I find the Atlanta Hawks mystifying. I want to root for them, because I have a real sense of "buy low, cash in big" with this team, but then I think they are already underperforming greatly. There is talent on this team, but they aren't performing well. I found myself nodding in agreement when the 790 AM morning hosts were bitching that the top-to-bottom roster for the Houston Rockets, who might never lose again, isn't as good as the roster for the Hawks. Well, the Rockets certainly have more depth, but I think there's some merit to the argument. The Rockets are a significantly better coached team than the Hawks. 4. The All-Star: Joe Johnson is starting to score more. He is averaging 29.6 points over the last five games, including 39 against Miami.
Regardless, the Hawks are primed for a berth in the playoffs. They sit in the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference right now, and they have what on paper is the easiest schedule remaining of the teams in the hunt for 6th-8th. There is reason for some optimism that the Hawks may make the playoffs. The AJC this morning broke down the chances of the Hawks making a run to the playoffs. The problem: 4 of the AJC's reasons why the Hawks will make the playoffs aren't very strong. There is really only reason why the Hawks will make the playoffs: other Eastern Conference teams are more awful than the Hawks. That's it. Let me break down the other reasons:1. The schedule: Of the Hawks' 19 remaining games, 11 are against teams with a worse record, including three against the 18-win Knicks.
Yes, the Hawks have an easy schedule remaining, playing so many bad teams. The flaw in that argument? The Hawks still aren't very good against those teams. Against the 11 teams with worse records than the Hawks that the Hawks have yet to play, the Hawks are barely above .500 (9-7). Take out the 3 wins against the worst team in the league, Miami (which wins were by a margin of only 9 points combined!), and they're below .500. The Hawks have already lost twice to the Bucks and Nets (more on them in a second), and they've been blown out once by the Bulls. The three games against the Knicks should cause optimism, but if you saw last week's Knicks game, the Hawks struggled mightily and only had a lead of more than one basket for the last 11 seconds in the 4th quarter. Checking any game remaining on the schedule as a "sure win" is not a good idea.2. The opponents: The Hawks play Washington, New Jersey, Chicago (2), Philadelphia (2) and Indiana — all teams within four games in the standings
Having your closest competitors for a playoff spot is definitely an advantage for a team, but only if you actually win those games. The Hawks haven't shown that they are likely to do so. They are just 6-6 against those 5 teams so far this year. The other thing: the Hawks have to travel on the road against all five of those teams (Chicago and Philly both also come to Philips Arena). The Hawks already lost on the road at New Jersey, Chicago and Indiana. The Pacers loss was by 22 points! The AJC mentions in their section on why the Hawks won't make the playoffs that the Hawks are just 7-25 on the road this year. 5 of their remaining 9 road games are against these key teams. That's bad news.3. The point guard: Mike Bibby is averaging 12.6 points, 6.4 assists and 31.1 minutes in 14 games since trade to the Hawks.
Those numbers might seem pretty good compared to the point guards he supplanted. But here's what the AJC isn't telling you: Bibby's numbers are down from when he was on the Kings. Just this year, Bibby's points per game, rebounds, and steals are down. His assists are slightly up, but everything else is down. His FG shooting and FT shooting is worse too. And that's just comparing Bibby on the Hawks to the 2007-08 Bibby on the Kings. If you look at his numbers from previous years, he's going to average career lows in points, steals and rebounds. And the clincher is this: that's not even the worst news about Bibby. That would be his defense. Since the trade for Bibby, the Hawks have averaged giving up 110 points per game. That's more than 10 points more than their season average. Opposing PGs have had a field day on Bibby, including Baron Davis going for 35 points twice and Chris Paul posting a 23/18 day. Yeah, those guys are all-stars, but Raymond Felton put up 23/10 for the Bobcats (another team with a worse record than the Hawks that the Hawks just lost to). Bibby's D is really hurting the Hawks (or, who knows, maybe it was all AJ, Lue, and Shelden doing the defending). Regardless, unless the Hawks figure out how to defend better with Bibby, or increase his offensive output dramatically, Bibby's presence won't help the Hawks make the playoffs - it'll hurt it.
