There has been a change in Atlanta's win projections this coming season

[thecampster]

On 7/21/2018 at 7:59 AM, yungsta said:

Only scenario I believe we can be a 30+ win team.

If Trae Young can be an immediate net positive player when hes playing 30+ mins a game as a 19 year old

If John Collins can elevate his game to a fringe all star level

If Pierce proves he is a decent/good coach

 

Statistically speaking, Dennis Schröder was a net -1.2 points per 100 possessions. So if Trae + Lin is just a net break even for us, its a win.

[thecampster]

On 7/21/2018 at 8:05 AM, hazer said:

I just don’t see any path to 35 wins this season with how young this team is and a rookie coach. I’m an eternal optimist, think Trae will eventually be All NBA, Prince can be our Kawhi Lite, and Collins will be the 2nd coming of Amare. But 35 wins this year? MAYBE 30 if Lin is healthy and Trae is a quick study.

I've been discussing this for about a week now.  Statistically speaking, Dennis was a -4 points per 100 possessions on defense last year (on court vs off), Belinelli was -4.9 points per 100 possessions on defense.  The minute swap of these 2 players and Alex Len vs Muscala makes the Hawks significantly better on defense over last year's 24th ranking.

Last year, the Hawks lost 24 games by 10 or last points, 30 games by 12 or less points.  A 5 possession improvement one either and or a combination of defense and offense = 24 more wins.  I'm thinking 11 more wins isn't asking that much.

[thecampster]

On 7/21/2018 at 10:49 AM, KB21 said:

It's not a loser's mentality on my part.  It's realism.  This team is going to have a 3rd year player, two second year players, and three rookies all likely getting major minutes in the rotation.  That means it is going to be a very long season when you combine that with a GM that wants to lose and establish a losing culture.

Excellent, it means they aren't that practiced at losing (see that's how optimism works).

[KB21]

50 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Excellent, it means they aren't that practiced at losing (see that's how optimism works).

OK.  So, give me examples of teams who bottomed out, built from scratch, had zero impact veterans on the roster, and had as many young players getting minutes as the Hawks will have this season that also showed significant improvement over their previous season.

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

OK.  So, give me examples of teams who bottomed out, built from scratch, had zero impact veterans on the roster, and had as many young players getting minutes as the Hawks will have this season that also showed significant improvement over their previous season.

You're not my daddy! You can't tell me what to do!

[Devon]

I see us as a 25-30 win/mid lottery squad next season... but with an upward trajectory & wins late in the season.

Taurean will improve as will Collins once Trae figures out the systems ins & outs & becomes accustomed to life as an NBA starting PG.

Trae will get a rough intro early as teams will D him up tight but I believe he'll hit a stride about 1/3 of the season in and put up numbers; my main gauge on him this season is going to be that Assists to Turnovers ratio. Once Trae gets comfortable with the NBA speed of play and the system I could see him putting up 1st Team All-Rookie numbers. He'll be smart to utilize Prince and Collins both inside and down on the post. 

Spellman will provide decent numbers off the bench in limited minutes...

I like the Carter signing if nothing else to have a guy with 20+ years of game experience and knowledge to pass on to guys that likely wore his jerseys...

I'm interested to see what Huerter brings to the court once he's healed up from the hand surgery...

Cleveland re-signing Love and Dallas bringing in Jordan makes me think both picks could possibly convey next season in an RJ Barrett / Cameron Reddish driven draft... To have potentially 3 lottery slots + a ton of cap room post-Dennis + A Players Coach + A team on the up + An Owner in Buy/Win Mode... I'm at least starting to see a plan.

Not saying it's not going to be painful next season and probably the one after but... I see the outline of what appears to be the beginnings of the structuring of the possibilities of the architecture of a potential, um.. plan.

so yay for that

[thecampster]

13 hours ago, KB21 said:

OK.  So, give me examples of teams who bottomed out, built from scratch, had zero impact veterans on the roster, and had as many young players getting minutes as the Hawks will have this season that also showed significant improvement over their previous season.

1989 New Jersey Nets purposely tanked. Record 17-65. Drafted Derrick Coleman. Improved next season 9 games to 26-56. Coleman played 35 mpg scoring 18.4ppg, 10.3 rpg.

In a 2 year rebuild...Seattle drafted Durant after going 20-62. The next year they went 23-59 (3 game improvement) and drafted Westbrook. They won 50 games the next year.

 

There are problems with examples like this though...they are the exception to the rule.  In general, tanking does not work as evidenced by http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/ .

 

The problem with your logic though is it doesn't allow for exceptions, good drafting or internal player growth during the rebuild.  I think you need to take a hard look at my logic (2600 minutes not going to G-Leaguers this year, better 3 point shooting and better team defense, many close games last year).  

