Hawks as is versus Magic in 7-game series

[NineOhTheRino]

It looks like the Hawks are going to take another run with this beloved 'core group of guys'. Personally it makes no sense to me. This is borderline insane! We watched as this group got obliterated yet we are to believe that the outcome will be different a year later....

Even I thought the Marvin for Shaq thing was idiotic but I had no idea Sund & ASG were planning on bringing the same team back. How can they sell this? This core is poison and should have been broken up! This team needs more energy and one or two guys that give a damn about winning. Oh well lets just hope they can keep the average margin of defeat vs the Magic around 15 points this time around.

Edited August 4, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[ryandauwalker]

It looks like the Hawks are going to take another run with this beloved 'core group of guys'. Personally it makes no sense to me. This is borderline insane! We watched as this group got obliterated yet we are to believe that the outcome will be different a year later....

Even I thought the Marvin for Shaq thing was idiotic but I had no idea Sund & ASG were planning on bringing the same team back. How can they sell this? This core is poison and should have been broken up! This team needs more energy and one or two guys that give a damn about winning. Oh well lets just hope they can keep the average margin of defeat vs the Magic around 15 points this time around.

While I agree that it is idiotic, I still think we are putting a better team on the floor. We are losing nobody, we have a better coach who doesn't run switch D all the time, and now we have a point guard that can defend somebody.

Nevertheless, I still think they will eat our lunch if we meet up with them in the playoffs. You just never know how much difference a coach, and considering how inept Woody is, it could add us a few wins. Considering we won 53 last year with a moron coach, I think we'll be okay.

[NineOhTheRino]

While I agree that it is idiotic, I still think we are putting a better team on the floor. We are losing nobody, we have a better coach who doesn't run switch D all the time, and now we have a point guard that can defend somebody.

Nevertheless, I still think they will eat our lunch if we meet up with them in the playoffs. You just never know how much difference a coach, and considering how inept Woody is, it could add us a few wins. Considering we won 53 last year with a moron coach, I think we'll be okay.

How do we know this? This is the #1 response guys have been giving this offseason. Say LD is 10 times better than Woody coaching offense. How do we know he's not 10 times worse on the defensive side? Better or worse we don't have a clue.

Edited August 4, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[macdaddy]

First, how could they do worse? Can they get double-swept?

Second, this core that is 'poison' as you say has been in place for 3 years and went from sub-.500 8th seed to 3rd seed and 50+ wins. Obviously time to blow things up and rebuild right?

Third, we know this team can win in the regular season. We have midseason trades to help prepare for the playoffs. This is what good teams do.

Fourth, building a team in the summer to compete with a single playoff matchup that has a large chance of never happening is extremely stupid.

[NineOhTheRino]

First, how could they do worse? Can they get double-swept?

instead of losing by an average margin of 25 you lose by an average margin of 30

Second, this core that is 'poison' as you say has been in place for 3 years and went from sub-.500 8th seed to 3rd seed and 50+ wins. Obviously time to blow things up and rebuild right?

yes. Woody was the scapegoat. I hate theses guys as a group. Specifically I would like to see Marvin traded, Al playing PF and a PG that can penetrate and create.

Fourth, building a team in the summer to compete with a single playoff matchup that has a large chance of never happening is extremely stupid.

disagree. The goal should be building a team that can adapt. What's the logic in doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome? We know that the Magic are here to stay as long as they have Howard. Do you ignore this?

Edited August 4, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[lethalweapon3]

On the Magicians' side, I do like Q-Rich as a step up from Barnes, but I'm not a fan of Duhon for major backup minutes. Jameer must remain healthy and return to his '09 form offensively. The team will rely more than ever on Vince and Rashad to produce consistently from long range. They've got two openly sulking players in their frontcourt (Bass and Gortat) to mend fences with or trade, and unless Daniel Orton gets a successful lobotomy, they really haven't addressed their need for an additional reliable banger up front to help Dwight. Even with the free agents they re-signed, as-is, they have real potential to regress. So if the Hawks indeed do better next year versus Orlando, it may be more because of what they have(n't) done than what we have done.

Of course, if we do worse than we did last spring, Stern may invoke a mercy rule.

~lw3

[niremetal]

disagree. The goal should be building a team that can adapt. What's the logic in doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome? We know that the Magic are here to stay as long as they have Howard. Do you ignore this?

1) We're not doing the same thing. You still act as if the coach of a team is a non-entity. Frankly, I think Mike Woodson was the worst coach I have ever had the misfortune of watching. Making Josh Smith a player-coach probably would have resulted in an improvement in the second round (half-joking).

