The Historically Great Hornets

The Hornets: The Greatest EVER?
Bill Plaschke
L.A. Times

As the season winds down, we have seen what seems to be a race for all other teams to play for second place. In the NBA when we talk about series, usually the better team comes out ahead. With this knowledge, no one on the right side of dementia can possibly think any other team will win the 2005 NBA Championship besides the Hornets. I was recently having a beer with a few friends when this topic came up. It was quickly dismissed, but once we dug deeper there was a lot to it. It is my opinion that this Hornets team is the most dominant NBA team to ever play basketball. Please buckle your seat belts as i explain how I came to this conclusion by looking at the stats.

Shooting:

Shots per game : 89.4
Rank: 2
oShots per game: 84.5
Rank: 16
Summary: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the Hornets play at a fast pace. We will use this number below in FG% to make our point.

FG%: 47.9
Rank 1
Summary: Hornets will shoot more than 5 shot more than you a game AND make a higher percentage than you. You're not winning.

3 Pointers Per game Attempted: 16.9
Rank: 2
o3 AttemptedPointers Per Game Attempted : 10.7
3 Point %: .405
Rank: 2
o3 Point %: .334
Summary. The hornets make on average 3.2 3 pointers more per game than their opponents. Now, having a Center who can shoot the 3, along with 6 players all shooting over 40% from 3 will do this to you. Point? Don't play the 3 point game versus the Hornets, you'll lose, and by a lot.

Tunrovers

Turnovers Per Game: 11.3
Rank: 1
oTunrovers Per game: 13.3
Rank: 20
Summary: Wow the hornets aren't that good at SOMETHING. I'm kidding. Let's look at the FACTS. What really matters is Turnover margin here. Let's face it, if you're forcing your opponent into a ton of turnovers but just giving the ball away left and right, it doesn't really matter does it. Hornets are top 3 in Turnover Margin. Starting to feel like your team has no shot? Good because it'll only go South from here.

Top 5 Turnover Margin:

Warriors 3
Wizards 2.2
Hornets 2
Bucks 1.9
Trail Blazers 1.6

Points:
PPG: 114.6
Rank: 1 (By 10 PPG)
oPPG: 97.9
Margin:
Summary: The hornets historically better than any other team in the real NBA EVER, by A LOT.
Regular Season - margin of victory
Let's take a look at the ALL TIME largest margin for victory throughout a season:

'05 Hornets- 16.7
'72 Lakers - 15.9
'96 Bulls - 15.0
’87 Lakers --14
’64 Celtics – 13.3
'67 Sixers - 13.2
'86 Celtics - 13.0

Top 5 in Sim league Points Margin (If you weren't ready to hand the Hornets the title, you will be after this):
Hornets 16.7
Bucks 7.2
76ers 5.8
Knicks 5.4
Celtics 5.3
I'd also like to file a missing person's report to any team out West in the category.

Rebounds
Rebounds Per Game: 54.2
Rank: 1
oRebounds Per game:47.8
Rank 4
Summary: This is obvious. The Hornets are an elite rebounding team. Now some would say, the Hornets have a faster pace than most so there's more rebounds to be had. Well, to that I answer, the Hornets don't really miss shots. I'm kidding. This is why I looked at rebounding margin, to account for pace. They have the Highest margin in the entire league. So not are you going to take less shots, and make those shots on a lesser rate. The Hornets won't allow you to get offensive rebounds.
Top 5 rebounding Margin:
Hornets 6.4
Celtics 5.5
76ers 5.3
Nets 4.5
Knicks 3.8

Passing:
Assist per game: 27.6
Rank: 1
oAssist per game : 22.2
Rank 4
Summary: Not only are the Hornets the best passing team in the league, they do it with the fewest turnovers in the league, and you know what? they're one of the best at stopping you from passing. Anyone want to guess who has the best margin? Hornets, again by a lot.

Top 5 Assist Margin:
Hornets 5.4
Lakers 3.8
Wizards 3.5
Celtics 3.1
Grizzlies 2.8



What does that mean? The team you root for has no shot at beating the Hornets in a 7 game series. In summary, the Hornets beat every team in almost every phase of the game. Their defense really only has to be average to destroy teams because their offense is just other-worldly great. Not only do they take a ton of shots, but they make more shots than teams who take their time to find the best shots. Not only that, but they rebound better than anyone else in the league (some due to pace) but don't allow you to get second shots. They also don't turn the ball over at all and give you opportunities. Anyone who think they're going to beat them is just fooling themselves. They're 1 loss behind the greatest team that's ever played '96 Bulls. NBA you're on notice, you're all just playing for second place.

