Hawks as is versus Magic in 7-game series

[Diesel]

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."

Your false argument was saying that no team has ever traded for one player to play against one team. That's a false premise. No team trades for one series. That's fan talk. The truth is that teams trade for players and they may be eyeing a matchup against a team, but they trade for the player to build the chemistry or the talent or the finances... those are the three reasons for a trade. Anything otherwise mentioned is BS. So you started with a BS argument and you tried to win a BS argument because you can't lose a BS argument.

That's like me saying that there has never been a fish who couldn't swim in water.

[niremetal]

Your false argument was saying that no team has ever traded for one player to play against one team. That's a false premise. No team trades for one series. That's fan talk. The truth is that teams trade for players and they may be eyeing a matchup against a team, but they trade for the player to build the chemistry or the talent or the finances... those are the three reasons for a trade. Anything otherwise mentioned is BS. So you started with a BS argument and you tried to win a BS argument because you can't lose a BS argument.

That's like me saying that there has never been a fish who couldn't swim in water.

Ok, what about the softer version of the same argument:

"teams that adjust their rosters primarily to overcome a particular team OR individual matchup rarely succeed in making it further in the playoffs."

Because I provided a number of examples of that.

Poor Diesel. He can't help it.

Edited August 4, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

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.

IF I could get honesty.. yeah.

Better yet, ask this: Between Howard, Lopez, Bogut, Shaq, Horford,Noah, and David Lee. Which two (2) deserved to be on the allstar team last year.

[niremetal]

IF I could get honesty.. yeah.

Better yet, ask this: Between Howard, Lopez, Bogut, Shaq, Horford,Noah, and David Lee. Which two (2) deserved to be on the allstar team last year.

Done. Howard was voted by the fans and I assume everyone would vote for him anyway. So I simply truncated it to picking one of Lopez, Bogut, Shaq, Horford, Noah, and Lee. We shall see.

[Diesel]

Ok, what about the softer version of the same argument:

"teams that adjust their rosters primarily to overcome a particular team OR individual matchup rarely succeed in making it further in the playoffs."

Because I provided a number of examples of that.

Poor Diesel. He can't help it.

You don't think the Bulls changed their roster to overcome the mighty Pistons?

You don't think the Pistons changed their roster to overcome the Lakers? You know Aguirre for Dantley?

You don't think that Houston traded for Clyde Drexler to keep Portland out of their way? People forget that Drexler was the first to do the Lebron. He forced PTL to trade him to a contender and the best deal came from Houston (phi-slamma Jamma).

[Watchman]

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.

Since "we don't have a clue" as to whether coaching will be better (hard to imagine worse, but I digress...), isn't the question about how we would do against Orlando premature/moot at this point?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Watchman

[niremetal]

I didn't actually do any research on that, and you're right. Damp didn't help at all. But Damp was still a move made by the Mavs specifically for Duncan, at the time who else was a good Center in the West?

If you dial it back, you are sitll talking about a ridiculously small sample size. And to conclude from that small sample size that the strategy doesn't work seems foolish to me. I could easily create a counter-intuitive example: Any team who adds a 30+ PPG scorer doesn't win the NBA championship. Look it up, all teams who added a 30+ PPG scorer hasn't won the championship that year (ok I admit I didn't look it up but I am fairly certain). So it must be foolish for us to add a 30+ PPG scorer, right? Wrong, before even examining the statement I can tell its not likely just based on probabilities.

In other words, just about any statement like what you have given will lead to a probabilistically unrealistic event. Even if you scale it back to "improve the next year". I'm not attacking you, its the type of statements you are giving because I think they are foolish to conclude anything from them.

This all stems from just looking at the NBA during the past 10-15 years and seeing playoff teams make trades specifically designed to counter dominant big men on other teams (Shaq, Duncan, and now Howard). What people are suggesting the Hawks do feels eerily like that. By my observations, which are admittedly based on a small sample size, that strategy has never been successful before. That seems logical, because moves designed primarily to improve the odds of winning against 1-2 teams out of 30 are likely to dilute your odds of winning against other teams. Furthermore, it seems like a concession that you are unable to impose your own gameplan on the team(s) in question, and thus must attempt to beat the team(s) at their own game (which itself seems to me like it's a strategy that won't work).

