Official Game Thread: Pelicans at Hawks

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

@KB21 and @Diesel coke out of hiding and eat your crow sammies! @kg01 is making them today! He will make you a couple each you deserve it!  

 

Wipe your agenda driven feet before coming in!  

Hawks success>being right about $hit

I'm going to stick up a bit for Diesel here.

He was definitely not the only one who was dumping on Bogi or making similar predictions.  I don't think merely having a wrong take is the same an agenda.  Diesel hasn't been on here spamming the site with anti-Bogi stuff or anything.  He hasn't shown up in game threads every time Bogi had a rough game to take a victory lap about how bad Bogi is doing in. 

He came on and basically said that signing Bogi was a bad mistake and the guy was a bad player.  He wasn't alone with that take.  While I thought that view from all these people was premature and unnecessarily dismissive of his track record, I just don't see it as an agenda in the way I think about that.  Marvin?  Yeah.  That was spamming and beyond repetitive but his comments on Bogi seem fine as far as a posting practice to me even if I think he was substantively wrong.

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

I'm going to stick up a bit for Diesel here.

He was definitely not the only one who was dumping on Bogi or making similar predictions.  I don't think merely having a wrong take is the same an agenda.  Diesel hasn't been on here spamming the site with anti-Bogi stuff or anything.  He hasn't shown up in game threads every time Bogi had a rough game to take a victory lap about how bad Bogi is doing in. 

He came on and basically said that signing Bogi was a bad mistake and the guy was a bad player.  He wasn't alone with that take.  While I thought that view from all these people was premature and unnecessarily dismissive of his track record, I just don't see it as an agenda in the way I think about that.  Marvin?  Yeah.  That was spamming and beyond repetitive but his comments on Bogi seem fine as far as a posting practice to me even if I think he was substantively wrong.

Ya I know I’ve been eating crow on Bogi, but at least I show up and eat it. Those guys disappear and think we forget.

By the way, I’ve been on this site since 2003 (2011 under this name) and never once have you stuck up for me publicly. Is it cuz Diesel has a nicer rump? I’ve worked on my butt cheek power AHF, I can kiester things now!  

 

[REHawksFan]

2 hours ago, marco102 said:

Yeah, no arguements for me. I love what Nate is doing.  From what I read the players basically hated Lloyd and don't hate Nate.  That makes a huge difference, but some of it just players are getting in rythym.  I love to see the ball movement from last night and I'm loving the team sharing the ball. 

I just don't care if Trae drops 30 or 12/18 or drops 4 on 2/18.  No idea why some are so hung up on this as long as the Hawks are winning, I don't care.  Just win baby!

To be clear, it's not being hung up on Trae scoring. It's being hung up on what gives the Hawks the best chance to win.  And up until Nate took over (and has proven over the last few weeks that it can be done), we'd not seen the Hawks win consistently without Trae scoring a bunch. 

I'd rather the Hawks win and Trae score 4 pts than the Hawks lose while Trae scores 40.  But that wasn't ever an option under LP and really wasn't an option until Nate really established his way of playing over the last several weeks.  

Now we have the option of winning even while Trae doesn't play well as we've seen several times now.  That's what Nate has brought to this team.   

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

Ya I know I’ve been eating crow on Bogi, but at least I show up and eat it. Those guys disappear and think we forget.

By the way, I’ve been on this site since 2003 (2011 under this name) and never once have you stuck up for me publicly. Is it cuz Diesel has a nicer rump? I’ve worked on my butt cheek power AHF, I can kiester things now!  

 

I seriously doubt that.  I've definitely taken up with you or to give my $.02 on where I think people are taking you the wrong way in numerous debates over the years.

On Diesel, he just hasn't been on much for the last couple years so I don't take his absence as "hiding" in the same way it would be if he refused to acknowledge how his take squared with Bogi's performance and he was on the site every day.  

Frankly, this applies to KB as well.  He has only been on for a few days over the last year.  When he next shows up, I suspect he will be celebrating the exciting season we are having and he'll have to own up to being wrong about this team but I suspect he will do that without much protest.  Beyond that....who knows?

