The Bratwurst – Milwaukee Bucks Blog

It’s only been a few games, but what are last years’ Bucks doing with their new team?

With one notable exception, not much.

You remember how I used to maintain that Royal Ivey wasn’t much of a defensive player, and even if he was, he was so bad offensively that it doesn’t really matter? Well, he has only played 7 minutes per game for a Philly team that is off to a slow start, and they have been outscored by 8 ppg with him on the floor while outscoring their opponents by 3.5 ppg without him. Ivey was the Bucks’ sixth man for long stretches last season … and he is being used much more effectively now. He is shooting 43%, not bad for him.

After shooting 48% for the Bucks last season, Desmond Mason is back up to his old tricks, only shooting 38% in 27 mpg for the Thunder. He’s also turning the ball over more than last year, rebounding worse, and getting fewer assists. At 31 years old, the athleticism is likely starting to wane, and the Bucks were lucky to have gotten as effective a season out of him as they did.

Mo Williams is off to a slow start with the Cavs, only shooting 40% and seeing his numbers fall off in nearly every other category. However, after going into a new situation in Cleveland, an adjustment period is to be expected and with the ball in LeBron’s hands, a decline in Mo’s numbers can only be expected. As the Bucks-Cavs game showed, the team is doing just fine with Mo.

You thought Bobby Simmons was bad last year? Oh man, look at him now! He’s playing 27 minutes a game and shooting 33%. His rebounds are down to 3.5 per 40 minutes and assists are down to 1 per 40 minutes. At least he’s not turning it over much, but the real problem is he isn’t really doing anything on the court. In my post-season recap last year I wrote that Simmons’ averages last year were almost the same as his previous four years, not counting the big 04-05 season that got him his big contract. Well, he’s underperforming those numbers by a lot. He recently made some comments about needing to do more without the ball, but the real problem is what he does with the ball near the basket — he is shooting 45% on jumpers but only 20% close to the hoop.

Don’t look now, but Yi Jianlian is off to a really nice start for the Nets. He is playing 27 minutes a game and has an IPM of 0.83, making him the #20 forward in the league for this young season. He is shooting a little worse (41%) but is actually rebounding this season — averaging 11.9 boards per 40 minutes! He’s doing everything a little better this season — getting more assists, averaging a block per game, and not turning it over. However, his defense probably still has problems — the Nets aren’t really doing any better with him on the floor. And, just to be sure this is Yi Jianlian we are talking about, he is still getting 25% of his shots close to the basket blocked.

Now that the preseason has concluded, we can step back and take an honest look at where this Bucks team stands going into the season. Quite honestly, this preseason leaves me very nervous about whether or not the team has really improved.

The 1-7 preseason record is not a problem. In the preseason, obviously your best players don’t play a whole lot, and the teams’ performance will suffer. However, you want your best players to play well when they are in the game. I analyzed all of the box scores for the eight preseason games and calculated IPM’s for every player. I also calculated the team IPM score in order to objectively judge the quality of their offensive and defensive efforts. Obviously, the team IPM score is subject to the personnel on the floor, so players like TJ Cummings and Kevin Kruger had some influence. However, I think it is still something worthwhile to look at, since the numbers will indicate to a certain extent just how well the Bucks’ roster is complementary to Scott Skiles’ system.

IPM, in case you are not familiar with it, is my self-created player evaluation model. It attempts to summarize a players’ all-around contribution to his team and is boiled down to a single number, which stands for Impacts Per Minute. Think of an IPM of 1.0 meaning that the player makes positive contributions to his team equivalent to 1 point per minute on the floor. A player with an IPM over 1.0 is a superstar, above 0.9 is all-star level, above 0.8 is an above-average starter, above 0.7 is an okay starter, and above 0.6 is a decent short-minute player. Below 0.6 and you have problems. Team IPM sums up the whole teams’ offensive statistics and the statistics of the teams’ opponents to give an offensive and defensive score which, when subtracted from each other, gives a differential that correlates very closely to a teams’ actual record. A team with identical offensive and defensive IPM’s would have a differential of zero, and would be expected to be a .500 team. Team IPM’s typically range between 3.0 and 4.0 (higher is better for offense and worse for defense). More description of IPM is available here, last years’ player rankings are available here, and last years’ full-team power rankings are here.

The numbers for the preseason analysis, both for individual players and the teams, is available here.

On to my preseason analysis:

The Team: Yikes, what a display of god-awful offense. 40% shooting and 89 points per game will not get it done. The team suffered from a sort of mass shooting slump with only four players making over 40% of their shots (fortunately three of them were Bogut, Redd and Villanueva), so it’s not all that surprising that the offense was brutal.

The defense, on the other hand showed only moderate improvement from last year. They allowed 103 points per game and 48.5% shooting – pathetic numbers and it’s only because the defense was unbelievably bad last year that this would actually represent an improvement. The Bucks were only outrebounded by their opponents by a slim margin (39.9 per game vs. 40.15) and forced more turnovers than their opponents (16.71 vs. 18.58). Some of the defensive weakness can probably be attributed to Andrew Bogut only playing 5 games, but that underscores this teams’ biggest problem: since there is no banger big man behind Bogut, if he misses more than a handful of games this season, this team is sunk.

The Bucks’ offense managed an incredibly meager 3.26 IPM. Some of which can be attributed to the new offensive system being implemented, so many new players being integrated into the offense, and the best players being on cruise control during the meaningless games; but it is still a sign of a lack of team depth. After all, the teams the Bucks were playing weren’t putting out their best players or max effort either. Last season, a 3.26 offensive IPM would have been the worst in the league by a lot.

Defensively, the Bucks had an IPM of 3.85, which represented a small improvement from last years’ 3.99, but still isn’t amazingly good. The team simply isn’t athletic enough to do much statistical defensive damage. As I said before, they need Bogut on the floor and need to get rebounding help from someone other than Bogut and Gadzuric.

With the Bucks’ best players on the floor in the regular season I would expect both of their IPM numbers to improve, but they show how far the team has to go. The teams’ preseason IPM differential of -0.59 (3.26 minus 3.85) would have translated to about a 20 win team last season, placing them just ahead of the Grizzlies as the leagues worst. Last season the Bucks had the #23 offense (3.61 IPM) and #28 defense (3.99 IPM). A defensive IPM of 3.85 would have ranked #21 in the league. Should the Bucks have the same offense as last year and the same defense as they did in the preseason the differential of -0.24 would equate to a 32-50 regular season.

