Would KAT fit with the Hawks?

[kg01]

7 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

He shot 5-23 and if it wasn't for Huerter going off for a career game Hawks get smoked. Point is if we judge a player based off of one game, regardless of the magnitutde of that one game, it isn't going to be necessarily fair or prove anything. 

It's not just one bad game for Towns though.  It's now 5.  5 inexplicably poor performances in the 5 biggest games of his life.

And 5 may seem like small-sample-size theater, but it's also a telling number considering how talented he's supposed to be.

He very clearly has an issue with the big stage in the NBA.

[Atlantaholic]

Just now, kg01 said:

It's not just one bad game for Towns though.  It's now 5.  5 inexplicably poor performances in the 5 biggest games of his life.

And 5 may seem like small-sample-size theater, but it's also a telling number considering how talented he's supposed to be.

He very clearly has an issue with the big stage in the NBA.

We'll see how he does in the upcoming series. 5 IS a small sample. 

[AHF]

10 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

Yes, but any team with that gap should be able to handle business at home in 1 out of two games against terrible teams. 

The exception would be a team like perhaps Cleveland, who is reeling big time as we head into the playoffs, and if they miss the playoffs... good, a better team will be there instead. I actually really like this format imo. I think they really nailed it. The regular season was more competitive 1-10 in the east than any point in history, and now the Hawks and Hornets, two hot and exciting teams that would have otherwise been eliminated get a chance to sneak in. 

They aren't playing against terrible teams.  They are playing against mediocre teams.  There is a reason we have 7 game series in the NBA and it is because anything can happen in a given night.  Look at the Pelicans who were a thoroughly mediocre team this season.  They beat the Suns, Grizzlies, Bucks, Warriors, T-Wolves, Mavs, etc. in the regular season.  

The 72 win Bulls lost consecutive games during their season and lost to the 21 win Raptors.  

Too small a sample size to do anything other than inject a ton of randomness into the outcomes.  

I like the "KG" plan much more.

[JayBirdHawk]

54 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Only 8 should be up for grabs.  Scalabrine laid out a nice plan.  7-seed is in.  8 gets a bye.  9 and 10 seed play for the right to play 8.  Winner of 8 vs 9/10 gets in.

And even then, teams x-amount of games back should be disqualified from it.

The original bubble playin had a 'within so many games' to be eligible to play. I think 4 or 5 games. They should go back to that as well.

[kg01]

7 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

We'll see how he does in the upcoming series. 5 IS a small sample. 

If, in each of the 5 biggest games of your life, you play uncharacteristically bad that's more than enough to make some observations of you as a player.

It's too few to make any permanent determinations but it's more than enough to say there's 'something' wrong there.

If he was just 'bad' then fine.  Give him time.  But he's been strangely bad in a way that shows the moment is obviously big for him.

On the flip side, did we need more than 5 games to see that Trae elevates himself in the playoffs?  Not really.  And he had a bad game 7 so there's obviously room for growth.  But the moment doesn't seen to get to him in the way it obviously gets to Towns.

[JayBirdHawk]

10 hours ago, SalvorMallow said:

Great game too.  AntMan and Dlo were ballin

This is why I want another capable guard/wing/ballhandler to pair with Trae.. (and not an overpaid Gobert).

[Spud2nique]

Can KAT get more in shape or is that it?  Just wonder because he’s got a strange body type, I mean his upper body looks fit but he has some baggage around his hips. I mean I just don’t know if it’s a body type thing with him or he’s a lazy in his conditioning. 
 

I dunno, personally I don’t want my big man lumbering down the court and jacking up 3’s and disappearing for stretches.

I keep waiting for the “next” superstar to pair with Trae. As the Towns and Beals go by… You guys don’t wanna go to sushi with me! I’ll wait all day for the baby boats to come around. Salmon ? Tuna ? 
 

I want that rare blue fish sushi to pair with Trae.

ps It’s corn dog day @Gray Mule!!! Forget the fish for today! We eatin in style! 

[Spud2nique]

10 hours ago, SalvorMallow said:

AntMan

Loved the way this kid was isoing at the top of the key and going hard to the paint. That was some Jordan/Iverson type alpha iso stuff.

I swear the two prospects that I saw working out the hardest in the last few years for nba teams were Trae and Ant  

Trae was taking on Lloyd Pierce and just going hard even when he was alone on the court.

Same with Ant a couple years back. They had him on just working on the court. Something stood out like this kid got it.

I didn’t want 2 guys to land with the Golden State Morons, 
 

1. Ant  

2. OO

Make that 3…

Ball!

Enjoy Wisedud 

[Atlantaholic]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

They aren't playing against terrible teams.  They are playing against mediocre teams.  There is a reason we have 7 game series in the NBA and it is because anything can happen in a given night.  Look at the Pelicans who were a thoroughly mediocre team this season.  They beat the Suns, Grizzlies, Bucks, Warriors, T-Wolves, Mavs, etc. in the regular season.  

