Jamaaliver wrote:theatlfan wrote:One thing to note: when our starters were fully healthy with Horford, then we were 18-7 (based on the article linked in the "Injuries" post below). That's a 59 W pace - IND took the East 1 seed with 58 Ws.
theatlfan, I have the utmost respect for you. But this stat is bunk...horse poop...nonsense. I've seen a ton of Hawks fansites with similar claims that just are not true.
Horford went down in the 29th game of the season. We were 16-13. How could we have 18 wins with Horford if he left and we only had 16 wins total?
The truth is, we were barely above .500 in an incredibly weak Eastern Conference with AL. After that, the season fell apart, but because most teams behind us were losing on purpose our epic fall bottomed out in 8th place in the East.
Nice catch.
Before I write everything off - please 2x check my logic. First,
here is the "Injuries" post that I referenced;
here is the peachtree hoops article that post references. The pertinent quote is this:
firstplacesox wrote:The findings of this research are revelatory. The Hawks record after Horford went out for the season was 22-31. When fully healthy for the entire season they were 34-14 (.708). When fully healthy after the Horford injury the Hawks went 16-7 (.696). Even more impressively, since January 18 when fully healthy (without Horford) the Hawks were red hot with a record of 15-4 (.789).
Basically, I said that if we were 34-14 over the entire season and 16-7 without Horford, then we were 18-7 with him. As you've pointed out, this is straight impossible since we had 16 Ws when Horford went down.
So, is there something wrong with my logic? Looking over this, I think the error has to be coming from the article, but maybe I'm just not holding my mouth right. (Full disclosure: I'm
really hoping it's me since the numbers in that article actually paint a very rosy picture...)
Jamaaliver wrote:NOTE: That 55% win percentage with AL only projects out to 45 wins. That doesn't take into account that Brooklyn, Washington, Chicago, Toronto all hit their strides after January.
PandaKidd wrote:Im pretty sure we were hovering around .500 all season long, IIRC we held the 3 seed like 2 games over .500?
I swear we were 16/15 when AH went down.
The trick here is the "fully healthy" caveat. I know Korver missed a handful of games before Horford went down and I'd assume that Carroll did too (since Carroll seems to miss a game or 2 every few weeks due to throwing his body around in games with reckless abandon). If we were, hypothetically speaking, 2-6 in the games that another guy in the short rotation missed before Horford went down, then the overall "fully healthy" record would be 14-7.
From the article linked above, we were 1-6 in (post-Horford) games when the
only other player out was either Carroll or Korver and I remember late in the season there being a storyline about how we didn't win a game without Korver (I think we eventually beat DET without him). Hence, I'd assume we showed a similar decline in Win% without a wing but with Horford as well. Now, we're not going to be able to easily cover for Teague or Millsap when they go down (although I'm not sure we'd want to - neither has missed many games over his career), but you'd think we could acquire a solid wing for relatively cheap that could shore us up when an injury hits. Hence, why my comment was that we'd want to get a wing who could give us 3-4 Ws since this would give us a bigger boost in the rankings than someone would otherwise think... Of course, the basis of the entire argument is now in question due to my questioning of the article above.
