Posts Tagged ‘Milwaukee Bucks’

Doron Lamb looks like a lesser version of Jodie Meeks

June 28, 2012

The physical makeup and statisical production of Bucks second round pick, SG Doron Lamb of Kentucky, reminds me of their former second round pick, Jodie Meeks, who also came from Kentucky.

Basically, in a nutshell, he’s small for his position (standing reach of 8’2” is below average for 2 Guard) and he produces almost no secondary statistics.  He doesn’t rebound, pass, steal the ball, block shots, nothing.

What he does do is shoot the ball well from three point land and from the foul line.  In fact, in college he was an incredible shooter from 3 point land, making nearly 50% of his three point attempts.  That’s great, but it doesn’t always translate well from college to the pros, especially when the player lacks length and lacks diversity to his game (the opposition can just crowd the player and smother his 3 point looks).

Now, that said, Jodie Meeks has actually been an okay NBA player.  Why?  He’s above average from 3pt land, he shoots free throws very well, he shoots 2pt shots pretty well, and unlike Lamb, he actually tosses in a few rebounds and he’s pretty decent at stealing the ball.

So, let me say I’m not that optimistic about Mr. Lamb.  He may not even make the roster, who knows?

I do have one question though.  If you look at his picture on Draftexpress, he looks super buff.  How the hell did he only manage a measly 2 bench presses??  That makes no sense.  Forgot to eat his Wheaties that morning?

Weaknesses and Strengths of Bucks John Henson

June 28, 2012

I still like the Henson choice, but I think he might struggle a bit until he adds strength to his frame.  Here’s what concerns me:

Negatives:

1. Strength: big me n need a base, and he’s only 216, and he only benched 5 reps.  Gotta improve that.

2. He shoots a low percentage from 2pt land.  That’s troubling.  However, I think it is strength related.  With a standing reach of 9’4”, no one in the NBA should bother his shot up high.   Once he puts on strength, he should be able to improve that.  However, history says he will struggle early.

3. He’s a terrible foul shooter.  This troubles me because it means (a) combined with his mediocre 2pt shooting, it means he probably won’t be an efficient scorer, and (b) if Bogut is any indication, when big men can’t shoot foul shots, they tend to be more likely to take passive jump shots rather than attacking the rim.  You want just the opposite, even if you are a terrible FT shooter, its always better to attack the rim than settle for jumpers.

Positives:

1. He’s very long.  His standing reach of 9’4” is better than most centers, and he stands a legitimate 6’10” which is much more rare than the NBA rosters would lead you to believe.

2. He’s an excellent rebounder.  Players who rebound in college tend to continue to rebound in the pros.

3. He was consistently productive.  I always get scared when I see guys who suddenly become really productive after years of mediocre production.  Not the case with Henson.

4. He doesn’t foul.  That could indicate he’s passive on defense, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it means he is smart.

5. He blocks shots.  This can be a double edged sword, because shot blockers will sometimes turn their men loose on the boards, but with Henson and Dalembert, the Bucks will be able to do a much better job of “guarding the cup” as Scott Skiles likes to say.

BOTTOM LINE: Because of his lack of strength and his poor field game, I think Henson will probably struggle a bit early.  But he’s long and he has a productive resume, which i like.  The one thing I fear is freethrowitis.  That is, because he can’t shoot free throws, he will shy away from any shots that might lead to free throws.  That would be fatal.  Skiles has to implore him: take it strong whenever and wherever possible.

Bucks draft according to production rather than potential

June 28, 2012

For the first time in a long time, I really cannot complain about the Milwaukee Bucks first round draft choice.  In fact, PF John Henson was exactly the player I was hoping they would chose.  Henson was one of the most productive college players in the draft, and with a standing reach of 9’4”, he has incredible size (I think that’s near JaValle McGee, but I could be wrong).

Now, does this guarantee the Bucks added a productive successful player?  No.  But the Bucks certainly improved their odds by using what I would consider a sound philosophy: production over potential.