2) If we try to beat the Magic at their own game, we're conceding defeat. No team has ever won a title by making personnel moves to "adapt" to a single player or team. None. Ever. Ask all the teams that traded for Deke in the early 00's or Shaq in the past 3 years. The strategy has to be building the roster to be the best it can be and then playing a style of ball that forces the other team to adapt to us rather than vice versa. Woody was inept in that regard. For years, fans and experts talked about how the Hawks were a team without an identity on the floor. They ended up playing whatever style of ball the other team played because they had no identity of their own. That's a strategy doomed for failure in the playoffs.

To repeat something I said awhile ago...

If you let one team dictate the way you construct your roster, you’ve already conceded defeat IMHO. The strategy should be to build the best team overall and try to force other teams to adjust to you, not adjust yourself to other teams. If we try to beat Dwight at his own game, we’ll lose.

In any case, our biggest problem against Orlando was not Dwight. It was their shooters. The Bobcats limited Dwight to 10 and 7 and still got swept. Dwight got 22 and 11 against Boston, but Boston beat the Magic - and beat them quite easily. I don’t think a team has ever beaten Orlando by trying to beat Dwight at his own game. But teams have beaten Orlando by letting Dwight get his.

Dwight is not going to score 60 points in a game. On defense, the reason the Hawks lost is that Woody became obsessed with stopping Dwight, leaving Orlando’s shooters wide open. On offense, the ISO offense was useless because it allowed Dwight to just hang out around the rim, which cut off JJ and Jamal’s floaters and running jumpers (not to mention Josh and Al’s ability to score in the low post). Shaq would not help with either of those things. Having a coach who doesn’t get scared s***less at the prospect of Dwight would.

Edited August 4, 2010 by niremetal

[Sothron]

I don't know how to answer this poll. Do I think getting rid of the worst coach I've ever seen in any pro sport is good? Yes. I don't care how good or bad Larry Drew is going to be. Why? Because there's no way in hell he can be as horrible as Woodson. If Drew makes ONE ingame adjustment in one game he'd have made more than Woodson made in five years as a coach.

Now do I think we can beat the Magic? No. We might win one game. That's it. The ASG should have done more to improve this roster. Instead we're throwing the same team out there that IMO may not even get out of the first round with how much better the East is now.

[Deeman]

Dwight's been training with Hakeem Olajuwan this summer, so it could get worse.

[niremetal]

Dwight's been training with Hakeem Olajuwan this summer, so it could get worse.

Hakeem Olajuwon was a great player, but he's been a miserable failure as a big man coach. His tutees have included Okafor, Diop, Mbenga, Diogu, and Josh (who still has no moves in the low post except sometimes a little lefty jump hook). Yao worked with him in the summer of 2007; it didn't make any noticeable difference. In fact, his scoring average and FG% went down.

When Dwight starts working with Clifford Ray, I'll get nervous. But people need to get that great players often make for bad teachers, and Olajuwon seems to be a prime example of that.

[Diesel]

How do we know this? This is the #1 response guys have been giving this offseason. Say LD is 10 times better than Woody coaching offense. How do we know he's not 10 times worse on the defensive side? Better or worse we don't have a clue.

There is a rule in basketball. You're only as good as your talent. We have talent, but our talent is no match for Orlando's. I just think that we have obvious weaknesses and question marks that we have failed to address.

I am hoping a fit and trim Jason Collins can make a difference in our front court. I'm hoping that Josh Powell will come in and play big. However, my fear is that coaching will only enhance our team a small bit. Most of it will rest on the matchups and when you talk about the matchups, we're in trouble.

[High5]

It's impossible for us to play worse.

[niremetal]

The Mavericks brought in Dampier to defend Duncan, immediately they went to the finals and should have won (Wadegate).

Your statement is pretty fickle because 1) not many teams bring in one player for a single player or team and 2) you are giving the loftiest of lofty criteria in that the team must win the championship. Very few teams each year bring in one player for a single player or team every year (let's be generous and say 5/30) and the team must win the championship (1/30). If you assume independence, that puts your criteria at a probability of 0.56% of occurring. Now there isn't independence, so your criteria should have a higher percentage of occurring but still not much. Probabilistically wise, you have set up a scenario whose chance of occurrence is less than 10% and then say "see, this strategy is awful".