[REHawksFan]

34 minutes ago, thecampster said:

because we changed course as directed by the owner

Wait, what?  Every tanking team eventually changes course to try to win. KB said that could never happen because tanking would create a losing culture so the team would never leave the tanking state.  But if you listen to TS from the very beginning, he always spoke of the process taking a certain time frame and then you move on with progress.  This idea that changing course is some deviation from the plan is just wrong. It was ALWAYS the plan.  It's part 2 of the tank.  The only thing in question is the timing as it appeared (at the time) to be a year early.  

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think people are taking you the wrong way in numerous debates over the years.

I’ve learned not to get bent out of shape anymore or arguing with a bunch of idiots, mainly because, well..  :56

 

[High5]

55 minutes ago, thecampster said:

because we changed course as directed by the owner

Not really. Signing Bogi to a 4-year deal was maybe more aggressive than expected, but otherwise this rebuild played out exactly how many of us predicted. We acquired draft picks and set ourselves up to have a boat load of cap space. It was plain as day what the strategy was from the beginning. 

[Gray Mule]

So far, so good.  Our tanking has worked.  We had to get bad in order to get better.

Hawks passed on my choice in the draft and I followed him to the Kings.  There I discovered how much they liked Bogi.  Did you know?  He had Covid-19 and was still trying to recover when he arrived here.  He didn't fully recover until he was out with his injury.  As he recovered from his injury he also finally recovered from Covid-19.  Now, we are seeing the real player that Travis brought here.

Years and years ago when I first got on line, I met Walter and Diesel on another Hawks cite.  I followed them here.  Walter has faded away or changed his name.  Diesel is an old Hawk fan from way back.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, High5 said:

Not really. Signing Bogi to a 4-year deal was maybe more aggressive than expected, but otherwise this rebuild played out exactly how many of us predicted. We acquired draft picks and set ourselves up to have a boat load of cap space. It was plain as day what the strategy was from the beginning. 

And the idea that no one could see a change in coach coming when the team shifted from deliberately losing to wanting to make the playoffs would be crazy.  (I don't think camp is saying that).  It is one of the most predictable circumstances for a coaching change in all of sports.  I guarantee if you search you could see comments on this site reflecting the view that LP was hired to be fired as soon as we intended to turn the corner.  

That becomes even more predictable when you hire an experienced veteran coach to place behind your hotseat coach as an obvious Plan B.  This was LP's sink or swin year and he sank.  I don't think anyone missed that and I would harbor a guess that a sizable majority of fans saw that as a possibility coming into the season and, as noted above, the possibility of this path was clear even as far back as when he was hired.

[High5]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

And the idea that no one could see a change in coach coming when the team shifted from deliberately losing to wanting to make the playoffs would be crazy.  (I don't think camp is saying that).  It is one of the most predictable circumstances for a coaching change in all of sports.  I guarantee if you search you could see comments on this site reflecting the view that LP was hired to be fired as soon as we intended to turn the corner.  

That becomes even more predictable when you hire an experienced veteran coach to place behind your hotseat coach as an obvious Plan B.  This was LP's sink or swin year and he sank.  I don't think anyone missed that and I would harbor a guess that a sizable majority of fans saw that as a possibility coming into the season and, as noted above, the possibility of this path was clear even as far back as when he was hired.

Yeah it seemed like half the board was talking about replacing him the day he was hired. I always preached taking a wait and see approach, which I maintain was fair, but I was probably a bit naive on that front. 

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, High5 said:

Yeah it seemed like half the board was talking about replacing him the day he was hired. I always preached taking a wait and see approach, which I maintain was fair, but I was probably a bit naive on that front. 

Most first time coaches fail but some succeed.  All of them "fail" during a tank if the goal is to win games because the front office constructs a roster with the intention of losing and would view the coach winning as undermining the team goal.  Last year was the first year I thought we could have turned that corner but when we ended up with Damion Jones, Vince Carter, etc. as key members of our frontcourt I said that year 3 of the rebuild was our last tank year.  That was year 2 for LP.

It was then his opportunity to sink or swim.  He had plenty of talent to win this year and even with injuries there could be no excuses.  He sank.  That was always a very real possibility.  I don't think taking a wait and see approach is "naive" as long as you have your eyes open as to what the range of possibilities looks like.  

