Game the Sixth: Opportunity Knocks
Friday, April 30th, 2010Milwaukee Bucks (Scott Skiles) 3-2
vs.
Atlanta Hawks (Mike Woodson) 2-3
Date: 4/30/2010
Time: 6:00 (CST)
TV: ESPN & FS Wisconsin
The Breakdown
By game six in a seven game playoff series, there are no secrets any more. Both teams know what their opponent wants to do, both teams know what their own teams must do to win. By game six, it simply comes down to which team’s will is stronger, who’s better at imposing their game on the opponent. Typically it’s a no-brainer in my mind that this is where talent comes out on top.
But it’s not that simple anymore.
Milwaukee has so blurred the lines of talent in this series, that I’m not sure we can truly measure the more talented team. The common perception thus far has been this series has been more Atlanta blowing it than Milwaukee taking it. I’m not buying that. Milwaukee isn’t a pretty team and they don’t have great offensive statistics, but what happened to that old axiom that defense and rebounding win when it slows down in the playoffs. Have we all forgotten that?
This series has been a testament to the difficulty we have in measuring defensive abilities and hustle. When Milwaukee holds Atlanta to at the rim shooting percentages of 48%, 41% and 58%, all under their season average of 63%, it still is spun more as Hawks missing layups rather than Milwaukee challenging them. Something changed after the first two games in this series and Milwaukee imposed their will on Atlanta.
So while we’ve seen all kinds of statistical advances over the last few years, we’re still not quite there yet. We can’t accurately measure each aspect of every game. Sometimes, you just have to see it to believe it. If you’ve watched the last three games of this series, I have a hard time you can honestly believe the Hawks are the superior team. 82 games worth of regular season data may indicate otherwise, but the playoffs are a different animal.
An animal the Bucks could tame this evening. (more…)
Progress is supposed to be a slow process: Bucks 91 – Hawks 87
Thursday, April 29th, 2010Isn’t it funny how a matter of moments can alter the perception of one shot?
Along with many others that joined me on Wednesday evening’s Daily Dime Live, I thought Josh Smith had finished off the Bucks with just over four minutes to go Wednesday night. Smith faded a little bit from the top of the key and drilled a long perimeter shot that I’d been very enthused about from the moment it left his hand until the second I realized it dropped through the bottom of the net. Josh Smith simply isn’t supposed to hit those shots. One of those consensuses that form when this kind of things happens quickly formed. You know what I mean, where everyone collectively says, “Well, if he’s hitting those kinds of shots, the Bucks are doomed.”
A few voices did manage to get their dissenting thoughts out there though. Perhaps it would be a good thing for the Bucks that Smith hit a long shot. It may persuade him to try hitting another unlikely jumper later. I just didn’t feel there was enough time for any of that to matter though. The Bucks were down more possessions than there were minutes left on the clock, that’s never a recipe for success.
Then John Salmons put together five points in less than 48 seconds and the lead was down to four. The shot still lingered in the back of my mind, but it remained buried since Joe Johnson would very likely be the guy with the ball in his hands for Atlanta as this game wound down.
Except he didn’t get the ball, because he committed two fouls in the next 29 seconds and was relegated to cheerleader duty for the rest of the contest. Sandwiched between those Johnson fouls were three more Milwaukee free throws and suddenly the Bucks had the ball down only a point.
After Ersan Ilyasova caught a pass and scored over Smith in the lane to give the Bucks a one point lead with just under two minutes to go, the Bucks had the lead and the Hawks didn’t even have a leader. Where would they turn?
Well it’s a funny thing that happened. Maybe that shot that I had previously assumed finished off the Bucks was still fresh in Smith’s memory, or maybe it wasn’t, either way Smith took another shot that he had no business taking, a three with eight seconds left on the shot clock. Smith predictably missed and Al Horford rushed a shot attempt after controlling the offensive rebound. The Hawks were rattled. The Bucks were rolling and wouldn’t look back.
When it was all said and done, Milwaukee went on a 14-0 run after that Josh Smith jump-shot that worried me so. The very shot that I thought may have ended the Bucks season has them on the brink of an upset in round one. (more…)
A Whole New Series: Bucks 111 – Hawks 104
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
Check out the reaction by the Bucks bench. Priceless.
If it hadn’t been done before, and it’s probably foolish that it wasn’t, the word “can’t” was officially removed from the dictionary on the Milwaukee Bucks 2009-10 season. It’s uses were once prevalent. Milwaukee can’t get to the line. They can’t score inside without Andrew Bogut. Brandon Jennings can’t finish. The Bucks can’t hang with the Hawks in the playoffs.
