Are the 2009 - 10 Hawks . . the 1987 - 88 Hawks reincarnated?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

After 65 games, these are the top 5 records in Atlanta Hawks history ( not counting St. Louis ):

* 1993 - 94: 46 - 19

* 1986 - 87: 44 - 21

* 1996 - 97: 43 - 22

* 2009 - 10: 42 - 23

* 1985 - 86 . . 1987 - 88 . . 1997 - 98: 40 - 25

( As most die hard Hawk fans should know, not ONE of those teams made it to the Eastern Conference Finals )

With a current .646 winning percentage, the Hawks are tracking to post the 4th best regular season record in Atlanta Hawk history ( not counting the St. Louis years )

The team the 2009 - 10 Hawks are probably most similar to, from a historical franchise perspective, are the 1987 - 88 Hawks, who finished the season 50 - 32. That Hawk team took the Celtics to 7 games in the East Semifinals, before losing in the Garden in that epic Nique vs Bird showdown.

*********************

Team comparisons:

1987 - 88 Hawks:

Offensive rating: 5th

Defensive rating: 14th

Pace: 21st out of 23 teams

#4 seed ( lost tiebreaker with Chicago, who also finished with a 50 - 32 record )

Home record: 30 - 11 ( 73% ) .

Road record: 20 - 21( 48% )

2009 - 10 Hawks:

Offensive rating: 3rd

Defensive rating: 14th

Pace: 27th out of 30 teams

currently the #3 seed ( fighting off Boston for that seed )

Home record: 26 - 7 ( 78% )

Road record: 16 - 16 ( 50% )

*****************

The 1987 - 88 team struggled in the 1st round with a 42 - 40 Milwaukee squad, but did take care of them in Game 5 ( 1st round series back then only went to best of 5 ). Then they went on to face the top seeded Celtics, and battled them to the death.

Just wanted to illustrate how special this season actually is, in case some of you don't realize this.

Edited March 14, 2010 by northcyde

[Joker]

Everyone understand this is our best team from a talent perspective since then. It's just about the results. Those early 90's teams played when the NBA was getting weaker from the late 80's.

[hawkman]

Everyone understand this is our best team from a talent perspective since then. It's just about the results. Those early 90's teams played when the NBA was getting weaker from the late 80's.

The NBA was "weak" in the early 90's? Are you serious??? Early 90's NBA basketball makes 21st century basketball look like ballet.

[Joker]

The NBA was "weak" in the early 90's? Are you serious??? Early 90's NBA basketball makes 21st century basketball look like ballet.

lol, your kidding right. The NBA in the early 90's was weak. Teams we not as strong as they were in the 80's and it was weaker in the mid and late 90's. The early 2000's was beyond terrible. Today's NBA is just as good as the mid and late 80's.

[niremetal]

lol, your kidding right. The NBA in the early 90's was weak. Teams we not as strong as they were in the 80's and it was weaker in the mid and late 90's. The early 2000's was beyond terrible. Today's NBA is just as good as the mid and late 80's.

Yeah, no way was the NBA as strong in the 90's as it was in the 80's. The 4-team expansion in '88/'89 diluted the overall talent, and the aging of the Lakers and Celtics took out the two dominant teams from the decade. Jordan's Bulls never had world-class competition for the title until the Jazz peaked - and even the Jazz had below average talent surrounding their two HOFers. But I think that winning the NBA title in the early 2000s was a lot harder than it was in the 90's and a lot harder than it is today - the Spurs and Lakers from those years would have been contenders in any era.

[Joker]

Yeah, no way was the NBA as strong in the 90's as it was in the 80's. The 4-team expansion in '88/'89 diluted the overall talent, and the aging of the Lakers and Celtics took out the two dominant teams from the decade. Jordan's Bulls never had world-class competition for the title until the Jazz peaked - and even the Jazz had below average talent surrounding their two HOFers. But I think that winning the NBA title in the early 2000s was a lot harder than it was in the 90's and a lot harder than it is today - the Spurs and Lakers from those years would have been contenders in any era.

The Eastern Conference was a joke in the early 2000's and I agree about expansion but only to a certain point. The pool was weaken because of the cocaine era at it's peak.

[TheTruth]

More to the topic, I find this analysis of yours Northcyde pretty dang interesting. Although I was barely out the womb during that 87-88 season, it does seem as though, from a stat perspective, that our teams were very similar. Interestingly enough, I expect similar results this year. As long we maintain our 3rd seed, we will somewhat struggle in the first round but eventually win in 5 or 6 games, and then struggle mightily in the second round. This Hawks team doesn't rebound well enough (and consistently enough), play to their strengths on a regular basis, and is just plain lazy too many times to really take care of business. And unless Woodson and the players come up with a better strategy, they won't have much of a chance in the second round as well.