You would expect the teams’ numbers to improve on both ends of the floor in the regular season, but the numbers really show just how far this team has to go.

One bright spot is that in the two games the team played that had much more intensity and effort than a typical preseason game – the two in China – the Bucks actually outperformed Golden State in both. By IPM the Bucks won the first game by a 3.46-3.40 IPM score and game 2 by 3.81-3.67. By my observation, these games were played pretty hard and show that there is some room for improvement once the regular season begins. Perhaps a team capable of playing .500 ball is in place. Perhaps.

The players (reviewed in order from best to worst):

1- Charlie Villanueva (0.911 IPM): It was a big preseason for Charlie V, as everybody wanted to know how well he will fit in as a defense-allergic power forward for Scott Skiles. If he keeps filling it up the way he did in the preseason, he will do just fine. Villanueva averaged 26 points per 40 minutes on 49% shooting. Maybe going 0 for 8 from 3 point range will encourage him to finally give up that shot. His rebounding will have to come up from the 8.6 per 40 minutes he managed in the preseason.

In his two years with the Bucks, Villanueva has done a disconcertingly poor job of getting blocks and steals, which I always attributed to his injured shoulder not being healthy. In his first 101 games with the Bucks he had only managed 105 blocks and steals combined, for a thoroughly awful ratio of 1.03 per game. In the preseason, however, he averaged a much healthier 2.40 blocks and steals per 40 minutes, which likely reflects both improved health and commitment at the defensive end. Villanueva’s best game came in the second game against Golden State, when his numbers in 26 minutes of action would have prorated out for 40 minutes of work to 40 points, 12 rebounds, 4 blocks + steals and (just to prove this is still Charlie V we are talking about) 1 assist.

Villanueva certainly has the talent to put up a 0.9 IPM season, but whether or not he can play enough defense to make him a net-positive contributor is an open question. However, there is a lot of good stuff to see from his numbers in the preseason. If he scores 22 and grabs 8 boards all year but allows 18/7 at the other end, that’s still a positive contribution.

Of course, Skiles has been making implications to the media that he doesn’t intend to start Villanueva because of his defense, instead preferring some nonexistent better player. That’s funny, I must have missed where the Bucks traded for Tim Duncan in the last few weeks. Skiles does have a habit of doing that sort of thing, such as starting Chris Duhon over Ben Gordon for two years, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that Malik Allen is that much better than Villanueva.

2- Luke Ridnour (0.911 IPM): Ever since coming to the Bucks, opinion about Ridnour has been somewhere between “he’s great” and “he sucks”. The answer is right in the middle – he’s average. Ridnour takes exceptionally good care of the ball and doesn’t shoot or defend all that well. Basically, he’s better than half of the other starting point guards in the league – which means that if he’s your worst starter that is good and if he is your second best player that is bad. Ridnour had a very good preseason, managing a 3:1 assist/turnover ratio and grabbing 9 steals in 6 games (28 mpg). He shot poorly, only 38.9%, which makes his sterling IPM even more impressive. He also managed to grab 4.26 rebounds per 40 minutes, over 1 more than Richard Jefferson (more on that later).

Ridnour overachieved in the preseason and will drop off but should still be a solid addition to the club. Expect his A:TO ratio to stay about the same, his shooting to improve a bit and his rebounding to slide. It’s a good thing he played so well and sealed his name as the starting point guard, because nobody else at that position stepped up.

There is no way that Ridnour will carry a 0.9 IPM through the regular season, but a 0.8 is not out of the question.

3- Matt Freije (0.864 IPM): Yes, Matt Freije was the Bucks’ 3rd best player this season. He did it through shameless gunning – 23 points per 40 minutes on 39% shooting, only 1.3 assists per 40. He did manage 2.62 blocks+steals per 40 against the sub-par preseason competition. He had a good preseason, but the problem is that everyone knows that he is not an NBA-caliber athlete. He could probably make a good living in Spain or Turkey, but his primary skill – scoring – isn’t really in demand from 12th-man types. The thing that is most vexing about Freije stacking up so well among the Bucks is that it doesn’t say much about the rest of the team – the better players on the squad should put up much better per-minute numbers than someone like Matt Freije.

4- Michael Redd (0.7243 IPM): The numbers are subpar, but I don’t see anything to worry about here. Redd has no reason not to coast through the preseason, especially after spending the summer on the Olympic team instead of resting. Redd shot 47.5% from the field and made 9 of 20 three pointers, so it appears he is good to go from a scoring standpoint. He also averaged 4 boards and 4 assists per 40 minutes against 2 turnovers. The only thing missing from Redd’s game was the seven free throws per game he usually averages – he shot 18 in 6 games – but there is no reason for him to try and seek contact in a preseason game. Redd should be back to his usual 0.9 IPM once the real games start.

5- Andrew Bogut (0.643 IPM): It was a pretty disappointing preseason from a numbers perspective for Bogut, as his regular season IPM was close to 0.9 last year. I’m sure Bogut, like Redd, was cruising a little after a rough Olympics, and he has apparently been trying to beat some nagging injuries. Considering Bogut wasn’t really playing as tough as he would in the season, it’s still impressive that he managed to block 6 shots and get 4 steals in 5 games (29 mpg) and average almost 11 rebounds per 40 minutes. Bogut didn’t shoot particularly well (47%) and was awful from the foul line (53%) so that’s some reason for mild concern, but he also shot poorly early last season.

Of bigger concern is that he means so much to the team’s success at the defensive end that they will be totally sunk if he misses any time this year. The three preseason games he missed saw the Bucks’ 4th, 6th, and 7th worst defensive showings and the only other Bucks to average over 9 rebounds per 40 minutes were Matt Freije, Dan Gadzuric and Malik Allen. There just aren’t enough tough big guys on this team. It scares me that John Hammond tried to build a win-now team (by adding Jefferson) but didn’t add any toughness up front.

On the bright side, and I’ve brought this up many, many times: Andrew Bogut is the same age this year that Patrick Ewing was his rookie year. This means that Bogut’s physical maturation at the most physical position in the game means that his career trend of modest improvement should continue. If he can average 11 boards per 40 without trying very hard in the preseason then he should be able to do that easily in the regular season. Bogut should average 18 points, 11 boards and 2 blocks this year and make the all-star team (admittedly that has something to do with there being no other good centers after Dwight Howard in the East).

