Bucks offseason keeps getting nicer....Sign Boykins

[Snakehead]

The Bucks had something good going with the Ridnour, Luc Richard, DelFino, Jennings, Bogut and Ilyasova core but the flubbed the off season. They will finish 6th in the East because, well, someone has to. The East after the top 5-6 teams is awful. But I could see Milwaukee stumbling badly due to injury or bad chemistry.

The Bucks had a good thing going with Ridnour, Luc Richard, Delfino, Jennings, Bogut, and Ilyasova..... And they still have all those players except Ridnour, plus, they added three players that are better than any of those guys... So how does this make any sense?

And since when is Luke Ridnour the greatest player in the NBA? He is a mediocre point guard at best. With Jennings big minutes there wouldnt be room for him anyway.

Its true they dont have a go to star, but they have four players in their starting 5 that are capable of scoring 20 points a night. If Redd ever comes back from his injury, which is unlikely, this team could make some noise. I still say they will be fighting for home court advantage when playoff time comes around.

Chemistry and desire.  They had the perfect storm last year with a combination of hungry young guys, and wily vets buying into a system.  They became significantly greater than the sum of their parts, because of it.

Now, they have improved the parts slightly this summer, but on the surface, I have my reservations whether they can recapture the chemistry they had last year. 

There are a ton of parallels with Skiles Bulls teams of a few years ago.  He got the young team (sprinkled with the right vets) to completely buy into their system, and they became the next big thing (even though they really were just overachieving).  But the success went to their heads, and suddenly the players were not interested in saying "how high" every time Skiles said jump.  Along with a couple questionable moves, this basically killed the team (a long with the value of many of the young players), and they went right back to the bottom.

Now, the Bucks may not fall into the same trap...but it is certainly there, and I don't know if bringing in guys like Maggette and Gooden is the best way to avoid it.

Yeah, I thought the Bucks played above themselves in the second half of last season too.

I thought their offense was performing well above their talent levels. Their defense was in line with their personnel though. That offense was going to fall back down to earth next season.

Closer to a .500 team than a mid to high 40s win team.

Well if anything I would argue they are a better offensive team now with their new additions.  Douglas Roberts and Magette should both be effective scorers for them.

Maybe they are weaker on defense then but their offense should be improved from last year. And with more scorers, Jennings can focus more on play making and being effecient with his scoring, so from the PG position they should improve too.

Not saying you are far off as far as what they will end up achieving, but I think this team got better on offense.

[BballTim]

I could see 16-17 PPG, 7-8 Ast, 3 Reb, 1.5 Steals, 1.5 TO's, and hopefully a FG% above 40% (though it should be noted his Effective FG % last year was .430, not as bad as the regular FG%).  Those are good PG numbers.

  You're expecting to have an assist/turnover ratio of 5 or so?

[Snakehead]

I could see 16-17 PPG, 7-8 Ast, 3 Reb, 1.5 Steals, 1.5 TO's, and hopefully a FG% above 40% (though it should be noted his Effective FG % last year was .430, not as bad as the regular FG%).  Those are good PG numbers.

  You're expecting to have an assist/turnover ratio of 5 or so?

I was looking at improvements in all catagories, but yeah, looking at his 2.44 TO's from last year plus he won't be that great with the ball in his style of play... yeah that was off.  If he could cut it down closer to 2 that would be good for him though.

7 is probably more realistic as the ceiling next year for his assists too, but I just really think Jennings has a ton of talent.  He was sloppy mainly last year and I think once he irons out some of that sloppiness he will be a much better player, and the addition of good offensive players to the team should help him become more focused on PG duties and make him more effecient.  We'll see if he can next year, I suppose I'm being overly optimistic but I would not be surprised.

[BballTim]

I could see 16-17 PPG, 7-8 Ast, 3 Reb, 1.5 Steals, 1.5 TO's, and hopefully a FG% above 40% (though it should be noted his Effective FG % last year was .430, not as bad as the regular FG%).  Those are good PG numbers.

  You're expecting to have an assist/turnover ratio of 5 or so?