[Diesel]

Everyone understand this is our best team from a talent perspective since then. It's just about the results. Those early 90's teams played when the NBA was getting weaker from the late 80's.

OK Superstar? Weak??? While Magic and Bird may have saved basketball. Basketball's mountain top happened with Jordan, the Knicks, the Pacers, the Pistons, Utah, Magic, Heat, Hornets, Blazers and LAL in the Early 90s.

This is the time when you had: Jordan, Dumars, Thomas, Reggie, and Barkley ruling basketball.

This is the time you had Deke, Morning, Ewing, Robinson and Hakeem awaiting Shaq. Definitely the time when you had the most dominant Bigs playing at the same time.

Weak? That's funny.

[Endy9]

Everyone remembers that 7th game in 87-88 against the Celts, but few remember that we beat the Celts on their court to come home up 3-2. That was the first time in all my years of keeping up with the hawks that we actually won a key road game. We lost so many times to teams like the Bullets and Knicks because we could only win our home games. It was so crushing that Cliff Levingston couldn't hit that open 8 foot shot to clinch game 6 at home..sigh.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Endy9

[Diesel]

The Eastern Conference was a joke in the early 2000's and I agree about expansion but only to a certain point. The pool was weaken because of the cocaine era at it's peak.

dude, you keep opening your mouth and saying nonesense.

Reggie Millers Pacers?

Reggie Lewis' Celtics?

The freakin Cleveland Cavs

Chicago with Mike and Scottie

The Hornets with Johnson, Morning and Bogues!

Shaq and the Magic!

WhooptyDamn doo Derrick Coleman and NJ!

Then there was Atlanta with Nique!!

Did we mention NY?

Come on Superstar.... you're saying nonesense. The east was litterally stronger than it had ever been. That's 9 strong teams.

[Diesel]

More to the topic, I find this analysis of yours Northcyde pretty dang interesting. Although I was barely out the womb during that 87-88 season, it does seem as though, from a stat perspective, that our teams were very similar. Interestingly enough, I expect similar results this year. As long we maintain our 3rd seed, we will somewhat struggle in the first round but eventually win in 5 or 6 games, and then struggle mightily in the second round. This Hawks team doesn't rebound well enough (and consistently enough), play to their strengths on a regular basis, and is just plain lazy too many times to really take care of business. And unless Woodson and the players come up with a better strategy, they won't have much of a chance in the second round as well.

Well, just to clarify.

Those teams never had great three point shooting. Dominique was our main three point shooter and he would take about 2 a game, but he wouldn't hit many. IF I had to guess I say he shot like 35% for those teams. Now, we are built on our ability to out shoot another team. Those teams did have scoring and offensive plays. Fratello was good at the Xs and Os and even though a lot of his plays were give the ball to Nique and move out of the way, the team bought into it and Nique never wasted time with the ball. Today's team by contrast is not as good running the Xs and Os. Doc Rivers made better decisions than Bibby does. Moreover, whereas Nique knew how to make his move quickly, Joe makes his move much slower.

Defensively, this team is better. Everybody buys into this team's defense. I remember going to games (especially when Jordan was in time) and Jordan and Nique would just put on an offensive show. That's because Nique would never play strong defense. I think that all of our guys are dedicated to the defensive theme, even if they can't carry it out fully.

Because of those points, I'm hopeful.

The other thing is that we played better competition back then.

[Joker]

dude, you keep opening your mouth and saying nonesense.

Reggie Millers Pacers?

Reggie Lewis' Celtics?

The freakin Cleveland Cavs

Chicago with Mike and Scottie

The Hornets with Johnson, Morning and Bogues!

Shaq and the Magic!

WhooptyDamn doo Derrick Coleman and NJ!

Then there was Atlanta with Nique!!

Did we mention NY?

Come on Superstar.... you're saying nonesense. The east was litterally stronger than it had ever been. That's 9 strong teams.

The Pacers were a good team, but they would be a lock for 5th seed in today's EC NBA, anything higher is pushing it.

Those Celtics weren't that good, they were average, Indiana Pacers of today.

The Cavs were solid at best in the 90's. Terrell Brandon and Tyrone Hill was peaking at times.

