PG: Telly thought he was on a 10 year deal; I wish he was

[sidney lanier]

Once they have Rubio-Wiggins-Okafor or Rubio-Wiggins-Towns I doubt many will be doubting their future.

And if that doesn't work out for them, there's always next year's class, and next year's, and...

I find it amusing that a Kohl owner fan and fan of a team that has one winning season in 11 years is criticizing how another team goes about building their team. You're like GM mocking Ford.

And as an FYI, the SOB fans you despise so much said the team outlook would get better if Kohl was out and we tanked a year for a top pick. Well here we are. Now how would our outlook be if you got your way and Kohl was still here and we won 33 games last year and picked say 14th?

Yes, here we are, enjoying modest success, having a fun season, and getting excoriated by those who don't like to see journeymen on the court.

I'm not nostalgic for the Kohl era, believe me. My defense of Herbie was always that, like King Lear, he was a man more sinned against than sinning, and that the concentration of titles and success among a few teams over the past few decades stacked the deck against him. People who feel strongly about a certain path to NBA success IMO grossly underestimate the role of chance in NBA success and misapply hindsight to justify their beliefs.

I don't just mean the luck of drawing a Jordan over a Bowie or a Durant over an Oden, but a whole constellation of events that can turn some teams into near dynasties and others into star-crossed losers. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman says "We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events." I think he's right, and NBA success illustrates this principle for me.

[jr lucosa]

I enjoyed the T-Wolves announcers, they seemed to know what they were talking about and didn't mind calling out Minnesota players when they made mistakes.

An interesting stat they put up around tip off of last nights game, since Dec 26 Milwaukee is 1st in opponent FG% and opponent PPG. (going into last night at least)

[Treebeard]

I'm glad Minnesota is showing us what a team with two overall number ones looks like. Maybe it will shorten some of the debates about the tragedy of drafting 19th instead of 10th. With that kind of wobble at the top, it should be easy to see that the quality-to-draft-position correlation wobble in the teens of the first round is commensurately greater.

And to those tank commanders who reflexively respond "Yes, but that's Anthony Bennett" and look only at the sunny side of uncertain outcomes, I point out that probability distributions do not come with footnotes.

You still need to seriously do your homework, make smart selections, and have some luck. Being at the top spot gives you much greater opportunity to get the right guy. Where would you rather pick: #1 or #19?

Other things being equal, #1 is of course better than #19. But sucking to get there sucks, so other things aren't equal. No one disputes that picking early is better than picking late, but the important decisions relate to how much better it is, and how much we can rely on it being better. But as bad a #1 as Anthony Bennett is so far, he's probably still better than his year's #19, Sergey Karasev (although the Russian is at least playing a little).

Meanwhile, the league seems to be changing a little from one where a single stud drives success to more of a build-an-ensemble success model. If that's where the pendulum is swinging (and I think it's too early to tell), the slope of the gotta-getta-high-pick line will come down.

I think you are right about the last part. With that said, you still need very high level talent to succeed (suceed=contend from my perspective). However, if the NBA migrates more to the Spurs style team ball model, the ability to be a good "team player" becomes a greater priority than during the depths of the Iso ball era - I think.

[paulpressey25]

Meanwhile, the league seems to be changing a little from one where a single stud drives success to more of a build-an-ensemble success model. .

I think there is something to this. And given that Kidd appears to have mastered the new mousetrap, it bodes well for the future of the team, until a new mousetrap in the league is needed.

That said, I still believe a team that has prime Shaq on their roster today would have a record of 27-10.

[sidney lanier]

Young guys with Knight:

Giannis: 52.8TS% 19.9USG%
Parker: 50.4TS% 19.9USG%
Middleton: 52.2TS% 18USG%
Henson: 52.9TS% 16.3USG%
Marshall: 42.6TS% 13.8USG%

Without Knight:

Giannis: 61.8TS% 26.3USG%
Parker: 57.4TS% 31.7USG%
Middleton: 57.1TS% 21.9USG%
Henson: 60.4TS% 21.7USG%
Marshall: 51.7TS% 16.2USG%

Same holds for the rest of the team, Larry has the biggest difference I just CBF doing the whole team. It's particularly damning that all these guys have to play a smaller role than they otherwise would and still have much worse efficiency. If we had traded Knight in the offseason we'd be talking about Giannis' first all star appearance.

http://nbawowy.com/query/my9mn9hf2nt81tt9
http://nbawowy.com/query/dbex6drhjv97wrk9

Are there any extraneous or confounding variables that skew these results? Are they similar to results for other PGs? What is your confidence interval?

