2020-21 The Current Ask Supes

[Spud2nique]

4 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Everybody loves these bad team all stars...Its the same story every time.  If we can get player X to play with Trae, they would be amazing together so lets trade away the heart and soul of our team plus draft picks to Get player X.  We are guaranteed to be so much better. 

Lord have mercy

Ok first off, calm down… or don’t either way.

I think this may come from fear on your part Peo. I feel like Trae has outstanding leadership skills on the court that translate to immediate chemistry with a lot of players and not just Collins. Look I love JC too (not as much as you or Supes liking Horford or kg liking Sexton or anything weird like that) but with a bit of time, does it scare you that ultimately Okongwu will have as good if not better chemistry with Trae? 
 

Okongwu is kne of the smartest bigs to come out of college in a decade, prolly since …Alice.. team that up with Trae and we may have something even better.

Before you starting throwing eggs Peo I’m out.  

[REHawksFan]

3 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

Ok first off, calm down… or don’t either way.

I think this may come from fear on your part Peo. I feel like Trae has outstanding leadership skills on the court that translate to immediate chemistry with a lot of players and not just Collins. Look I love JC too (not as much as you or Supes liking Horford or kg liking Sexton or anything weird like that) but with a bit of time, does it scare you that ultimately Okongwu will have as good if not better chemistry with Trae? 
 

Okongwu is kne of the smartest bigs to come out of college in a decade, prolly since …Alice.. team that up with Trae and we may have something even better.

Before you starting throwing eggs Peo I’m out.  

Calling someone a bad team all star is just lazy. You would think PEOple would learn after the whole NBA called Trae a bad team all star for two years until he was actually surrounded by NBA players. Then he just magically transformed into a superstar. 

I have no strong feelings on Grant either way, but it's obvious he's on a team that sucks. And it's also obvious that Trae makes everyone better around him. So from that standpoint alone, the Grant deal would probably work just fine. 

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by REHawksFan

[Peoriabird]

2 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

Calling someone a bad team all star is just lazy. You would think PEOple would learn after the whole NBA called Trae a bad team all star for two years until he was actually surrounded by NBA players. Then he just magically transformed into a superstar. 

I have no strong feelings on Grant either way, but it's obvious he's on a team that sucks. And it's also obvious that Trae makes everyone better around him. So from that standpoint alone, the Grant deal would probably work just fine. 

 

I know that many of you want to pretend that Trae's approach as a point guard and his play is the same now as it was in his 1st 2 years in the league when he was the poster child for the concept of "bad team all star."  Even with his new teammate at the beginning of this year his play mirrored the 1st 2 years of his career until McMillan took over.  McMillan talk about this transition every chance he gets. He has said that he had to continuously talk to Trae about his tendencies of the past reminding him that those tendencies don't lead to winning basketball.  He and other have also talked about John Collins sacrificing his number for the good of the team so I'm not sure what you mean by lazy analysis.  This phenomenon is quite prevalent in the NBA because players are compensated based on their numbers regardless of whether those numbers lead to wins or not.

[REHawksFan]

42 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I'm not sure what you mean by lazy analysis.

It's not complicated.  Every young player in the NBA that puts up numbers on a losing team gets labeled as a "bad team all star."  It's a lazy narrative.  Do some players on bad teams just look to pad their stats to get paid?  Sure.  But not all of them do.  And it's lazy to claim that.  Trae put up numbers and the team lost. He wasn't a bad team all star.  He was an all star trapped on a team that INTENTIONALLY PLANNED TO LOSE in order to get high draft picks.

As a rookie or 2nd year player, had Trae been surrounded with the quality of NBA players he was this year, the winning would have been there and he would have never had the "bad team all star" wrap.  Why?  Because it's a lazy narrative used by people with neither the time nor inclination to actually consider the context in which a player plays.     

I haven't followed the Pistons closely enough this year to know if Grant is just padding his numbers for a pay day.  And I'd guess neither have you.  It's just an assumption because he's on a bad team and put up good numbers.  

[Peoriabird]

31 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

It's not complicated.  Every young player in the NBA that puts up numbers on a losing team gets labeled as a "bad team all star."  It's a lazy narrative.  Do some players on bad teams just look to pad their stats to get paid?  Sure.  But not all of them do.  And it's lazy to claim that.  Trae put up numbers and the team lost. He wasn't a bad team all star.  He was an all star trapped on a team that INTENTIONALLY PLANNED TO LOSE in order to get high draft picks.