Bringing in Dampier to defend Duncan wasn't the difference-maker for Dallas against the Spurs, and certainly his defense on Duncan wasn't the difference. Duncan had arguably the best individual playoff series of his career against Dallas that year, averaging 32.3 points and 11.7 rebounds per game while shooting .556 from the floor. In Dallas's 4 wins, he averaged 33.8 and 12.3 while shooting .588. I actually view that series as at least some evidence for my point - they failed to stop the Big Three, but won anyway because they didn't let Duncan's presence change their gameplan on either end of the floor. That, in my view, was the difference.

And I could even dial it back and say "teams that adjust their rosters primarily to overcome a particular team OR individual matchup rarely succeed in making it further in the playoffs." The extreme example was just that - an example. The Suns brought in Shaq to stop Duncan and got worse. The Cavs brought in Shaq to stop Howard and got worse (in my view, at least). Multiple teams scoured the free agent and trade market for big men to slow or stop Shaq; it never worked, far as I can remember. My observation has been teams that adjust their roster with a single matchup in mind usually both fail to win the matchup and also weaken themselves against other teams. That was my point.

I don't think that the Hawks have a general problem matchup up with opposing centers. The fact that our starting center played in the All-Star game should be some indication of that. I think people are hitting the panic button because the Magic always hand us our butts on a silver platter. But I think attributing that to Horford/Howard is a mistake, because the Magic's history seems to indicate that stopping Howard is not necessarily the road to victory (ask Charlotte) and letting him get his is not a concession of defeat (ask Boston). I just don't think stopping Howard is the key to beating the Magic - and even if it were, there isn't anyone who can stop Howard anyway, IMHO.

Edited August 4, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

2) If we try to beat the Magic at their own game, we're conceding defeat. No team has ever won a title by making personnel moves to "adapt" to a single player or team. None. Ever. Ask all the teams that traded for Deke in the early 00's or Shaq in the past 3 years. The strategy has to be building the roster to be the best it can be and then playing a style of ball that forces the other team to adapt to us rather than vice versa. Woody was inept in that regard. For years, fans and experts talked about how the Hawks were a team without an identity on the floor. They ended up playing whatever style of ball the other team played because they had no identity of their own. That's a strategy doomed for failure in the playoffs.

Uhm.... I see somebody likes making absolutes without really thinking about what they are saying. Let me intervene:

1. Shaq to the Heat. = Championship.

"The deal had been on the verge of completion since Saturday, when O’Neal met in Orlando with Riley. NBA attorneys approved it hours after the league’s two-week moratorium on player movement ended.

O’Neal immediately transforms a franchise that has reached the conference finals only once in its 16-year history into a potential title contender. The Heat won one playoff series in the past four years and went 42-40 last season."

2. KG, Allen to the Celtics.

3. Bill Cartwright for Charles Oakley. When the bulls had Jordan and Oakley, they were one of the favorite teams to watch. They traded for this old man. Why?

"Krause made another transaction in 1988 to which Jordan strongly objected. It was clear that the Bulls needed a center if they were to contend for a title, so Krause dealt Charles Oakley to New York for Bill Cartwright. Oakley, who happened to be Jordan's best friend on the team,[5] was extremely tough, particularly on the boards and on defense. When the Pistons came after Jordan with their physical players, Oakley was his bodyguard. Cartwright was a true center, unlike the power forward Oakley, but was much older. Although Cartwright did not have Oakley's reputation as a lockdown defender, he was very effective at preventing opposing centers from dominating games,[6] and was a more capable inside scorer. Jordan despised the trade, not only because of the players involved but also because of how they learned of it: via television, while he and Oakley were on their way to Las Vegas to see a Mike Tyson fight.[7] Cartwright turned out to be everything the Bulls needed, however, providing a presence in the middle for all three Bulls championships from 1991-1993. Perhaps most importantly, Cartwright proved to be the league's best center at defending Patrick Ewing, the New York Knicks' star who was the key player on the Bulls' most important early-1990s conference rival.[8] Jordan later admitted that he may have been wrong and Krause may have been right about the trade,[9] but it changed nothing about Jordan's overall distrust and hatred for Krause. These feelings came to the surface in many different ways, with one of the most unusual coming in the 1992 Olympics, when the Dream Team, including Jordan and Pippen, took on Croatia for the gold medal. The Croatia team featured Toni Kukoč, a young star whom Krause had discovered through European contacts and was courting to a degree that some of the Bulls found annoying.[10] Jordan biographer David Halberstam said that Jordan and Pippen "seemed to play against Kukoc as if they had a vendetta", and that "in the end, it was as if they had been playing not against Kukoc but against Krause."[11] Jordan would later be quoted as saying: "The trade of Oakley was good, and the best thing he did was to get Pippen and Grant. "

4. Detroit trading for Rasheed Wallace.[

" "It gives us a real shot to compete at the highest level in the NBA right now," Dumars said.

