Poll of the Day 8-1-2023

[Diesel]

If Nothing else changes during this offseason... and we go into the season like this......  With Trae and DJ being solidified. 

[Spud2nique]

Mathues? Garrison’s weird a$$ evil twin  

[Spud2nique]

I went with the gunner Mathues (expecting big things from him this season), Gueye and Bruno.  

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, Spud2nique said:

I went with the gunner Mathues (expecting big things from him this season), Gueye and Bruno.  

Yeah I noticed your not the norm picks.  It's sorta like Hawks fans that want us to play younger players simply because they are younger.  I think the world of Gueye and eventually, he will be our starting PF if we keep him.  However, I'm not rushing him to the starting position because I like his potential.  Yet that's the mindset of a lot of Hawks fans.   It's the same mindset that says... we need to move Clint for whatever we can get for him so we can move OO up.   Really?   That's Babcockish. 

 

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

Yeah I noticed your not the norm picks.  It's sorta like Hawks fans that want us to play younger players simply because they are younger.  I think the world of Gueye and eventually, he will be our starting PF if we keep him.  However, I'm not rushing him to the starting position because I like his potential.  Yet that's the mindset of a lot of Hawks fans.   It's the same mindset that says... we need to move Clint for whatever we can get for him so we can move OO up.   Really?   That's Babcockish. 

 

OO graded out better than CC last season in a number of metrics so it isn’t like there isn’t a case based on play right now.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

OO graded out better than CC last season in a number of metrics so it isn’t like there isn’t a case based on play right now.

If he "graded out" better then let him naturally take over the starters minutes.   That doesn't mean you have to move Clint right away for that to happen.   The problem is that we say he graded out better because he looks good against tired starters and second teamers.   Eye tested the Boston series.   He didn't look better than Clint in the first half of that series.  There are still matchups that give him trouble.   Still mistakes he makes.  I'm willing to give him starter minutes but Not willing to trade Clint for pocket lint to do it. 

 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

If he "graded out" better then let him naturally take over the starters minutes.   That doesn't mean you have to move Clint right away for that to happen.   The problem is that we say he graded out better because he looks good against tired starters and second teamers.   Eye tested the Boston series.   He didn't look better than Clint in the first half of that series.  There are still matchups that give him trouble.   Still mistakes he makes.  I'm willing to give him starter minutes but Not willing to trade Clint for pocket lint to do it. 

 

I have zero interest in trading Clint for pocket lint but I could see Quin wanting to deal him because CC doesn't fit what he wants to do.  That said,  you'll see my votes at the outset of the thread where I am assuming no changes to the roster and I have CC starting over OO to begin the year.  The point I was trying to make is that I think there is a real debate as to which one of them should start based on performance, not based on age.  The two of them are both pretty strong players with some real differences in their strengths and weaknesses that make them interesting compliments if we stick with them as the C rotation.

(Actually, I don't see my votes there.  Hmmm....  I think Bey / CC and JJ / OO make sense as pairings.)

[Diesel]

16 hours ago, AHF said:

I have zero interest in trading Clint for pocket lint but I could see Quin wanting to deal him because CC doesn't fit what he wants to do.  That said,  you'll see my votes at the outset of the thread where I am assuming no changes to the roster and I have CC starting over OO to begin the year.  The point I was trying to make is that I think there is a real debate as to which one of them should start based on performance, not based on age.  The two of them are both pretty strong players with some real differences in their strengths and weaknesses that make them interesting compliments if we stick with them as the C rotation.

(Actually, I don't see my votes there.  Hmmm....  I think Bey / CC and JJ / OO make sense as pairings.)

That statement about CC not doing what Quin would like to do...  It's questionable.   I hope you're not suggesting that Quin wants to switch everything defensively.    That doesn't bode well if we have OO starting.   Sure OO can switch but we don't have strong enough rebounders to make that work.   One thing when you switch is that you allow your 5 to go out and guard wings and guards.  OK...  OO can do that because he's more a 4 than a 5.  However, usually teams that have success switching have pretty good team rebounding so they can switch without the worry of losing the boards.  i.e. Miami when they had Butler and Tucker. 

JJ is not a proven rebounder. 

Dre is one of the sorriest rebounders. 

DJ can be a good rebounder.  Trae can do well for his position.   But I fear that lineup will suffer on the boards because of switching. 