You see, the 24 games they won last year were for the most part wins that are wins that are wins.  There were only a handful that were not solid 6 point or more wins. But there is an equally large sample of losses last year (about 1/2) that were a few possessions away from being wins.  The odds state that with so many more minutes going to improving vets or 1st round picks and the subtraction of defensive problems, more of the losses can be turned than the wins.  Basic logic says the team win totals improve. The question is by how much?  3 wins, 5, 10, 15....that's the variance, not a negative variance based on talent.

[thecampster]

and what I mean by talent is the comparison in talent between the lost 2600 minutes to G-Leaguers which will mostly be absorbed by Bembry, Dorsey, Trae, Huerter, Spellman, Anderson, Carter.

I really think the veteran presence of Carter as a coach on the floor can't be overstated. He's seen it all.

[KB21]

28 minutes ago, thecampster said:

1989 New Jersey Nets purposely tanked. Record 17-65. Drafted Derrick Coleman. Improved next season 9 games to 26-56. Coleman played 35 mpg scoring 18.4ppg, 10.3 rpg.

In a 2 year rebuild...Seattle drafted Durant after going 20-62. The next year they went 23-59 (3 game improvement) and drafted Westbrook. They won 50 games the next year.

 

There are problems with examples like this though...they are the exception to the rule.  In general, tanking does not work as evidenced by http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/ .

 

The problem with your logic though is it doesn't allow for exceptions, good drafting or internal player growth during the rebuild.  I think you need to take a hard look at my logic (2600 minutes not going to G-Leaguers this year, better 3 point shooting and better team defense, many close games last year).  

You see, the 24 games they won last year were for the most part wins that are wins that are wins.  There were only a handful that were not solid 6 point or more wins. But there is an equally large sample of losses last year (about 1/2) that were a few possessions away from being wins.  The odds state that with so many more minutes going to improving vets or 1st round picks and the subtraction of defensive problems, more of the losses can be turned than the wins.  Basic logic says the team win totals improve. The question is by how much?  3 wins, 5, 10, 15....that's the variance, not a negative variance based on talent.

Correction.  The Sonics drafted Durant after winning 31 games, and then promptly won 20 games when he was a rookie.  They added Westbrook the next year and won 23.  

Derrick Coleman was also drafted during an era where players were more ready to play when they came into the league.

[thecampster]

27 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Correction.  The Sonics drafted Durant after winning 31 games, and then promptly won 20 games when he was a rookie.  They added Westbrook the next year and won 23.  

Derrick Coleman was also drafted during an era where players were more ready to play when they came into the league.

goal posts buddy...goal posts

My post agrees with you in principle but points out there are exceptions and considerations.

 

[KB21]

21 minutes ago, thecampster said:

goal posts buddy...goal posts

My post agrees with you in principle but points out there are exceptions and considerations.

 

That's not moving goalposts, because I have always taken the eras of the draft into account.  Ever since the one and done rule was put into place, it has been a lot more difficult to draft players at the top of the draft who are ready to contribute when compared to the '80s and '90s drafts.  Kevin Durant was a -1.4 VORP player as a rookie compared to Coleman being a 1.7 VORP as a rookie.  

In the one and done era, rookies are simply bad.  Rookies are not going to help you win games.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, thecampster said:

1989 New Jersey Nets purposely tanked. Record 17-65. Drafted Derrick Coleman. Improved next season 9 games to 26-56. Coleman played 35 mpg scoring 18.4ppg, 10.3 rpg.

In a 2 year rebuild...Seattle drafted Durant after going 20-62. The next year they went 23-59 (3 game improvement) and drafted Westbrook. They won 50 games the next year.

 

There are problems with examples like this though...they are the exception to the rule.  In general, tanking does not work as evidenced by http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/ .

 

The problem with your logic though is it doesn't allow for exceptions, good drafting or internal player growth during the rebuild.  I think you need to take a hard look at my logic (2600 minutes not going to G-Leaguers this year, better 3 point shooting and better team defense, many close games last year).  

You see, the 24 games they won last year were for the most part wins that are wins that are wins.  There were only a handful that were not solid 6 point or more wins. But there is an equally large sample of losses last year (about 1/2) that were a few possessions away from being wins.  The odds state that with so many more minutes going to improving vets or 1st round picks and the subtraction of defensive problems, more of the losses can be turned than the wins.  Basic logic says the team win totals improve. The question is by how much?  3 wins, 5, 10, 15....that's the variance, not a negative variance based on talent.

Love citing a 2012 article that argues that Cleveland and Golden State (each with the third worst record in their conference) don’t have good futures.  Right before they win 4 consecutive championships.

[smoove31210]

bump....bump.....bump.....