Chicago was elite, duh

Hornets were above average with a lot of firepower but little experience. Thinks today's Chicago Bulls

The Magic was very good, comparable to today's Boston Celtics overall.

lol, those Nets were below average, comparable to today's T'Wolves.

I liked the 90's teams but they were not as good as the 80's teams or even today's Hawks.

NY was good but they were not great, a 5th seed today. Not elite or very good but just good. Ewing has always been overrated in my book.

The West was not much better, Hakeem was amazing but his supporting cast till he got old was meh.

The Jazz wouldn't make it in today's NBA, funny thing is they would be really good in the early 2000's if in their prime.

The Sonics were my favorite team back then but even I knew Kemp was not all that. He was like today's Amare and Payton was the truth. Everyone else on that team was role players in terms of talent.

When the Suns got Barkley, their offense was excellent, defense... LOL.

The rest really weren't contenders.

[Joker]

OK Superstar? Weak??? While Magic and Bird may have saved basketball. Basketball's mountain top happened with Jordan, the Knicks, the Pacers, the Pistons, Utah, Magic, Heat, Hornets, Blazers and LAL in the Early 90s.

This is the time when you had: Jordan, Dumars, Thomas, Reggie, and Barkley ruling basketball.

This is the time you had Deke, Morning, Ewing, Robinson and Hakeem awaiting Shaq. Definitely the time when you had the most dominant Bigs playing at the same time.

Weak? That's funny.

I have never said that teams didn't have great players nor did I say today's Centers is competitive will the 90's Centers. Thomas was at the end in the early 90's. I would have said Pippen instead. Reggie is not that good, he's a better shooting, more clutch and worst defensive Rip Hamilton. Barkley could hoop in any era, he would be suspended a lot in today's image friendly league. I do not think we will ever see Centers like we did in the 90's again. Those were great Centers.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Everyone remembers that 7th game in 87-88 against the Celts, but few remember that we beat the Celts on their court to come home up 3-2. That was the first time in all my years of keeping up with the hawks that we actually won a key road game. We lost so many times to teams like the Bullets and Knicks because we could only win our home games. It was so crushing that Cliff Levingston couldn't hit that open 8 foot shot to clinch game 6 at home..sigh.

I agree. We had Game 6 on our home floor with a chance to close them out, and just couldn't get it done at the end.

And to be honest, that's the hope for this year. In JJ and Crawford, we have two guys that can literally take over stretches in a game. So in a situation on the road in Orlando or Cleveland in which we need to steal a game, those 2 could possibly make it happen for us. That's why I don't buy that a 2nd round matchup vs those two teams isn't as impossible as people think.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The Pacers were a good team, but they would be a lock for 5th seed in today's EC NBA, anything higher is pushing it.

Those Celtics weren't that good, they were average, Indiana Pacers of today.

The Cavs were solid at best in the 90's. Terrell Brandon and Tyrone Hill was peaking at times.

Chicago was elite, duh

Hornets were above average with a lot of firepower but little experience. Thinks today's Chicago Bulls

The Magic was very good, comparable to today's Boston Celtics overall.

lol, those Nets were below average, comparable to today's T'Wolves.

I liked the 90's teams but they were not as good as the 80's teams or even today's Hawks.

NY was good but they were not great, a 5th seed today. Not elite or very good but just good. Ewing has always been overrated in my book.

The West was not much better, Hakeem was amazing but his supporting cast till he got old was meh.

The Jazz wouldn't make it in today's NBA, funny thing is they would be really good in the early 2000's if in their prime.

The Sonics were my favorite team back then but even I knew Kemp was not all that. He was like today's Amare and Payton was the truth. Everyone else on that team was role players in terms of talent.

When the Suns got Barkley, their offense was excellent, defense... LOL.

The rest really weren't contenders.

Superstar . . . I'm going to have to agree with Diesel on this one. The teams of the early to mid 90s were VERY strong teams, especially when you talk about the top 10 - 12 teams.

* The Portland teams of the early 90s were some of the best teams of the era. To be honest, they had no business losing to the Bulls back in 92 in that NBA Final and shoud've beaten the Lakers the year before in the Western Conference Finals. Instead of 2 out of 3 appearances in the Finals, that Portland team should've reached the Finals from 90 - 92 . . and at least won one title. That team was much more talented than the Bulls in 92.

