This is what could work for us?

[Duff_Man]

So take a player that can't stay off the weed and nightlife and send him from Wisconsin to Atlanta?

 

That's what I like to call a "Reverse Favre".

[benhillboy]

Even if we had a "rim protector" I highly doubt that would ever change under Bud.

Darvin Ham:

To me, the defensive element of getting back and getting our activity and energy there is crucial. In my opinion, the rim protector thing is a little overrated. As long as you’re moving and doing your work early, we’re able to compensate.

We have a systematic defense where if a guy gets broken down from the perimeter, there’s going to be a guy out to help there. And when that guy knows he’s going to have help behind him, he can come early and get into a good position. A charge is just as good as a blocked shot. Or verticality and protecting the net is just as good as a blocked shot. When that guy comes to help, that guy knows there’s someone else getting back to take his man off the glass. And then that guy back knows there’s someone else in help position to support if we have to close out on a perimeter shot. Systematically, our guys have the utmost confidence. Coach Bud has done a great job hitting home and establishing our defensive system with practice and film. You look at the rim protector thing, some of these teams with these quote-unquote ‘rim protectors’ are the teams giving up the most points in the paint just because they’re relying on that one guy to stop whoever’s driving in there. We don’t want to be like that. We want to score like a team and defend like a team. If you look at it, it’s worked out pretty well up to this point.

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2015/02/13/eisenberg-how-do-these-hawks-compare-with-the-2004-pistons/

Not attempting for every rebound also helps us be the least fouling team in the league.

Not getting offensive rebounds doesn't bother me, but giving them up I can't condone. Point blank, everyone has to step it up on the defensive glass if there isn't a move made for a rebounder.

After some thought I wouldn't be so opposed to Sanders. I trust the staff would monitor his minutes and matchups for optimum efficiency like a Brandon Wright after they confidently determine he isn't crazy. He didnt have much Big Man leadership in Milwaukee. Brand, Al, and Sap could get him headed in the right direction on and off the floor.

Edited February 17, 2015 by benhillboy

[Guest]

So take a player that can't stay off the weed and nightlife and send him from Wisconsin to Atlanta?

 

That's what I like to call a "Reverse Favre".

 

That's funny.

 

I've been wanting us to resurrect Sanders from MIL since the offseason but have since turned on that stance.  Years ago, I read a story about Sanders' childhood, HS and college career and he just flat out has mental issues.  It's not just the substance abuse and partying.

 

He essentially had to have constant hand-holding to keep his anger in check.  His dad was so abusive his mom had to escape to shelters and such.  He's got issues he needs to deal with before he can truly be helpful to any team.  I hope he uses his eventual buyout as a wake-up call.

 

This isn't the story I read but it touches on some of it.

http://www.si.com/nba/point-forward/2013/04/14/larry-sanders-bucks-sports-illustrated

[NineOhTheRino]

ask yourself WWITD?

 

whatever it is, do the opposite.

[DrReality]

Bud knows this team and what we need.  Trust him to make the decision and I don't think this is the guy.  More likely a low profile, team oriented dude. 

[Bonkers]

Man plz

 

I see that a lot of y'all desperately wanna ruin this team and disrupt chemistry

Edited February 17, 2015 by Bonkers

[Diesel]

Risk is too high he'd blow up the chemistry

 

You only say that about a guy who makes a lot of money and can't be waived.

And even then, you can do what Detroit did to Josh.

[Diesel]

Even if we had a "rim protector" I highly doubt that would ever change under Bud.

 

Darvin Ham:

To me, the defensive element of getting back and getting our activity and energy there is crucial. In my opinion, the rim protector thing is a little overrated. As long as you’re moving and doing your work early, we’re able to compensate.

 

We have a systematic defense where if a guy gets broken down from the perimeter, there’s going to be a guy out to help there. And when that guy knows he’s going to have help behind him, he can come early and get into a good position. A charge is just as good as a blocked shot. Or verticality and protecting the net is just as good as a blocked shot. When that guy comes to help, that guy knows there’s someone else getting back to take his man off the glass. And then that guy back knows there’s someone else in help position to support if we have to close out on a perimeter shot. Systematically, our guys have the utmost confidence. Coach Bud has done a great job hitting home and establishing our defensive system with practice and film. You look at the rim protector thing, some of these teams with these quote-unquote ‘rim protectors’ are the teams giving up the most points in the paint just because they’re relying on that one guy to stop whoever’s driving in there. We don’t want to be like that. We want to score like a team and defend like a team. If you look at it, it’s worked out pretty well up to this point.

