The "big" lineup is key against the Pacers....

[parson]

.... and maybe all the time.

Tonight, the Hawks played Petro and Ivan at Center for more minutes than usual. Horford played more at PF than he has been playing.

The matchups are much better: Smith on George (offensively AND defensively, this is to our advantage) and Horford on West and Hansbrough.

[Jamaaliver]

The big lineup has been an effective one. (Especially when ZAZA was available.) but Indy will adjust to what they saw tonight.

A zone defense with Hibbert in the middle could cause problems with so few 3 point threats on the court.

We REALLY need a center. Horford abuses tiny PFs.

Here's hoping for Pek, Gasol or Jefferson next season.

Also, Josh as SF on offense is not ideal. Let's face it. He usually misses those long 2s.

[GrimeyKidd]

The big lineup has been an effective one. (Especially when ZAZA was available.) but Indy will adjust to what they saw tonight.

A zone defense with Hibbert in the middle could cause problems with so few 3 point threats on the court.

We REALLY need a center. Horford abuses tiny PFs.

Here's hoping for Pek, Gasol or Jefferson next season.

Also, Josh as SF on offense is not ideal. Let's face it. He usually misses those long 2s.

Its the post play from SF that i like

[Jamaaliver]

Its the post play from SF that i like

That aspect is definitely in our favor against P George. He's quick and athletic enough to run all day. But he's not strong enough to stop Smoove n the post.

We have to be ready, though. A zone defense could disrupt that fairly easily.
Devin and Teague have to hit their threes if Indy zones or doubles down on Josh.

Us having only one day off while in ATL is definitely to our advantage. Gives the Pacers less time to make adjustments on the road.

[parson]

When we play a lot of zone, we can give Korver minutes at SG, as well.

If we can play like this with Petro/Ivan, what would we look like with an average Center to make the big lineup possible? An above-average Center?

[azuresou1]

I like the big lineup for this series because it is physically taxing on Paul George to have to bang against Smith defensively, so he's drained on offense.

In general though? I'm not really a fan. That just begs opposing teams to pack the paint, and post ups are not the most efficient possessions in general. I would rather hunt for a premier SG/SF who can make it rain buckets so we can go small-ball-ish.

[parson]

In general though? I'm not really a fan. That just begs opposing teams to pack the paint,

With our 3pt shooting, what's the downside?

[azuresou1]

We have that 3PT shooting because we play Josh at the 4 and Al at the 5, with Korver getting the majority of the starts at the 3. If you go big with Josh/Al/Center, you no longer get the benefit of Korver, unless you start him at the 2, in which case you no longer get the benefit of Harris or Lou Will or whoever is manning the 2.

[MaceCase]

The 3 point shooting hasn't really been there in the postseason and the big lineup was deployed with Teague and Harris as the starters (no starter hit a 3) so Azu is right in that there wasn't any outside shooting. What it did help was defensively considering that the Hawks held the Pacers to 27% (!!!!!!!) shooting from the field. The Hawks weren't great themselves on offense with 43% shooting but when you are holding an opposing team to sub 30% shooting while equaling their FTAs, you don't need to worry too much.

Both Kyle and Tolliver (who hit the only 3s for the Hawks) were also mostly in the game with small lineups http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gamef ... ame=INDATL so it is hard to dismiss the inherent issues with going bigger. If the Pacers can't adjust and counter it then great but it's hard to say that you could expect such a tremendous defensive effort as the norm from this team and up against different teams that weren't sporting the 20th best offense throughout the regular season.

[parson]

We have that 3PT shooting because we play Josh at the 4 and Al at the 5, with Korver getting the majority of the starts at the 3. If you go big with Josh/Al/Center, you no longer get the benefit of Korver, unless you start him at the 2, in which case you no longer get the benefit of Harris or Lou Will or whoever is manning the 2.

I'll quibble a little bit: Stevenson (20.7), Harris (24.5), Jenkins (14.8), Korver (30.5) and Lou Williams (28.7) played just under 120 min/game this year. 2 positions (SF and SG) take 96 min/game. With Korver and Stevenson playing some 3 and Harris and Lou Williams playing some at 1, we'd only have to cut their minutes slightly. That's assuming we keep Harris and Stevenson. Harris may be so popular in free agency that he becomes too expensive to keep and we may decide to drop Stevenson.

[Jamaaliver]

I like the big lineup for this series because it is physically taxing on Paul George to have to bang against Smith defensively, so he's drained on offense.

Agreed.

post ups are not the most efficient possessions in general.

Umm...disagreed. A strong post game in basketball is like a strong running game in football. I can't think of a more efficient shot. Fewest turnovers, high % shots, opens up 3-pt shooters and cutters for passing, draws fouls and FTAs.

There are fewer post scorers than ever before. And even fewer strong post defenders.

ON pretty much any level, post ups are the best possible shot. Particularly when the shooter is 7ft tall.

[azuresou1]

Stats would indicate otherwise. The most efficient possessions are getting open layups, then drawing FTs, then getting open 3s.

