The Bratwurst – Milwaukee Bucks Blog

It does seem to defy belief — down three with 10 seconds remaining in overtime to Boston, the Bucks need a quick score. Instead of going to Ramon Sessions or Richard Jefferson they wind up running a screen-roll with Joe Alexander and Dan Gadzuric?

Gadzuric would miss a six-foot floater and that ended the game.

It seems ridiculous that Gadzuric and Alexander would even be in a situation to touch the ball in a big moment, but that’s what happened. And I’m fine with it.

With Redd and Villanueva not suiting up, Bogut ejected and Ridnour fouled out; the Bucks were without 4 of their top 6 offensive players. And considering that Richard Jefferson had spent the whole game getting beaten down by Paul Pierce, that left Ramon Sessions as the only viable offensive threat the Bucks could put on the floor.

I knew that. You knew that. Doc Rivers certainly knew that.

So, assuming that Sessions would draw a crowd as soon as he touched the ball, why not run something for the two guys least likely to get the ball? Besides, taking a quick two was the Bucks’ best chance of winning the game at the time. Think about it:

If they make a two, foul, and Boston misses a free throw then they are in a situation where a three can win the game on the last shot.

If they make a three with 10 seconds remaining, then they are tied and the Celtics will have 10 seconds to work for the last shot — where they will most likely get a foul or force a second overtime.

If the game went to a second overtime, the Bucks — with only Jefferson and Sessions remaining of their good offensive players, and both of them with four fouls — would have been toast.

So why was Gadzuric and Alexander in the game? Alexander had to be in, since Tyronn Lue and Francisco Elson were the only other Bucks remaining on the bench after Ridnour fouled out. A good case for Elson being in over Gadzuric can be made, but while I was driving home I figured it out:

Gadzuric deserved to be in the game. He had come in cold and made two big free throws when Bogut was ejected, and had played pretty well for about nine minutes by the end of overtime. Does Elson, who would have been coming in cold, have that much better a chance of making a 6-foot shot than Gadzuric would at that time? Gadzuric still likely had about a 60% chance of making it.

Gadzuric had earned the playing time through his efforts after Bogut was ejected, and Scott Skiles let him keep his spot. Rewarding the guys who are playing hard. Good coaching.

Meanwhile, it’s too bad that the Bucks couldn’t pull out the Boston game, but with the team losing players left and right it’s not too big a surprise that the better team would win at the end. The Celtics simply had more guys on the floor who could get off a good shot whenever they needed it.

The problem, though, is that the NBA is reviewing the bogus call that got Bogut ejected in the first place. Clearly Garnett, who swung at and hit Bogut in the face, deserves a suspension but there seems to be some precedent to suspend Bogut as well, even though all he did was inadvertently hit Garnett in the mouth while getting smothered by KG.

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.

Up to this point I have talked about each player in reverse order of their salaries, but I’m getting away from that because Simmons/Mason and Williams/Redd should really be discussed together.

That leaves only one other $5 million man to talk about.

Dan Gadzuric ($5.7M, 0.625 IPM): My season ticket rep upgraded me to courtside seats for the Feb. 13 game against New Orleans, so I gave my regular seats to a friend who took his father to the game. The game turned out to be a well played, hard-fought 111-107 loss to the Hornets, who had the best record in the West at the time. That game, however, was not Dan Gadzuric’s finest moment. While you should never say that one player cost you a win, on this night Danny G cost the Bucks the win. His 2-8 shooting was highlighted by at least three missed open layups from point-blank range and one missed dunk.

After the game, what was the first thing my friend’s father said to me? Not; “Thanks for giving us the tickets” nor was it; “That was a good game, too bad they couldn’t pull it out.”

No, the first thing out of his mouth was; “Boy, that Gad-zurick really sucks! Can’t even make a layup! Why’s he even on the team? How much are they paying him? What a bunch of bums. No wonder they suck. That Harris is so dumb for giving him that contract.”

I would have preferred; “Thanks for the tickets.”

But he perfectly summed up the problem with Dan Gadzuric. There are some positives that he brings to the court , short bursts of energy, rebounding, shot-blocking, and hard fouls. However, he is so incredibly inept with the ball in his hands that he makes a mockery of the very idea of professional basketball as being something entertaining that is worth paying money to see. If you want to see missed layups, you can go to a 5th grade game for free any time, but to pay money and leave home on a Tuesday night in February to see Gadzuric do it , well, who’s the idiot now? The guy who is doing it and getting paid or the guy who is paying to watch it?

Danny G’s shooting percentage continued plummeting (the last 4 seasons have been 53.9%, 55.3%, 47.4%, 41.6%) and a look at Gadzuric’s 82games.com page for this season and 2004-05 (the season that won him his ridiculous contract) shows that his shooting has fallen apart in every way. He now shoots a higher percentage of jump shots (30% this year vs. 16% in 04-05), makes fewer jump shots (19.6% vs. 27%), and shoots a worse percentage inside (50.9% vs, 59%). Even his propensity to miss dunks has grown (only shooting 84% on slam attempts this season).

At least Gadzuric chipped in by rebounding slightly worse than in past seasons, turning it over more often and getting fewer assists. And he is only under contract for three more seasons.