* The ONLY thing that kept the Cavs from being a dominant team in the 90s, were injury. The Ron Harper injury KILLED that team right when they were ready to take over where Detroit had left off. Cleveland could've very well been the Bulls, if it wasn't for the Harper, and then the Mark Price injury. And they still bounced back and challenged the Bulls after Price got back on track. The Terrell Brandon led Cavs were nowhere near the caliber of a team than the Mark Price led Cavaliers.

* LOL @ dissing the Sonics. WHAT??? As great as Smoove has the potential to be, he can't hold a candle to Shawn Kemp. Kemp was everything Smoove SHOULD be right now, plus Kemp could hit the midrange jumper at a higher rate than Smoove. Gary Payton back then would be the #1 PG in the league today, because of his all-around game. Maybe only Paul would be better. In a 6 year span in the 90s, the Sonics never lost more than 27 games in a season. They flat out choked in 94, when Denver beat them in the first round, but maybe had the best team in NBA history that didn't win a title back in 1996, when they won 64 games but got beat by arguably the greatest team of all time . . the 96 Bulls team that won 72 games.

* The Knicks under Pat Riley was THE toughest defensive team of the early - mid 90s, finishing 2nd - 1st - 1st - and 1st in defense for 4 consecutive years. They were the reason why Stern had to change up the rules going into the 2000s, so so that offenses could have more freedom to operate. Defensively, the Knicks would flat out lock you up and bully you while doing it. If you didn't have guys who could create their own shot, you were NOT beating the Knicks.

* From 1988 - 1998, the Jazz won 50 games a season all but one year. From 1992 - 98, the Jazz made it to 2 consecutive NBA Finals and 3 Western Conference Finals 5 out of 7 years. Winning out in Utah was virtually IMPOSSIBLE back in those days. Utah was arguably THE team of the decade in the West, even if they never won a title. You obviously didn't pay attention to Utah, if you don't think that they couldn't make it in today's SOFTER NBA.

* And how DARE YOU diss the great Hakeem Olajuwon and the Rockets. Seriously. The current Orlando Magic team plays EXACTLY like Houston did back in the mid 90s . . with the exception that Howard couldn't carry Olajuwon's jock strap. Olajuwon would flat out murder Howard in a head to head battle. In those days, Hakeem was arguably the best offensive AND defensive player in the league. With the Rockets, once again, you're talking about a team that won 2 titles, and made the the Western Conference Finals in 3 out of 4 years.

Even those fringe teams like Indiana, Phoenix, and Orlando ( for 2 years with Shaq ), were very impressive teams during the decade.

**************

The fact is . . . winning 50 games back in the 90s was kind of a huge accomplishment, seeing the level of talent amongst the top 10 - 12 teams in the league. I'm sorry man. If you look at the current playoff teams, and sent some of then back to the 90s, these would be the only teams that would even have a possibility to make it to an East or West Final

- Cleveland ( and they would be nowhere near as dominant as they are now . . maybe a 48 - 52 win team )

- LA Lakers ( they could play in any era and win 50+ games )

- Orlando ( without a tough PF, they may be no more than a 50 win team as well, partially because centers back then could guard Dwight one on one )

That's it.

A lot of those West teams today, are way too of a finesse team to survive back in the 90s. And the teams in the East simply aren't fundamentally sound enough to The current Utah Jazz would get ran off the floor if they went up against the Jazz teams of the 90s. No way the current Atlanta team could beat the defensive minded, much physical Knick teams of the 90s. They would punk us every time. Denver wouldn't match up at all against the Sonic teams of the 90s.

[Joker]

Superstar . . . I'm going to have to agree with Diesel on this one. The teams of the early to mid 90s were VERY strong teams, especially when you talk about the top 10 - 12 teams.

* The Portland teams of the early 90s were some of the best teams of the era. To be honest, they had no business losing to the Bulls back in 92 in that NBA Final and shoud've beaten the Lakers the year before in the Western Conference Finals. Instead of 2 out of 3 appearances in the Finals, that Portland team should've reached the Finals from 90 - 92 . . and at least won one title. That team was much more talented than the Bulls in 92.

* The ONLY thing that kept the Cavs from being a dominant team in the 90s, were injury. The Ron Harper injury KILLED that team right when they were ready to take over where Detroit had left off. Cleveland could've very well been the Bulls, if it wasn't for the Harper, and then the Mark Price injury. And they still bounced back and challenged the Bulls after Price got back on track. The Terrell Brandon led Cavs were nowhere near the caliber of a team than the Mark Price led Cavaliers.

