coolhandluke121

Let the record show that Jesus Aguilar's OPS+ after 85 plate appearances bottomed out at -1 before today. Yes, that's a negative sign. He was rocking a .368. After two jacks tonight, he's all the way up to .488, which many pitchers would be ashamed of, but good for him. Let's not assume he's off the schneid just yet though; it's a pretty big schneid.

Sure they will. Boston is much better than Milwaukee and one playoff game trumps 82 regular season games. Anybody who couldn't see this coming just had their head in the sand. Boston routinely held top-5 offenses to 35% shooting throughout the regular season and played like the greatest offensive team of all time, even against the best defensive team in the NBA.

This is pretty much exactly what happened. They were awful and did all kinds of stuff they don't normally do, not to mention shooting terrible. No, making a few really tough shots doesn't make up for missing a bunch of wide open ones. They shot horribly and Boston shot great. Is the #3 ORTG team suddenly that bad? Of course not. And the #10 ORTG team is not suddenly prime GSW either, especially not against the league's #1 defense. They also legit freaked out. Hate to say it, but it gives a lot of credence to anyone who said playoff experience would make a big difference. They played some pretty big games against Boston and Toronto the last two years, so I didn't think they'd shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim, but they did. It was embarrassing, but personnel is still not the concern IMO. The only thing I disagree with is putting it on Bud. He can't make them grow a pair. Here's hoping they do on their own before Tuesday night.

First off, you do need to settle down like OSS said. You're coming off as the guy who said the sky is going to fall and then angrily says "I told you so" after an ordinary thunderstorm. This is the same Bucks team that lost to the Suns twice and they lay a few eggs. On to Tuesday. And yes, the Bucks came out completely flat. Giannis was terrible. Horford is a decent guy to have against him, but Horford was a better player last year, Giannis was not as good as he is now, and Giannis still averaged over 26 ppg on 58% ts in just 28 mpg in last year's playoffs despite having much worse floor spacing from his teammates. They also made a lot of unforced turnovers and missed wide open 3's. They played awful and would have lost to just about any team in the playoffs today except maybe Detroit. And Boston probably played the best they've played all year. Philly and Toronto lost game 1 against much worse teams in the first round. Basketball happened today. The Bucks threw away their margin of error but they did not do anything they're not perfectly capable of correcting.

No way. Don't extend Shaw either. They're decent players but far from elite. Who knows how many good years they have left? With the PED testing reform, prime age is back to being 27 or 28, and not many players avoid some decline in their early 30's. Even former borderline all-stars candidates like Moose and Shaw sometimes become unplayable in their early 30's. They weren't that good to begin with and this seems like an overreaction to a hot April.

Sure looks like they have. Seriously? Nobody is that good, not even the best defensive teams of all time and certainly not this Boston team. The Bucks had plenty of open looks. They also didn't move the ball crisply and multiple guys forgot how to dribble. Can't even count the number of times they randomly fumbled it for no reason. Then they regressed to some hero-ball drive-into-traffic crap because they couldn't shoot to save their lives. Boston was good but this was all about the Bucks not getting out of their own way. They looked like they hadn't played a serious, meaningful game in about a month.

Bucks look like they're playing their 2nd preseason game. Boston has been really good but not "hold the Bucks to 33% shooting" good. That's not their 3-point percentage by the way. That's from the field.

Horford is a great player and unsung hero. He's kind of like their Hill, only better. Does whatever the team needs. Can be the star when needed too, but unlike other scorers, he's still great even when he's not looking to score at all. They can't play him 48 mpg though.

Giannis and Bledsoe have been really bad and the Bucks played about as bad as a playoff team can possibly play in the first quarter, and they're only down 2. I could see Boston's starters winning nearly every 1st quarter, but the Bucks just have too many good players for them. And that's without even considering the possibility of Brogdon contributing.

George Hill is the 2nd-best player on the team and has been for a while. Can't believe people don't think he's worth $18m on a one-year deal. The only guy besides Giannis you can count on to contribute without doing so much frustrating stuff that you start to question his contributions. He's the top priority to retain this off season. Bledsoe was really good most of the year but he looks like a total headcase already, just like last year's Boston series. Lopez is kind of getting played off the floor, as some of us feared.

Wanting to get rid of Barnes is not something you can expect to say without being challenged. He is not a high leverage reliever but he is much better than most of the alternative options. There are multiple guys out there who can't be trusted with a 5-run lead, and lumping him in with them is absurd. I agree that they should get more help though. I think it's desperation time. A bullpen like this can completely undermine your season, and they can't afford to take that risk. Knebel isn't coming back this year, and whatever arm syndrome Jeffress has is extremely ominous. Claudio is a LOOGY who can also eat 1-2 innings in blowouts, which is marginally better than a strict LOOGY. Guerra's repertoire seems to play much better out of the pen. Everyone else is trash. Hader, Guerra, Claudio, and Barnes are easily the top 4 guys out there.

I think Philly is by far the easier team to beat but it's a moot point because they're very unlikely to advance. Toronto and Milwaukee have been far superior teams all year. Strange things do occasionally happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boston and Philly are totally dismantled, whereas I would be pretty surprised if they even win 3. Can't wait until we don't have to hear about their so-called star power ad nauseum, at least until next fall.

I always thought it was pretty clear they would typically carry 13 pitchers. I remember somebody acted like I was crazy for suggesting it, but there were just too many wild cards on the staff. Besides, they have so much quality in the lineup that they don't really need great depth there.

Thames and Gamel against every single starting RHP from now on please.

As for bullpen debates, this team was one win away from its first World Series berth since 1982 last year. A long window of contention is never guaranteed. They shouldn't worry about hurting anyone's feelings or failing to develop youth according to the same timeline a rebuilding team would use if it clearly makes them more likely to win this year. It's not like anyone is wanting to trade them away in a short-sighted, impulsive trade. It's just a temporary bump in their development if Woodruff and/or Burnes goes back to the pen.

