Official Game Thread: Wizards at Hawks (Manic Monday)

[JayBirdHawk]

1 minute ago, marco102 said:

It just upsets me when some of the national narratives try to down play how good he is.

You've gotta block them out as hard as it is.  Winning will get him there and then they'll be trying to hop on the band wagon and we'll tell them like all the innkeeppers told Joseph ...NO ROOM!!!

[JayBirdHawk]

Just now, bleachkit said:

Yes, because no one wants a defensive/rebounding big as their "superstar." But a strong statistical case can be made that CC is most impactful Hawk in terms of winning.

He is our defensive superstar - that's all I got.

Teams aren't gearing their defense to stop him, he needs a guy like Trae to be most IMPACTFUL on offense, he cannot be relied on down the stretch of games to hit crucial freethrows, he's the Ying to Trae's Yang at end of games where Nate as to sub them out for Offensive/Defense sequences. 

[bleachkit]

4 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

You've gotta block them out as hard as it is.  Winning will get him there and then they'll be trying to hop on the band wagon and we'll tell them like all the innkeeppers told Joseph ...NO ROOM!!!

Biblical reference, I like it.

[bleachkit]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

He is our defensive superstar - that's all I got.

Teams aren't gearing their defense to stop him, he needs a guy like Trae to be most IMPACTFUL on offense, he cannot be relied on down the stretch of games to hit crucial freethrows, he's the Ying to Trae's Yang at end of games where Nate as to sub them out for Offensive/Defense sequences. 

They need each other, for sure.

[RedDawg#8]

All I know is, we gave Nique a hard time for ball hogging and not playing defense (I say we as if I was actually around back then, Im 33). But we still love him, and respect him as the greatest Hawk ever. Trae isn't above criticism, nobody is. But that doesn't mean that we want to get rid of him. It means that we irrationally want him to be the perfect player. Is that so much to ask? lol

Win or lose, great stats or not, a bad shot will always be a bad shot. An ugly turnover will always be an ugly turnover. It's not personal from the fans that love him, Maybe it is for the haters. But not from us

[macdaddy]

25 minutes ago, hawkman said:

I still don't get how this type of performance has become "ho-hum" to Hawks fans. This is NOT normal. I'm not sure everyone understands the gravity of what's happening right now. This is only his third season. Remember where Damian Lillard was at age 22? Trae is a 30ppg 10apg PG in development. Heck, he's practically there right now.

Yep.  I have a theory.  I'm guilty of it.  I don't watch every game of any other teams.  In fact I basically see them when they play the Hawks and a few other games a year i'll watch start to finish.   So the 'superstars' i mostly see 4-5 games a year and highlights.  Or parts of games.   

So I think a lot of us think that KD, Lebron etc. don't screw up and make bone headed plays regularly but nothing could be further from the truth.   We watch Trae 80 games a year and see all his flaws but they all screw up.  Hell Russ laughably bricked an open game winner last night.   

But to your point 30/10 or even 25/9 doesn't just happen.  It's not something anyone can do.   

[marco102]

5 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

All I know is, we gave Nique a hard time for ball hogging and not playing defense (I say we as if I was actually around back then, Im 33). But we still love him, and respect him as the greatest Hawk ever. Trae isn't above criticism, nobody is. But that doesn't mean that we want to get rid of him. It means that we irrationally want him to be the perfect player. Is that so much to ask? lol

Win or lose, great stats or not, a bad shot will always be a bad shot. An ugly turnover will always be an ugly turnover. It's not personal from the fans that love him, Maybe it is for the haters. But not from us

The problem with Trae is we are so used to defending him against the narratives that we overreact to objective criticism...lol  I agree with your assessment though. 

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

It means that we irrationally want him to be the perfect player. Is that so much to ask? lol

And there in lies the problem - asking/expecting perfection. It's just not gonna happen. 

All I want is improvement in the areas of weaknesses and that will come with more experiences and as he ages.  If it doesn't then it will be a problem.  It took Julius Randle 7 years to become this player we see today, Trae is not even halfway into that as yet.  Let the young man continue to grow.

[kg01]

7 minutes ago, marco102 said:

The problem with Trae is we are so used to defending him against the narratives that we overreact to objective criticism...lol  I agree with your assessment though. 

There's a lotta truth here.  I'm so used to having to morph into the Terminator fighting over Trae even being an NBA player that it's hard to turn off the inner-Arnold sometimes.

[JayBirdHawk]

These 2 passes....

