Bucks Final Team Report (Yahoo)

[Epicurus]

I definitley think Mo was our most dissapointing player. He didn't really improve from last year(actually he digressed) and I thought he was very selfish a lot of times this season. Villanueva was also extremly selfish, especially later in the year. All he did was jack up shots and I think his scoring averages towards the end of the year are a little bit bloated.

Actually williams improved about 6% over last season, as far as weighted total numbers. Bogut made the best improvement at 7.6%. Redd was the one who regressed, but I digress.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-

I would have thought Europa would have chosen Bobby considering he thought he was the 2nd best offensive player on the team. Instead he decided to rip Mo some more. O well.

Funny, I thought it was the article that ripped on Mo and confirmed things that have been posted about him in this forum. Curious how the shift always goes away from Mo and onto people who have nothing to do with Mo whatsoever.

[Buck You]

-= original quote snipped =-



Actually williams improved about 6% over last season, as far as weighted total numbers. Bogut made the best improvement at 7.6%. Redd was the one who regressed, but I digress.

Numbers wise, yes. But I think he got more selfish on the court and his defense I think actually got worse. But maybe that's just my below average vision looking at the game.

Oh and Twirly, digressed, regressed same thing.

[trwi7]

Oh and Twirly, digressed, regressed same thing.

digress: to go apart, to turn aside; esp., to depart temporarily from the main subject in talking or writing; ramble --SYN. deviate

regress: to go back, return; a going or coming back; the right or privelage of this; backward regression; retrogression; to go back; return; move backward; to undergo regression

[Buck You]

-= original quote snipped =-





digress: to go apart, to turn aside; esp., to depart temporarily from the main subject in talking or writing; ramble --SYN. deviate

regress: to go back, return; a going or coming back; the right or privelage of this; backward regression; retrogression; to go back; return; move backward; to undergo regression

Talking about the Bucks drops my IQ 10 points.

[Epicurus]

Given the predictive power of weighted use of all boxscore numbers to team wins based upon player individual performance, I have more faith in them than your (or mine) observations or repitition of others' observations.

[midranger]

Mo was the most disappointing player?

Did the author not catch Charlie Bell shooting 26% for the majority of the season?

Or Bobby Simmons (who actually makes more) shooting 30% for the majority of the season.

Or Redd chocking away literally 90% of the games in which he touched the ball in the 4th quarter?

Or Yi ending up one of the worst players in the league after a promising start?

Or CV not showing up until made a starter, and then sporadically so after that?


This team's biffest disappointment was certainly Redd who came off an Olympic Qualifying summer and playd the "right way" for about 7 games, then became the same selfish chucker he's always been. All the while choking away games late by freezing out teammates in the 4th quarter. To the point where the coach actually wanted to bring him off the bench because the team played better with him off of the court.

When you're paying a guy 15 million dollars, he should make you better not worse. Redd's mere presence on the court made the Bucks worse this year. That is disappointing.

[old skool]

Michael Redd is not a superstar - he is just the closest thing that the Bucks have to a superstar. He is the face of a franchise. He is promoted heavily in the media. This belies that he is a second tier talent who has appeared in only one All-Star game. A star, not a superstar.

It is really irrelevant that he has a max contract. While it would be preferable to have a superstar like Kobe or Duncan or Garnett in return for a max contract, the reality is that the Bucks had to pay Redd a max contract if they wanted to outbid the Cavs for his services. Paying Redd his contract made more sense than saving that money to spend on Larry Hughes or the like.

The bigger issue in my mind is how the Bucks had so many losses in 2007-08 in spite of some decent NBA pieces. Any team with an above average center (Bogut) and a top level scorer at SG (Redd) should be able to play close to .500 ball. That the Bucks were far below .500 with Mo at PG for most of the year is pretty damning. And the W-L record was even worse when Sessions started in place of Mo.

SF was the second most disappointing position for me. I put most of that on Simmons, who never came close to the productivity of 2005-06. The SF tandem of Simmons and Mason was one of the most unproductive SF groups in the NBA - though Simmons looked much more like the Simmons of 2005-06 as the season drew to a close.

PF was the most disappointing position for me. The PF tandem of Yi and Villanueva was horrid. When they were on the court, it was as if the Bucks were playing without a PF. Kind of an odd version of small ball. Neither could defend as a true PF (Brian Skinner was sorely missed). Both were like SFs on offense.

PG was the third most disappointing position. Mo is more of a sixth man combo guard. Bell is not an undersized SG or SF. Ivey is very limited.