So what’s the matter here? Well, Gadzuric is older than he looks , he was an older college player, so despite only being a six-year veteran he is already 30. It’s a shame to talk about guys just out of their 20′s as getting “old”, but that is what is happening , he is past his prime, which is what happens to most centers around this age. Danny G was simply never that talented but was supremely athletic for his size. Over the last couple of years he has probably lost a step and a little bit of his springs, and he is simply not good enough at basketball to compensate.

The fact that he is not as explosive off of the floor shows up in the drop in his shooting percentage (and his incredible inability to make the wide-open short ones). Before the season I speculated that perhaps his shooting percentage drop in 2006-07 was due to some sort of hand injury (because he seemed to lose the ball on the way up a lot) but now I realize it is because he has started rushing his shot in order to get it up quickly enough to keep from being blocked.

What’s sad about it all is that I can’t really see where Danny G can improve his game to adjust for his age. He still rebounds and blocks shots pretty well, so he’s pretty useful at that end of the floor but those skills will decline as he continues to age. His turnover rate is up a bit , and I thought it was due to an increase in offensive fouls but according to 82games.com he only committed four of them all season, so it’s not like there is room for improvement there. He’s never going to become a jump shooter, and he fouls at such an immense rate (about 8 per 40 minutes) that he will never be able to stay on the floor long enough to be more than a 10 mpg player.

The only answer is to become a Michael Ruffin clone , get rid of the ball as soon as you get it, never shoot unless you are under the basket or there are less than 3 seconds on the shot clock (Ruffin shot 53% this season without making a single jump shot), and hammer anyone who comes within a few feet of you. I was hoping that Ruffin’s presence would rub off on Gadzuric in this way by showing him how a player could make an impact without doing anything offensively, but why would Gadzuric try to learn anything from him? Ruffin was playing on a 1-year, veterans minimum contract while Danny G is the one with 3 years/$20 million left on his deal!

If I could ask Larry Harris one question it would be: “What in the hell were you thinking when extending Gadzuric’s contract?” It’s as though his logic went like this:

“Okay, I just drafted Andrew Bogut with the #1 overall pick to be my starting center, and he’s getting a 4 year/$18 million contract. Bogut will definitely be a 35 mpg guy by next season (or else I’ve got big problems), so there’s only 13 mpg available for Gadzuric, who is already 27 years old. So if Bogut is averaging $4.5 million per year for 4 years to play about 75% of the minutes at center then to fill in the position for the other 25% of the game it sounds about right to pay “¦. Lets see, carry the three “¦ um “¦ 6 years at $6 million per. Perfect!”

I have no problem with a player being overpaid for a year or two, especially after playing well for peanuts for a while (like Charlie Bell). But these long term contracts to guys who will never be starters (like Charlie Bell) “¦. I just don’t get it!

It is a shame to spend several hundred words reaming a player whose greatest sin is having an incredibly effective agent. Gadzuric does still try hard on the court, and for all of his failings the team was outscored by the same amount this season with him on the court or off , so it’s not like his offensive failings killed the team, it just reduced the value of all of the good things he did by being a high-energy pest on the court.

But as time goes on he is not going to get any better, and unless he stops trying to be someone that he isn’t on offense then his usefulness will continue to decline over the next three years. And I can’t imagine any other team wanting to take on his contract, so those three years are going to be in a Bucks uniform.

It’s not really his fault that Krystkowiak is gone, but he certainly didn’t help matters.

Responsibility for Coach K’s dismissal: 5%

Up next: Yin and Yang at Small Forward

How in the world can you blow a 17 point lead with 14 minutes remaining?

First of all, I don’t care that Mo Williams was out. Everybody has to deal with losing starters, and the Knicks were also playing without Nate Robinson (as well as the addition-by-subtraction loss of Stephon Marbury).

Isiah Thomas even threw in the towel in the third quarter — after the Bucks extended their lead to 81-64, Thomas brought in Malik Rose and Renaldo Balkman, to go with David Lee, Jamal Crawford and Fred Jones, and didn’t make a single substitution for the rest of the game! He stopped coaching for 10 minutes (basically just telling his guys; “just do whatever you want and see what happens”), not calling a timeout until the Knicks had made a game of it at 93-86.

The “Wages of Wins” believers will try to say that David Lee was the reason the Knicks came back and won the game, but Lee didn’t really do anything out of the ordinary. His 8-12 shooting and 9 rebounds (4 offensive) looks great, but that’s just typical sneaky David Lee stuff — he shoots 55% anyway, so a 7-12 game would be average for him, and in his normal 32 minute outing he averages 10 boards (3 offensive). So he had a pretty typical game for hin — just your standard, underrated scrappy stuff that has carried the Knicks a 13-36 record against teams other than the Bucks this season.

Jamal Crawford was on fire, making all sorts of crazy stuff on his way to 30 points. That can happen with Crawford — he’s an average player overall but he either looks like a world-beater or the worst player in the league on any given night. The Knicks had good Jamal on Saturday, and their record is pretty respectable when he springs for 28+ points. This is a perfect example of how using a player “because he’s a good defender” is stupid. Crawford was making everything, and there really wasn’t much Ivey could do (within the rules, anyway) to stop him. Guys like Crawford will get hot sometimes and that’s life. So Ivey couldn’t do anything to stop Crawford early, and by shooting 2-9 and scoring 4 points, Ivey didn’t help out offensively as well. So Crawford isn’t really the reason the Knicks won the game — he helped, but even with him putting up big numbers this game was winnable.

