ISO JOE wins the game

[Buzzard]

For how much people b*tch about the offense its just astounding to me. They are completely ignoring the results the Hawks are getting this season and want the team to emulate other teams that have better personnel on offense that aren't getting as much production. The hawks are a top 4 offense in the NBA this season. They are limiting the touches of the more limited offensive players and becuase of that they are by FAR the least turnover prone team in the league. To give you an idea the difference between the hawks and #2 is the same as #2 and #18 in the league. And the hawks are also #11 in assist percentage so its not like they aren't passing at all.

I just find it fascinating that people complain so much about the Hawks offense at the same time they are having so much success with it.

Then it should really fascinate you that we have failed to break 100pts ten times (1/2 our games); and failed to break 90 six times (slightly less than 1/3 of our games). Our offense is amazing when we score 110 to 140 pts but it is also equally as dismal when we fail to break 100; which is why some of us think Woodys offensive scheme is way to dependant on ISOs and 3pt shots.

You find our offense fascinating in a postive manner; I find it fascinating in a frustrating manner. I do understand your point of view spotatl, we have really lit the scoreboard up in 1/2 our games this season; but I do question why you don't understand some of ours...

Edited December 9, 2009 by Buzzard

[spotatl]

Buzzard- you are looking only at PPG. I am looking at points per possession which I think is far more accurate. I don't care if a team scores with 16 seconds left on the shotclock or 4 seconds left on the shotclock. All that matters to me is how often the team scores when they have the ball. Thats all I can ask for on offense.

The Hawks are middle of the pack in assist percentage. The Hawks are middle of the pack in 3 pointers taken. Your complaints about the offense just are not connected to the actual results. They are based on the fact you don't think the offense is elegant enough. Avoiding turnovers isn't elegant. Running the same things repeatedly because you think you have an advantage isn't elegant. But as long as its effective I think its absolutely ridiculous to complain about it.

In the end you wouldn't care if the hawks had the top offense in the league- you would still want Woodson fired. You have already admitted you would be fine if the Hawks had a worse offense as long as it meant getting a new coach in here. I really think you are going to regret this when the team ends up with someone worse.

Edited December 9, 2009 by spotatl

[Buzzard]

Buzzard- you are looking only at PPG. I am looking at points per possession which I think is far more accurate. I don't care if a team scores with 16 seconds left on the shotclock or 4 seconds left on the shotclock. All that matters to me is how often the team scores when they have the ball. Thats all I can ask for on offense.

The Hawks are middle of the pack in assist percentage. The Hawks are middle of the pack in 3 pointers taken. Your complaints about the offense just are not connected to the actual results. They are based on the fact you don't think the offense is elegant enough. Avoiding turnovers isn't elegant. Running the same things repeatedly because you think you have an advantage isn't elegant. But as long as its effective I think its absolutely ridiculous to complain about it.

In the end you wouldn't care if the hawks had the top offense in the league- you would still want Woodson fired. You have already admitted you would be fine if the Hawks had a worse offense as long as it meant getting a new coach in here. I really think you are going to regret this when the team ends up with someone worse.

You still danced around the 10 games not breaking 100 and the 6 games that we did not break 90....how was our points per possesion in those games? And no not worse offense or defense...consistent play and a better record against under .500 teams is what I really want; whether its under Woody or a new coach.

You break it down to offensive/defensive stats. I break it down to wins/losses. You are right about this: I dont care if we are like the Suns scoring 104ppg to an opponents 100 or the Pistons scoring 95ppg to our opponents 90. When we play under .500 teams there is no excuse anymore for these losses. Last season was enough...this season is enough is enough.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Hawks are 4 - 4 when scoring less than 100 points . . . but have wins @ Boston, @ Portland and @ Dallas

Hawks are 1 - 4 when scoring less than 90 points . . . with losses @ Charlotte, @ Detroit, and @ New Orleans

Hawks are 10 - 2 when scoring 100 points or more and 12 - 4 when scoring 90 points or more.

Hawks are 4 - 0 when holding their opponent to 90 points or less.

Hawks are 6 - 2 when our opponent scores 100 or more points.

So I guess the threshold offensively is the 90 point mark for a likely loss . . and 100 points for a likely win.

[spotatl]

Just out of curiosity buzzard, for the Hawks playing at home against the Bulls what percentage of the time do you think the Hawks should win before you will start blaming the coach?

[Buzzard]

Just out of curiosity buzzard, for the Hawks playing at home against the Bulls what percentage of the time do you think the Hawks should win before you will start blaming the coach?

lol...so we are only suppose to beat under .500 teams at home IYO?

