RealGM

We're being outscored on the season (by 4) and the biggest predictor of W-L is O/D efficiency. I think we could definitely add a lower volume SG who can shoot the 3 (thus scoring at higher efficiency) that defends his man better than Ellis while also giving more shots to guys like Dunleavy, Harris, Ilyasova. In short, I think we could improve on both ends to be honest. This team is playing .500 ball almost across the board with every metric you can find right now. I don't think that is their ceiling given the defensive talent they have in the frontcourt. An efficient 15 ppg scorer that can defend definitely improves the team.

LUKE23 wrote:We're being outscored on the season (by 4) and the biggest predictor of W-L is O/D efficiency. I think we could definitely add a lower volume SG who can shoot the 3 (thus scoring at higher efficiency) that defends his man better than Ellis while also giving more shots to guys like Dunleavy, Harris, Ilyasova. In short, I think we could improve on both ends to be honest. This team is playing .500 ball almost across the board with every metric you can find right now. I don't think that is their ceiling given the defensive talent they have in the frontcourt. An efficient 15 ppg scorer that can defend definitely improves the team.

Okay so you say if J.J. Redick was our SG instead of Monta we would be better than 11-9? I'm not so sure but my optimism is placed on Monta staying down around 17-18 shots and continuing getting to the line. If he goes back to the early season Monta I'll retract what I said.

I don't know that we're better or worse than 11-9 as of today but we end up with a better record for the season with Redick over Ellis yes.

vlietinho wrote:He did show improvement over the last couple of games though.

In the 2010-2011 season he was a 45% fg shooter and 36% from 3 and 53.6 TS.

This year he's shooting 39% fg and 22% from 3 with a 48% TS.

The question is can he get back to his 2010-11 numbers? If he did, he'd have a shot at being a lot more meaningful player to the Bucks and people who like aspects of his game would have an easier time defending him.

But Woelfel has been touting his agenda that this is part of a permanent decline. He could be right. Not sure.

But Woelfel has been touting his agenda that this is part of a permanent decline. He could be right. Not sure.

Wonder if Woelfel will ever change his twitter main page.

LUKE23 wrote:We're being outscored on the season (by 4) and the biggest predictor of W-L is O/D efficiency. I think we could definitely add a lower volume SG who can shoot the 3 (thus scoring at higher efficiency) that defends his man better than Ellis while also giving more shots to guys like Dunleavy, Harris, Ilyasova. In short, I think we could improve on both ends to be honest. This team is playing .500 ball almost across the board with every metric you can find right now. I don't think that is their ceiling given the defensive talent they have in the frontcourt. An efficient 15 ppg scorer that can defend definitely improves the team.

I really doubt we are trading Ellis and it's looking more and more that he's going to be forced to opt in (or take a paycut to leave), so how do we improve things with Ellis still on the team? Why not try to add a guy like Courtney Lee? He is the second best corner 3 shooter in the league http://courtvisionanalytics.com/the-cor ... f-the-nba/ a good defender, and on a reasonable contract thru age 30. If we can get him for the low price of say Dalembert, why not? Continue to start Ellis (so he is still looked at as a "starter") but send him to the bench early, like we did last season, so he can come in and have more of an offensive advantage against second units and be less of a disadvantage defensively.

I would add this to the equation, for all monta's inefficiencies he does create opportunities for our defensive minded big men. He really seems to be in constant motion and the best set ups come from him, they just do. Replacing him with a Wes Mathews type looks great from the efficiency standpoint obviously and defensively most people you plug in there will help, but I wonder just how effective you can be playing say a Udoh/Sanders/Moute front court if Jennings is the only real distributor on the court. Obviously you can put Ersan in a spot or run Dunleavy in the other, toss Harris in, but each of those thing does put a ceiling on how great the defense can be.

averageposter wrote:I would add this to the equation, for all monta's inefficiencies he does create opportunities for our defensive minded big men. He really seems to be in constant motion and the best set ups come from him, they just do. Replacing him with a Wes Mathews type looks great from the efficiency standpoint obviously and defensively most people you plug in there will help, but I wonder just how effective you can be playing say a Udoh/Sanders/Moute front court if Jennings is the only real distributor on the court. Obviously you can put Ersan in a spot or run Dunleavy in the other, toss Harris in, but each of those thing does put a ceiling on how great the defense can be.

Good Monta does this^^^^^^^^^ Bad Monta not so much

Ugly game, got that win though.

LUKE23 wrote:

CanadaBucks wrote:
The point is that thinking something doesn't make it correct, it's just opinion.

The problem though, is that there is a lot of evidence to back up the claim that Monta is a negative on both ends. The Bucks have been a ton better when he's been off the floor this year in terms of their overall efficiency. Objectively, the same can me said for Jennings this season as well.