As a rookie or 2nd year player, had Trae been surrounded with the quality of NBA players he was this year, the winning would have been there and he would have never had the "bad team all star" wrap.  Why?  Because it's a lazy narrative used by people with neither the time nor inclination to actually consider the context in which a player plays.     

I haven't followed the Pistons closely enough this year to know if Grant is just padding his numbers for a pay day.  And I'd guess neither have you.  It's just an assumption because he's on a bad team and put up good numbers.  

How do you explain his 3rd year under Pierce then?

[REHawksFan]

22 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

How do you explain his 3rd year under Pierce then?

How do I explain what?  

Trae in Yr 3 

LP as HC: 32 games / 26.5pts / 9.5ast / 42.8% FG / 36.8% 3PT / 18.1 FGA / 6.5 3PTA

NM as HC: 31 games / 24.1pgs / 9.4ast / 44.8% FG / 31.4% 3PT / 17.2 FGA / 6.1 3PTA

They are essentially the exact same numbers.  The only real difference is pts which is attributable to his 3PT% dropping off by 5.4% under Nate as compared to LP. The Hawks went 14-18 under LP when Trae played and 22-9 under Nate when Trae played.  Trae's play was basically the same. 

So why did they win so much after LP and under Nate?  It wasn't Trae morphing from a bad team all star to a superstar. That's ridiculous.  It was a combination of guys getting healthy and Nate just being the better coach.  Trae attempted essentially the same number of shots under both coaches.  Took essentially the same number of 3pt. Scored only slightly less.  Had essentially the same number of assists.  

Bogie missed 25 of 34 games with LP as coach

Gallo missed 12 of 34 games

Hunter missed 16 of 34 games

OO missed 20 of 34 games

Cam missed 8 of 34 games

The collective number of games missed by key players is what led to the 14-20 record when LP was fired.  That and the fact that LP wasn't a good enough coach to overcome those losses.  

 

 

   

[gurpilo]

hace 20 minutos, REHawksFan dijo:

How do I explain what?  

Trae in Yr 3 

LP as HC: 32 games / 26.5pts / 9.5ast / 42.8% FG / 36.8% 3PT / 18.1 FGA / 6.5 3PTA

NM as HC: 31 games / 24.1pgs / 9.4ast / 44.8% FG / 31.4% 3PT / 17.2 FGA / 6.1 3PTA

They are essentially the exact same numbers.  The only real difference is pts which is attributable to his 3PT% dropping off by 5.4% under Nate as compared to LP. The Hawks went 14-18 under LP when Trae played and 22-9 under Nate when Trae played.  Trae's play was basically the same. 

So why did they win so much after LP and under Nate?  It wasn't Trae morphing from a bad team all star to a superstar. That's ridiculous.  It was a combination of guys getting healthy and Nate just being the better coach.  Trae attempted essentially the same number of shots under both coaches.  Took essentially the same number of 3pt. Scored only slightly less.  Had essentially the same number of assists.  

Bogie missed 25 of 34 games with LP as coach

Gallo missed 12 of 34 games

Hunter missed 16 of 34 games

OO missed 20 of 34 games

Cam missed 8 of 34 games

The collective number of games missed by key players is what led to the 14-20 record when LP was fired.  That and the fact that LP wasn't a good enough coach to overcome those losses.  

 

 

   

I think the main answer is going to be defense, we were a much better defensive team with NN than with LP.

[kg01]

8 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

It’s true he did. And Sexton…. I mean ummmm  

Heeey, we agreed not to talk about that brief flirtation I had with Sexton.

[Sothron]

To be fair to J. Grant he was putting up numbers in his role in Denver which was a winning team. I'm still shocked he left the same amount of money on the table to leave Denver to go to Detroit to be "the man". He should have stayed in Denver. But it doesn't take away from  his game.

Grant is a good player but he's 3 years OLDER than JC. I'd rather keep our homegrown talent that is a hand in glove fit with Trae.

[sturt]

On 7/11/2021 at 12:12 AM, sturt said:

To no one in particular...

It would be valuable for Hawks fans to spend a half hour plugging into an Excel spreadsheet a projected salary chart for 21-22 and for 22-23... that would be enough to provide a truer, more precise picture of how this thing would appear to unfold.

