John Salmons is carrying the Bucks right now

In 1957 the Milwaukee Braves were on the cusp of their first World Championship in Brew City.  In August of that season, they received a totally unexpected and unpredicted boost from a fellow named Hurricane Hazel.

Hazel destroyed the National League pitching for two months that season and propelled the Braves to the National League pennant.  After that brilliant run, Hazel was never heard from again.

John Salmons and the 2010 Milwaukee Bucks are comparable to the Hurricane and the 1957 Braves in one way. 

Little in John Salmons past could have led one to predict he would have the monster impact on the Milwaukee Bucks that he has had. 

I did the raw Marginal Win Scores for the last nine Bucks games, along with each player’s percentage of “good” games, meaning games without a negative raw Marginal Win Score.  In other words, games where the player compiled more “winning” statistics than the other player on the court playing his same position.

I display them below.  Sorry, I can’t make tables on WordPress, or rather, I don’t know how.  So it looks sloppy, and I apologize for that, but the information is the thing.  The first number is the player’s total raw Marginal Win Score over the last 9 Bucks games, the second number in parenthesis is the number of “good” games he’s had in the stretch.

Milwaukee Bucks Raw MWS in last 9 games

1. John Salmons…(+37.5)……..(6/9)
2. Ersan Ilyasova…(+11.0)…….(4/8)
3. Carlos Delfino…(+0.0)………(3/5)
4. Brandon Jennings…(-3.0)……(4/9)
5 Andrew Bogut…(-4.0)……(4/8)
6. Luke Ridnour…(-4.0)….(4/9) 
7. Kurt Thomas…(-5.0)……(2/9)
8. Charles Bell…(-5.0)…..(3/6)
9. Luc Moute….(-7.5)…(4/9)
10. Dan Gadzuric….(-7.5)….(1/3)
11. Primo Brezec…(-9.5)…(1/4)
12. Royal Ivey….(-10.5)….(1/5)
13. Jerry Stackhouse…(-22.5)….(2/9)


The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.  John Salmons is +37.5!   Unbelievable.  He was around a -0.65 for his career.  But he’s picked it up in Milwaukee.  And the team needed it. Without Salmons, I don’t think the Bucks make the playoffs.  What a phenomenal acquisition by Bucks GM John Hammond.  Simply phenomenal.   One of the great trades in Bucks history.

As for the rest of the team, you can see they need to pick it up. 

Stackhouse has been a disaster.  He is hurting the Milwaukee Bucks.  This is Coach Skiles only black mark.  He seems to believe Stackhouse is helping.  But I’ve meticulously gone over the transcripts from the Bucks last nine games and I have clear evidence he is not.

I want you also to notice how much damage poor NBA players can do even in limited playing time.  Look at Ivey, Brezec, and Gadzuric.  How do you compile such bad numbers when you rarely play?

4 Responses to “John Salmons is carrying the Bucks right now”

  1. Blake Says:

    Wow, Stackhouse being the team killer is a shocker to me. But it does seem as though some nights he can score 20 and others he scores 5 shooting 20%. But I would have to imagine he’s at least somewhat a help in the “experience” department. I like having some veterans like Kurt and Stack. And I know that the whole “he’s a big help off the court and in the locker room” is a big cliche but I really do think that it has helped a fairly young team like us. If we didn’t have Stackhouse, Bell would be our only back-up at the 2. And if we didn’t have Thomas, well…you know who would be playing then.

    • tywill33 Says:


      Have you looked at his shooting percentage or turnover rate? The guy is a brick layer and a turnover machine.

      And what is also killing him is his defense. Its been good at times, bad at times.

      But he’s got to minimize those 3 for 9 shooting nights with 4 turnovers. That won’t get it done.

  2. Palamida Says:

    Ty, do u realize that Salmons makes a prime example for the difference between Berri’s metric and your own?

    Per min. Salmons is playing (in terms of “regular” WS) at just about his career norms in every category.

    That means that only the “marginal” contribution makes his play anything other than the average SG he has basically been his whole career.
    Professor Berri commented on another post and I quote: “Not sure we have any real beef about anything important.”
    To me, that’s a “major beef” right there.
    The main “beef” of Berri’s work with the convention lies in the individual assignment of credit and by extension the division of wages.
    If Salmons is indeed as WS paints him – an average SG he should be payed as such. If however he can maintain the level of productivity derived by MWS he needs to be payed accordingly.

    If by “no major beef” the Prof. means that since to begin with there is a high degree of correlation between other methods and popular opinion to WS, meaning “everyone” (to an extent) agree on the value of MOST players; if we only single out the players whom WS rates substantially Higher or Lower than most metrics and\or opinions, WS and MWS would still arguably be extremely highly correlated, meaning since the “Beef” would only be about probably a couple dozen of players, how major can it really be? If the Prof. means that he’s right.
    it must be argued though, that when we turn our focus to a player such as Salmons, that the two metrics vary greatly in the assessment of his production it’s tough to argue that the “beef” isn’t major. Just ask John Hammond, and yourselves how much money would you commit to Salmons?
    If we are indeed on the brink of a new era and a hard cap will be installed, such decisions could arguably be the difference between a franchise’s eventual success or failure.

    • tywill33 Says:

      Yes, I was thinking about that last night when I was looking at his career statistics and noticiing that his production isn’t that far off line (his usage is a little higher) but by my numbers, he’s off the charts.

      Great catch. I like identifying guys who are sort of “discrepancy” players between what I do, what Prof Berri does, and what they do at Basketball-Reference.

      Another player I know is Lamar Odom. This season, Carlos Delfino is also in those ranks.

      Do you remember I did something that compared the numbers between the 3 about two months ago? I’ll have to revisit those.

      Another weird thing between this one and B-R is each of us “flip” Ridnour-Ilyasova (favored by B-R) and Jennings-Delfino (favored by MWS).

      That kind of thing makes the whole exercise interesting and worthwhile.

      As I got at in the last post, I always argue that mine is right, but I don’t really want to “convince” anyone, because… boom… my niche is gone.

      Great comment!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: