Official Game Thread: Cavaliers at Hawks

[JayBirdHawk]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

Knight's per minute numbers look great (Per36 of greater than 20 points (on .625% TS%), 11 rebounds, 1 steal, 2 blocks).  I'll be disappointed if Nate doesn't feed him some regular burn and give him more time when he is making a difference on the floor.  After his 14 point outburst in game 2, he got a total of 54 seconds over the next 5 games.  

Agreed. BEside his obvious skills,  I just like the hustle and attacking nature of his game. He may not get the rebound but he was tipping rebounds to teammates and keeping balls alive.  Particularly when we seem low on energy, he can infuse some of that energy.

[kg01]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Agreed. BEside his obvious skills,  I just like the hustle and attacking nature of his game. He may not get the rebound but he was tipping rebounds to teammates and keeping balls alive.  Particularly when we seem low on energy, he can infuse some of that energy.

Eggsactly.

He may not be "better" than certain other guys but the mere fact that he plays with energy/enthusiasm benefits the team.

I'm sick and tired of watching teams like OKC, CHA, CLE, and others out play us with middling dudes that just out-work our guys.  Meanwhile, our guys are all too cool for school getting boxed out and bodied by skinny dudes I never heard of.

I mean, I've known about Kenrich Williams since his college days and I know he's been decent in the league.  But that dude was the best. player. on. the. court. at times when we played.  How does that happen?  Because our guys failed to match his energy level.  That dude had a 70's style shag and was whippin our collective arses most of that game.  Shiiiii, we've been beat by a dude with a rat-tail and a dude with a shag.  Last time that happened to a team in the same season, it was 1979!

Knight is a change of pace ... and obtw he's actually good.  Play the man!

[hawkman]

18 minutes ago, AHF said:

Knight's per minute numbers look great (Per36 of greater than 20 points (on .625% TS%), 11 rebounds, 1 steal, 2 blocks).  I'll be disappointed if Nate doesn't feed him some regular burn and give him more time when he is making a difference on the floor.  After his 14 point outburst in game 2, he got a total of 54 seconds over the next 5 games.  

Inexcusable. Absolutely no reason for that with all of the injuries this season. The days of Solo playing PF should be over. Knight is a bouncy, stretch PF/ small ball Center with a very good motor which is exactly what the Hawks need off the bench. 

[MarylandHawk]

44 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Eggsactly.

He may not be "better" than certain other guys but the mere fact that he plays with energy/enthusiasm benefits the team.

I'm sick and tired of watching teams like OKC, CHA, CLE, and others out play us with middling dudes that just out-work our guys.  Meanwhile, our guys are all too cool for school getting boxed out and bodied by skinny dudes I never heard of.

I mean, I've known about Kenrich Williams since his college days and I know he's been decent in the league.  But that dude was the best. player. on. the. court. at times when we played.  How does that happen?  Because our guys failed to match his energy level.  That dude had a 70's style shag and was whippin our collective arses most of that game.  Shiiiii, we've been beat by a dude with a rat-tail and a dude with a shag.  Last time that happened to a team in the same season, it was 1979!

Knight is a change of pace ... and obtw he's actually good.  Play the man!

^^^ this. This is spot on. The biggest difference between our current wins and losses is that we are not letting Joe Blows come in here and have the game of their lives against us. Everyone on our team is playing with the right energy no matter who they face. 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[JeffS17]

Been out for a while but these last few games have been amazing.  I used to feel like our weaker opponents (Cavs, Kings, Bulls, etc.) had our matchup circled for an "easy win" but now we're winning these games we all feel we should.  That's awesome to see.  The players are definitely looking more energized after the HC change and the focus has been there.  Watching Snell, Knight, Heurter, and others step up and play solid ball with all our injuries is awesome.  That's what we were hoping for at the beginning of the season when we signed so much depth.

I hope we can we can win the next two (really looking forward to the OKC rematch) before that intense road trip coming up.  If we can skate through that at 3-5 or better, we're in great shape to make a run at the 6th seed.  If we play consistent defense, it should be possible (we should have at least a couple great shooting nights).  I'd love to stay within a game of .500 through that road trip but it's probably the hardest part of our 72 game schedule.  

Still can't believe we're 19-20 right now -- that feels infinitely better than 14-20.

[kg01]

22 minutes ago, MarylandHawk said:

^^^ this. This is spot on. The biggest difference between our current wins and losses is that we are not letting Joe Blows come in here and have the game of their lives against us. Everyone on our team is playing with the right energy no matter who they face. 

