PistolPeteJR wrote: FlatearthZorro wrote:
2018 Celtics without Kyrie beat the Bucks to make it to the ECF.
2019 Celtics with Kyrie lost to the Bucks in the 2nd Round.
You wrote the 2018 Celtics were better because they advanced to the Conference Finals without Kyrie.
It’s idiotic to compare these two teams because the Kyrie Celtics faced a much tougher Milwaukee Bucks team.
With the way our offense and defense functioned and the performance Irving put on in the series against the Bucks, I could make the case the Bucks faced a much worse C's team. Irving shot <.350 from the field, .180 from 3, and we allowed 30 more points per 100 with him on the court. So the argument can go either way.
Lol what? Kyrie shot those percentages because of the Bucks defense. What you’re saying belittles a Bucks defense that was super legit. Who did the ‘18 Celtics face that were that good defensively?
Obviously, we have to factor in chemistry issues with that Celtics team as well, but you cannot take away from Milwaukee what is their due.
Bucks under Kidd were a disaster defensively.
Article from 538
“If the Milwaukee Bucks had simply played a standard NBA defense, Jason Kidd would likely still have a job.
The hypothesis: An athletic roster that forces turnovers and extra passes will lead invariably to a top defense. The finding: Not if achieving those goals means giving opponents a clear run at the rim on practically every possession.
The Bucks defense has been plain bad for most of the season. It saw a brief uptick after acquiring point guard Eric Bledsoe, but at the time of Kidd’s firing, it ranked 26th in the league in points allowed per 100 possessions (111.3), just behind the sad-sack Atlanta Hawks.https://www.google.ca/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bucks-great-defensive-experiment-is-over/amp/
Bucks were a different team in 2018 under Kidd. This is without even mentioning the development of Giannis or the additions of Lopez, Mirotic, Hill, and Ilyasova the following season.