coolhandluke121

I couldn't disagree more. Yelich started younger, won his MVP younger, posted numbers equal to our better than Braun's best numbers ever as soon as he got the privilege of playing in Miller Park, is putting up even better numbers this year, is under contract at a bargain for 3 more years, will probably have his best years in Milwaukee, plays in an era where offense is harder to come by, has no PED stain, will have 5 full years in Milwaukee unless they trade him, and is already on pace for a HOF career if he stays healthy. Braun wouldn't have half the chance Yelich does even if he didn't have a history of PEDs. Yelich could literally have more WAR in 5 years as a Brewer than Braun has in his entire career. Braun's absolute best-case scenario puts him as a borderline HOF player if he somehow magically produces two near-MVP seasons after age 35 despite being 1-2 WAR player for years now. Yelich just has to stay healthy. What's more likely? If Yelich stays healthy, he could be a first-ballot HOFer easily at the rate he's going.

I didn't see it that way at all. Are you sure you're not just assuming they got killed on the boards when they went small because that's usually the trade-off? I thought they struggled on the boards all game. As tmwiese correctly pointed out, a major issue on the boards was so many slow bigs trying to contest the perimeter and scrambling to get back in position to rebound. Brogdon, Hill, Bledsoe, and Middleton are all above average rebounders for their position. Pat C is elite, though I'd only play him 8-10 mpg to make the substitutions work. Rebounding is the least of my worries if they play smaller.

Yeah, calling that a shove is laughable. You've obviously never had someone do that to you on purpose. It was a shove.

They weren't a typical 1 seed though. The East was extremely weak, they had extraordinary luck with respect to injuries, and they still only won by about 5 ppg. Someone had to be the 1 seed because Lebron had stopped caring about regular season results years earlier. Really no reason to expect them to be competitive in that series considering the personnel they had. They didn't underachieve or choke in the playoffs; they overachieved in the regular season.

Just worked up the nerve to watch the replay on a slow morning at work. Couldn't finish the 3rd quarter. Even more disgusting on replay because it's so obvious what the Bucks should have done differently, and it's extremely disappointing that the coaching staff couldn't see it. It's not about analytics or heart or playoff experience or hot/cold shooting. Excuse my long rant, but I'll start with the "too long; didn't read" version of my post and you can skip the rest if you want: Toronto's small-ball lineups are killing the Bucks' bigger lineups, there's ingrained personnel and modern NBA strategy reasons that they are, the Bucks should have anticipated that they would, and it's pretty safe to assume that they will continue to do so and win the next 2 if Bud doesn't get his head out of his butt immediately. I know there are other stories about who played well and who played poorly, ft's, hitting shots, role players, etc, but this was by far the story of the game and everything else is just misdirection. -------- Here's the rant: Starting Niko at sf is a joke. "It's working, so stick with it?" Please. Of course it "worked" against Boston for a few games. Niko is much better than Brown and Milwaukee is much better than Boston. It's not working better than starting Brogdon worked... ***checks the game log***... for over 60 damn games?? I don't blame Niko at all; it was obviously that Toronto's small-ball lineups would hunt him on mismatches. This helped guys like Powell, FVV, and even Green get some confidence, and Niko can't abuse the mismatch on the other end nearly enough to make up for it. Speaking of FVV and Powell getting some confidence, Brogdon is part of the issue there too. Playing Niko at sf takes Brogdon's sf minutes. He was doing a great job guarding Kawhi, but FVV and Powell are too quick for him and they're burning him off the ball. Now their confidence is sky-rocketing. The horse is out of the barn. They had Toronto on the ropes and let them right back in it. I don't blame Brogdon, but this is an issue going forward if Bud doesn't go back to giving him more sf minutes. When the Bucks play big, they lose the mismatches in dramatic fashion. Either Gasol or Ibaka, combined with some of the best team defense in the NBA, is enough to keep the Bucks from abusing the Raptors in the paint, but Toronto's quickness is destroying the Bucks on the other end. Toronto's advantage far exceeds any advantages Milwaukee gets from playing so big. Gasol is a better all-around player than Lopez, despite what happened in game 1. Lopez is even slower than Gasol, is not nearly the facilitator, defender, or rebounder, and arguably isn't even better at 3-point shooting at this point. Playing Giannis with Ersan or Niko as the other big might actually give the Bucks the mismatch advantage (big difference between "chasing" Lopez around the arc vs. having to run with Ersan or Niko), but they're squandering it for no reason. Bledsoe and especially Hill have been good on defense for the most part, but their guards have gotten going because of the lack of team speed on defense. Team speed also played a part in the rebounding. Some people mentioned the Raptors being hungrier and playing harder, but I think it was more about the Raptors being quicker and beating the Bucks to every spot for that reason. It made me want to break my computer, and I'm not normally a passionate fan. I'm more of an analytical guy who loves the strategy and artistry of the game. And Hill is a much better player than Bledsoe right now, period. It's not even close. Bledsoe deserved his 1st-team all-defense award and was the Bucks' 2nd-best player most of the year, but he is being exposed badly while Hill has proven over and over that he's their 2nd-best player now. He's an even better defender than Bledsoe. Lateral quickness trumps downhill quickness on defense, he has even longer reach, and he's not prone to dumb fouls. The solution: Start Hill, Brogdon, Khris, Giannis, and Lopez. Play Bledsoe and Giannis together less, since they both are so much better when surrounded by 4 shooters. Ersan and Niko should get just as many minutes as Lopez, if not more. If the Raptors want to play Kawhi as their 2nd-biggest player, fight fire with fire. The Bucks' small-ball should have even more firepower than the Raptors'.