* LOL @ dissing the Sonics. WHAT??? As great as Smoove has the potential to be, he can't hold a candle to Shawn Kemp. Kemp was everything Smoove SHOULD be right now, plus Kemp could hit the midrange jumper at a higher rate than Smoove. Gary Payton back then would be the #1 PG in the league today, because of his all-around game. Maybe only Paul would be better. In a 6 year span in the 90s, the Sonics never lost more than 27 games in a season. They flat out choked in 94, when Denver beat them in the first round, but maybe had the best team in NBA history that didn't win a title back in 1996, when they won 64 games but got beat by arguably the greatest team of all time . . the 96 Bulls team that won 72 games.

* The Knicks under Pat Riley was THE toughest defensive team of the early - mid 90s, finishing 2nd - 1st - 1st - and 1st in defense for 4 consecutive years. They were the reason why Stern had to change up the rules going into the 2000s, so so that offenses could have more freedom to operate. Defensively, the Knicks would flat out lock you up and bully you while doing it. If you didn't have guys who could create their own shot, you were NOT beating the Knicks.

* From 1988 - 1998, the Jazz won 50 games a season all but one year. From 1992 - 98, the Jazz made it to 2 consecutive NBA Finals and 3 Western Conference Finals 5 out of 7 years. Winning out in Utah was virtually IMPOSSIBLE back in those days. Utah was arguably THE team of the decade in the West, even if they never won a title. You obviously didn't pay attention to Utah, if you don't think that they couldn't make it in today's SOFTER NBA.

* And how DARE YOU diss the great Hakeem Olajuwon and the Rockets. Seriously. The current Orlando Magic team plays EXACTLY like Houston did back in the mid 90s . . with the exception that Howard couldn't carry Olajuwon's jock strap. Olajuwon would flat out murder Howard in a head to head battle. In those days, Hakeem was arguably the best offensive AND defensive player in the league. With the Rockets, once again, you're talking about a team that won 2 titles, and made the the Western Conference Finals in 3 out of 4 years.

Even those fringe teams like Indiana, Phoenix, and Orlando ( for 2 years with Shaq ), were very impressive teams during the decade.

**************

The fact is . . . winning 50 games back in the 90s was kind of a huge accomplishment, seeing the level of talent amongst the top 10 - 12 teams in the league. I'm sorry man. If you look at the current playoff teams, and sent some of then back to the 90s, these would be the only teams that would even have a possibility to make it to an East or West Final

- Cleveland ( and they would be nowhere near as dominant as they are now . . maybe a 48 - 52 win team )

- LA Lakers ( they could play in any era and win 50+ games )

- Orlando ( without a tough PF, they may be no more than a 50 win team as well, partially because centers back then could guard Dwight one on one )

That's it.

A lot of those West teams today, are way too of a finesse team to survive back in the 90s. And the teams in the East simply aren't fundamentally sound enough to The current Utah Jazz would get ran off the floor if they went up against the Jazz teams of the 90s. No way the current Atlanta team could beat the defensive minded, much physical Knick teams of the 90s. They would punk us every time. Denver wouldn't match up at all against the Sonic teams of the 90s.

I forgot about Portland, they were great and one of the best overall teams in the 90's. They had a lot of depth.

The early 90's Cleveland teams was good never great, I sometime lapse them into the late 80's teams. I forget how good Ron Harper could have been, I still remember the highlights from when he played at Miami(OH). He was a beast.

I never dissed the Sonics. Kemp was a today's Amare and I paid homage to Payton. Probably one of my favorite PG's in his prime. No PG could hold GP.

This Hawks team played in a different league. Those Knicks would never make it in today's image friendly league.

The reason the NBA is soft today is because of Stern, you would be crazy if you didn't think Marvin and Zaza wouldn't be knocking peoples heads off with Horford beating the brains in if Stern didn't want to change the image of the league.

The Jazz lineup would not win the West in today's West. Look at the Mavs and Lakers. Same with Boston, Detroit, and LA in the 80's compared to the 90's.

Diss the Rockets, far from it. I think Hakeem is the greatest player I've ever seen. I loved that team but outside of Hakeem, they really weren't championship caliber.

I did down the 90's abit but I have never said that today's players were a lot better, just the teams. I think most of the 90's players in the top 10 were better than today's. Kobe and Bron could hang or maybe better but the rest do not compare. But Ewing was overrated in my mind. Ewing defense was very good and his offense is Jermaine O'Neal like. I loved Oakley, vastly underrated and Mason was just physical as hell. I like your take on Denver v. Seattle. That would be a fun series, but Denver better but what a series would it be.

Edited March 15, 2010 by nbasuperstar40