 

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2015/02/13/eisenberg-how-do-these-hawks-compare-with-the-2004-pistons/

 

That's only one aspect (rim protection)... What about rebounding?  Guys are playing volleyball on our bigs.

[Guest]

Thread on realgm claiming Sanders has rejected buyout, wants total owed to him, doesn't want to play anymore.

 

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1373058&sid=a6692684ae9b72e0f148c73e8715ad8a#start_here

 

If true, I hope he gets nothing.

[capstone21]

I am fine with staying away from Sanders as he is a huge question mark (on and off the court ) but I do think we need a defensive center/pf hybrid that can rebound.

I think Garnett the ahole that he is ... could be that perfect piece (if he gets bought out)

[Guest]

Thread on realgm claiming Sanders has rejected buyout, wants total owed to him, doesn't want to play anymore.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1373058&sid=a6692684ae9b72e0f148c73e8715ad8a#start_here

If true, I hope he gets nothing.

All the Bucks need to do is keep randomly testing him. He'll fail, get suspended and not get paid. Edited February 17, 2015 by JayBirdHawk

[RandomFan]

That's only one aspect (rim protection)... What about rebounding?  Guys are playing volleyball on our bigs.

 

Rebounding, ah yes. You're talking about the least important correlational major statistic towards winning games. Let me say that again for emphasis since I guess a lot of people still don't realize this: Rebounding is the least valuable statistic that determines wins and losses. I would think everyone would be well aware of that after it has been talked about to death for the last week here. Let me also say it again, that we ignore offensive rebounds in order to get back on defense, which obviously lowers our total rebounds per game when comparing us to other teams. When you only factor in defensive rebounds, we are around 11th in the NBA last time I checked.

 

Yes, we could be better rebounding the ball on the defensive end. Bud is constantly talking about this. I even heard him on 92.9 today talking about it. They were asking him about the rebounding issue and a possible need for another big. Bud said once again, emphatically, that he really likes the bigs we have and would go to battle with these guys every day of the week. You could tell Bud is getting sick of this question because he really stressed how happy he is with the guys we have. He also said that the way our team plays schematically that rebounding has to be a total team effort; and that it is something that we continue to work on and try to improve on (like he says about everything).

 

I guess I'm just going to have to keep saying it, but what we gain from the bigs that we currently have more than outweighs what we lose in rim protection and rebounding. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about this concept? We've got the best record we've ever had at this point in the season...seems to me what we are doing is working pretty darn well!

[Diesel]

Rebounding, ah yes. You're talking about the least important correlational major statistic towards winning games. Let me say that again for emphasis since I guess a lot of people still don't realize this: Rebounding is the least valuable statistic that determines wins and losses. I would think everyone would be well aware of that after it has been talked about to death for the last week here. Let me also say it again, that we ignore offensive rebounds in order to get back on defense, which obviously lowers our total rebounds per game when comparing us to other teams. When you only factor in defensive rebounds, we are around 11th in the NBA last time I checked.

 

Yes, we could be better rebounding the ball on the defensive end. Bud is constantly talking about this. I even heard him on 92.9 today talking about it. They were asking him about the rebounding issue and a possible need for another big. Bud said once again, emphatically, that he really likes the bigs we have and would go to battle with these guys every day of the week. You could tell Bud is getting sick of this question because he really stressed how happy he is with the guys we have. He also said that the way our team plays schematically that rebounding has to be a total team effort; and that it is something that we continue to work on and try to improve on (like he says about everything).

 

I guess I'm just going to have to keep saying it, but what we gain from the bigs that we currently have more than outweighs what we lose in rim protection and rebounding. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about this concept? We've got the best record we've ever had at this point in the season...seems to me what we are doing is working pretty darn well!

 

I have to strongly disagree.   Rebounds determine possessions.  Sure you can try to out efficiency everybody but even then, you better not allow the team to dominate rebounding.  When I watched us lose to New Orleans, it was obvious that controlling the boards was the only reason that a team like them could beat us.  Moreover, that was not a Boston Celtic like loss... They manhandled us.  I don't want to see this team get to the top Seed in the East, step into the first round of the playoffs and get manhandled on the boards by a team like Indiana or Brooklyn.

[macdaddy]

Rebounding, ah yes. You're talking about the least important correlational major statistic towards winning games. Let me say that again for emphasis since I guess a lot of people still don't realize this: Rebounding is the least valuable statistic that determines wins and losses. I would think everyone would be well aware of that after it has been talked about to death for the last week here. Let me also say it again, that we ignore offensive rebounds in order to get back on defense, which obviously lowers our total rebounds per game when comparing us to other teams. When you only factor in defensive rebounds, we are around 11th in the NBA last time I checked.

 

Yes, we could be better rebounding the ball on the defensive end. Bud is constantly talking about this. I even heard him on 92.9 today talking about it. They were asking him about the rebounding issue and a possible need for another big. Bud said once again, emphatically, that he really likes the bigs we have and would go to battle with these guys every day of the week. You could tell Bud is getting sick of this question because he really stressed how happy he is with the guys we have. He also said that the way our team plays schematically that rebounding has to be a total team effort; and that it is something that we continue to work on and try to improve on (like he says about everything).

 

I guess I'm just going to have to keep saying it, but what we gain from the bigs that we currently have more than outweighs what we lose in rim protection and rebounding. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about this concept? We've got the best record we've ever had at this point in the season...seems to me what we are doing is working pretty darn well!

 

Thank you.   You've saved me a lot of time.  I may just make this my sig.

[NBASupes]

I have to strongly disagree.   Rebounds determine possessions.  Sure you can try to out efficiency everybody but even then, you better not allow the team to dominate rebounding.  When I watched us lose to New Orleans, it was obvious that controlling the boards was the only reason that a team like them could beat us.  Moreover, that was not a Boston Celtic like loss... They manhandled us.  I don't want to see this team get to the top Seed in the East, step into the first round of the playoffs and get manhandled on the boards by a team like Indiana or Brooklyn.

I have to agree. Bud is right to a degree but we need one extra big who can rebound and do the things like move and play defense. 

[RandomFan]

I have to strongly disagree.   Rebounds determine possessions.  Sure you can try to out efficiency everybody but even then, you better not allow the team to dominate rebounding.  When I watched us lose to New Orleans, it was obvious that controlling the boards was the only reason that a team like them could beat us.  Moreover, that was not a Boston Celtic like loss... They manhandled us.  I don't want to see this team get to the top Seed in the East, step into the first round of the playoffs and get manhandled on the boards by a team like Indiana or Brooklyn.

 

Rebounds are just not as important as they used to be. It varies from team to team how important they are. But for our style of play, they rank very low. We lose games when we shoot poorly - that's pretty much it. We give up inflated rebounds in those games because the other team obviously gets more chances at a rebound when we miss more frequently.

 

We see a similar trend with defensive rebounds because, like offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds can be compounded with shooting. We know teams that shoot a lower field goal percentage are less likely to win, and since defensive rebounds happen at a much higher rate than offensive rebounds, winning teams often have a high number of defensive rebounds, and this is shown in the graph. However, if you look at the graph you see a few peaks in the teams with lower win totals. This is could be because of team strategy. As I explained earlier, teams like the Spurs rarely go for the offensive rebounds so they can get back on defense. This allows bad teams to collect the defensive rebounds.

 

We can conclude that rebounds cannot be as significant as Dean Oliver suggested because the teams that excel in rebounding are at the extremes. Rebounding is probably a compounded variable with shooting and team strategy, and it is simply not as important as we once thought.

 

https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/important-rebounds#.VOOzaC4ofb4 (from 1 year ago)

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1892941-does-rebounding-matter-in-the-nba  (14 months ago)

 

(talking about the 2013 Heat, but this could also very easily be about us this year)

First of all, Miami's overall rebounding numbers are naturally low because of how it plays. The Heat have the highest field-goal percentage in the league, which means their games necessarily feature fewer rebound chances, especially at the offensive end. Made shots don't yield boards. In addition, the Heat are one of the league's best mistake-inducers. Their brand of trap-heavy, deliberately chaotic defense generates a ton of opponents' turnovers, which also reduces the number of rebounding opportunities in their games.

 

Miami's style on both ends doesn't necessarily explain why it corrals such a low percentage of available rebounds.

The truth is Miami's poor rebounding numbers are the result of a conscious decision. Playing small so frequently would certainly seem to be a factor, as would the Heat's tendency to leak out in transition instead of sending multiple bodies to the boards.

 

You get the sense that the Heat could rebound better if they wanted to. After all, in James' first year in South Beach, the Heat were third in the NBA in rebound rate, per NBA.com. Knowing that, it seems like the Heat's failure to rebound is a choice—a choice that indicates Miami has found something it values more than securing missed shots. Per Joseph Goodman of the Miami Herald, Heat head coach Erik Spoelstra doesn't shy away from his team's identity: "We do not have a double-digit rebounder every single night. That doesn’t make it bad or wrong. That makes us who we are."

 

Back in 2012, then-ESPN analytics guru John Hollinger noted how the 2011-12 Boston Celtics posted the worst offensive rebounding rate in NBA history. Overall, the C's pulled down just 47.3 percent of available boards, good enough for 28th in the league that season. The 19.7 percent of offensive boards they secured set a new low bar in NBA history, though. Despite that glaring statistical deficiency, those Celtics gave the soon-to-be-crowned Heat a pretty good run in the Eastern Conference Finals. Terrible rebounding didn't prevent the Celtics from winning a lot of games. Maybe Miami saw something it liked in the way the Celtics played.

 

Ultimately, rebounding does matter in the NBA. But NBA games aren't played in a vacuum. Every squad has different personnel that dictates which style makes the most sense. In the Heat's case, it's clear that at some point between the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons, they decided that some things were more likely to help them win than rebounding. Creating havoc on defense, sparking as many fast breaks as possible and playing small made sense for Miami. To do those things better, the Heat sacrificed the floor balance that leads to good defensive rebounding and gave up the conventional big men that would lead to more offensive boards.

 

Rebounding is important in the NBA. But like many other time-honored basketball truisms, the proposition that it's a prerequisite to winning isn't uniformly true. Based on the available data and the trends that have developed over the past few seasons, it's really more accurate to posit the following: Rebounding matters, but for some teams, other things matter more.

 

Edited February 17, 2015 by RandomFan

[Peoriabird]

Sacks are overrated!

 

-Mike Smith

[RandomFan]

Sacks are overrated!

 

-Mike Smith

And if this wasn't comparing apples to oranges, that might seem amusing. But as it stands, thats only a snarky half-wit deepity.

[Peoriabird]

 But as it stands, thats only a snarky half-wit deepity.

Who you calling a half-wit?  Mods!

[Plainview1981]

Rebounding, ah yes. You're talking about the least important correlational major statistic towards winning games. Let me say that again for emphasis since I guess a lot of people still don't realize this: Rebounding is the least valuable statistic that determines wins and losses. I would think everyone would be well aware of that after it has been talked about to death for the last week here. Let me also say it again, that we ignore offensive rebounds in order to get back on defense, which obviously lowers our total rebounds per game when comparing us to other teams. When you only factor in defensive rebounds, we are around 11th in the NBA last time I checked.

 

Yes, we could be better rebounding the ball on the defensive end. Bud is constantly talking about this. I even heard him on 92.9 today talking about it. They were asking him about the rebounding issue and a possible need for another big. Bud said once again, emphatically, that he really likes the bigs we have and would go to battle with these guys every day of the week. You could tell Bud is getting sick of this question because he really stressed how happy he is with the guys we have. He also said that the way our team plays schematically that rebounding has to be a total team effort; and that it is something that we continue to work on and try to improve on (like he says about everything).

 

I guess I'm just going to have to keep saying it, but what we gain from the bigs that we currently have more than outweighs what we lose in rim protection and rebounding. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about this concept? We've got the best record we've ever had at this point in the season...seems to me what we are doing is working pretty darn well!

 

This is the regular season.

 

Teams that win championships almost always have an inside anchor that rebounds and/or block shots. Even Chicago had Dennis Rodman, Detroit had Ben Wallace the Spurs last year had Duncan who is still an elite rebounder and shot blocker. 

 

People that want to compare this Hawks team to last years Spurs or the 2004 Pistons continue to ignore that fact. 

 

If Bud doesn't see a problem with getting outrebounded by 20 rebounds then he has a problem.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Hotlanta1981