[chonestown]

Also Sid was by far the Player of the Game tonight. Some of my favorites from tonight (aside from the thump obviously) was his MLK tangent, his admittance he felt bad saying Bucks needed to hit open shots, and of course telling Jim he would've ducked had Knight's pass come near him. Just gold.

Him talking about the strength of the legendarily woeful 2000 draft due to the fact Redd went in the 2nd round was cause for immediate dismissal. I still have good vibes of Sid as a player, but gah.

[chonestown]

I'm glad Minnesota is showing us what a team with two overall number ones looks like. Maybe it will shorten some of the debates about the tragedy of drafting 19th instead of 10th. With that kind of wobble at the top, it should be easy to see that the quality-to-draft-position correlation wobble in the teens of the first round is commensurately greater.

And to those tank commanders who reflexively respond "Yes, but that's Anthony Bennett" and look only at the sunny side of uncertain outcomes, I point out that probability distributions do not come with footnotes.

They traded an impending free agent who was going to leave for absolutely nothing and got this year's #1 pick who has a tremendous future and the year's previous #1 as a throw-in. I don't know if there's a better textbook example of asset management out there. Obviously, Pek and Rubio didn't see the floor due to injury last night, so you might want to dial back the burner on your hot take.

[Newz]

Young guys with Knight:

Giannis: 52.8TS% 19.9USG%
Parker: 50.4TS% 19.9USG%
Middleton: 52.2TS% 18USG%
Henson: 52.9TS% 16.3USG%
Marshall: 42.6TS% 13.8USG%

Without Knight:

Giannis: 61.8TS% 26.3USG%
Parker: 57.4TS% 31.7USG%
Middleton: 57.1TS% 21.9USG%
Henson: 60.4TS% 21.7USG%
Marshall: 51.7TS% 16.2USG%

Same holds for the rest of the team, Larry has the biggest difference I just CBF doing the whole team. It's particularly damning that all these guys have to play a smaller role than they otherwise would and still have much worse efficiency. If we had traded Knight in the offseason we'd be talking about Giannis' first all star appearance.

http://nbawowy.com/query/my9mn9hf2nt81tt9
http://nbawowy.com/query/dbex6drhjv97wrk9

Way to leave out Kenyon Martin.

Dude has a 100.0TS% regardless of who he plays with... because he is the GOAT.

[machu46]

Personally, I have no issue with the amount that Knight shoots. It's when he dominates the ball that I'm not a fan. How much he's used on and off the ball seems to vary from game to game. The offense looks a lot better when he's on the floor and is only on the ball around half the time than it does when he's dominating the ball or isn't on the floor at all.

[InsideOut]

And if that doesn't work out for them, there's always next year's class, and next year's, and...

I find it amusing that a Kohl owner fan and fan of a team that has one winning season in 11 years is criticizing how another team goes about building their team. You're like GM mocking Ford.

And as an FYI, the SOB fans you despise so much said the team outlook would get better if Kohl was out and we tanked a year for a top pick. Well here we are. Now how would our outlook be if you got your way and Kohl was still here and we won 33 games last year and picked say 14th?

People who feel strongly about a certain path to NBA success IMO grossly underestimate the role of chance in NBA success and misapply hindsight to justify their beliefs.

I don't just mean the luck of drawing a Jordan over a Bowie or a Durant over an Oden, but a whole constellation of events that can turn some teams into near dynasties and others into star-crossed losers. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman says "We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events." I think he's right, and NBA success illustrates this principle for me.

And this is where you have always been so wrong. EVERYONE here, no matter what building plan they like realize exactly how much chance plays a role in all this. It's to the point of being condescending that you think you are the only one that realizes the role of chance and that that you feel the need to constantly remind us over and over and...

Yes, I want the Bucks to build via high lotto picks. Why, because that is the only plan that has ever worked in Milwaukee. We have never signed a star free agent. We have never traded for a star without us having to give up a great player to top picks. Now just because a group of us feel this way doesn't mean we think it is a lock to work. Of course we realize we could stay bad if we pick the wrong players or something unexpected happens. EVERYONE gets that. We also understand trying to build by staying out of the top five has led to one winning season in the past eleven. So please, every time you feel the need to put down teams or posters that like the idea of building via top picks remind yourself that the owner you defended and the plan you supported left us with one winning season in the past eleven. With that track record you really aren't in a position to mock others opinions espcially when their plan (SOB) just brought us the most hope we've had in a very long time.