The 72 win Bulls lost consecutive games during their season and lost to the 21 win Raptors.  

Too small a sample size to do anything other than inject a ton of randomness into the outcomes.  

I like the "KG" plan much more.

Yes, but the 72 win Bulls team wasn't losing back to back games at home against .500 teams in an elimination game. I can guarantee you that. I'd bet my entire net worth on that. The better the team is relative to the 8-10 teams the less likely they are to drop back to back home games against them. And if they do drop them, there is probably something very wrong with that team at that moment in time (ie Cleveland this year)

[AHF]

13 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

Yes, but the 72 win Bulls team wasn't losing back to back games at home against .500 teams in an elimination game. I can guarantee you that. I'd bet my entire net worth on that. The better the team is relative to the 8-10 teams the less likely they are to drop back to back home games against them. And if they do drop them, there is probably something very wrong with that team at that moment in time (ie Cleveland this year)

By that logic, we should make everyone playoff eligible and just have a play in tournament among all teams.  You have to draw the line somewhere unless you are going to just throw open the doors and I think this is too low a bar and likely will dilute the playoff field if maintained over time.  The 72 Bulls I noted because they are arguably the greatest team in NBA history.  A typical 7 or 8 seed is not going to be at their level.

The NBA moved the first round series from 5 to 7 games precisely to reduce the odds of an unearned upset resulting from the greater volatility of a 5 game series relative to a 7 game series.  Using this playoff format introduces way more volatility and increases the odds of a team getting hot or cold for a couple nights dramatically compared to either 5 or 7 game format.  

You already had 16 of the 30 teams in the playoffs.  I guess I just don't see such a need to involve 20 of the 30 teams without more guard rails to avoid something like a scenario where a 46 win T-Wolves team gets bounced in favor of a 34 win Spurs team simply because they had a couple of hot/cold nights after an 82 game regular season.

[Atlantaholic]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

By that logic, we should make everyone playoff eligible and just have a play in tournament among all teams.  You have to draw the line somewhere unless you are going to just throw open the doors and I think this is too low a bar and likely will dilute the playoff field if maintained over time.  The 72 Bulls I noted because they are arguably the greatest team in NBA history.  A typical 7 or 8 seed is not going to be at their level.

The NBA moved the first round series from 5 to 7 games precisely to reduce the odds of an unearned upset resulting from the greater volatility of a 5 game series relative to a 7 game series.  Using this playoff format introduces way more volatility and increases the odds of a team getting hot or cold for a couple nights dramatically compared to either 5 or 7 game format.  

You already had 16 of the 30 teams in the playoffs.  I guess I just don't see such a need to involve 20 of the 30 teams without more guard rails to avoid something like a scenario where a 46 win T-Wolves team gets bounced in favor of a 34 win Spurs team simply because they had a couple of hot/cold nights after an 82 game regular season.

Not really, you are putting the 7/8th spot up for grabs. How often does a 7th or 8th seed upset? less than 3% of the time? Usually the 7th or 8th team are not very good. The scenario you are outlining is very specific and moot so far since the T-Wolves got the 7th seed winning their game at home despite Kat having a terrible game.

[kg01]

44 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Can KAT get more in shape or is that it?  Just wonder because he’s got a strange body type, I mean his upper body looks fit but he has some baggage around his hips. I mean I just don’t know if it’s a body type thing with him or he’s a lazy in his conditioning. 
I dunno, personally I don’t want my big man lumbering down the court and jacking up 3’s and disappearing for stretches.

I keep waiting for the “next” superstar to pair with Trae. As the Towns and Beals go by… You guys don’t wanna go to sushi with me! I’ll wait all day for the baby boats to come around. Salmon ? Tuna ? 
 

I want that rare blue fish sushi to pair with Trae.

ps It’s corn dog day @Gray Mule!!! Forget the fish for today! We eatin in style! 

Yeah, isn't it great we were all in on the Edwards bandwagon?  High five?

And, on Towns' shape, I keep telling y'all that commercial where he's getting worked by the online gamer was unintentionally more fact than fiction.  haha  Don't tell soth I said that.

[Atlantaholic]

46 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Can KAT get more in shape or is that it?  Just wonder because he’s got a strange body type, I mean his upper body looks fit but he has some baggage around his hips. I mean I just don’t know if it’s a body type thing with him or he’s a lazy in his conditioning. 
 

I dunno, personally I don’t want my big man lumbering down the court and jacking up 3’s and disappearing for stretches.

I keep waiting for the “next” superstar to pair with Trae. As the Towns and Beals go by… You guys don’t wanna go to sushi with me! I’ll wait all day for the baby boats to come around. Salmon ? Tuna ? 
 

I want that rare blue fish sushi to pair with Trae.

ps It’s corn dog day @Gray Mule!!! Forget the fish for today! We eatin in style! 

Problem is you aren't gonna get a bonafide superstar with no holes in free agency or trade. You have to get the guys that have some question marks and take a shot. KAT and Beal tier is as good as it gets probably.

