C-Viv says no major signing for the Hawks

[AHF]

And what did that do for us lol?  They lost in the first round.   Folks need to learn to let things play out before they make broad statements.  I've heard the doom and gloom since Ferry came aboard.  We have achieved at the same level as any of the preceding years(save last year do to injury).   Again this year we are on track to be 40+ wins and playoffs, but with a better brand of basketball and more flexibility.  That is all you can ask in this market.  Show me Chicago's AD Jordan trophy?  Show me Miami win one without Shaq or Lebron.  Show me Boston win a title without Bird or Garnett.  It doesn't happen and I don't care if Jerry West or __________ is your GM.    

 

The question then becomes how you get that player on your roster without lottery picks or another star to attract them.

[HawkItus]

The question then becomes how you get that player on your roster without lottery picks or another star to attract them.

No thank you sir..

 

[Guest]

No thank you sir..

 

 

Man you just confused the heck out of me.  That's a depiction of where we've been the past decade, no?

[HawkItus]

Man you just confused the heck out of me.  That's a depiction of where we've been the past decade, no?

No that is a picture of the Tank vs. Sustained build discussion.  If I were Ferry:

 

• I wouldn't be on this board right now lol
• I would stop all mover right now
• Play out the first half of this upcoming season
• guage where we are in the more competitive east
• Hope Horf, Sap, and Teague show out
• Sell high if we aren't in the mix to the contenders
• If we are in the mix then you ignore the earlier parts of this and cast your lots in the playoffs.

[BudBall]

I just dont know what Ferry is going to do anymore. I had very high hopes that he was going to do something impactful anymore. He probably is trying, but eh need results.

[AHF]

No thank you sir..

 

 

 

We don't need to repeat the debate, but it is the single most important question Ferry has to answer.

[taz]

Can't believe they'd trade a guy who will never do anything in the nba for money.

[MaceCase]

Think of it like a sacrifice bunt.

Stop stealing my analogies against AHF on this very same topic. Baseball analogies are my stolen bag.

[RWF]

 

No that is a picture of the Tank vs. Sustained build discussion.  If I were Ferry:

 

• I wouldn't be on this board right now lol
• I would stop all mover right now
• Play out the first half of this upcoming season
• guage where we are in the more competitive east
• Hope Horf, Sap, and Teague show out
• Sell high if we aren't in the mix to the contenders
• If we are in the mix then you ignore the earlier parts of this and cast your lots in the playoffs.

 

[Guest]

Stop stealing my analogies against AHF on this very same topic. Baseball analogies are my stolen bag.

Ah shit. I guess one could say that I "got caught stealing" in this situation? Huh? I mean I must be in a "pickle" here! Right?

"Hello? Is this thing on? And what's the deal, with airline food?"

[AHF]

On bunting, the analytics:

 

The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball is a tri-authored 2007 tome that’s downright biblical among many sabermetricians. There’s an excellent chapter called “To Sacrifice or Not.” It’s 50 pages of bunting analysis that builds on work first done by Pete Palmer and John Thorn back in the early 1980s. (Thorn is now the official historian of Major League Baseball.)

The Book is loathe to settle on universal conclusions — there are countless variables in a baseball game, and in some specific circumstances the sacrifice bunt can be the right play. But its authors make their opinion on the most common sacrifice-bunt situation plainly clear:

If the opposing manager is thinking about attempting a sacrifice (with a runner on first and no outs and a non-pitcher at the plate), tell him that you will gladly give the runner second base in exchange for an out. In fact, tell him that he has that option — in advance — any time there is a runner on first and no outs!

Using numbers collected over a 17-season span in the ’60s and ’70s — i.e., a LOT of data, not a small sample taken to speculative conclusions — Palmer and Thorn calculated how many runs the average offense scores in an inning given every possible game situation (no one on/no outs, runner on first/no outs, runners on first and second/no outs…). Most sacrifice bunts occur when there’s a runner on first with no outs. In those situations the average offense will go on to score 0.783 runs. Let’s say a sacrifice bunt in that situation is successful, as Dusty Baker hopes. Now you have a runner on second and one out. The average offense with a runner on second and one out scores 0.699 runs. The run expectancy has decreased thanks to the sacrifice bunt. Sacrificing an out to get a runner to second makes a teamless likely to score, not more. (The specific numbers have changed as offenses have gotten more potent, but the gist remains the same.)

As Palmer and Thorn conclude in the book that accompanied their original data, “With the introduction of the lively ball, the sacrifice bunt should have vanished.”

 

Keith Law on why teams continue to bunt:

I think there are three main reasons. One is an argument from tradition — this is how we’ve always done it, this is how we did it when I played, etc. Another is fear of second-guessing, the “no one ever got fired for buying from IBM” argument, where bunting is still seen by enough people as the obvious move that managers won’t rock the boat. And the third is just a general fear, distrust, or ignorance of math, a perception still prevalent within the industry that you can’t quantify what’s happening on the field even if you’re dealing with enormous generalized samples. Baseball attracts many intellectuals as fans, and yet at times, within the industry, you will still run into an anti-intellectualism that can make your jaw drop.

 

In short, there is an occasion for sacrifice bunts (pitchers, walk-off situations, etc.) but if you decide to never use them you are better off than being a manager like Ron Washington who regularly bunts.  The vast majority of the time, bunt = bad.

[ViperXX79]

The question then becomes how you get that player on your roster without lottery picks or another star to attract them.

 

The answer is you can't.  That's the sad truth of it and no amount of first and second round playoff exits will change that.  To me that's the false hope we've been sold for the better part of a decade.  At least a good lottery pick has a legit chance of turning your franchise around.  Spinning your wheels in the playoffs attracts no one.  I know people look at Marvin and the rest but what about Al?  If everyone has so much faith in Ferry then wouldn't they all be more comfortable with him making our lottery picks than the past jokers running this franchise?  

 

Once again what some fans don't understand is that the San Antonio Spurs are nothing if they don't hit on two big time lottery picks.  Robinson and Duncan for those of you having trouble figuring out the real reason for the Spurs success.  Not some coaching philosophy that magically makes a collection of bench players/fringe starters into a real title contender.

Edited July 14, 2014 by ViperXX79

[Guest]

On bunting, the analytics:

 

 

 

 

Keith Law on why teams continue to bunt:

 

 

 

In short, there is an occasion for sacrifice bunts (pitchers, walk-off situations, etc.) but if you decide to never use them you are better off than being a manager like Ron Washington who regularly bunts.  The vast majority of the time, bunt = bad.

Ahhh, the great "The Book" with the ever so pretentious Tom Tango. He annoys the heck out of me with how he writes, but he is a sharp dude.

Anyway, Tom Tango would also say that his book is a large rule of thumb. Dean Oliver also says this a lot. Which is to further say, yeah it is a good rule in general, but not every situation is general. So when you get out to extremes, then you start to diverge from the theory. Now I'm rambling and forgot what the whole point of this discussion was.

[MaceCase]

I think you've gone a tad bit far with the bunt analogy by trying to quantify it with numbers. The only definition that matters in this context (or any for that matter) is the sacrifice of an out for the potential of more easily generating a run.

We can talk about other baseball themed strategies that NBA GMs use such as Pat Riley taking all the way on a 3-2 count, bases loaded, 2 outs pitch without actually delving into the numbers on whether or not it is a great idea. What stands is the philosophy of standing pat (unintentional but great pun) and forcing the opposing pitcher (or GM) to make a play.