No, it comes down to coaching. Larry Krystkowiak, I have a few questions for you. Specifically:

When you have a 17 point lead, why would you wait until the Knicks have run off 15 unanswered points before calling a timeout? I can see the logic that Krystkowiak wanted to let the quarter run out and then things got out of hand, but this is the second time this season that the Bucks have blown a big 3rd quarter lead to the Knicks. After they got two or three consecutive baskets, why would you not call timeout to break the Knicks’ rhythm and remind the guys that the Bucks have been in this situation against New York before?

How does Charlie Villanueva get one shot in the fourth quarter? He shot 10-22 for the game and didn’t see the ball in seven minutes of work in the fourth. He shot 6-12 and grabbed 6 rebounds in the third quarter. Is anyone calling plays here? Did anyone realize that the Knicks went small, were using a 6’7″ and 6’9″ frontcourt, and Isiah wasn’t bothering with substitutes?

How does Bogut get two shots in the fourth quarter? He made one and then got called for his sixth foul on the second. Once again, he was being guarded by 6’7 Malik Rose.

Why would you not go big with Gadzuric in the fourth quarter? Krytkowiak used Gadzuric at power forward a little against Dallas and it worked quite well. The Knicks were charging back into the game with their small lineup so why wouldn’t you try to force the Knicks out of it? Get Ivey out of the game, let Bell play point guard, and move Villanueva to small forward so that Redd will be guarded by Crawford instead of Balkman. Then Gadzuric’s athleticism can at least try to match Lee’s, Villanueva has a big height advantage over Balkman, and Redd gets to pick on the worst defender in the league.

Why in the world was Michael Ruffin in the game on the final posession? Michael Ruffin is the WORST OFFENSIVE PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA! In a nine year career he has averaged 4.2 points per 36 minutes. He is a nice enough player, and his strengths in other areas makes up for his lack of scoring. But you cannot have him in the game in a situation where you have to get a basket.

I’m no NBA coach, but I know for certain that if I was in Isiah Thomas’ shoes drawing up my defense for the final play I’m doubling Redd hard with Ruffin’s man (Lee or Rose) and hoping to force the ball into Ruffin or Ivey’s (2-9 shooting) hands. Wouldn’t you know that’s exactly what Isiah did — when the Bucks first ran their inbounds play, Redd was doubled as soon as he caught the inbounds pass and fouled (the Knicks had a foul to give). As Redd was fouled, he passed the ball to Ivey, who would have had an open 20-footer for the win (which would have been option #2 on the list of “likely good outcomes for the Knicks”). Instead, the Knicks denied Redd the ball on the second try, leaving Bell with multiple defenders running at him and no choice but to dump it off to an open Ruffin (#1 on the list of “likely good outcomes for the Knicks”). Incredibly, the Knicks were able to double team two guys on the final play, because the Bucks were using two players (Ivey and Ruffin) that Isiah didn’t mind being open.

You needed a shot from a decent scorer. Why wasn’t Yi in for Ruffin? If it was me, I’d have had Simmons inbounding instead of Ivey, but that’s nitpicking — it’s not like Simmons was any good last night, either. But Michael Ruffin? Michael Ruffin. In a situation where he might take the last shot. Michael Ruffin. He’s 6’8. He’s taken 19 shots this season. When you have a 7-foot shooter on your bench. Really. Michael Ruffin.

Well, anyhow, another day another loss. This was on the list of “games the Bucks need to win if they are going to make the playoffs”, so one more bad loss and they need to start beating good teams to make up ground. The door is closing. If they lose Monday to the Clippers, then it will slam shut.

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.

An enjoyable, energetic Bucks-Jazz game was ruined by a true clunker of a 4th quarter. After shooting 57% through three quarters, the Bucks managed to shoot 2 for 18 in the fourth, turning a close game into an 11 point loss.

When Andrew Bogut had shot 8-11 going into the 4th, how does he only get one shot in the final 12 minutes?

Why does Charlie Villanueva play 8 minutes, meaning that Charlie Bell has to guard Matt Harpring for half of the quarter and Andrei Kirilenko for the remainder? The most perplexing thing about this decision is that Villanueva actually played his 8 minutes at small forward, just like I’ve been asking for!

There was no way that the Bucks would win this game with Mo, Redd, Yi and Bell combining to shoot 1-16 in the quarter. They probably wouldn’t have won had they shot closer to 7-16, because Utah is pretty good and was getting to the foul line at will (22 free throws in the 4th). But I just don’t see how the team is going to get anywhere by pinning one of their 5 best players to the bench more and more.

Stories abound about how Villanueva’s practice habits are a major problem, and I’m sure that’s what’s going on here. However, it seems to me that the best way to get him in the flow would be to play him more, not less. I know that Krystkowiak’s whole M.O. is defense, energy, hard practice gets you game time. But you have to treat these guys like men — give them some responsibility and a reason to go out and work harder. Some people simply don’t respond as well to that “practice well and the rewards will follow” stuff. But this isn’t college — you are stuck with the players you have, so you have to reach them all in different ways.

Krystkowiak also used the “all-bench” lineup for a bit in the second quarter, but I’m certainly not going to complain about it at all today. The altitude probably makes it a bit of a necessity (I notice that Jerry Sloan used it as well), and Krystkowiak only used it for 4 minutes while the Bucks also played well during that stretch. But most of all, I was glad to see that Gadzuric was part of that lineup.

While Danny G didn’t really fill the box score — 2 points, a board, two blocks, a steal and 3 turnovers in 10 minutes — he also forced two Jazz turnovers by taking charges. One of his turnover was on the classic Gadzuric offensive foul — he sets a screen and “rolls” to the basket by turning his back to the hoop, holding both of his hands up, (probably screams out to the defense “I’m not looking where I’m going!”) and starts chugging backwards. This sequence ends with him looking surprised at the fact that (a) a defender jumped in and took a charge or (b) he ran over a defender that wasn’t looking. You’d think that after 10 years of NBA and college ball that Dan would have learned that this move doesn’t work, but I guess not. That’s why he should be playing power forward and working on the baseline where he can attack for offensive rebounds, not being a part of the offense as a center.

Yi’s game was kind of hard to figure out. Only 6 points on 2-8 shooting and only 3 rebounds, but 4 blocks and 2 steals made him a helpful piece of the puzzle. He also cross-matched onto Okur and did well against him, harassing him into 3-11 shooting. Between that matchup being a push and Bogut-Boozer being even as well, (23-10-3 vs. 21-10-3), it was nice to see the Bucks get a draw against one of the best frontcourts in the league.

All things considered, an 0-3 road trip against the Lakers, Suns and Jazz isn’t so bad, especially since the Bucks didn’t get blown out in any of them (and with the incredible disappearing Michael Redd being pretty poor in two games). But 8 minutes for Charlie V? That’s no way to win.

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about 14 potential trades the Bucks could do, but that most likely wouldn’t happen. I’m going to try that exercise again.

I figure that everybody is fair game except for Bogut, Williams and Yi. Williams, as a newly resigned free agent, is almost impossible to trade; as a somewhat productive, moderately paid big man Bogut would be impossible to replace; and Yi is too important to the health of the franchise to let go.

It has become much more difficult to figure out semi-reasonable trades, as Simmons and Gadzuric have played so poorly that I can’t imagine anyone taking on their contracts. There is one exception, though , a title contender might be willing to take on Gadzuric as “an energetic big guy to crash the boards and use his fouls” but that’s about it.

Additionally, salary cap rules make it well nigh impossible to trade Charlie Bell this season. As a newly resigned free agent, he (and Mo) falls under base year compensation (BYC) rules. Basically, should he get traded then his outgoing salary would only count for half of his actual salary. This was instituted to prevent teams from overpaying guys simply to fit them into trades. The thing that makes it so prohibitive, though, is that if the Bucks traded away Bell for a player who made between $1.55 mil and $2.03 mil (half of Bell’s $3.1 times 125%+$100,000) then Bell’s return $3.1 million salary would mean the other team is taking back too much money. Therefore Bell can only be traded to a team who is at least $1.07 million under the cap, and nobody is. One other caveat , in the first year of a BYC contract, the player can refuse to be included in any trade.

There are two loopholes in the BYC rules that would make it possible to trade Bell. One would be if a team has a trade exception (generated when they make a trade in which they take back less salary than they gave). However, I’m not sure who has them except for Phoenix, and as a luxury tax payee they did the Kurt Thomas deal in order to obtain the exception so that they can save the money. So I’m not considering exceptions in any proposals, which means that there may be some attractive potential deals out there that I wouldn’t figure out. The other loophole is that I believe that Bell could be traded for another BYC player who makes a similar amount of money as he does.

One other thing that makes this much more difficult , ESPN’s Trade Machine isn’t working correctly. Somehow it thinks the Bucks are under the cap, so it accepts nearly any moronic trade you stick in there. Simmons and Gadzuric for Kevin Garnett and Rajon Rondo? Sure! Want a side order of Paul Pierce with that? So I’m just going by my own math and understanding of the salary cap here , there is a chance that I might propose a trade that couldn’t actually work. Sorry.

And on to the ideas:

Dan Gadzuric to Boston for Brian Scalabrine and Scot Pollard: Scalabrine is one of the only players in the NBA who is significantly worse than Gadzuric. He can’t score, can’t rebound, can’t pass, doesn’t play good defense “¦ and yet he’s got 3 years/$10+ million left on his contract. Apparently he is a good teammate, though, and has a sort of cult “human victory cigar” following in Boston. Pollard has a one year contract and is a shade worse than Gadzuric in every area except for turnovers. The Bucks would save about $10 million and 1 year on this deal, and Gadzuric would be an occasionally useful 12th man for Boston. Is Boston willing to take on the extra salary in 2010 to make this trade happen? You never know when having Gadzuric to foul Duncan 5 times and grab a couple of boards in the finals might make the difference in a championship game. This is a fair trade. But Boston wouldn’t do it , there are a surprising number of “Scalabrine” jerseys walking around Beantown.

