Official Game Thread: Cavaliers at Hawks

[TheNorthCydeRises]

17 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. 

I think the problem is the perception of how good of a shot the long 3 by Trae is.

 

8 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

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.  

 

Ask and you shall receive.   I'll post the video of makes and misses

 

All shots from 30 - 34 feet

https://tinyurl.com/54f7fe5b

 

All shots from 35+ feet

https://tinyurl.com/3u3cu7y8

[MarylandHawk]

25 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

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.  

Spot on. He has done much better at this although he did do it in the Cleveland game once. The best time for him to do it is in a two for one situation. 

[REHawksFan]

20 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

I think the problem is the perception of how good of a shot the long 3 by Trae is.

 

 

Ask and you shall receive.   I'll post the video of makes and misses

 

All shots from 30 - 34 feet

https://tinyurl.com/54f7fe5b

 

All shots from 35+ feet

https://tinyurl.com/3u3cu7y8

So after watching both videos, I think I counted 10 total shots that came with 18 or more seconds on the shot clock and no one under the basket to rebound. Trae went 5-10 on those.  I'm surprised by that.  I guess I only remember the misses.  Haha.  

Also surprising is his failure from the top of the key compared to the elbows.  

 

[Buzzard]

I think this is a crazy little fact. The Hawks are 4 - 1 in games Capela does not play. That tells me at least some of this depth Schlenk signed is paying dividends.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Buzzard

[JeffS17]

47 minutes ago, AHF said:

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.

Really interesting data but it doesn't really add anything to the cause and effect story of how successful players come to be.  I think we all agree that the top picks are more talented than the second rounders on average, but the discussion is around how much more talented are they?

The same can be said about talent developing into NBA worthy players -- I'm sure no one contests that having resources and input from other pros, coaches, mentors, etc. has a positive impact on a players trajectory but the question is how much of their success is because of those resources and how much because they are more talented?  I'd argue talent typically is over-emphasized.

The argument doesn't start at the NBA level either -- there are thousands of talented bball prospects at every level, and the ones that have the ability to go to top schools and play in competitive environments with good developing coaches typically will make it further.  Playing AAU ball and having other opportunities to play with top talent will help you elevate your game.  I don't think that stops at the NBA level and getting those minutes of game time and time practicing with NBA starters is going to help you elevate your game.

It reminds me of how I used to think I was a God at Super Smash Brothers N64 because my ecosystem was just me and a handful of buddies who played regularly, but in reality, I was just a big fish in a small pond -- limited by the competition I was facing and unable to get good enough to compete in tournaments because I wasn't surrounded by other top players.  Dumb analogy I know, but I think that holds true in basketball as well to some degree.

All of this to say that I think one of the most desirable qualities (and probably hardest to quantify) in prospects is their desire to work hard day in and day out, and really make concerted efforts to elevate their game.  Look at guys like Kyle Lowry, who on paper is probably a second rounder, got picked late in the first, but is now one of the most impactful guards in the league.  My opinion is there are probably a lot of guys like him that never get an honest chance to prove themselves just because of how much talent is out there and how limited the rosters are.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

5 minutes ago, MarylandHawk said:

Spot on. He has done much better at this although he did do it in the Cleveland game once. The best time for him to do it is in a two for one situation. 

 

That's old school perception.  Trying to do it in a 2 for 1 situation will see him almost always rush the shot.  He's taking and making almost all of these long 3s in rhythm, whether it be off the bounce or catch and shoot.  And just from the videos, he's just as likely to make that shot early in the shot clock, as he is when the shot clock is winding down.   It's all about if he's in rhythm or not.

Those shots used to really bother me, like it obviously bothers some people here.  But he's been shooting that shot all his life, mainly because he needs space to get his shot off.  He's not a Damian Lillard "rise up and shoot it over you" type of shooter.  His shot is almost all wrist and pushed forward.

 

Trae Young shooting from 30+ feet

Rookie year:  25 - 69  . . . 36%

2nd year:       38 - 105 . .  36%

3rd year:        17 - 46 . . .  37% 

 

Crazy thing is that he's shot worse from 25 - 29 feet, until this season.

Rookie year:    113 - 355 . . 32%

2nd year:         151 - 430 . . 35%

3rd year:           65 - 174 . . 37%

 

Once again, these are the type of deep 3s he's taking and making.  Watch the shot clock on every shot.

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I think this is a crazy little fact. The Hawks are 4 - 1 in games Capela does not play. That tells me at least some of this depth Schlenk signed is paying dividends.

 

That stat is also one of the reasons why the Rockets thought they were better off without Capela.  At the time he was traded, all of their metrics were showing that they were better off without him, and with PJ Tucker on the floor.  As long as they were making shots, that was true.  But the minute they started to miss shots, and Westbrook's scoring in the paint got neutralized, they were dead in the water.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

44 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

So after watching both videos, I think I counted 10 total shots that came with 18 or more seconds on the shot clock and no one under the basket to rebound. Trae went 5-10 on those.  I'm surprised by that.  I guess I only remember the misses.  Haha.  

Also surprising is his failure from the top of the key compared to the elbows.  

 

 

Not surprised at all that he was 5 - 10 on shots that came early in the shot clock.  It's the time where he's probably the most open, because he can take advantage of the defense being relaxed.