[spotatl]

Buzzard- do you think the hawks should win 100% of the games against teams like that at home? 90%? Where do you draw the line for where you think the hawks are playing below expectation level.

[Buzzard]

Hawks are 4 - 4 when scoring less than 100 points . . . but have wins @ Boston, @ Portland and @ Dallas

Hawks are 1 - 4 when scoring less than 90 points . . . with losses @ Charlotte, @ Detroit, and @ New Orleans

So I guess the threshold offensively is the 90 point mark for a likely loss . . and 100 points for a likely win.

The real threshold is less than 100; unless you think a .500 record is adequate.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

Buzzard- do you think the hawks should win 100% of the games against teams like that at home? 90%? Where do you draw the line for where you think the hawks are playing below expectation level.

Way below expectations is a sub .500 overall mark against teams with a losing record. I think .800 to .850 overall would be adequate.

[spotatl]

So where do you think the point is? I think that you have a ridiculous view of how often good teams win those kinds of games. If you think that the Hawks should win 90% of the games then there are still going to be 2 or 3 disasters in there where the Hawks lose to a team they are better than without it being the fault of the coach. I am just trying to figure out where you believe the line should be.

Really whats going on is called confirmation bias. You already believe the Hawks are poorly coached and so whenever you see them struggle its going to VERIFY and stand out in your mind when it happens. But of course no team should be expected to always win against lessor teams. When the hawks overperform you will simply chalk it up to reasons other than Woodson and they won't stand out in your mind at all.

The Hawks are 11 point favorites. I am just really curious how often you think that NBA teams who are 11 point favorites SHOULD win the game. (not cover- win)

[Buzzard]

So where do you think the point is? I think that you have a ridiculous view of how often good teams win those kinds of games. If you think that the Hawks should win 90% of the games then there are still going to be 2 or 3 disasters in there where the Hawks lose to a team they are better than without it being the fault of the coach. I am just trying to figure out where you believe the line should be.

Really whats going on is called confirmation bias. You already believe the Hawks are poorly coached and so whenever you see them struggle its going to VERIFY and stand out in your mind when it happens. But of course no team should be expected to always win against lessor teams. When the hawks overperform you will simply chalk it up to reasons other than Woodson and they won't stand out in your mind at all.

The Hawks are 11 point favorites. I am just really curious how often you think that NBA teams who are 11 point favorites SHOULD win the game. (not cover- win)

You think .800 to .850 is to much to ask. To me it seems logical since our record is .700 right now. Unless your logic is we should win a higher% of games vs winning teams than losing teams. Which defies all logic to me.

I am not a vegas bookie or someone who bets with one...covering and winning vs the spread is not something I research on a daily basis. But the spread from my understanding has more to do with how many bets and how much money is being placed on a team than a actual indicator of how close or lopsided the game may be. 11pt spread indicates a lot of betting on Chicago which makes sense since they are in a larger market and also a national favorite.

[spotatl]

Like I said- you overestimate how much teams are supposed to win. If you bet on a team to win these games and they do 85% of the time then you will make a lot of money. All casual fans tend overestimate the percentage of time the favorite wins and so they correspondingly overreact when their team loses a game that they considered to be easy. If the Hawks win 85% of the games that they should in this situation they are exceeding expectations. The Hawks will never exceed expectations for you with Woodson in charge because you will only ahve the losses stick out for you and are basically imagining a world in which the Hawks would go almost undefeated with a different coach. But I still look forward to the game when you actually say that the players are to blame for the loss and not Woodson.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The real threshold is less than 100; unless you think a .500 record is adequate.

OK . . if that's how you want to look at it . . fine. We're 1/4th way through the season.

Hawks are 4 - 4 ( .500 ) when scoring less than 100

4 * 4 = 16 . . . . 4 * 4 = 16

Hawk projected record when scoring less than 100: 16 - 16

Hawks are 10 - 2 ( .833 ) when scoring 100 or more

4 * 10 = 40 . . . . 4 * 2 = 8

Hawk projected record when scoring 100 or more: 40 - 8

Hawk projected overall record: 56 - 24 ( with 2 games to be added )

So let's say I'll add a win and a loss.

Hawk projected record: 57 - 25

?????? So what's the problem again?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Like I said- you overestimate how much teams are supposed to win. If you bet on a team to win these games and they do 85% of the time then you will make a lot of money. All casual fans tend overestimate the percentage of time the favorite wins and so they correspondingly overreact when their team loses a game that they considered to be easy. If the Hawks win 85% of the games that they should in this situation they are exceeding expectations. The Hawks will never exceed expectations for you with Woodson in charge because you will only ahve the losses stick out for you and are basically imagining a world in which the Hawks would go almost undefeated with a different coach. But I still look forward to the game when you actually say that the players are to blame for the loss and not Woodson.

Great post.

It's just like the scenario I illustrated in my last post. I think it's no way possible ( unless they completely surprise me ) that this team can win 83% of their games, when scoring 100 or more points.

( edit ) But on the flip side, I don't see us continually failing to break the 90 point barrier against "bad" teams either. I can't see Jersey holding us under 90. . . or Indiana . . or Minnesota. Both scenarios are unlikely in my opinion.

The Hawks are somewhere in between that. But they are playing like a team that will win 50+ games. They're beating good teams on the road and are avoiding losing streaks. But they also have brain lapses from time to time. That's a mark of a 50+ win team, but not necessarily a 60+ win team.

I didn't know people were expecting the Hawks to be a great team this year though. (/edit)

When it comes to Woody, the bar will continually keep getting raised and raised and raised, until we win a title. Then they'll raise it again, expecting us to repeat. People will always find someting to complain about, instead of being satisfied with the overall big picture.

But I just don't get why people are using the bad losses as the main characteristic of how the Hawks play, instead of the good wins. If anything, they cancel each other out.

Personally, I'm not going to get concerned about this team, until they go on a 3+ game losing streak. I've seen enough out of this team, especially from the core, that they're a mentally tough bunch that doesn't allow themselves to get to high after wins, and too low after losses.

And the coach has a lot to do with that mindset.

Edited December 9, 2009 by northcyde

[Buzzard]

Like I said- you overestimate how much teams are supposed to win. If you bet on a team to win these games and they do 85% of the time then you will make a lot of money. All casual fans tend overestimate the percentage of time the favorite wins and so they correspondingly overreact when their team loses a game that they considered to be easy. If the Hawks win 85% of the games that they should in this situation they are exceeding expectations. The Hawks will never exceed expectations for you with Woodson in charge because you will only ahve the losses stick out for you and are basically imagining a world in which the Hawks would go almost undefeated with a different coach. But I still look forward to the game when you actually say that the players are to blame for the loss and not Woodson.

So if we have a .700 record we should not win at least 70% of the time against under .500 teams. I find your logic fascinating as well...and against the spread yes I would win a lot of money if that happened...but fortunately for us fans there is no handicap to deal with in the NBA lmao

Edited December 9, 2009 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

Hawks are 4 - 4 ( .500 ) when scoring less than 100

4 * 4 = 16 . . . . 4 * 4 = 16

Hawk projected record when scoring less than 100: 16 - 16

Hawks are 10 - 2 ( .833 ) when scoring 100 or more

4 * 10 = 40 . . . . 4 * 2 = 8

Hawk projected record when scoring 100 or more: 40 - 8

So let's say I'll add a win and a loss.

Hawk projected record: 57 - 25

?????? So what's the problem again?

I am ok with looking at it this but you discount our last ten games from this perspective more heavily than our 1st ten. I also think that with our bad showing in those games against under .500 teams it is much more likely our woes have only just started . So from your perspective we will win 57 games...from mine 45 to 50 is closer to the truth. With to many more losses against bad teams the rest of the way we will most assuredly not get the 3rd seed. And quite possibly if it gets much worse, this ugly trend could put us in a dog fight for the 4th, 5th, or 6th seed....

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I am ok with looking at it this but you discount our last ten games from this perspective more heavily than our 1st ten. I also think that with our bad showing in those games against under .500 teams it is much more likely our woes have only just started . So from your perspective we will win 57 games...from mine 45 to 50 is closer to the truth. With to many more losses against bad teams the rest of the way we will most assuredly not get the 3rd seed. And quite possibly if it gets much worse, this ugly trend could put us in a dog fight for the 4th, 5th, or 6th seed....

Buzz, it's the opposite way. I'm looking at the total picture. But you're the one placing all of this emphasis on the 3 bad losses vs Detroit, New Orleans, and New York. You're the one that's thinking that the Hawks are closer to the team that loses @ Detroit, than the team that wins @ Portland.

All of a sudden, with tonight's win, we've won 4 of our last 6, with 2 major blowouts at home, and a grind it out win @ Dallas. Like I told that Ken Strickland guy on the Hawks ajc.com blog, how one views the Hawks, depend on how many games back you want to go.

We've won 3 of our last 4 . . . or

We've won 4 of our last 6 . . . or

We've lost 4 of our last 8 . . . or

We've won 6 of our last 10 . . or

We've won 8 of our last 12 . . . or

We've won 11 of our last 15 . . . or

We've won 15 of the 21 games we've played this season

Take your pick.

