Buck's healthy 12-10 record

[midranger]

Bucks record when Redd is the ONLY player missing.

6 - 3

Fact.

Interesting how this thread is about who we played over 22 games and what our record was when Redd and Bogut is out yet some posters get all defensive and want to make it all about Redd. Never saw that coming.

Add that to the 5-5 last year and you have a sample size that rivals what Hammond is using to determine the future of this franchise.



Oh yeah, 11-8 > 12-10.

[jeremyd236]

Bucks record when Redd is the ONLY player missing.

6 - 3

Fact.

And that translates to a 54-28 season. I just had to do it.

Assuming we play the teams that we did in those 9 games the entire season. What were those teams again?

[Rockmaninoff]

Bucks record when Redd is the ONLY player missing.

6 - 3

Fact.

And that translates to a 54-28 season. I just had to do it.

Assuming we play the teams that we did in those 9 games the entire season. What were those teams again?

I was joking, friendo.

[jeremyd236]

I was joking, friendo.

You might've been, but I know there's many on here who would (and will) use that logic to determine what our record would be without him.

[InsideOut]

Bucks record when Redd is the ONLY player missing.

6 - 3

Fact.

Interesting how this thread is also about our record when Bogut is out yet some posters get all defensive and want to make it about Redd. Never saw that comeing.

You never saw that "coeming"? How is this thread about Bogut being out? You said when "completely healthy" and in your original post, you mentioned Redd and Bogut, each once.

There's no indication whatsoever that this is a Bogut thread.

Read what you just wrote. See where you typed "you mentioned Redd and Bogut". Now see why Bogut is part of this thread? The point of the thread is who we played when we were healthy. Some thought it was a big deal we were 12-10 when healthy. However, we only played 7 teams with winning records during that span and lost 5 of those games. Then I looked at how we played against those teams when either Redd, Bogut or both were out. The point of the thread is who we played and then how we did against those teams when one or TWO players were out but you shockingly want to turn it into someone is picking on Redd thread.

[jeremyd236]

Bucks record when Redd is the ONLY player missing.

6 - 3

Fact.

Interesting how this thread is also about our record when Bogut is out yet some posters get all defensive and want to make it about Redd. Never saw that comeing.

You never saw that "coeming"? How is this thread about Bogut being out? You said when "completely healthy" and in your original post, you mentioned Redd and Bogut, each once.

There's no indication whatsoever that this is a Bogut thread.

Read what you just wrote. See where you typed "you mentioned Redd and Bogut". Now see why Bogut is part of this thread? The point of the thread is who we played when we were healthy. Some thought it was a big deal we were 12-10 when healthy. However, we only played 7 teams with winning records during that span and lost 5 of those games. Then I looked at how we played against those teams when either Redd, Bogut or both were out. The point of the thread is who we played and then how we did against those teams when one or TWO players were out but you shockingly want to turn it into someone is picking on Redd thread.

Because Redd is questionable as to whether or not he helps this team. No matter what the stats say, Bogut is unquestionably valuable to this team. Redd is on the line on this board. It makes no sense for me to say "We're better with Bogut" because I think this is a pretty obvious statement.

[Fight the Tank]

If this team stays healthy they win 45 games. No doubt in my mind.[/quote]
Perhaps. Only if they were playing against everyone else's injured squads. Though still likely not.

Assuming 100% health for your team and not the opponents makes little sense IMO.[/quote]

I would say with Bogut out there the majority of the time this team is a 45 win team.

I think it is a poor assumption that this team wouldn't have gotten better throughout the season playing together.[/quote]

I think it's a poor assumption that other teams wouldn't have gotten better throughout the season as well. I refer to Adam's question, "where do we rank among teams about to gel?"

And if there is one thing clear about the Bucks with Max Green as their leader, it's that they DON"T get better as the season goes on. In fact, they have universally gotten worse.[/quote]

I know you want to be as negative as possible about the Bucks, but I think you have to take into account 3 new starters and a new coach and give the team a little bit of learning curve. Throw in the asinine amount of early season games and a China trip I was just hoping for survival. The team's record has survived but unfortunately two key starters have not.

[midranger]

I don't want to be as negative as possible, I've just seen Bucks history. We've seen teams with Redd and a ton of new players and coaches come out to a hot start and fade down the stretch. 2005 and 2007 come to mind immediately.

We haven't seen the opposite though, which is what you're suggesting.

[Fight the Tank]

I don't want to be as negative as possible, I've just seen Bucks history. We've seen teams with Redd and a ton of new players and coaches come out to a hot start and fade down the stretch. 2005 and 2007 come to mind immediately.