Can’t, can’t, can’t, can’t. These Bucks seem to know not of this word. Every time the rest of the world decides they aren’t capable of doing something, they go on and do it anyway. Milwaukee shot 32 free throws Monday night. They outscored the Hawks in the paint 44-26. Jennings was 9-16 from the field and didn’t hit a 3-pointer.
And the Bucks tied up their first round series with the Hawks at two.
In front of a raucous crowd with only a few pockets of empty seats in a sold out Bradley Center, the Bucks squeezed every last drop of effort out of 10 different players and played as close to flawless a game as they have without Bogut. The Bucks, a team once known for their selfishness on the court and corrosive chemistry off of it, relied on the formula that’s been working for them all season: above average ball movement and a sense of togetherness I haven’t seen in Milwaukee.
Asked about this being one of those games the old Bucks used to lose, Jerry Stackhouse had a very appropriate answer after the game:
I don’t know any of them old Bucks teams.
Can’t? Not these Bucks, not yet. (more…)
Finding Salvation in Game One: Hawks 102 – Bucks 92
Sunday, April 18th, 2010So he’s still got it.
Good to know. Now if everyone else on the Bucks can get it together, this might be a very different series than the masses (I’m raising my hand especially high on this) expected.
It’s fitting that Brandon Jennings donned the cape in game one of the Bucks playoff series. After all, at the start of the season, he was the unknown variable. Coaches and teammates raved about his work in practice, but the pre-season didn’t indicate he’d be too significant a factor. Then he exploded in his first month and everyone was on notice. After that, the peaks were rare and the valleys steep, but Jennings would still show occasional spark. Milwaukeeans had pegged him as their big game guy, everyone’s hope down the stretch. Until John Salmons came along. Salmons has been the flavor of the moment since his arrival in the Mil, but in the back of our collective minds, we all know Jennings is the franchise’s future. The hopes and dreams of this franchise rest on Jennings slim shoulders. And for some time, that’s been rocky. Sure, he had the great start, but had we placed a square peg in a round hole? Is the burden of star too much for him to bare? The regular season isn’t the place to find that answer. No, that’s a test reserved for the end of the season, when the pressure is really on.
And Jennings appears to be on his way to passing with flying colors.
35 points (14-25 FG 4-6 3FG 2-4 FT), three rebounds and three assists. Jennings had the largest percentage of his team’s points of any rookie ever making their playoff debut and scored the fourth most points for a rookie in their playoff debut. In short, he turned back the clock to November. About the only things missing was a win.
Which is kind of a big deal.
But, only kind of. Look, I’d like the Bucks to win this series or even just a couple games as much as the next person, but it’s important to look at the bigger picture here. The most important thing about getting to the playoffs this season was so the younger players, namely Jennings, could get the feel for it and even more important, a hunger for more. What would serve as a better motivator this off-season for him and the rest of the younger Bucks players than this taste of the post-season spotlight? Next season, the Bucks should then come back stronger with a group that’s been working and now has post-season experience. By next October, Milwaukee should be ready to strive to surpass the semi-lofty expectations sure to be placed on them next season.
And it all starts here.
So that’s why I can’t put somewhat of a happy face on a performance that, at times, was borderline unwatchable. Virtually everything about the first half was straight out of my worst case scenario booklet for this series.
So it’s a good thing I’m looking ahead. And an even better thing that I think I really have something to look forward to. (more…)
Emailing with the Enemy
Thursday, April 15th, 2010Hawk watching has not been a big part of my life this basketball season. Obviously my hands are a little bit tied with the Bucks playing as frequently as they are. Fortunately, the TrueHoop Network has got me covered. The Atlanta Hawks have a terrific blogger by the name of Bret Lagree. He and I took the time to exchange emails about the upcoming Bucks-Hawks series. I took a stab at some Hawks things, Bret gave his take on the Bucks and will filled in the gaps where the other wasn’t sure It’s worth a look. Part one is here at Bucksketball and be sure to check out part two at Hoopinion.
*******************************************
Bucksketball: So what’s with Joe Johnson covering Brandon Jennings? Does he frequently guard point guards? I was discussing this with someone at the last game, and with Chris Paul being out this season, I’d argue Johnson is probably the second best defensive point guard the Bucks have had the displeasure of seeing this season.
