2020-21 NBA Season Discussion

[Outside]

Okay, but are we going to pretend the Bucks didn't benefit from opponent injury here too?

Nowhere near on the same level as the Suns. We're really only talking about one series with the Bucks where opponents' injuries were a factor, and even then, Durant played the whole series, Kyrie played some of it and Harden played some of it. The Nets were stacked enough to withstand injuries more than any other team in the league, so the Bucks still had to work their asses off for that win. It's not comparable to the Suns facing MASH units literally every series.

Wow, really?

I feel like I've been pushing back all year against people saying that the Nets when healthy will be unbeatable, and I watched that Bucks-Nets series thinking, "Wow, even this crippled Nets team probably should have won over this dumb Bucks team. Clearly, this is probably the only chance the Bucks will have to win a title."

I think one of the key things is that Durant & Kyrie play pretty dumb basketball. It's with a healthy Harden that you actually get a super-high BBIQ guy, and we saw him make the shift to thinking more as a facilitator, he did it is super-adroitly. In some ways I might say that the Bucks won because the Nets had a damaged brain out there to match the damaged brains the Bucks' sport to a man.

I have to acknowledge though that the Bucks defense looks great, and that might be enough to get them this title.

It's amazing how people can have such different takes from watching the same thing. I know it happens virtually every game and series, but it can still be jarring.

I have not been a Harden fan. More accurately, I appreciated the elite skills he displayed in Houston, but I disliked him dominating the ball to an extreme and his foul-baiting, plus I thought his extreme helio-centric role was vulnerable to PS failure. It might've been good enough to win a title except for the Warriors, but I'm glad it wasn't.

I've been completely won over by Brooklyn Harden. The RS showed pretty clearly that losing Harden was a far bigger blow than losing Kyrie and that adding Harden was key to making the Nets realize their juggernaut potential. The Nets missing Harden for four games against the Bucks and having the shell of Harden for three was a huge blow. Considering that the Nets had injuries to two of their three stars and Joe Harris turned into the second coming of Harrison Barnes (kudos to the poster who came up with that), it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee that it took every last bit of seven games to beat them. I suppose Blake Griffin and Jeff Green playing above expectations helped, but that series exposed the Bucks' weaknesses pretty clearly. The fact that a far-from-great Hawks team looks overmatched also isn't a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee.

That's not to say that the Bucks are incapable of winning the title, because they are. They've shown stretches of really good defense, which will take you a long way. Giannis is really, really good. I just don't think Giannis is going to be allowed to feast at the rim against whoever comes out of the West like he has against the Nets and Hawks. That puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the Bucks to make threes, and considering that they've converted threes at a 30.9% rate so far this PS, that's not a warm, fuzzy place to be, no matter how good they are defensively.

[falcolombardi]

Nowhere near on the same level as the Suns. We're really only talking about one series with the Bucks where opponents' injuries were a factor, and even then, Durant played the whole series, Kyrie played some of it and Harden played some of it. The Nets were stacked enough to withstand injuries more than any other team in the league, so the Bucks still had to work their asses off for that win. It's not comparable to the Suns facing MASH units literally every series.

Wow, really?

I feel like I've been pushing back all year against people saying that the Nets when healthy will be unbeatable, and I watched that Bucks-Nets series thinking, "Wow, even this crippled Nets team probably should have won over this dumb Bucks team. Clearly, this is probably the only chance the Bucks will have to win a title."

I think one of the key things is that Durant & Kyrie play pretty dumb basketball. It's with a healthy Harden that you actually get a super-high BBIQ guy, and we saw him make the shift to thinking more as a facilitator, he did it is super-adroitly. In some ways I might say that the Bucks won because the Nets had a damaged brain out there to match the damaged brains the Bucks' sport to a man.

I have to acknowledge though that the Bucks defense looks great, and that might be enough to get them this title.

It's amazing how people can have such different takes from watching the same thing. I know it happens virtually every game and series, but it can still be jarring.