Royal Ivey to Cleveland for Shannon Brown: A sort of “why the heck not” proposal for both teams. The Cavs have soured on Brown, thinking they had drafted an eventual starter to run the floor with LeBron, but he’s turned out to be too small and not enough of a ball handler to start at either backcourt spot. Ivey’s defense would help them make a playoff run this season. With the Bucks, Brown might be able to back up both guard spots effectively in a sort of Charlie Bell role. Both contracts expire after this season, so it’s a low risk trade for both parties. Also one which wouldn’t have any effect on the W/L record.

Charlie Bell and Charlie Villanueva to Golden State for Mickael Pietrus, Patrick O’Bryant and a first round pick: The one trade that I can come up with that fits in with Bell , both he and Pietrus are BYC players so this trade would work. I can’t help but think that Villanueva would shine in Don Nelson’s system, and the only power forward he has is Al Harrington. While taking on a long contract like Bell would seem to be detrimental to them, it actually may not be because Monta Ellis is a free agent after this season and Baron Davis can opt-out. They could possibly lose one of those players (likely Ellis), and as Marco Belinelli hasn’t shown much, they might need Bell to come off the bench for the next few years. O’Bryant is a bust who is in the last year of his contract, but Pietrus would be an interesting addition to the Bucks. He’s going to be a free agent, so the Bucks would get Ruben Patterson-style maximum effort from him. He’d be an immediate starter for the next 6 weeks while Mason is out, and still would get almost 30 mpg backing up Mason and Redd the rest of the year. It’s a big improvement on the 19 mpg he’s currently getting and would allow him to showcase himself for his upcoming free agency. That’s an important incentive to get him in Milwaukee since both he and Bell would have to approve this trade. The Bucks would save a lot of money on this deal (or they resign Pietrus and hope that he fills the void at small forward) and clear a logjam at power forward, while the Warriors would get two useful players (provided they are confident that Bell will find his shot eventually).

Michael Redd and Michael Ruffin (or Jake Voskuhl) to Houston for Tracy McGrady: This one looks like the sort of deal that would be good for both teams but that neither one would actually do. Apparently McGrady has been making noise about not being happy in Houston (wow, when has he ever done that?). Rockets management might like the idea of trading him for a player who, while only being 80% the player McGrady is, at least isn’t perpetually questionable due to a trick back, and should be a much better running mate for Yao Ming. One has to worry about McGrady not wanting to be in Milwaukee and suddenly his back “acts up” almost every single night. When he’s on, though, he still can be one of the top 3 players in the game. Financially this would be a push for both teams, but the Bucks would save one year on McGrady’s contract. Neither team would do this because “¦. trades like this never happen. But it’s an interesting idea.

Charlie Villanueva and Dan Gadzuric to the Lakers for Kwame Brown: An outright salary dump by the Bucks as Brown’s contract expires this year, but Brown hasn’t offered anything to the Lakers in what has otherwise been an excellent season for them. I still think the idea of Odom and Villanueva on the same team is intriguing, and the growth of Andrew Bynum means they don’t lose much without Brown’s size. Much like the Boston proposal, Gadzuric could be a useful (albeit expensive) 12th man for a good team.

Charlie Villanueva to Memphis for Hakim Warrick and Kyle Lowry: As long as Memphis has Pau Gasol they will be searching for someone to play alongside him. A bruising big guy? A finesse power forward? We just don’t know any more! Meanwhile, Lowry doesn’t have a spot any more with the arrival of Mike Conley and Warrick has been squeezed down to 14 mpg. Another deal where the Bucks get two inexpensive players and have a couple of years to figure out exactly what they got, while Memphis tries the same with Charlie V. Lowry could probably be spun off in another deal for salary filler and a draft pick.

Charlie Villanueva and Royal Ivey to New Orleans for Julian Wright and Hilton Armstrong: The Hornets bench has really, really really sucked this year (but not destroyed the rest of the team like it has for a certain other city) and recent stories in the New Orleans Times-Picayune say that they are desperately seeking backup help for Chris Paul and David West. Armstrong is awful but inexpensive and Wright has a lot of potential but hasn’t seen the floor behind Peja Stojakovic and Morris Peterson. If the Hornets are serious about making noise in the playoffs this season this is a good deal for them, while Wright will likely be the best player involved in this trade 3 years down the road.

Charlie Villanueva and Desmond Mason to New York for Quentin Richardson and David Lee: Even Isiah Thomas can’t be so stupid as to not realize what he has in Lee “¦ right? Lee is a rebounding, energy machine that is the sort of guy that keeps plays alive and doesn’t need the ball to succeed. He’s a winner on a team of losers. Should Yi be able to eventually move to small forward, Lee would be the perfect complement to Yi and Bogut. There are those who say he’s been the most underrated player in the game for a couple of years, but I don’t know how underrated you can be when you start for, are the leading scorer for, and MVP of the Rookie-Sophomore game at All-Star Weekend last season. Anyway, I include this proposal because “¦ well “¦ only Isiah Thomas might do it. Realistically, there’s no way it happens.