This will help. I've taken the time to look up what each of our current players numbers are for those seasons. Where there are players I've envisioned being added, just substitute your own if you don't like mine.

But do that, and this will all be a whole lot less frustrating because you will have examined it for yourself with actual numbers rather than conjecture based on broad statements.

 

 

 

 

Thought occurs to me... there's an over-moderated forum I frequent during football season where they strictly police what people post, to the extent that, for instance, if someone posts a quote without a link, or posts a link to a source that has been banned from being sourced, there is some kind of discipline enforced. It's really crazy that anyone participates there at all given the gestapo attitude, but I can only guess that they were one of the original independent forum sites like ours is, and so it got a headstart and a stout following.

That said.

Quoting the great philosophers Taylor, Simon & Garfunkel... what a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful world it would be... if it were a requirement of every poster here that before you could get away with positing some trade or free agent acquisition, you would have to have posted a graphic like one of these above... in effect, then.... as many of our math teachers would say in school, "you have to show your work" in order to get credit. Though, once you've shown your work... shown that you've thought through the numbers just once... you get the gold seal, and are permitted to offer still more thoughts on the acquisition front.

One can dream.

 

 

[Spud2nique]

37 minutes ago, sturt said:

It's really crazy that anyone participates there at all given the gestapo attitude,

Maybe they wanted to reenact The Great Eacape and wanted to be a rebel like McQueen. 

Gestapo: Good Luck!

Macdonald I: Thank you 

[Spud2nique]

42 minutes ago, sturt said:

as many of our math teachers would say in school, "you have to show your work" in order to get credit.

Kevin Pangos? Sturt, I’m sorry this was never given to you in the original textbook we received this year for our mathematics class. This is where you misread the problem. I’m gonna take 3 letter grades off for showing your work but going off the wrong tangent (Pangos? Huh left field anyone). 
 

C+
 

Sincerely,

Your math teacher  

[AHF]

3 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

How do I explain what?  

Trae in Yr 3 

LP as HC: 32 games / 26.5pts / 9.5ast / 42.8% FG / 36.8% 3PT / 18.1 FGA / 6.5 3PTA

NM as HC: 31 games / 24.1pgs / 9.4ast / 44.8% FG / 31.4% 3PT / 17.2 FGA / 6.1 3PTA

They are essentially the exact same numbers.  The only real difference is pts which is attributable to his 3PT% dropping off by 5.4% under Nate as compared to LP. The Hawks went 14-18 under LP when Trae played and 22-9 under Nate when Trae played.  Trae's play was basically the same. 

So why did they win so much after LP and under Nate?  It wasn't Trae morphing from a bad team all star to a superstar. That's ridiculous.  It was a combination of guys getting healthy and Nate just being the better coach.  Trae attempted essentially the same number of shots under both coaches.  Took essentially the same number of 3pt. Scored only slightly less.  Had essentially the same number of assists.  

Bogie missed 25 of 34 games with LP as coach

Gallo missed 12 of 34 games

Hunter missed 16 of 34 games

OO missed 20 of 34 games

Cam missed 8 of 34 games

The collective number of games missed by key players is what led to the 14-20 record when LP was fired.  That and the fact that LP wasn't a good enough coach to overcome those losses.  

 

 

   

 

3 hours ago, gurpilo said:

I think the main answer is going to be defense, we were a much better defensive team with NN than with LP.

A common thread between the small drop in FGA/points and the improved defense is the slower pace we played under Nate than under LP.  A factor in the very slightly improved assist number under Nate (which is a slightly larger gap when you consider pace) is the emergence of Bogi as the most reliable wing scorer the team had this year over the last 2.5 months of the season.  That is less of a statement on Bogi and more just noting that his hot play over that time helped the assist numbers of the guy feeding him.

[RedDawg#8]

The whole Grant thing about having good stats on a bad team discounts just how good he was for Denver the year before. He was most definitely a difference maker and a key piece for them.

I wanted us to add Grant last offseason, before he broke out in Denver. My Free agent wish list was Dunn and Grant. We chose to sign Gallo instead for the same money, which worked out well. But Grant is not some empty calories guy. Maybe his numbers are bloated due to usage, but he has proven what he brings to winning teams.