In a deal put together shortly before the NBA trading deadline, the Pistons sent center Zeljko Rebraca, guard Bob Sura and a first-round draft pick to the Hawks. That pick will come from Milwaukee this year if the Bucks make the playoffs.

Detroit also sent guards Lindsey Hunter, Chucky Atkins, its first round pick this year and cash to Boston, while the Celtics shipped forward Chris Mills to the Hawks and guard Mike James to the Pistons.

"That fact that we didn't have to break up our team and we were able to add the guy we did, it made it a no-brainer move for us," Dumars said. "It created cap space and we didn't mess with our core, so it was a great deal for us.""

Edited August 4, 2010 by Diesel

[niremetal]

Uhm.... I see somebody likes making absolutes without really thinking about what they are saying. Let me intervene:

1. Shaq to the Heat. = Championship.

2. KG, Allen to the Celtics.

3. Bill Cartwright for Charles Oakley. When the bulls had Jordan and Oakley, they were one of the favorite teams to watch. They traded for this old man. Why?

4. Detroit trading for Rasheed Wallace.[

....how are any of those examples of teams that made moves with beating a single player or team in mind? I never said that standing pat was the road to victory and that any team who rocks the boat will get worse, which is what you seem to think I said. I said "No team has ever won a title by making personnel moves to "adapt" to a single player or team."

Are you saying those trades were all made with the focus being mainly on beating one specific player or team? I'd say they were more like the Hawks' trades for Bibby and Crawford - moves designed to improve the roster as a whole, without any particular player/team matchups in mind. (And no, I'm not saying the Bibby and Crawford trades were on the same level in terms of success, but rather that they stemmed from the same general strategy of "improve the roster" instead of "beat Team X and/or Player Y")

If the Hawks get an offer to swap Bibby for Andre Miller, I'm all over that - but not because it helps us beat any individual team. But getting a bigger center (when we already have an All-Star center and a should-be All-Star at PF) because people are scared of Dwight Howard and the Magic? That I'm not ok with.

Edited August 4, 2010 by niremetal

[macdaddy]

....how are any of those examples of teams that made moves with beating a single player or team in mind? I never said that standing pat was the road to victory and that any team who rocks the boat will get worse, which is what you seem to think I said. I said "No team has ever won a title by making personnel moves to "adapt" to a single player or team."

Are you saying those trades were all made with the focus being mainly on beating one specific player or team? I'd say they were more like the Hawks' trades for Bibby and Crawford - moves designed to improve the roster as a whole, without any particular player/team matchups in mind. (And no, I'm not saying the Bibby and Crawford trades were on the same level in terms of success, but rather that they stemmed from the same general strategy of "improve the roster" instead of "beat Team X and/or Player Y")

If the Hawks get an offer to swap Bibby for Andre Miller, I'm all over that - but not because it helps us beat any individual team. But getting a bigger center (when we already have an All-Star center and a should-be All-Star at PF) because people are scared of Dwight Howard and the Magic? That I'm not ok with.

This ^

Everyone wants to get some more talent but every single trade mentioned in Diesel's thread, except perhaps Boston, did one important thing. They acquired nba starter quality talent without breaking up an already solid playoff team's core. That opportunity was not available to the Hawks this offseason but it may be at the deadline. We shall see.

[Diesel]

....how are any of those examples of teams that made moves with beating a single player or team in mind? I never said that standing pat was the road to victory and that any team who rocks the boat will get worse, which is what you seem to think I said. I said "No team has ever won a title by making personnel moves to "adapt" to a single player or team."

Are you saying those trades were all made with the focus being mainly on beating one specific player or team? I'd say they were more like the Hawks' trades for Bibby and Crawford - moves designed to improve the roster as a whole, without any particular player/team matchups in mind. (And no, I'm not saying the Bibby and Crawford trades were on the same level in terms of success, but rather that they stemmed from the same general strategy of "improve the roster" instead of "beat Team X and/or Player Y")

If the Hawks get an offer to swap Bibby for Andre Miller, I'm all over that - but not because it helps us beat any individual team. But getting a bigger center (when we already have an All-Star center and a should-be All-Star at PF) because people are scared of Dwight Howard and the Magic? That I'm not ok with.

If we were to get Shaq, it wouldn't just be for Orlando. It would be for any of the big men that we will encounter. That means Bogut. That means Noah. That means Bynum. That means Perkins. That means Lopez. That means Chandler. That means You bring up these false arguments and then you falsely try to win them. Let's be real for a moment Nire. Our problem isn't just Howard. Our problem is that we are outmatched by big men. The list I gave you showed how teams made moves to get the one player that helped them where they were weak. The Bulls dynasty team did it and it is the reason they had a dynasty. They couldn't have gotten past NY without Cartwright.