I have not been a Harden fan. More accurately, I appreciated the elite skills he displayed in Houston, but I disliked him dominating the ball to an extreme and his foul-baiting, plus I thought his extreme helio-centric role was vulnerable to PS failure. It might've been good enough to win a title except for the Warriors, but I'm glad it wasn't.

I've been completely won over by Brooklyn Harden. The RS showed pretty clearly that losing Harden was a far bigger blow than losing Kyrie and that adding Harden was key to making the Nets realize their juggernaut potential. The Nets missing Harden for four games against the Bucks and having the shell of Harden for three was a huge blow. Considering that the Nets had injuries to two of their three stars and Joe Harris turned into the second coming of Harrison Barnes (kudos to the poster who came up with that), it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee that it took every last bit of seven games to beat them. I suppose Blake Griffin and Jeff Green playing above expectations helped, but that series exposed the Bucks' weaknesses pretty clearly. The fact that a far-from-great Hawks team looks overmatched also isn't a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee.

That's not to say that the Bucks are incapable of winning the title, because they are. They've shown stretches of really good defense, which will take you a long way. Giannis is really, really good. I just don't think Giannis is going to be allowed to feast at the rim against whoever comes out of the West like he has against the Nets and Hawks. That puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the Bucks to make threes, and considering that they've converted threes at a 30.9% rate so far this PS, that's not a warm, fuzzy place to be, no matter how good they are defensively.

is not the other way around?, bucks have got here shooting 8% below their reg season average from 3. some of it may be better playoffs defense targetting their weakness

but...if bucks have just been cold, that should be really worrying for suns and hawks
what happens if bucks get hot and instead of shooting 30% (way below their 38% reg season) they shoot 45%?

also with injured davis suns have not faced a great offense yet, clippers were a bit above average with kawhi, denver is mediocre. lakers were injured

we dont know if their offense will stand thw test

[Doctor MJ]

Wow, really?

I feel like I've been pushing back all year against people saying that the Nets when healthy will be unbeatable, and I watched that Bucks-Nets series thinking, "Wow, even this crippled Nets team probably should have won over this dumb Bucks team. Clearly, this is probably the only chance the Bucks will have to win a title."

I think one of the key things is that Durant & Kyrie play pretty dumb basketball. It's with a healthy Harden that you actually get a super-high BBIQ guy, and we saw him make the shift to thinking more as a facilitator, he did it is super-adroitly. In some ways I might say that the Bucks won because the Nets had a damaged brain out there to match the damaged brains the Bucks' sport to a man.

I have to acknowledge though that the Bucks defense looks great, and that might be enough to get them this title.

It's amazing how people can have such different takes from watching the same thing. I know it happens virtually every game and series, but it can still be jarring.

I have not been a Harden fan. More accurately, I appreciated the elite skills he displayed in Houston, but I disliked him dominating the ball to an extreme and his foul-baiting, plus I thought his extreme helio-centric role was vulnerable to PS failure. It might've been good enough to win a title except for the Warriors, but I'm glad it wasn't.

I've been completely won over by Brooklyn Harden. The RS showed pretty clearly that losing Harden was a far bigger blow than losing Kyrie and that adding Harden was key to making the Nets realize their juggernaut potential. The Nets missing Harden for four games against the Bucks and having the shell of Harden for three was a huge blow. Considering that the Nets had injuries to two of their three stars and Joe Harris turned into the second coming of Harrison Barnes (kudos to the poster who came up with that), it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee that it took every last bit of seven games to beat them. I suppose Blake Griffin and Jeff Green playing above expectations helped, but that series exposed the Bucks' weaknesses pretty clearly. The fact that a far-from-great Hawks team looks overmatched also isn't a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee.

