Can Milwaukee win a championship with the current core?

[mattg]

I think MCW is a better PG right now than George Hill. Hill struggled badly without Lance or PG13 to create offense last year which is why the Pacers signed Monta this summer.

how is that any different from MCW always struggling and not showing any of the sort of aptitude the team needs no matter the talent around him? Besides the fact that when people say "George hill type of PG" they obviously mean a 3+D point who doesn't need the ball rather than a direct comparison.

[AussieBuck]

I think MCW is a better PG right now than George Hill. Hill struggled badly without Lance or PG13 to create offense last year

This is exactly the opposite of true.

I don't understand your world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what there is to understand, Hill is by far the better player.

[Badgerlander]

This is exactly the opposite of true.

I don't understand your world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what there is to understand, Hill is by far the better player.

I'd rather have MCW. I don't know that there are even 5 Starting PGs in the NBA that I would take Geo over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SpursNBucks]

This is exactly the opposite of true.

I don't understand your world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what there is to understand, Hill is by far the better player.

This is SO stupid - they are different kinds of PGs. I think ANYONE who is hating on MCW needs to chill out and see what he does with an off-season to prepare, 100% healthy, and Kidd's schooling. People have been commenting on how his shooting mechanics look better with team USA. If he consistently performs close to the level he did in game #4 of the Bulls series he is going to be an All-Star. He easily outperformed Knight post trade last year. It is not easy to make a transition mid year to a new team as a PG - just ask Knight and Rondo. Couple that with the fact he was not 100%. Give the kid a chance, obviously Kidd (a HOF'er PG) sees the potential. I give a lot more credence to his analysis then some posters who are almost always bearish on the Bucks.

[The Wet Whistle]

Can we win with this core? I wasn't so sure until we signed Marcus Landry. Now I'm certain we can.

[Badgerlander]

I think MCW is a better PG right now than George Hill. Hill struggled badly without Lance or PG13 to create offense last year which is why the Pacers signed Monta this summer.

how is that any different from MCW always struggling and not showing any of the sort of aptitude the team needs no matter the talent around him? Besides the fact that when people say "George hill type of PG" they obviously mean a 3+D point who doesn't need the ball rather than a direct comparison.

It's tough to compare MCW to a theoretical "3+D" PG, so I'll just go with MCW being a better D than Geo, so I suppose if you could find a 23 year old PG that can defend as well as MCW and shoot better than him I'd take that guy.

[LedZepp007]

Id take MCW over Hill at this point. Still potential for MCW to be a star.

[AussieBuck]

I don't understand your world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what there is to understand, Hill is by far the better player.

This is SO stupid - they are different kinds of PGs. I think ANYONE who is hating on MCW needs to chill out and see what he does with an off-season to prepare, 100% healthy, and Kidd's schooling. People have been commenting on how his shooting mechanics look better with team USA. If he consistently performs close to the level he did in game #4 of the Bulls series he is going to be an All-Star. He easily outperformed Knight post trade last year. It is not easy to make a transition mid year to a new team as a PG - just ask Knight and Rondo. Couple that with the fact he was not 100%. Give the kid a chance, obviously Kidd (a HOF'er PG) sees the potential. I give a lot more credence to his analysis then some posters who are almost always bearish on the Bucks.

No need to quote me when you want to go on some super cool rant. Hill is better than MCW at any PG role.

[Baddy Chuck]

I think MCW is a better PG right now than George Hill. Hill struggled badly without Lance or PG13 to create offense last year

This is exactly the opposite of true.

I don't understand your world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your world is pretty weird too. Guy goes from 11.6 ppg/3.9 asp per 36 to 19.7/6.3 while raising his efficiency to a blistering 58% TS% and he struggled.

[Badgerlander]

This is exactly the opposite of true.

I don't understand your world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your world is pretty weird too. Guy goes from 11.6 ppg/3.9 asp per 36 to 19.7/6.3 while raising his efficiency to a blistering 58% TS% and he struggled.

He struggled to create offense (just like MCW), what was the Pacers offense ranked last year? The Pacers have tried to trade for Dragic the last two or three years to take the ball out of Hill's hands, they nearly kept Lance last summer and thought about trading for him after Lance struggled in CHA last year because they need to take the ball out of Hill's hands. Hill is Mario Chalmers or Darren Collison with better defense.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12563832/nba-espn-nba-forecast-ranks-nba-starting-point-guards-no-1-chris-paul-no-30-dante-exum

ESPN has Hill ranked 18th among the starting PGs last year and MCW is ranked 23rd. Leadership Hill-12, MCW-23. Defense Hill-8, MCW-T14, Playmaking Hill-24, MCW-20, Scoring Hill-20, MCW-24. Personally I think MCW is a better defender and being 6 years younger has the potential to be a better scorer than Hill.