Joe Johnson does seem to be playing better, and it's mainly because of his 3-point shooting. He's hit better than his season average in FG% and 3-PT % in 9 of the 13 games since the Bibby trade. That's definitely a positive. And it could be a sign that Bibby's presence is getting Joe open for better shots. The increased scoring average, though isn't all good news. In those 5 games where Joe is nearly averaging 30 points a game, the Hawks are 1-4, and all 4 losses were blowouts (by 11, 15, 15 and 17 in games that really weren't even that close). I can't find/put together the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that Joe's points per 100 Hawks possessions in those 5 games isn't all that improved over his numbers for the rest of the season. The Hawks are giving up more points, so they're getting more possessions. Joe's increased scoring could be just a product of shootout games - and worse, shootout games that aren't really all that close. When the Warriors or Magic are up 25 points in the late third quarter, the benches are getting emptied for the opposing teams and they aren't working quite as hard on D as they might be in a 1 possession game. And finally, Joe Johnson's scoring is up over the last 5 games, but Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Josh Childress all are seeing their scoring drop precipitously over that same stretch. Joe's scoring, but it's to the detriment of, not in addition to, the other scoring options. I don't think the increased scoring numbers will automatically lead to a Hawks playoff berth.
My honest opinion: I think the Hawks do have a great chance of making the playoffs. But it won't be because of the reasons the AJC is giving. It'll be only because the Hawks are equally or slightly less terrible than the Nets, Bulls and Pacers (but those three teams have tougher remaining schedules). And those teams are also really terrible.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
A brief interlude on the Hawks
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Things I always wanted to write down for posterity
I have been far too busy/lazy over the last few months and I know I've missed a few brief posts about sports related things... I'll put it behind the fold because it's all dated now.
1. Hawks' draft. I liked it a lot. If they couldn't trade the pick for a superstar (and now I kind of wonder whether Amare was ever an option), and I don't think they'll be able to make any trades until the ownership situation is resolved, then they had to get the best two players they could. Assuming (and Billy Knight and others told us this) that the Hawks had to get a frontcourt player and a point guard with their two picks, I think they did as well as they could have. Horford and Law are a good pair, and I think Horford has a shot to be very good. Some might've argued that Conley has more upside than Horford. Perhaps. But had the Hawks picked Conley instead of Horford (and assume Memphis took Horford and the rest of the draft went to form), the best available PF/C would've been Sean Williams (talented, but major question marks and a huge reach at 11) or Jason Smith (not as talented as Williams, and an even bigger reach), and the only other frontcourt player drafted in the first round was Tiago Splitter. Basically, had the Hawks grabbed the PG first and hoped that a PF fell to them, they would've been bit in the ass (forced to reach or draft for an unneeded position). So the draft was good for the Hawks. I'm not sure they'll be great next year, but they will be better, and if they can find some money to extend Smith, the next yea they could be very good. ADDED: I forgot to mention it... yes, my analysis of the Hawks' draft is subject to attack from this angle - what if Law had gotten drafted earlier. My view is that there were a couple of other PGs available who wouldn't have been a terrible dropoff from Law (namely Belinelli and Crittendon). Also, I thought it not so likely that Law would've been drafted earlier. Perhaps if the Hawks had taken Conley, they could've gotten lucky by having someone else take Law earlier and had Spencer Hawes or Joakim Noah dropped, but I think that would've taken a lot of prayer (from memory, I don't recall Law being ahead of either of those guys on any mock draft).
2. I am oddly disturbed by the visage of Jerome Jurenovich on the Braves' post-game show. I remember his bodiless voice reading the sports highlights :19 after the hour on Headline News, way back in the day before ESPNews and the internet and constant tickers. When I needed sports news in my early teens, he provided it. And now that I see him, it's kind of like the Wizard of Oz.
