Bucks News, Trade Ideas, Transactions - Bobby back on a 4/$49 deal, Ingles 1 year deal

[MickeyDavis]

Some who bemoan Pat being "overpaid" (prematurely since no extension has happened) would also bemoan if he left for nothing.

[Ron Swanson]

I think you can make a case to draft Ivey #1 but that's much more due to my strong belief that there's no real blue-chip, superstar type prospect in this class.

[jschligs]

What flexibility does that provide us for the upcoming year?

[machu46]

I can't quite put my finger on what worries me about Ivey, but I just don't see it with him. He's not a great shooter, but he is defenitely explosive off the dribble.

I can see why teams like him, but I just would be very hesitant to pick him top 5.

He’s more risky than I’d prefer in a guard at the top of the draft because he’s really only shown flashes of PG skills, but ultimately, nobody in this class can match the athleticism and that athleticism with his finishing ability and potential shooting ability should give him a chance at being an all star level player even if he doesn’t turn into an ideal PG.

If the Kings are really willing to trade the pick and accept a non-ridiculous package from these guys, I wouldn’t hesitate to move up if I’m a team like the Knicks or Wizards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[machu46]

I think you can make a case to draft Ivey #1 but that's much more due to my strong belief that there's no real blue-chip, superstar type prospect in this class.

Same, though I think Paolo is arguably close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrWood]

The Bucks were dead last in 3 pt field goals given up and attempted last season along with being in the bottom half of the league in defensive 3 pt %. But, RIM PROTECTORS!!!

Further examination of where other teams are making their shots at a (relatively) high rate shows the bucks' strategy.
They (the bucks) are (relatively) GOOD at defending corner threes, which are the high-percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending threes above the break, which is the lower percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending mid-range shots, which are not efficient shots to take.
They are GOOD at defending shots within the restricted areas.
So. . . opponents will be inclined to attempt shots which provide fewer points per shot. You have to give the opponent something, and the strategy will work more times than not.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&DistanceRange=By%20Zone&sort=Above%20the%20Break%203%20FG%20PCT&dir=1

[Ron Swanson]

Honestly, can't shake the Donovan Mitchell comp for Ivey. He's not as big as you'd like for a 2-guard. He's not as good of a facilitator as you'd like in a lead guard. But the athleticism, handle, and shooting potential all point to him becoming an elite scorer off the bounce. You just hope he can improve a lot as a play-maker and defender, because that's obviously what keeps a guy like Mitchell from ever being a Top-15ish player.

[DingleJerry]

I think you can make a case to draft Ivey #1 but that's much more due to my strong belief that there's no real blue-chip, superstar type prospect in this class.

Same, though I think Paolo is arguably close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea my eye test had Paolo as what should be the blue chipper. LIke he should have it all, buuuut I got some bad Jabari vibes from him too.

Note that I barely saw the Auburn guy play though

[Antinomy]

I'm not sure 4/48 is even an overpay. He's proven to be a reliable shooter in the playoffs, plays solid switchable defense, and has even upped his playmaking a bit. It's not easy to find guys who can handle 25ish minutes in a playoff game.

He was unbelievable after Donte went down in our title run.

Dude basically shared the smallball 4 spot with PJ & did phenomenal — definitely one of my favorite players on the team.

And besides the fly-by contests, he’s clearly a high IQ player & knows what to do and where to be. Those types of guys are hard to find in today’s NBA.

[BigO]

The Bucks were dead last in 3 pt field goals given up and attempted last season along with being in the bottom half of the league in defensive 3 pt %. But, RIM PROTECTORS!!!

