Bucks are a team from the 1950s

In Green Bay, Packers fans will bitch constantly, win or lose.

“The play calling lacked imagination”

“We need a running game”

“We need another pass rusher”

“How come we can’t return kicks?”

Etcetra, etcetra.  Yet after last night’s loss by the Milwaukee Bucks, I really have nothing to bitch about.  The Bucks effort level was high, they simply could not put the round ball into the circular hoop.  How do you complain about that?  It wasn’t like the team was taking poor shots, and the ball movement was fine.  The basketball simply did not go into the hoop.  What do you say to that as a Bucks fan…  “Be more accurate!!”??

Yet the Milwaukee Bucks lack of marksmanship is reaching comic levels.  If you look at the Bucks statistical roster on basketball-reference, the field goal percentage line looks like something the Syracuse Nationals might have produced in the 1956 NBA season.  You can’t win missing that many shots.

Here’s a silver lining, though.  I thought about it last night and I could not come up with a single example of a team that was above average on defense that finished with a sucky record.  Most of the time stellar defensive teams will at least hit .500% or around there.  Teams that come to mind are the Chicago Bulls of the last couple of seasons, along with the Miami Heat.

The reason is probably simple.  Shotmaking is finicky.  It comes and goes.  But defensive effort is controllable.  Thus, good defensive teams can ride out offensive slumps like the Bucks are experiencing and still finish with stellar records.

On the other hand, a lot of fans were convinced this summer that the Bucks would be a very, very good team this season.  Like “+50 wins” good.  Those fans will be disappointed if the Bucks finish with a record that is merely “okay”.

But its early.  Don’t give up on the Bucks yet.  They are playing hard.  They are simply not succeeding.  Maybe that will change.

3 Responses to “Bucks are a team from the 1950s”

  1. MB Says:

    I can’t help but be reminded of the final Scott Skiles Bulls team.
    I remember D Berri writing something about it at the time – the Bulls were coming off a 49-win season, expectations were high, and to begin the year, EVERYONE on that team shot abysmally, well below their career averages. Their defense was more-or-less there, but the offense simply could not find itself.
    Is it a coincidence, or does it have something to do with Skiles’ offense? or coaching philosophy?
    Skiles got canned not long after that. He said he thought he had ‘lost’ the team.
    I am always interested when I see Skiles-coached teams struggling offensively, mainly because that Bulls phenomenon seemed so extraordinary at the time – every single player falling short of their projected offensive production is bizarre.

  2. Nigal Tufnel Says:

    Let’s be real here, effort on the defensive end takes energy of course. So if a team is required to exert a large and consistant amount of energy, as Skiles’ team are, players will not have as much energy to exert on he offensive end. Let’s face it, larger contracts are typically written for offensive production so it’s no wonder why guys have a tendncy to coast on defense. Perhaps Skiles’ team struggle at times with their offense because guys don’t have their legs under them fully to hit shots accurately and consistantly. It appears that the Bucks are primarily struggling with their jump shooting.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: