Hope continues to fade: Hawks 96 – Bucks 86
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010Before the series, I assumed the Bucks would be down two games to zero after the first two in Atlanta. Many targeted game three as the Bucks best opportunity to steal one from the Hawks.
Now I’m closer than ever to believing the Bucks will be swept.
Feelings of optimism reigned after a hard fought second half in game one. It appeared the Bucks may have put a few things together and had a strategy for how to attack and at least slow down the Hawks. Few of those things were on display for more than a few minutes at a time on Tuesday night. For Milwaukee, Tuesday’s loss in Atlanta had to seem like a loud and clear message from the opposition. That message?
We’re more talented than you across the board and we’re going to continue to exploit every advantage we have, regardless of how you attempt to counter it.
It’s fun to see a coach pull counter moves and try and out strategize the other team. But the thing about the Hawks is that, regardless of what strategies the Bucks want to try, they aren’t the ones that will need to adjust. The Hawks are ready for everything the Bucks throw at them and can swap the same seven guys in and out. Atlanta constantly forces Milwaukee to adapt, try new things and attempt to match up. Atlanta has controlled six or seven of the eight quarters this series has seen. When they’ve had momentary lapses, they’ve made sure they were just momentary. Regardless of what moves Coach Scott Skiles wants to make, the Hawks have been in control.
A lot of this starts with Josh Smith. Smith has been everywhere the last two games. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear the Hawks had two guys named Smith, both of whom were ridiculously athletic. He’s grabbing offensive rebounds (five on Tuesday), blocking shots while getting steals (four combined Tuesday), finding teammates for baskets (nine assists) and dunking. He’s doing lots of dunking. I haven’t seen someone dunking this much in a game in years. So. Much. Dunking. What’s been the worst thing about Smith, is how he’s gotten all these dunks.
- Fast breaks
The Hawks are constantly looking to run on Milwaukee. They’re running on turnovers, they’re running on misses and they’re running on makes. Atlanta’s motto seems to be: never stop running. But they aren’t doing it irresponsibly, mind you. They’re in control the whole time. If there isn’t an easy shot, Atlanta is pulling it back out. But they are at least exploring the opportunity to see if there is something they can get easy. The fast breaks that have come off Milwaukee turnovers have been especially effective.
Atlanta spent the majority of game two trapping the Bucks ball handlers on the pick and roll. If Milwaukee wanted to run a pick and roll, Atlanta was going to force a long pass. Atlanta was rotating defenders to make the pass to the open man a lengthy pass. Once they created a lengthy pass, they often intercepted it once Milwaukee threw it. Those interceptions create fast breaks and easy dunks. Often, Atlanta is able to completely abandon Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, freeing Josh Smith to roam around in the half court and make plays. It’s hard for the Bucks to counter this, as Mbah a Moute is their worst offensive player and can’t really hit a jump shot or create.
- Offensive rebounds
Milwaukee is allowing 10.5 offensive rebounds per game against the Hawks, after allowing an average of just 9.6 a night in the regular season. That may sound like just one more opportunity, but that doesn’t quite paint a vivid enough picture. Atlanta converted on six scoring opportunities on 10 offensive rebounds on Tuesday night. The Hawks size and strength advantages inside create easy opportunities on their offensive rebounds. Milwaukee has a hard enough time defending them, giving them second chances is almost assuring them of a basket.
Milwaukee is doing a great job of beating themselves, something Atlanta is already more than capable of.
Now the Bucks have lost two games, by only 10 points each, which really isn’t a lot of points. Yes, there was a little bit of garbage time in each game, but it worked in Milwaukee’s favor once and against them once when reflected in the final score. So is there anything else (aside from cutting down turnovers that lead to fast breaks and limiting Josh Smith’s offensive rebounds) the Bucks can do to beat the Hawks?
There is, and it’s not that complicated.
Hit some threes.
For all the things that have gone wrong for Milwaukee in these last two games, the most baffling has been their complete inability to hit a three. After hitting 35.6% of their threes in the regular season, the Bucks have hit just 10 threes on 44 attempts in the post season (22.7%).
It’s not hard to imagine one or both of these games turning out a little different had the Bucks hit more threes. Tuesday, Milwaukee finished 4-24 on threes. They weren’t all bad shots either, Milwaukee was indiscriminately missing on wide open threes as often as they were contested ones. I’d love to say I have an explanation for this sudden inability to connect from deep, but I don’t. I could see Carlos Delfino’s current 0-5 effort on threes and 5-16 on all attempts being written off to aftereffects from the injury he suffered a few weeks ago, but it’s difficult to see any other Bucks player with a valid excuse.
They just aren’t making their shots.