That makes it okay to shove Durant? Seriously?

I care because he crosses the line, gets on the court, and even gets physical with players. With the history of things like Malice at the Palace and the Westbrook fight, they have to stop this before it gets ugly. The heckling and passion are great, but Drake is that fat kid who wants to be part of the team so bad and is so into it that he actually thinks he's part of the team and crosses the line. This incident with Durant is a good example. This is completely out of line and there's absolutely no place for this stuff between fans and players.

Simple as that. Can't forget that Kawhi played about 60 games this year and Lowry played about 65. He also went through his worst slump in years, if not ever. Gasol was a quantity-for-quality trade to make them even better in the playoffs than the regular season. And Lowry seems to be over the playoff problems that have plagued him for years, whereas Bledsoe is not. Maybe Lowry just needed to go up against someone who has it even worse than him? Milwaukee had some injuries and stuff too, but it didn't affect their regular season as much because of their depth. So the discrepancy between Toronto's talent and their regular season record is even greater than Milwaukee's. I'm as guilty as anyone of getting fat and sassy after game 2. I had the Bucks in 7 going into it, and I constantly dismissed Boston and Philly as paper tigers in comparison to Toronto. Philly and Boston had some bigger names, but some very critical flaws. Toronto is extremely balanced, experienced, and well-rounded. But then I was sold on Toronto's weak bench, and here we are. Damn.

I'm researching the topic now. So far, my research suggests that only one team can go all the way, and every member of every other team is a choker, under-achiever, mental midget, point shaver, wannabe, and/or flash-in-the-pan. The only question is who's a bigger one - the coach, the best player, the PG, the fans, the mascot, the GM, the owner, or the Drake? http:// If your best player is either Paul Millsap or Al Horford on any given night and you're playing against Lebron, I think it makes the most sense to blame the coach. Don't you agree?

At what point has there been even the slightest indication that the Bucks "let politics" get in the way of anything? Christ dude, go away. Stop responding to me. At what point did I ever say or imply they did?

I'm not quitting on Bledsoe but he's just not a good fit with Giannis. Good to see Hill in there early. Shows they're not letting any politics get in the way of winning.

I did. I always said he was the most dominant force, but absolutely not the best player. I can't give that praise to guy that shoots 50% from the line. Just can't. That really makes it sound like impact on winning is not your measurement of what makes the best player. Don't you think it should be?

Raise your hand if you ever claimed Shaq wasn't the best player in the league in 2000-2002 because he couldn't shoot. Give me a break.

Here's another way of looking at it. It's actually very rare for a player as dominant as Shaq or Giannis in their primes to NOT instantly make their team a contender with any kind of respectable supporting cast at all. That's more relevant than saying how rare it is to have a top superstar who can't shoot lead his team to a title, because we haven't had a superstar as dominant inside as Giannis since Shaq and before that probably Kareem and Wilt, so of course there haven't been many.