[Baddy Chuck]

You're just digging this hole deeper if you're going with this notion that Hill struggled mightily creating offense. It's laughable. He stepped up in basically every facet of his game last season. Point went up, assists went up, usage went way up, efficiency went up, turnovers went down. If your entire argument is based around how an offense with Hill as a focal point fared, then you still have an awful point but I guess some point. Obviously they're going to try to add better players around Hill, having him as you best player is going to be horrible but the idea that he somehow didn't step up last season is hilarious, you obviously did not pay attention to them at all. Or you are just trying really hard to back up your pick of MCW.

[mattg]

Hill is Mario Chalmers or Darren Collison with better defense.

And that's pretty easily a better player than MCW right now.

[Baddy Chuck]

Hill is Mario Chalmers or Darren Collison with better defense.

And that's pretty easily a better player than MCW right now.

Ramon Sessions with better defense.

[Badgerlander]

You're just digging this hole deeper if you're going with this notion that Hill struggled mightily creating offense. It's laughable. He stepped up in basically every facet of his game last season. Point went up, assists went up, usage went way up, efficiency went up, turnovers went down. If your entire argument is based around how an offense with Hill as a focal point fared, then you still have an awful point but I guess some point. Obviously they're going to try to add better players around Hill, having him as you best player is going to be horrible but the idea that he somehow didn't step up last season is hilarious, you obviously did not pay attention to them at all. Or you are just trying really hard to back up your pick of MCW.

I don't see a hole or a shovel at all. Just because Hill is a good and efficient individual basketball player doesn't mean that I want him as a starting point guard. Darren Collison puts up nice numbers too and I wouldn't want him as a starter either. Brandon Knight's efficiency was pretty good last year but I don't want him as my starting point guard either. Houston went after Lawson because Patrick Beverly struggles to create offense if you put the ball in his hands. MCW struggled last year to create offense too, but he is only 23 and has only played 25 games with the Bucks and he showed improvement over those 25 games. George Hill is 29 and is not going to get any better than he was last year. There are easily 20 starting PGs in the league that I would rather have than George Hill and MCW is one of them. If you put George Hill on a majority of the playoff teams from last year he would be their 3rd guard coming in off of the bench.

[Badgerlander]

Hill is Mario Chalmers or Darren Collison with better defense.

And that's pretty easily a better player than MCW right now.

and by the end of next season MCW could pretty easily be better than George Hill, because the only starting PGs that I would take HIll over right now is Jarrett Jack, Jose Calderon, and Trey Burke. Thats it, thats the list.

[ReasonablySober]

Hill's a good, underrated player. But given the age of the core, I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring MCW at this point, regardless of his flaws.

[Baddy Chuck]

I don't see a hole or a shovel at all. Just because Hill is a good and efficient individual basketball player doesn't mean that I want him as a starting point guard. Darren Collison puts up nice numbers too and I wouldn't want him as a starter either. Brandon Knight's efficiency was pretty good last year but I don't want him as my starting point guard either. Houston went after Lawson because Patrick Beverly struggles to create offense if you put the ball in his hands. MCW struggled last year to create offense too, but he is only 23 and has only played 25 games with the Bucks and he showed improvement over those 25 games. George Hill is 29 and is not going to get any better than he was last year. There are easily 20 starting PGs in the league that I would rather have than George Hill and MCW is one of them. If you put George Hill on a majority of the playoff teams from last year he would be their 3rd guard coming in off of the bench.

I really need to point out the hole your in?

I think MCW is a better PG right now than George Hill. Hill struggled badly without Lance or PG13 to create offense last year

1st part - Do you. You got an opinion that's fine.
2nd part - It's laughable. The hole starts here and ends when you say you were wrong.

Significantly higher usage
Significantly more points
Better scoring efficiency
Significantly more assists
Significantly higher assist %
Less turnovers

There is no way someone can say what you did and not be COMPLETELY talking out of their ass. None. He literally created offense at a level nobody would have ever expected I'd imagine.

I'm completely fine with you not liking Hill as much as me, liking MCW, a combo of the two or any other situation. You aren't going to see me here saying that George Hill is a top 10 point guard who is some misunderstood genius or anything. I'd say currently if you are trying to win basketball games he is a significant upgrade over what MCW provides though. Honestly, I don't care about wins that much so I'd honestly rather have MCW as the starting point guard and see if Kidd can mold whatever he has into a useful player. My problem lies in the bull you decided to spout to knock him down a peg which honestly couldn't have been further from the truth.

