Atlanta Hawks: How Poor Fit Can Turn Elite Talent Average
How questionable roster fit and placement of elite talent lowered the Atlanta Hawks’ ceiling and limited the team’s production potential
It is arguable that prior to facing the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals, the Cleveland Cavaliers were either untested defensively, or they had significant positional advantages.
The Detroit Pistons were simply lacking in offensive firepower and experience, and their eventual sweep was more or less expected. The Toronto Raptors had inconsistent scoring from their two best players, in Kyle Lowry and Demar Derozan, and little consistent offensive production from everyone else.
The Cavaliers’ series against the Atlanta Hawks, however, is more interesting to look at.
Last year, the Atlanta Hawks were a very good team that ranked 2nd in defensive efficiency, while boasting a roster of multi-dimensional and talented players. The Raptors arguably had two multi-dimensional starters for most of the playoffs, while starting center Jonas Valanciunas was injured, and the Hawks arguably had four.
Al Horford and Paul Millsap made up one of the most skilled frontcourt duos in the league; and All-Stars Jeff Teague and Kyle “I Was An All Star? How?” Korver (though older) are more than capable starting guards, with Kent Bazemore being a decent defensive floor spacer.
They also had a capable bench consisting of up-and-coming point guard Dennis Schroder, along with experienced combo forward Mike Scott, a skilled center in Tiago Splitter (until an injury sidelined him shortly before the playoffs), along with other role players very up to the task of matching up to the production of opposing benches.
They were successful enough against most teams in the NBA last year to win 48 games, while profiling as a tough out in the postseason, but they got soundly beaten by the Cleveland Cavaliers a total of seven times combining regular season and postseason contests (not to mention that the Hawks were also swept by the Cavs in the playoffs in 2014-15).
How does such a balanced roster get so embarrassed by a team that on paper doesn’t have THAT much more on paper talent?
I do not think it is too much of a hot take to say that LeBron James is much more productive than Kent Bazemore, but the other positional matchups are either a wash or could be seen as favoring Atlanta.
Jeff Teague, though not as flashy, can at least somewhat almost match Kyrie Irving, if healthy, and one could easily argue that the tandem of Al Horford and Paul Millsap is better, or at least equal, to the Kevin Love–Tristan Thompson duo in production potential.
Both teams had a similar amount and quality of bench depth. So why did Cleveland dominate?
Analysts often look at teams such as the Atlanta Hawks and claim there isn’t enough “star power” to win, because basketball is a game of “stars”. Jeff Teague, Al Horford and Paul Millsap are good players, but they aren’t “stars” so they can’t win in the playoffs.
Kyrie Irving produced only slightly more points per game than Jeff Teague with fewer assists when allocating for usage and adjusting it per 36 minutes (Kyrie produced 22.5 points and 5.4 assists per game per 36 minutes, while Teague produced 19.8 points and 7.5 assists per game per 36 minutes), but Kyrie has “star power” so he will always be much better in the playoffs than Jeff Teague ever will be.
Al Horford and Paul Millsap don’t have aesthetically pleasing styles so they do not count as stars and cannot be relied upon to win under the brightest lights. Personally, I find that to be an idiotic oversimplification.
In turn, I will offer my own oversimplification: basketball is a game of matching production and positional advantages. On paper, the Cavaliers and Hawks were closely matched up with every position except for with the small forward. However, to put it lightly, LeBron James had just a slight advantage over Kent Bazemore.
This advantage was kind of a deal breaker for the Atlanta Hawks.
Next: The Big Advantage