adamcz wrote:We have over twenty insiders here. It isn't possible for a trade to go down without plenty of chatter about it here way in advance.
What was the earliest mention of Jefferson to the Bucks?
Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis
adamcz wrote:We have over twenty insiders here. It isn't possible for a trade to go down without plenty of chatter about it here way in advance.
Debit One wrote:adamcz wrote:We have over twenty insiders here. It isn't possible for a trade to go down without plenty of chatter about it here way in advance.
What was the earliest mention of Jefferson to the Bucks?
fam3381 wrote:I agree that CV is probably a worse overall defender than Mo, but I actually think that Mo could hurt us just as much or more when you consider the nature of their positions and the other players on our roster.
Almost no teams have more than one good post scorer, so Bogut can usually cover up some of CV's poor post defense by simply taking his guy down low. That's why against teams like Utah you'd usually see Bogut taking players like Boozer, even though he's not a center. You still get CV's clueless team/perimeter defense, but you can at least hide him a bit with Bogut.
You really can't hide Mo like that, since Redd obviously isn't going to D up PGs obviously (not that many SGs do that anyway). And while Bogut is a solid man defender I think his help defense on PnR still leaves a lot to be desired, which again makes Mo's defensive weakness more pronounced.
Moreover, if you can't stop the other team's PG from penetrating you have to help and that provides lots of easy shots for everyone else. If you have to help on a PF you're less likely to get punished simply because PFs aren't going to create for others like a PG.
paul wrote:It ran out June 30th unless I'm mistaken, but obviously no deal can be done in the moratorium which finishes on the 9th.
paul wrote:If it was Larry Harris I'm pretty certain we would have heard a rumor, but as best I know nobody heard anything before the RJ trade so it's quite possible we wouldn't again. It's also worth remembering that if, for example, something was worked out or discussed with the Bulls our coach has some pretty solid contacts there so the circle of 'ears' hearing about any negotiations could possibly be kept much smaller than usual. I don't know anything but like I said I wouldn't be at all surprised.
adamcz wrote:So why isn't there any correlation between playmaking pg's and efficient offenses?coolhandluke121 wrote:Here's the issue with Mo. I agree that he's a very efficient jumpshooter and that's a big part of the Bucks offense. One thing people have brought up is that the team is just as good with Mo making the shot as with Mo passing to someone else who then converts. True indeed, but there's more to the story.
Suppose your average pg would make about 6 out of every 14 shots, or a little over 42%. Mo makes about 7 of 14, a much nicer percentage and since 14 shots per game, give or take a few, is normal for a pg that means Mo would seem to be good for 2 extra ppg. However, a better playmaking pg raises the shooting percentage of all his teammates by a similar amount. All of a sudden Bogut, Redd, CV, and RJ are probably each good for an extra point or two a game, as we seemed to observe with Sessions on the floor last year (though admittedly that was a small sample of games with other possible explanations). Combine that with the fact that Mo rarely drives to the basket or gets to the ft line, and you have an inefficient offense no matter how efficient Mo's individual numbers are.
And that's not even taking into account the intangible effect of having good chemistry because everybody's involved in the offense. If this is the team the Bucks go with, I would definitely want Sessions and CV to start and Mo to come off the bench.
Maybe - I guess it depends on the player. Sessions is much more of a playmaking pg than Mo, but we were probably worse with him starting. That's not a knock on our rookie, just something to weigh against the idea that we'll get better with that type of player.coolhandluke wrote:I also believe that teams with a good scorer at every position need a distributor at pg, so even if a playmaker doesn't make every team more efficient he would do that for the Bucks.
trwi7 wrote:Will be practicing my best Australian accent for tomorrow.
"Hey ya wankers. I graduated from Aranmore back in 2010 and lost me yearbook. Is there any way you didgeridoos can send anotha yearbook me way?"
I'm curious. Why does Mo get a "let's see what Skiles can get from Mo" pass, but "CV still needs to go"?
emunney wrote:Ron Swanson wrote: 9 YEARS!? like any of that matters
THAT LITERALLY IS HIS TENURE.
coolhandluke121 wrote:adamcz wrote:So why isn't there any correlation between playmaking pg's and efficient offenses?coolhandluke121 wrote:Here's the issue with Mo. I agree that he's a very efficient jumpshooter and that's a big part of the Bucks offense. One thing people have brought up is that the team is just as good with Mo making the shot as with Mo passing to someone else who then converts. True indeed, but there's more to the story.
Suppose your average pg would make about 6 out of every 14 shots, or a little over 42%. Mo makes about 7 of 14, a much nicer percentage and since 14 shots per game, give or take a few, is normal for a pg that means Mo would seem to be good for 2 extra ppg. However, a better playmaking pg raises the shooting percentage of all his teammates by a similar amount. All of a sudden Bogut, Redd, CV, and RJ are probably each good for an extra point or two a game, as we seemed to observe with Sessions on the floor last year (though admittedly that was a small sample of games with other possible explanations). Combine that with the fact that Mo rarely drives to the basket or gets to the ft line, and you have an inefficient offense no matter how efficient Mo's individual numbers are.
And that's not even taking into account the intangible effect of having good chemistry because everybody's involved in the offense. If this is the team the Bucks go with, I would definitely want Sessions and CV to start and Mo to come off the bench.
I wasn't aware of that. It's possible that overall there is no correlation, but clearly there are some situations where a playmaking pg is preferred, i.e. when other players on the team need a little boost. I'm sure that not all playmaking pg's are in that situation because most good offensive players create their own opportunities, but I think the Bucks have a lot of guys who would be much more offensive players with a playmaker at pg.
For all his scoring, Redd has only been a consistently efficient player when he was with the Big Three (didn't have to create), during Ford's rookie year (Redd was a no-brainer all-star), during Ford's other season with the Bucks (would have been an all-star if not for injury), and with Team USA. The rest of the time he has been asked to create his own opportunities, his percentages have suffered, he's had more turnovers, and he's struggled mightily with shot selection.
Bogut clearly is better at scoring off movement (catch and convert) than creating his own offense in the low-post, and Bell is a good spot-up shooter. CV has struggled for two years now with Mo as his pg. Even Gadz is a decent scorer when somebody is looking to get him the ball in the right situations, like Kukoc used to do. Bottom line, I don't believe that pass-first pg's are right for every team and I can see why there's no correlation as you say, but I definitely do believe a better playmaker is right for the Bucks because there are players on the team who need to "made better" on offense.
I also believe that teams with a good scorer at every position need a distributor at pg, so even if a playmaker doesn't make every team more efficient he would do that for the Bucks.
LUKE23 wrote:To me it's not about assist number with Mo, it's about two things:
1. FG%
2. A/TO
In other words, him maximizing the possessions on offense. If he shoots how he did last year (he was damn good from all three spots, field, FT, 3), and get his A/TO closer to the 3/1 range, then he's doing a great job on offense. So basically, the main thing he needs to improve on is decision-making and being less careless with the ball in his hands.
Defense is another story, but if he doesn't play it he's not going to be on the court anyway under Skiles.
I've come to the conclusion that I do not think we are trading Mo Williams though, unless we could land an upper tier PG like Hinrich, which I see as unlikely at this point.
For all his scoring, Redd has only been a consistently efficient player when he was with the Big Three (didn't have to create), during Ford's rookie year (Redd was a no-brainer all-star), during Ford's other season with the Bucks (would have been an all-star if not for injury), and with Team USA. The rest of the time he has been asked to create his own opportunities, his percentages have suffered, he's had more turnovers, and he's struggled mightily with shot selection.