3. Like I wrote in the Teixeira post, I read Baseball Between the Numbers, by the editors of Baseball Prospectus, and I recommend it highly. It's heavy math, but very much worth it. I should've been writing posts nightly on what interested me as I read it. Now I'm having trouble pointing to the right spots. The chapter on usage of relievers was fascinating to me - recalled Michael Lewis' article (can't find the direct link) on punting in ESPN the magazine from last December. Basically, it seems like every manager uses relievers inefficiently - and one just wonders when someone will actually challenge conventional wisdom and try something different. Chapter 6-2 is probably my favorite chapter of all, because I've always had an odd interest in stadia. If you don't mind challenging your brain in a sports book, read this.
4. I'm no die hard follower, but I will say that the doping scandals didn't prevent me from paying that much attention to the Tour de France this year. I watched parts of probably 5 stages (all in the mountains and on the Champs Elysees) and the whole of the final time trial - which was awesome. My personal feeling on doping is that its deplorable, but as long as usage/testing/prevention across the board (as in, if they're going to stop it, they stop everyone and if they can't they're not only stopping some) and that the competition is relatively close, I don't know if I can tell the difference. I'm a dilettante at it, so what do I care. I watch for some of the action and the interest in the way the racers exert themselves, but I probably watch more for the views and the crowds. And speaking of the crowds, on the last day in the Pyrenees, did anyone else see the dude in the last few km dressed in a massive penis costume? Hilarious drunkenness on those slopes. I need to go there some summer.
5. I love the current Braves' lineup. Love it. And for once, the Braves will be the annoying team to face late in the season in important games. You know... that team that fouls off a ton of pitches and works counts deep. Guys like Kelly Johnson, Matt Diaz, Willie Harris. And Chipper is having one hell of a year.
6. Not old, but I think Eric Byrnes' contract extension was insane. $10M a year for a 31 year old guy who is pretty much an average major leaguer over his career, and has a career year this late. Bad idea. And worse... if Eric Byrnes is worth $10M, every other decent outfielder free agent is going to get paid. Bad news for the Braves.
7. I watched a good part of the MLS match between Toronto and the Galaxy the other day. Toronto's fans are so damn cool it makes me terribly jealous. They're not very good right now, but if I had to guess what team will end up the best franchise in the league in a decade, it's them. And in my own personal battle of trying to choose an MLS team to follow/halfway support, Toronto took the lead from Houston.
8. I don't have much to say about it, but the Wimbledon mens' singles final was incredible. A special match. Federer is such a beast. And as much as I hate Nadal's fashion sense, he's a really good player.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Instant Karma's Gonna Get you
So I won't be the first or the last to rub salt in the wounds of Bill Simmons in regard to tonight's NBA Draft Lottery. But I did think it was nice to post the following I wrote (with a little editing) in an email to Messr. Elkon of Braves & Birds fame in reference to this column on who "deserves" the top picks in the draft.
- Len Bias - died before most of the guys to be drafted were born. Irrelevant to today's team (of course it was a tragedy, but it was 21 years ago).
- Reggie Lewis - died 14 years ago. Would be 42 years old today and not playing basketball. Irrelevant to today's team.
- Demolition of the Boston Garden - not sure how that's bad luck. They moved into a bigger arena with luxury boxes, allowing them to compete with other franchises on a level playing field. If the Celtics were still playing in the Garden, there's no doubt in my mind that Simmons would call it bad luck or unfair and that the Celtics aren't able to draw free agents or pay them enough because of the lack of revenue from the arena. Also, they moved out of the Garden 12 years ago. Irrelevant to today's team.
- ML Carr era - OK, is this bad luck or is it front office incompetence? You can't get positive points for bad luck and negative points for management for the same exact guy, can you?
- The Duncan Lottery - OK. Bad luck. You've got one.
- The Pitino Era - See ML Carr above. Front office mismanagement is not bad luck.