6- Dan Gadzuric (0.620 IPM): I know, can you believe it? Dan Gadzuric was the Bucks’ sixth best player in the preseason? Maybe that doesn’t say much about the rest of the roster, but Danny G just pretty much did what Danny G always does – if there’s nothing to do but rebound and throw his body around then he’s pretty good for short bursts. It’s when he tries to score that things get screwed up. Last season I advocated playing him alongside Bogut many times, and hopefully Skiles sees the value of that this season. Gadzuric averaged 11 boards per 40 in the preseason, and by getting the Bucks’ two best rebounders on the floor at the same time occasionally is about the only way this team will out rebound anyone this year. To Dan’s credit he didn’t turn the ball over or foul much this preseason, averaging about 2 of each per 40 minutes.

7- Charlie Bell (0.615 IPM): Bell only played 2 preseason games and got a total of 40 minutes, so he has a really small sample size to work with here. His numbers in those two games looked a lot like last years, right down to the 6 of 17 shooting.

8- Ramon Sessions (0.596 IPM): Let’s put those “Sessions is a future star” stories on hold for a bit. After a dominant season last year, Sessions spent this preseason showing why he was a low second-round pick in the first place – he can’t shoot and he’s not much of an athlete.

Sessions shot 29.6% from the field in the preseason, and that’s while only going 0 for 2 from 3-point range. There’s a big difference between potentially playing for a starting job this season and lighting it up in 15 games that didn’t matter last year, and Sessions seemed to feel the heat. In 154 minutes of preseason action, Sessions only managed 4 steals and no blocks, an indication that his athleticism is suspect. He was also a turnover machine, averaging 5.45 per 40 minutes (although some of that can be attributed to the And1 nature of preseason games). However, he wasn’t exactly an assist machine either, only averaging 7.5 per 40 minutes.

The preseason raises some legitimate questions as to how good Ramon Sessions will be in meaningful NBA games. Hopefully he can maximize his talents – he’s a guard with a gift for breaking down defenses and getting to the foul line, and he’s big enough to at least be a solid if unspectacular defender – enough to prove to be a capable backup. But if not, then maybe the Tyronn Lue signing wasn’t that bad an idea after all.

9- Richard Jefferson (0.590 IPM): Uh Oh.

This is what John Hammond wanted when he added an extra $15 million in long term salary to take on Jefferson’s contract? 38% shooting and a whopping 3.17 rebounds per 40 minutes? Yikes. Just, yikes.

Yeah, Jefferson was awful in the preseason. Most of the lame numbers aren’t too alarming to be worried about yet (poor shooting early isn’t a big deal for someone who is likely to slash to the hoop more in the regular season) but I wonder about the 2.12 blocks + steals per 40 minutes. It means he was sticking his hands in less often than players like Charlie V and Matt Freije, and it makes one wonder just how committed he is to his all-around game, having spent the last couple of seasons as primarily a scorer.

But the real problem is the putrid rebounding. Much was made before Jefferson came to the Bucks about his declining rebound rate over the past several years, from over 7 per 40 minutes early in his career to about 4 last season. The optimists tried to explain that Jefferson had concentrated on scoring more because that’s what his team needed, but it’s starting to look like maybe he’s just not as good a rebounder since a major ankle injury a few years ago.

There are always explanations for poor numbers in the preseason, and I’m sure there are plenty of reasons to justify RJ’s preseason being only moderately better than Bobby Simmons’ 0.564 IPM last season. But the rebounding is a major concern for me because it has been clear all along that the Bucks would need him to help out in that department in a major way this season, and he should have been spending his preseason minutes concentrating on that part of the game.

Jefferson should improve significantly once the real games start, but if he doesn’t, we are going to be wondering how John Hammond couldn’t have gotten a pick back from New Jersey in return for taking on RJ’s brutal contract.

10- Francisco Elson (0.5645 IPM): Elson was brought in to be Bogut’s 10 mpg backup this season, and judging from his preseason, John Hammond may as well have kept looking. It’s not that Elson did anything bad, he just didn’t really do anything at all.

11- LR Mbah a Moute (0.560 IPM): Scott Skiles gave Moute the most minutes in the preseason of anyone by far, and Moute proved that he was as advertised: hustles on defense, has no clue on offense. Moute had a couple of incredibly bad outings (highlighted by a 1-12 shooting night in game 2) but acquitted himself well in the last two preseason games (0.87 IPM in them).

Mbah a Moute’s preseason looked a lot like Richard Jefferson’s except that he didn’t create quite as many shots and got over double the rebounds (averaging 7.57 per 40 minutes). He should be a decent spot player, but I fear a little Royal Ivey-ish – no matter how good he is defensively, he might not be good enough offensively to make up for it.

12- Malik Allen (0.552 IPM): He’s a “Skiles guy” and will be Charlie Villanueva’s primary backup. It’s a good thing that he averaged 9.62 rebounds per 40 minutes, because between that and consistently being in about the right spots on defense are the only things he brings to the table.

13- Joe Alexander (0.534 IPM): There’s not much here that screams “future star”. Alexander had two nice games in the preseason (playing a big part in the win against Golden State and a 17 minute, 0.97 IPM night against Chicago where despite shooting 2 of 9 he stuffed the box score with 7 rebounds, three assists, a steal and a block) but was otherwise really awful.

The book on Alexander is that he is supposed to be very athletic but raw, a product of having not played much high-level basketball to this point in his career. That’s all well and good, but the last person I heard that about was Jamal Crawford, and he’s turned out to be just good enough to kill your team. Not having much experience at a young age has to limit your ceiling as a player somewhat.

That said, Alexander did play much better as the preseason went along and put up some huge rebounding numbers in the last couple of games. He is a rookie and the jury must stay out on him for at least a year, but I really hate to see him being one of the least productive players on the team – especially in games that don’t mean anything and where he should be able to go out and hone his skills against guys who are about to get cut.

14- Tyronn Lue (0.495 IPM): Lue didn’t play all that much and didn’t do anything of note when he did. He played 75 minutes and managed three rebounds, no blocks and no steals while shooting 35%. He did, at least, have a 2:1 assist to turnover ratio. I’d still rather have another backup power forward than him.