And there we go. Eight proposals, most of which are fairly realistic. It’s interesting how few decent bargaining chips the Bucks actually have, but it’s also interesting how difficult it is to figure out just who would help the Bucks. The Bucks need a small forward, that is clear. But all of their best bargaining chips have spent this season killing their trade value.

The chance that any of these trades will actually be consummated is approximately zero, but it’s an interesting exercise because it kind of highlights what the Bucks’ biggest problem is: it’s not the starters, it’s the bench. Specifically, the expensive members of the bench. Those guys simply don’t have much value.

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.

I guess any NBA team would completely fall apart if they lose one key player (except San Antonio, apparently), and you would expect that to happen to the Bucks if they lost Redd or Bogut or Williams. But who would have guessed that Desmond Mason was the key to the whole house of cards?

I don’t blame Coach Krystkowiak for getting himself kicked out of the game against Chicago. The season is going down the tubes and it’s time for him to pull the “coach freak out” motivational ploy. He may have felt that the officiating had been bad in the 4th quarter, but I’m not so sure — in addition to the Ivey/Hinrich loose ball call (which the officials probably did blow), he was unhappy about a screen that Aaron Gray set on Ivey (which was hard but legal) and a call that went against Charlie Villanueva even though it appeared he was tripped by Nocioni (replays showed that Charlie V grabbed Nocioni’s jersey first). If Krystkowiak was going to flip out at the officials it should have come a couple of weeks ago in the 2OT loss to Cleveland, when the officials missed LeBron James stepping out of bounds twice at the end of the first overtime. But as a motivational ploy, it was necessary against Chicago.

However, this game was lost because of the rotations, not the officials. While I applaud Krystkowiak for getting away from the “two platoon” rotation strategy, he has not handled the loss of Mason properly.

I grant that he is pretty much being screwed over by Bobby Simmons, who has been absolutely useless. Obviously he can’t play more than 15 minutes, and even that leads you to hold your breath. Something is wrong with him, and it may have to do with the 3 game “personal leave” he took earlier in the month. He hasn’t been the same since, and one hopes it’s not because of a major or tragic personal issue.

I’ve written plenty that I can’t stand using Michael Redd at small forward, but in this situation it’s unavoidable at least a little. But his offense has fallen apart in the last 3 games, coinciding with the injury to Mason. Redd can’t handle the physicality of playing small forward, and doesn’t put enough defensive effort into it. So while 10 minutes a game at the “3″ is probably necessary right now, why not try to limit his time there?

Speaking of Redd, considering that Krystkowiak preaches that defensive effort determines playing time, at what point does spotlight start to shine on Redd? His defense may have cost the Bucks the game on Friday. After the controversial call that got Krystkowiak sent to the showers, the Bucks were only down two and forced a missed shot. But Luol Deng — Redd’s man — came in untouched and slammed home the rebound. How could Redd botch that play so badly? When the shot went up, Redd was standing 3 feet from the basket while Deng was 10 feet away on the baseline. Redd did not put any effort into boxing out, never turned toward Deng, and never even raised his hands above his waist to go after the rebound. He stood there like a spectator, watching his man flush the rebound home. All he had to do was look over his shoulder and box out 10 feet from the hoop and the result of that game might have been different.

Moving on about the rotations, how could Krystkowiak put a lineup on the floor of Williams/Ivey/Bell/Villanueva/Bogut and stick with it for 6 minutes in the 4th quarter? I know he clings to the idea that Bell can play defense, but how can you possibly compete with two total offensive non-factors on the floor? Are you trying to shut the Bulls out? Because that’s how good the D would have to be.

Bell cannot guard small forwards any better than Redd can. Bell gives up 6 inches and 25 pounds to Deng. What is he supposed to do? Meanwhile, Bell continues to seemingly go out of his way to shoot the Bucks out of games. He’s shot 4-28 (14%) in the last 6 games and yet has somehow played 132 minutes. And it’s not like he’s on a 6 game cold streak — he’s down to 28% shooting on the year. At least he hasn’t guarded anyone effectively either. What does this guy have to do to get benched? Check into a game without his shoes on? He should be spelling Williams for 8-10 minutes a night and that is it.

So what should the rotations be? Given that Simmons is only good for 15 a night and we want Redd at small forward for no more than 10, that leaves 23 minutes to be filled. You simply have to start putting Charlie Villanueva there and playing him alongside Yi.

Villanueva isn’t going to do any more damage defensively than Bell or Redd already have, and at least he’s got the length and strength to make opposing small forwards work to get the ball. That would have the added bonus of giving more court time to Yi, and also make room for a few minutes per game from Michael Ruffin (who is back and in uniform). Additionally, it would keep bigger, physical forwards off of Redd and allow him to get his offensive game back, which has really suffered from the pounding at the “3″. When was the last time he went 6-11 from the free throw line? It’s got to be partially attributed to him getting hit more often.

The Bucks can’t win without their best players on the floor and their five best players are Redd, Bogut, Williams, Yi and Villanueva. It’s that simple.

My suggested rotations:

Point guard: Williams (38 mpg), Bell (10)
Shooting guard: Redd (30), Ivey (18)
Small Forward: Simmons (15), Redd (10), Villanueva (23)
Power Forward: Yi (33), Villanueva (12), Ruffin/Gadzuric (3)
Center: Bogut (33), Voskuhl (12), Ruffin/Gadzuric (3)

I don’t see any other way. They can’t win with Bell playing a significant part of the backcourt or Redd being a big part of the frontcourt.