 

One of the main reasons that i have heard people use to justify starting OO has been switching defense and that he does it better than Clint.   However, I suggest that our 5 should not be switching.   We lose so much advantage switching out our 5.   In CC we have an elite rebounder and a good rim protector.   Why are we having him play defense on the perimeter?

So we want to send CC away for packages such as THJr and Javale McGee... so that OO can start.  Because he switches better?  NAWL..  try again.   It's a dumb thought and a dumb reason to trade CC and a Dumb defensive plan. 

 

Now Here's where I can see something.   Bey rebounds better than Hunter because..... eye test... He's more physical.   Maybe the double trade is the main thing.  However, OO hasn't shown that he can get above 8 rebounds per game either.  (on the average).   If we trade CC, we will have some regrets about the frontcourt players we have traded away. 

 

 

[Diesel]

So the Squawk has spoken.

 Where in the East do you see us falling if we start...

Trae, DJ, DHunter, JJ, and CC. 

To start us off, I say no lower than 4th in the East under Quin. 

 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

That statement about CC not doing what Quin would like to do...  It's questionable.  

It is pure speculation on my part.  Quin might decide to try to emulate Utah and have CC play the part of Gobert making him a key cornerstone of the team.  I don't know.  I'm not in his meetings or team practices, etc.  Just my speculation that he may want to spread the floor on the offense and have more movement on both sides of the ball than CC is well suited to do.

Quote

JJ is not a proven rebounder. 

Dre is one of the sorriest rebounders. DJ can be a good rebounder.  Trae can do well for his position.   But I fear that lineup will suffer on the boards because of switching. 

While Hunter has been a terrible rebounder for a SF, JJ has been just fine as a PF.  Last season, JJ put up 9.7 rebounds per 36 compared to 7.8 RB36 for JC.  You see the same kind of sizable gap in TRB% with JJ at 14.8% and JC at 11.9%.

And that wasn't just last season.  JJ's numbers last year are better than JC's in any season playing with CC.  (JC's top season over the last 3 years has been 9.1 RB36 versus 9.7 for JJ and 13.9% for JC versus 14.8% for JJ).  

Whatever worries I have with JJ, rebounding is not at the top of the list.  He isn't truly proven at anything yet since Nate gave him so little run but all the information looks good on his rebounding so far.  (FWIW, JJ's rebounding numbers went up to a bit over 10 RB36 under Quin as well.)

[Diesel]

55 minutes ago, AHF said:

While Hunter has been a terrible rebounder for a SF, JJ has been just fine as a PF.  Last season, JJ put up 9.7 rebounds per 36 compared to 7.8 RB36 for JC.  You see the same kind of sizable gap in TRB% with JJ at 14.8% and JC at 11.9%.

You and I both know that per36 stats never really materialize when a player get more minutes.   Per36 ignores fatigue and most of the time, it's against fatigued or inexperienced players.   And it's less accurate the less minutes you play.

JJ played 14.9 mpg.  Those per36 stats are absolutely meaningless. 

 

 

[AHF]

47 minutes ago, Diesel said:

You and I both know that per36 stats never really materialize when a player get more minutes.   Per36 ignores fatigue and most of the time, it's against fatigued or inexperienced players.   And it's less accurate the less minutes you play.

JJ played 14.9 mpg.  Those per36 stats are absolutely meaningless. 

 

 

That is BS.  There are plenty of players whose per minute numbers remain constant and even improve when their minutes go up.  Per minute production is remarkably stable for many players.  Here are a few Hawks:

DMC

OO

CC

DM

JJ

Gallo

Teague

The idea that per minute production is meaningless when projecting a player's production with a larger role giving him more minutes is completely unfounded.  You see it over and over again.  It is very frequently the case that players maintain very similar per minute numbers and with young players that is not infrequently accompanied by increases to productivity with the larger role rather than lost efficiency.

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

That is BS.  There are plenty of players whose per minute numbers remain constant and even improve when their minutes go up. 

Which part is BS @AHF

Take my statements...

1. Per36 ignores fatigue and most of the time, it's against fatigued or inexperienced players. 
2. it's less accurate the less minutes you play

 

Which of those two  statements is BS??

You throw up stats... cool.. but which statement is BS?    Even in your stats...

 

For DM... 2016 it predicted 14.5 per 36.  He didn't actually get close until 2020.   In 2017, playing 21.5 mpg...  (more than 2 times more minutes as before), his per 36 actually dropped?  How is that?  Maybe because while he was playing 8.5 mpg, the extrapolation was just not accurate?  i.e. there were some things not accounted for?