15- Adrian Griffin (0.300 IPM): He only played in the first two preseason games and was a non-factor in them, totaling as many turnovers as shots (three). But the most discouraging thing? That Griffin, a shooting guard, averaged almost double the rebounds per 40 minutes of Richard Jefferson (6.22 vs. 3.17).

The bottom line here: It’s probably not all that unusual for players with secure roster sports to post poor preseason statistics, but the way it seemed to infiltrate the entire team worries me. It wouldn’t bother me as much if there was also a massive improvement in the defensive statistics, as that would tell me that the wavering effort level of the opposition renders preseason stats useless. But that didn’t happen – statistically, the Bucks played like a 2-6 team this preseason (and they should have been 2-6 – not only did they lose the second game on a lucky shot, I believe that Golden State actually didn’t get the ball inbounded in 5 seconds on the game winning play, nor did they get the shot off in time. But it made better theater the way it worked out).

There is no way this team is the 20 win team they looked like in the preseason, but I worry about how much upside there really is for this roster. Before training camp started I predicted 38 wins this year, and I stand by that. It seems to me that the best case scenario for this team is about 43 wins and the worst case (except for a barrage of injuries that renders them noncompetitive) is about 32 wins (the “this preseason’s defense and last years’ offense” that I alluded to at the beginning of the post).

So that’s my call: 38 wins. I don’t think that gets a playoff berth, but I’m still not a believer in what Indiana is up to – I think the Bucks escape the cellar in the Central Division.

According to CNN-SI, the Bucks have agreed to trade Yi Jianlian and Bobby Simmons for Richard Jefferson.

Wow.

From a basketball standpoint, I love it.

From a financial standpoint, if the Bucks are willing to do it, then I’m all for it.

What’s most interesting about this move is that it sure does throw the idea of drafting Joe Alexander by the wayside. Does John Hammond have another trade up his sleeve to move up in the draft? Villanueva and the #8 pick for ….. what?

I’ve never been the biggest Richard Jefferson fan, as I’ve always felt he was a little overrated and benefited greatly from playing with Jason Kidd. But even if he falls off by 10% as a member of the Bucks then he’s still better than Yi — and light years better than Bobby Simmons. The Bucks actually take on salary in the trade, as Jefferson is owed $15 million in 2010/11 on a contract that is one year longer than Simmons’.

In my combined offensive/defensive IPM rankings, Jefferson looks like an okay offensive player and a pretty lousy defender. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t quite know, but the Nets were a much better team with Jefferson on the court than not, being out scored by 5 pp/48 with him on the floor and 7.5 with him off, according to 82games.com. Jefferson has an injury-prone reputation, but that’s not true — he has had two major injuries (a broken hand and something else I can’t remember) but in his five other seasons has played at least 78 games. He averaged almost 40 mpg last season.

So long, Simmons, we hardly knew ya.

But the big part of the story is that the Yi phenomenon has petered out, and that’s probably a good thing for Milwaukee. There wasn’t much he did in his rookie season to suggest that he is going to become a great player, as you can’t really expect his ability to get his shot off in traffic to improve much. It’s too bad. Drafting him was probably a good gamble. But I think we saw enough of Yi on the court to know he wasn’t really worth all the hype. When your most devastating skill is a beautiful 22-foot jumper your ceiling is always going to be limited because any defense will let you shoot that shot all night — because you wont make more than 45% of them, even if you are the best shooter in the world. Yi needs more post moves, he needs more quickness, and he needs to hold on to the ball better. Maybe that will come in time, but I think we saw enough to know that the best he will ever become is “okay”.

So who wants Villanueva and the #8? How about Memphis for the #5?

Don’t annoint John Hammond as a hero GM just yet — he may have just added an average player with a brutal cap-killer contract. But he addressed a team weakness, and if this move frees him up to make a big splash with another move, then today might wind up being a great day to be a Bucks fan.

And now, the small forward position, home of the Bucks’ undoing. Things were cruising along pretty well this year, but then one injury weakened the whole structure of the roster. Larry Harris and Larry Krystkowiak’s errant roster and rotation management made the position a problem night-in and night-out. After Mr. Offensively-Challenged (Mason) got hurt; Mr. Slump (Simmons), Mr. Out-of-Position (Redd), and Mr. Small (Bell) couldn’t fill the role, while Mr. Defensively-Challenged (Villanueva) never got a chance, while at least he could have kept the other guys in the backcourt or on the bench.

The result was something similar to the end of Reservoir Dogs. Deadly.

Desmond Mason ($5.0M, 0.622 IPM): Mason’s constant energetic play and dirty-work defense , plus his well-known solid character — makes him an endearing guy to watch and to root for. His offensive inefficiency is well known, but he made up for it by not trying to do too much at that end while buckling down on defense.

He was a good signing, too, given a 2 year/$10 million contract that was a nice value for Larry Harris. He got a reasonably priced guy who would be able to start, but if he was sent to the bench he would produce and not complain, while not eating a huge percentage of the salary cap.

The Bucks were quite a bit better with him on the floor, being outscored by 5 points per game with him and 10 without. With all of the high-priced talent around him in the starting lineup, it was surprising that it was an injury to him that sent the team into it’s ¾-season-long tailspin. But I think that says more about how bad the bench was than about how good Mason was.

Despite playing with Chris Paul for two seasons, Mason’s stint with the Hornets featured two of the most pathetic offensive efforts I have ever seen. Mason’s jump shot, always a problem, completely deserted him, as he shot below 30% on jumpers both seasons and had a 2-year FG% around 42%, yet he took 10 shots per game. His IPM for both seasons hovered around 0.50, which made him one of the worst players in the league considering how many minutes he played. And this was playing with one of the best point guards in the league! It’s funny that nobody has credited the Hornets’ surge to the top of the Western Conference to the fact that Desmond Mason is no longer on their team.

This season his jumper was not quite as bad as usual (33.7%) but he shot exceptionally well when close to the basket (59.5%). The result was career high 48% shooting, which made his offense good enough to make him a net-positive player for the Bucks when combined with his energetic defense.

But the reason why he shot a higher percentage is interesting , he seems to have finally figured out that he’s a horrible creator off of the dribble, so he stopped trying it.

This season, Mason was assisted on 69% of his baskets, vs. 54% and 53% his two seasons with the Hornets , when he was playing with Chris Paul! Just letting the game come to him and allowing his teammates to get him good shots worked wonders. Sort of makes you think about the, “Mo Williams isn’t really a point guard” stuff, doesn’t it?

But even with all of that, it’s not as though Desmond Mason was all that great a player. He’s not a bad guy to have around, but not a good guy to have as your starting small forward. But at least he did his job the best he could.

Responsibility for Coach K’s dismissal: Negative 20%

Bobby Simmons ($9.2M, 0.558 IPM): “Simmons=Pippen.” That’s what Jim Boeheim told Simmons’ college coach, Pat Kennedy, after coaching him on a high school all-star team. But it hasn’t quite worked out that way.

Simmons’ contract has been roundly criticized as one of the worst in the league, but that’s not true at all , Dan Gadzuric’s contract is light years worse, because it is longer and has a slightly smaller ending value. Simmons’ at least only has two years remaining on it, and will be worth much more , over $10 million , when it expires, meaning that he will be a useful trade asset down the road, or the source of a nice chunk of cap room. This room will be used to slot in Andrew Bogut’s extension should the Bucks keep Simmons.

The problem with Simmons is that he has now played six out of seven years in the league and has only had one really good season , his Most Improved Player 2004-05 season. This year looked a lot like his first season with the Bucks , a slow start, followed by some sort of problems (his first year he got an ankle injury that lingered most of the season, this year he had a mid-season three-game “personal leave” that then coincided with an incredible mega-slump), and a late-season resurgence that makes it look like he’s going to be good to go the following year. In the No Defense Allowed part of the season (April) he averaged 12.7 ppg on 51% shooting, and regained his form as a money 3-ball shooter.

So was Simmons slumping only to regain his form at the end of the year, or is he just a fairly poor player who has a knack for looking good late in the season? The evidence is starting to mount that the answer is the latter.

Taking Simmons’ averages of the 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2005-06 seasons (the last 3 he had played before this year, not counting the MIP season), he averaged 13.7 points, 7 rebounds, and 2.5 assists per 40 minutes, while shooting 41.3%. This season he averaged 14 points, 6 rebounds, and 2.1 assists per 40 minutes on 42.1% shooting. His numbers this year coincide almost exactly with his averages for the rest of his career, not counting the one season that he was clearly playing over his head. It’s starting to look like this is how good he really is , a guy who will show flashes of talent, but that’s it.

The news wasn’t all bad , despite such a disappointing offensive season, the Bucks played about the same with him on the floor as off (-7.9 ppg vs. -7.2), indicating that his defense was solid enough as to make his poor offense a wash. His ability to play tough, physical defense was one of the reasons he was brought aboard in the first place

It seems like Simmons and Krystkowiak may not have been on the same page, as his minutes yo-yoed all over the place. Considering that Krystkowiak had been making his “playing time comes from practicing hard”, it sure doesn’t make Simmons look good no matter what the cause really may have been. Most likely there was something to that “personal leave” that never became public.

But the bottom line is that when the Bucks needed Simmons to step in after Mason got hurt, he wasn’t able to answer the bell, which meant that the injury to Desmond Mason was enough to kill the season. And now we enter year four of the Bobby Simmons era in Milwaukee without really knowing what we’ve got.

Responsibility for Coach K’s dismissal: 30%

Up next: The Mo and Michael Show , Will There be a Sequel?

In the Racine Journal-Times, Gery Woelfel wrote an interesting piece about his asking around the Bucks locker room before Scott Skiles was hired to get the players’ opinions on him. He said that one player was definitely not enamored of the idea of playing for a coach that actually insists on running an offensive system and playing hard on defense.

“There was one player, however, whose face began to cringe almost in a painful manner when I mentioned Skiles. His look spoke volumes.

It was amply apparent he wasn’t a Skiles’ guy, and it was equally apparent he wasn’t looking forward to playing for him.

The player went on to say that he had conversations with several members of the Chicago Bulls, whom Skiles coached until being fired last December “” on Christmas Eve, of all times.

What this particular player heard from some of the Bulls about Skiles was anything but complimentary. To some Bulls, Skiles was condescending, egotistical and insensitive. And, no, they weren’t sad to see him fired.

First of all, Skiles wasn’t fired — he resigned. But that’s semantics.

So who is the mystery source? Lets speculate:

With the NBA being a fairly small fraternity, most players would have some familiarity with each other regardless of whether or not they have played together, so my speculation is pretty thin. But lets see what connections the Bucks players might have with the Bulls players.

The only Bull (as of Christmas, when Skiles left) with a recent history with the Bucks is Joe Smith, but he was only with the Bulls for a few months, and doesn’t seem like much of a complainer.

I doubt Woelfel’s source was Jake Voskuhl, Michael Ruffin, Royal Ivey or David Noel, as their contracts expire and they most likely wont be on the team next year. Awvee Storey is a Chicago native, but also won’t be here. It wouldn’t make sense for Ramon Sessions or Yi Jianlian to be the source.

One would think that Andrew Bogut would welcome Skiles, and since everyone already knows that he can’t stand NBA players, there’s no reason for him to talk to members of the Bulls.

Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell have spent their entire careers with the Bucks, and neither of them seem like the sort of player to object to Skiles.

Desmond Mason’s connection with the Bulls would be that he was teammates with PJ Brown for one year in New Orleans, who played with Chicago in 06-07. But Brown was on the Bulls were winning, and I’m sure everyone got along just fine then. It certainly doesn’t sound like Mason to complain about a coach he doesn’t know.

I can’t think of any connection between Mo Williams and any Bulls players, but I could be wrong.

This sort of reaction doesn’t seem like something Michael Redd would do, although apparently he and Smith had a pretty good relationship. Redd was also an Olympic Trials teammate with Kirk Hinrich. Still, it doesn’t sound right for Redd to say something like that, even if that’s what he was thinking. He’s a little more media savvy than that.

That leaves Bobby Simmons and Charlie Villanueva.

Simmons is a Chicagoan who most likely spends time with the Bulls players that stay in the area in the summer (many NBA players work out at Tim Grover’s gym, and the South Side summer pickup games are legendary). Simmons also was traded to Detroit in the Jerry Stackhouse-Richard Hamilton trade (and was cut before the season started), so he was a teammate of Ben Wallace for a short time. Wallace and Skiles did not get along from the beginning. Simmons has complained in the past about the Bucks’ coaching turnover.

