The Bratwurst - Milwaukee Bucks Blog

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.

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.

I can’t believe I watched the entire Nuggets game. That was painful.

I think that the single most disapointing thing about this Bucks team so far is that they have been blown out by every single good team they have played on the road (unless you count Cleveland and Portland. But it’s debatebale just how “good” Cleveland is and nobody knew Portland was good at the time). Orlando, Houston, San Antonio, Boston, Denver — Those games seem to be over before they start. Why can’t they even stick semi-close to those teams?

In the case of the Denver game, I think the altitude effect cannot be ignored. Since the game was the day after Christmas, you have to assume that the Bucks flew into Denver that day, and so only had a couple of hours to get acclimatized. That’s a significant issue — the Bucks are something like 7-30 all time in Denver for a reason. The altitute and accompanying fatigue is going to affect players in two ways: it kills the big guys’ stamina and the jumpshooters’ lift. It was pretty clear that Redd, Yi and Bogut were all suffering. Redd was missing all of his shots short, Yi was just completely out of sorts, and Bogut was a step slow.

On my honeymoon my wife and I hiked the Inca Trail to Maccu Piccu (I know, how romantic), a trip which spends 3 days between 8000 and 12000 feet. While everyone in our group had varying degrees of trouble from the altitude, one man had it really bad. I woke up one morning to the sound of him vomiting outside of his tent (some honeymoon), one day he trailed the rest of the group by an hour, and he needed supplemental oxygen at one point.

The problem? He was in the best shape of all of us.

Specifically, he was in great shape and very muscular. As I understand it, when you get in shape your lungs become more and more efficient at using a higher percentage of the oxygen you breathe. The more muscle you have, the more oxygen you need. So the people who have a hard time at altitude are those whose lungs are used to converting most of the air they breathe into oxygen — while most of us just need our lungs to work a little harder at altitude, physically fit people actually wont get enough air until their bodies get used to it.

Interestingly enough, the heirarchy of people who have the easiest time handling altitute are: Really skinny, non-muscular endurance athletes (like marathon runners), smokers (because their lungs are aready used to being inefficient), pretty-fit people, unfit people, muscular people. Professional basketball players definitely fit in the final category.

So now that I’ve explained away the loss to Denver, it’s up to the team to forget about it as well. At some point all of the blowout losses to good teams have to start to weigh on a teams’ psyche.

So at least now the Bucks get to play a team with far worse problems than they have.

Wow, was I ever wrong about the Bulls this year. Turns out that all of that depth and energy they had was obscuring that fact that they don’t have any dependable size on their team. The backcourt of Hinrich and Gordon has been exposed as way too small, Deng has been awful compared to the stardom that was being projected for him, Tyrus Thomas has not been ready to handle the job as a starter, and Ben Wallace — the goalie that was supposed to make it all work — has lost his dominance. Joakim Noah has been the Bulls’ best player. Enough said.

As everyone knows, that cost Scott Skiles his job, and now nobody knows what the Bulls will bring to the court on any given night.

The Bucks have actually recovered from the other road blowouts fairly well this year, and now they need to do it again. I’m starting to feel bad for Krystkowiak and his small forward issues, as it’s beginning to look like Bobby Simmons is not ready to contribute much. He was brutal in Denver (with a -0.01 IPM), showing that maybe he really can’t handle more than about 15 minutes. You would much rather have Redd match up against Hinrich or Gordon instead of Deng, so Bell at the “2″ isn’t that great an idea. Maybe it’s time to go for broke — Villanueva at small forward, sink or swim.

The season is probably at a crossroads now — Yi is playing better, injuries are causing a little adversity. How they play the next few games will be an interesting barometer showing if this team can make a run for a playoff spot or will sink deep into the lottery again.