Further examination of where other teams are making their shots at a (relatively) high rate shows the bucks' strategy.
They (the bucks) are (relatively) GOOD at defending corner threes, which are the high-percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending threes above the break, which is the lower percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending mid-range shots, which are not efficient shots to take.
They are GOOD at defending shots within the restricted areas.
So. . . opponents will be inclined to attempt shots which provide fewer points per shot. You have to give the opponent something, and the strategy will work more times than not.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&DistanceRange=By%20Zone&sort=Above%20the%20Break%203%20FG%20PCT&dir=1

What you're missing is that the NBA game has changed a lot and relies much more on the three point shot than it did years ago. So while protecting the paint will always be important, it is much less important than it used to be. When a higher percentage of NBA team points are three pointers compared to the past, it means guarding the three point line is more important than it used to be.

So saying that you have to "give the opponent something" is not only not true (one of those banal maxims that have no truth), if it were, three point shots are not the "something" that you would want to give up.

The Bucks were 19th in three point percentage given up. That's just not good enough.

The current wave of defense in my view is what Boston and the Warriors have done. They play a predominantly switching defense, whose sole point is not to "give up something". It's premise is that you always want a defender on the ball, no matter where the ball is, but especially at the three point line.

The Celtics were first and the Warrior were third this past season in three point defense. And this was the main reason the Celtics were successful with what I consider inferior talent compared to a lot of teams.

[DrWood]

The Bucks were dead last in 3 pt field goals given up and attempted last season along with being in the bottom half of the league in defensive 3 pt %. But, RIM PROTECTORS!!!

Further examination of where other teams are making their shots at a (relatively) high rate shows the bucks' strategy.
They (the bucks) are (relatively) GOOD at defending corner threes, which are the high-percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending threes above the break, which is the lower percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending mid-range shots, which are not efficient shots to take.
They are GOOD at defending shots within the restricted areas.
So. . . opponents will be inclined to attempt shots which provide fewer points per shot. You have to give the opponent something, and the strategy will work more times than not.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&DistanceRange=By%20Zone&sort=Above%20the%20Break%203%20FG%20PCT&dir=1

What you're missing is that the NBA game has changed a lot and relies much more on the three point shot than it did years ago. So while protecting the paint will always be important, it is much less important than it used to be. When a higher percentage of NBA team points are three pointers compared to the past, it means guarding the three point line is more important than it used to be.

So saying that you have to "give the opponent something" is not only not true (one of those banal maxims that have no truth), if it were, three point shots are not the "something" that you would want to give up.

The Bucks were 19th in three point percentage given up. That's just not good enough.

The current wave of defense in my view is what Boston and the Warriors have done. They play a predominantly switching defense, whose sole point is not to "give up something". It's premise is that you always want a defender on the ball, no matter where the ball is, but especially at the three point line.

The Celtics were first and the Warrior were third this past season in three point defense. And this was the main reason the Celtics were successful with what I consider inferior talent compared to a lot of teams.

Maybe you should have actually read my post and/or looked at the link.
THE BUCKS ARE GOOD AT DEFENDING THE CORNER THREE; i.e. the type of three you particularly want to be good at defending.

[buckboy]

I guess if you believe Ivey can become a point guard then sure, go for it at 4.

I don't believe that at all personally.

[slos]

After watching Wood and Grant sold for peanuts I feel comfortable that Horst can turn somehow our few assets into a proven starter.

[chonestown]

What I would like to see is a Bucks defense that does not overly sell out on distance shooters, but rather takes the prudent choice of protecting the interior. Close shots are more convertible than shots from further away. Just spitballing this, but something to consider and worth implementing.imo

[Baddy Chuck]

Pat opting in is awesome. Really think he was gone if he hit the market.

[blazza18]

Not fully sold on Pat as a player but the guys is a good culture fit and feels like the only guy who isn't afraid to shoot (and makes shots).

[humanrefutation]

Pat went from being a borderline rotation player who we inexplicably gave an extra year to, to becoming a pretty solid rotation player who has improved his shooting. No complaints about having him back, especially at that price.

[midranger]

What do we think Frank Kaminsky’s market will be? I’d take him on a minimum.

