with a 37-45 record 2 games worse than a Hawks team with a 36-44 record because they have one fewer win and one additional loss? That is all I am getting at. It is a matter of semantics. I personally go with the "# of losses that needed to be wins for the team to reach .500" for measuring how far we were under .500 and not the "how many additional wins would we need to reach .500" group. Both are valid as long as the assumptions are understood, though.

[macdaddy]

37-45 is 8 games under .500. Its just math.

You're saying that if we had won 4 more games we'd be at .500 so that makes us 4 games under .500 but that's wrong. You have to add 4 games to the win column and subtract 4 games from the loss column. That's why its 8 (4+4) games under. Mathmatically we would have to have won 4 more and lost 4 less.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

That is why I was comparing the Hawks to a team with a fixed record. A loss or a win = a 1/2 game change in the standings during the season.

It doesn't matter whether the record is fixed. Two games have to be played to gain a game on another team. One game needs to be played to gain a game on .500.

In your example if both teams win 5 straight games that puts the Hawks record at 15-10 but they haven't gained any ground. But they are 5 games over .500. If they then lose 5 games they will be back at .500.

Are you trying to say a 15-10 record is 2.5 games over .500?

I have never heard anyone say their team is 1/2 game below .500, 2 1/2 games above .500, etc.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That is why I was comparing the Hawks to a team with a fixed record. A loss or a win = a 1/2 game change in the standings during the season.

It doesn't matter whether the record is fixed. Two games have to be played to gain a game on another team. One game needs to be played to gain a game on .500.

In your example if both teams win 5 straight games that puts the Hawks record at 15-10 but they haven't gained any ground. But they are 5 games over .500. If they then lose 5 games they will be back at .500.

I have never heard anyone say their team is 1/2 game below .500, 2 1/2 games above .500, etc.

That is fine. I think that is a valid way of counting. I just prefer looking at how many losses needed to be wins when looking back at a season rather than how many additional wins would need to be gotten after the season to reach .500. PotatO, PotAto.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A) 1 game over .500

B) 1/2 game over .500

So lets put it another way. What was the Hawks record before the Miami game?

A) They were 7 games under .500

B) They were 3 1/2 games under .500

Let me end this silly argument you two are having. You are talking about 2 different ways of looking at the record.

For example...if we are 44-50, people will say that you are "6 games below .500". That means if you win your next 6 games, you will be 50-50 or at .500.

On the other hand...when we are 44-50, if you say had we won 3 past games instead of losing them, we would also be at .500 or 47-47. But that DOESN'T MEAN we are '3 games below .500" at that point.

You guys are talking about 2 different things...., but the generally accepted way of calling

a 44-50 record is "6 Games Below .500".

Good breakdown. When using record for one team only... you can say that the hawks are, for example, "6 games under .500 ", but if you count the addition team in the mix, you have to account for them too.

If the Hawks are 44-50, then they are 6 games under .500 because they, and they alone, need to win 6 more games to be .500. However, if you count backwards and thought that they are only 3 games back because if they win the last three games, they will be at .500... this is a wrong way to think due to the fact that if you count backwards, you have to take the other team into considerations.

So then, in this example the hawks would be "3 games back from where they were three games ago", but "6 games back of .500"

[exodus]

no matter how you look at it 37 wins in a weak conference is lame and certainly below what i expected. I predicted 42 wins in preseason so obviously i was way off.

Given the facts that the Hawks have no draft picks and no cap space it looks like a very long road to becoming a good team (my definition of a good team is 50 wins).

Therefore my reaction to making the playoffs is somewhat muted.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

LOL . . Woody is a lot

dumber

than

I

realize. If he is indeed seeing if Salim can be a primary scorer off the bench, it might change the dynamic a little vs Boston.

corrected

He has had Salim for 3 years and now, two games before the playoffs, he decides to let Salim audition as the primary scorer off the bench?

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

no matter how you look at it 37 wins in a weak conference is lame and certainly below what i expected. I predicted 42 wins in preseason so obviously i was way off.

Given the facts that the Hawks have no draft picks and no cap space it looks like a very long road to becoming a good team (my definition of a good team is 50 wins).

Therefore my reaction to making the playoffs is somewhat muted.

We are in agreement, 37 wins is ho-hum.

I do think the Hawks can still make significant changes to the roster. More signifcant moves are made via trades in the NBA than via FA. I can only think of two signficant FA pickups in the last 10-15 years: Shaq to LA and Nash to Phx. Where I count significant as the guy being signed is the center piece of the team. There may be a couple more, but not many.

For example, look at the last few NBA champs and those teams were all built via trade: Miami, Detroit, SA (to a point- though they may be more draft). Boston and LA are winning with thier main pieces acquired via trade.

Thus, the Hawks have players that can be traded for another piece that better fits the team.

A new coach will help tremendously as well...

[AHF]

Quote:

---

no matter how you look at it 37 wins in a weak conference is lame and certainly below what i expected. I predicted 42 wins in preseason so obviously i was way off.

I am in the same boat - 42 win prediction and at the end of the season I definitely think that number was acheivable (especially with the Bibby trade).

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

I think we will see their potential just by subtracting by addition alone...once they remove a few weaklinks (Zaza, Woody, ect) in the offseason. They just need to retain the Smith for next year and beyond.

One thing is clear, this will be a VERY important off-season for this franchise.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

LOL . . Woody is a lot

dumber

than

I

realize. If he is indeed seeing if Salim can be a primary scorer off the bench, it might change the dynamic a little vs Boston.

corrected

He has had Salim for 3 years and now, two games before the playoffs, he decides to let Salim audition as the primary scorer off the bench?

I think he is, because now he doesn't trust Acie.

In the past, with Lue here, it was easy to keep Salim buried on the bench, because both guys basically did the same thing. Now, it's kind of different. When AJ and Lue was traded for Bibby, Acie should've kicked the door down and played well enough to stay in the rotation, but he didn't. Now I think Woody is looking at possibly Salim to crack the rotation against Boston.