Fortunately, the lack of reasons why could be a sign that things will eventually even out. Perhaps the Bucks will come out firing once they get back home and keep it going throughout the rest of the series. Playoff jitters likely aren’t a factor, but maybe coming back home with a couple games under their belts will improve the Bucks ability to hit threes. If that isn’t the answer, then we could have a long two games in Milwaukee followed by a considerable gap until the Bucks next game: next season.
Game 81 Preview: Bucks vs. Hawks
Monday, April 12th, 2010Milwaukee Bucks (Scott Skiles) 45-35
vs.
Atlanta Hawks (Mike Woodson) 51-29
Date: 4/12/2010
Time: 7:00 (CST)
TV: FS Wisconsin
Matchups
Point Guard
Brandon Jennings vs. Mike Bibby
We’ve seen all of these before. I wouldn’t expect much to change across the 1-3 spots. The Hawks will still probably use more Jamal Crawford than Mike Bibby and Joe Johnson will still get his share of time covering Jennings. If Milwaukee could find a way to get Jennings some positive momentum against the Hawks just in case these teams meet in the playoffs, that would be a delight. That could mean playing Jennings and Ridnour together some more. Of course, that creates quite a defensive mismatch for the Bucks. This is just one of the many reasons I’d rather see Milwaukee play Boston in round one.
Advantage: Bucks (more…)
Game 74 Preview: Bucks at Cavs
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010Milwaukee Bucks (Scott Skiles) 41-32
At
Cleveland Cavaliers (Mike Brown) 58-16
Date: March 31st, 2010
Time: 6:00 PM (CST)
TV: FS Wisconsin
Matchups
Point Guard
Brandon Jennings vs. Mo Williams
Williams struggled mightily in the Cavs trip to Milwaukee in early March, scoring just seven points while shooting 3-17 from the field. Even worse, he was dealing with a hot shooting and especially lippy version of Brandon Jennings. Jennings, sporting a red Mohawk that had Lebron James calling him “The Rooster” torched the Cavs for 25 points and many more than 25 words for the Cavs typically chipper bench. There was no dancing from Cleveland on that dark day in Milwaukee. But Williams and the Cavs will surely be looking for some redemption, largely at Jennings expense Wednesday night. Whether or not Jennings will be ready to back up the chatter from his last performance will be an interesting subplot.
Advantage: Cavaliers (more…)
Five Questions with Dave Berri
Monday, March 29th, 2010Recently, I had the chance to exchange emails with noted basketball analyst Dave Berri. Berri was one of few analysts who saw potential in the Bucks at the start of the season, pegging them to finish sixth in the East. Berri’s new book, Stumbling On Wins, is available on Amazon.com now and will be in stores soon.
The Milwaukee Bucks in 2009-10
After 71 games (team has won 39 games)
WP48 = Wins Produced per 48 minutes
Data taken from Basketball-Reference.com
Return to The Wages of Wins Journal
| Milwaukee Bucks | Minutes | Wins Produced 2009-10 | WP48 | Wins Produced 2008-09 | WP48** | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Bogut | 2072 | 9.8 | 0.226 | 8.8 | 0.204 | 1 |
| Carlos Delfino*** | 2012 | 7.3 | 0.173 | 5.9 | 0.142 | 1.3 |
| Ersan Ilyasova*** | 1618 | 5.5 | 0.163 | -2.2 | -0.066 | 7.7 |
| Luc Mbah a Moute | 1643 | 4.7 | 0.138 | 4.9 | 0.142 | -0.1 |
| Luke Ridnour | 1513 | 4.3 | 0.137 | 3.3 | 0.106 | 1 |
| Brandon Jennings* | 2335 | 3.1 | 0.064 | 3.1 | 0.064 | 0 |
| John Salmons | 715 | 1.6 | 0.108 | 1.6 | 0.107 | 0 |
| Hakim Warrick | 1024 | 1.4 | 0.064 | 1.7 | 0.082 | -0.4 |
| Charlie Bell | 1485 | 0.7 | 0.023 | 1.1 | 0.037 | -0.4 |
| Jodie Meeks* | 486 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0 |
| Jerry Stackhouse*** | 616 | 0.5 | 0.039 | 0.7 | 0.051 | -0.2 |
| Kurt Thomas | 775 | 0.4 | 0.024 | 2.3 | 0.143 | -1.9 |
| Roko Ukic | 97 | 0 | 0.022 | -0.1 | -0.051 | 0.1 |
| Primoz Brezec*** | 43 | -0.1 | -0.145 | -0.2 | -0.227 | 0.1 |
| Michael Redd | 492 | -0.1 | -0.014 | 1 | 0.098 | -1.1 |
| Francisco Elson | 62 | -0.2 | -0.123 | 0 | 0.011 | -0.2 |
| Royal Ivey | 70 | -0.3 | -0.211 | -0.1 | -0.037 | -0.3 |
| Dan Gadzuric | 232 | -0.3 | -0.067 | 0.2 | 0.039 | -0.5 |
| Summation | 38.7 | 32.6 | 6.1 |
* – Player is either a rookie, or has limited (recent) NBA history, so 08-09 numbers are the same as 09-10
**- WP48 from 2008-09 is calculated relative to position played in 2009-10
*** – 2008-09 numbers listed for Delfino, Stackhouse, and Brezec come from 2007-08. Ilyasova’s 2008-09 numbers come from 2006-07
Obviously the Bucks have been the surprise story all year, but you pegged them much higher than most before the season, what did you see differently then and what are you seeing now?