I don't think that's a flaw with the proposal at all. Starters would be able to routinely pitch on 3 days of rest, and sometimes even 2 if they only pitch 2-3 innings in their previous start, so you would have more long relief options. The rigid rotations/starters paradigm has plenty of its own drawbacks. Sometimes a starter only lasts ~1 inning, and then the paradigm falls apart. There are "what ifs" to any paradigm, and situations where it won't be optimal, but in the long haul there's plenty of evidence that starters are pitching too many innings and too many times through the order. Relief pitchers often have lower e.r.a.'s, even though they're failed starters, because of the way they're deployed. Pitcher at-bats could also be minimized more effectively with more long relief, and LHP/RHP match-ups could be exploited. The biggest question to me is how many innings could you get out of starters and former starters turned long relievers if they appeared in more games but for shorter outings and what would the effect be on their health. I know you can't just take a starter who throws 160 innings and tell him to pitch 160 games, 1 inning at a time, but where is the sweet spot? There seems to be plenty of evidence that starters can pitch on less rest after short outings. How important is the routine? I think the current paradigm is best for most teams just because you clearly want your best pitchers to start and throw a lot of innings, even if they go 3 times through the order and bat 3 times. Rebuilding teams just want their young guys to get experience and be groomed for that. But the Brewers are an interesting case. Who are the starting candidates that are so much better that they have to start 30+ games and pitch 150+ innings? In any given month, Chacin, Davies, Anderson, Woodruff, Peralta, Burnes, Nelson, or Guerra could easily be your best starter. As long as nobody is head and shoulders above the rest, why not use them in a way that reduces times through the order and pitcher at-bats?

I think anyone who is still rationalizing everything that's gone down with regard to Braun for the last 3 years is the person who needs to "talk to someone" about their feelings, but whatever.

I know. I understand that and I have my fingers crossed with regard to his production, just like everyone else. But it still bugs me that people refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their failure to move him in 2016, and that we had people in here saying he would be an MVP candidate again this year. A lot of us predicted Santana would be better than Braun this year, and I'm tired of getting the "you're just a Braun hater" thing when the criticisms are totally valid regardless of how you feel about him. Who's next to be jettisoned to keep the curse going? I'd just release him if he's not making progress by the ASB, if not sooner.

It's not that I mind them trading Santana per se. It's that they had to trade him when his value was at an all-time low, just to accommodate Braun. It's the Khris Davis situation all over again. Neither one was a long-term piece, but they're both clearly very talented hitters. It just sucks that they had to sell low on guys like that (and move Yelich out of position) to make room in LF for a $20m player worth ~1 WAR per season... and this year, that's if we're lucky.

Who's making excuses for them? Anyone and everyone who acts like their talent and performance are comparable to the Bucks this year, that's who. Anyone who just lists how many big names they have and assumes the great results are going to start any day now. It's based on reputation and on-paper roster examinations, not on results. You cite their +4.5 differential, 6th-best in the NBA and probably about 397th-best all-time, and call them elite; what does that make the Bucks and their +8.9 differential, 17th-best all-time? Nobody is saying they're bad and nobody is saying they don't have a chance, but the Bucks have been the far superior team this year, period. Brown is a bad fit who can't shoot, Rozier's postseason last year was a fluke, and Tatum has molded himself into an iso-ball chucker, probably thanks to his offseason workouts with Kobe. Hayward is still working his way back into form, and Horford is a half step slower. Smart is hurt. Kyrie made them better on offense but much worse on defense. Toronto and Milwaukee are much better teams than Philly and Boston. The latter teams have a chance, as 3 and 4 seeds usually do, but they should definitely be underdogs.

That's what it boils down to - people making excuses for the Celtics all year. They're talented, but the whole is much less than the sum of the parts, and they have some overrated young guys. The only thing I'm scared of is Hayward rounding into form, because he could completely change the complexion of that team.

Any team that can play 5 guys who can shoot can expose Milwaukee's only significant weakness, which is Lopez not being able to guard the perimeter. The Bucks have a great scheme and great coaching, but their defense relies on giving up open 3's to second-rate shooters so that Lopez can patrol the paint. Boston can counter with Horford and Morris to exploit that weakness without sacrificing much toughness and muscle. Lopez could abuse small-ball with low post offense, but it's hard to keep up in today's arms race with post-ups, even against mismatches. Fortunately for the Bucks, Brown and Tatum aren't very good 3-point shooters, and their surprising results last season are looking more and more like a fluke. That's an unheralded factor in their struggles this year, lost in all the other drama and story-lines. Hayward could be an x-factor. Would hate to see this be his breakthrough. Boston has a chance, but the Bucks have clearly been the better team all year and I think that continues.

I don't really consider most of them "analysts and experts." Most of them are just former players who back into those roles, like so many guys who got jobs as coaches and/or gm's and then were monumental failures because (guess what) being a former player - even a great one - doesn't mean you have good analytical ability. (See: Kidd, Jason.)

Do you anticipate this curse lasting more or less than 108 years? I don't know but I do intend to complain about it for at least that long.

I prefer seeing the better teams win, but I agree that it can make the playoffs kind of predictable and boring. I don't like the idea of having shorter series though, because playoff basketball is great and, like I said, it gives the better team a better chance of winning. They just need a little more parity. A hard salary cap would help a lot. I also think the effect of superstar players is magnified by officials favoring superstars and would like to see them make intentional changes to that paradigm. Superstars will continue to have a huge effect on the game, but at least that would keep it from snow-balling out of control, and a hard cap would make it harder for them to keep their supporting casts and be a de facto final four team every single year.