2001 Bucks

Eazy E · Post #21 » by **Eazy E** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:41 am

Tim Lehrbach wrote:Maybe you can find an old thread about this series from the first year of RealGM.

Looks like threads only go back to 1/1/08

Mr Waternoose · Post #22 » by **Mr Waternoose** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:05 am

The lakers swept the blazers, kings, and spurs by and average of 16 points per game. They might have been the next three best teams in the NBA that year. Nobody from the east was going to do anything against them. The bucks needed 7 to get by Charlotte. The sixers opened as 15-1 underdogs. After stealing game 1 they were 12-1. The Bucks would have had no shot either. Oddly enough the Bucks were 2 and 0 against the Spurs, Lakers, Jazz, and Kings that year in the regular season. Strange that a team that only went 50-32 from the east would sweep all the teams in the western conference with the best records. Little chance it would have mattered in the finals. The lakers coasted all regular season.

76ciology · Post #23 » by **76ciology** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:09 am

That's probably why GMs believe that you need a HOF worthy or a top 5 player to win a championship. AI was the MVP back then.

How do you make money with Bucks games? Who would want to watch Ervin Johnson vs Shaq? This is the Ervin Johnson without the HIV.

Bernman · Post #24 » by **Bernman** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:25 am

Mr Waternoose wrote:The lakers swept the blazers, kings, and spurs by and average of 16 points per game. They might have been the next three best teams in the NBA that year. Nobody from the east was going to do anything against them. The bucks needed 7 to get by Charlotte. The sixers opened as 15-1 underdogs. After stealing game 1 they were 12-1. The Bucks would have had no shot either. Oddly enough the Bucks were 2 and 0 against the Spurs, Lakers, Jazz, and Kings that year in the regular season. Strange that a team that only went 50-32 from the east would sweep all the teams in the western conference with the best records. Little chance it would have mattered in the finals. The lakers coasted all regular season.

Przybilla gave Shaq a lot of problems with his physicality and defense. And the Bucks had a lot of firepower. 3's are worth more than 2's. Bucks were 2nd in the league in made 3's and 5th in %, making them arguably the best shooting team in the league. The Lakers were 11th and 20th, respectively. Bucks were sort of before their time as a Warriors' style team. I guess Bavetta didn't work the regular season games with the Lakers, nor the other top teams in the west. As aforementioned, the Bucks were 0-7 in games he reffed this season, as well as having lost 16 straight around this time. These things seemingly would have translated into the finals to give the Bucks a good chance, bar officiating.

SpreeS · Post #25 » by **SpreeS** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:01 am

Interesting question

Jabari or Big Dog? Who do you take? Both SF with similar stats lines.

deanwoof · Post #26 » by **deanwoof** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:20 am

Tim Thomas was amazingly talented.

spacemonkey · Post #27 » by **spacemonkey** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:26 am

LakersLegacy wrote:
I don't trust Simmons description though. I use to really like him. Then after years and years of reading his columns (1) I noticed a pattern that he yells fire at anything he perceives as smoke. Simmons was fired by ESPN, cancelled by HBO and (2) is a giant jerk when he goes to eat in Malibu and (3) ahhhh.

The Lakers were undefeated going into the Finals and I don't think the Bucks could win. Kobe averaged 30 and Shaq averaged 33 in the Finals vs. the 76ers. It took every bit of magic AI had to steal a game for the best moment of AI's career.

On the bright side, most fans see the Bucks as the team to beat when LeBron gets old and slows down in 4 more seasons down the road. Patience, Milwaukee will rise.

(1) from approx 2002-2011
(2) if don't believe me, talk to a server next time you are in the area and want to enjoy an ocean view over dinner; Simmons has a reputation and its not that of an everyday guy like he use to present himself, he thinks he is the biggest star in sports and wants you to kneel so he can present his gluteus maximus, gluteus medius and gluteus minimus.
(3) why does Simmons always write like this? It's choppy and a little annoying, kind of feels like you are grading a term paper

Underrated post.

MrOpposite34 · Post #28 » by **MrOpposite34** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:20 pm

Eazy E wrote:
Tim Lehrbach wrote:Maybe you can find an old thread about this series from the first year of RealGM.