We haven't seen the opposite though, which is what you're suggesting.

I agree with that perception, but I think we are seeing right now how Skiles is changing that attitude. This team could have thrown in the towel many times and have a thousand excuses yet Skiles has kept them together so far. That is why I feel confident in saying that this team would have improved and clearly are improving with the players on the floor.

[trwi7]

Team with Redd this season: 17-16.

Without Redd: 12-18.

Facts.

Actually, we're 6-3 without Redd. 12-18 when Redd and other players, such as Bogut are out.

[lawrybeard]

Those 22 games were at the start of the season. A season where we had a new coach, a new starting point guard, a new starting small forward and a new starting power forward. I'd say 12-10 is pretty good in that case. Would have been nice to have seen what would have happened had they been able to stay healthy.

Of couse you could always look at it from the glass half empty side.

[JoeHova]

If this team stays healthy they win 45 games. No doubt in my mind.

I would only agree if Sessions had been getting minutes all along. If Ridnour hadn't been hurt, Sessions might still be the 3rd string PG (I can't believe that would be the case, but that's the way the year started) and the team would be missing his outstanding play.

I think a team of:

Ramon
Redd
RJ
CV
Bogut

with Ridnour, LRMAM, and Gadz as the three main bench guys could probably win approx. 45 games if everything went right. However, everything never goes right. Also, RJ is useless, I just can't get over that.

[Stopshere2]

the team is 19-17 when Bogut is healthy (or actually playing some minutes). Ignoring all othe factors, 43 wins if he plays 82 games.

[jeremyd236]

Team with Redd this season: 17-16.

Without Redd: 12-18.

Facts.

Actually, we're 6-3 without Redd. 12-18 when Redd and other players, such as Bogut are out.

Okay, I like how your logic then doesn't factor in Redd's record (17-16) even though he too was missing players (Ridnour/Bogut).

It's like you want to spin the stats your way but there's no way to prove anything.

We're 12-18 without Redd, 17-16 with him.

[LUKE23]

Record without a player isn't that relevant. Record without ONLY that player (of major player components) is.

[apdamico]

I've mentioned this before, but this team (in it's current state) will only win games when they get solid bench production from Bell and others. Bell is a must to score in double figures for us to win games lately.

Come on Flintstone get that shot back and we will be fine, if not; put a fork in the season

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Anyway. Why is Hammond so focused on these 22 games when have four years of history showing what building around Redd and Bogut leads to?

He is an idiot who is in over his head...who is in CYOA mode. That's why...

Until this franchise sees the obvious it will continue to be one of the worse run in the last 5 years in the NBA.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Team with Redd this season: 17-16.

Without Redd: 12-18.

Facts.

Actually, we're 6-3 without Redd. 12-18 when Redd and other players, such as Bogut are out.

Okay, I like how your logic then doesn't factor in Redd's record (17-16) even though he too was missing players (Ridnour/Bogut).

It's like you want to spin the stats your way but there's no way to prove anything.

We're 12-18 without Redd, 17-16 with him.

Playoffs appearances after Redd signed.....1! And even that was not directly because of him in a year that they backed into them!

Since Bogut came? None! Enough said...Your little mini stats mean nothing. Lets look at the body of work and not tidbits of games to make it seem like you are saying something.

We can play this sorry, tired, and misconstrued numbers game all we want and twist them to put a positive spin on mediocrity all we want...But face the facts!

This has not been a good franchise in direct comparison to some others who were perennial doormats who have not arisen from the ashes...and left us in the dust!

Those are the two stats you look at. Once again Milwaukeeans not looking at and factoring in the 'Big picture.'

The two exampes I made above are what you need to consider.

[power4wardjinx]

Team with Redd this season: 17-16.

Without Redd: 12-18.

Facts.

Games vs. Division leaders Redd has played in: 2
Bucks record in those games: 1-1 (no-show vs. Lakers, win vs. Spurs)

Games vs. Division leaders w/out Redd: 10
Bucks record: 2-8 (home wins v. Denver and SA; loss in Denver, 0 for Cle, Bos, Orl)
Redd will miss all 11 games vs. the Cavs, Magic and Celtics.

BUCKS RECORD vs. everybody but 6 division leaders
With Redd: 16-15
Without Redd: 10-10

vs. Atlanta with Redd: One of their most miserable performances of the season
vs. Atlanta without Redd: A win at home and tough loss in Atl w/out Bogut
etc., etc. etc.