 

 

 

[Sothron]

If Trae Young isn't a superstar the term means nothing. You can't fake his numbers or impact in a game. That's a superstar. I don't give a flying fudge what BSPN thinks or some other "eggspert" list of players.

[Cwell]

Average Joe’s don’t get doubled as soon as they step over half court. Ask the dudes that have to try to stop him whether Trae is a superstar or not

[bleachkit]

19 minutes ago, Sothron said:

If Trae Young isn't a superstar the term means nothing. You can't fake his numbers or impact in a game. That's a superstar. I don't give a flying fudge what BSPN thinks or some other "eggspert" list of players.

In your opinion, how many superstars are there in the NBA?

[REHawksFan]

3 hours ago, bleachkit said:

If you're definition of superstar is Jokic, Giannis, LeBron, Jokic, Steph, then Trae is not a superstar. No one outside of Hawks homers considers Trae in that group. Trae came in at 16 on ESPN's top 25 under 25, behind guys like Jamal Murray, Michael Porter Jr and Brandon Ingram. So like I said what's your definition of Superstar? Top 10 player? Trae would not make any top 10 list, sorry. The Ringer came out with their top 25 NBA players last week and Trae did not make the list. You can say the media is wrong, fans are wrong, coaches are wrong, but Trae is widely considered a second tier star, not an elite superstar.

My definition of "superstar" isn't rigid.  It's basically just the grouping of elite players in the NBA.  Is it Top 5? Top 7? Top 10?  It depends on the time.  But it's the elite players.  

And to be clear, I'm pushing back on your own definition of superstar where you say Trae has to shoot all game and not be a team player.  I think that's a bunch of BS.  I'm not saying he's in the Top 5 right now.  I think his trajectory is pointing towards eventually being that.  But he's not there yet.  He's still growing.  But even as he grows, he's elevating the players around him and the TEAM as a whole.  I can tell you this, there aren't 5 guys in the NBA that can do the things he does offensively on a regular basis.  

Trae is absolutely the Hawks leader and best player.  I don't give a flip what any list you bring up says.  When Trae sits, Clint's impact on the offensive end is nominal.  He literally disappears.  The TEAM falls apart more often than not when he's not on the floor.  Just last night he sat to start the 4th and saw a 17 point lead turn into 4 pts.  In the regular season, teams routinely scheme to get the ball out of his hands because they know how unguardable he is.  If that doesn't point you to an elite future, I don't know what to tell you. 

 

This is how ridiculous our fanbase is about Trae:  On a night where he literally led the team to victory putting up 36 / 9 / 6 on 50% shooting and accumulating a +18 +/-, we've spent pages on the game thread debating how good he is.  And yet, Huerter played 37 min, went 3-12 for 7 pts and no one says a word.  And I'm not picking on Kevin.  The point is every game turns into a referendum on Trae and how good he is or isn't.  And that's among people that claim to be Hawks fans!!    

 

Despite his numbers being down, I actually think this year he's shown tremendous growth in the way he manages a game and controls a game.  His impact is off the charts, despite what any analytic says (and I'm a numbers guy all day long).  

[bleachkit]

13 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

My definition of "superstar" isn't rigid.  It's basically just the grouping of elite players in the NBA.  Is it Top 5? Top 7? Top 10?  It depends on the time.  But it's the elite players.  

And to be clear, I'm pushing back on your own definition of superstar where you say Trae has to shoot all game and not be a team player.  I think that's a bunch of BS.  I'm not saying he's in the Top 5 right now.  I think his trajectory is pointing towards eventually being that.  But he's not there yet.  He's still growing.  But even as he grows, he's elevating the players around him and the TEAM as a whole.  I can tell you this, there aren't 5 guys in the NBA that can do the things he does offensively on a regular basis.  

Trae is absolutely the Hawks leader and best player.  I don't give a flip what any list you bring up says.  When Trae sits, Clint's impact on the offensive end is nominal.  He literally disappears.  The TEAM falls apart more often than not when he's not on the floor.  Just last night he sat to start the 4th and saw a 17 point lead turn into 4 pts.  In the regular season, teams routinely scheme to get the ball out of his hands because they know how unguardable he is.  If that doesn't point you to an elite future, I don't know what to tell you. 

