Al Horford: ‘I am going to war with who I’ve got’

[Dsinner]

What'd you do, just pull the names out of the post without reading it.

I was talking about offensive ability. Both of those guys (in their prime) run circles around Al offensively. Both of those guys had midrange games and post games. McDyess led the Denver Nuggets and was an offensive goto guy. Al has more potential because of his defense, but offensively, he can't enter the room...

Why do people keep comparing other player's strengths VS Horf and give that reason as to why they don't understand his hype. Sure they would run circles around other players more than Horf, but not around Horf himself because he is better at D. That's the thing, Horf might not be as good a shooter as player X or as good a rebounder as player y or as good a defender as player Z but players XYand Z all usually have an extreme weakness (Kukoc couldn't guard a fire hydrant McDyess couldn't dribble and walk at the same time) . Hor'f all around game is what makes him already that good. Take the fact that he's only played two seasons and right now I'd take him over every other player mentioned in this thread. Even if he's already peaked he's still a decent player but I think he's going to be even better.

[MaceCase]

Oh my mistake, between THE Stanford Cardinal, playing in the bay area and some subtle racist confusion over him and Mark Madsen that I'm not too proud of I mistakingly mislabeled the former boilermaker. Is that your war cry now? "Oh CTC made a flub in an argument I'm getting my *ss kicked in so I'm going to make that my focus!" None of that changes the fact Cardinal had an awesome season that year that made Jerry West go crazy over him. No I wouldn't trade Smoove for Redick because not suprisingly Smoove is top twenty in Defensive Rating himself. You may go ahead and poo poo the inverse of the ORTG stat now, argue that one why don't ya "Smoove is not a great defensive player because that stat favors guys that sneer at coaches." Not without notice but I may not be the GM in Miami but the GM in Orlando thought enough of Redick to match his deal with the GM of Chicago. Clearly they (and I) are smarter than you and don't waste their time just trying to argue one stat when a player is clearly great in a larger amount of metrics in addition to that. The stats are not just noticed by GMs considering that the coaches whose opinion you value more than any "message board homer" also gave the nod for Al to be on his 1st allstar team. Your argument is still without merit because you are trying to paint being an efficient scorer as being useless, why even bother keeping percentage stats then?you are gointg to feebly try and keep a focus on me when it has been proven by I and others that without a doubt, Al is great at rebounding, defense and efficient scoring all while still having plenty of growth within him. Will his soon to be minted max contract convince you of this or will your subjective view still cloud your assesment of this player?

[Dsinner]

Oh my mistake, between THE Stanford Cardinal, playing in the bay area and some subtle racist confusion over him and Mark Madsen that I'm not too proud of I mistakingly mislabeled the former boilermaker. Is that your war cry now? "Oh CTC made a flub in an argument I'm getting my *ss kicked in so I'm going to make that my focus!" None of that changes the fact Cardinal had an awesome season that year that made Jerry West go crazy over him. No I wouldn't trade Smoove for Redick because not suprisingly Smoove is top twenty in Defensive Rating himself. You may go ahead and poo poo the inverse of the ORTG stat now, argue that one why don't ya "Smoove is not a great defensive player because that stat favors guys that sneer at coaches." Not without notice but I may not be the GM in Miami but the GM in Orlando thought enough of Redick to match his deal with the GM of Chicago. Clearly they (and I) are smarter than you and don't waste their time just trying to argue one stat when a player is clearly great in a larger amount of metrics in addition to that. The stats are not just noticed by GMs considering that the coaches whose opinion you value more than any "message board homer" also gave the nod for Al to be on his 1st allstar team. Your argument is still without merit because you are trying to paint being an efficient scorer as being useless, why even bother keeping percentage stats then?you are gointg to feebly try and keep a focus on me when it has been proven by I and others that without a doubt, Al is great at rebounding, defense and efficient scoring all while still having plenty of growth within him. Will his soon to be minted max contract convince you of this or will your subjective view still cloud your assesment of this player?

My favorite was that employee #8 would have led that stat if he could have shot better. LOL, no f'n sh*t. Diesel, give it up. You got yours handed to you in this one. Lick your wounds and move on.

[AHF]

Diesel's point about ORTG not being a good metric for measuring offensive proficiency is dead on since it is a limited stat. The rest of his comments vary from mistaken (#4 on the Hawks) to confused (Walker). As many have mentioned, the stat measures efficiency and doesn't really measure productivity. So ball hogs rate poorly with this metric as they take poor shots due to their ball hogging ways and guys who limit their game to take only easy shots (i.e., the Dale Davises of the world) rate very high since they are taking high efficiency shots.