Henson does have some downsides, or at least some perceived downsides, I am sure.  Otherwise he would not have fallen as far as he did.  But again, he was one of the most productive players in the draft, and he produced his statistics against Grade One competition.

Three days ago, I was hearing that the Bucks were going to draft the Illinois stiff Meyers Leonard, which would have probably ended my lifelong Bucks fandom.  Instead of making such a colossal mistake, the team made two astute moves.  They acquired a proven big man in Samuel Dalembert, and they drafted a very intriguing first round PF in John Henson.

If you ask me, these have been two very impressive days for Bucks GM John Hammond.  I’m sure a contingent of Bucks Nation will disagree vehemently with me, but we will see who is right next November.

Hey, the Bucks made a smart move!

June 28, 2012

The Bucks made a pretty astute little move yesterday when they acquired the veteran journeyman C Samuel Dalembert from the Houston Rockets for, essentially, two draft spots.

First, they gave up nothing.  The Bucks administration is just as likely to make a mistake at 14 as they were at 12.  Secondly, they picked up a pretty productive center who fits perfectly in the Scott Skiles defensive regime.

Dalembert’s Win Chart for the last 5 seasons

WS DWS MWS W% W__L W.500 VALUE
2012 14.59 11.95 1.32 0.728 5.3__2.0* 1.6* 6.9*
2011 13.37 11.34 1.01 0.675 5.2__2.5 1.4 6.6
2010 17.22 11.54 2.84 0.984 8.7__0.1 4.3 12.9
2009 14.19 11.33 1.43 0.738 6.2__2.2 2.1 8.2
2008 13.92 11.49 1.21 0.707 7.9__3.4 2.3 10.2
AVER 14.65 11.53 1.56 0.766 6.7__2.0 2.3 9.1

*: numbers projected over a regulation 82 game schedule

As you can see, Dalembert is a consistent +0.500% winner.  In 2010 he even made my 20 MVP List.  Even if you throw out that outlier, he has been above average in every other season.  He basically gives the Bucks exactly what Bogut gave them, with probably a tiny bit more defensive presence in the middle (his penchant for blocking shots is probably the reason why his Defensive Win Score is a little high).

Dalembert is certainly better than the other horror shows the Bucks were rumored to be ready to draft: the big man from Illinois, who did nothing in the Big Ten last season (he has one of those “last name as my first name” names that drive British people nuts and that now escapes me) or Zeller from UNC, who was productive in his last season (but so was Psycho T and he has completely sucked for the Pacers) but who was never that productive in his earlier seasons, and who has the standing reach of a small forward.

Bucks are losing every positional battle except Point Guard

February 8, 2012

If you think the Milwaukee Bucks don’t miss injured C Andrew Bogut, take a look at the Positional Win Chart below.  I created the chart by calculating the Marginal Win Score average and corresponding winning percentage at each position on the court for the Bucks and their collective opponents, using the Positional Statistics available on HoopsStats.com.

Milwaukee Bucks Positional Win Chart

Position
Bucks
Opp
MWS
W%
W__L
PG
7.21
5.46
0.87
0.651
3.1__1.7
SG
4.99
5.53
-0.27
0.457
2.2__2.6
SF
5.45
7.19
-0.87
0.355
1.7__3.1
PF
11.88
12.79
-0.45
0.425
2.0__2.8
C
9.25
13.49
-2.12
0.143
0.7__4.1
TOTALS
 38.08
43.58
-0.55
0.406
9.7__14.3

Jennings winning the Point

Brandon Jennings is winning his battle at Point Guard, as I outlined in an earlier post.  He’s having a fine season.   But generally speaking, the Milwaukee Bucks are not.  As a team, the Bucks are losing every position other than Point Guard, and without Bogut’s presence they are getting absolutely MASSACRED at the Center position.