 

This is how ridiculous our fanbase is about Trae:  On a night where he literally led the team to victory putting up 36 / 9 / 6 on 50% shooting and accumulating a +18 +/-, we've spent pages on the game thread debating how good he is.  And yet, Huerter played 37 min, went 3-12 for 7 pts and no one says a word.  And I'm not picking on Kevin.  The point is every game turns into a referendum on Trae and how good he is or isn't.  And that's among people that claim to be Hawks fans!!    

 

Despite his numbers being down, I actually think this year he's shown tremendous growth in the way he manages a game and controls a game.  His impact is off the charts, despite what any analytic says (and I'm a numbers guy all day long).  

I think Trae is great, but I'm just pointing out that outside of Hawk's fans, he generally not considered a superstar. That being said, I dont care about the whole "superstar" thing, which I believe to be highly overrated in general. 

[REHawksFan]

3 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

I think Trae is great, but I'm just pointing out that outside of Hawk's fans, he generally not considered a superstar. That being said, I dont care about the whole "superstar" thing, which I believe to be highly overrated in general. 

You continue to ignore the original question which is what I responded to in the first place.  That is........Why do you think being a superstar (or whatever other name you prefer) equates to shooting all game and not playing team ball?  Why are superstar player and team player mutually exclusive to you?  
 

Or maybe a better question is what do you see as Trae's role on the team?  If not to be the best player, then what?  Cuz it sort of seems like you and some others just want a newer version of the 60-win team that didn't have any elite players but a bunch of really good players that all played their roles well and formed a really good team that had no prayer of beating the team with the superstar player.  Is that the sort of team you are looking for?  

[Sothron]

44 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

In your opinion, how many superstars are there in the NBA?

I see it as someone that can be the best player on a title team. Some years there are only a few, some years there are more. There's more than 10 superstars currently in the NBA.

[bleachkit]

1 minute ago, REHawksFan said:

You continue to ignore the original question which is what I responded to in the first place.  That is........Why do you think being a superstar (or whatever other name you prefer) equates to shooting all game and not playing team ball?  Why are superstar player and team player mutually exclusive to you?  
 

Or maybe a better question is what do you see as Trae's role on the team?  If not to be the best player, then what?  Cuz it sort of seems like you and some others just want a newer version of the 60-win team that didn't have any elite players but a bunch of really good players that all played their roles well and formed a really good team that had no prayer of beating the team with the superstar player.  Is that the sort of team you are looking for?  

I am a proponent of team ball. I dont equate chucking with being a superstar, but I didnt mean to imply that. Though I admit, there are not many championship teams without a "superstar". 2004 Pistons come to mind, there might be others I am overlooking. As for Trae, I just dont see many examples of a small ball dominant guard winning the championship as a "superstar." Even Chris Paul hasnt won one. AI didnt win one. The only one I can think of is the Pistons with IT. Unless you count Steph Curry, who is actually not ball dominant and is a generational shooter. Also they had Klay and KD of course. Now I do think Trae can win a title as one of the best players on a great team. These days, Id rather have Bogi taking the last shot on a great cross court pass from Trae, than Trae launching a long three. 

[Sothron]

3 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

I am a proponent of team ball. I dont equate chucking with being a superstar, but I didnt mean to imply that. Though I admit, there are not many championship teams without a "superstar". 2004 Pistons come to mind, there might be others I am overlooking. As for Trae, I just dont see many examples of a small ball dominant guard winning the championship as a "superstar." Even Chris Paul hasnt won one. AI didnt win one. The only one I can think of is the Pistons with IT. Unless you count Steph Curry, who is actually not ball dominant and is a generational shooter. Also they had Klay and KD of course. Now I do think Trae can win a title as one of the best players on a great team. These days, Id rather have Bogi taking the last shot on a great cross court pass from Trae, than Trae launching a long three. 

Not getting into the other points but the only two teams in NBA history to win a title without a superstar were the late 70's Sonics and the 2004 Pistons. Two years out of the entire history of the NBA shows you need at least one superstar to win a ring. The last team to do it with only one was Dirk's Mavs.

[Gray Mule]

I'll drop in my $.02 worth.  A super star has the ability to make all his team mates better and lead them to the championship game, year after year.  The team may not always win the crown but they are in the running.  Sports writers will say, "That team will be in the running because they have a great all star player."

Super stars can't be a lone wolf.  They must be a team player, willing and able to share.

Is this player always the best player at his position?  Nope.  Will he always be picked for the all star game?  Maybe, maybe not.  But, his team will be one of the top teams.  Why?  Because he's there.

Trae may not be a great all star but he's our star and, for us, he's great!