[Buzzard]

Buzz, it's the opposite way. I'm looking at the total picture. But you're the one placing all of this emphasis on the 3 bad losses vs Detroit, New Orleans, and New York. You're the one that's thinking that the Hawks are closer to the team that loses @ Detroit, than the team that wins @ Portland.

All of a sudden, with tonight's win, we've won 4 of our last 6, with 2 major blowouts at home, and a grind it out win @ Dallas. Like I told that Ken Strickland guy on the Hawks ajc.com blog, how one views the Hawks, depend on how many games back you want to go.

We've won 3 of our last 4 . . . or

We've won 4 of our last 6 . . . or

We've lost 4 of our last 8 . . . or

We've won 6 of our last 10 . . or

We've won 8 of our last 12 . . . or

We've won 11 of our last 15 . . . or

We've won 15 of the 21 games we've played this season

Take your pick.

Most people do not know this if they do not follow Portand closely; but their starting SF Batum was out and still is. Webster has been a shell of what he was since he was injured in the 1st game last season. And yes Batum did win the starting job in preseason and was named the seasons starter over both Outlaw and Webster. I loved the Portand win. It was a solid bounceback win; but dont think Batum would not at least have helped had he been there vs Webster.

6 of our last 10, 2 and 2 on the road; with three losses coming to teams below .500. This is my point:

The 1st ten was all great and Woody needs to be coach of the year yada yada yada. Before deeming him coach of the year, we might want to wait till at least the all star-break; which is also what I am willing to at least do before calling for him to be fired in the middle of the season. if we are good at the break, I will give him till the end of the season. But dont expect me to agree with hyperbole Woody is doing a great job and/or should be coach of the year post less than 20 games into the season....especially when these same two trends have started to show their ugly heads:

1-Losing to sub par teams.

2- Playing badly on the road.

If Woody fixes those two problems and our winning % is good in both areas, he gets my vote at the end of the season. But if we continue to suck on the road and against sub par teams, I want a new coach. It is that simple for me.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Buzzard

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Most people do not know this if they do not follow Portand closely; but their starting SF Batum was out and still is. Webster has been a shell of what he was since he was injured in the 1st game last season. And yes Batum did win the starting job in preseason and was named the seasons starter over both Outlaw and Webster. I loved the Portand win. It was a solid bounceback win; but dont think Batum would not at least have helped had he been there vs Webster.

6 of our last 10, 2 and 2 on the road; with three losses coming to teams below .500. This is my point:

The 1st ten was all great and Woody needs to be coach of the year yada yada yada. Before deeming him coach of the year, we might want to wait till at least the all star-break; which is also what I am willing to at least do before calling for him to be fired in the middle of the season. if we are good at the break, I will give him till the end of the season. But dont expect me to agree with hyperbole Woody is doing a great job and/or should be coach of the year post less than 20 games into the season....especially when these same two trends have started to show their ugly heads:

1-Losing to sub par teams.

2- Playing badly on the road.

If Woody fixes those two problems and our winning % is good in both areas, he gets my vote at the end of the season. But if we continue to suck on the road and against sub par teams, I want a new coach. It is that simple for me.

I see what Spotatl is talking about now. Confirmation Bias.

Nicolas Batum? Seriously? Nicolas Batum?

Wow.

I'll let this go after this post. When you bring up Nicolas Batum, it's time to end the discussion.

If you're going to use that excuse, you need to excuse the Hawks from losing the New Orleans game and the Knicks game, because we lose Bibby early in New Orleans, and Smoove got ejected in the 2nd quarter of the Knick game, when we were only down 4. I think those two guys would've made a little more difference than Nicolas Batum in a game.

I'll also focus on the fact that we're 5 - 2 vs the top 10 teams in the league. We're also 6 - 4 on the road . . . on pace to go 25 - 16 ( which would be the best record in franchise history ).

You can focus on the negative if you want.

But let me see if I can lock you in on a position. We're 15 - 6 right now. We have 31 games left until the All-Star break. We have an absolutely brutal schedule in January that will really test this team.

What record do you want the Hawks to have at the All-Star break? Go ahead and lock in your answer.

Edited December 10, 2009 by northcyde

[niremetal]

I see what Spotatl is talking about now. Confirmation Bias.

Nicolas Batum? Seriously? Nicolas Batum?

Wow.

I'll let this go after this post. When you bring up Nicolas Batum, it's time to end the discussion.

Batum was their best defensive player last year. As a rookie.

So you're right. If you dismiss the impact of Batum out-of-hand, you clearly don't watch the Blazers, so it's time to end the discussion.