 

 

 

 

[AHF]

37 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Which part is BS @AHF

Didn't think this was overly complicated given my prior post but:

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

You and I both know that per36 stats never really materialize when a player get more minutes. 

I'm using the shorthand of BS here.  Not trying to be insulting so let me define that for these posts as a statement that is unsubstantiated and is actually contradicted by past player performance.

Quote

 Per36 ignores fatigue and most of the time, it's against fatigued or inexperienced players.   

I don't deny that players have different demands on them at 30 mpg than at 10 mpg but I don't see any sign that fatigue is impacting the per minute rates of many (or most) players when they get the jump in minutes.  In terms of it being against fatigued or inexperienced players, that seems contradictory.  If you are saying that the player is a reserve and playing mostly against reserves then those players aren't fatigued.  If you are saying they are playing against fatigued starters, I am not sure that would make a lot of difference for most starters.  I don't think there is a huge trend of player performance declining during the time when someone like JJ would have been on the floor.  

Quote

And it's less accurate the less minutes you play.

 

I'm giving this one a bit more credit.  The fewer the minutes the more variance.  But the consistency and lack of regression is still remarkable so that even when you see low minutes these guys are still approximating their eventual production (or exceeding it with more minutes) in most cases.

Quote

JJ played 14.9 mpg.  Those per36 stats are absolutely meaningless. 

That is BS.  They are absolutely not meaningless.

Quote

You throw up stats... cool.. but which statement is BS?    Even in your stats...

 

For DM... 2016 it predicted 14.5 per 36.  He didn't actually get close until 2020.   In 2017, playing 21.5 mpg...  (more than 2 times more minutes as before), his per 36 actually dropped?  How is that?  Maybe because while he was playing 8.5 mpg, the extrapolation was just not accurate?  i.e. there were some things not accounted for?

WTF are you talking about?  These are very close numbers.

For DM, his per36 point production was 14.5 and so you claim his numbers were "meaningless" and subject to significant regression.  His second season he achieved the following:

Points: 93.7% of 2016-17 per minute production  (I.e., this is very close)

Rebounds:  202% of 2016-17 per minute production (I.e., this didn't show fatigue crippling performance but enhanced performance)

Assists:  89% of 2016-17 per minute production  (I.e., this is very close)

Steals:  222% of 2016-17 per minute production (I.e., this didn't show fatigue crippling performance but enhanced performance)

Blocks:  86% of 2016-17 per minute production (I.e., this is very close)

 

His third season he achieved the following relative to that same small minute rookie season:

Points: 106% of 2016-17 per minute production  (I.e., this is very close)

Rebounds:  174% of 2016-17 per minute production (I.e., this didn't show fatigue crippling performance but enhanced performance)

Assists:  107% of 2016-17 per minute production  (I.e., this is very close)

Steals:  266% of 2016-17 per minute production (I.e., this didn't show fatigue crippling performance but enhanced performance)

Blocks:  57% of 2016-17 per minute production (I.e., this is the only stat where we see a significant reduction in per minute production)

So I granted you above that there is going to be more variance with really low minutes but here we have every key stat being nearly the same production or drastically improved production.  This should be very encouraging for JJ both because he played almost twice as many minutes per game last season as rookie DM (which should mean less variance) but also because the numbers are all either wildly better or close to the same per minute rate of production.  All the "fatigued" etc. rationales should apply to everyone of the players listed above but over and over their production scales very nicely from low minutes to higher minutes.

 

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

I'm using the shorthand of BS here.  Not trying to be insulting so let me define that for these posts as a statement that is unsubstantiated and is actually contradicted by past player performance.

For it to be contractadicted, it has to be the norm  and more importantly, it has to be totally accurate and not just in the ballpark correct.

You showed about 7 cases where it was outside of what I said.  I could show you 100s of cases that speaks otherwise. 

I could take you through it but many have argued this before.... I will let you argue with them.

Quote

Now, as I said at the beginning of this section, this is the most imprecise version of any of these types of normalized stats, and there are a few different reasons why. The first is the issue of sample size. Imagine Sims played 1 minute and in that 1 minute scored 2 points and grabbed 1 rebound. If you normalize that for 36 minutes, Sims winds up projecting out to 72 points and 36 rebounds, stats that would be unheard of in the NBA and obviously unrealistic. By starting with such a small set of data (the “sample size”) projecting it out to a larger set is very unstable. To cross sports, a player who hits a homerun in his first baseball game is not likely to hit one in every game, so projecting 162 home runs (one per game) is silly.