Look at teams with strong post play but little else: Utah, Memphis. They sit at 10th and 17th in ORTG, respectively. Compare that to teams that play small ball, like NY and Denver, who are 3rd and 5th. Note that I deliberately excluded OKC and Miami who largely play small-ball, because of LeBron/Druant/Westbrook/Wade.

[Jamaaliver]

Stats would indicate otherwise. The most efficient possessions are getting open layups, then drawing FTs, then getting open 3s.

Look at teams with strong post play but little else: Utah, Memphis. They sit at 10th and 17th in ORTG, respectively. Compare that to teams that play small ball, like NY and Denver, who are 3rd and 5th. Note that I deliberately excluded OKC and Miami who largely play small-ball, because of LeBron/Druant/Westbrook/Wade.

Three point shots are more efficient than post ups (and subsequent shots in the paint)?!?
Did Josh Smith tell you this?

I think that might be taking into account that 3s are worth more. But on every level, throughout the history of basketball, tall people shooting layups over other tall people in the paint hit those shots at a significantly higher percentage.

It's why even marginally talented big men can hover around 50%. While good shooters from distance are lucky to shoot in the 40s.

Yes. Every level of basketball. In every country. In the history of the world. I'm willing to go that far.

[Jamaaliver]

Drew said he expects the Pacers to make an adjustment, perhaps sending another defender over to help George. Drew and Smith both said they will be ready for the help defense.

[azuresou1]

Stats and basic math tell me that 3s are more efficient than post ups. Josh Smith would be a much better player if he took more 3s and fewer long 2s.

You're fixating on FG%, which is a bad stat. Josh Smith has a higher FG% than Steph Curry (46.5% vs. 45.1%). That doesn't mean anything though, because Curry makes 3.5 3PTs and 3.4 FTs a game, compared to Josh at 0.8 and 2.2, respectively. As a result, Josh barely cracks .501 TS%, while Curry has an elite .589 TS%.

Mathematically, this past season there is a correlation coefficient of .629 between ORTG and 3PTM, and .544 between ORTG and FTM. Compare this to a NEGATIVE correlation of -0.100 between 2PTM and ORTG, which would be the vast majority of your post play success.

[azuresou1]

Note that the reason we managed to be 18th in ORTG despite being 28th in FTM is because we were 5th in 3PTM. Starting Josh Smith at the 3 is going to greatly reduce the number of 3's we take and make, and depending on the C we sign we might still suck in FTM.

That might turn us into literally the worst offense in the league.

[Jamaaliver]

I have no idea what any of that means. But trust me: a 7-footer standing in front of the hoop has a better chance of putting the ball in the hoop.

The further away you are from the hoop, hole, goal, uprights, the harder it is to get the ball in. In every sport.

If we need a bucket, Josh shoots 60% from the painted area. And 35% from 3-pt range.

Josh is likely to score from the post. Josh is likely to miss the farther he is away from the hoop. That's true of most ball players at any level.

[azuresou1]

Let's ignore Josh for now because he's actually elite at the rim but garbage everywhere else.

Yes, Marc Gasol is more likely to score a basket on a postup than Steph Curry is to hit a 3. But guess what? Because a 3 is worth 3 points and a postup is only worth 2, Steph Curry will produce MORE expected points on a given shot attempt than Marc Gasol will inside. Scoring less at a more frequent rate is worse than scoring more at a lower rate when it comes to threes.

And that's just at a player standpoint. When you expand this to a team standpoint, you get the added benefit of floor spacing, which allows bigger slashing lanes, more space for when you DO choose to post up, etc.

[Jamaaliver]

I understand what you're getting at now.

But if we need one basket, AL shooting 60% from the paint is more likely to score than Korver shooting a fantastic 45% from three. (Even at a blistering 45%, Kyle misses most of his 3 point attempts.)

I think, though, we might be quibbling over each other's definition of the word 'efficient'. So I will respectfully agree to disagree.

[Years80HAWKS]

I love the big lineup and it is a pity that the bad coach we had realized about this two games later than the rest of us.
At least against the Pacers it is much better to use this 5, not just because Petro can slow down Hibbert, but because Horford, firstly, is more rested because has not to defend a 260-pound center, and secondly, is usually heavier than the opposing PF.

Then Smith can play the 3 and score inside, create problems and forces the other team to adjust. Which they can do today with help in defense, but I am sure Smith will be able to pass the ball, as he is a very good passer.

There is also another thing you did not mention: Smith, being left-handed, is really difficult to defend as he embraces the ball, spins to the side you do not expect him to, and scores easily, and in a very demoralizing way.

Then Korver can quickly get out of the bench: we need to rest one of our point-guards, as we have only to, and LD likes to play them together.

Why did we sing a player like D. Jones, if what we really needed was another guard? Why we have Jenkins, who can shoot, if he does not play? Why we have a good post-scorer as Scott, if he does not play even
when we are up 20?