My answer begins with the data (which hopefully is not a surprise). The table presents two perspectives on the players employed by Milwaukee this year. The first view is the productivity of Milwaukee’s players – measured via Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] – this season. We also see how the team would look if we assume that what the players did last year (or in their most recent NBA season) would be seen again this season.
The first view (columns 3-4) says the Bucks should have won 38.7 games this season (as of Friday night). Had these players maintained what they did last year, though, the team would have expected – as of Friday night — to win 32.6 games (columns 5-6). The only real difference is the play of Ersan Ilyasova. Back in 2006-07, Ilyasova played very poorly in 973 minutes at the age of 19. Now that he is 22 he has become a very productive player.
If we knew Ilyasova was going to play this well, then we would have suspected the Bucks – even with the injury to Michael Redd – would have been an above average team this year. Even without knowing about Ilyasova, though, we still would have suspected the Bucks were better than the media projected.
Remember, the experts at ESPN.com expected the Bucks to rank 14th out of 15 Eastern Conference teams before the season started. But Milwaukee had the following above average players on their roster (above average based on past performance): Andrew Bogut, Carlos Delfino (he has generally been a very good NBA player), Luc Mbah a Moute, and Luke Ridnour. With four above average players it seemed unlikely – as I noted last September (see the post below) – that this team would be awful.
Revising Expectations Upwards in Milwaukee « The Wages of Wins Journal
To understand why the media’s projection was incorrect we need to understand that scoring tends to dominate the standard evaluation of NBA players. The most productive players on the Bucks, though, are not scorers. Consequently, we should not be surprised that this team was under-estimated. (more…)
Bucks Know Who To Go To: Bucks 98 – Hawks 95
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010When Joe Johnson started putting it down in the fourth quarter, four straight buckets from 11-feet and in with none of them being very challenging for him and a different defender failing in each attempt to stop him, it felt like the same story as the last Hawks-Bucks game. Atlanta had a superstar and he’d carry them past the Bucks, who were playing them even otherwise. I wrote after the last game, “The difference between (John) Salmons and Joe Johnson was vivid in overtime…this is why teams are lining up to try and get a star this off-season, they want guys who can make the plays Johnson was making at the end of the game.”
To me, it seemed clear that having Johnson gave the Hawks an edge in late game situations. The Hawks had a go-to-guy and the Bucks didn’t.
And then all of a sudden John Salmons morphed into a go-to-guy before my very eyes.
He’d hit some big shots before, notably against Detroit, Sacramento and Denver, and Salmons has carried the Bucks offense for large stretches ever since he’s arrived, but he really outdid himself with his effort Monday night. Salmons answered four consecutive scores by Johnson from the 10:03 to 8:30 in the fourth quarter with five straight of his own over (roughly) the next minute and a half. Johnson had kept the Hawks up four when Salmons got started, and watched that lead turn into a three-point deficit by the time “The Fish” was done.
But before Salmons could lead the Bucks completely past the Hawks on Monday night, he and Johnson’s paths would cross again.
After a miss by Luke Ridnour with 33 seconds to go, the Bucks grabbed the offensive rebound and got it back out to Ridnour. Ridnour looked for Salmons just outside the three-point line at the top of the key, but found Johnson glued to him. It looked like Johnson was going to take charge and be the guy who tried to stop the scorching hot Salmons on the last possession of regulation.
But he held him and wouldn’t let go.
The clear foul was called and I was left a little curious. Had the Hawks such a desire for the ball in their hands at the end of the game that they were willing to put Salmons on the line for an easy two points? It sure seemed that way, though Coach Mike Woodson would later say he wasn’t sure what Johnson was thinking. Salmons hit the two shots and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute found a way to bother Joe Johnson enough to make him miss on his final attempt at a tie.
The Bucks had won and, unlike so many times before this year, it had a lot to do with their go-to-guy out-dueling his opponent. “The Fish” is certainly looking like a “Shark”. (more…)