That's not to say that the Bucks are incapable of winning the title, because they are. They've shown stretches of really good defense, which will take you a long way. Giannis is really, really good. I just don't think Giannis is going to be allowed to feast at the rim against whoever comes out of the West like he has against the Nets and Hawks. That puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the Bucks to make threes, and considering that they've converted threes at a 30.9% rate so far this PS, that's not a warm, fuzzy place to be, no matter how good they are defensively.

is not the other way around?, bucks have got here shooting 8% below their reg season average from 3. some of it may be better playoffs defense targetting their weakness

but...if bucks have just been cold, that should be really worrying for suns and hawks
what happens if bucks get hot and instead of shooting 30% (way below their 38% reg season) they shoot 45%?

also with injured davis suns have not faced a great offense yet, clippers were a bit above average with kawhi, denver is mediocre. lakers were injured

we dont know if their offense will stand thw test

I’d say the fact that the Nets offense couldn’t really get off against the Brooklyn “we win with offense” defense is a big part of why I’m so skeptical of them.

The Bucks have not faced a playoff defense anywhere near as tough as I expect Phoenix would be, and the same would certainly be true for the Clippers if Kawhi is back by then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[falcolombardi]

It's amazing how people can have such different takes from watching the same thing. I know it happens virtually every game and series, but it can still be jarring.

I have not been a Harden fan. More accurately, I appreciated the elite skills he displayed in Houston, but I disliked him dominating the ball to an extreme and his foul-baiting, plus I thought his extreme helio-centric role was vulnerable to PS failure. It might've been good enough to win a title except for the Warriors, but I'm glad it wasn't.

I've been completely won over by Brooklyn Harden. The RS showed pretty clearly that losing Harden was a far bigger blow than losing Kyrie and that adding Harden was key to making the Nets realize their juggernaut potential. The Nets missing Harden for four games against the Bucks and having the shell of Harden for three was a huge blow. Considering that the Nets had injuries to two of their three stars and Joe Harris turned into the second coming of Harrison Barnes (kudos to the poster who came up with that), it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee that it took every last bit of seven games to beat them. I suppose Blake Griffin and Jeff Green playing above expectations helped, but that series exposed the Bucks' weaknesses pretty clearly. The fact that a far-from-great Hawks team looks overmatched also isn't a ringing endorsement of Milwaukee.

That's not to say that the Bucks are incapable of winning the title, because they are. They've shown stretches of really good defense, which will take you a long way. Giannis is really, really good. I just don't think Giannis is going to be allowed to feast at the rim against whoever comes out of the West like he has against the Nets and Hawks. That puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the Bucks to make threes, and considering that they've converted threes at a 30.9% rate so far this PS, that's not a warm, fuzzy place to be, no matter how good they are defensively.

is not the other way around?, bucks have got here shooting 8% below their reg season average from 3. some of it may be better playoffs defense targetting their weakness

but...if bucks have just been cold, that should be really worrying for suns and hawks
what happens if bucks get hot and instead of shooting 30% (way below their 38% reg season) they shoot 45%?

also with injured davis suns have not faced a great offense yet, clippers were a bit above average with kawhi, denver is mediocre. lakers were injured

we dont know if their offense will stand thw test

I’d say the fact that the Nets offense couldn’t really get off against the Brooklyn “we win with offense” defense is a big part of why I’m so skeptical of them.

The Bucks have not faced a playoff defense anywhere near as tough as I expect Phoenix would be, and the same would certainly be true for the Clippers if Kawhi is back by then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how high are you on clippers defense?

regular season they were closer to the nets than to the top defenses like lakers and sixers, barely above average

playoffs wise even with kawhi they has been so-so defensively imo

[Fadeaway_J]

Oh to hell with these playoffs

[falcolombardi]

free throw disparity is my new less favorite word in basketball

Atlanta fans out there complaining thst their jumpshooting team (i dont way this as an insult) has less free throws than bucks bulldozing team

is like people look at stats only even when dupossedlt watching the games lol

[Texas Chuck]

I'm so glad Khris Middleton is having himself an offensive game tonight.

[GSP]

Middleton and Playoff P were 2 of the most maligned players heading into these playoffs and both have delivered in a big way so far. Obviously their shot hasnt been the most consistent but theyre having great postseasons on both ends

[Doctor MJ]

is not the other way around?, bucks have got here shooting 8% below their reg season average from 3. some of it may be better playoffs defense targetting their weakness

but...if bucks have just been cold, that should be really worrying for suns and hawks
what happens if bucks get hot and instead of shooting 30% (way below their 38% reg season) they shoot 45%?

also with injured davis suns have not faced a great offense yet, clippers were a bit above average with kawhi, denver is mediocre. lakers were injured

we dont know if their offense will stand thw test

I’d say the fact that the Nets offense couldn’t really get off against the Brooklyn “we win with offense” defense is a big part of why I’m so skeptical of them.

