Horford, hidden superstar.....readon

[Canopy]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2224949-meet-al-horford-the-nbas-hidden-superstar

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Horford as our star?  Okay...

[buckeye242424]

They're better when he plays. That's enough for me. What else?

[DJlaysitup]

This is so much b_llshit from a writer who has to write stories.

 

Sure...I'm an AL fan...but "Superstar"?  Please.  The writer does make a good point that AL is likely more effective (short-term) as a C than a PF...but that is simply short-sited.  Would you rather have an undersized center that can play at a high level for awhile and then suffer injuries - or would you rather have a PF who learns his craft and can last longer as a solid piece of your team?

 

The author is wrong.  AL is not a superstar at center (nor will he be at power forward)...simply because AL doesn't have the inside moves on offense required for that.  Millsap has far better inside moves on offense than AL.  Guys like Pau Gasol have drop-steps...and we don't call them superstars.

Edited October 10, 2014 by DJlaysitup

[sillent]

I've been saying Al is more of an asset at center than power forward for the longest and believe the experts agree!! That's why not one GM that we've had has changed that thought or position. Last year pre injury Horford would have been a super star because he was putting up superstar numbers and living up to super expectations. Unfortunately he has to start over a bit as far as proving himself but he has a strong cast and system to work with and regain status if he remains healthy...

[AHF]

I buy into Al being more effective at center than PF (at least in the short-term) but I don't buy into him as a superstar.  He is a stud and our best player but not in the same class as the KDs, Lebrons, and other MVP candidate superstars.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I've been saying Al is more of an asset at center than power forward for the longest and believe the experts agree!! That's why not one GM that we've had has changed that thought or position. Last year pre injury Horford would have been a super star because he was putting up superstar numbers and living up to super expectations. Unfortunately he has to start over a bit as far as proving himself but he has a strong cast and system to work with and regain status if he remains healthy...

 

 

Honestly, that writer is no more than an "expert" than some of the hardcore bloggers on this site.   He's doing some of the same things some of us have done over the years to prove our arguments "right", or try to disprove the arguments of others.

 

The article is factual in the sense that Horford is a very good 2 way player that is extremely important to this team.  And he posts very good numbers from the center position.  I believe that he is a legit All-Star and a borderline top 20 player in the NBA.  The writer's argument is a valid one, as are the arguments that some of the people have given on this site about Horford playng center.

 

But this management team can't keep rationalizing NOT bringing in a decent quality center here, just because Horford puts up numbers at the center position.  

 

Why?   Because this team is still in the lower half of EAST playoff teams.   And when things get extremely tough in the playoffs, it's our frontcourt that routinely gets exposed as being undersized and not tough enough.

 

One of the main character traits of a "superstar", is a guy who possesses the OFFENSIVE ability to put a team on his back during crunch time, take over the game, and win the game in the closing moments ( if need be ).   It's no coincidence that some of the playoff series we've lost over the years ( Boston, Chicago, Indiana ) featured big and/or physical frontlines that are defensive minded, which the Hawks simply couldn't overcome.   Then add the fact that a few of those teams ALSO had a "superstar" on the team, you see what the problem is.

 

This is Horford at his "center" best

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSbGoD7Z2dk

 

Maneuvering around the rim and scoring.  Getting on the boards.  Using his speed to beat or get around other centers.  THAT'S "superstar" Horford that you're seeing right here.But ask yourself this:   is this the norm ( or even close to the norm ) for Horford at center?

 

IF he played like this on more nights than not, you wouldn't hear anyone talking about him moving to center.

 

To start calling Horford a "superstar", at the minimum, he needs to be a legit 20 point - 10 rebound a game player.  So let's see how the Hawks fare when he plays at that 20 and 10 level . . . opposed to when he doesn't.

 

When he scored 20 points or more, the Hawks were 10 - 3 

When he scored less than 20 points, the Hawks were 6 - 10

 

How about rebounding?

 

Hawks are 7 - 3 when he grabs 10 rebounds or more

Hawks are 9 - 13 when he grabs less than 10 rebounds

 

He only hit that 20 and 10 level in 5 games last season.  Hawks were 4 - 1.   

How about when he barely missed it ( >20 points but 8 or 9 rebounds . . or 18 - 19 points and >10 rebounds ) . . . Hawks were 5 - 1

 

So that's basically a 9 - 2 record when Horford is playing at, over, or very close to the 20 point - 10 rebound level.

 

The problem is . . . that only represents 38% of the games he played in.  When he didn't play at the 20 and 10 level in the other 62% of games, the Hawks were 7 - 11.