 Feel free to argue it...

Quote

So where are per-36 minute stats helpful? Typically, I find them useful when players play more than 36 minutes. In our very first scenario, we would normalize Player A’s actual minutes played to 36 and Player B’s actual minutes played to 36, and compare their scoring numbers. This would give us a more accurate sense of how their games’ compared.

Like I said before.. when you have less minutes, the statistic becomes inaccurate.  When you have more minutes, it works better.   But feel free to argue it. 

Quote

The second issue with per-36 minute stats is that minutes aren’t actually the most accurate measure of activity in a basketball game. You’re probably looking at the screen very confused right now, so I’ll explain.

In basketball, teams trade possession of the ball after a few different types of what we’ll call “events.” So, when the ball is stolen from a player and the other team takes possession, this “event” is labeled as a turnover. When a player misses a shot and the other team grabs the rebound and takes possession of the ball, this “event” is a defensive rebound. Scoring a basket or making your second free throw while shooting foul shots is also an “event” where possession changes. In the NBA, a possession can theoretically take up an entire quarter (if a team keeps missing shots but getting the ball back on an offensive rebound) or barely any time at all (if they immediately pass it to the other team), but in most cases, teams switch possession of the ball (due to an aforementioned “event”) every 15–20 seconds. But this number can vary wildly from team to team and game to game. A team that has a lot of young, fast players may want to rush up the court and take quick shots against a team of old, slow players, for example.

More possessions mean more “events.” So, in one minute where a team has 3 possessions, they have more opportunities to score, because they’ve theoretically taken more shots. Because they’ve taken more shots, the other team has more opportunities to get rebounds, and because of the number of possessions in that minute, there are more opportunities for things like turnovers and fouls.

So, 36 minutes in one game can mean something wildly different than 36 minutes in another game. How do you combat that?

Again... Feel free to argue that.    These things have been long known.  But because you can find some outliers that are "close" you want to change the understanding that has been accepted into per 36 stats are valid?  No...  They are not valid.   

Extrapolation in basketball is interesting, just not accurate. 

 

 

[AHF]

Find an equal number of Hawks players from the last decade who had a huge jump in minutes and whose per 36 didn’t hold.  100% of the ones I looked at are posted there.

But your original statement was still total BS.  Not only does it materialize, it frequently happens.

You and I both know that per36 stats never really materialize when a player get more minutes. 

[Phunkabilly]

In 100% agreement with @AHF on this debate.  The whole purpose of the per36 stat is to normalize the minutes played so that you can make more of an apples-to-apples comparison when analyzing different players, which is exactly what AHF was using it for.  And of course ANY stat is near meaningless when there's not enough data to draw from.  In the DJ example mentioned above, the 322 minutes played his rookie year is simply not enough data to draw any conclusions from.  It makes much more sense to analyze the following 3 seasons when his total number of minutes played was much more significant.

And if you make the argument that a player's per36 numbers should go down with more minutes played due to fatigue, you could easily make the counter argument that they'll go UP due to the player having a chance to get "warm" and in a rhythm when they're on the court longer.  In the end, I suspect that those two relatively minor factors probably balance each other out and you're probably not gonna see a significant change in per36 stats when "minutes played" is the primary variable that changes.

[Diesel]

11 hours ago, Phunkabilly said:

In 100% agreement with @AHF on this debate.  The whole purpose of the per36 stat is to normalize the minutes played so that you can make more of an apples-to-apples comparison when analyzing different players, which is exactly what AHF was using it for.  And of course ANY stat is near meaningless when there's not enough data to draw from.  In the DJ example mentioned above, the 322 minutes played his rookie year is simply not enough data to draw any conclusions from.  It makes much more sense to analyze the following 3 seasons when his total number of minutes played was much more significant.

And if you make the argument that a player's per36 numbers should go down with more minutes played due to fatigue, you could easily make the counter argument that they'll go UP due to the player having a chance to get "warm" and in a rhythm when they're on the court longer.  In the end, I suspect that those two relatively minor factors probably balance each other out and you're probably not gonna see a significant change in per36 stats when "minutes played" is the primary variable that changes.

The problem....  he's using it for a player who has played 14-15 mpg and ignoring the lack of accuracy of the extrapolation.