[Giannis Parker]

Young guys with Knight:

Giannis: 52.8TS% 19.9USG%
Parker: 50.4TS% 19.9USG%
Middleton: 52.2TS% 18USG%
Henson: 52.9TS% 16.3USG%
Marshall: 42.6TS% 13.8USG%

Without Knight:

Giannis: 61.8TS% 26.3USG%
Parker: 57.4TS% 31.7USG%
Middleton: 57.1TS% 21.9USG%
Henson: 60.4TS% 21.7USG%
Marshall: 51.7TS% 16.2USG%

Same holds for the rest of the team, Larry has the biggest difference I just CBF doing the whole team. It's particularly damning that all these guys have to play a smaller role than they otherwise would and still have much worse efficiency. If we had traded Knight in the offseason we'd be talking about Giannis' first all star appearance.

http://nbawowy.com/query/my9mn9hf2nt81tt9
http://nbawowy.com/query/dbex6drhjv97wrk9

Is there a way to tell who they were facing when they accrued these stats?

Not trying to justify, we all know Knight is not a good PG, but would assume that without Knight on the floor, they are facing backups, and when they are on the floor with Knight, they are lining up against starting units. It is going to impact stats at least 10-15% facing starters instead of backups.

[Giannis Parker]

Personally, I have no issue with the amount that Knight shoots. It's when he dominates the ball that I'm not a fan. How much he's used on and off the ball seems to vary from game to game. The offense looks a lot better when he's on the floor and is only on the ball around half the time than it does when he's dominating the ball or isn't on the floor at all.

This is how I see it as well, but why wont the team run him with Bayless or Marshall playing primary handling duties then?

I really feel the team believes that Knight can fix his deficiency, who knows if he will, but Knight still reminds me a lot of Billups when Billups was 23. If that is the trajectory we are waiting for, I am perfectly fine to see it play out. That is, if and only if we can get him for less than a 4yr 48m deal.

Still feel there is a 50/50 chance Knight is moved at the deadline.

[Giannis Parker]

And this is where you have always been so wrong. EVERYONE here, no matter what building plan they like realize exactly how much chance plays a role in all this. It's to the point of being condescending that you think you are the only one that realizes the role of chance and that that you feel the need to constantly remind us over and over and...

Yes, I want the Bucks to build via high lotto picks. Why, because that is the only plan that has ever worked in Milwaukee. We have never signed a star free agent. We have never traded for a star without us having to give up a great player to top picks. Now just because a group of us feel this way doesn't mean we think it is a lock to work. Of course we realize we could stay bad if we pick the wrong players or something unexpected happens. EVERYONE gets that. We also understand trying to build by staying out of the top five has led to one winning season in the past eleven. So please, every time you feel the need to put down teams or posters that like the idea of building via top picks remind yourself that the owner you defended and the plan you supported left us with one winning season in the past eleven. With that track record you really aren't in a position to mock others opinions espcially when their plan (SOB) just brought us the most hope we've had in a very long time.

I get this, all of it, but how do you feel about LED if in their first season they are a winning team, say 43-39, and they clearly have a roster that is able to continue climbing?

I am of the mold that we have our two cornerstones, a need in the NBA, in Parker and Giannis. I want to continue to develop these guys into everything they can be. I also believe for the first time ever, we have an aura about us that could in fact lead us to signing an All-Star talent. But mainly, we have the money and a plan, thats really all you need to lure a talent in. I also feel we can continue to work sound trades. First trade made in the LED era was Delfino and Rad for a 1st and Dudley, that is a really good trade.

Signs point to drastic changes in Milwaukee compared to the Kohl era, I just want people to get on board and believe, not spend hours upon hours bantering and ripping the organization trying to say things like #SameOldBucks, because that simply is not the truth.

[VooDoo7]

I'm starting to think Gery is Walter White and Larry Sanders is Jesse Pinkman...aka, Big Boy. This would explain a lot, including Larry not wanted/needing basketball anymore.

[Flap Jackson]

... but Knight still reminds me a lot of Billups when Billups was 23.

I really don't see this at all. Totally different types of players even considering 23 year old Billups. Billups was always a tempo control guard using his body, not a guy using speed and athleticism. Knight is more like young Jason Terry.

[SlideRuleJockey]

The crappy thing is if AussieBuck's numbers w/r/t usage are an indication, Giannis probably could go off for a stretch like that if we simply removed Knight from the equation.

Anyone have Tonya Harding's phone number or email address? She may be able to hook us up with some of her "associates". Might need SOB to raise some funds though........

Of course I am joking. Would not ever even consider this until after the trade deadline.

[ChuckBros4Life]

The thing about a 2nd round pick is that it should be one of two things
1. A project player with some upside
2. A limited upside guy with one really good skill

JOB is neither. What a waste of the 36th pick.

[InsideOut]

And this is where you have always been so wrong. EVERYONE here, no matter what building plan they like realize exactly how much chance plays a role in all this. It's to the point of being condescending that you think you are the only one that realizes the role of chance and that that you feel the need to constantly remind us over and over and...