Villanueva went to college with Ben Gordon, another player who always chafed under Skiles. Gordon had an issue with his minutes and never liked coming off of the bench, while Skiles had an issue with Gordon’s defense and shot selection. One could say that every coach would have the same issues with Villanueva.

So it seems most likely that Woelfel’s mystery “Skiles hater” is either Villanueva or Simmons. That’s convenient, since those are the two guys least likely to still be on the team next season.

Sounds to me like a non-issue.

Now we know where that “Randolph to the Bucks” story came from. In the New York Post, Peter Vecsey is reporting that Knicks GM Glen Grunwald proposed a Randolph trade to Larry Harris, and Harris called the Blazers’ management to guage their opinion of Randolph. Someone in the Blazers front office leaked word that the Bucks were considering adding Randolph to the Portland Oregonian.

The proposed trade was Zach Randolph and Renaldo Balkman for Dan Gadzuric, Bobby Simmons and Charlie Villanueva.

Boy, that really shows how low Randolph’s reputation around the league is if the Bucks would turn that one down — and they are 100% correct to have done so.

It’s funny. The Knicks come calling with an offer of a young power forward who has a history of putting up great numbers and a young small forward who is an upgrade over Simmons or Mason in every way except shooting ability — athleticism, age, price tag, rebounding, defense … you name it. And all it would have cost them was one talent who the Bucks can’t figure out how to use, one backup center who is nailed to the bench, and one small forward who has been extremely underwhelming.

It sounds like a ridiculously unfair trade in favor of the Bucks. Which means there is something seriously wrong with the offer — what could make the Knicks that desperate to get rid of Randolph?

You can hear Larry Harris’ thought process; “You actually want to take Gadzuric and Simmons off of my hands? And you’ll give me a better small forward and a 26-year old who was 20/10 last season? That’s just too good to be true! Of course I’ll do …. Waaaaait a minute … What are you trying to pull here?”

Here’s what’s wrong with the trade: Zach Randolph simply isn’t nearly as good as his numbers indicate. Everybody already knows that Randolph is a horrible defender and a constant PR headache. His personality is already showing through in New York with battles with the press, Isiah Thomas, and the referees. Not to mention Portland has blossomed without him, while the Knicks are an even bigger train wreck than they were before. The only thing Randolph has going for him is his ability to stuff a box score.

And here’s the kicker — Randolph’s numbers aren’t even that good.

Randolph is sporting a 0.8236 IPM this season. That makes him the 28th best forward and while that is the highest ranking on the Knicks, it would place him fourth on the Bucks. Yes, he had a 0.9965 (8th best forward) last season, but that was a mirage, courtesy of something called usage rate.

Usage rate is the average number of team posessions per 40 minutes that end with something a player does — when he takes a shot, gets fouled, gets an assist, or turns it over. Players that shoot a ton have very high usage rates (Kobe Bryant uses about 30 posessions a game) so it is a stat that sort of measures how big of a gunner a player is.

Randolph was much praised for raising his scoring last season, averaging 26.5 pp/40, over a previous career high of 21.7. People also thought that he was a pretty efficient scorer, as he shot 46.7% from the floor and 81% from the line, both much improved over the previous two seasons.

However, his shooting percentage was artificially low the previous two seasons because he had and was recovering from microfracture knee surgery. Before the knee injury he had been a 50% shooter. His shooting percentages in 2006-07 weren’t that good, just good compared to when he was hurt.

So why the increase in scoring? Usage rate. As the only offensive option on Portland, he used 30 posessions/40 min last season, compared to a previous high of 25. He played about 40 mpg, so getting 5 more shots per game and converting them at 47% means an extra 5 more points per game. Bingo, there’s the whole scoring increase explained right there — he wasn’t playing better, he was shooting more.

Not surprisingly, this season his usage rate, shooting percentage, and scoring average is all down. His former team is better without him, his new team is worse with him. He’s a average player who gets his numbers at the expense of his teammates.

It’s a shame that the Bucks couldn’t pull off a deal to get Balkman, but at the cost of obtaining a millstone like Randolph, it’s not even close to worth it. Good thing Larry Harris passed on this deal.

Sure, I can hear you thinking, the Bucks play two good games against lousy teams and suddenly he thinks Krystkowiak is a great coach.

No, I’m not taking back my statements that the Bucks need a coaching change, but I saw a couple of things in the Philadelphia game that I really liked. Lets not get too excited about what the Bucks have done recently — the have beaten three lousy teams, and primarily won last night because Philadelphia went 0-13 from three point range. But Krystkowiak has done a couple of things that I have really liked.

He has tried playing Villanueva and Yi together a couple of times. Only for a few minutes, but if you are talking about moving people to a new position, then baby steps are necessary. They only played together for about 3 minutes and weren’t incredibly successful, but Yi had an awful game so it wasn’t really indicative of how good they would have been. It seemed like Yi was playing the “3″, which I don’t like, but that was hard to tell because Philadelphia went small and the Bucks played zone. Krystowiak also made a very nice move by going even bigger in reaction to the small ball Sixers, bringing in Simmons to play alongside Williams in the backcourt for a couple of minutes there. Creative! I like the way you are thinking!

The Bucks also briefly used some pressure defense to show a new look to the Sixers. While it didn’t do much (and wasn’t too terribly agressive, either), that might help the Bucks push the pace a little and take advantage of their offensive firepower by generating some turnovers and faster possesions by the opposition.

Kudos to just about everybody who took the floor for the Bucks for a nice game — Bogut, Williams and Villanueva were all solid and Bell was spectatcular. With him scoring 20 ppg, the loss of Redd sure is easier to take. Bobby Simmons also had a nice game, shooting 4-8 and stretching his minutes to 28.

It’s so much more fun to write about wins.

I’ve been looking at recent IPM data (the latest updates of which have been posted), and the analysis shows some ways that the rotations can be changed to help get the Bucks out of this ridiculous slide. There are some things that Coach K can still try.

Here are my thoughts about the Bucks’ players with their IPM’s since December 8th (after the Seattle loss). Remember that an IPM above 1.0 indicates superstar level, above .9 would be about all-star level, .75 indicates a solid starter, .65 is a questionable starter/good reserve and below about .5 is where the player is no longer helping you by being on the floor.

