Bucks News, Trade Ideas, Transactions - No Politics

[emunney]

We're still clobbering people from 2. I think there is something to the idea that teams have to take and make a lot of 3s, therefore there is no hesitation in taking them. Everybody has a green light. That gives confidence. Nothing really fully explains how well teams are shooting against us, which leads me to believe that whatever else is there (definitely not saying it's nothing -- it's several things), it's also a fluke.

I think a way to counter this is to over sell on the perimeter for the first few minutes of each quarter, even if that means giving up some wide open layups/dunks. An interesting note is the Bucks have allowed more wide open 3s in the 1st and 3rd quarters than the 2nd and 4th, but those quarters would still be pretty high compared to other teams.

Yeah, I've been thinking along these lines as well. Get really aggressive early, trap, blitz, switch (critical to do all this *with Brook on the floor*, btw, because Brook being on the floor has for a while been a sign that we absolutely are dropping and not switching). You can then play the core set most of the game, but every handful of possessions throw one of these more aggressive defensive actions back at them, just to make the reads less routine.

If we decide we're always going to switch, or change things up entirely dependent on personnel, we're giving away the game in the same way, just with a slightly different game.

[crkone]

One very quick thing they could do is stop helping except in very limited situations. It would require guys play straight up more often on the ball.

[tydett]

We're still clobbering people from 2. I think there is something to the idea that teams have to take and make a lot of 3s, therefore there is no hesitation in taking them. Everybody has a green light. That gives confidence. Nothing really fully explains how well teams are shooting against us, which leads me to believe that whatever else is there (definitely not saying it's nothing -- it's several things), it's also a fluke.

I think a way to counter this is to over sell on the perimeter for the first few minutes of each quarter, even if that means giving up some wide open layups/dunks. An interesting note is the Bucks have allowed more wide open 3s in the 1st and 3rd quarters than the 2nd and 4th, but those quarters would still be pretty high compared to other teams.

Yeah, I've been thinking along these lines as well. Get really aggressive early, trap, blitz, switch (critical to do all this *with Brook on the floor*, btw, because Brook being on the floor has for a while been a sign that we absolutely are dropping and not switching). You can then play the core set most of the game, but every handful of possessions throw one of these more aggressive defensive actions back at them, just to make the reads less routine.

If we decide we're always going to switch, or change things up entirely dependent on personnel, we're giving away the game in the same way, just with a slightly different game.

Yep, if there's one thing to be shown from the Bucks' recently woes (and even dating back to the Kidd days), it's that running the same defense can really help simplify that part of the game for players and can lead to some short term gains - remember how good that Kidd defense looked in that first season? But that teams figure it out and you have to adapt, which we haven't seen yet expansively.

[emunney]

Not buying "Magical confidence" as a reason here. It's either schematic/personnel, luck, or both. If the chemistry improves with the sample size and they settle back into a Top-5ish unit, then it was a blip on the radar because once again, the defense has pretty much never been the problem in the postseason. If it doesn't and keeps trending downwards, then the coaching staff needs to evaluate and be held accountable.

Magical is yours, I don't think there's anything magical about it and I even explained the mechanism.

[coolhandluke121]

One very quick thing they could do is stop helping except in very limited situations. It would require guys play straight up more often on the ball.

The over-helping is relatively new. It first reared its ugly head in the bubble. Before that, the Bucks were very good at helping in the paint while staying home on good shooters. They gave up a lot of 3's and forced teams to beat them from behind the arc, but they mostly gave up open 3's to mediocre shooters. They had the #1 defensive rating in the NBA two years in a row, so obviously they were executing the scheme at a very high level.

So what the hell changed, seriously? I'll grant that opponents have had more practice going against the Bucks and that probably helps them, but they didn't just figure out the whole scheme during the pandemic last spring and start exploiting it more effectively in the bubble. What happened is the Bucks' execution got significantly worse, with over-helping being the most significant change IMO. The fact is that the entire NBA knew how to attack the Bucks' scheme all along, but they simply couldn't execute against them. The Bucks consistently executed better than their opponents. It was no secret how you had to beat them, and honestly I don't even think the Bucks hid the fact that that's what teams had to do to beat them.

One theory I have is that they suffered a teamwide decline in footspeed due to age and inactivity during the layoff and that resulted in a lack of confidence in each other, which caused the over-helping. But I also strongly suspect that the Bucks just weren't playing as hard for whatever reason. They just have no chemistry or synergy anymore, which is amazing considering how great their chemistry used to be.

[Siefer]

We're still clobbering people from 2. I think there is something to the idea that teams have to take and make a lot of 3s, therefore there is no hesitation in taking them. Everybody has a green light. That gives confidence. Nothing really fully explains how well teams are shooting against us, which leads me to believe that whatever else is there (definitely not saying it's nothing -- it's several things), it's also a fluke.

Our interior defense is still good (although Brook's not contesting as well as he did the previous two seasons), and I have a hard time killing the drop scheme for Lonzo and Bled going a combined 14 for 27 from the corner. The bench is significantly worse on D which is going to continue to drag on the metrics, but the starting unit should have gotten better, and has regressed as well. Some of it is probably bad luck, some (a lot?) of it is communication and effort, and yeah, I think confidence and volume matter too.

To some extent, I think the drop scheme is getting unfairly scapegoated. We know the big exploits already, and that's not what's been killing us lately. Guard screens, either to free up another guard, or a big that can shoot generate great looks, but I continue to be okay with letting Lonzo Ball shoot 13 threes from the corner. I am worried that something is broken on the perimeter, but it's looked broken even when we're not dropping.

[LUKE23]

Where to the Bucks rank league-wide in percentage of their threes allowed being wide open?

[crkone]

Where to the Bucks rank league-wide in percentage of their threes allowed being wide open?

4th highest which is obviously bad but lower than previous years, but in the last 5 games they've been the worst.

[FrieAaron]

Where to the Bucks rank league-wide in percentage of their threes allowed being wide open?

For wide open threes we have the 4th highest frequency of opponent shooting at 20.9% and 10th highest for open 3 pointers at 16%. For comparison sake and a look at the whole variance thing, the Knicks actually give up the third most widoe open 3s at 23.9% frequency, but they have the best "defense" in the league against wide open threes. Their opponents are shooting 31.9% (!) on them. Conversely, the Bucks opponents are shooting 44.2% on wide open 3s. So, yes we do give up a lot but at the same time it's also true to say to this point we actually have been extremely unlucky.

By the end of last season, the difference between the worst opponent shooting percentage and best on wide open threes was 7.4%, 6.8% in 18-19, 5.1% in 17-18, 6.9% difference in 16-17. The current gap between the Bucks and Knicks is 12.3% Our opponents shooting 44.2% on wide open 3s is the worst over the last 7 years (as far back as the NBAs stats page goes)

[mattg]

Where to the Bucks rank league-wide in percentage of their threes allowed being wide open?

For wide open threes we have the 4th highest frequency of opponent shooting at 20.9% and 10th highest for open 3 pointers at 16%. For comparison sake and a look at the whole variance thing, the Knicks actually give up the third most widoe open 3s at 23.9% frequency, but they have the best "defense" in the league against wide open threes. Their opponents are shooting 31.9% (!) on them. Conversely, the Bucks opponents are shooting 44.2% on wide open 3s. So, yes we do give up a lot but at the same time it's also true to say to this point we actually have been extremely unlucky.

By the end of last season, the difference between the worst opponent shooting percentage and best on wide open threes was 7.4%, 6.8% in 18-19, 5.1% in 17-18, 6.9% difference in 16-17. The current gap between the Bucks and Knicks is 12.3% Our opponents shooting 44.2% on wide open 3s is the worst over the last 7 years (as far back as the NBAs stats page goes)

Well why even bother looking at the Knicks since it's such an obvious outlier then? What about the teams who give up the 1st and 2nd most wide open 3s and their % on those? That would be much more interesting to look at.

[FrieAaron]

Where to the Bucks rank league-wide in percentage of their threes allowed being wide open?

For wide open threes we have the 4th highest frequency of opponent shooting at 20.9% and 10th highest for open 3 pointers at 16%. For comparison sake and a look at the whole variance thing, the Knicks actually give up the third most wide open 3s at 23.9% frequency, but they have the best "defense" in the league against wide open threes. Their opponents are shooting 31.9% (!) on them. Conversely, the Bucks opponents are shooting 44.2% on wide open 3s. So, yes we do give up a lot but at the same time it's also true to say to this point we actually have been extremely unlucky.

By the end of last season, the difference between the worst opponent shooting percentage and best on wide open threes was 7.4%, 6.8% in 18-19, 5.1% in 17-18, 6.9% difference in 16-17. The current gap between the Bucks and Knicks is 12.3% Our opponents shooting 44.2% on wide open 3s is the worst over the last 7 years (as far back as the NBAs stats page goes)

Well why even bother looking at the Knicks since it's such an obvious outlier then? What about the teams who give up the 1st and 2nd most wide open 3s and their % on those? That would be much more interesting to look at.

The purpose of the Knicks and Bucks comparison was to highlight that at this somewhat fairly early stage that, yes, there is some extreme variance still going on. But for more examples, the team that allows 3s the most frequently is Charlotte at 27.2% and their opponents are shooting 34.9% on them. Second most frequent is New Orleans at 26.8% and their opponents are shooting 39.1%

[Bucksfan28]

I still think you have to look at who is taking those wide open 3's. Big difference between leaving sub-35% shooters open versus guys shooting >40%. I don't know how the Bucks perform overall in this regard (would have to go through every box score invididually), but it'd be interesting to see.

[FrieAaron]

I still think you have to look at who is taking those wide open 3's. Big difference between leaving sub-35% shooters open versus guys shooting >40%. I don't know how the Bucks perform overall in this regard (would have to go through every box score invididually), but it'd be interesting to see.

Right. This post by emunney kind of addresses this. If we're reading it correctly, the more bluish color of our bar means that we're overall mostly letting worse shooters take them.

[Bucksfan28]

I still think you have to look at who is taking those wide open 3's. Big difference between leaving sub-35% shooters open versus guys shooting >40%. I don't know how the Bucks perform overall in this regard (would have to go through every box score invididually), but it'd be interesting to see.

Right. This post by emunney kind of addresses this. If we're reading it correctly, the more bluish color of our bar means that we're overall mostly letting worse shooters take them.

Thought I remembered seeing this but couldn't find it. Thanks Frie.

[Perseus1966]

I still think you have to look at who is taking those wide open 3's. Big difference between leaving sub-35% shooters open versus guys shooting >40%. I don't know how the Bucks perform overall in this regard (would have to go through every box score invididually), but it'd be interesting to see.

Pelicans shot 27% from 3 before our game.
Lamelo is a 29.9% shooter and Malik Monk fom 32 carrer to 45 this year

[Perseus1966]

can we trade Brook for Porzigis?

[emunney]

can we trade Brook for Porzigis?

We can't but your sig made me laugh.

[crkone]

I still think you have to look at who is taking those wide open 3's. Big difference between leaving sub-35% shooters open versus guys shooting >40%. I don't know how the Bucks perform overall in this regard (would have to go through every box score invididually), but it'd be interesting to see.

Right. This post by emunney kind of addresses this. If we're reading it correctly, the more bluish color of our bar means that we're overall mostly letting worse shooters take them.

Thought I remembered seeing this but couldn't find it. Thanks Frie.

Also here:

Read on Twitter

[emunney]

Right. This post by emunney kind of addresses this. If we're reading it correctly, the more bluish color of our bar means that we're overall mostly letting worse shooters take them.

Thought I remembered seeing this but couldn't find it. Thanks Frie.

Also here:

Read on Twitter

This one must be all shot types whereas Partnow's is just wide open?

[crkone]

Thought I remembered seeing this but couldn't find it. Thanks Frie.

Also here:

Read on Twitter

This one must be all shot types whereas Partnow's is just wide open?

I believe so but . Most 3s are wide open/open though.