The stat measures efficiency so that lets you know which players are doing a good job with what they are asked to do and which are hurting their teams by trying to do too much. Horford falls into the category of people who are excelling at what they are being asked to do offensively and the really good news is that he did this last year while expanding his offensive game and role. Hopefully, he will continue to expand his offense and we should expect his ORTG will suffer from him taking more challenging shots, etc. on offense.

On Horford's overall success so far, I find it hard to disregard the stats put up by lethalweapon3.

[Chickenstanley]

This is a nice thread. Hopefully it doesn't take the route of many and become personal.

Admittedly, I am not a "stat guy". And that is not a shot at those who are. It's just that I would not personally worry about Al's affect on (any given) game enough to clasify him as being "great" or "untouchable".

It shouldn't take, in my opinion, reaching for some fancy or obscure statistic(s) to make the argument for a player being "great" versus simply "damn solid".

So far, no one has convinced me that Al has achieved "greatness" by any historical measure of "greatness". By any of the major categories that I listed in a previous post. (scoring, passing, defense, etc). Or by being a major contributor to a serious championship run.

I also think that stats of many players on (less than) very high caliber teams are not as reliable as they might first appear. I mean, someone has to put up good numbers and stats on every team. But, in no way, do I feel it should be blindly assumed that this is any indication of the caliber of player that they are. I can remember leading leagues in scoring myself while knowing that I couldn't have even started for the best team in the league. (this is a gerenral opinion about the value of stats - and not connected to anything to do with Al or this thread)

If 5 -10 of us suddenly became an NBA team, a couple of us would give the appearance of being decent NBA caliber player's ---based on statistics. But we all know that would not actually be the case, don't we?

Throughout all of this, I have made no prediction with regard to Al's potential progress going forward.

CS

[AHF]

This is a nice thread. Hopefully it doesn't take the route of many and become personal.

Admittedly, I am not a "stat guy". And that is not a shot at those who are. It's just that I would not personally worry about Al's affect on (any given) game enough to clasify him as being "great" or "untouchable".

It shouldn't take, in my opinion, reaching for some fancy or obscure statistic(s) to make the argument for a player being "great" versus simply "damn solid".

So far, no one has convinced me that Al has achieved "greatness" by any historical measure of "greatness". By any of the major categories that I listed in a previous post. (scoring, passing, defense, etc). Or by being a major contributor to a serious championship run.

I also think that stats of many players on (less than) very high caliber teams are not as reliable as they might first appear. I mean, someone has to put up good numbers and stats on every team. But, in no way, do I feel it should be blindly assumed that this is any indication of the caliber of player that they are. I can remember leading leagues in scoring myself while knowing that I couldn't have even started for the best team in the league. (this is a gerenral opinion about the value of stats - and not connected to anything to do with Al or this thread)

If 5 -10 of us suddenly became an NBA team, a couple of us would give the appearance of being decent NBA caliber player's ---based on statistics. But we all know that would not actually be the case, don't we?

Throughout all of this, I have made no prediction with regard to Al's potential progress going forward.

CS

This is less true for the win share statistic. As an example, over 64 games Monta Ellis averaged 25.5 ppg, 5.3 apg, 4.0 rpg, 2.2 spg, etc. He was the classic example of someone on a bad team putting up big numbers. Even with those big numbers, his efficiency and defense were poor enough to give him only 1.3 win shares last season. That sucks. Our example on this thread of a chucker who put up significant numbers while not helping his team that much -- Antoine Walker -- averaged a little over 3 win shares per season and you can see a big difference when he was scoring more proficiently and putting more effort into rebounding (like in 2000) versus when he wasn't (like in 2002) even though the stats are still substantial. That is the point of the win share metric - to pull out the noise from someone putting up empty stats in a way that isn't helping his team.

Compare Ellis's season with the 25.5 ppg to Kevin Durant's 27.5 ppg and there doesn't seem to be much difference. Take a deeper dive and you see the 1.3 WS for Ellis versus the 16.1 WS for Durant. WS isn't a perfect statistic but I think you might find it more interesting than a lot of the statistics cited by most writers. (It is substantially better than PER or ppg, for example, IMO.)