Mo Williams, 0.9536: There isn’t anything bad that can be said about Mo’s play, as he has distributed the ball well along with shooting at a pretty high percentage. The true pessimist might wonder why Mo’s best numbers seem to coincide with him being on a bad team, but from watching him play it doesn’t seem like he’s firing for his own stats at the expense of the team , in the recent spate of blowouts he’s only started gunning away after the games were long lost (you know, mid-first quarter). Mo has been the best player on the team, and according to Charles Gardner, with Redd sidelined, Krystkowiak might be about to move him to shooting guard to give Ivey more time over Bell. I don’t know, this might cause as many defensive problems as it solves, but I guess it’s worth a shot. I’m not going to criticize Krystkowiak for trying something different.

Michael Redd, 0.8020: Redd has been playing at a very poor level (for him) ever since Mason got hurt. His shot selection became awful and the all-around play that highlighted the first 15 games of the season disappeared. I’m convinced that the move to small forward has caused this. He has been forced to play more physical players on defense, tiring him out for his offensive responsibilities. The result has been some awful shots (bizarre, flat-footed attempts that would get a high-schooler benched) and a marked decline in his free throw percentage , both signs that he must be too tired to play correctly. Of course, he can’t guard small forwards, anyway, so the position change has ruined all facets of his game. The whole reason the Bucks got Redd late in the second round was because GM’s felt he wasn’t athletic enough to play small forward. He’s proved them all right. Please, Coach K, when he comes back from the thigh bruise, find someone else to play the 3!

Dan Gadzuric, 0.7474: Danny G has only played 5 games in the last 13 and only gotten 8 minutes per, but the numbers suggest that maybe it’s time to start playing him a little more. The trick isn’t when to play him but where , I think he should play alongside Bogut. 10 minutes a game of Danny G at power forward could help everyone. For one thing, it would get the Bucks’ two best rebounders in the game together. It would give Bogut a reprieve from being hammered all night long by the oppositions’ most physical player (since the Bucks’ other power forwards all hang out on the perimeter). Gadzuric wouldn’t have the responsibility of touching the ball on offense (both reducing his turnovers and opening up more shots for everyone else) and he could just crash the boards and , since 10 minutes is the goal for him , hack away at will whenever he gets beat.

Yi Jianlian, 0.7352: The brightest spot from the last month has definitely been the play of Yi. He is adjusting to the physicality of the NBA, as his percentage of his inside-shots that get blocked has slowly started to come down (to a still-way-too-high 32% for the season, vs. 41% a month ago). The question is can he play the 3 , I don’t really think that’s going to work. He still gets the ball slapped out of his hands way too often (23 “ball handling” turnovers this season) and should he be guarded by smaller, more athletic players that will happen even more often. Also, moving him to the 3 takes away his shot-blocking ability. Maybe he can play there in bursts, but long-term, I don’t think his future is anywhere but power forward. Better improve on that rebounding, bud.

Charlie Villanueva, 0.7179: Time for today’s “Brett wants Charlie V to play the 3″ moment. There are two big differences between moving Yi to the 3 vs. V. Villanueva is a much more accomplished ball handler and has the ability to dribble past smaller defenders and get into the lane. Villanueva is also not nearly the shot blocker that Yi is (8 this season? How is that possible? ) and so doesn’t have the value that Yi does being stationed inside. Villanueva at the 3 weakens the teams defense, no question, but brings plenty to the team by allowing Redd to stay in the backcourt and Simmons on the bench.

Andrew Bogut, 0.6944: I was very surprised to see Bogut’s IPM slide so much as I feel he’s actually played fairly well. I’m sure that the problem is he just has too much responsibility to handle every single bit of inside work for his team. It’s got to be exhausting after a while to guard the oppositions best big man, battle the oppositions two biggest players for boards, initiate the offense from the high post, shoot more now that Redd is hurt, and , oh yeah , how about making 55% from the floor while you are at it? No wonder he always looks so pissed on the court. Of course, some blame for his sagging numbers falls squarely on his own shoulders , whatever happed to his free throw form? He was a 70% free throw shooter in college and at one point had a 15-18 foot jump shot, but that is completely gone now. His form has slid to depths of a Shaq-style shotput toss from the free throw line, with the same on-the-way-up release he uses on a jump hook. It’s really ugly. Time to hire a shooting coach.

Desmond Mason, 0.6701: Mason played pretty well in the final 7 games before getting hurt, and with Simmons playing so poorly the Bucks miss him more than they ever thought they would.

Jake Voskuhl, 0.6485: One nice thing about the Gadzuric benching is that it’s pretty clear that Voskuhl can pretty much handle the 11 minute a night job as Bogut’s backup, freeing up Danny G for my master plan of moving him to power forward.

Royal Ivey, 0.5275: I’m not sure that starting him over Bell is much of an improvement, but what else can you do with this screwed up roster that only has four guards? Ivey started for most of the season in Atlanta in 05-06 but only played 13 mpg, compared to 15 now. Oh, by the way, Atlanta went 26-56 in 05-06.

Charlie Bell, 0.5068: You know, take away the putrid shooting (enough said about that) and Bell isn’t really playing all that bad. He gets some steals, has a solid A/TO ratio and rebounds pretty well for his size. However, no matter how well he plays, if he’s starting and playing 20+ minutes for you then you aren’t winning. His defensive effort is great, but that only takes you so far when you are routinely giving up 3-5 inches and 20-40 pounds. He just isn’t big enough to play more than a couple of minutes away from the point guard spot.

Bobby Simmons, 0.3743: He’s putting up Brian Scalabrine-type numbers but playing 20 minutes a game. It’s really getting ugly with Simmons. His shooting and turnover rates have been so poor that he’s hurting the team at both ends of the floor — the Bucks have basically been playing 4-on-6 with him on the court. It’s no coincidence that his only good game in the last month (vs. Miami) was the Bucks’ most recent win , it’s been too much for his teammates to have to overcome his play. I’ve said it so many times but I’ll say it again , something is wrong with him, and he shouldn’t be out there for more than 5-8 minutes a game until he gets it sorted out.

I remember seeing Dallas come into the BC about 4 years ago (when Don Nelson was still their coach). Nowitzki wasn’t at full strength, playing with some nagging injury (ankle, knee, back … something like that). But he was still their best player. Nelson had to get the ball in his hands while still minimizing his effort and keeping him away from contact. So ….

He ran the same damn play about 100 consecutive times. A pick & pop between Jason Terry and Nowitzki. On every single posession. For the entire game. If the Bucks defended it poorly it freed Nowitzki for an open jumper, and when the Bucks defended it well it got Terry into the lane where he could create for everyone else. It was ugly, boring, and quite effective.