As the chart shows, 4.1 of the team’s losses can be attributed to the disparity in statistical production between the Bucks Centers and their Opponents Centers.  The Bucks are absolutely bleeding out at that position.  Gooden is a volume scorer who plays no defense and doesn’t keep his opponents off the boards.  Sanders is a joke.  And Brockman has been hurt.  The Bucks really need to shore up the frontline.

And, they need to start winning at some position other than the Point Guard.  I’m hoping that will be small forward, but Carlos Delfino has been slumping, and Mike Dunleavy can’t seem to stay healthy.

That’s life as a mediocre NBA team, I guess.

Has Brandon Jennings finally broken out?

February 3, 2012

The Bucks have lost C Andrew Bogut for the season, yet they are playing some of their best basketball in years.  The team has taken down the Miami Heat twice, and the Lakers once, in the last ten days alone.

Why is this happening?  Well, its not Stephen Jackson.  He is sucking the wind out of the team’s sails.  Its not Carlos Delfino.  He’s in one of his biggest slumps since he came to Milwaukee.

Its PG Brandon Jennings!  Jennings is on an amazing role and right now he is now the prohibitive favorite to win the Team MVP award at the end of the season.

Here’s a look at the latest Milwaukee Bucks Win Chart for 2011-12:

MILWAUKEE BUCKS WIN CHART 2011-12 (THROUGH 21 GAMES)

BUCKS WS DWS MWS W% W__L W>0.5 VAL
Jennings 8.25 5.59 1.33 0.728 2.3__0.9 0.7 3.1
Livingston 6.62 4.55 1.03 0.677 1.4__0.7 0.3 1.7
Dunleavy 7.91 2.17 2.87 0.989 1.1__0.0 0.5 1.6
Delfino 7.12 6.34 0.39 0.568 1.2__0.9 0.2 1.4
Leuer 12.12 9.61 1.25 0.715 0.9__0.4 0.3 1.2
Udrih 4.01 3.23 0.39 0.568 0.6__0.4 0.1 0.7
Bogut 11.47 13.51 -1.02 0.329 0.5__1.0 -0.3 0.2
Ilyasova 13.01 15.69 -1.34 0.275 0.5__1.4 -0.4 0.1
Harris 6.08 6.69 -0.31 0.451 0.2__0.4 -0.1 0.1
Jackson 1.39 4.64 -1.62 0.226 0.5__1.8 -0.6 -0.1
Brockman 11.39 14.97 -1.79 0.198 0.0__0.2 -0.1 -0.1
Hobson -6.67 2.58 -4.47 -0.271 0.0__0.2 -0.1 -0.1
Moute 7.38 11.49 -2.05 0.154 0.2__0.8 -0.4 -0.2
Sanders 4.67 11.42 -3.37 -0.071 0.0__0.8 -0.4 -0.4
Gooden 11.22 17.01 -2.89 0.011 0.0__1.7 -0.8 -0.8
TOTAL 9.4__11.6
ACT 10.0__11.0

DUNLEAVY AND LIVINGSTON PLAYING WELL

As you can see, Brandon Jennings Value Ranking (3.1) is well past any other Buck.  But he is not alone amongst the contributors.  Some new Bucks are also doing well.

The new Bucks who are playing well are SF Mike Dunleavy, G Shaun Livingston, PF/C Jon Leuer, and G Beno Udrih.

Amongst the aforementioned, I would say Dunleavy has been the best contribution.  If he could stay healthy, and that’s a HUGE “if”, he can transform the Bucks fortunes.  In fact, if you want to go by trends, the team has seemed to trend much, much better whenever Dunleavy has played.  Now, I don’t want to get into a whole “plus/minus” discussion, because I think that statistic is fraught with problems, but the Bucks have clearly played better when Dunleavy has been on the court.

But, unlike “+/-”, which claims to capture some sort of ethereal “intangible” value, I would credit Dunleavy’s value to Dunleavy himself (“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves”).  Dunleavy has been fairly productive on his side of the statistical ledger, and he has been good at making his opponents box score stats look ugly.  In fact, his Defensive Win Score has been outstanding, and as a cumulative result, I have him adding 1.1 wins to the Bucks and I don’t credit him with any losses.  Dunleavy was a quiet post-labor addition to the Bucks, but a big one.  He is an excellent “producer” and has been since, probably, his second or third season in the Association.  He gets underestimated because of the amount of melanin in his skin (I believe).

