how would you rate the Bucks (healthy) starting lineup??

europa · Post #21 » by **europa** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 6:52 pm

I'll take the Bucks over the Hawks mainly because the Hawks have rarely been able to deal with Bogut. His defense, rebounding and offense would have been a huge X factor in the playoffs. I would've picked the Bucks to win a series against Atlanta although it would've been close.

LUKE23 · Post #22 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 6:53 pm

I think this is talking rankings, not head to head matchups. I don't think the Bucks would have won more than the Hawks this year, especially considering Smith missed a lot of games for them.

jeremyd236 · Post #23 » by **jeremyd236** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:56 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
the Bucks starting if healthy is probably top 8-12 in the NBA.

10 teams are going to win 50 this year (11 if Dallas really gets hot down the stretch), so they are definitely not top 10.

If they kept Sessions/CV and the 2009 first rounder completely panned out and our "Big 3" all played 75+ games, we would probably surpass 45 wins, say 47. They don't have a good enough #1 player to surpass 50 wins.

But it gets back to the likelihood of keeping all three of those assets. It's not happening. There is no chance that Sessions/Redd/RJ/LRMAM/Bogut and a weak bench is top 8-12 in the NBA or a homecourt team. Not a good enough PF core, and not a good enough bench (along with not having a good enough #1 player).

Again, you don't get the point of the thread. Why are you even talking about bench? Why are you talking about 2009 first rounder?

Read the original post. If our starters were healthy RIGHT NOW, where would we be ranked in terms of best STARTING LINEUPS in the NBA. Hell, you could even say current record has nothing to do with it.

Edit: I see you ranking teams that are "better" than us. I don't argue with those teams. But we aren't arguing who has the better "teams", but healthy starting lineups.

For instance, Dallas isn't clearly a better starting lineup than us even if they are a better team.

jeremyd236 · Post #24 » by **jeremyd236** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:59 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I think this is talking rankings, not head to head matchups. I don't think the Bucks would have won more than the Hawks this year, especially considering Smith missed a lot of games for them.

Wins really isn't the point. Better starting lineups certainly lead to more wins, but so does a better coach and more prominently, a better bench. Nobody said the Bucks would have more wins than the Hawks if healthy....we're comparing "best" or "more talented" starting lineups. In any case, the Hawks are better anyways.

illiance · Post #25 » by **illiance** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 9:46 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Close with us if healthy:

Suns
Heat
Sixers

So I'd say we are at best 13th, at worst 16th.

That's funny.

Let's take a look at the healthy Suns.
Nash
Richardson
Hill
Amare
Shaq

Nash >>>>>>>>> Ramon
Richardson <= Redd
Hill <= RJ
Amare >>>>>>>>>>> CV
Shaq >>>>> Bogut

So no.

Epicurus · Post #26 » by **Epicurus** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 10:23 pm

"For instance, Dallas isn't clearly a better starting lineup than us even if they are a better team." jeremy

Since I have seen pretty many games of both teams, I'll offer an opinion here.

Kidd>>Sessions
Wright<Redd
Howard>>Jefferson
Nowitzki>>Villenuava
Dampier<Bogut

This assumes everyone healthy and that Terry is not a starter (Terry=Redd) and that we are talking about this year (as the Mavs are aging rapidly).

I have also seen much of the Pacers, so one more:
Ford=Sessions
Dunleavy=Redd
Granger>Jefferson
Murphy=Villenuava (might be the same person in a clever disguise)
Nesterovic<Bogut.

europa · Post #27 » by **europa** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 10:28 pm

The Pacers have been a disappointing team this season. They've been hit hard by injuries but they have good talent in my opinion. Their record is deceiving to a degree because they've been in a lot of close games, many of which they haven't won.

That's a good team with a good nucleus of players. I expect them to improve next season.

LUKE23 · Post #28 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 10:32 pm

That's funny.

Let's take a look at the healthy Suns.
Nash
Richardson
Hill
Amare
Shaq

Nash >>>>>>>>> Ramon
Richardson <= Redd
Hill <= RJ
Amare >>>>>>>>>>> CV
Shaq >>>>> Bogut

So no.

Well, they have had really no significant injuries, and they probably won't win 45 games. I know they play in the West, but I think that every single player in the Suns starting five is on the decline (even Amare, he's still good, but his injury has taken some out of him and he's not as good in a halfcourt game). I think both teams healthy are comparable, Suns maybe slightly better. Their SOS are comparable too, Suns at .504, Bucks at .503.

europa · Post #29 » by **europa** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 10:33 pm

Suns would have the edge in talent but ...

Skiles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gentry

Epicurus · Post #30 » by **Epicurus** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 10:44 pm

europa wrote:The Pacers have been a disappointing team this season. They've been hit hard by injuries but they have good talent in my opinion. Their record is deceiving to a degree because they've been in a lot of close games, many of which they haven't won.