That smells like what some people around here are suggesting the Hawks do: Go out and land a big center so that we match up better against Dwight Howard and Andrew Bynum. The problem is that any lineup featuring a bigger center than Al inherently means that either 1) Josh has to go to the bench; 2) Al has to go to the bench; or 3) Josh has to play SF. Every minute the "bigger center" plays is a minute that one of those three unpleasant things must happen as well.

Moreover - and these are the #1 and #2 things for me:

1) No one we get will be able to stop Dwight Howard from getting his.

2) Even if they could, past experience shows that stopping Dwight Howard (like Tim Duncan and Shaq before him) is neither necessary nor sufficient to beating his team.

The observations I made regarding past teams who tried to take the strategy are admittedly a small sample, but they are the only situations I know of that are analogous to what people are proposing the Hawks do by bringing in Shaq or some other "bigger" center to bang with Dwight Howard.

Edited August 4, 2010 by niremetal

[Guest]

This all stems from just looking at the NBA during the past 10-15 years and seeing playoff teams make trades specifically designed to counter dominant big men on other teams (Shaq, Duncan, and now Howard). What people are suggesting the Hawks do feels eerily like that. By my observations, which are admittedly based on a small sample size, that strategy has never been successful before. That seems logical, because moves designed primarily to improve the odds of winning against 1-2 teams out of 30 are likely to dilute your odds of winning against other teams. Furthermore, it seems like a concession that you are unable to impose your own gameplan on the team(s) in question, and thus must attempt to beat the team(s) at their own game (which itself seems to me like it's a strategy that won't work).

That smells like what some people around here are suggesting the Hawks do: Go out and land a big center so that we match up better against Dwight Howard and Andrew Bynum. The problem is that any lineup featuring a bigger center than Al inherently means that either 1) Josh has to go to the bench; 2) Al has to go to the bench; or 3) Josh has to play SF. Every minute the "bigger center" plays is a minute that one of those three unpleasant things must happen as well.

Moreover - and these are the #1 and #2 things for me:

1) No one we get will be able to stop Dwight Howard from getting his.

2) Even if they could, past experience shows that stopping Dwight Howard (like Tim Duncan and Shaq before him) is neither necessary nor sufficient to beating his team.

The observations I made regarding past teams who tried to take the strategy are admittedly a small sample, but they are the only situations I know of that are analogous to what people are proposing the Hawks do by bringing in Shaq or some other "bigger" center to bang with Dwight Howard.

+1...Cleveland got Shaq to battle Dwight after Orlando beat them the previous year, how'd that work for them, Cleveland didn't play Orlando, they got Boston in the playoffs so it was for naught.

[Plainview1981]

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.

They lose 4-1.

[Guest]

+1...Cleveland got Shaq to battle Dwight after Orlando beat them the previous year, how'd that work for them, Cleveland didn't play Orlando, they got Boston in the playoffs so it was for naught.

These are the types of responses that I cannot stand. You fail to realize what I have been trying to point out and yet have this type of "here here" response to whatever nire said. Whatever nire proposed is flawed to begin with because it has such a low chance of occurrence (just like my 30 PPG scorer scenario) and to make a conclusion like "hey it didn't work out so it must be stupid!" is such an idiotic response. It didn't happen? So it didn't happen because it is a bad strategy? NOT SO FAST. Adding a 30 PPG didn't happen as well, so is that a bad strategy? No, its just probabilities and throwing out a vastly conditional statement with a small sample size and drawing a conclusion.

I know the point that nire is trying to make, and I don't agree/disagree with him. I do not comment on the actual material behind his posts. I am attacking the scenario he set up, and he's not the only person who sets up these scenarios and then draws a conclusion from them (or leads other posters to draw the conclusions).

And also, why do some posters say "+1" and then never actually give a positive reputation point? It makes no sense to me.

[AHF]

Hawks as is versus Magic in 7-game series same, better, worse?

We don't know if Teague has the goods to play a significant role at PG or if Larry Drew is a better coach than Woodson.

But we do know this.

They can't do materially worse than the most lopsided series in NBA history that we saw last year.

Edited August 5, 2010 by AHF

[Dexmethylphenidate]

We don't know if Teague has the goods to play a significant role at PG or if Larry Drew is a better coach than Woodson.

But we do know this.

They can't do materially worse than the most lopsided series in NBA history that we saw last year.

+1

The question now is will they even meet in the second round?

[Sothron]

+1

The question now is will they even meet in the second round?

Why do people say +1 and don't actually give the rep? It makes no sense.

[Guest]

Why do people say +1 and don't actually give the rep? It makes no sense.

