The Hawks offense this season

[mrhonline]

I think last night's game showed how important defensive rebounding is to the fast break game. It will be an even bigger deal in the playoffs.

The Hawks' playoff success will be determined by Smith, Horford, and Pachulia.

[AHF]

And AHF- If you asked fans to judge who the best hitters were without looking at stats then I think you would end up with them picking the guys with the prettiest swings. Just like fans here like the prettiest offenses. Fans could certainly pick out hte best power hitters, but no way could they tell the diffference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter. Over 500 at bats all season the difference woudl be just 25 hits. If you think that fans are perceptive enough to tell the difference between 1 hit in a week I think you are crazy. These are simply not differences that people can notice without keeping track of the stats.

I'll agree to disagree over whether fans can see the difference between a low contact hitter like Nick Swisher and a high contact hitter like Prince Fielder with similar power numbers.

Edited March 2, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

Fans can remember strikeouts and they would stick out. Fans can remember home runs and doubles. But they can't tell the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter. One hit a week- there is no chance in hell a fan could tell the difference and I think its funny you would still think that they could. This just isn't something our brain is wired to notice.

But here you go. Brad Kubel was a .300 hitter this season. http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6102

Ian Kinser was a .250 hitter this season. http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6197

Kinser had 50 more atbats so it meant that he had only 11 fewer hits over the course of the season. Kubel even struck out more. They were within 3 of both HR's and Doubles. I think there is NO chance that a fan who didn't look at any stats woudl be able to tell you that Kubel hit 50 points higher than Kinser. Its just not something our brains are wired to pick up.

Edited March 2, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

Fans can remember strikeouts and they would stick out. Fans can remember home runs and doubles. But they can't tell the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter. One hit a week- there is no chance in hell a fan could tell the difference and I think its funny you would still think that they could. This just isn't something our brain is wired to notice.

But here you go. Brad Kubel was a .300 hitter this season. http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6102

Ian Kinser was a .250 hitter this season. http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6197

Kinser had 50 more atbats so it meant that he had only 11 fewer hits over the course of the season. Kubel even struck out more. They were within 3 of both HR's and Doubles. I think there is NO chance that a fan who didn't look at any stats woudl be able to tell you that Kubel hit 50 points higher than Kinser. Its just not something our brains are wired to pick up.

By your rationale, a common fan can't tell the difference between Albert Pujols and Garrett Anderson last season as far as who gets the higher percentage of hits? They were only 60 points apart.

You can repeat your conclusion that has no support other than your opinion (mine suffers from this as well) and keep giving reasons like "our brains aren't wired to tell the difference between Ichiro and Brad Kubel" but that doesn't make it so. Let's agree to disagree because we are going in circles on this. If you have something else to substantiate your belief that Ichiro and Kubel are indistinguishable to the tiny brains of MLB fans, then I am happy to hear it but I don't see where our conversation of:

******You: "I don't think fans can tell the difference. The number of hits is too small a difference."

******Me: "I think fans can tell the difference. It isn't just the number of hits, although that isn't invisible to fans over the course of the season, it is the way the hitters play that leads to the different results."

is going anywhere but from one opinion back to the other.

Edited March 2, 2010 by AHF

[spotatl]

I just find it fascinating that you are sticking to your guns on this. I thought an example of a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter would make you realize it. If you really think that fans can tell the difference between 1 hit every 15 games (11 hits in a 162 game season) then I think it says volumes about you and your awareness of stats.

Edited March 2, 2010 by spotatl

[AHF]

I just find it fascinating that you are sticking to your guns on this. I thought an example of a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter would make you realize it. If you really think that fans can tell the difference between 1 hit every 15 games (11 hits in a 162 game season) then I think it says volumes about you and your awareness of stats.

Yawn... Again, nothing to substantiate your opinion that Ichiro and Kubel are indistinguishable to fans except your condescending opinion. Continue to ignore the fact that fans who know something about hitting can tell a difference between a guy with a hole in his swing and a guy who generates consistent contact and that this frequently explains the difference in results between a .300 and .250 hitter.

Now you resort to ad hominem attacks on my education and/or intelligence. Great argument, there spotatl.

Please just go back to telling us all why expiring contracts are worthless in the NBA.

[exodus]

I just find it fascinating that you are sticking to your guns on this. I thought an example of a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter would make you realize it. If you really think that fans can tell the difference between 1 hit every 15 games (11 hits in a 162 game season) then I think it says volumes about you and your awareness of stats.