And why is Al Horford forcing Milwaukee point guards to shoot jump shots? He doesn’t get much national recognition, but he seems like a very good defender.
Hoopinion: Joe’s guarded point guards a lot. Not because he’s especially effective (though he does the best he can to use his length to make up for a relative lack of foot speed) but because the Hawks have used Tyronn Lue and Anthony Johnson and Mike Bibby at point guard alongside him. Backcourt defense is a big issue with this team, to the point that people were reasonably concerned that letting Flip Murray walk would hurt the defense. It hasn’t really (they’re still mediocre defensively), but that’s more to do with Josh Smith being healthy than with Bibby or Jamal Crawford even approaching competence.
In all seriousness, Horford might be the Hawks’ best perimeter defender. He moves his feet really well (this is why he commits so few fouls both in space and in the post) and understands that it’s far better to give up the 18-footer to guards than let them get past him. The downside to this (and the switching defense the Hawks use almost exclusively) is that, while Horford’s doing an admirably job on the perimeter against smaller, quicker players, Bibby or Crawford is forced to try and box out a bigger player once the shot goes up. The inversion of the defenders is the primary reason the Hawks are 24th in the league in DR%.
I think the Hawks would be fine with letting Bibby guard Jennings given Brandon’s struggles inside the arc this year and given the presence of Smith and Horford to complicate matters for him.
Let’s make that my first question for you. What’s up with Jennings making such a low percentage of his two-point attempts? 42.8% at the rim and 41.3% inside 10 feet (per Hoopdata and before last night’s game). Poor shot selection or poor finishing or both?
Bucksketball: Johnson’s length has certainly been an issue for Jennings, who, as you’ve noted, has enough issues of his own.
Speaking as someone who’s seen nearly every game Jennings has played in this season, the best way I can explain his struggles inside is like this: he’s not very good in there (yet).
Sometimes it seems like Jennings is forcing the issue to get inside, maybe he’s reacting to everyone telling him to be more aggressive or maybe he gets tired of missing midrange jumpers, I don’t know. But he’s often driving and trying to get up shots against significantly larger defenders inside and he just doesn’t quite know how to react to them yet. It’s not so much that he’s always getting blocked, it’s just that he’s getting altered frequently. His floater comes and goes throughout games, it’s not consistent. For a consistent floater, I’d direct him (or anyone else) to Luke Ridnour. Ridnour’s got all kinds of floaters and runners that he has been hitting all year.
It’s funny that defense has been such an issue for Atlanta, because you’d never know it from their games against Milwaukee. They’ve been forcing the Bucks to live and die by the jumper, which is often a safe bet for the opposition.
I’m as curious about Jamal Crawford as you are about Jennings though. He’s supposed to be a clutch dynamo. The numbers don’t agree. Is he secretly making Hawks fans pull their hair out more than we know?
Hoopinion: Crawford’s the same player he’s always been. The reason he’s had such a useful season is context. His typical volume of devastating crossovers used only to create space to attempt 20-foot jump shots hasn’t really declined but, playing with good players, he’s been able to augment that with open shots his teammates create for him, especially corner threes that begin with Josh Smith or Joe Johnson drawing a double-team or screen-and-roll with Al Horford.
Since I believe that Kurt Thomas can guard Horford in the post without help and that Thomas is nowhere near as mobile as Bogut, I’d love to see the Hawks run lots of Crawford/Horford screen-and-roll. Do you think that’s a recipe for success for the Hawks?
The underpinning of Atlanta switching every screen is to keep opponents in front of them (as a team) that the individual defenders couldn’t be expected to keep in front of them. This is largely why the Hawks and Heat rarely play a competitive game though neither team dominates the series. If the Hawks just keep the Heat in front of them, Miami’s forced to take shots they would prefer to pass up and the Hawks romp. On the other hand, some night Daequan Cook might make 11 jump shots and the Hawks lack a Plan B defensively and can’t compete with Miami.
I’ve been impressed with Jennings defense on the ball but thought he didn’t pay nearly enough attention to Mike Bibby when Bibby didn’t have the ball Monday night. Agree or disagree? And, if you do agree, is that a weakness typical to his game?
I’d also like to hear your thoughts regarding how Skiles will use Mbah a Moute. I’m a huge admirer of his. I think he can trouble both Josh Smith and Joe Johnson, though, obviously, not at the same time. Who do you think he’ll spend more time matched up against?
*******************************************