- The Paul Pierce Stabbing - This happened in 2000, and Pierce did not miss a single game because of the stabbing. In the 2000-2001 season Pierce set personal (at the time) career highs for points, assists, rebounds, minutes, 3 pointers, blocks, and FG%. Yes, it is terrible that he got stabbed. But by all reasonable accounts, the stabbing had little or no effect on his playing ability or the team's strength.
- The Vin Baker trade - Front office mismanagement, not bad luck. Also, the guys they traded to get Baker (Kenny Anderson, Vitaly Potapenko, Joe Forte) amounted to virtually nothing from there on out. Baker ended up being a bum, but so did the guys they gave up.
- Red Auerbach's death - When an 89-year old man who smoked cigars his entire life dies, that is not bad luck. Arguably, Auerbach's long life and accomplishments with the Celtics was extremely good luck
- Doc Rivers' second life - front office mismanagement, not bad luck.
Of course, now we'll get to see bimonthly columns on how unlucky the Celtics were in this lottery for 12 months.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Being Up At Weird Hours Means I Pay Attention to the NBA
Dilettante, Peter King style...
1) As someone who wasted an early second round fantasy NBA pick on him, let me just give a big "Po'shyol 'na hui" to Andrei Kirilenko. Dude tanks the entire year. In the Conference semis, his PPG has been double the regular season ppg. RPG up 30%. Nearly a full assist and a full block per game more. Hope your debts to the Russian mafia have been paid off, Mr. Face-looks-like-an-Easter-Island-Statue.
2) I find it a little odd how the Golden State fans received so much praise by big media (sort of deserved, compared to the other fans in other arenas), but it was rare that they were compared to fans in college arenas. Golden State's fans were loud at the right time, fed off the energy on the court, basically did all the right things. But that's a pretty normal occurrence for a regular season conference matchup at about 40-50 gyms on college campuses. Exceptionally great NBA crowd = relatively decent college basketball program crowd.
3) NBA referees make SEC football refs look like honest professionals.
4) Race seems to come up in the NBA more than in other sports. It's come up a bunch in reference to the suspensions in the Suns-Spurs series. Simmons always phrases it in terms of the difficulty in marketing a "black" league to a "white" league - and things like the dress code or harsh suspensions for fighting play into that. Here's something else that I was wondering about that kind of fits into that paradigm: Utah. Utah is one of the whitest states in the country. Arguably, no fan base in the NBA is "whiter" than fans in SLC. So the question I have is whether it's intentional that Utah's best 5 players are a white Russian (Kirilenko), a white Turk (Okur), a white American (Harpring), and two very light skinned African Americans (Williams and Boozer). Utah's a good team, and I don't think it's the situation where the Jazz chose a "whiter" looking team when they could've put together a better, but "blacker" team. But if all things are equal between two possible players for the Jazz to sign/draft, and one might seem "white" and the other not-as-much, would it be in the Jazz's financial interest to choose the player with whom the fans might identify better?
Needless to say, I don't want anyone to think I think there's anything better about "white" players as opposed to "black" players. I think such stereotypes and the coded language are often completely wrong as a descriptive matter, but always wrong from a moral perspective. That said, it's foolish to act as if such stereotypes don't exist, and since they do, I believe that team owners, from a business perspective, would be foolish not to consider stereotypes. I think they do take these things into consideration, though normally under the auspices of "fan relations" or media-training or something like that. The question is whether overt race-based decisionmaking should be allowed, even if it isn't the racism of the particular team (and let me be clear, I don't think Utah does use race-based decisionmaking - but I wonder if it is even considered and set aside) but racism/race-based considerations of consumers or fans. I think this is an interesting issue, and it's been rattling around in my head a lot recently. There's a flip side to it too, that maybe I'll delve into later, regarding the Atlanta Falcons.
5) I think Cleveland will win the East. And they, along with atrocious officiating putting LeBron on the line 20 times a game, might give the Spurs trouble.