Redd did fine at SG, and thus was the least disappointing to me. Redd was more of a team player with assists and rebounds both up. I don't see Redd as the Bucks' problem. I don't think that he hurts any team in the Central Division if he is their starting SG. But the results in Milwaukee were pitiful. He has to look in the mirror, just like everyone else.

oLd sKool

[Epicurus]

Professor Berri has recently, using WinsProduced (the more detailed approach to weighted box score analyis than WinScores) listed the 15 most productive players (WP per minute X number of minutes played) for each position. Redd was 15th among SGs and Williams was 14th among PGs. No other Bucks were listed (although I guess that Bogut was either 16th or 17th).

Related to the previous post, the badness (and not meaning the goodness) of the PF position for the Bucks is indicated by Ruffin being by far more the better producer at that position.

[Fort Minor]

-= original quote snipped =-





digress: to go apart, to turn aside; esp., to depart temporarily from the main subject in talking or writing; ramble --SYN. deviate

regress: to go back, return; a going or coming back; the right or privelage of this; backward regression; retrogression; to go back; return; move backward; to undergo regression

I move to rename that emoticon "Teh Twirly Finger." Maybe add a 'FTW' afterwards as well.

[Nowak008]

Professor Berri has recently, using WinsProduced (the more detailed approach to weighted box score analyis than WinScores) listed the 15 most productive players (WP per minute X number of minutes played) for each position. Redd was 15th among SGs and Williams was 14th among PGs. No other Bucks were listed (although I guess that Bogut was either 16th or 17th).

Related to the previous post, the badness (and not meaning the goodness) of the PF position for the Bucks is indicated by Ruffin being by far more the better producer at that position.

Link? Is there a minimum amount of mins you have to get to be considered?

[Epicurus]

Same link as I have supplied about 30 times already. Oh well,

http://dberri.wordpress.com/ (lease put on your favorites)

[ReasonablySober]

Professor Berri has recently, using WinsProduced (the more detailed approach to weighted box score analyis than WinScores) listed the 15 most productive players (WP per minute X number of minutes played) for each position. Redd was 15th among SGs and Williams was 14th among PGs. No other Bucks were listed (although I guess that Bogut was either 16th or 17th).

Related to the previous post, the badness (and not meaning the goodness) of the PF position for the Bucks is indicated by Ruffin being by far more the better producer at that position.

Actually, Redd's not even listed in the top fifteen.

You're right, though. Mo was 14th, Bogut was unranked.

[Epicurus]

-= original quote snipped =-



Actually, Redd's not even listed in the top fifteen.

You're right, though. Mo was 14th, Bogut was unranked.

redd was mentioned when I first read it. But since Berri has written, "Andrew,
Thanks for catching the problem with Ronnie Brewer. I think I fixed the rankings for SG and PF."

[paulpressey25]

The center rankings are a little bit misleading since he's got in there guys like Bosh, Jefferson, Gasol, etc who are in a sense centers physically but lot mostly PF.

I'm guessing though that Bogut didn't make the top 15 because he doesn't seem to do anything elite statistically. No great rebound rate, shotblocking rate, scoring, etc.

[WEFFPIM]

Great writeup, but I'm on the side of those who disagree with Mo being the most disappointing. He was extremely disappointing, but Charlie Bell, Bobby Simmons, Michael Redd, and Yi were all equally or more disappointing in my mind. And I might be acting to harshly towards the rookie, but I would have been happy with just some sort of production from him. He had a good first month and then...poof.

[trwi7]

-= original quote snipped =-



I move to rename that emoticon "Teh Twirly Finger." Maybe add a 'FTW' afterwards as well.

I could get on board with that. I must warn you though that I sometimes forget to use that finger when waving it.

[AussieBuck]

Professor Berri has recently, using WinsProduced (the more detailed approach to weighted box score analyis than WinScores) listed the 15 most productive players (WP per minute X number of minutes played) for each position. Redd was 15th among SGs and Williams was 14th among PGs. No other Bucks were listed (although I guess that Bogut was either 16th or 17th).

Related to the previous post, the badness (and not meaning the goodness) of the PF position for the Bucks is indicated by Ruffin being by far more the better producer at that position.

Wow Przybilla makes the list ahead of Bogut.

[midranger]

I guess it's hard to produce wins when your team loses so much.

[midranger]

Though we need to keep in mind with Bogut that much of his increased production coincided with the team completely bottoming out.