[Badgerlander]

I don't see a hole or a shovel at all. Just because Hill is a good and efficient individual basketball player doesn't mean that I want him as a starting point guard. Darren Collison puts up nice numbers too and I wouldn't want him as a starter either. Brandon Knight's efficiency was pretty good last year but I don't want him as my starting point guard either. Houston went after Lawson because Patrick Beverly struggles to create offense if you put the ball in his hands. MCW struggled last year to create offense too, but he is only 23 and has only played 25 games with the Bucks and he showed improvement over those 25 games. George Hill is 29 and is not going to get any better than he was last year. There are easily 20 starting PGs in the league that I would rather have than George Hill and MCW is one of them. If you put George Hill on a majority of the playoff teams from last year he would be their 3rd guard coming in off of the bench.

I really need to point out the hole your in?

I think MCW is a better PG right now than George Hill. Hill struggled badly without Lance or PG13 to create offense last year

1st part - Do you. You got an opinion that's fine.
2nd part - It's laughable. The hole starts here and ends when you say you were wrong.

Significantly higher usage
Significantly more points
Better scoring efficiency
Significantly more assists
Significantly higher assist %
Less turnovers

There is no way someone can say what you did and not be COMPLETELY talking out of their ass. None. He literally created offense at a level nobody would have ever expected I'd imagine.

I'm completely fine with you not liking Hill as much as me, liking MCW, a combo of the two or any other situation. You aren't going to see me here saying that George Hill is a top 10 point guard who is some misunderstood genius or anything. I'd say currently if you are trying to win basketball games he is a significant upgrade over what MCW provides though. Honestly, I don't care about wins that much so I'd honestly rather have MCW as the starting point guard and see if Kidd can mold whatever he has into a useful player. My problem lies in the bull you decided to spout to knock him down a peg which honestly couldn't have been further from the truth.

You're right, I am wrong. I had forgotten that Hill was injured at the beginning of the season, and after researching deeper into his numbers I was surprised at the number of PnRs that he ran last year. Hill played significantly better than I thought he did from the games that I saw and my judgement was clouded by his previous seasons.

[AussieBuck]

Wait, what? This isn't how the internet works.

[raferfenix]

Giannis having a Kawhi Leonard kind of breakout season certainly could put us on a championship track.

Here's a piece looking at "which promising young player will make the biggest, Anthony Davis-like star leap in 2015-16?"

Gotta love the closing line in particular -- "He is an ideal player for an era in which versatility reigns supreme."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/three-man-weave--which-young-player-will-make-the-biggest-leap-to-stardom-025210956.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Eric Freeman: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Milwaukee Bucks. The Greek Freak has been an internet darling since his first days in the league, but this season could be the one in which he goes from promising young player to legitimate star. Despite turning 20 just this past December, Antetokounmpo averaged 12.7 points on 49.1 percent shooting, 6.7 rebounds, and 2.6 assists over 31.4 minutes per game while serving as an effective member of the Bucks' second-ranked defense. Plus, although he didn't exactly cover himself in glory while there, Giannis got a taste of the postseason as part of the NBA's most surprisingly successful team.

Expectations will be higher for both the Bucks (my pick as the best team to watch with fewer than five national TV appearances) and Antetokounmpo this year, although early evidence suggests that they will be able to meet them. With free agent Greg Monroe added to the roster and fellow high-potential wing Jabari Parker healthy once again, Antetokounmpo can avoid focusing only on scoring and sieze an opportunity to become a versatile, do-everything star. He is the rare player who can do almost everything on the court, including things we have never seen before:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy-nlFmW6a8[/youtube]

Antetokounmpo’s highlights are so bizarre, in fact, that it’s fair to wonder if his reputation as a potential superstar outstrips his observed production to date. While his numbers are excellent for a player coming off his second, age-20 season, both Anthony Davis and Kevin Durant performed far better at the same age under similar circumstances before taking a massive leap to outright dominance in Year 3. Those players represent unfair comparisons for anyone, but that extreme can help to set reasonable expectations for Antetokounmpo in 2015-16. Even if the Bucks needed or wanted him to serve as a ball-dominant star, it’s unlikely that he could do so.

Yet that does not mean Giannis must be seen as overrated or a disappointment if he fails to increase his scoring average by a few points. Rather, it may be more prudent to view him as a player capable of making a leap similar to that of Kawhi Leonard, clearly a star even if he has yet to prove himself fully capable of taking over as one of the top two offensive players in San Antonio. Like Leonard, Antetokounmpo can make his greatest impact as a defender and occasional go-to scorer. However, Giannis also has the ability to serve as a superior facilitator — there’s a reason that the Bucks have entertained the idea of playing him as a point guard, even if it looks like an unlikely landing spot in the lineup.

In other words, tabbing Antetokounmpo as a breakout candidate this season requires expanding the idea of what makes a breakout star. He likely won’t hit the 20-points-per-game threshold, attempted only 44 3-pointers a year ago, and may not be any better than Milwaukee’s third scoring option. But Giannis can be a game-changer in myriad ways, whether by making a succession of very different plays from possession to possession, guarding multiple positions, or taking over games when necessary. He is an ideal player for an era in which versatility reigns supreme.