Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Official Game Thread: Hornets "at" Hawks


lethalweapon3

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

yeah i may be overreacting to one game since we did lead the league in first quarter points.  lol

Cam has been shit on offense. I agree with you there..Whats sad, is we cant start our high priced FA(Bogi)over him either, because he's been just as bad.....

Edited by terrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
23 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I disagree.   I mean how is starting him in the name of defense going to help if we only score 11 points.  Pick your poison.  I'd rather get off to a good start and bring him in at this point.  At least until he shows he remembers how to dribble and shoot.   Huerter leads the team with 10 steals so it's  not like he's a total waste on D.

Well, until this last game, our starts have been fine. The problem was holding the lead from mid 3rd thru the 4th quarters. This was the 1st game where the offense really struggled at the start of the game.

So, is it an outlier or not?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AHF said:

On our 96 FGA from yesterday, that would have led to a 122 point total for the Hawks.  That would be good efficiency any night.

Inefficient was probably an overstatement but I don't call an individual efficient unless they are getting up towards 1.5 pps. Kev was what, 1.25 to 1.30 without doing the math. Not bad but not great either. He was definitely the best out there though. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
47 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Inefficient was probably an overstatement but I don't call an individual efficient unless they are getting up towards 1.5 pps. Kev was what, 1.25 to 1.30 without doing the math. Not bad but not great either. He was definitely the best out there though. 

If a team got 1.5 pps, it would be the most efficient team in basketball history.  

Kev was right in that range (1.267) which I would call great.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I'm disappointed, but I'm not going that far - you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hate to say it , but I think we'd be a better team with Hali starting at pg right now..Trae turnovers and no defense are killer..And he'll never be a good defender either. He's just too small with no length..He has to be great on offense or he's just a liability sadly..We need Trae to be consistently great on offense, or at least competent on defense when he's not..

Edited by terrell
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, High5 said:

I get we're all bummed about Trae right now, but come on...

He had 2 good games..The rest he's been bad imo..Its a long season though.But I dont like what Im seeing..

Edited by terrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AHF said:

For reference, Michael Jordan was 1.316 for his career.

Kevin Garnett was 1.233.

Hakeem was 1.284.

Ray Allen was 1.293.

So I'd say your benchmark is too demanding.

Well I'm talking about just one game. The threshold for efficiency to me is higher for a singular game than for a season or career. 

Still, if you are saying 1.25 - 1.30 is elite efficiency for a season i just disagree. 

There were 20+ players just last year that posted better than 1.30 pps.

Trae is 1.339 for his career. He was 1.423 last season.

I don't think 1.267 is elite when talking about a single game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Well I'm talking about just one game. The threshold for efficiency to me is higher for a singular game than for a season or career. 

Still, if you are saying 1.25 - 1.30 is elite efficiency for a season i just disagree. 

There were 20+ players just last year that posted better than 1.30 pps.

Trae is 1.339 for his career. He was 1.423 last season.

I don't think 1.267 is elite when talking about a single game. 

 

Why would you just talk about one game when measuring efficiency?  What is good should be good pretty much regardless of sample size.  
 

You are right that there is more variability in a single game sample size which gives you different metrics for what is exceptional  but that doesn’t really speak to what is good, bad or indifferent so much as a much wider bell curve when measuring on a relative basis. 

 

When you have a game performing between Ray Allen and KG and the whole team would have produced over 120 points if they matched your efficiency, that is good.  Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

I disagree. Travis backs CLP. They aren't going to undermine their coach. 

No owner is picking an underachieving unaccomplished coach over their star player. Pierce loses that 1000% of the time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...