For instance...  @Phunkabilly    A player plays 1 mpg... he scores 2 points, 1 reb.    Per36 stats suggests that he would be a 72 ppg, 36 rpg player.     How do you compare that?  Do you really believe that apples to apples this guy is the best player that ever played?

This is the problem with extrapolation.   At the lower minutes, it's meaningless.   AHF has shown some examples of guys who have played 22 -30 mpg and said.. that because their numbers are close, this validates the use of per36 as a means to compare.      However , 22-30 mpg is close because it's closer to 36 mpg.   The closer you get to 36 mpg, the more accurate the valuation.   However, 14-15 mpg doesn't translate the same.  It's similar to that 1 mpg player. 

These are Kevin Knox's  per 36 numbers.

These are Cam Reddish pretrade per 36 numbers.

 

When you look at them.. you would think that in the trade, we got the better end of the deal with NY. 

Knox per36 is a consistent 15, 7, 2 player. 

Reddish per 36 is somewhere around 15, 4.8, and 1.9 player.

We robbed NY... right?

BTW...  For those of you who argued that we didn't play JJ enough since he's been here...

 

Per 36, JJ is not better than Knox.   In fact, having played much more minutes, did not help his per36 ppg?  It dropped. 

 

 

 

[AHF]

Just now, Diesel said:

The problem....  he's using it for a player who has played 14-15 mpg and ignoring the lack of accuracy of the extrapolation.

For instance...  @Phunkabilly    A player plays 1 mpg... he scores 2 points, 1 reb.    Per36 stats suggests that he would be a 72 ppg, 36 rpg player.     How do you compare that?  Do you really believe that apples to apples this guy is the best player that ever played?

This is the problem with extrapolation.   At the lower minutes, it's meaningless.   AHF has shown some examples of guys who have played 22 -30 mpg and said.. that because their numbers are close, this validates the use of per36 as a means to compare.      However , 22-30 mpg is close because it's closer to 36 mpg.   The closer you get to 36 mpg, the more accurate the valuation.   However, 14-15 mpg doesn't translate the same.  It's similar to that 1 mpg player. 

These are Kevin Knox's  per 36 numbers.

These are Cam Reddish pretrade per 36 numbers.

 

When you look at them.. you would think that in the trade, we got the better end of the deal with NY. 

Knox per36 is a consistent 15, 7, 2 player. 

Reddish per 36 is somewhere around 15, 4.8, and 1.9 player.

We robbed NY... right?

BTW...  For those of you who argued that we didn't play JJ enough since he's been here...

 

 

You have completely missed the point we are discussing here.  Your thesis is that a player who is playing a low number of minutes will not see their per 36 hold up in a meaningful way when they get more minutes.

Kevin Knox saw a decline in minutes not an increase.  So he doesn't even fit your example at all.  (Also, his per minute scoring was at its highest in NY when he got more minutes not fewer minutes.)

It is the same situation with Cam Reddish.  He has never experienced a big increase in minutes.  His minutes have consistently been in the 20 something range where it really shouldn't make much difference if we are talking about 23 or 26 minutes per game so this is another case of "why are you talking about this player"?

Again, find me an equal number of examples of Hawks who have had a large increase in minutes per game and who didn't maintain very similar or improved per minute production.

This statement  - just wow:

Quote

Per 36, JJ is not better than Knox.   In fact, having played much more minutes, did not help his per36 ppg?  It dropped. 

Per 36 is just per minute production.  But let's compare that per minute production.

Jalen Johnson vs Kevin Knox

13.8 points on .556% TS% >> 14.9 points on .497% TS%

9.5 RB >> 5.8 RB

2.7 AST >> 1.5 AST

1.7 STL >> 0.8 STL

1.5 BLK >> 0.5 BLK

For you to claim that JJ's numbers are not better than Knox's...just wow.  If you value similar one more point per 36 on drastically worse scoring efficiency that is something I can't buy onto.  Every other stat is basically double in favor of JJ.  So no.

Every rate adjusted metric (WS/48, PER, BPM, etc.) has JJ way ahead of Knox (i.e, metrics measuring per minute or per possession production), and I just don't know how you could ever think Knox has been better on a rate adjusted basis of any kind.  So no.

 

 

[Diesel]

13 hours ago, AHF said:

Find an equal number of Hawks players from the last decade who had a huge jump in minutes and whose per 36 didn’t hold.

You would have to define.... "Hold".  

We are talking per minute scoring rebounds and assists right?  What do you mean by "hold"....  +-?