That's a good team with a good nucleus of players. I expect them to improve next season.

Agree, plus healthy (meaning largely having Dunleavy for more than 18 games) they combine coach with type of player well, I believe. Hibbert shows some real promise, which is fortunate as the wear and tear on Foster seems to be reducing his contributions (he isn't getting to as many loose balls as in other seasons). I think as presently composed, the Pacers have a stronger bench than the Bucks, particularly looking to next year.

europa · Post #31 » by **europa** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 10:53 pm

Epicurus wrote:
europa wrote:The Pacers have been a disappointing team this season. They've been hit hard by injuries but they have good talent in my opinion. Their record is deceiving to a degree because they've been in a lot of close games, many of which they haven't won.

That's a good team with a good nucleus of players. I expect them to improve next season.

Agree, plus healthy (meaning largely having Dunleavy for more than 18 games) they combine coach with type of player well, I believe. Hibbert shows some real promise, which is fortunate as the wear and tear on Foster seems to be reducing his contributions (he isn't getting to as many loose balls as in other seasons). I think as presently composed, the Pacers have a stronger bench than the Bucks, particularly looking to next year.

I loved the Brandon Rush trade too. I was real high on him. It's taken him awhile but he's playing much better of late. I expect Ford to be better next season (he's also playing very well lately). Murphy is overpaid but having a real good season. Granger has obviously become a terrific player and Dunleavy, when healthy, is solid. Hibbert could be the key. If he develops into at least a serviceable center, the Pacers have a chance to be a 45-win team. If he becomes something more, their potential grows beyond that. I really like their team.

midranger · Post #32 » by **midranger** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 11:55 pm

I see the Bucks and Pacers in very similar positions.

Some good, but not great pieces locked into big contracts that overpay them.
A couple decent but unspectacular prospects, but none as good as any rebuilding team.
No real style of play.
Good head coaches.
GM trying to slap quick fix after quick fix on to the team.

Generally no direction whatsoever.

Epicurus · Post #33 » by **Epicurus** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 12:06 am

To some degree, agree; but the Pacers have a style of play. Unfortunately for them, Dunleavy's injury and poor distance shooting of his replacements take them out of it.

midranger · Post #34 » by **midranger** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 12:11 am

Epicurus wrote:To some degree, agree; but the Pacers have a style of play. Unfortunately for them, Dunleavy's injury and poor distance shooting of his replacements take them out of it.

Yeah, I remember that from last year. This year, I could never wrap my head around what they were trying to do. You're right, they probably just missed Duns a lot.

Jack
Dunleavy
Granger
Murphy
Rebounder

Epicurus · Post #35 » by **Epicurus** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 12:20 am

So true, the Pacer offensive style this year is only faintly like last year, and often it is nothing like it.

midranger · Post #36 » by **midranger** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 12:41 am

Epicurus wrote:So true, the Pacer offensive style this year is only faintly like last year, and often it is nothing like it.

It doesn't help that TJ is often just doing his own thing.

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #37 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 9:54 am

stayfly wrote:R Sessions
M Redd
RJ
Charlie V
A Bogut

9/10?

7/10?

5/10?

I personally think that's an EXCELLENT starting lineup and assuming they all continue to buy in to Skiles defensive mentality and play good team basketball I think that starting lineup is in the top 10 (or higher) of current NBA teams

what do YOU think?

We can see with only 33 posts how you can say this is an excellent team.

This is naive. I like your confidence but there are no DIFFERENCE MAKERS on this team where you can say, "hey, if he gets the ball and the game is on the line he has, he can, and he will come through for us" type players.

No one.

This is a horrible team regardless to whether they are healthy or not. If other teams were injury free the Bucks would be a 9th or 10th seed EVEN IF BOGUT AND REDD WERE HEALTHY!

No depth and too many holes. Pourous defense...and poor personnel descisions in trades and draft-ing...

Sigra · Post #38 » by **Sigra** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 10:09 pm

If healthy we would be #5 at East and #12 at NBA IMO. Mostly because our franchise player is #12 of all franchise players and we have great coach.

InsideOut · Post #39 » by **InsideOut** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 10:36 pm

Sigra wrote:If healthy we would be #5 at East and #12 at NBA IMO. Mostly because our franchise player is #12 of all franchise players and we have great coach.

Are you saying we have the 12th best player in the league on our team?

Sigra · Post #40 » by **Sigra** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 11:26 pm

InsideOut wrote:
Sigra wrote:If healthy we would be #5 at East and #12 at NBA IMO. Mostly because our franchise player is #12 of all franchise players and we have great coach.

Are you saying we have the 12th best player in the league on our team?

Nope. Bogut is not the 12th best player in the league. But IMO he is the 12th most important player in the league or as I said 12th best franchise player or if you want 12th MVP. That is because of his position (C) of course and because of his importance to one half of the game (defense). I just think if he is healthy he is #12 at MVP list.