[DJlaysitup]

I wish Al Horford the best. As a 4 he gits right in there against the real power 5's and generally holds his own. Against the finesse-type 5's he chases them around decently (while trying to protect the paint). I hope his career as a 6'9 1/2" center goes very well. Many others have (can't remember their names). :kickcan:

(p.s. - this was an Al Horford thread)

Edited September 12, 2010 by DJlaysitup

[Diesel]

This is less true for the win share statistic. As an example, over 64 games Monta Ellis averaged 25.5 ppg, 5.3 apg, 4.0 rpg, 2.2 spg, etc. He was the classic example of someone on a bad team putting up big numbers. Even with those big numbers, his efficiency and defense were poor enough to give him only 1.3 win shares last season. That sucks. Our example on this thread of a chucker who put up significant numbers while not helping his team that much -- Antoine Walker -- averaged a little over 3 win shares per season and you can see a big difference when he was scoring more proficiently and putting more effort into rebounding (like in 2000) versus when he wasn't (like in 2002) even though the stats are still substantial. That is the point of the win share metric - to pull out the noise from someone putting up empty stats in a way that isn't helping his team.

Compare Ellis's season with the 25.5 ppg to Kevin Durant's 27.5 ppg and there doesn't seem to be much difference. Take a deeper dive and you see the 1.3 WS for Ellis versus the 16.1 WS for Durant. WS isn't a perfect statistic but I think you might find it more interesting than a lot of the statistics cited by most writers. (It is substantially better than PER or ppg, for example, IMO.)

I think even the mighty win share is fallable.

For instance:

"Win Shares

1. LeBron James-CLE 18.5

2. Kevin Durant-OKC 16.1

3. Dwight Howard-ORL 13.2

4. Dwyane Wade-MIA 13.0

5. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 12.3

6. Gerald Wallace-CHA 11.5

7. Pau Gasol-LAL 11.0

8. Tim Duncan-SAS 10.9

9. Al Horford-ATL 10.9

10. Nene Hilario-DEN 10.8

11. Amare Stoudemire-PHO 10.7

12. Deron Williams-UTA 10.3

13. David Lee-NYK 10.3

14. Carlos Boozer-UTA 9.9

15. Steve Nash-PHO 9.9

16. Zach Randolph-MEM 9.7

17. Manu Ginobili-SAS 9.7

18. Rajon Rondo-BOS 9.6

19. Chris Bosh-TOR 9.6

20. Chauncey Billups-DEN 9.5"

This is this years win share list. Where oh where is Kobe Bryant? He's the best player on the best team in the league and he's not considered a good "win-share" guy?

I haven't really seen a clear calculation for win shares but like most other stats, I think it is probably giving too many points for one thing and not enough for another. As the league starts to value certain basketball functions more, these stats will always be in flux and fallable.

[MaceCase]

Because he's become overrated and people severely underrate Pau and his addition to that squad.

Either way Kobe clocked in 9.4 WS last season which would place him right at #21

Oh boy, I already see how this argument is going to be feebly turned

"How can a stat be true if Kobe is not ranked the clear #1 on it!"

This is a dumb argument that goes on at RealGM everyday,

"advance metrics are fallible because my keen non media influenced mind clearly tells me who is the best"

[Chickenstanley]

If any of you watch "Classic" or NBA TV" of Laker's games from the late 80's, you may notice an interesting phenomenon. In the crucial half-court situations with titles on the line, Kareem was STILL the Laker's first option in almost every situation. Even in his late 30's and early 40's.

Again, I'm not a stat guy, but I'm guessing that at that point in his career, Kareem didn't rank very high by most any statistical measure. Yet, he was the go-to guy on a peirinial Finals participant. And don't say that he was being "carried" by Johnson, Worthy, etc --- this makes no sense to me. No way any team repeatedly goes to a guy who is "being carried" when Championships are on the line.

If Kareem is not comparable to Al "because he is an all-time great", (and it's deemed an unfair comparision), then is there some set of statistics that are kept seperately for "all-time" greats"? I mean, his stats at the time (likely) didn't indicate "greatness" or even above average. But I would certainly not be willing to wager that that Laker team would have been better off with Al Horford as opposed to Kareem.

I think stats *can* indicate a great player. But I also think players can be great without having great stats. Diesel's example of Kobe above is a good example.

Still, I don't want to lose Al, but he's given me no reason to consider him "great", a franchise player or "untouchable.

CS

[MaceCase]

Kareem was actually still putting up godly stats in these measures until his final season when he retired.