Once you hire a coach, they do need time and teams shoot themselves in the foot when they make a pattern of implementing rapid changes of GMs or coaches.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

12 hours ago, terrell said:

13-4 under Nate!!

 

That's a .765 winning percentage.

 

The Hawks have 21 games left in the season.  If we keep that winning percentage, the Hawks will close out the season 16 - 5.   That would be a 29 - 11 record under Nate, and the Hawks would end the season with a 43 - 29 record.

 

In an 82 game season, a winning percentage this high would make us a 63 win team.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

And the idea that no one could see a change in coach coming when the team shifted from deliberately losing to wanting to make the playoffs would be crazy.  (I don't think camp is saying that).  It is one of the most predictable circumstances for a coaching change in all of sports.  I guarantee if you search you could see comments on this site reflecting the view that LP was hired to be fired as soon as we intended to turn the corner.  

That becomes even more predictable when you hire an experienced veteran coach to place behind your hotseat coach as an obvious Plan B.  This was LP's sink or swin year and he sank.  I don't think anyone missed that and I would harbor a guess that a sizable majority of fans saw that as a possibility coming into the season and, as noted above, the possibility of this path was clear even as far back as when he was hired.

LP could've survived being here, with all of the injuries being the main reason . . . if not for one thing.   

We kept blowing 4th quarter leads.

 

Those leads were showing that even with the injuries, we could field a competitive team that should've won at least 1/2 of those games.

Once word got out that the owner was displeased with these blown leads, it was easy for Schlenk to pull the trigger and replace LP with Nate.

[gHost83]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

That's a .765 winning percentage.

 

The Hawks have 21 games left in the season.  If we keep that winning percentage, the Hawks will close out the season 16 - 5.   That would be a 29 - 11 record under Nate, and the Hawks would end the season with a 43 - 29 record.

 

In an 82 game season, a winning percentage this high would make us a 63 win team.

Just give the man a 3 year deal already! Damnit!

[JeffS17]

5 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Complete busts get drafted in the top 10, and it's not all about work ethic. Some guys just don't pan out. It's a futures market, and athletic upside, length, etc. doesn't always translate into basketball success.

Of course, I'm not trying to speak in absolutes.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, thecampster said:

I wish I was as strong, young and verile as you. It must be backbreaking moving those goal posts all day.  Right about the tank and right about Philly are not the same thing. Quit trying to lawyer everything.  Tanking sucked! Love the young guys we got out of it, but they were losing nightly before the vets arrived and a certain coach started playing to their strengths.

Can you share how I moved the goal posts?

Tankers thought we would tank for several years and lose a boatload of games but then have the potential to acquire young talent sufficient to make this team way more exciting than anything the Dennis, THJr, Sap, Howard, etc. Hawks could ever be.  Tankers recognized that the actual outcome was variable and would depend on factors in our control (for example, how good a job we did with our lottery picks) and ones outside of our control (for example, whether we won the lottery or not and whether there was elite talent in a given draft or not).

KB thought we would tank for several years and lose a boatload of games the same as everyone else but went further to claim the rebuild would never bear fruit because it was inherently poisoned, stunted player development and would tarnish the franchise preventing the team from becoming winners.  For this year, he specifically thought we would be one of the 5 worst teams in the league because we tanked and poisoned the well.  

 

I am saying that I disagreed with his notion that all tanking efforts in all sports must fail to produce meaningfully good winning teams and that I did so back when he was posting constantly on the subject.  I specifically disagreed with him that we would be one of the 5 worst teams in the league this year to the point where I called him out to place a bet on it.  I still think he is wrong about the broader point of all tanking being inherently a doomed proposition.  For this year, I think he is very wrong about this team (just like he was about Philly when they won 52 games) and think he was wrong about both of those specific cases in large part because of his refusal to acknowledge that teams can draft and develop impact talent to become a winning organization after suffering through the intended, painful tanking process.

 

So how did I change the goal posts about what was under debate about tanking?  Again, the fact that we would go through a hard couple years of losing was a known outcome that everyone in the world knew was coming.  It was a feature of the system, not a bug.  Since everyone agreed on this be they supporters of tanking or critics of it, I can only imagine you must be talking about something else.  I am left confused about what that other topic is that he was so right about and in what way I am supposedly moving the goal posts on what was actually under debate.