If the playoffs started today

[Admin]

Also, according to our RPI last year we should have won 35 games but we won 37. So far this year we should have won 21 but we've won 22. Seems pretty damn accurate to me other than us slightly surpassing expectations.

[exodus]

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.

I am not presenting facts? I showed how reliable your "on pace" indicator was with regards to last years Hawks and this year's Celtics. So are you saying that the on pace indicator is only a valid stat for this years team?

The Hawks haven't been playing the same way all year. They started the season taking care of the boards. They outrebounded Orlando decisively the first time we played them.

Then their play got sloppy right before they went on the Texas Triangle. After those three losses they actually played a bit better. But lately they have been slipping.

If you want facts heres one. They gave up 117 to Chicago, 104 to Indy, and 100 to Houston missing 3 of it's best players. Before the Chicago game they had only given up 100 pts once all year with Smith in the lineup.

[Admin]

I am not presenting facts? I showed how reliable your "on pace" indicator was with regards to last years Hawks and this year's Celtics. So are you saying that the on pace indicator is only a valid stat for this years team?

The Hawks haven't been playing the same way all year. They started the season taking care of the boards. They outrebounded Orlando decisively the first time we played them.

Then their play got sloppy right before they went on the Texas Triangle. After those three losses they actually played a bit better. But lately they have been slipping.

If you want facts heres one. They gave up 117 to Chicago, 104 to Indy, and 100 to Houston missing 3 of it's best players. Before the Chicago game they had only given up 100 pts once all year with Smith in the lineup.

You didn't show me anything. Please try and disprove how accurate RPI is with something FACTUAL and then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise it's just regurgitated emotional OPINIONS that you're throwing out there post after post as if repeating them ad nauseum is going to make me believe them.

[Admin]

If you want facts heres one. They gave up 117 to Chicago, 104 to Indy, and 100 to Houston missing 3 of it's best players. Before the Chicago game they had only given up 100 pts once all year with Smith in the lineup.

Also, how did we do in those games? We beat Chicago by 12, the Pacers by 6, and Houston by 3. It's nice that on nights when our defense isn't playing up to it's potential that our offense can pick us up!

[exodus]

Also, how did we do in those games? We beat Chicago by 12, the Pacers by 6, and Houston by 3. It's nice that on nights when our defense isn't playing up to it's potential that our offense can pick us up!

Just keep dodging the issue. We were home against the Bulls without Deng and hinrich, Indy without Dunleavy and Houston without Artest, McGrady and Battier.

We were a .500 team when Smith was out but somehow his injury counts while the injuries to other teams don't.

You didn't show me anything. Please try and disprove how accurate RPI is with something FACTUAL and then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise it's just regurgitated emotional OPINIONS that you're throwing out there post after post as if repeating them ad nauseum is going to make me believe them.

So i take it you have abondoned your "on pace" argument and decided to switch to RPI. What did Boston's RPI say before they lost 5 of 7?

[Admin]

Just keep dodging the issue. We were home against the Bulls without Deng and hinrich, Indy without Dunleavy and Houston without Artest, McGrady and Battier.

What issue am I dodging exactly? You are the one who refuses to dispute my statistical evidence with anything but conjecture and emotional opinion.

We were a .500 team when Smith was out but somehow his injury counts while the injuries to other teams don't.

Everything tends to balance itself out. We've lost other players to injury other than Smith and yet we've won 22 games which is all that matters. Unless the NBA is going to start gifting teams wins for missing players. Is that something you have heard they're going to do? That's the only reason why I could see your tired argument about injuries being a factor. I need that beating a dead horse picture modified for you I think.

So i take it you have abondoned your "on pace" argument and decided to switch to RPI. What did Boston's RPI say before they lost 5 of 7?

Uhh, "on pace" is the same thing as RPI which is used to calculate ExWP (Expected winning percentage). I just thought I'd call it "on pace" since everyone knows what that is.

Unless you know of a way to go back day to day I couldn't tell you what their ExWP was. What I can tell you is that the season is longer than 7 games and it all tends to balance itself out and a teams record matches up quite well with their ExWP.

[exodus]

What issue am I dodging exactly?

The fact that we have had an abundance of home games against short handed teams which are much easier to win.

Everything tends to balance itself out.

Over the course of an entire season it does. The season isn't over yet. So far most of our wins have come against teams missing one or more key players. I doubt that will be the case by the end of the season.