Good analysis. Guess we're all just playing for last pla...I mean...second place.

I saw my team's name up there a couple times! Woohoo!

But seriously, I think the first time I beat him was a fluke... last game against him BOTH Marc Jackson AND Rasheed Wallace fouled out at 19mpg. No bueno when my #1 and #3 options down low foul out against the best rebounding team in the league.

A team needs enough firepower just to keep up. Not from the starting lineup but from the bench as well. A strong defensive but average offense won't have have a chance. Also, a team needs to shoot the 3's really well which will help keep the game closer.

I may write a piece on what i think it takes to beat them once the playoffs Start. I haven't done any numbers on that so hard to say right now. I think a huge piece is getting to the free throw stripe.

You have to be able to block shots. I think the Hornets can be slowed down and forced to play in the half court. You will need a beast of a Center to get it done. The Nuggets have swept them this year.

I just take what I'm given as a GM.

The Hornets are a great half court. They slice n dice in the half court. Good ball handlers, great shooters, really good defenders.

I guess I'm dreaming here since you cant look up previous years stats. But I'd love to see analysis of what's changed the first few years they werent very good last year they were great now they are unstoppable.

Well you can't look at the stats as a team ranking but I guess you could come up with something by looking at individual stats for those years...how bored are ya balls?

I think BSH said it well.

My starting 5. Barkley, Peterson, Turkoglu, Garnett, and Okur. Which one of those guys aren't a threat to go for 20 on any night? I'd even say 3 of those guys are 20+ ppg scorers on other teams. And then what do I surround my franchise with? SHOOTERS. Everyone on my team can shoot, even my bigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

I think BSH said it well.

My starting 5. Barkley, Peterson, Turkoglu, Garnett, and Okur. Which one of those guys aren't a threat to go for 20 on any night? I'd even say 3 of those guys are 20+ ppg scorers on other teams. And then what do I surround my franchise with? SHOOTERS. Everyone on my team can shoot, even my bigs.

---

It seemed like you're team made a big jump when you changed your focus to outside (after starting Okur) and went from a faster pace to a slower normal pace. How much did your team improve with those changes?

A lot, I was hovering around .500 before I changed. Ever since then my win percentage is probably out of this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

It seemed like you're team made a big jump when you changed your focus to outside (after starting Okur) and went from a faster pace to a slower normal pace. How much did your team improve with those changes?

---

He shoots the second most shot in the game. His pace is probably fast I'd guess .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

He shoots the second most shot in the game. His pace is probably fast I'd guess .

---

I don't think it is. I remember it was slow last year and normal this year. I think he gets alot of shots because of rebounding.

I'm a mix of normal and fast pace this year. I was slow last season though.

I think being able to play with the Hornets comes down to a few things:
-Making him as inefficient as he can be. That means having defenders in all 5 spots.
-Win the Turnover battle. you lose this, you're toast. They're not going to do you any favors and turn it over. They shoot better than anyone in the league. More Turnovers= More Shots. More shots at the highest shooting %= More points. More points= Loss. Although last sim it seems like he moved from a Fast to a Normal pace which is working well. Out of their 11 losses... 9 came when they lost the TO battle 1 when they tied the turnover battle. 1 loss came when they won the turnover battle.
-Have to have an insider scorer.

I think being able to play with the Hornets comes down to a few things:
-Making him as inefficient as he can be. That means having defenders in all 5 spots.
-Win the Turnover battle. you lose this, you're toast. They're not going to do you any favors and turn it over. They shoot better than anyone in the league. More Turnovers= More Shots. More shots at the highest shooting %= More points. More points= Loss. Although last sim it seems like he moved from a Fast to a Normal pace which is working well. Out of their 11 losses... 9 came when they lost the TO battle 1 when they tied the turnover battle. 1 loss came when they won the turnover battle.
-Have to have an insider scorer.

So since we are talking strategy here, what is the best gameplan to create turnovers.

My team actually created the most when I played slow and never trapped or pressed. That was also when I gave up the fewest. I'm sure it differs for every team, but I have run multiple variations this season to get a reading on how my team plays in each and that was the best set for turnover ratio.

It depends on the players. Some players create turnovers well. I'm top 5 in the league in steals and creating turnovers and I've used normal/sometimes and often/normal this season. I've gone down some since Manu was injured since he's great at getting steals. I think alot of trapping/pressing has to do with whether a team can defend in the halfcourt. Teams that defend well man to man shouldn't have to press or trap as much compared to teams that don't defend well.