In some ways, it’s a little harsh to give it to a GM who has made some mistakes because that does come with the territory — if you take a risk there is a pretty good chance it will come back to bite you.

There is a consistent theme to Harris’ mistakes, and they point to his major failing that I will mention again and again: he has been way too optimistic about how good his team was. That’s the sort of thinking that leads a GM to discard second round picks in favor of projects and that’s what leads GM’s to mortgage the future on long term “win now, pay later” contracts.

Just because he’s made a couple of colossal errors doesn’t mean that he’s a bad GM or that he wont learn from his past errors, but these moves are the reasons why this team has not been able to improve beyond a .500 team under his watch, and it’s going to take a major leap from the personnel in place for this team to get much better.

Bad Moves

2005: Traded Desmond Mason and a 2006 first round pick to New Orleans for Jamaal Magloire. This trade looked great at the time but would have been a complete disaster had New Orleans not used the pick to select Cedric Simmons. Simmons projected as the sort of tough, rebounding, shot blocking power forward the Bucks would need (and would probably have taken had they kept the pick) but instead has turned out to be an unqualified bust. Other than that, this trade is a perfect example of Harris’ overarching optimism clouding his view of the reality of his team , he felt that the Ford/Redd/Simmons nucleus was ready to make a deep playoff run immediately, and didn’t want a slow rookie season from Andrew Bogut gumming that up. Unfortunately, he failed to realize two things: (1) the team wasn’t that good in the first place and (2) neither was Magloire. It turns out that a slow recovery from a broken finger wasn’t what has dragged Magloire’s play down from “All-Star” level two seasons previously; it was that he had had a fluke good season in a horrible conference with no good centers in it. So all the Bucks got out of the deal was 2 years without Desmond Mason screwing up the offense, 1 season of Bogut’s development being screwed up by playing out of position, and one 8th seed playoff trip. I originally had this trade listed as good because it seemed so benign, but I’ve moved it to bad simply because they may not have taken Cedric Simmons with the pick, or may have pulled off some ridiculous, convoluted trade involving TJ Ford and the pick that would have netted them LaMarcus Aldridge or something like that. But we’ll never know, because despite having Bogut and Gadzuric and the chance to sign Pachulia for $4 million, Larry Harris had to have another center.

2006: Drafted David Noel (2 years/$1 million). I normally wouldn’t crack on a second round pick, but this one deserves it because it was such a wasted opportunity. Harris’ optimism about the team’s prospects got in the way as instead of trying to find a player who could help them immediately he went for a guy who might be good in 3-4 years (which sucks since he’s only signed for two). Noel busted onto the scene at the NBA Draft combine when he graded out as the best athlete there, which if you think about it is really meaningless. He may have played on big-time college teams at North Carolina, but was only good enough to start for one year. Now, before the draft I remember hearing rumors that the Bucks had promised the pick to Craig Smith, which would have been great had he not gotten taken before they got the chance. However, considering Smith shows that Harris wasn’t scared of taking an undersized power forward, and there was another one out there whose college numbers had all the math guys screaming “steal of the draft”: Paul Millsap. A stud at Louisiana Tech who led the NCAA in rebounding for 3 years, Millsap has become a 20 minute per game energy machine for Utah. He’s a dirty work player who shoots a high percentage, rebounds like a maniac and plays solid defense. He’s the sort of difference maker that would mean an extra 3-4 wins a year for the Bucks, and there’s no doubt that he’s the sort of player the Bucks needed to add at the time. But Harris took the guy who did a really good shuttle run.

Very Bad Moves

2005: Bucks do not match Hawks offer sheet for Zaza Pachulia (4 years/$16 million). Harris couldn’t match this offer because it came after he had already wasted his backup center cash on Dan Gazduric (see “Horrendous Move”). The problem isn’t so much that the Bucks kept Gadzuric and let Pachulia go (at the time, Gadzuric looked like the better player), but that the botched negotiations with Gadzuric cost the Bucks a ton of money and two extra years on the contract (to say nothing of losing the better player) and it was all to sign a career backup, considering that Andrew Bogut had just been selected. Meanwhile, Pachulia has played pretty well for Atlanta.

2006: Traded a 2007 second round pick to San Antonio for Damir Markota. I don’t have quite as much a problem with the fact that the Bucks did this trade as I do with the way it was handled. Harris had done well scouring Europe to that point (Bell, Ilyasova) so if he felt Markota had potential, why not take the shot. First of all, the Bucks never even had to bring Markota to the NBA in the first place. They could have let him stay in Europe, get a little older, and develop his game. Once they did bring him in, why let him stagnate on the bench? Why not use him? Why not send him to the D-League? It worked pretty well for Ilyasova the year before. It was just unreal , last season got worse and worse, the pick the Bucks owed to San Antonio got better and better, and Markota still sat on the bench, even in March and April when the season was completely lost. Since he was released this year, it appears to me that Harris figured out early on that he had really screwed this one up — Markota wasn’t that good in the first place and sending him to the NBDL wouldn’t fix that. Adding to the problem, Markota was supposedly 19 years old last year, but was apparently regularly seen in Water Street bars after games. Seems that he used the same birth certificate-fixer as Yi and Ilyasova. Meanwhile, San Antonio wasted the 2007 pick on Marcus Williams, who they cut in training camp. But the Bucks still are looking for that backup power forward who can rebound, and two of the three picks after the Bucks should have picked this year were Glen “Big Baby” Davis (currently seeing important minutes on Boston) and Jemareo Davidson (Charlotte’s 4th best player this year).