The Bucks have not faced a playoff defense anywhere near as tough as I expect Phoenix would be, and the same would certainly be true for the Clippers if Kawhi is back by then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how high are you on clippers defense?

regular season they were closer to the nets than to the top defenses like lakers and sixers, barely above average

playoffs wise even with kawhi they has been so-so defensively imo

In the regular season they were the #8 defense in the league with their stars being veterans known to be major defensive players when fully engaged. I understand that those guys aren't what they used to be, but a lot of that means they just can't do it every game. A team like that I expect to be able to tighten their grip in the playoffs, so I tend to see them as even stronger than that #8 in theory.

Add in that their coach has shown a good ability to specifically stymy opposing attacks in many cases. While Doncic can be said to be largely resistant to this, Giannis is just about the furthest thing from Doncic in this regard. I expect the Clippers would be able to gunk up the Bucks better than the Nets could at the very least...if healthy, which granted, looking increasingly likely that Kawhi ain't coming back, and if he does, may not exactly be up to stellar defense.

[BobbyPortisFan]

I’d say the fact that the Nets offense couldn’t really get off against the Brooklyn “we win with offense” defense is a big part of why I’m so skeptical of them.

The Bucks have not faced a playoff defense anywhere near as tough as I expect Phoenix would be, and the same would certainly be true for the Clippers if Kawhi is back by then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how high are you on clippers defense?

regular season they were closer to the nets than to the top defenses like lakers and sixers, barely above average

playoffs wise even with kawhi they has been so-so defensively imo

In the regular season they were the #8 defense in the league with their stars being veterans known to be major defensive players when fully engaged. I understand that those guys aren't what they used to be, but a lot of that means they just can't do it every game. A team like that I expect to be able to tighten their grip in the playoffs, so I tend to see them as even stronger than that #8 in theory.

Add in that their coach has shown a good ability to specifically stymy opposing attacks in many cases. While Doncic can be said to be largely resistant to this, Giannis is just about the furthest thing from Doncic in this regard. I expect the Clippers would be able to gunk up the Bucks better than the Nets could at the very least...if healthy, which granted, looking increasingly likely that Kawhi ain't coming back, and if he does, may not exactly be up to stellar defense.

Uh. The clippers haven't had a single good defensive series for like, the last two postseasons. What makes you think they're going to do better when giannis comes at zubac?

You're better off hyping their shooting and how bud being an idiot/drop coverage is going to see the bucks defense blwon to hell.

[parsnips33]

Suns-Bucks would be a really really fun series.

Even though Warriors just missed it (I'm still mad) these playoffs have been extremely fun

[Doctor MJ]

how high are you on clippers defense?

regular season they were closer to the nets than to the top defenses like lakers and sixers, barely above average

playoffs wise even with kawhi they has been so-so defensively imo

In the regular season they were the #8 defense in the league with their stars being veterans known to be major defensive players when fully engaged. I understand that those guys aren't what they used to be, but a lot of that means they just can't do it every game. A team like that I expect to be able to tighten their grip in the playoffs, so I tend to see them as even stronger than that #8 in theory.

Add in that their coach has shown a good ability to specifically stymy opposing attacks in many cases. While Doncic can be said to be largely resistant to this, Giannis is just about the furthest thing from Doncic in this regard. I expect the Clippers would be able to gunk up the Bucks better than the Nets could at the very least...if healthy, which granted, looking increasingly likely that Kawhi ain't coming back, and if he does, may not exactly be up to stellar defense.

Uh. The clippers haven't had a single good defensive series for like, the last two postseasons. What makes you think they're going to do better when giannis comes at zubac?

You're better off hyping their shooting and how bud being an idiot/drop coverage is going to see the bucks defense blwon to hell.

Again, the Bucks just played the Nets. What I'm specifically saying is that if the Bucks can't torch the Nets, I could see them having much worse problems against a competent defense.

Now, feel free to argue why the Nets defense was actually really good, but don't just come back focusing on the Clippers here, because I'm making a statement about the Bucks based on what we've actually seen from them: Fantastic on defense, but able to be rather dramatically flummoxed by a generally weak defense.

To be clear: Not saying "Any defense can stop the Bucks offense", so it may be that Giannis would be able to tear through the Clippers front court like tissue paper. But given that Kawhi is literally the archetype for stymying Giannis, I was hoping to see Giannis handle Blake Griffin better.

[Doctor MJ]

Suns-Bucks would be a really really fun series.

It'd be really something because of the history too:

The Coin Toss That Brought Kareem Abdul-Jabbar To Milwaukee

If the Bucks win their 2nd title against Phoenix, it will essentially mean that the Bucks won a metaphorical jump ball against the Suns both times.

If the Suns win their first title against Milwaukee, it will be karma.

[falcolombardi]

are not the clippers defending better without kawhi? by a lot at that?

are we sure this version of kawhi without a marc gasol behind could stop giannis ?


raptors had a elite defensive center and great defenders in general alongside a brillant defensive coach. could the clippers replicate that just by having kawhi and george?

specially a older and theorically more talented bucks with better shooting and a more mature giannis

[bondom34]

Can't remember who I heard it from, but thought it was a fair point (and something the Bucks fell into). The Nets aren't really a strong defensive team if you play an offense where you're moving the ball around and causing some sort of confusion, but they have a bunch of guys who are solid isolation defenders if you let them be. The Bucks seemingly fell into that trap and just let them play to their defensive strengths and ended up with a pretty poor offensive output.

[Doctor MJ]

are not the clippers defending better without kawhi? by a lot at that?

are we sure this version of kawhi without a marc gasol behind could stop giannis ?


raptors had a elite defensive center and great defenders in general alongside a brillante defensive coach. could the clippers replicate that just by having kawhi and george?

specially a older and theorically more talented bucks with better shooting and a more mature giannis

I assume you're going with playoff +/-? I'd be cautious about reading too much into that. Not saying to ignore that, I'd look to think about how you expect to stymy Giannis.

Giannis is still a player who wants to take the ball from the perimeter to the hole, and having a guy as big, strong, and long as Kawhi is going to be a benefit there.

I'm not saying I believe that Kawhi was a net negative defender against the Jazz, but there you were matchup against a team that wants to pass around to get 3-pointers like no one else, in no small part because they have concluded that passing the ball into Gobert just doesn't work. When the offense is just passing the ball around trying to find someone with the best look from 3, the value of one man-oriented defender is diminished.

All this to say, yes, there's specific reason to think that Kawhi can be valuable against a Giannis-led offense when the ghost of Blake Griffin can do it.

I think the real question now is about how much lift the backcourt of Middleton & Holiday can give to the offense to make it more resilient, and make it enough that the Bucks' (hopefully) defensive advantage wins the day.

[Doctor MJ]

Can't remember who I heard it from, but thought it was a fair point (and something the Bucks fell into). The Nets aren't really a strong defensive team if you play an offense where you're moving the ball around and causing some sort of confusion, but they have a bunch of guys who are solid isolation defenders if you let them be. The Bucks seemingly fell into that trap and just let them play to their defensive strengths and ended up with a pretty poor offensive output.

A lot of truth this, though I don't know if it's a trap or just the Bucks not being fundamentally very good at "moving the ball", also known as passing.

The Bucks have 3 guys who get major assists on the team, and none of them are guys who should be your main assist guy on a great offensive team. They just don't have that floor general vision, nor the ability to consistently adapt adroitly and make heady plays.

So I'd say with the Bucks we saw essentially the perfect team to make the Nets look good on defense, which doesn't bode well for the Bucks when they face teams that are better equipped to do what even the Nets were able to do defensively.

But hey, I'd agree that if we start seeing the Bucks adapt with an offense where the ball flows across the court - the beautiful game rather than the ugly one we've seen - that would change things.