Yes, I want the Bucks to build via high lotto picks. Why, because that is the only plan that has ever worked in Milwaukee. We have never signed a star free agent. We have never traded for a star without us having to give up a great player to top picks. Now just because a group of us feel this way doesn't mean we think it is a lock to work. Of course we realize we could stay bad if we pick the wrong players or something unexpected happens. EVERYONE gets that. We also understand trying to build by staying out of the top five has led to one winning season in the past eleven. So please, every time you feel the need to put down teams or posters that like the idea of building via top picks remind yourself that the owner you defended and the plan you supported left us with one winning season in the past eleven. With that track record you really aren't in a position to mock others opinions espcially when their plan (SOB) just brought us the most hope we've had in a very long time.

I get this, all of it, but how do you feel about LED if in their first season they are a winning team, say 43-39, and they clearly have a roster that is able to continue climbing?

I am of the mold that we have our two cornerstones, a need in the NBA, in Parker and Giannis. I want to continue to develop these guys into everything they can be. I also believe for the first time ever, we have an aura about us that could in fact lead us to signing an All-Star talent. But mainly, we have the money and a plan, thats really all you need to lure a talent in. I also feel we can continue to work sound trades. First trade made in the LED era was Delfino and Rad for a 1st and Dudley, that is a really good trade.

Signs point to drastic changes in Milwaukee compared to the Kohl era, I just want people to get on board and believe, not spend hours upon hours bantering and ripping the organization trying to say things like #SameOldBucks, because that simply is not the truth.

I don't care about wins and losses this season. I only care about long term assets that build us a contender 4ish years from now. I don't care if Zaza brings us wins today. I do care if Zaza can be traded for an assets that will be here in 4 years when we are contending and Zaza is retired. I don't think wins or playoffs today do anything for a contender 4 years from now. We have over a decade of examples of how the Bucks made the playoffs one season and then didn't the next. Nothing has evercarried over. Stinking for several years didn't make KD and Westbrook worse players. I don't believe in winning culture. I believe in talent playing with chemistry.

I have seen nothing to think we have our two cornerstone pieces. In the past decade I've been told Redd, Bogut, TJ Ford, BJ... are all cornerstone pieces. Heck, a month ago Sanders was a cornerstone piece. I'll believe we have cornerstone pieces when they are all-stars and playing like top 10 players at their position night in and night out. Until then our "cornerstone pieces" are guys with potential. I don't get fired up over could haves, would haves and maybes. I get fired up over 20/10 guys making all NBA teams. I hope they are our cornerstones but I sure as heck don't assume it when it comes to building a team.

I don't believe we are going to sign star free agents. I have 50ish years of history showing that isn't going to happen. I've decades of watching markets like Milwaukee, Minnesota, Memphis, Cleveland, Indiana, Utah get passed over by great free agents. I'll assume great players aren't signing here if a big or warn market also wants them. Until that changes I'll believe in the status quo.

Yes, I liked the trade that got us a 1st. However, I feel the odds are that Dudley and who we get with that 1st will end up being meaningless when it comes to building a contender. People will get on board when we bring in great talent. Getting Parker got people fired up. I'm on board with those kinds of moves. The Bucks have been bad/irrelevant for a very long time. The new owners bring hope and change but actions speak louder than words. Fans (other than GOS) aren't happy playing .500 ball and being stuck in the middle forever. When the new owners make the moves that bring in the talent we need then I'll start believing. That is what all those years under Kohl have made me. I've seen way too many false starts and talk of a great cores to let 40 games of these guys get me to start drinking the Kool-Aid. When Hammond was hired I kept saying he stunk but that I'd give him 5 years. I give these guys the same 5 years but that won't mean I'll stop giving my opinion on moves that I feel are good, bad or meaningless. After all, this is what this place is all about.

[Zeezprah]

The thing about a 2nd round pick is that it should be one of two things
1. A project player with some upside
2. A limited upside guy with one really good skill

JOB is neither. What a waste of the 36th pick.

JOB was supposed to be a very good rebounder with some size who could step out and hit the 12 footers. i'm sure hammond was hoping he could be a good rotational big off the bench. took the project inglis with the 1st one, and the role player with the 2nd one.

obviously he blows, but you can't hit on every 2nd rounder. actually pretty damn rare that they hit into any sort of decent player.

[Ill-yasova]

Someone needs to upload Sid's MLK tangent. That was the ultimate WTF moment.

Holy ****!!! My jaw slowly dropped With every couple of stunted words that he barely managed to spit out. It was the verbal equivalent of watching a baby deer walk for the first time. After he finished I actually looked around the room because I wished I had somebody else there to confirm what I just saw.