Yeah but when was the last time a team lost to a dude with a shag and a dude with a rat-tail in the same season?  It's gotta be 1979.  1983 at the latest.

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Eggsactly.

He may not be "better" than certain other guys but the mere fact that he plays with energy/enthusiasm benefits the team.

I'm sick and tired of watching teams like OKC, CHA, CLE, and others out play us with middling dudes that just out-work our guys.  Meanwhile, our guys are all too cool for school getting boxed out and bodied by skinny dudes I never heard of.

I mean, I've known about Kenrich Williams since his college days and I know he's been decent in the league.  But that dude was the best. player. on. the. court. at times when we played.  How does that happen?  Because our guys failed to match his energy level.  That dude had a 70's style shag and was whippin our collective arses most of that game.  Shiiiii, we've been beat by a dude with a rat-tail and a dude with a shag.  Last time that happened to a team in the same season, it was 1979!

Knight is a change of pace ... and obtw he's actually good.  Play the man!

Unfortunately, your draft status determines 80% of your fate in the NBA. If you're a top 10 or so pick you get years of careful nurturing, allowed to have multiple bad games, bad months, bad seasons. But if you're an undrafted free agent, your good games are just placeholders, blips on the radar screen while waiting for vets to get back or those top tens to develop. It's one of the most unfair, irrational and just dumb things about the NBA (this happens in the NFL too).

[JeffS17]

Just now, bleachkit said:

Unfortunately, your draft status determines 80% of your fate in the NBA. If you're a top 10 or so pick you get years of careful nurturing, allowed to have multiple bad games, bad months, bad seasons. But if you're an undrafted free agent, your good games are just placeholders, blips on the radar screen while waiting for vets to get back or those top tens to develop. It's one of the most unfair, irrational and just dumb things about the NBA (this happens in the NFL too).

This is so true.  I genuinely don't think the talent level is much different from the first round to second (and top undrafted players), but those guys don't get the nurturing and second chances.  GMs don't have their jobs riding on if their two-way guys are successful.  That's why these guys have to put in the work on their own and largely develop themselves into NBA players.  It's one of the reasons I have so much respect for guys like VanVleet, Ginobli, Gasol, Dort, etc.

[bleachkit]

1 minute ago, JeffS17 said:

This is so true.  I genuinely don't think the talent level is much different from the first round to second (and top undrafted players), but those guys don't get the nurturing and second chances.  GMs don't have their jobs riding on if their two-way guys are successful.  That's why these guys have to put in the work on their own and largely develop themselves into NBA players.  It's one of the reasons I have so much respect for guys like VanVleet, Ginobli, Gasol, Dort, etc.

Heck, sometimes team pull their two ways if they are playing too well because it's making their struggling prized draft pick look bad. It's borderline criminal.

[JayBirdHawk]

8 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Unfortunately, your draft status determines 80% of your fate in the NBA. If you're a top 10 or so pick you get years of careful nurturing, allowed to have multiple bad games, bad months, bad seasons. But if you're an undrafted free agent, your good games are just placeholders, blips on the radar screen while waiting for vets to get back or those top tens to develop. It's one of the most unfair, irrational and just dumb things about the NBA (this happens in the NFL too).

 

3 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

This is so true.  I genuinely don't think the talent level is much different from the first round to second (and top undrafted players), but those guys don't get the nurturing and second chances.  GMs don't have their jobs riding on if their two-way guys are successful.  That's why these guys have to put in the work on their own and largely develop themselves into NBA players.  It's one of the reasons I have so much respect for guys like VanVleet, Ginobli, Gasol, Dort, etc.

Your drafted players are paid 10x and more what the undraftees and 2nd rounders get - so there is an inherent investment right off the bat, just the facts. 

[JeffS17]

4 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

Your drafted players are paid 10x and more what the undraftees and 2nd rounders get - so there is an inherent investment right off the bat, just the facts. 

Sure, but playing time should not be justified by how much you're paying guys.  The correlation should hold true but the cause>effect should be the reverse.

[kg01]

18 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Heck, sometimes team pull their two ways if they are playing too well because it's making their struggling prized draft pick look bad. It's borderline criminal.

You're not wrong but what burd said is true.  There are too many financial incentives driving this.

So, if your UDFA outplays your lotto pick, it's actually a bad thing for your job status.  No one credits you for the diamond you found because they're too busy chiding you for the coal you bought.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

NO AHF he kept on taking about Trae's long 3's and importance of Trae scoring a certain number of point and that if he had ex number of assist it wasn't good.  Why do you ignore all of those things???