 

 

It would be very nice if the Hawks had a guy here that could legitimately be a starting center, while moving Horford to PF . . . and also give us the ability to play Horford at C when the starting C is not on the floor, keeping the lineup balanced on the frontline.   Instead, we play and start Horford, but have a HUGE dropoff when he comes out of the game, because we're depending on one dimensional players to be the backup.

 

If we're going to keep going with Horford at center, Mike Scott has to develop to the point in which he's not hurting us on either end of the floor.   He essentially has to become a good enough player to be the #1 scorer on the 2nd team, that can CONSISTENTLY scorer at a starter's level, if need be.

Edited October 10, 2014 by TheNorthCydeRises

[MaceCase]

I buy into Al being more effective at center than PF (at least in the short-term) but I don't buy into him as a superstar. He is a stud and our best player but not in the same class as the KDs, Lebrons, and other MVP candidate superstars.

You should buy into him at center in the long-term too. His speed and athleticism will only continue to erode as he goes through his 30s and he simply never had the skill to rely on to be a dominant player at PF to begin with. Many other more skilled PFs have seen themselves transition to C to remain effective, I see no reason why he would be the reverse.

[AHF]

You should buy into him at center in the long-term too. His speed and athleticism will only continue to erode as he goes through his 30s and he simply never had the skill to rely on to be a dominant player at PF to begin with. Many other more skilled PFs have seen themselves transition to C to remain effective, I see no reason why he would be the reverse.

 

My only concern with him over the long-term is health and I just feel totally unqualified to opine as to whether his health profile would be different at PF or C.  If he could stay healthier at PF, I could see that as a reason to move him there long-term but simply don't know much more than he has had two big and unusual injuries in the last 3 years.

[MaceCase]

My only concern with him over the long-term is health and I just feel totally unqualified to opine as to whether his health profile would be different at PF or C.  If he could stay healthier at PF, I could see that as a reason to move him there long-term but simply don't know much more than he has had two big and unusual injuries in the last 3 years.

And those injuries have already been recently debunked as being related to playing center.  We already had common sense and the entire history of the NBA that has sported a multitude of thousands of players that have been undersized or put in numerous precarious positions yet he suffered 2 of the 3-4 (Kwame Brown seems to get forgotten) instances of pectoral tears.  Now it gets revealed that he had underlying damage dating back to even his college days and that pretty much puts the discussion in "he could have gotten hurt anywhere" territory.

[AHF]

And those injuries have already been recently debunked as being related to playing center.  We already had common sense and the entire history of the NBA that has sported a multitude of thousands of players that have been undersized or put in numerous precarious positions yet he suffered 2 of the 3-4 (Kwame Brown seems to get forgotten) instances of pectoral tears.  Now it gets revealed that he had underlying damage dating back to even his college days and that pretty much puts the discussion in "he could have gotten hurt anywhere" territory.

 

I had seen that it was related to him overlifting earlier in his career.  I don't have a good sense of whether he is more likely to suffer another related injury now than a player like Jeff Teague who has no history but my gut says he is at higher risk.  If that is the case, it isn't clear to me whether the amount of lifting he does now is important.   I would guess he needs to bulk up more to play center so if the current amount of lifting affects the probability of a recurrence then position and the prep needed could be a factor.  All those are "ifs" that are pure speculation on my part, though.  I just don't feel qualified to opine one way or the other on that type of medical issue, either to rule out position and the work needed for that position as a potential injury factor or to link the risk of injury going forward to his position.

 

I will say that I see no reason for him to ever move to PF if (a) a move isn't something he is demanding and (b) medical risk is ruled out.  

[AHF]

©  I suppose if we ever drafted or signed someone like Marc Gasol there could be personnel reasons to move him to PF at some point in the future as well.

[macdaddy]

Another good one from C-Viv (can't believe I'm saying that).   This article addresses a lot of what we've been talking about with the center position.

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/despite-size-brand-back-to-guard-traditional-cente/nhfq9/

 

 

 

“With Al back, I’m sure my minutes will shrink,” Brand said. “It will be more situational, but I don’t mind that. The game has changed over the years. There are less of those plodding big men in the post. I’m here to guard those guys.”

“I was comfortable here. These are my teammates. We went to battle. We had a good playoff run, even with all the injuries. I didn’t want to build anywhere else. I didn’t want to learn a new system. If I had an opportunity to come back here, this is where I wanted to come. I wanted to be here with my guys.”