The other big additions to the main rotation have been G Shaun Livingston and Jon Leuer.  Livingston, like Dunleavy, has been a productive professional if and when he has been able to stay healthy.  Health has been his big bugaboo.  Before his ugly, ugly knee blow-out, many compared him to a young Magic Johnson.  While that appears to have been a comparison too far, he certainly is closer to being the next Magic Johnson than he is to being the next Sweet Pea Daniels (the ghetto legend whom I played against one summer at Five Star).

Finally, the surprise that is Jon Leuer.  Leuer has been magnificent, and it appears he is no flash in the pan.  Who would have thunk it?  Everyone I know from the Land of Cheese had Leuer pegged as another productive collegian from the University of Wisconsin who would never find a place in the Show (call it “The Curse of Ron Dayne”).  But, in fact, he has been a very productive professional, and it appears that it wasn’t mere “beginner’s luck”.  He seems to be here to stay.  Another big second round pick by the Bucks (Michael Redd, Luc Moute, etc).

BACK TO THE JENNINGS STORY

But, again, the big story is Mr. Brandon Jennings.  After watching him for the last couple of seasons, I concluded that he would never break into the elite or even sub-elite ranks.  He just didn’t shoot well enough, and he shot too much.  He couldn’t make plays for his teammates either.  His defense was good, he generally handled the ball well enough, but he just wasn’t efficient with scoring possessions.  This season — SO FAR – Jennings has switched that around.

The difference in Jennings scoring efficiency has been his much improved 2pt percentage.  Coming into this season, Jennings was a 39% shooter from 2 point range, this season he is a much improved 47% shooter.  His improvement has been two fold — he’s knocking down his medium range jumpers, and — most of all — he’s finishing at the rim.  In past seasons, Jennings has been atrocious at the rim.  Not this season.  This season he is completing 59% of his drives with two balls.

Can it continue for the Tiny Man?  I believe it can (Knock on wood).  As you remember in past seasons, I said the art of finishing at the rim for little men in the NBA is the art of angles.  Look at Steve Nash.  He isn’t fast and cannot jump over the Peshtigo phone book.  But he can finish at the rim because he can make shots from unblockable release points.  Its all about angles.  I’ve noticed this in Jennings game.  Against the Bulls, for instance, he picked Derrick Rose’s pocket, took the ball down, used his body to shield the impending Rose, and then finished with a nifty looking little semi-hook shot.  Angles… if you can make shots from unblockable angles, you can negate the advantage of height.  It seems Brandon Jennings has learned this lesson.  Time and experience in the Association have been his teachers.  Now let’s just see if he can maintain his grades.

Reexamining the Point Guard Crop from the First Round of the 2009 NBA Draft

January 19, 2012

Remember three years ago, seven (7) point guards were selected in the First Round of the 2009 NBA Draft?  With Ricky Rubio debuting this season with Minnesota, we can revisit that Draft and see if the “experts” got it right.

Here is the Crop’s Marginal Win Score win production for this season, projected out over the entire 66 games:

R Rubio 10.79 3.74 3.52 1.099 9.6__(-0.9) 5.3 14.9
T Lawson 8.73 2.95 2.89 0.993 8.7__0.1 4.3 12.9
J Holiday 5.45 2.81 1.32 0.726 7.1__2.7 2.2 9.3
Jennings 7.04 8.02 -0.49 0.419 4.1__5.8 -0.8 3.3
S Curry 9.44 8.06 0.69 0.619 1.9__1.1 0.4 2.3
T Evans 5.77 6.79 -0.51 0.416 4.0__5.7 -0.9 3.1
J Flynn 2.06 11.28 -4.61 -0.279 (-0.3)__1.6 -0.9 -1.2

The Chart from this season suggests that Ricky Rubio could be the best player from the Crop.  If he can maintain his fantastic start, he could also be the one “elite” player.