Uhh, "on pace" is the same thing as RPI which is used to calculate ExWP (Expected winning percentage). I just thought I'd call it "on pace" since everyone knows what that is.

Then i guess it was just a typo when you said we were on pace for 54 wins but our RPI had us winning 52 games.

[Diesel]

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.

First and foremost, you have selective Memory. Second, I won't argue about ONLY but if you want to argue about Only.... tell me which games you think we won with Luck added that you believe we would have won without "good" Luck....

Come on over to the dark side and say that Luck had nothing to do with our wins OR give up this ONLY bull.

By the way, here's you quote...

"The Hawks have had their share of bad luck in the past so I don't mind getting some good luck. But some people are getting carried away with the Hawks record. They just had an 8 game homestand and had good luck with opposing teams injuries. They took advantage for the most part but are still only half a game ahead of Detroit for the 4th spot.

"

[Admin]

Then i guess it was just a typo when you said we were on pace for 54 wins but our RPI had us winning 52 games.

I actually feel sorry for you. I really do so I'm going to rest my case now.

[exodus]

First and foremost, you have selective Memory. Second, I won't argue about ONLY but if you want to argue about Only.... tell me which games you think we won with Luck added that you believe we would have won without "good" Luck....

Come on over to the dark side and say that Luck had nothing to do with our wins OR give up this ONLY bull.

By the way, here's you quote...

"The Hawks have had their share of bad luck in the past so I don't mind getting some good luck. But some people are getting carried away with the Hawks record. They just had an 8 game homestand and had good luck with opposing teams injuries. They took advantage for the most part but are still only half a game ahead of Detroit for the 4th spot.

"

We are winning for a lot of reasons, defense and 3 pt shooting being chief among them. Opponents injuries also played a role.

Do you think we were just as good a team when Smith was out?

[exodus]

I actually feel sorry for you. I really do so I'm going to rest my case now.

I have to say i am really confused now. If RPI and "on pace" are the same thing then how do they come up with 2 different numbers?

[Diesel]

We are winning for a lot of reasons, defense and 3 pt shooting being chief among them. Opponents injuries also played a role.

Do you think we were just as good a team when Smith was out?

Going back to the question.

Which games do you believe we won with Luck added that we would have won without it.

You know... these injured players you harp on. Go ahead and fess up that we would have probably beaten those teams anyway and you're just being frivilous again.

[Traceman]

The fact that we have had an abundance of home games against short handed teams which are much easier to win.

Over the course of an entire season it does. The season isn't over yet. So far most of our wins have come against teams missing one or more key players. I doubt that will be the case by the end of the season.

Then i guess it was just a typo when you said we were on pace for 54 wins but our RPI had us winning 52 games.

Injuries are so much a part of the game that I think it is MORE likely that we will face a team that is NOT 100% than it is that we will face a team that IS 100%. That is not an anomaly for this year, that is the way it is EVERY year. Coaches know this well that is why you always hear Woody qualifying expectations by saying "if we are lucky enough to stay realtively healthy." As a general rule, a good team that stays healthy is going to be one of the top teams that season and they will likely have a chance to win it all. BUT, odds are that only a couple of teams will be blessed with extraordinarily good health. Most teams are going to have key players missing for a significant amount of time and the teams that manage the loss of those key players best are going to be the ones who have a shot at the end.

In my opinion, some of staying healthy is definitely luck but some of it is not building your team around injury prone players. Teams like Houston (McGrady/Yao), Utah (Boozer, Harpring), Toronto (O'Neal) and Washington (Arenas) should KNOW that those guys have a history of missing a lot of game action and if they want to build around them, they need to be prepared to not have them on the floor for significant stretches.

Bottom line, yes, we have faced a number of teams that have been missing key players but that is how it is more often than not and that is how it will likely be for the rest of the season.

[exodus]

Going back to the question.

Which games do you believe we won with Luck added that we would have won without it.

You know... these injured players you harp on. Go ahead and fess up that we would have probably beaten those teams anyway and you're just being frivilous again.

There is no way for me to know whether or not we would have beaten a certain team if they were healthy. I do know that Smith's absence hurt us and it stands to reason that other teams injuries hurt them.

Funny how you can't admit we weren't as good without Smith.