[BigO]

Further examination of where other teams are making their shots at a (relatively) high rate shows the bucks' strategy.
They (the bucks) are (relatively) GOOD at defending corner threes, which are the high-percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending threes above the break, which is the lower percentage 3 opportunity.
They are NOT GOOD at defending mid-range shots, which are not efficient shots to take.
They are GOOD at defending shots within the restricted areas.
So. . . opponents will be inclined to attempt shots which provide fewer points per shot. You have to give the opponent something, and the strategy will work more times than not.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&DistanceRange=By%20Zone&sort=Above%20the%20Break%203%20FG%20PCT&dir=1

What you're missing is that the NBA game has changed a lot and relies much more on the three point shot than it did years ago. So while protecting the paint will always be important, it is much less important than it used to be. When a higher percentage of NBA team points are three pointers compared to the past, it means guarding the three point line is more important than it used to be.

So saying that you have to "give the opponent something" is not only not true (one of those banal maxims that have no truth), if it were, three point shots are not the "something" that you would want to give up.

The Bucks were 19th in three point percentage given up. That's just not good enough.

The current wave of defense in my view is what Boston and the Warriors have done. They play a predominantly switching defense, whose sole point is not to "give up something". It's premise is that you always want a defender on the ball, no matter where the ball is, but especially at the three point line.

The Celtics were first and the Warrior were third this past season in three point defense. And this was the main reason the Celtics were successful with what I consider inferior talent compared to a lot of teams.

Maybe you should have actually read my post and/or looked at the link.
THE BUCKS ARE GOOD AT DEFENDING THE CORNER THREE; i.e. the type of three you particularly want to be good at defending.

You're fixated on the corner three? THE BUCKS WERE 19TH IN DEFENDING THE THREE THIS PAST SEASON (see, I can use CAPS too).

Who cares which threes they were good or bad at guarding? The point is that every team should attempt to limit open shots, especially three point shots. Your assumption that it's ok to give up open threes that aren't corner threes is your problem. If that was Bud's goal, he succeeded miserably. Don't set up a defensive scheme that's predicated on giving up open shots, especially threes.

[ejn1214]

What you're missing is that the NBA game has changed a lot and relies much more on the three point shot than it did years ago. So while protecting the paint will always be important, it is much less important than it used to be. When a higher percentage of NBA team points are three pointers compared to the past, it means guarding the three point line is more important than it used to be.

So saying that you have to "give the opponent something" is not only not true (one of those banal maxims that have no truth), if it were, three point shots are not the "something" that you would want to give up.

The Bucks were 19th in three point percentage given up. That's just not good enough.

The current wave of defense in my view is what Boston and the Warriors have done. They play a predominantly switching defense, whose sole point is not to "give up something". It's premise is that you always want a defender on the ball, no matter where the ball is, but especially at the three point line.

The Celtics were first and the Warrior were third this past season in three point defense. And this was the main reason the Celtics were successful with what I consider inferior talent compared to a lot of teams.

Maybe you should have actually read my post and/or looked at the link.
THE BUCKS ARE GOOD AT DEFENDING THE CORNER THREE; i.e. the type of three you particularly want to be good at defending.

You're fixated on the corner three? THE BUCKS WERE 19TH IN DEFENDING THE THREE THIS PAST SEASON (see, I can use CAPS too).

Who cares which threes they were good or bad at guarding? The point is that every team should attempt to limit open shots, especially three point shots. Your assumption that it's ok to give up open threes that aren't corner threes is your problem. If that was Bud's goal, he succeeded miserably. Don't set up a defensive scheme that's predicated on giving up open shots, especially threes.

I'm pretty sure that was buds goal and it's stupid. Midrange shots and top of the key 3s have to become good shots at some point when they are wide open. Idk enough about the analytics but it's just common sense. That was the issue in the Celtics series. They stopped trying anything inside at all and we refused to adapt. Doesn't matter if they have 0 paint points if we are giving them wide open shots, even if they are analytically more inefficient.