Official Game Thread: Hawks at Bulls

[macdaddy]

If you want to just talk wins and losses the obvious issue, pointed out numerous times, is the lack of PF depth on this team.  When JJ plays we're a .500 team.  When he doesn't we're below .500.  Regardless of whether Trae or DJ or both are available.

[JayBirdHawk]

18 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

This is interesting...1st posters were calling for Dre to come off the bench behind Bey all season long because BEY was the better option at small forward.  They were also calling for OO to start and to trade Capela.  Now they are back tracking and saying Dre makes the team better when he starts and the main reason the team is doing better is because Bey and OO are injured. 

 

I just can't keep up! 

All this shows is there isn't any ONE REASON why we win or lose games like some are trying to portray. 

[Peoriabird]

Just now, JayBirdHawk said:

All this shows is there isn't any ONE REASON why we win or lose games like some are trying to portray. 

Or at least there isn't 1 shared opinion as to why the Hawks win and I have a sneaking suspicion as to why that is!

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Or at least there isn't 1 shared opinion as to why the Hawks win and I have a sneaking suspicion as to why that is!

Why would it ever be a shared opinion when we win? Is there a shared option when we lose?

And there is never ONE REASON why we win or lose.

[Peoriabird]

9 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

If you want to just talk wins and losses the obvious issue, pointed out numerous times, is the lack of PF depth on this team.  When JJ plays we're a .500 team.  When he doesn't we're below .500.  Regardless of whether Trae or DJ or both are available.

So why can't the same logic be applied to a player who's stats show the opposite?  There is a player on the team where the record is over .500 when he doesn't play and well below .500 when he does.  Posters are trying to spend this in such a complicated way as to confuse a very strait forward trend. Why?  They would without hesitation conclude it with any other player.

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Why would it ever be a shared opinion when we win? Is there a shared option when we lose?

You can continue to offiscate all you want be the numbers don't lie.  The Hawks are a winning basketball team when a certain player isn't in the line up and opposite is true when he is.  Now why that is the case is up for debate but there is no debating the raw numbers.

[macdaddy]

25 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

So why can't the same logic be applied to a player who's stats show the opposite?  There is a player on the team where the record is over .500 when he doesn't play and well below .500 when he does.  Posters are trying to spend this in such a complicated way as to confuse a very strait forward trend. Why?  They would without hesitation conclude it with any other player.

But the record is not over .500 when Jalen is out.  That's the point.  

[Gray Mule]

Basketball is a team game.  Teams win and lose games.  How well or how poorly any team plays depends on the individual players on the team.  How good or bad each player preforms depends on their individual talents and the coaching staff and how they are used.  Too many factors to put all the praise or fault on any one player.

Hawks have had many injuries and it has been necessary to use a lot of our G League players.  This has been true to almost all NBA teams.  When starters are out with injuries, the strength or weakness of their bench players get exposed.  Then comes the G League players.  The best laid plans of mice and men often goes astray.  Injuries will do this.

Murray ain't going anywhere.  Young ain't going anywhere.  Some things are sure to change.  Some will not.

[macdaddy]

We've won 13 games without Trae and half of those wins were against tanking teams or teams missing their top players.   So based on those 13 games we're going to make the judgement that the team is better without Trae?  Let's get real here.  

 

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

We've won 13 games without Trae and half of those wins were against tanking teams or teams missing their top players.   So based on those 13 games we're going to make the judgement that the team is better without Trae?  Let's get real here.  

 

And some of those same tanking teams the Hawks lost to earlier in the season with that guy we can't mention like Portland and Charolotte

[AHF]

Peo - What standard are you using to evaluate whether someone hurts the team?  Is it negative +/- stats or perhaps record with and without that player or something else?  If we're going to go down that path, I want to make sure I understand it and then we can discuss whether that standard makes sense and see how it applies to each player's career.

[REHawksFan]

29 minutes ago, AHF said:

Peo - What standard are you using to evaluate whether someone hurts the team?  Is it negative +/- stats or perhaps record with and without that player or something else?  If we're going to go down that path, I want to make sure I understand it and then we can discuss whether that standard makes sense and see how it applies to each player's career.

He's using whatever data point supports his opinion at the moment.  Right now it's win loss record because that's what he thinks says the team is better without Trae.  He never mentioned win loss record until the team went through the recent winning streak without Trae. Doesn't matter that the teams they played were without significant pieces.  That part doesn't prop up his opinion.  