This is just a different era of basketball,  Guys like Steph, Dame, Trae, and now LaMelo Ball, make the long 3 a part of their offensive arsenal.  And all of them at least shoot league average from 3, on that long shot.

[Buzzard]

39 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

That stat is also one of the reasons why the Rockets thought they were better off without Capela.  At the time he was traded, all of their metrics were showing that they were better off without him, and with PJ Tucker on the floor.  As long as they were making shots, that was true.  But the minute they started to miss shots, and Westbrook's scoring in the paint got neutralized, they were dead in the water.

A 5 game sample size will never convince me of anything. Certainly not that we are better off without Capela. I do think its a good sign for our depth. Nothing more and nothing less.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Buzzard

[AHF]

58 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Really interesting data but it doesn't really add anything to the cause and effect story of how successful players come to be.  I think we all agree that the top picks are more talented than the second rounders on average, but the discussion is around how much more talented are they?

 

I think the difference is huge.  It is why the history of the NBA draft is going from a lot of rounds ala MLB or the NFL to just two rounds.  The NBA found over time that the talent was so limited after two rounds that it was no longer worth having as part of the draft pool.

Draft History:

Until 1968 - 21 rounds

1968-73 Reduced from 21 to 10 rounds

1974-84 10 rounds

1984-1988 7 rounds

1989+ 2 rounds

 

All-Star Exercise

Think of the size of these pools and how many players become stars.  Let's look at the draft from 1999-2013 and consider that our universe of people who might have made an All-Star team from the 2013-14 season to the 2017-18 season:

Pools of Players

Top 8 Picks: 120

Picks 9-20: 165

Picks 21- 40: 300

Picks 41 - 60: 300

Undrafted Players: 16,005

Calculated this by:  ~4,511 total players in division 1 which means approximately 1067 per year (1,127.75 - 60 rounded down)  (NOTE THAT THIS IGNORES THE HUGE INTERNATIONAL POOL)

Total pool of players: 16,905

 

2014-18 All-Star Selections

Now let's look at who made the All-Star teams from the 2013-14 to 2017-18 seasons:

Top 8 Picks: 79 All-Star Appearances by 27 different players.  

Picks 9-20: 26 All-Star Appearances by 12 different players.

Picks 21 - 40: 12 All-Star Appearances by 5 different players.

Picks 41 - 60: 10 All-Star Appearances by 5 different players.

Undrafted Division 1 Players: 0 All-Star appearances.

 

SUMMARY:

Top 8 picks represented 0.7% of the total pool but 62.2% of the total number of All-Star appearances.

Picks 9-20 represented 1% of the total pool but 20.4% of the total number of All-Star appearances.  

Picks 21-40 represented 1.8% of the total pool and 9.4% of the total number of All-Star appearances.

Picks 41-60 represented 1.8% of the total pool and 7.8% of the total number of All-Star appearances.

Undrafted players represented 94.7% of the total pool and 0% of the All-Star appearances.

 

Number of All-Star Appearances Divided by Number of Players in the Pool:

Top 8: 0.66

9-20: 0.16

21-40: 0.04

41-60: 0.03

Undrafted: 0.00

 

While this is a somewhat random 5 year window, I will tell you that any five year window will repeat this overall trend.  You might get an undrafted All-Star or something but the vast majority of All-Star appearances are always going to be crowded at the top because that is where the talent is found and the talent diminishes going out from there.

If you don't believe this you truly think scouting is worthless and teams are gratuitously wasting millions of dollars every year.  I don't think that is the case.

[AHF]

7 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

A 5 game sample size will never convince me of anything. Certainly not that we are better off without Capela. I do think its a good sign for our depth. Nothing more and nothing less.

The 4 teams we beat during those 5 games all have losing records.  5 games is not a meaningful sample size so I am 100% with you.  He has been great for this team.

[Buzzard]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

The 4 teams we beat during those 5 games all have losing records.  5 games is not a meaningful sample size so I am 100% with you.  He has been great for this team.

Last season we were losing to bad teams without Capela. Which is why I think its a good sign for our depth. Also a possible good sign of maturity as well.

[lethalweapon3]

"HOT in Cleveland (2021)"

~lw3

[bleachkit]

5 minutes ago, lethalweapon3 said:

"HOT in Cleveland (2021)"

~lw3

Is anybody happy with that contract? They regretted that before the ink dried. 

[kg01]

Sorry, can I get a translator for that exchange?  What am I not seeing?

[JayBirdHawk]

9 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Sorry, can I get a translator for that exchange?  What am I not seeing?

Took me a minute or 5 to get it....Sexton liked this tweet

[Spud2nique]

 

Knicks just lost. We are officially .5 behind them for 7th.

7. New York Knicks  20-20   —-

8. Atlanta Hawks     19-20    .5

[kg01]

30 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

 

 

Knicks just lost. We are officially .5 behind them for 7th.

7. New York Knicks  20-20   —-

8. Atlanta Hawks     19-20    .5

That's super weird.  Let Nix fans and national media tell it, they're fighting with the Nets to see who's coming outta the (l)East.

In reality, they're an also-ran and don't seem to realize this is probably the pinnacle of the Thibs era in New York.

Yeah, I said it.  Come at me, bro's.

[RedDawg#8]

We win tomorrow and we tie them for 7th

[RedDawg#8]

Ah, I spoke too fast, Knicks play the 76ers tomorrow so there is no time for a tie. They either end the night .5 above or below us if we win.