Here is the “Career to Date” chart for the Crop, projected to the end of this season:

T Lawson 8.94 4.81 2.07 0.848 19.6__3.5 8.1 27.7
S Curry 9.09 7.67 0.71 0.624 15.8__9.5 3.1 18.9
J Holiday 6.69 6.39 0.15 0.527 15.4__13.8 0.8 16.2
R Rubio 10.79 3.74 3.52 1.099 9.6__(-0.9) 5.3 14.9
T Evans 6.61 6.83 -0.11 0.483 14.1__15.1 -0.5 13.6
B Jennings 5.16 5.78 -0.31 0.453 13.6__16.4 -1.4 12.2
J Flynn 2.88 9.38 -3.25 -0.048 (-0.8)__15.9 -8.4 -8.8
7.166 6.3714 0.397 0.5694

The Chart suggests that the second best PG from that Draft, or possibly the best, has been Ty Lawson, the player selected last among the Crop.  I never understood how it was possible that he could go so low.  Lawson played against high level collegiate competition for three seasons and excelled.  In his final season at UNC, he did not have a single poor game.  He was as close to a “sure thing” as you will find in the modern NBA Draft. And yet he was somehow perceived to be the 7th rookie Point Guard.

The third best PG appears to be Stephen Curry of Golden State.  I was skeptical about Curry coming out of college because he played poorly in his senior season against the top competition.  I also thought he would have to play mostly two guard, and he appeared to small and frail to play that position.  But, his very effective jump shot has made up for those shortcomings.

Now, the next best PG is hard to say.  It appears that Jrue Holiday might be moving into that role, but based on the entire body of work, the fourth best PG from that Draft is probably Tyreke Evans of Sacramento, the first PG chosen.  Actually, Evans is more of a PG/SG, as he splits time between the positions.  Evans started his career well, but now he has settled into a slightly below 0.500% player.

In the next position I think it is a toss up between Holiday and Brandon Jennings of the Milwaukee Bucks.  Holiday appears to be surging for the rejuvenated 76ers, but I am not buying it.  I think he and Jennings are essentially the same player, or thereabouts.  Remember how everyone thought Jennings would be such a superstar just because he scored 54 points in one of his first games?  It was an aberration, and it may have been his undoing.  Jennings has never really settled into the classic PG role.  He is a shoot first player, not a playmaker.

The unmitigated “bust” of the Draft was PG Jonny Flynn, who was the third PG taken, and the second one taken by Minnesota.  Flynn now resides on the bench in Houston.  Flynn’s college career suggested he could be slightly below average, but I am beginning to be skeptical of all graduates of the Syracuse system (Wesley Johnson, for instance).  The Orangemen alum cannot play defense, and they seem to use the College 3pt shot to make themselves appear more efficient than they actually turn out to be.

That said, I still do not understand how anyone could have valued Jonny Flynn ahead of Ty Lawson.  Each player has about the same stature, and Lawson was clearly the more accomplished.  Again, I cannot figure that one out.

The

Laying out the problems of the Milwaukee Bucks

January 19, 2012

This season 82games.com is doing a phenomenal job of updating theirPlayer Production pages, so I am able to keep a more constant Milwaukee Bucks Win Chart using Marginal Win Score as the determinative metric.  This morning I completed the lastest Chart — through Game 13.