Edited April 3 by REHawksFan

[Peoriabird]

55 minutes ago, AHF said:

Peo - What standard are you using to evaluate whether someone hurts the team?  Is it negative +/- stats or perhaps record with and without that player or something else?  If we're going to go down that path, I want to make sure I understand it and then we can discuss whether that standard makes sense and see how it applies to each player's career.

All of the above

net rating with said player -2 without +.6

record with 22-29

without 13-11

26 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Doesn't matter that the teams they played were without significant pieces. 

Boston was completely healthy

[NBASupes]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

If you want to just talk wins and losses the obvious issue, pointed out numerous times, is the lack of PF depth on this team.  When JJ plays we're a .500 team.  When he doesn't we're below .500.  Regardless of whether Trae or DJ or both are available.

We also need Dre as well. But guys emerged that sucked early on like Garrison, Wes, and Bruno. Vit wasn't even in the NBA 

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

We also need Dre as well. But guys emerged that sucked early on like Garrison, Wes, and Bruno. Vit wasn't even in the NBA 

No doubt.  there's just been so much unstable-ness about this season.  13 games without Trae isn't something I'm going to base my franchise decisions on.  

[REHawksFan]

8 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

All of the above

net rating with said player -2 without +.6

record with 22-29

without 13-11

Boston was completely healthy

This is actual lunacy.  I have to think you are just trolling the board.  

So your argument is because they beat Boston 1 time without Trae, the team must be better without Trae?  

You ignore all of the many other differences between early season struggles and late season success and just make the blanket statement that the team is better without Trae.  

Lunacy.  

[NBASupes]

Just now, macdaddy said:

No doubt.  there's just been so much unstable-ness about this season.  13 games without Trae isn't something I'm going to base my franchise decisions on.  

Trae playoff runs have earned him a golden ticket. Unless you giving us something like Devin Booker. Negative for any Trae trade

[Peoriabird]

4 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

This is actual lunacy.  I have to think you are just trolling the board.  

So your argument is because they beat Boston 1 time without Trae, the team must be better without Trae?  

You ignore all of the many other differences between early season struggles and late season success and just make the blanket statement that the team is better without Trae.  

Lunacy.  

@AHF I thought that you already warned this guy once this week..

[REHawksFan]

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

@AHF I thought that you already warned this guy once this week..

LOL

And 2, you are actually hanging your hat on the fact that Atlanta beat boston 1 time?  That's your argument?  A game that required the starting PG to score 44 pts on 44 shots in order to win by 1 pt?  That convinced you, huh?  
 

[AHF]

22 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

All of the above

net rating with said player -2 without +.6

Let's look at Hunter since he is someone you view as extremely good for the team and compare his numbers against Trae using more meaningful data sets using your criteria:

Hawks Defensive Rating with DeAndre Hunter:  116.1

Hawks Defensive Rating without DeAndre Hunter: 117.5    Net:  +1.4 (with negative being bad)

Hawks Offensive Rating with DeAndre Hunter: 115.2

Hawks Offensive Rating without DeAndre Hunter: 116.9   Net:  -1.7 (with negative being bad)

Net:  -0.3

Hawks Defensive Rating with Trae Young:  116.4

Hawks Defensive Rating without Trae Young: 114.3    Net:  -2.1 (with negative being bad)

Hawks Offensive Rating with Trae Young: 114.7

Hawks Offensive Rating without Trae Young: 112.1   Net:  +2.6 (with negative being bad)

Net:  +0.5

So this would tell us that over their careers, Trae has made the team better when he plays while Hunter has made the team worse when he plays, correct?

Quote

record with 22-29

without 13-11

Let's compare Hunter and Trae using more meaningful data sets using your criteria:

Hawks record with DeAndre Hunter:  119-138 .463%

Hawks record without DeAndre Hunter:  61-60 .503%

Net:  -.040%

Hawks record with Trae Young:  183-221 .453%

Hawks record without Trae Young:  26-30 .464%

Net:  -.011%

So if we accept that record with and without a player is a good method for determining whether a player is valuable, we should conclude that Hunter is bad for the team by a number almost 4x worse than Trae.  Is that correct?

 

Now I'll tell you that my view is these numbers are useful but are not be-all, end-all ways to assess the utility of a player.  I think both Hunter and Trae are players who make the team significantly better.  Measuring individual merit using team statistics can be challenging since the team numbers highly influenced by personnel groupings, overall team objectives, etc. but it is a useful thing to look at as part of a larger evaluation along the lines of looking at the most successful personnel groupings.