[MaceCase]

Fair enough on your previous points, @AHF, on Al's reasoning for lifting although I will say that pectorals are not believed to be a major muscle group utilized in basketball to begin with (thus the lack of common injuries to them).  The bench press portion of the draft combine was criticized for years as to why it had any relevance to scouting basketball players and I've noticed that it has been removed entirely as an event with the recent draftees.  I would opine that training that muscle group would not give you an advantage in Al's profession but I'm sure Teke would vouch that's it's just so hard to turn down looking good in tight shirts.

 

As to these points:

 

 

I will say that I see no reason for him to ever move to PF if (a) a move isn't something he is demanding and (b) medical risk is ruled out.  

 

 

©  I suppose if we ever drafted or signed someone like Marc Gasol there could be personnel reasons to move him to PF at some point in the future as well.

(a) I would never consider giving into the demands of a player of Al's caliber especially if it results in a less talented lineup that serves no other benefit but his

 

(b) I think we can rule medical risk as being negligible due to positioning and

 

© The rarity of quality centers to begin is limited to speak nothing of one of the Gasols' caliber.  Yes, both Al and the team could stand to benefit from centers like Gasol and even Noah that can both handle some of his defensive load and create for him on offense but I don't see the team or him improving if he is flanked even by talented but one dimensional centers like the Jordans, Drummonds and Asiks.  I can understand the Webbers, Duncans, Aldridges, and now Anthony Davis standing to benefit from having limited stiffs next to them because they are already serving as their respective teams' primary offensive options who in turn may get worn out from having to handle both their offensive load and being tasked with having to be a primary on defense, rebounding, boxing out etc.  Having a stiff to handle the dirty work while freeing them to do what they do best makes sense but in Al's case he could never serve as a classical primary option in a team not sporting shooting and passing from 4 other positions to warrant reducing his load on either side of the ball.

[AHF]

I mention Gasol both because he was a second round pick which the Hawks could draft the next Gasol or DeAndre Jordan, etc. in the draft (maybe we just did in Oscar?) and because he is a potential FA target for this team next offseason.  

 

In terms of Al's demands, I would not be inclined to give in either and obviously the Hawks haven't over the years.  I could see a scenario where the team decides to give in though (perhaps Sap has already signed elsewhere, Horford is a FA and will only sign somewhere as a PF, and it doesn't make a big difference to the team's competitiveness whether he is at C or PF but will be a huge hit to the team's competitiveness if he is gone).

 

On the medical side, I don't know enough to rule it out or say it is important.

[Wretch]

Couldn't agree more with @TheNorthCydeRises and @DJlaysitup.  Just like so many in here, this dude romanticizes Horford's game.    I've been saying this all off season...  People have forgotten who Al Horford is.  His assets are his jumpshot, SPEED, strength, and movement (without the ball) and North's video illustrates who he is AT HIS BEST.  He doesn't have a true post up game and he's not effective face up/off the dribble (note that he traveled on his one decent inside move).  What he REALLY needs, moreso than moving to C imo, is more PnR (and a PG that excels at facilitating it).

 

More importantly though, it's not the name or the label...it's what these guys DO during critical possessions and during runs that matters.  This is where basketball is won and there are guys that are simply better at getting it done.  Not sure why this is so hard to understand now...but that's just Competition 101.

 

We are a jumpshooting team.  When the defenses clamp down (i.e. - key possessions, esp. in the playoffs) we've got nowhere to go.  In that regard, Teague is our best bet with his ability to penetrate.  Horford is good at getting into position and finishing.  He's not a guy that makes things happen or draws attention.  Now...you pair him with a big that can get you high% shots in the paint?  That's another story altogether.

 

BTW...for future reference, I love Horford.  But as a middling team, he's better as a trade-able asset to me.  Along with a rebuild a couple of seasons ago, I would have sold high on Horford.  Just want to mention that now, because in a few years...people who believe he's a "superstar" right now will be saying, "Oh, we couldn't have gotten much for him."

[Guest]

I love, love Al but he's not a 'Superstar' hidden or otherwise. The hawks are a better overall team with him than without him.

There was another article I read listing Al as the 13th best player in the ENTIRE league :-0.

Put the crazy pills down please.

[buckeye242424]

I love Horf. Hate to lose him. Call me crazy, I see him in a Lakers uni...

[Wretch]

I love, love Al but he's not a 'Superstar' hidden or otherwise. The hawks are a better overall team with him than without him.

There was another article I read listing Al as the 13th best player in the ENTIRE league :-0.