 13 games
BUCKS WS DWS MWS W% Wins66 W>0.5% Value66
Delfino 8.41 3.22 2.59 0.943 6.7__0.4 3.2 9.9
Livingston 6.34 4.94 0.69 0.621 3.7__2.3 0.7 4.4
Leuer 11.66 10.42 0.62 0.608 3.2__2.1 0.5 3.7
Jennings 7.04 8.02 -0.49 0.419 4.1__5.8 -0.8 3.3
Dunleavy 6.59 0.41 3.09 1.027 1.9__0.0 0.9 2.8
Harris 5.69 6.65 -0.47 0.421 1.0__1.5 -0.2 0.8
Udrih 3.43 4.81 -0.69 0.385 1.1__1.9 -0.4 0.7
Bogut 11.23 13.72 -1.24 0.291 1.6__4.0 -1.2 0.4
Sanders 7.09 9.25 -1.07 0.319 1.0__2.0 -0.9 0.1
Brockman 10.47 16.92 -3.22 -0.044 0.0__1.2 -0.6 -0.6
MbahMoute 4.23 19.43 -7.59 -0.589 (-0.4)__1.1 -0.7 -1.1
Hobson -6.67 2.46 -4.56 -0.271 (-1.0)__1.8 -1.4 -2.4
Jackson  1.71 6.46 -2.37 0.099 0.9__8.0 -3.5 -2.6
Gooden 8.29 15.42 -3.56 -0.102 (-0.4)__4.5 -2.4 -2.8
Ilyasova 9.56 18.43 -4.43 -0.249 (-1.5)__7.4 -4.4 -5.9
PROJECTED Proj 21.9__44.1 -11.2 10.7
Present 4.3__8.7
Actual 4.0__9.0

Carlos Delfino and Shaun Livingston:

Thus far, the only two Bucks who are performing up to expectation are Carlos Delfino and Shaun Livingston.  Livingston has been an excellent pick-up.  He is a much better pure point guard than Brandon Jennings, and his length can give counterpart Gs fits.

Jon Leuer:  This week Jon Leuer fell back to Earth, although since I did not even think he would make the team, his +0.500% win production qualifies as one of the few pleasant surprises for the 2011-12 Bucks.

Tobias Harris: Harris is doing a bit better than I projected he would do last June.  He shows promise.

Andrew Bogut:  Is Bogut on the downslide?  Ever since his gruesome injury two seasons ago, he cannot score effectively, and now both his defense and rebounding are declining rapidly.

Luc Moute:  One of the big reasons the Bucks are in decline is the tendonitis injury to the knee of Luc Moute.  Unfortunately, having had the same injury, I’m guessing Luc won’t be 100% for the rest of the season.

Ersan Ilyasova:  Ilya’s horrendous start put himself into a huge ditch that he is just now starting to dig out of.  He is still way underwater, but not way in the abyss he was in last week.  Still, the team was counting on him being something like a 0.500% player, and he hasn’t even been close.

Mike Dunleavy:  Dunleavy is the real hope for the season.  If they can get him back healthy and playing a lot of minutes, he will make a big difference.

Stephen Jackson:  If you follow this blog, you will know that Marginal Win Score dislikes Stephen very much.  He has been a terribly unproductive player for the last three seasons at least.  He has been even worse this season, and he is the Bucks second most used player.  A terrible acquisition by Hammond.

Brandon Jennings:  Jennings is what he is.  He has always been, and will always be a slightly below 0.500% win producer, until his quickness leaves him and then he will be out of the Association.  Its sad to see that the PG the Bucks passed on, the proven and fully vetted Ty Lawson, is now blossoming into a top tier NBA player.  Once again, people get enamored with “athleticism” when in fact it is basketball proficiency that matters.

Beno Udrih:  Another very uninspired acquisition by John Hammond.  Udrih is a below average player and doesn’t help the Bucks one iota.

Larry Sanders: Sanders is a bit improved over last season, but still another first round bust.  The only hope for him going forward is if he puts on weight and transforms himself into an Ervin Johnson, lunchpail center.  The problem is he still envisions himself as a go-to player and he is not.

Stackhouse might be decent backup for Bucks

January 18, 2010

The Bucks just signed semi-retired veteran swingman Jerry Stackhouse for the remainder of the season.  I anticipated some kind of cut-rate “lets find a scorer who’s cheap” maneuver like this from the Bucks.  But, given the poor level of play the Bucks have gotten at shooting guard, Stackhouse might actually be an upgrade.