This ^

Everyone wants to get some more talent but every single trade mentioned in Diesel's thread, except perhaps Boston, did one important thing. They acquired nba starter quality talent without breaking up an already solid playoff team's core. That opportunity was not available to the Hawks this offseason but it may be at the deadline. We shall see.

We could have gotten Shaq without breaking up the team's core. Come on. We didn't get Shaq because of money.

[niremetal]

If we were to get Shaq, it wouldn't just be for Orlando. It would be for any of the big men that we will encounter. That means Bogut. That means Noah. That means Bynum. That means Perkins. That means Lopez. That means Chandler. That means You bring up these false arguments and then you falsely try to win them. Let's be real for a moment Nire. Our problem isn't just Howard. Our problem is that we are outmatched by big men. The list I gave you showed how teams made moves to get the one player that helped them where they were weak. The Bulls dynasty team did it and it is the reason they had a dynasty. They couldn't have gotten past NY without Cartwright.

Let's be real? I was being real, but here's another dose of reality: We have an All-Star at center. We have a shoulda-been All-Star at PF. I don't agree that center is a weakness. I don't remember us losing many games because Al couldn't handle a bigger/taller/tougher opponent. I don't remember Noah, Bogut, Lopez, or Chandler doing anything that Al couldn't handle but someone bigger-but-slower could.

I think we lost most of our games because Woody couldn't make in-game adjustments. From a personnel standpoint, I think perimeter defense was a bigger issue than post defense. I think that PG was a bigger issue than C. I do not accept at all that we need an upgrade at center. And even if we did, I don't know how you can consider an aging Shaq an upgrade over the young and improving player who already has surpassed him according to NBA coaches (who selected him as an All-Star over Shaq and who gave him more All-NBA votes than Shaq).

What "false argument" did I make? And how did I "falsely" try to win them? I am stating my opinion. You disagreeing with it does not make it "false."

[Diesel]

Let's be real? I was being real, but here's another dose of reality: We have an All-Star at center. We have a shoulda-been All-Star at PF. I don't agree that center is a weakness. I don't remember us losing many games because Al couldn't handle a bigger/taller/tougher opponent. I don't remember Noah, Bogut, Lopez, or Chandler doing anything that Al couldn't handle but someone bigger-but-slower could.

I think we lost most of our games because Woody couldn't make in-game adjustments. From a personnel standpoint, I think perimeter defense was a bigger issue than post defense. I think that PG was a bigger issue than C. I do not accept at all that we need an upgrade at center. And even if we did, I don't know how you can consider an aging Shaq an upgrade over the young and improving player who already has surpassed him according to NBA coaches (who selected him as an All-Star over Shaq and who gave him more All-NBA votes than Shaq).

What "false argument" did I make? And how did I "falsely" try to win them? I am stating my opinion. You disagreeing with it does not make it "false."

Let's be realer... Al doesn't deserve to be an allstar. Not last year. The injury bug was Al's friend and Smoove was more deserving to be an allstar than Al. All that said, what did Al do in the playoffs? You know, when the games counted? Against Orlando, he had 1 game where he scored well and he was out played and out rebounded by a ton. What does it say about you as a player when the guy you face, had a double double average and averaged over 80% from the field?? Is that Allstar? How about the 13 ppg, 7.5 rpg against the Magic in the playoffs. Is that Allstar?

About the snubbing...

"Al Horford will be making his first All-Star appearance of his career—a decision that is head scratching to say the least. Comparing Horford with Smith, it’s hard to come up with an argument that Horford deserves to be in the game more. Smith is averaging better stats in these categories: points, steals, blocks, assists, and assist-to-turnover, doing so while averaging a minute less than Horford.

Horford has a one-rebound advantage on Smith and commits less turnovers. However, Smith averages over eight rebounds and only turns the ball over two times a game, so it’s not as if he lost his All-Star vote because of those numbers."

To a man on HS, nobody would dare deny that Horford was lucky to get in.

[niremetal]

Let's be realer... Al doesn't deserve to be an allstar. Not last year. The injury bug was Al's friend and Smoove was more deserving to be an allstar than Al.

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

To a man on HS, nobody would dare deny that Horford was lucky to get in.

Really? You want to start a thread asking that question and take a poll? No? Ok, then.

I guess you know better than NBA head coaches.

Edited August 4, 2010 by niremetal