Most of this is a strawman argument, best examples of that bolded. Giannis is the best player in the league. He will be in the HOF. Nobody will ever wear #34 ever again in Milwaukee. It's not a strawman argument. There are tons of people still saying Durant is better than Giannis for this reason. Personally I don't think it's even close. We've seen Durant carrying a team before and he was actually kind of ball-hoggy and prone to bad turnovers while being a defensive liability, probably in part because he was spending so much energy on offense. I'll grant that it's rare to be the best player in the league without being a good shooter, but Giannis is. And the exact statement was "I'm not sure Giannis can carry a team to a title," which I could not disagree with more. Every player has some weaknesses - why sit here and say "Giannis can't hit a jumper when the game is on the line" instead of saying "Durant can't keep Giannis from getting a dunk or getting to the line when the game is on the line?" It's arbitrary and strikes me as a question of style as opposed to effectiveness. And even Giannis's abnormally bad ft shooting these playoffs aren't near hack-a-Shaq territory. No way any team is wasting their fouls to give up 1.33 points per possession. It's okay if Brogdon, Hill, Mirotic, Ersan, Lopez, or Middleton has to take that jumper. It really is.

"Milwaukee Brewers: Mauricio Dubon (2047). In one of the great heists in trade history, Dubon came over from the Red Sox as part of the Tyler Thornburg trade in 2016 and ends up winning four batting titles, stealing more than 300 bases and playing good shortstop for more than a decade with the Brewers." While searching for that old blog post, I found a recent post (March 2019 on mlb.com) that had Braun as the Brewers' next HOF player, which is even dumber because now that they have Yelich it should be a much easier choice.

Can they trade him to ESPN for something? I bet they'd give up a lot. http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/77174/who-will-be-the-next-hall-of-famer-for-each-mlb-team

I agree completely. Imagine what Redick would do in this offense. I've given up hope of Khris ever committing to better movement off the ball, but he could be great in that role if he'd embrace it. It seems like the Bucks have a lot of guys who like to work with the ball in their hands though. Which is fine for now, but when it comes to beating GSW, you're going to need to eliminate any inefficiencies you can.

There's always somebody to mask deficiencies though, although in the case of an in-the-paint scorer like Giannis or Shaq, I wouldn't even call it a deficiency - it's just recognizing that that's not their job. There's no way they would ever get good enough at shooting to make it a better option than scoring inside or kicking it out to a guy whose job is shooting, so it's a moot point. And that's what it really comes down to - playing your role and doing your job. It's just not Giannis's job to shoot, nor was it Shaq's. I'll grant that ft's are a slight issue in Giannis's case and a bigger one in Shaq's, but not nearly enough to offset for all the huge advantages Giannis and Shaq have over guys like Harden and Durant in so many other aspects of the game. It's just over-valuing isolation one-on-one scoring, which has been going on since as long as I've been a fan. Reminds me of all those times Lebron would kick it out to an open 3-point shooter instead of forcing up a bad shot against a double-team when he was young and people would say "see - he doesn't have a killer instinct like Kobe!" Even though he actually has much better clutch stats and his teams are much more efficient in the clutch than Kobe - especially when Kobe didn't have Phil coaching him and was recklessly chucking at will. There's no law that a guy has to take over and hog the ball in crucial moments, no reason that you can't continue to play good, fundamental basketball and move the ball to get the best shot just because it's a tense moment. Who carried the 2014 Spurs (high scorer 16.7 ppg) against the Heatles? Who carried the 2004 Pistons (high scorer: 17.6 ppg) against the Lakers? Why didn't the teams with the superstar iso scorers win? It's actually very regressive to think and play that way. When Phil was reining Kobe in, how many times did we see Fisher or Horry hit the big shot? They were open because of Shaq and Kobe and they did their job. It didn't matter if Shaq or Kobe scored, it mattered if the Lakers scored. Phil understood that and so does Bud. I think Giannis does too, but he has to be even better and make quicker kick-out decisions when the paint is completely walled off. I think he will. I think Giannis could average 40 ppg and and 10 apg if he had joined the Warriors and been surround by those shooters instead of Durant, and don't even get me started on the defensive difference. And I don't think there's any way Durant would have carried this team to 60 wins this year.