Looks like threads only go back to 1/1/08

Ha. I think he might have been taking a shot at the topic. But as a Bucks fan, this was the last really fun year...well...the Fear the Deer year had its moments. RIP prime Bogut

Upperclass · Post #29 » by **Upperclass** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:49 pm

That team wouldve been great in the modern area. They shot alot of threes and could play in the mid range very well and at the rim, decently. Their defense was solid, as they tended to force alot of turnovers.. lindsey hunter in particular was a fantastic on ball defender. But they were not spectacular on that end and they were a horrendous rebounding team with little rim protection.

The 76ers were a far better rebounding and defensive team. The had a top 5 player in Iverson and a better coach. The Raptors also had a top 5 player and tougher guys in general. Jerome Williams, Oakley, Willis, Corliss, Childs, Mark Jackson.. These were guys who would beat you up on the floor.. which the Bucks generally wanted no part of. In the end, they SHOULDVE beaten the 6ers and were cheated out of that series imo. But it wouldnt have mattered as the Lakers wouldve run through them like tissue paper.

Lauri_Legend · Post #30 » by **Lauri_Legend** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:12 pm

Bucks have always been underwhelming. Even this season. But they are the team of the future. They will be the team that knocks out the Cavs in 3-4 years. Assuming they keep their players

MrOpposite34 · Post #31 » by **MrOpposite34** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:21 pm

diebieber wrote:Bucks have always been underwhelming. Even this season. But they are the team of the future. They will be the team that knocks out the Cavs in 3-4 years. Assuming they keep their players

Since the 90's. Mostly. But their old days with Kareem and Oscar...and then the 80's teams with Moncrief/Coach Nelly...if it wasn't for the Celtics...could have a few more champions then just the 1

Eazy E · Post #32 » by **Eazy E** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:41 pm

SpreeS wrote:Interesting question

Jabari or Big Dog? Who do you take? Both SF with similar stats lines.

Jabari 100 times out of 100

M-C-G · Post #33 » by **M-C-G** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:43 pm

SpreeS wrote:Interesting question

Jabari or Big Dog? Who do you take? Both SF with similar stats lines.

Jabari at 21 is putting up basically the same numbers as peak Big Dog. This is a no brainer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

M-C-G · Post #34 » by **M-C-G** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:45 pm

deanwoof wrote:Tim Thomas was amazingly talented.

I think one of the great coaching travesties of all time was Karl letting TimTom turn into "just" a 3 point shooter. Guys physical talents were off the charts. He could have been so much more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The_Hater · Post #35 » by **The_Hater** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:45 pm

Eazy E wrote:
SpreeS wrote:Interesting question

Jabari or Big Dog? Who do you take? Both SF with similar stats lines.

Jabari 100 times out of 100

Gotta figure that Big dog level is the worst case scenario for Jabari.

Eazy E · Post #36 » by **Eazy E** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:53 pm

The_Hater wrote:
Eazy E wrote:
SpreeS wrote:Interesting question

Jabari or Big Dog? Who do you take? Both SF with similar stats lines.

Jabari 100 times out of 100

Gotta figure that Big dog level is the worst case scenario for Jabari.

Exactly

ackypoo · Post #37 » by **ackypoo** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:34 pm

that bucks team was a team that got stronger as the season progressed. any number or stats people have regarding them are skewed because of how poorly they started the season. it wasnt even the same team that was in the playoffs.

they absolutely got hosed in that series. its not like simmons is the one source on this. theres plenty of reading you can do on that series outside of him.

mhd · Post #38 » by **mhd** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:39 pm

I think it was clear that the NBA was rooting for Philly. From George Karl's book:

"Stern watched the game [game 5] in person in Philly's arena, and forgot himself for a moment and acted like a Philly fan. I didn't see it but a lot of people noticed when he stood up and seemed outraged when AI got fouled and it wasn't called, and Ray and I did the bitching that cost us and the senator some money. I'll always remember that Game Five and I'll always hate it"

Patches Perry · Post #39 » by **Patches Perry** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:43 pm

Neither the Sixers or Bucks were contenders, finals be damned.

HurricaneKid · Post #40 » by **HurricaneKid** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:51 pm

I literally stopped watching the NBA for several years because of this. I had just started to officiate myself and there was no question in my mind that it was not only rigged, but brazenly so.

They had one of the games on ESPN Classic not that long ago and it was borderline hilarious. Philly was Greco Roman wrestling and Mil would get called for these incredibly ticky tack fouls.

I am happy that the physicality in play back then isn't allowed any longer because it made for really awful basketball.