Having read AHF posts for years i can without a doubt he is an expert on statistics, whether sports related or not.

[spotatl]

AHF- I am not trying to attack you on this. I think its a fundamental thing that people have a misconception on when it comes to stats. Just as people can't tell the difference without keeping track of a .250 hitter vs a .300 hitter without counting, they also can't tell the difference between an offense that scores 111 points per 100 posessions and one that scores 107 points. And its why people can't look at the results of a series of coinflips and say which one is truly random and which one was made by a biased coin. People will go back to aesthetic differences because distinguishing between mostly random events is just really difficult. The more you study stats the more this stuff is common knowledge.

Edited March 2, 2010 by spotatl

[macdaddy]

I had posted this in a thread by Diesel but didn't want to sidetrack his thread. Basically I was just looking at the 82games data for different hawks lineups and what jumps out so much to me about those stats is how ridiculously good the Hawks offense has been this season when Crawford has been on the floor with the other starters.

Here are the PPP of the lineups that have played at least 100 minutes for all the top 4 teams in the east plus the Suns who have the best offense in the league this season.

Atlanta http://www.82games.c...10/0910ATL2.HTM

1.08 (Bibby, Marvin)

1.26 (Bibby, Crawford)

1.23 (Crawford, Marvin)

Cleveland http://www.82games.c...10/0910CLE2.HTM

1.05

.99

1.14

1.15

Orlando http://www.82games.c...10/0910ORL2.HTM

1.09

1.12

1.16 (only 83 minutes)

Boston http://www.82games.c...10/0910BOS2.HTM

1.12

1.12

1.01

Phoenix http://www.82games.c...10/0910PHO2.HTM

1.17

1.06

1.21

But sure people- keep telling yourselves that Woodsons offense is the problem with this team.

I think I'm going to just keep telling myself that Woodson's offense is the problem. From Miami:

The Hawks had seven of their 13 turnovers in the fourth quarter and made just 6 of 20 shots in the period. Once again they appeared baffled against a zone defense. “I can’t fault the effort,” Woody said. “The effort was great. We got the tempo the way we wanted it. But then their zone slowed us down.”

[Antmillennium]

The Hawks had seven of their 13 turnovers in the fourth quarter and made just 6 of 20 shots in the period. Once again they appeared baffled against a zone defense. “I can’t fault the effort,” Woody said. “The effort was great. We got the tempo the way we wanted it. But then their zone slowed us down.”

Uhhh, yeah. Zones usually do tend to slow down and stifle ISO offenses. That's why it's important to actually have an offense in place that you can turn to when the ISO stuff isn't working. It amazes me that Woody doesn't know this.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Antmillennium

[spotatl]

The Hawks have a roster problem against a zone defense- not a scheme problem. They don't have a big who is enough of a threat from the outside to stop the defense from sloughing off in the middle. they don't have a post threat to draw a double. The don't have a PG who can draw a double and find the open man. Superior offensive rebounding can help break a zone- the Hawks occasionally do have this.

When the other team is willing to just basically zone up in the middle then I don't see many options for the Hawks to break the zone other than hitting their outside shots. Watch Orlando play against the Hawks- they are content to let hte Hawks try and beat them from the outside and pretty much completely ignore Horford and Smith if they go 10 feet away from the rim.

To me the way the Hawks should be attacking the zone is to just break the first level and then get the ball to Horford and Smith after the double has come. Too often Joe will draw the double and try and score through it instead of exploiting the other team when the defense is in motion. But to me this is a decisionmaking problem for Joe, not a system problem for the Hawks. The Hawks are 6th in the league in assist percentage- I just find it hilarious that people think this team only does ISO's.

Edited March 8, 2010 by spotatl

[Diesel]

The Hawks have a roster problem against a zone defense- not a scheme problem. They don't have a big who is enough of a threat from the outside to stop the defense from sloughing off in the middle. they don't have a post threat to draw a double. The don't have a PG who can draw a double and find the open man. Superior offensive rebounding can help break a zone- the Hawks occasionally do have this.

When the other team is willing to just basically zone up in the middle then I don't see many options for the Hawks to break the zone other than hitting their outside shots. Watch Orlando play against the Hawks- they are content to let hte Hawks try and beat them from the outside and pretty much completely ignore Horford and Smith if they go 10 feet away from the rim.

To me the way the Hawks should be attacking the zone is to just break the first level and then get the ball to Horford and Smith after the double has come. Too often Joe will draw the double and try and score through it instead of exploiting the other team when the defense is in motion. But to me this is a decisionmaking problem for Joe, not a system problem for the Hawks. The Hawks are 6th in the league in assist percentage- I just find it hilarious that people think this team only does ISO's.