Without Redd, the Bucks’ shorthanded offense should do the exact same thing with Williams and Yi. Simplify the offense, get the ball in the hands of their most talented players, and keeps the ball out of the hands of Simmons and Bell.

So there you have it — the rotations and the gameplan that I’d like to see.

According to Charles Gardner in the Journal Sentinel, the Bucks might have to give it a go against Washington without Michael Redd:

“Bucks guard Michael Redd did not practice today after suffering a deep left thigh bruise in Milwaukee’s 103-98 victory over the Miami Heat on Wednesday night.

Redd was listed as day-to-day, and it was uncertain if he would be available for the Bucks home game against the Washington Wizards on Friday night.”

While you’d think I’d immediately run up the “Charlie Bell is starting, we are screwed” white flag, I’d say that isn’t the case against the Wizards. As Washington’s starting shooting guard, DeShawn Stevenson has been as bad as Bell this season. Stevenson has shot very poorly (.375) and has an IPM of 0.5554, almost identical to Bell’s 0.5543. By IPM, they rank as the 296th and 297th best players in the league. So that matchup is actually a push by the numbers. However, for Bell to shoot so badly and still have a similar IPM as Stevenson, he has had to play a little better than him in the other aspects of the game.

However, the arrival of Caron Butler to town means that Bobby Simmons will have to be on his game in a big way tonight. Butler is having a fantastic season in the absence of Gilbert Arenas, raising his shooting percentage to 50% as well as averaging a career high 4.4 assists per 40 minutes. He’s giving the Wizards 40 solid minutes every game. If Simmons gives a lame 15 minutes and then Krystkowiak switches Bell onto him … it’s going to be a really, really long night.

So, please, Coach …. try Villanueva on Butler! Someone other than Simmons will have to guard him for 20 minutes, so lets compare the relative merits of having Bell on Butler vs. Villanueva:

Bell:
– Gives more energetic defense
– Gives up several inches and 20 pounds to Butler, so no matter how hard he tries there is only so much he can do
– Has a much higher steal and block total than Villanueva
– Is not only having a miserable offensive season, but playing him at small forward also means that Ivey will be in the game. The combination severely limits the Bucks’ offense

Villanueva:
– Has a height/weight advantage on Butler, so can lean on him and make him work more for his points
– Has had a problem with losing his man, so Butler will still get his share of easy ones
– Long arms can cause some problems for Butler’s passing
– A far superior offensive talent than Bell, so he can probably draw some fouls on Butler and score a little to make up for what he allows
– Yi can be in the game with Villanueva, but only either Bell or Ivey will be in as well, significantly improving the Bucks’ team offense

My conclusion? The only real advantage to having Bell on Butler is that his generally higher effort level might result in some more turnovers. But Butler is still talented and big enough to get a shot off over Bell whenever he wants. Villanueva at least offers the benefit of improving the Bucks’ offense to the point that they might be able to make up for their defensive shortcomings on the other end of the floor.

Oh, was it nice to watch the Bucks head into Miami and control the second half of a game for once.

And was it satisfying to see Charlie Bell and Bobby Simmons play well.

Lets not forget that it was only the Heat that the Bucks took down. Miami has the second worst home record in the league, Wade is not quite back to the level where he was, and the Heat, without Shaquille O’Neal and Alonzo Mourning, were down to only 3 frontcourt players (Udonis Haslem, Mark Blount, and Earl Barron). But it was still nice to see the Bucks win a road game that they really should have won; especially since the failures in Denver, Chicago and Detroit are still in recent memory.

Finally the Bucks weren’t killed by Simmons and Bell.

I think it’s pretty clear now that Simmons must not be 100% healthy and only can handle 15-20 minutes a game, because if there was ever a night when he should have played more it was last night. Miami spent a good portion of the 4th quarter using a 4-guard lineup, and Redd had already taken a seat, so I have to assume that the only reason Simmons wasn’t still in is because he was tapped out. Simmons shot well and while it kind of looked like he was struggling defensively, I think a closer review shows that most of the breakdowns around him weren’t his fault.

For example, Ricky Davis blew by him for one layup, and Krystkowiak immediately called a timeout to chew out Yi for not rotating. Then Davis got another layup on a play where Simmons left Davis to cover Bogut’s man under the basket, because Bogut had left to double Wade. Great pass by Wade, not a bad play by Simmons.

Charlie Bell was even better than Simmons, as he shot well (5-9) and also added 5 rebounds (3 offensive). During the game broadcast last night, Craig Cashun related some quotes from Bell about the difficulty of getting out of his shooting slump because practice time is so limited once the season starts. While this is a very valid point, it also illustrates how Bell should have been benched a long time ago. If he was coming to the arena every night knowing that he would only play 5 minutes a game instead of 30, then it gives him the time to use his energy practicing his shot pre-game, rather than needing to conserve himself for the game. Hopefully last night’s game will prove to be a turning point for him. If he shoots 50% the rest of the season then his totals will wind up right around his career averages, and this disasterous first third of the season can be forgotten.

Another point from the broadcast last night was that Redd — who only scored 8 points and left the game after the 3rd quarter with the Bucks only up 4 — has been fighting a bad cold since Christmas. This coincides with some pretty poor games from him, and could also explain why his game — shot selection and energy level — seems to have regressed in a big way since the Denver game.

Of course, this has led to some people thinking that the Bucks are better without Redd (read the comments section in the Journal-Sentinel Bucks Blog). This is ridiculous.

The reason the Bucks won last night was that they simply dominated the glass — a 41-28 rebounding edge — and everybody except Redd (and Ivey) had a good night shooting the ball. You can’t count on 7 of the 9 players who took a shot to make 50% or more every night. The Bucks offense looked so great in the 4th quarter because nobody was missing shots — 71% shooting in the 4th — but they were still turning the ball over as ferociously as with Redd in earlier (5 times in the quarter, 20 times in the game) and when it was all done they had only outscored Miami by one point in the 4th. Without Redd’s ability to draw fouls they had a hard time slowing down Miami’s furious run to end the game. The Bucks need Michael Redd to take a lead role in the offense — a bad stretch of 5 games doesn’t change that.

It was only Miami, but at least it was a win. There was some good stuff happening on the court on Wednesday, and hopefully it continues.