Exactly, that has been bugging me for a while now.

[niremetal]

Exactly, that has been bugging me for a while now.

+1. Oops...

:whistling:

(Sorry, couldn't resist. Someone give hawksfanatic a real +1 to offset)

Edited August 5, 2010 by niremetal

[NineOhTheRino]

I hope that 65% doesn't honestly think the Hawks will be better as a result of parting with Woody.

My guess is out of the 65%:

80% - think the team has matured some

10% - have no clue

10% - Woody is gone

Edited August 5, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[macdaddy]

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.

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

I know i'm late to the reply but Shaq is not an nba starter quality talent anymore. We didn't get Shaq because he's not worth the money.

[Diesel]

I hope that 65% doesn't honestly think the Hawks will be better as a result of parting with Woody.

My guess is out of the 65%:

80% - think the team has matured some

10% - have no clue

10% - Woody is gone

Had we parted with Woody and gotten an experienced coach with a good track record maybe.

However, we parted with Woody and brought in a first time HC who was right there the whole time.

This is my problem with LD. He was right there the whole time. Our offense sucked and he was our offensive coordinator. So now he says.. "I'm going to bring in something never before seen in the pros... it will work and it will win" blah blah blah. Well, you were right there for the last 4-5 years. You should have pushed to do what you wanted or just left. I was disappointed that we didn't go after Avery Johnson or Byron Scott. Now those guys are starting off behind us. IF their teams end up better than ours, then it's coaching.

I know i'm late to the reply but Shaq is not an nba starter quality talent anymore. We didn't get Shaq because he's not worth the money.

Shaq may appear to be not starter quality (although his playoffs stats were better than Horf's last year) but Shaq is twice as good as any BU 5 we have. For the money, getting Shaq would have been a deal.

[Guest]

These are the types of responses that I cannot stand. You fail to realize what I have been trying to point out and yet have this type of "here here" response to whatever nire said. Whatever nire proposed is flawed to begin with because it has such a low chance of occurrence (just like my 30 PPG scorer scenario) and to make a conclusion like "hey it didn't work out so it must be stupid!" is such an idiotic response. It didn't happen? So it didn't happen because it is a bad strategy? NOT SO FAST. Adding a 30 PPG didn't happen as well, so is that a bad strategy? No, its just probabilities and throwing out a vastly conditional statement with a small sample size and drawing a conclusion.

I know the point that nire is trying to make, and I don't agree/disagree with him. I do not comment on the actual material behind his posts. I am attacking the scenario he set up, and he's not the only person who sets up these scenarios and then draws a conclusion from them (or leads other posters to draw the conclusions).

And also, why do some posters say "+1" and then never actually give a positive reputation point? It makes no sense to me.

My agreement with Nire's specific post had to do specifically with adding Shaq to just battle Dwight...and I pointed out that was the same sentiment in Cleveland last year and it was for naught because the matchup didn't occur...I didn't say anything about it being stupid or a bad strategy as you inferred...all I'm saying is we do not know what the matchups will be so saying "get Shaq to battle Dwight" is shortsighted.

I don't draw conclusions from anybody's scenarios, I give my opinion, that's it. I don't chastise or attack anybody's scenario. If I happen to agree/disagree with someone's opinion, so be it.

And for good measure +1

[Diesel]

My agreement with Nire's specific post had to do specifically with adding Shaq to just battle Dwight...and I pointed out that was the same sentiment in Cleveland last year and it was for naught because the matchup didn't occur...I didn't say anything about it being stupid or a bad strategy as you inferred...all I'm saying is we do not know what the matchups will be so saying "get Shaq to battle Dwight" is shortsighted.

I don't draw conclusions from anybody's scenarios, I give my opinion, that's it. I don't chastise or attack anybody's scenario. If I happen to agree/disagree with someone's opinion, so be it.

And for good measure +1

The bad reasoning in Nire's arguement and I guess yours is that you guys conclude that Cleveland messed up by getting Shaq "for Dwight". Well the truth is that weather they had gotten Shaq or not, they were going to lose to the Celtics. When you look at what happened against Boston, Shaq actually played well against Boston. He averaged 13.5 ppg and shot 52% from the field.

Shaq.

Check this out. He was the lead scorer and had 4 blocks. This is not the reason they lost to Boston. They lost to Boston because of Lebron. If they would have not gotten Shaq, they would have still lost. IN fact, they lost nothing in the trade for Shaq. They got Big Z back.

Therefore the argument is moot.