I was looking at improvements in all catagories, but yeah, looking at his 2.44 TO's from last year plus he won't be that great with the ball in his style of play... yeah that was off.  If he could cut it down closer to 2 that would be good for him though.

7 is probably more realistic as the ceiling next year for his assists too, but I just really think Jennings has a ton of talent.  He was sloppy mainly last year and I think once he irons out some of that sloppiness he will be a much better player, and the addition of good offensive players to the team should help him become more focused on PG duties and make him more effecient.  We'll see if he can next year, I suppose I'm being overly optimistic but I would not be surprised.

  He has a lot of talent but he's (IMO) a shoot first point guard who's an inefficient scorer. He can hit the three but is woeful inside the arc. If he hadn't had that terrific start last year he'd be seen as having a ways to go before he got to the level you're describing.

[Snakehead]

I could see 16-17 PPG, 7-8 Ast, 3 Reb, 1.5 Steals, 1.5 TO's, and hopefully a FG% above 40% (though it should be noted his Effective FG % last year was .430, not as bad as the regular FG%).  Those are good PG numbers.

  You're expecting to have an assist/turnover ratio of 5 or so?

I was looking at improvements in all catagories, but yeah, looking at his 2.44 TO's from last year plus he won't be that great with the ball in his style of play... yeah that was off.  If he could cut it down closer to 2 that would be good for him though.

7 is probably more realistic as the ceiling next year for his assists too, but I just really think Jennings has a ton of talent.  He was sloppy mainly last year and I think once he irons out some of that sloppiness he will be a much better player, and the addition of good offensive players to the team should help him become more focused on PG duties and make him more effecient.  We'll see if he can next year, I suppose I'm being overly optimistic but I would not be surprised.

  He has a lot of talent but he's (IMO) a shoot first point guard who's an inefficient scorer. He can hit the three but is woeful inside the arc. If he hadn't had that terrific start last year he'd be seen as having a ways to go before he got to the level you're describing.

I see your points, but I think he played on a team with no real scorers besides Salmons so he was forced to shoot and sometimes at a poor percentage.  Now he has two more guys who can score and with them he should be more of a real PG rather than a "shoot first", which I agree he was last year.  But I think that was a neccessity for that team. 

I don't think he's too far off that level.  With the added help on offense I expect his FG % to recover from that slide in the 2nd half or so and he should dish out more assists to those scorers.  We'll see but I don't think it's too much of a stretch with his capabilities.  He will have an easier time now that less defensive attention will be able to be directed at him.

I expect a rookie to be inconsitent and hopefully he develops some more consistency this year.

[miraclejohan]

  He has a lot of talent but he's (IMO) a shoot first point guard who's an inefficient scorer. He can hit the three but is woeful inside the arc. If he hadn't had that terrific start last year he'd be seen as having a ways to go before he got to the level you're describing.

Show me a rookie who isn't an inefficient scorer and I'll show you an invisible squirrel.

The Bucks made the best moves they could.  No big names are going there (here, I live in MKE) so they got above average talent and very deep.  Skiles proved last year he can still motivate a group to achieve enough on defense to allow for vague and/or inconsistent offense.  

The money and length of some of the deals are tough, but I think it's worth pointing out that any of these signings (Salmons, Magette, and Gooden) could be turned into future trades to contenders looking for that above-average talent off the bench.  

I also think its importnat to value not only the depth but the variety of depth the Bucks have now.  If any of their starting 5 (whoever they will be) is having an off night or ends up in Skiles' doghouse, there's at least 3 bench players that could start on other squads with better players but fewer solid players.  Luc Richard, Delfino, and Ersan.

Not to mention Earl Boykins AND a guy named Tiny. I have always hated Gooden and Magette, but I'm going to enjoy being in town for this Bucks season.  I hope Bogut comes back sooner than later and healthier than not.

[BballTim]

  He has a lot of talent but he's (IMO) a shoot first point guard who's an inefficient scorer. He can hit the three but is woeful inside the arc. If he hadn't had that terrific start last year he'd be seen as having a ways to go before he got to the level you're describing.