Very Very Bad Moves

2005: Traded a 2006 second round pick to Cleveland for Jiri Welsch. This one just didn’t make any sense at all. I mean, everybody already knew that Welsch sucked. He was 25 and on his third team already. Cleveland was being laughed at to no end for blowing a first round pick to bring him in as a designated shooter, only to find that he couldn’t shoot , he was white and slow, so everyone must have just assumed he could shoot. Why would Harris let the Cavs out of their gaffe? I don’t understand the logic of; “if Cleveland gave up a first rounder for him, then we are getting a bargain by only giving up a second rounder for him.” If he’s bad, he’s bad, right? It’s the same sort of logic as; “Hey, the 49ers were going to take Aaron Rodgers #1 overall, but now he’s available at #20, so he must be a great pick here!” If he’s a bust then it doesn’t matter where he was picked , he’s still a bust! Well, once again it must be an indication of Harris’ overwhelming optimism about his team , assuming that they were ready for a deep playoff run, and thus needed a veteran “designated shooter”. Or another Eastern European for Toni Kukoc to talk to. Meanwhile, Cleveland was able to spin that second round pick into another second rounder (actually getting their own pick back that they had traded in another deal) and used it on Daniel Gibson. Nice job, Harris , you took a problem off the hands of a division rival and gave them their starting point guard two years later to boot. Meanwhile, that Bucks second rounder was used by Orlando on Lior Eliyahu, while the next three picks were Alexander Johnson (serviceable backup power forward), Dee Brown (a favorite of mine who wound up getting a tryout with the Bucks this year) and , look! There’s that name again! , Paul Millsap.

2007: Matched Miami offer to Charlie Bell (5 years/$18 million). For a long time, I’ve been meaning to write a post about why matching this contract was really, really, really dumb, but with Bell’s shooting percentage getting closer and closer to 20%, that just seemed like piling on. Here’s the thing , Bell is supposed to back up your best player (Redd) and point guard who just signed a 6 year contract (Mo). He’s never going to start unless something goes seriously wrong. So why would you ever sign a backup , not a 6th man of the year type, a generic backup , to a 5 year deal? Especially one that will pay him until he’s 33, and well past his prime? Don’t get me wrong , Bell played so hard and so much the last two years that there is nothing wrong with him getting paid , even overpaid , for a year or two. But why for five? If Harris found him for the minimum, why wouldn’t he be able to do a little work and find someone else cheap and short-term who would give 85% of Bell’s production? Who knows when the Bucks might actually keep a second rounder and use it on a big guard who can play a little “¦ Ramon Sessions, for example. Never mind that Bell didn’t want to be in Milwaukee anyway , let him go! It’s a FIVE year commitment to him! Until he’s 33 years old! It is guaranteed that you will be able to find another adequate backup guard one way or another! Matching this deal was so incredibly dumb that I wonder if Harris matched the offer out of spite for Bell’s trying to talk his way out of town. And my old posts prove that I felt that way long before Bell came out shooting a scorching 25% this year. Hopefully they can trade him once the restrictions on his contract end (in a couple of weeks).

Horrendous, Colossally Bad Move

2005: Signed Dan Gadzuric (6 years/$36 million). Resigning Danny G wasn’t the worst idea in the world, but the way Harris handled it was. Gadzuric had improved in each of his first three years in the league (and actually played pretty well in the first season of the new contract) but he was already 27 years old in 2005, so he wouldn’t continue improving that much. The thing about the whole negotiations is that Gadzuric , like Pachulia at the same time , was a restricted free agent and the Bucks had Bird rights on both of them. Harris could have waited, let Gadzuric and Pachulia’s agents troll for offers from other teams, and then chosen whether to match whatever came in. Instead, he ran out and offered Gadzuric a 6 year deal. Why do that? Why not wait and see if another team felt he was worth the full midlevel? Harris had already drafted Bogut, so just like the Bell signing, Gadzuric was never, ever going to be a starter under this contract. But he’s getting paid like one , he actually will be making more than Bogut until after next season. Now they are going to be paying him until he is 33, and since his game has completely fallen apart they are stuck with him. It just absolutely blows my mind that Harris would offer Gadzuric that sort of money and a contract of that duration to be a backup without even seeing what the rest of the market would bear for him. Would anyone else really have offererd Gadzuric a full-midlevel deal? Even if they had another team could have only offered him 5 years! It just doesn’t make any sense, and it wound up costing them Pachulia , a player with a cheaper, shorter term contract who wound up being a significantly better player. And by saving a few million on Gadzuric they could have matched Pachulia, not bothered with Magloire, and kept their 2006 first round pick.

Next: The Move That Cannot Be Categorized