falcolombardi wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:I've been harping on the fact the Bucks' strategy focuses on protecting the interior and daring teams to beat them from 3.
As we look at the data from this series through the lens of the regular season:
In the regular season, Boston shots 37.1 3's per game on 35.6% shooting, placing them at 1.6 more 3's per game than league average and slightly above average %.
In the regular season, Milwaukee allowed 40.6 3's per game on 35.6% shooting, thus allowing 5.4 more 3's per game than league average with slightly below average in %.
In this series, Boston shot 41.7 3's per game on 37.6% shooting.
They obviously could have won the series if Boston's D wasn't so good, but yeah there's still an exploit in the Bucks' defensive strategy able to be exploited if you have enough skill.
how was their offense compared to regular season?
i think bucks defense discussion is a red herring when boston struggled to score this series, the series was lost by their offense
essentislly reverse nets series where brooklyn offense scored well but their defense got them swept
I'll have to wait to see the end ORtg for the Celtics but:
After 6 games, the Celtics had an ORtg of 109.5, which was 4.9 below their average for the year. It'll surely go up after today, but probably not enough to make it a bad defensive performance in the absolute sense, or a bad performance relative the Bucks' RS levels.
But remember, after the Bulls series, the Bucks' D looked plenty elite again.
The Bulls had a mere 95.3 ORtg against the Bucks, which was 17.9 below their regular season average.
And let's note that the Bulls were last in the league in 3PA & 3Pr this season. They were basically the best case scenario for the Bucks' D, and when they instead went up against a Top 10-ish level 3-team, we saw the exploits.
As I said, Bucks still could have won if they scored more points, but I don't think anyone should doubt that the Bucks' defense isn't geared to stop a 3-point assault and that makes them vulnerable against the (rising number of) teams that could successfully mount one.