[bondom34]

Can't remember who I heard it from, but thought it was a fair point (and something the Bucks fell into). The Nets aren't really a strong defensive team if you play an offense where you're moving the ball around and causing some sort of confusion, but they have a bunch of guys who are solid isolation defenders if you let them be. The Bucks seemingly fell into that trap and just let them play to their defensive strengths and ended up with a pretty poor offensive output.

A lot of truth this, though I don't know if it's a trap or just the Bucks not being fundamentally very good at "moving the ball", also known as passing.

The Bucks have 3 guys who get major assists on the team, and none of them are guys who should be your main assist guy on a great offensive team. They just don't have that floor general vision, nor the ability to consistently adapt adroitly and make heady plays.

So I'd say with the Bucks we saw essentially the perfect team to make the Nets look good on defense, which doesn't bode well for the Bucks when they face teams that are better equipped to do what even the Nets were able to do defensively.

But hey, I'd agree that if we start seeing the Bucks adapt with an offense where the ball flows across the court - the beautiful game rather than the ugly one we've seen - that would change things.

Yep, think this is the chicken or the egg a little bit. Did the offense fall off because the Nets were good at it, or because the Bucks fell into a trap (or a combination of both)? Ultimately it's a bit of why I still struggle trusting the Bucks entirely, they feel a little like a slightly more trustworthy version of the Sixers in some regards.

Also a bit like the Houston/GSW matchup from a few years ago with the Warriors falling into Houston's defensive strengths.

[Doctor MJ]

Can't remember who I heard it from, but thought it was a fair point (and something the Bucks fell into). The Nets aren't really a strong defensive team if you play an offense where you're moving the ball around and causing some sort of confusion, but they have a bunch of guys who are solid isolation defenders if you let them be. The Bucks seemingly fell into that trap and just let them play to their defensive strengths and ended up with a pretty poor offensive output.

A lot of truth this, though I don't know if it's a trap or just the Bucks not being fundamentally very good at "moving the ball", also known as passing.

The Bucks have 3 guys who get major assists on the team, and none of them are guys who should be your main assist guy on a great offensive team. They just don't have that floor general vision, nor the ability to consistently adapt adroitly and make heady plays.

So I'd say with the Bucks we saw essentially the perfect team to make the Nets look good on defense, which doesn't bode well for the Bucks when they face teams that are better equipped to do what even the Nets were able to do defensively.

But hey, I'd agree that if we start seeing the Bucks adapt with an offense where the ball flows across the court - the beautiful game rather than the ugly one we've seen - that would change things.

Yep, think this is the chicken or the egg a little bit. Did the offense fall off because the Nets were good at it, or because the Bucks fell into a trap (or a combination of both)? Ultimately it's a bit of why I still struggle trusting the Bucks entirely, they feel a little like a slightly more trustworthy version of the Sixers in some regards.

Also a bit like the Houston/GSW matchup from a few years ago with the Warriors falling into Houston's defensive strengths.

Well, I do think that the use of switches tends to induce iso play, and thus a stagnant, swampy offense. In this sense you could call what's happening a trap, but it's not a trap that I see as pertaining to specific defensive teams. It's just something that might make a coach scream "Keep the ball moving!" in any given game. The Nets are probably aware that teams falling into stagnancy is a possible advantage of their scheme, but their scheme is also one of "just getting by how we can".

It's within the realm of possibility that the Bucks are able to come into future series saying "Remember what happened against Brooklyn, gotta keep the ball moving" and this changes everything. Teams learn from their past mistakes after all, which is why prediction is so hard.

But just seeing what we've seen so far from the Bucks offense, I'm concerned. Going into the Nets series I said something like "Bucks going to lose again, but Giannis might average 40 per game". It's nice the Bucks won, but I was expecting their offense to be able to do more (and granted, their defense played particularly well, which may carry them to the chip).

[Texas Chuck]

Bucks are going to win the title this year with Giannis being the dominant player and the narrative is still going to be its impossible to win with Giannis. And I'm going to smile as once again theory gives way to reality. Theory is great, but stars break theory.