[exodus]

Injuries are so much a part of the game that I think it is MORE likely that we will face a team that is NOT 100% than it is that we will face a team that IS 100%. That is not an anomaly for this year, that is the way it is EVERY year. Coaches know this well that is why you always hear Woody qualifying expectations by saying "if we are lucky enough to stay realtively healthy." As a general rule, a good team that stays healthy is going to be one of the top teams that season and they will likely have a chance to win it all. BUT, odds are that only a couple of teams will be blessed with extraordinarily good health. Most teams are going to have key players missing for a significant amount of time and the teams that manage the loss of those key players best are going to be the ones who have a shot at the end.

In my opinion, some of staying healthy is definitely luck but some of it is not building your team around injury prone players. Teams like Houston (McGrady/Yao), Utah (Boozer, Harpring), Toronto (O'Neal) and Washington (Arenas) should KNOW that those guys have a history of missing a lot of game action and if they want to build around them, they need to be prepared to not have them on the floor for significant stretches.

Bottom line, yes, we have faced a number of teams that have been missing key players but that is how it is more often than not and that is how it will likely be for the rest of the season.

Injuries are obviously part of the game but i can't remember any stretch of games where the opposing teams have had more key players out.

[Diesel]

Injuries are so much a part of the game that I think it is MORE likely that we will face a team that is NOT 100% than it is that we will face a team that IS 100%. That is not an anomaly for this year, that is the way it is EVERY year. Coaches know this well that is why you always hear Woody qualifying expectations by saying "if we are lucky enough to stay realtively healthy." As a general rule, a good team that stays healthy is going to be one of the top teams that season and they will likely have a chance to win it all. BUT, odds are that only a couple of teams will be blessed with extraordinarily good health. Most teams are going to have key players missing for a significant amount of time and the teams that manage the loss of those key players best are going to be the ones who have a shot at the end.

In my opinion, some of staying healthy is definitely luck but some of it is not building your team around injury prone players. Teams like Houston (McGrady/Yao), Utah (Boozer, Harpring), Toronto (O'Neal) and Washington (Arenas) should KNOW that those guys have a history of missing a lot of game action and if they want to build around them, they need to be prepared to not have them on the floor for significant stretches.

Bottom line, yes, we have faced a number of teams that have been missing key players but that is how it is more often than not and that is how it will likely be for the rest of the season.

Also, you can't forget that sometimes, the injury to a player is what causes the rise of another player... Like Udrih for Bibby and Scola for Yao and Granger for Oneal.

Is that good luck?

[Diesel]

There is no way for me to know whether or not we would have beaten a certain team if they were healthy.

Then why even suggest that we won the games because of Luck?

[jerrywest]

In my opinion, some of staying healthy is definitely luck but some of it is not building your team around injury prone players. Teams like Houston (McGrady/Yao), Utah (Boozer, Harpring), Toronto (O'Neal) and Washington (Arenas) should KNOW that those guys have a history of missing a lot of game

Atlanta with Bibby & Claxton.

[Admin]

I have to say i am really confused now. If RPI and "on pace" are the same thing then how do they come up with 2 different numbers?

Yes, I can clearly see that you are confused. Take a look at the following URL for last years stats:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi?se...;sortColumn=rpi

Do you agree that our RPI suggested that we'd win 35 games last year even though we won 37?

Now look at this years stats:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi?se...;sortColumn=rpi

Do you agree that based on our ExWP (Expected Winning Percentage) of .635 that we should win 52 games this year (82 * .635 = 52.07)?

Now, based on our current winning percentage of .667 spread out over 82 games we're "on pace" to win 54 games (82 * .635 = 54.694), correct?

So, even though our RPI suggested that we'd win 35 games last year we actually won 37 and then again this year our RPI suggests that we'll win 52 but we're actually "on pace" to win 54.

Does that make sense to you now that I've broken down the numbers for you?

So again I ask you to please come up with a better way of determining our future success than RPI. Something not based on your emotion. I'll wait.

[AtLaS]

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.

Just watch another team who has a similar winning percentage to us for a few games and see all the dumb, careless mistakes they make. When you see every game of a team, as we do with the Hawks, we see ALL their mistakes. Fact is, other top teams constantly make them as well. We are a pretty good team who is improving, we can't expect to not make dumb mistakes, it's going to happen, as it does with every other good team. We aren't yet the 72-10 Bulls.