I was half-joking, but flexible piggybacking wouldn't mean you never let a starter go 100 pitches if the match-up is right, the game situation calls for it, and/or many of your long relievers are unavailable. Also, it's definitely possible that they're stretching him out so much just to make sure he's 100% healthy.

What's to decide? I think we all know where this is going.

I don't agree at all that Giannis can't carry a team because he can't shoot. That's like saying Shaq couldn't shoot. There's no law that says you have to be a great hero-ball scorer all over the court to be the best player in the league. If you draw double and triple teams and kick it out, you've done your job. That's just as valuable as scoring it yourself. There's never going to be a time where the league decides Giannis has to score it himself more in those situations. If anything, Giannis needs to make sure he never listens to the people who say "you have to take over and score more" because that's where he gets into real trouble, forcing the issue instead of trusting his teammates. When there's that many defenders near the paint because of you, you're basically already carrying the team on offense even if you don't score a single point. If defenses want to let Milwaukee's shooters get open 3's all day, let them. We've already seen that lead to one of the best offenses in the league all season. If there's a complaint about offense, it should be on the shooters. I know the team's percentages are good, but if you consider how many wide open looks they get, it's actually not that impressive. Brogdon, Snell, Hill, and Ersan keep their percentages up by only taking wide open shots right at the arc. Lopez and Mirotic will shoot deep ones, but not at a great percentage. Khris doesn't do a good job working for open 3's off the ball. Only Mirotic and Khris have a quick release. I mean guess Bledsoe has a quick release too, but what good is that? Giannis is the best player in the world right now. It's very rare to have someone that good on both ends of the court. Complaining about his inability to score every time in isoball possessions is especially odd at a time when we're seeing once again what the Warriors can do without Durant, who is one of the guys some people are still suggesting is better than Giannis for iso scoring reasons even though the Warriors hardly miss him (and even though he doesn't have to deal with nearly the same defensive attention Giannis does). There's nothing wrong with having to trust your teammates and keep moving the ball. In fact, it's usually better than falling into the trap of watching an iso scorer go to work all the time. This focus on a guy's isolation scoring ability is exactly the kind of thinking that leads people to assume Boston is the odds-on favorite to win the East because " OMG they added Kyrie to a team that already made the ECF without him the year before!!" Games are not an all-star game skills competitions. Giannis is like Shaq, easily the most effective player in the league right now and one of the most effective of all time regardless of shooting.

Milwaukee is the better team but Toronto is very, very good. Credit to Kawhi for annihilating Khris's offense like prime Pippen while carrying an MJ load on offense. Depth is an issue for them, but there are no back-to-backs and no long flights in this series, and they're not nearly as bad as they looked in game 2. Bledsoe is officially a "yips in the playoffs" legend at this point, and his outside shooting is a long-term concern. Credit the Raptors for sagging way off him, but how is he going to fit with Giannis if this continues? It's ridiculous how little spacing he provides compared to Hill, but sometimes you can just tell he's looking for his jumper anyway. Or he forces it into the lane but can't get a step on a defender playing so far off of him, which results in an automatic turnover when he tries to get cute with his dribble. He had his worst 3-point shooting year in 4 seasons despite tons of open looks, and in these playoffs he makes Monta Ellis look like Steph Curry. I think everybody knows what I'm going to say about George Hill. Suffice to say it's okay if it took you a while to realize how good he is and how important. It wasn't always this obvious unless you were looking for the subtle things vets like him do to help you win and the indirect results of his presence and leadership. Just don't be that guy who doubles down on him being "just a solid backup pg" and it's all good. It would be really hard to start him over Bledsoe at this point because of the commitment he made to the team and all the free agents who are watching their every move, but if this continues, I think we'll see it in game 5.

Yep, it's concerning. I think a big part of the problem is his shooting, which is so bad that it undermines other aspects of his game. Hurts the team too, because they sag off him so much. I think Hill is a better fit with Giannis and all these slow starts followed by inevitable comebacks are due in no small part to that.

With all my attention on the Bucks, I didn't realize the Braves had so many guys with an OPS well over .800. Albies is hitting 8th and you know he's likely to get going soon.