It's just really, really hard to argue Ellis helps our offense when he's that inefficient with that many possessions and we're ranked 20th in offense.

all that evidence could also be used to show that our bench is better than the benchs they face. we kinda knew that already based on our depth and with the way skiles holds talent on the bench.... our starters in general have dug themselves a hole quite often. the eye test says its the frontcourt, not the backcourt causing most of the problem with how our TEAM production has varied there with the starters in the rotations. i really think both jennings and montas on/offs will improve now that we have udoh/ sanders starting on the team. plus montas ppp the last time it was posted was actually not bad if i recall correctly.

i wish the board would look harder to find the positives he may be producing considering our record at the current time. ive been guilty of the exact same thing with jennings in the past and ive made a concerted effort to quit being a dick about it because...... i dont want to be a dick about it.
if the record goes south..... then i could see why looking harder for positives becomes less of a priority. it would be cool if we wait until then.

The benches aren't always matched up against other teams benches. I don't really like that argument.

As far as W-L, couldn't we technically win 43 games but debate we should have won 47, etc.? Of course we can. Just because a team is over .500 right now doesn't mean everything is working. We're still projecting as a 40 win team right now based on our overall play.

I would rather have Redick..he has made major improvements and could stretch the floor. His defense wouldn't be that much better..but it's all about the floor spacing.

A Diddy2231 wrote:I would rather have Redick..he has made major improvements and could stretch the floor. His defense wouldn't be that much better..but it's all about the floor spacing.

I don't disagree that in general this team lacks some quantity and quality 3pt shooters, or that in general that spacing is necessary concern due to personnel. I do believe that to a certain extent Jennings, Dunleavy and Ersan are respected 3pt shooters at least as far as creating the spacing that 3pt shooters give so there is some depending on what Skiles chooses to do with his lineups.

Assuming then that the strongest defensive lineup Moute/Udoh /Sanders for now paired with at least Jenning as he hasn't really been discussed as "needing to be removed" Leaves a real need for a three point shooter in Monta's position. I guess I can see that.

On the other hand what do the Bucks do with the spacing if Monta is replaced with a whose biggest strength is as a 3pt shooter, the Bucks probably don't have anyone consistently attacking as Monta does when he chooses to, and they sure don't have a post up player. It probably puts an even bigger strain on Jennings again. I guess what I'm saying is, if the whole argument is based on trying to run serious minutes with the strong defensive front court then the player who replaces Monta not only has to be efficient but has to be capable of carrying a fairly big fairly diverse offensive load. Not sure who that guy is yet, at least I'm not totally sold on anybody who has been suggested.

I feel like the Bucks need a Detroit Pistons Rip Hamilton type player

A Diddy2231 wrote:I feel like the Bucks need a Detroit Pistons Rip Hamilton type player

One guy I kind of like(and this would be in addition to Monta not instead of)is Gerald Henderson from Charlotte. Now what I would be willing to part with and what Charlotte would take...I don't know

CanadaBucks wrote:One guy I kind of like(and this would be in addition to Monta not instead of)is Gerald Henderson from Charlotte. Now what I would be willing to part with and what Charlotte would take...I don't know

I wouldn't mind him I guess but would you be willing to go even MLE type money to keep him after this season? I think he'd get more and at that price I'd let him walk.

JimmyTheKid wrote:Anyway, how would that be considered an "agenda?" There are a lot of people who like Brandon Jennings' game.

You're right, it's not an agenda to have a positive opinion about someone. Just as the absolute reverse of that isn't an agenda either. There are people who don't like his game, or people who don't like Monta's, or people who don't like Ersan's etc... that's all it is, opinions. You label them agendas because you disagree with them.

Myself included. I'm not trying to break the bank for him but he deserves a contract much like the one Jrue Holiday just received.

Nope.

You seem to confuse agendas with people just flat out not liking a player's game, or being a harsh critic of what they do on the court. An agenda suggests people have some sort of motive or meaning behind it, like the motive behind their opinion isn't basketball related. What are these people trying to gain with the "agendas" you are accusing them of having?

CanadaBucks wrote:

Ayt wrote:You don't need to have an "agenda" to think Monta sucks at basketball. I'm appalled he's on my team playing major minutes. I can't stand his game.

But to say he sucks at basketball is factually incorrect. He would get minutes with any team in the NBA. But you certainly don't have to like him, his game or like him being on your team.

No one in the NBA "sucks at basketball" in the literal sense, that's just semantics.

There's a few 7 footers that suck at basketball.

blkout wrote:Would like a conclusive list of all the Golden State fans please

Always loved them but didn't like Monta. Now with arguably one of my favorite players instead of Monta they are my 2nd favorite team easily.