As far as JC for Grant; the ONLY thing against this for me is the locker room/chemistry. That's it. If JC is out of the door anyway then so be it. But if we are close on a number, it's worth bringing him back for that alone.

[RedDawg#8]

Trae's evolution under Nate was a lot more nuance than anything.

Nate allowed him to play his game, but he taught him how to pick his spots.

He said the biggest thing he noticed was Trae played every quarter the same, and as the PG you can't do that.

You can't play the 4th quarter the same way you played the 1st. Your decision making when closing out games has to be different. 

We all know how much we improved in the 4th quarter under Nate. That was his biggest impact on Trae if you ask me.

[REHawksFan]

1 minute ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Trae's evolution under Nate was a lot more nuance than anything.

Nate allowed him to play his game, but he taught him how to pick his spots.

He said the biggest thing he noticed was Trae played every quarter the same, and as the PG you can't do that.

You can't play the 4th quarter the same way you played the 1st. Your decision making when closing out games has to be different. 

We all know how much we improved in the 4th quarter under Nate. That was his biggest impact on Trae if you ask me.

I agree that Nate had a big impact on Trae and that a lot of it is nuance and subtle changes. But I just disagree that Trae was some empty stats guy (or that Grant is) as was suggested by peo.  The Hawks were bad despite Trae's best efforts because they CHOSE to be bad the last 2 years as part of their plan.  Once they put NBA players around Trae, the winning eventually happened, even if it took also putting an NBA coach around Trae as well.  The same can happen for Grant, I would imagine.  

[RedDawg#8]

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

I agree that Nate had a big impact on Trae and that a lot of it is nuance and subtle changes. But I just disagree that Trae was some empty stats guy (or that Grant is) as was suggested by peo.  The Hawks were bad despite Trae's best efforts because they CHOSE to be bad the last 2 years as part of their plan.  Once they put NBA players around Trae, the winning eventually happened, even if it took also putting an NBA coach around Trae as well.  The same can happen for Grant, I would imagine.  

Agree on Trae. Losing was the plan all along, not his fault.

And for Grant you don't have to imagine. He already was a part of winning situations in Den and OKC.

[kg01]

36 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

The whole Grant thing about having good stats on a bad team discounts just how good he was for Denver the year before. He was most definitely a difference maker and a key piece for them.

I wanted us to add Grant last offseason, before he broke out in Denver. My Free agent wish list was Dunn and Grant. We chose to sign Gallo instead for the same money, which worked out well. But Grant is not some empty calories guy. Maybe his numbers are bloated due to usage, but he has proven what he brings to winning teams.

As far as JC for Grant; the ONLY thing against this for me is the locker room/chemistry. That's it. If JC is out of the door anyway then so be it. But if we are close on a number, it's worth bringing him back for that alone.

I'd put it like this.  If all Grant was gonna do was be what he was for DEN, he'd be a very useful player that I'd love to have.  However ..

If all Grant was gonna do was be what he was for DEN, that's not a player I'd want to pay his current contract for.

So I kinda feel it's more complicated than, "is he a good player".  Know what I'm sayin'?

[Spud2nique]

24 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I'd put it like this.  If all Grant was gonna do was be what he was for DEN, he'd be a very useful player that I'd love to have.  However ..

If all Grant was gonna do was be what he was for DEN, that's not a player I'd want to pay his current contract for.

So I kinda feel it's more complicated than, "is he a good player".  Know what I'm sayin'?

Oh I think he’s an intelligent guy who knows his role. I feel like you wouldn’t want him to have an expanded role, neither would I. I think we would understand the pecking order of the offense. So I get what you’re saying but you you get what I sayin?  #getguap

[thecampster]

12 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

Ok first off, calm down… or don’t either way.

I think this may come from fear on your part Peo. I feel like Trae has outstanding leadership skills on the court that translate to immediate chemistry with a lot of players and not just Collins. Look I love JC too (not as much as you or Supes liking Horford or kg liking Sexton or anything weird like that) but with a bit of time, does it scare you that ultimately Okongwu will have as good if not better chemistry with Trae? 
 

Okongwu is kne of the smartest bigs to come out of college in a decade, prolly since …Alice.. team that up with Trae and we may have something even better.

Before you starting throwing eggs Peo I’m out.  

OO needs a lot of offensive improvement before I'm christening him the JC killer. Folks need to move on from that.