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

Not really, you are putting the 7/8th spot up for grabs. How often does a 7th or 8th seed upset? less than 3% of the time? Usually the 7th or 8th team are not very good. The scenario you are outlining is very specific and moot so far since the T-Wolves got the 7th seed winning their game at home despite Kat having a terrible game.

I don't like putting them  up for grabs if the teams aren't close in record.  The mere fact that we haven't seen a huge gap materialize in fact is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.  If the Clippers and T-Wolves end up getting through good for them.  But the chance of them getting pushed out by a team that won 6-10 fewer games is very real and I simply don't like that being in play.

I'm less opposed to the play-in for the situation in the East where the 7 and 8 seeds won 44 games and the 9 and 10 seeds won 43 games.  As others have mentioned, the requirement to be within 4-5 games seems like an essential part to me.

[marco102]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't like putting them  up for grabs if the teams aren't close in record.  The mere fact that we haven't seen a huge gap materialize in fact is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.  If the Clippers and T-Wolves end up getting through good for them.  But the chance of them getting pushed out by a team that won 6-10 fewer games is very real and I simply don't like that being in play.

I'm less opposed to the play-in for the situation in the East where the 7 and 8 seeds won 44 games and the 9 and 10 seeds won 43 games.  As others have mentioned, the requirement to be within 4-5 games seems like an essential part to me.

I'm fine with the play-in.  These games are exciting, keeps fans excitement for teams who are mediocre and reduces tanking. 

There has been no big upsets in the playin with a team with a far superior record losing to the inferior team.

We are debating about nothing. 

At the end of the day, I'm happy the Hawks have to right to play in. In previous years, we'd be looking at the lottery and I think that's what makes the playin so great. 

Edit: If the Hawks were up 10 games and playing in the play in, I'd be pissed about it and would be siding more with you @AHF

Edited April 13, 2022 by marco102

[Atlantaholic]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't like putting them  up for grabs if the teams aren't close in record.  The mere fact that we haven't seen a huge gap materialize in fact is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.  If the Clippers and T-Wolves end up getting through good for them.  But the chance of them getting pushed out by a team that won 6-10 fewer games is very real and I simply don't like that being in play.

I'm less opposed to the play-in for the situation in the East where the 7 and 8 seeds won 44 games and the 9 and 10 seeds won 43 games.  As others have mentioned, the requirement to be within 4-5 games seems like an essential part to me.

I think you are giving the 7/8th seeds a pretty fair shot with two games to make it. Again if the gap is wide it should be easy to win 1 out of 2. I'm not opposed to adding the 4-5 requirement except it adds some level of potential asymmetry with certain teams playing potentially fewer games in either conference etc. 

[ShooterSays]

Really wish we could have gotten Ant that draft.

Wasn't the rumor on here from insiders that he was ours on the pick swap if we just included Huerter?

Oh what could have been...

[marco102]

Just now, ShooterSays said:

Really wish we could have gotten Ant that draft.

Wasn't the rumor on here from insiders that he was ours on the pick swap if we just included Huerter?

Oh what could have been...

Yeah I was telling @kg01 he would be good and it wasn't just UGA homerism.  I'm not even a fan of UGA or any college team in general. 

But we all get some wrong from time to time 

[Spud2nique]

35 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Yeah, isn't it great we were all in on the Edwards bandwagon?  High five?

And, on Towns' shape, I keep telling y'all that commercial where he's getting worked by the online gamer was unintentionally more fact than fiction.  haha  Don't tell soth I said that.

Hey, we ride as one so YA everyone was on board with   

[AHF]

Everybody can have their own opinion on it.  Just a question where to draw the line.  With a majority of the league in the playoffs under the old format, I don't see a compelling need for a play-in with no qualifications on it.  Others like the involvement of additional teams that would ordinarily be at the bottom of the lottery and not playoff eligible.  I think that difference in view is fine.

For me, it absolutely isn't about what has happened in the very short window of experience with the play-in.  IMO, if you are making decisions about how to structure the playoffs and letting actual results drive that decision-making process then you aren't providing any real leadership to the league, imo.  Like, if LAC gets bounced or not this year why should it change anyone's opinion?  We all know it is a very real chance they will get eliminated by a 34 or 36 win team.  You are either willing to give teams that chance and recognize that it the odds it could happen in a single elimination game are very real or you aren't.  Whether that happens or not in a given year should be largely irrelevant to deciding your risk tolerance and playoff format.  If LAC gets eliminated by the Spurs, for example, and the NBA changes the requirements next year that is a failure of leadership.  You know single game formats are going to be volatile.  Whether they produce upsets or not in actuality...man if that is how you make decisions then I don't even know what to say.  Like deciding how to structure the playoffs based on a coin flip or something.  You either need to embrace the volatility or not but embracing that format and using the actual results to either proclaim its validity or tear it down is non-sensical to me.