The way he talks about Trae is like someone who has Trae on their fantasy team or something.

 

Should Trae take ANY long 3s?   30+ ft threes.

[REHawksFan]

58 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Should Trae take ANY long 3s?   30+ ft threes.

On a related topic....

I can't find league wide stats for this (I think they are behind a pay wall somewhere), but I did look up Trae, Steph, and Dame as they are widely regarded as the 3 players that take the most 30+ foot shots.  

Trae:  17-46 for 37%

Dame: 23-67 for 34%

Steph:  16-47 for 34% (if you exclude 40+ foot shots Steph is actually at 41% though)

 

So Trae is most likely either leading the NBA or 2nd in the NBA in 3pt% beyond 30 feet (depending on whether you want to include 40+ or not).  But perhaps more importantly, his make % is the same or slightly higher than his make % from shorter distances.  So it's not like for Trae these are comparatively bad shots.  Just saying.  

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

14 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

On a related topic....

I can't find league wide stats for this (I think they are behind a pay wall somewhere), but I did look up Trae, Steph, and Dame as they are widely regarded as the 3 players that take the most 30+ foot shots.  

Trae:  17-46 for 37%

Dame: 23-67 for 34%

Steph:  16-47 for 34% (if you exclude 40+ foot shots Steph is actually at 41% though)

 

So Trae is most likely either leading the NBA or 2nd in the NBA in 3pt% beyond 30 feet (depending on whether you want to include 40+ or not).  But perhaps more importantly, his make % is the same or slightly higher than his make % from shorter distances.  So it's not like for Trae these are comparatively bad shots.  Just saying.  

 

 

 

Awwww.   This was going to be my response almost word for word.

So if Trae shoots 37% on shots 30+ feet, that means a 30 footer by Trae, is better than any 3 point shot by Solo, Bogi, Reddish, and Hunter.

 

Fun fact.  Trae is 4 - 7 on the super max 3's, from 35 - 39 feet.

[bleachkit]

5 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Awwww.   This was going to be my response almost word for word.

So if Trae shoots 37% on shots 30+ feet, that means a 30 footer by Trae, is better than any 3 point shot by Solo, Bogi, Reddish, and Hunter.

 

Fun fact.  Trae is 4 - 7 on the super max 3's, from 35 - 39 feet.

Yes ok. But there's a time and place them. Generally, I'd still rather run our offense and get a good look. 

[REHawksFan]

19 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Yes ok. But there's a time and place them. Generally, I'd still rather run our offense and get a good look. 

The ones that irritate me are the early clock, no one under the basket 3's.  I don't know how to look it up, but I'd guess his make % on those is well below 37%.  Especially early in the game.  But it also seems like he's cut down on those quite a bit this year.  

[Peoriabird]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Should Trae take ANY long 3s?   30+ ft threes.

When a play breaks down or when he is feeling it in the 1st or 2nd quarter sure.  But during crunch time in a close game when the other team is in the bonus or even if you are ahead and the other team is in the bonus...Run the ball meaning get to the foul line.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

This is so true.  I genuinely don't think the talent level is much different from the first round to second (and top undrafted players), but those guys don't get the nurturing and second chances.  GMs don't have their jobs riding on if their two-way guys are successful.  That's why these guys have to put in the work on their own and largely develop themselves into NBA players.  It's one of the reasons I have so much respect for guys like VanVleet, Ginobli, Gasol, Dort, etc.

I don't buy that the talent level is pretty much the same.  You have exceptional undrafted stars or exceptional second round picks but the difference in success rate is enormous.  I don't think that is just because of opportunity.  Also think the "teams get rid of you if you are too good and embarrass their top picks" thing is pretty overblown.  Most teams are thrilled to find a Ginobili, VanVleet, Ben Wallace, Gilbert Areans, etc. and don't get rid of them but instead either trade them or sign them long-term (depending on team needs).  

I do agree that struggling lottery picks and to a lesser degree first round picks outside of the lottery are given many more chances than their undrafted or second round counterparts.  

You can see this type of data in lots of places but this is the first that popped up on google for my search.

https://www.statsperform.com/resource/pick-appraisal-what-history-tells-us-about-the-value-of-each-nba-draft-slot/

Some of this is due to opportunity but much of it is just due to the fact that scouting is meaningful and the guys who show up on the top of scouts lists tend to be better.  Lots and lots of variation at the individual level and plenty of misses across the draft board but the trend is pretty clear.