Put the crazy pills down please.

 

Nobody is saying Al isn't a good player.  He's a damn All-Star and nobody disputes that.  Sure he's one of the better players in the league, but he's a complimentary player.  That doesn't make him a bad player or even a role player, but he's not the kind of player that's going to put this team over into contention.  He's not an engine that you can build around - but there I go being a clueless, ESPN mainstream fan again because teams don't build around players... {/sarcasm}  

 

He's not a low post threat (doesn't mean he can't score in the paint).  

He doesn't create for others (doesn't mean he isn't a good passer).  

He doesn't command a double team (doesn't mean he won't draw a double now and again).  

He doesn't create his own shot (doesn't mean he lacks offense).

 

He's a good finisher, a good jump shooter, and he works hard, but he isn't our "answer."  You could make the same kind of "complimentary" argument about guys like Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace or Joe Johnson.  They're very good at what they do, but take those players and put them on a team where THEY are the centerpiece.  You will still need an elite level talent to get you shots on key possessions or draw attention to get others involved.  Not entirely sure when that stopped being the case...

 

As far as player rankings and whatnot go...

Those lists are often highly subjective.  Personally, I try to steer clear of Kevin Durant is better than LeBron James or Chris Bosh is better than Paul Millsap kinda talk.  I think those kinds of conversations are good for bar conversations and grade school arguments.  Surely, you could bring advanced stats into it to make a logical/analytic case, but I despise that conversation as well.  Advanced numbers are skewed by a lack of focus on qualitative data.

 

i.e. -

A hard fought rebound, in a critical game, in the paint, against a good offensive rebounding front court counts the same as a long rebound in garbage time of a meaningless game.  A clutch 3 pointer, after solid defense, over two outstretched arms counts the same as a wide open 3 pointer in a blowout loss.

 

At some point, yeah these stats create a separation between guys like LeBron James and Rudy Gay...but you don't really need to read the stats for that.  Which I think is the bottom line here.  Kevin Durant, LeBron, Kobe (in his prime), Dirk (in his prime), Duncan (in his prime)...these guys are anchors and STARS.  Al Horford is a very good player, and I LOVE his game, but he's not in that upper tier of impact players and he doesn't tip the scales for us.

 

That's a fair assessment...and not in any way "crazy" or shortsighted.

[Guest]

Nobody is saying Al isn't a good player. He's a damn All-Star and nobody disputes that. Sure he's one of the better players in the league, but he's a complimentary player. That doesn't make him a bad player or even a role player, but he's not the kind of player that's going to put this team over into contention. He's not an engine that you can build around - but there I go being a clueless, ESPN mainstream fan again because teams don't build around players... {/sarcasm}

He's not a low post threat (doesn't mean he can't score in the paint).

He doesn't create for others (doesn't mean he isn't a good passer).

He doesn't command a double team (doesn't mean he won't draw a double now and again).

He doesn't create his own shot (doesn't mean he lacks offense).

He's a good finisher, a good jump shooter, and he works hard, but he isn't our "answer." You could make the same kind of "complimentary" argument about guys like Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace or Joe Johnson. They're very good at what they do, but take those players and put them on a team where THEY are the centerpiece. You will still need an elite level talent to get you shots on key possessions or draw attention to get others involved. Not entirely sure when that stopped being the case...

As far as player rankings and whatnot go...

Those lists are often highly subjective. Personally, I try to steer clear of Kevin Durant is better than LeBron James or Chris Bosh is better than Paul Millsap kinda talk. I think those kinds of conversations are good for bar conversations and grade school arguments. Surely, you could bring advanced stats into it to make a logical/analytic case, but I despise that conversation as well. Advanced numbers are skewed by a lack of focus on qualitative data.

i.e. -

A hard fought rebound, in a critical game, in the paint, against a good offensive rebounding front court counts the same as a long rebound in garbage time of a meaningless game. A clutch 3 pointer, after solid defense, over two outstretched arms counts the same as a wide open 3 pointer in a blowout loss.

At some point, yeah these stats create a separation between guys like LeBron James and Rudy Gay...but you don't really need to read the stats for that. Which I think is the bottom line here. Kevin Durant, LeBron, Kobe (in his prime), Dirk (in his prime), Duncan (in his prime)...these guys are anchors and STARS. Al Horford is a very good player, and I LOVE his game, but he's not in that upper tier of impact players and he doesn't tip the scales for us.

That's a fair assessment...and not in any way "crazy" or shortsighted.

@Wretch - that's what I said - Al is not a 'Superstar'