In fact he is the all time career leader in win shares, Kobe ranks 23rd alltime just ahead of Bird.

Still think it's a junk stat?

Kobe has ranked well within the stat over the years but I hardly think it's an insult to him that he's not superhuman and capable of fighting through an injury plagued season and still maintaining his top ten ranking.

[Chickenstanley]

C2C,

I never claimed anything (or any stat) was "junk". In fact, I said as much in an earlier post.

My opinion is that a player who is not "great" in (at least) one major aspect of the game ----cannot be deemed a "great player". I don't believe that, on a scale of one to five,

that a player who has all 3.75's - 4.5's is worthy of calling a "great" player. It's the players who rate '5' (or 5 plus) in one or more categories that are the real difference makers in most games and especially in the playoffs and title runs.

I do respect the stats that are being generated from those on the other side of this debate. And the time and effort they take to generate. But in the end, do many (or any) of you honestly feel that the Hawks are a favorite to win on any given night (and especially in the playoffs) based on your confidence in Al Horford's game? Regardless of what any statistics say about him? If so, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But it is not mine --- and I've watched almost every game the Hawks have played since he was drafted.

CS

[MaceCase]

Do I think that Al is a superstar and will be unanimously mentioned as one of the greatest of all time? Short answer, no. What I and others have said is that he is instrumental and a pillar to a championship contending team due to his contributions to many facets of an NBA game. The stats prove that, our eyes show us that and the results (wins) solidify that.

If I decided to take the path of you and plenty of your fellow detractors I could make a similar subjective argument and say that there is no coincidence that Al's three years here have all equaled playoff years for the Hawks. Now you and others can go ahead and speak about the talents and progress of the others on the roster and even show their statistical contributions but I'll just respond to each and say:

"Al = Hawks in Playoffs"

"No Al = Hawks in lottery"

I can post on forever in this thread dismissing every argument with that claim similar to your use and interpretation of the word "great."

[Chickenstanley]

"Al = Hawks in Playoffs"

"No Al = Hawks in lottery"

_________________________

I couldn't agree with this more. And don't believe that I've written anything that would lead one to believe that I felt otherwise. If I did, then it was a misunderstanding.

CS

[Diesel]

"Al = Hawks in Playoffs"

"No Al = Hawks in lottery"

_________________________

I couldn't agree with this more. And don't believe that I've written anything that would lead one to believe that I felt otherwise. If I did, then it was a misunderstanding.

CS

The problem is that the same could be said about Bibby!

[AHF]

If Kareem is not comparable to Al "because he is an all-time great", (and it's deemed an unfair comparision), then is there some set of statistics that are kept seperately for "all-time" greats"? I mean, his stats at the time (likely) didn't indicate "greatness" or even above average. But I would certainly not be willing to wager that that Laker team would have been better off with Al Horford as opposed to Kareem.

Kareem led the league in win shares 9 times.

He was way above average every year of his career until his last two seasons, when he still did well. Those last two seasons he averaged 10 and 14 fewer points, 5 and 7 few rebounds, and 1.5 fewer blocks than his career averages (his last season he also put up a pitiful .511 TS%). It should not be surprising that his win shares also dipped down - particularly since they are based on D as well where his impact had so lessened that he agreed to a joke about him not getting back on D in the classic comedy "Airplane." So I don't see how the win share numbers for Kareem undermine the usefulness of the statistic.

All that said, basketball is a difficult sport to capture in numbers and the win share stat (like all other metrics) is not perfect. It is arguably the best available metric, though.

As for Kobe, he had:

* His lowest true shooting % in the last 5 years (nearly his career low ts%, .001 better than his rookie season)

* His highest turnover % in the last 5 years

* His second lowest rebounding numbers in the last 5 years

* His lowest defensive rating in the last 5 years

* His second lowest steal % in the last 5 years

* His lowest block % in the last 5 years

* His lowest PER in the last 5 years (actually last 10 years)

* His lowest assist % in the last 5 years

Isn't it safe to say that he got some serious credit for the strength of his team rather than acknowledgment from the media that his play had dipped last season relative to his usual performance in recent years?

The problem is that the same could be said about Bibby!

Bibby is arguable but it certainly also applies to JJ and Josh. I think the Hawks would have made the playoffs had Bibby gone down but it would have meant Crawford assuming more responsibility for the offense, a trade for a veteran caretaker PG, or Teague stepping up.