Using the data on 82games.com, I analyzed Stackhouse’s win performance as a member of the Dallas Mavericks, beginning in 2004-05 and excluding his truncated last season of 2008-09.  Here are the numbers he produced.

2004-05

MWS48: +0.33

2005-06

MWS48: -0.92

2006-07

MWS48: +0.02

2007-08

MWS48: -1.14

STACKHOUSE OVERALL W/ THE MAVERICKS

MWS48: -0.40

Player Win Average: .435%

Stackhouse might help at shooting guard

So as you can see from Stackhouse’s career, he’s wavered between an average NBA player (MWS: +0.00) and an average backup NBA swingman (MWS: -0.90).  If he can maintain that level of play, he won’t set the world on fire in Milwaukee, but he could be helpful if the Bucks deploy him at shooting guard.

If you take a look at my Milwaukee Bucks Win Chart, you will see that I have added a new column, “Total Marginal Win Score”.  This is simply a running total of each player’s Win Score minus the Win Score total of all the players he has guarded.

As you can see from the chart, the 3 players the Bucks have mainly deployed at shooting guard this season — Charlie Bell, Michael Redd, and Jodie Meeks — have not been very good.  In fact, along with backup center Kurt Thomas those three have been the largest source of loss production for the Bucks this season.

A team should not bleed so many wins from either of its perimeter positions.  As I have pointed out, shooting guard and small forward have the lowest replacement cost of any NBA position (probably because height is not as much of a prerequisite as it is with the 4 and 5 positions, and because the positions do not require the special skills that a point guard must have).  “Low replacement cost” basically means there is a lot of “decent” producers available at each position.

So Stackhouse could possibly shore up the mess at shooting guard.  Of course, that’s presuming he still has some talent left at 35 years old, and that the Bucks use him at shooting guard.

Huge night for LRBMAM

January 16, 2010

I have updated the Milwaukee Bucks Win Chart to reflect the productivity in last night’s win over Golden State.  Luc Moute and Andrew Bogut and Brandon Jennings all had big nights.

If you notice on the Win Chart I have eliminated positional data.  Two reasons for that move.

Popcorn Love (but its more than that to me)

One, as you know, I’ve detached the Bucks Win Chart from 82games.com reliance.  I now do a straight Marginal Win Score myself off the awesome Play-by-Play data “flow chart” provided on Popcornmachine.net.  Truly awesome feature.  It makes straight Marginal Win Score so much easier to provide.

And with true straight Marginal Win Score, position is irrelevant.  It’s all about matchups.  For instance, if Jennings is on Monte Ellis, who cares if I call the pair “point guards” or “shooting guards”?  Its Jennings vs. Ellis, and that’s all.  That’s the important thing.

Second, eliminating positional data makes updating the chart so much faster and easier to do.

Popcorn’s “Quarter-by-Quarter” chart does the same.  Now I can discern, without having to read the unreadable NBA transcript, exactly who is on the floor at any given moment.

The net result will be a Marginal Win Score that is even more reliable.

Why?  Because if I can see clearly who is on the court I can cross check their heights and weights.  If I have that information I have a system that almost always gets the defensive matchups right, and that’s the key.

So, back to the game.  Last night everyone on the Bucks had “positive” MWS games except Charlie Bell, who is sinking like a ship, and Jodie Meeks, who was rising before last night.

When you read the Win Chart, pay attention to the last column.  It tells you which way a player has been trending this month.

Notice how Bogut, who we criticize for being up-and-down, is almost right at even?  Ironic.

Charlie Bell is one downward facing dog.  Don’t be fooled though by Ridnour.  Bear in mind he is falling from virtual Mount Everest.  Bell most certainly is not.

Luc Moute just completely changed his numbers around last night.  Dominant.

Pay attention to how these numbers trend now that I have a bullet proof method of pairing Buck vs. Opponent.  I’m interested to see what happens.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers