If the playoffs started today

[Diesel]

If they continue to make careless turnovers and don't box out they will lose games they should win, just like the last NJ game.

Point is your nagging is about something that's fixable. Moreover...

We are 15th in the league in rebounding differential (we give up .1 more rebounds than we get).

We are 10th in the league in turnovers. (there are 20 more teams that turn the ball over more than us).

We are 18th in the league in turnover differentials (we give up .52 more turnovers than we gain). Funny thing is that Boston is ranked 21st and Orlando is ranked 17th.

In other words, your arguments may mean something to you, but in the big picture, it's a meaningless argument... there are other areas in the game that we are good at that is responsible for us winning... such as: Assists (7th), Defensive FG% (7th), 3pt % (8th), Team defense (9th).

BTW, if there's something that you want to harp on from the NJ game(s), try FT%... you would have a more valid argument. But then again, you know that FT% is something that is too easily fixable to argue about.

How about changing your thinking a bit.

If they keep shooting the way they have and playing as a team (like the Houston game), they might not ever be beaten.

[Diesel]

Of course it is.

Again, agreed. But that is my point, all the teams with good records benefit from playing injured teams, including us. The key is to consistently beat them and not have many letdowns. For the most part, we have done that. We've won most of the time against the bad/injured teams and also played very competitive against the top teams. We are a good team but we obviously aren't a top team that dominates average/bad teams every night, and I don't think it's realistic to expect that. It's almost impossible to expect that much improvement in one offseason without any major additions. EVERY team makes dumb, unforced turnovers nightly, it's going to happen during a 48 minute game and we aren't immune.

If we were 33-0 right now, Ex would still have his what if... and his luck argument.

[AtLaS]

Point is that we beat a streaking Cav team that Had Lebron. Should we then say... We got Lucky? Some here would. However, we are what we are. That's is a 22-11 team with no asterisk. That means, that we beat 22 of the teams that came before us. Period.

Regardless, even without Big Z, they had LeBron and were on a huge winning streak. That was obviously an impressive win.

[exodus]

Point is your nagging is about something that's fixable. Moreover...

That is why i am harping on it, because it can and should be fixed.

We are 15th in the league in rebounding differential (we give up .1 more rebounds than we get).

We are 22nd in the league in defensive rebounding ratio which is a clear weakness on a 22-11 team.

"We are 10th in the league in turnovers. (there are 20 more teams that turn the ball over more than us). "

It is funny how you bemoan our lack of inside scoring but don't make the connection to turnovers. you aren't going to turn it over as much on catch and shoot 3s as you do taking it to the basket. The hawks are 3rd in the NBA in 3 pt attempts and 28th in the league at scoring inside. Therefore their turnover problem doesn't look as bad on paper as it really is.

" there are other areas in the game that we are good at that is responsible for us winning... such as: Assists (7th), Defensive FG% (7th), 3pt % (8th), Team defense (9th)."

I have not disputed this so i don't even know why you are bringing it up.

"BTW, if there's something that you want to harp on from the NJ game(s), try FT%... you would have a more valid argument. But then again, you know that FT% is something that is too easily fixable to argue about."

Their free throws hurt them for sure but a 20 pt lead at halftime against sub-.500 team shouldn't come down to free throws. The Hawks turned it over on their first two possessions of the second half which led to 2 consecutive 3 pt plays by NJ. That gave them life right off the bat.

[AHF]

However, we are what we are. That's is a 22-11 team with no asterisk. That means, that we beat 22 of the teams that came before us. Period.

Agreed.

[frosgrim]

There is some old addage that goes:

Luck is what you make of it.

The Hawks have been able to turn opportunity into wins more times than not. Good teams, then, take opportunities presented and turn them into wins.

Have the Hawks benefited from other team's misfortune? I suppose, but its part of a semantical argument that could go on for a while. Its not like the Hawks are the only team playing winning teams when those winning teams have an injury. I will take this current Hawks record this year and be very happy with it. If its due to the Hawks cashing in on other teams bad luck, so be it.

Ex's points about team deficiencies are observations on what could go wrong in the future. Everyone who watches basketball knows rebounding is one of the 3 keys to consistant winning. A team that doesn't rebound well, will lose more than they win over a season. That has been shown over and over again.

The current Hawks need to improve rebounding. That is a no brainer and is something that can be fixed if they would just box out better. The coaching staff, Smith, Horford, and Zaza all need to be working on this fundamental daily to correct the issue.

[crimedog]

There is luck, but lucky teams often are the ones that win titles.

Look at the Pistons. They were obviously an awesome team, talented, balanced, well-coached, and dominant on D. The were lucky enough though, to face a Lakers team that was completely imploding with an AWOL Kobe Bryant - of course they took advantage of that luck by goading Kobe into trying to win it all instead of going to the single-covered MDE... The Lakers that season were lucky that they bumped into a Minny team without Cassel.

The champion Heat were lucky that Manu Ginobili, one of the shrewdest players in the NBA, committed a stupid touch foul on a driving Dirk Nowitzki instead of letting him score and then holding the ball for a second.

The Spurs got lucky that they got to play a PHX team with out its starting C or HIS backup because one of their own players committed a flagrant foul and another of their players also stepped onto the court.

Still though, there are no asterisks.

Over the course of the season, things generally balance out and all teams deal with injuries to some extent. The Atlanta Hawks are a 22-11 team. Period. Not a 22-11 team (that isn't as good as their record suggests because they only play bad or injured teams) but also not a 22-11 team (that has overcome extreme adversity this season).

Edited January 7, 2009 by crimedog

[exodus]

There is luck, but lucky teams often are the ones that win titles.

Look at the Pistons. They were obviously an awesome team, talented, balanced, well-coached, and dominant on D. The were lucky enough though, to face a Lakers team that was completely imploding with an AWOL Kobe Bryant - of course they took advantage of that luck by goading Kobe into trying to win it all instead of going to the single-covered MDE... The Lakers that season were lucky that they bumped into a Minny team without Cassel.

The champion Heat were lucky that Manu Ginobili, one of the shrewdest players in the NBA, committed a stupid touch foul on a driving Dirk Nowitzki instead of letting him score and then holding the ball for a second.

The Spurs got lucky that they got to play a PHX team with out its starting C or HIS backup because one of their own players committed a flagrant foul and another of their players also stepped onto the court.

Still though, there are no asterisks.

Over the course of the season, things generally balance out and all teams deal with injuries to some extent. The Atlanta Hawks are a 22-11 team. Period. Not a 22-11 team (that isn't as good as their record suggests because they only play bad or injured teams) but also not a 22-11 team (that has overcome extreme adversity this season).

whether or not the Hawks are a 22-11 team isn't the question. The question is whether they will be a 50 win, 45 win or lower team. My position is that they CAN be a 50 win team if they take better care of the ball and box out. But i don't think they will be a 50 win team playing the way they are now.

[Admin]

whether or not the Hawks are a 22-11 team isn't the question. The question is whether they will be a 50 win, 45 win or lower team. My position is that they CAN be a 50 win team if they take better care of the ball and box out. But i don't think they will be a 50 win team playing the way they are now.

Well judging by how they're playing now according to their record the Hawks will be a 50+ win team so even with the stupid turnovers and lapses in concentration we're that good. If we take better care of the ball and box out we'd likely be even better than that.

[exodus]

Well judging by how they're playing now according to their record the Hawks will be a 50+ win team so even with the stupid turnovers and lapses in concentration we're that good. If we take better care of the ball and box out we'd likely be even better than that.

It doesn't work like that. Each game is a new game. There is no carryover. They Hawks don't start a game with a lead just because they have been winning.

The way they are playing now bears little resemblence to the way they were playing to start the season. They aren't going to be playing short handed teams at home all year. In order to win 50 they are going to have to beat some healthy teams on the road. They aren't going to do it the way they have been playing lately.

[Admin]

It doesn't work like that. Each game is a new game. There is no carryover. They Hawks don't start a game with a lead just because they have been winning.

The way they are playing now bears little resemblence to the way they were playing to start the season. They aren't going to be playing short handed teams at home all year. In order to win 50 they are going to have to beat some healthy teams on the road. They aren't going to do it the way they have been playing lately.

For a guy that loves stats so much it should be simple that it absolutely does work like that. We're on pace to win 54 games and our winning percentage over the last 10 is better than that of our first 10 so whether you like how we're winning or not the bottom line is that we're finding ways to win and 33 games into the season I'm not interested in calling it luck or a fluke or anything like that. Until the time comes that we stop winning at a +.600 clip I'm going to consider us a 50 win team.

[exodus]

For a guy that loves stats so much it should be simple that it absolutely does work like that. We're on pace to win 54 games and our winning percentage over the last 10 is better than that of our first 10 so whether you like how we're winning or not the bottom line is that we're finding ways to win and 33 games into the season I'm not interested in calling it luck or a fluke or anything like that. Until the time comes that we stop winning at a +.600 clip I'm going to consider us a 50 win team.

No it doesn't work like that. The only thing that matters is the record after 82 games. Having won 22 already certainly helps but it has no effect on future games.

the Blazers won 16 straight games last year and finished with 41 wins. Did they get bonus points for winning 16 straight? No, they were sitting at home come playoff time.

Last year after two months the Hawks were "on pace" to win 44 games and won 37.

[Diesel]

There is luck, but lucky teams often are the ones that win titles.

Look at the Pistons. They were obviously an awesome team, talented, balanced, well-coached, and dominant on D. The were lucky enough though, to face a Lakers team that was completely imploding with an AWOL Kobe Bryant - of course they took advantage of that luck by goading Kobe into trying to win it all instead of going to the single-covered MDE... The Lakers that season were lucky that they bumped into a Minny team without Cassel.

[Admin]

No it doesn't work like that. The only thing that matters is the record after 82 games. Having won 22 already certainly helps but it has no effect on future games.

the Blazers won 16 straight games last year and finished with 41 wins. Did they get bonus points for winning 16 straight? No, they were sitting at home come playoff time.

Last year after two months the Hawks were "on pace" to win 44 games and won 37.

What does bonus points and starting games with a lead have to do with what I'm saying? I'm not even sure where you're coming up with those thoughts.

The best indicator for what we're going to do this year is what we've done so far. Emotion based on the way we've won or lost plays no part. We've won 22 and we're on pace for 54. That's indisputable! We may or may not win 54 but as I said earlier until something changes I expect us to win 54 games.

This years team has nothing to do with last years team since it's not the same roster.

[exodus]

What does bonus points and starting games with a lead have to do with what I'm saying? I'm not even sure where you're coming up with those thoughts.

The best indicator for what we're going to do this year is what we've done so far. Emotion based on the way we've won or lost plays no part. We've won 22 and we're on pace for 54. That's indisputable! We may or may not win 54 but as I said earlier until something changes I expect us to win 54 games.

This years team has nothing to do with last years team since it's not the same roster.

The "on pace" thing you are talking about just isn't very significant. The Celtics got off to the best start in NBA history but that hasn't stopped them from losing 5 of their last 7.

[Diesel]

The "on pace" thing you are talking about just isn't very significant. The Celtics got off to the best start in NBA history but that hasn't stopped them from losing 5 of their last 7.

Teams lose. That's basketball. However, you're predicting that we will lose because of some gloom and doom scenario that you have created based on a "stat" that we're not really that bad at (leaguewide). Then you say stuff like the only reason we have won as much as we have is because we're Lucky?

Man.... you need to go somewhere with that nonfan talk.

[Admin]

The "on pace" thing you are talking about just isn't very significant. The Celtics got off to the best start in NBA history but that hasn't stopped them from losing 5 of their last 7.

Then you tell me, what's a better indicator for future success/failure than our current winning percentage?

How about RPI (Relative Percent Index) which has us winning 52 games? I believe that's the most accurate measurement out there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi

[exodus]

Then you tell me, what's a better indicator for future success/failure than our current winning percentage?

How about RPI (Relative Percent Index) which has us winning 52 games? I believe that's the most accurate measurement out there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi

I am just looking at the way they are playing. When i see the Hawks getting consistently outrebounded and making dumb, careless turnovers it makes me think they are getting into bad habits which could cost them down the road. You can get away with it against a team that is missing 3 of it's best players.

The Hawks CAN correct these problems. But if they don't their "on pace" indicator won't mean much, just like it didn't last year. They had to finish with a flourish to win 37.

[exodus]

Teams lose. That's basketball. However, you're predicting that we will lose because of some gloom and doom scenario that you have created based on a "stat" that we're not really that bad at (leaguewide). Then you say stuff like the only reason we have won as much as we have is because we're Lucky?

Man.... you need to go somewhere with that nonfan talk.

You just love to make stuff up. do you really believe the nonsense you post?

Please show me where i said the ONLY reason we are winning is because of luck.

[Admin]

I am just looking at the way they are playing. When i see the Hawks getting consistently outrebounded and making dumb, careless turnovers it makes me think they are getting into bad habits which could cost them down the road. You can get away with it against a team that is missing 3 of it's best players.

We've only had 1 win that I can remember where a team was missing 3 of their best players. We've had others where teams are missing 1 or 2 good players. We've had games where we've been missing 1 or 2 of our best players. We've had games with both teams healthy. This is nothing new as it happens throughout the NBA every year and I suspect it will continue to happen for the remainder of this year and into the future.

No matter how poorly you think we've played we have still won 22 games and in each of those games each team had 5 players on the court at all times and any team can win on any given night.

The Hawks CAN correct these problems. But if they don't their "on pace" indicator won't mean much, just like it didn't last year. They had to finish with a flourish to win 37.

You aren't presenting any facts, just an emotional opinion based on nothing which can be proven. Right now the facts state the Hawks can be outrebounded and can make dumb careless turnovers and other bad habits and still win 67% of their games. Based on your opinion of how they've underperformed if we DO correct these problems then we'll likely increase our win pace.