[Diesel]

Bibby is arguable but it certainly also applies to JJ and Josh. I think the Hawks would have made the playoffs had Bibby gone down but it would have meant Crawford assuming more responsibility for the offense, a trade for a veteran caretaker PG, or Teague stepping up.

That's one I would have to argue.

Remember, prior to Bibby,we had what for a PG? Acie "I can't stay on the court" Law and Aj and Lue.

We were 22-29 without Bibby that season.

We were 15-16 with Bibby.....

and that's without considering the learning curve and chemistry. Al was here for those first 51 games. I don't think he was the difference maker that Bibby was.

[AHF]

That's one I would have to argue.

Remember, prior to Bibby,we had what for a PG? Acie "I can't stay on the court" Law and Aj and Lue.

We were 22-29 without Bibby that season.

We were 15-16 with Bibby.....

and that's without considering the learning curve and chemistry. Al was here for those first 51 games. I don't think he was the difference maker that Bibby was.

Jamaal Crawford >>> Acie Law, AJ and Lue

Last year, 4 of our top 15 five man units had Bibby in there. 3 of them had Teague. Eight of them had Crawford.

In contrast, in the 2008-09 to which you are referring 11 of our top 15 five man units had Bibby and the other 4 had Flip Murray. None of them had Acie, AJ or Lue.

Comparing Acie, AJ and Lue to Crawford and Teague is comparing apples to oranges. We were more effective last year with Crawford than with Bibby. The prior year, Bibby was by far our most effective PG.

[Chickenstanley]

I see where you're coming from AHF. It is a fairly decent stat, at first glance. (and maybe at a second glance as well)

I'm just not so sure that I can come down on it completely because I don't know how to value wins properly in a league where there are only several elite teams ---- and the rest are playing the role of the Washington Generals.

Are all wins really created equal? And should they all carry equal value? Or should we wait until the end of the season to get an accurate assesment? All good questions, I believe.

What I'm saying is:

If the Lakers or Celtics sweep the Wolves/Nets---- and so do the Hawks ---does this indicate that the Hawks are *really* equal to the Lakers or Celtics? And just because the Hawks swept Boston in the regular season --- were we *really* comparable to Boston when all the cards came out in the end? We know better, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves. This is what brings the analysis of a player's performance/stats in wins into question, to me.

I believe it can be indicitive of a great player, but does not necessarilly indicate one.

By the way, the 80's Kareem/Lakers example was intended to look at Kareem's last several years. Not his stellar carreer that preceeded this period, in which a strong case could be made that he was the greatest player to ever live ---and likely was high up on most any statistical category.

CS

[Diesel]

I see where you're coming from AHF. It is a fairly decent stat, at first glance. (and maybe at a second glance as well)

I'm just not so sure that I can come down on it completely because I don't know how to value wins properly in a league where there are only several elite teams ---- and the rest are playing the role of the Washington Generals.

Are all wins really created equal? And should they all carry equal value? Or should we wait until the end of the season to get an accurate assesment? All good questions, I believe.

What I'm saying is:

If the Lakers or Celtics sweep the Wolves/Nets---- and so do the Hawks ---does this indicate that the Hawks are *really* equal to the Lakers or Celtics? And just because the Hawks swept Boston in the regular season --- were we *really* comparable to Boston when all the cards came out in the end? We know better, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves. This is what brings the analysis of a player's performance/stats in wins into question, to me.

I believe it can be indicitive of a great player, but does not necessarilly indicate one.

By the way, the 80's Kareem/Lakers example was intended to look at Kareem's last several years. Not his stellar carreer that preceeded this period, in which a strong case could be made that he was the greatest player to ever live ---and likely was high up on most any statistical category.

CS

I don't disagree with the Kareem talk except I do want to mention one thing.

I believe Kareem was definitely great. However, I think when you start to talk about the greatest player ever, Bill Russell has to enter the conversation and probably wins. I know that Kareem was the key guy with the unstoppable shot... and I know Kareem had the best statistics of he, Russell, and Jordan. However, Russell had something that stats can't account. Toughness. I think over and over, it was Russell's toughness that stopped Wilt Chamberlain and Bob Petit from winning more championships than they did. Kareem was tough, but I just never got the sense that he exhibited the toughness that was seen in Russell or Jordan. I like to see a guy who would rather lay down and die than lose and I think that's what makes Jordan and Russell so great... and that's why nobody will win as many rings as Russell... and maybe not Jordan.