I know its just one game but my last tj me out vs them I lost by 20 but I'd say I have an elite defense (2nd in terms of points allowed) elite rebounding team (2nd highest margin that balls pointed out) dominating inside scorer in Webber in my last game vs hornets I tied the to battle got to the line 30 (THIRTY!!!) more times than them but got outrebounded by 14 and out shot by 35. KG fouled out early the only thing I can remotely think of is they are absolute monsters on offensive glass which is something we have no way to track. All of his players can go for 20 on a night because they get the amount of shots necessary. Me for example Webber is getting 20 then either BD jones Childress or Ostertag might depending on who gets enough shots but never do 2 or 3 of them.

What's your pace hornetsfan

Normal

Welp this was mildly depressing

The way I understand it is slower pace will put the ball in the hands if your scoring options more. The less scorers, the slower the pace needs to be and the more shots the scoring options will take , but the team as an overall will take less because they're trying to get the best shot overall (which is defined by you having scoring options).

Meanwhile, if you have a ton of guys that can score, you want more shots to be hoisted up. You'll get more shots more evenly distributed when they get them earlier in the shot clock. I think very fast gets up like 105-110 shots, normal is 83-87ish and slow is like mid 70s. The faster your pace is the more shots other teams will get. The slower the less shots they get respective if their pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoCo89

Welp this was mildly depressing

---

I was trying to get my mind right for the playoffs when I lose lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

The way I understand it is slower pace will put the ball in the hands if your scoring options more. The less scorers, the slower the pace needs to be and the more shots the scoring options will take , but the team as an overall will take less because they're trying to get the best shot overall (which is defined by you having scoring options).

Meanwhile, if you have a ton of guys that can score, you want more shots to be hoisted up. You'll get more shots more evenly distributed when they get them earlier in the shot clock. I think very fast gets up like 105-110 shots, normal is 83-87ish and slow is like mid 70s. The faster your pace is the more shots other teams will get. The slower the less shots they get respective if their pace.

---

I always assume its the opposite. If you have one reliable scorer, you want to go to a faster pace so that scorer will get his shots off more quickly instead of having the ball spread around. Also, a team that handles the ball poorly or not good passing, will want to go at a faster pace to get their shots off quickly. A team with many scorer or that handles the ball well will want to go at a slower pace to spread the ball around and get good shots for everyone.

Iverson is averaging the second most shots a game as very slow or slow, so I highly doubt that's right.

If you have more shooters you want to go a faster pace to get everyone more shots. If You only have one or two guys you want to slow it down to find them the right shots.

Grant Hill is one of the best scoters in the game and he preferred a slow pace. I just couldn't run one with him because Sheed Then became a liability in the half court.

I think pace has little to do with scoring and more to do with ball-handling. The only reason I run a fast pace is because I have terrible ball-handlers across the board from center to point guard. Even with Manu out, my offense has been strong at a fast pace. It would struggle terribly if I went at normal or slow paced.

It's directly reflective on shots taken. Don't think you're right.

Going at a slow pace means more half court offense so if a team is poor at handling the ball, there won't be good shots in a half court set.

I think it has to do with turnovers as well, but it's definitely got a lot to do with shots being taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

It's directly reflective on shots taken. Don't think you're right.

---

Well of course a faster paced team will take more shots, but if a team is poor at handling/passing the ball, it will struggle scoring in a half court set because guys won't get good shots. A poor ball-handling team will turn the ball over alot in a half-court setting.

So with that being said why would it have less to do with scoring ? You just said it did.

Also its easier to defend a team with just one or two scorers in half court set. A slower paced offense will allow teams to defend easier against the main scorer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

So with that being said why would it have less to do with scoring ? You just said it did.

---

It has less to do with scoring compared to ball-handling. Scoring is involved, but pace effects ball-handling more. At least from my experience.

We will agree to disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

We will agree to disagree?

---

Sure that's fine.

Slower the pace you run later into the shot clock you take a shot. Faster the pace you take shots earlier in the shot clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

Slower the pace you run later into the shot clock you take a shot. Faster the pace you take shots earlier in the shot clock.

---

Yes, that's exactly right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

Slower the pace you run later into the shot clock you take a shot. Faster the pace you take shots earlier in the shot clock.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

Yes, that's exactly right.

---

That's really obvious Lol, but we're talking about the residual effects of taking the shot earlier versus later in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

That's really obvious Lol, but we're talking about the residual effects of taking the shot earlier versus later in the game.

---

My take is a team that shoots early in the shot clock will have less ball movement and allow the top scoring option to shoot early while shooting later in the shot clock means more ball movement. So a poor ball handling team will do better shooting early in the shot clock while a good ball handling team will thrive better in a slower pace. Now how does that affect the scorers? Slower pace will allow more guys to touch the ball in a possession and also defenses will be able to focus on the top scorer more. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.