Um, there are a few ways to beat a zone..

1. Shooting over it. = this is the Hawks way of choice. I say this is the worst way.

2. Attacking it. = I prefer this way because usually it leads to the foul line. I believe Crawford, Evans, and Marvin should be the leads in this exchange.

3. Having a big dismantle it. = seeing that we don't do well against Centers of size, we won't do well here. Horf is decent from the wing but he has yet to show the ability to go down low and make the other team foul. A good defender is going to get so close to Al that Al will have to pass it out.

Josh Smith has the potential to be the best zone attacking forward in the game. However, he doesn't have the Heart.

Bibby should know how to overload one side and skip pass to the other and feed the baseline... but he doesn't do it.

Crawford knows how to dribble penetrate and then pass to the open man.. but we don't always move without the ball.

Woody still has a lot to teach.

[spotatl]

Josh Smith has the potential to be the best zone attacking forward in the game

Seriously? Josh SMith is probably one of the handful of players most affected by zone defense. To me Josh Smith woudl be a terrible choice for the Olympic team because of zone defenses.

Edited March 9, 2010 by spotatl

[Horf]

Our offense is ISO ISO and more ISO, that will get us no where, Woody doesn't know anything and I wish he was fired

[spotatl]

Our offense is ISO ISO and more ISO, that will get us no where, Woody doesn't know anything and I wish he was fired

I take it you didn't watch the game today? Or is this just a standard copy and paste complaint?

Edited March 9, 2010 by spotatl

[macdaddy]

The Hawks have a roster problem against a zone defense- not a scheme problem. They don't have a big who is enough of a threat from the outside to stop the defense from sloughing off in the middle. they don't have a post threat to draw a double. The don't have a PG who can draw a double and find the open man. Superior offensive rebounding can help break a zone- the Hawks occasionally do have this.

When the other team is willing to just basically zone up in the middle then I don't see many options for the Hawks to break the zone other than hitting their outside shots. Watch Orlando play against the Hawks- they are content to let hte Hawks try and beat them from the outside and pretty much completely ignore Horford and Smith if they go 10 feet away from the rim.

To me the way the Hawks should be attacking the zone is to just break the first level and then get the ball to Horford and Smith after the double has come. Too often Joe will draw the double and try and score through it instead of exploiting the other team when the defense is in motion. But to me this is a decisionmaking problem for Joe, not a system problem for the Hawks. The Hawks are 6th in the league in assist percentage- I just find it hilarious that people think this team only does ISO's.

I just don't understand how Woody bears no responsibility for the offense. First your argument was that our offense statistically is one of the best in the league so we obviously have a good system. But when the system totally fails, as it often does in the 4th quarter against decent teams, the problem is a 'decision making problem for Joe'? Woody has been coaching him for 4 years. At what point does Woody get blamed for his team failing to execute?

I will blame players when they make an obvious bone-headed play, but when they fail to score possession after possession in the half court game you've got think there is a disconnect between coach and players or a lack of a good plan.

[spotatl]

I think that league wide scoring goes down in the fourth quarter- you are just hypersensitive to misses by the hawks in the fourth and it makes you crazy.

To me the Hawks are a flawed halfcourt team and the fact that they have a top 5 offense is something that woodson deserves a ton of credit for. I'm absolutely ready to bet that if the Hawks change coaches in the offseason the team will win fewer games next season. The lack of options on offense is a roster problem, not a coaching problem. But the only way for you to see this is with a different coach.

Edited March 9, 2010 by spotatl

[buckeye242424]

Um, there are a few ways to beat a zone..

1. Shooting over it. = this is the Hawks way of choice. I say this is the worst way.

2. Attacking it. = I prefer this way because usually it leads to the foul line. I believe Crawford, Evans, and Marvin should be the leads in this exchange.

3. Having a big dismantle it. = seeing that we don't do well against Centers of size, we won't do well here. Horf is decent from the wing but he has yet to show the ability to go down low and make the other team foul. A good defender is going to get so close to Al that Al will have to pass it out.

Josh Smith has the potential to be the best zone attacking forward in the game. However, he doesn't have the Heart.

Bibby should know how to overload one side and skip pass to the other and feed the baseline... but he doesn't do it.

Crawford knows how to dribble penetrate and then pass to the open man.. but we don't always move without the ball.

Woody still has a lot to teach.

I think this statement sums up/answers the topic of the thread.....