Show me a rookie who isn't an inefficient scorer and I'll show you an invisible squirrel.

  Brandon Jennings has a true shooting percentage of 47.5, near the bottom of the pg list. Tyreke Evans is at 52.9 (slightly below average). Stephen Curry came in at 56.8 (well above average) while Ty Laweson was at 60%, right below Nash and Billups. Good luck with that squirrel thing.

[miraclejohan]

  He has a lot of talent but he's (IMO) a shoot first point guard who's an inefficient scorer. He can hit the three but is woeful inside the arc. If he hadn't had that terrific start last year he'd be seen as having a ways to go before he got to the level you're describing.

Show me a rookie who isn't an inefficient scorer and I'll show you an invisible squirrel.

  Brandon Jennings has a true shooting percentage of 47.5, near the bottom of the pg list. Tyreke Evans is at 52.9 (slightly below average). Stephen Curry came in at 56.8 (well above average) while Ty Laweson was at 60%, right below Nash and Billups. Good luck with that squirrel thing.

Thank you.  It's the invisibility part thats tricky.  Anycrap, if you are looking strictly at PG, that's a different argument.  I don't consider 47.5% to be inefficient.  It seems that way when you compare Jennings to non-shoot first PGs, and I agree that he shoots too much, but as others habve said before, he needed to last year.  I think with more worthy scorers alongside him he will become a more efficient scorer.

[Who]

I'm optimistic about Jennings improving his efficiency. He has shown good development with his jump shot since joining the NBA. And he's a gym rat.

Jennings is a good scoring point guard but he's also a talented passer and playmaker. I wouldn't classify him solely as a scoring PG (like Mo Williams). I also thought he did a nice job directing Milwaukee's offense and making solid decisions ... helping facilitate ball movement. Not just passes that resulted in an assist.

[BballTim]

  He has a lot of talent but he's (IMO) a shoot first point guard who's an inefficient scorer. He can hit the three but is woeful inside the arc. If he hadn't had that terrific start last year he'd be seen as having a ways to go before he got to the level you're describing.

Show me a rookie who isn't an inefficient scorer and I'll show you an invisible squirrel.

  Brandon Jennings has a true shooting percentage of 47.5, near the bottom of the pg list. Tyreke Evans is at 52.9 (slightly below average). Stephen Curry came in at 56.8 (well above average) while Ty Laweson was at 60%, right below Nash and Billups. Good luck with that squirrel thing.

Thank you.  It's the invisibility part thats tricky.  Anycrap, if you are looking strictly at PG, that's a different argument.  I don't consider 47.5% to be inefficient.  It seems that way when you compare Jennings to non-shoot first PGs, and I agree that he shoots too much, but as others habve said before, he needed to last year.  I think with more worthy scorers alongside him he will become a more efficient scorer.

  I'm sure I could have found fairly efficient scorers as rookies at other spots, but there was no need. And you realize that 47.5 is TS%, not FG%, right? He's very near the bottom for point guards. He shot a respectable 37% on threes, but a woeful 37% on twos. His 2 point fg% (from the espn leaders) was the worst among point guards and wasn't particularly close to 2nd to last place.

[Fafnir]

I'm optimistic about Jennings improving his efficiency. He has shown good development with his jump shot since joining the NBA. And he's a gym rat.

Jennings is a good scoring point guard but he's also a talented passer and playmaker. I wouldn't classify him solely as a scoring PG (like Mo Williams). I also thought he did a nice job directing Milwaukee's offense and making solid decisions ... helping facilitate ball movement. Not just passes that resulted in an assist.

How does he compare to Rose?

[Who]

I'm optimistic about Jennings improving his efficiency. He has shown good development with his jump shot since joining the NBA. And he's a gym rat.

Jennings is a good scoring point guard but he's also a talented passer and playmaker. I wouldn't classify him solely as a scoring PG (like Mo Williams). I also thought he did a nice job directing Milwaukee's offense and making solid decisions ... helping facilitate ball movement. Not just passes that resulted in an assist.

How does he compare to Rose?

Rose and his scoring efficiency?

Rose doesn't get to the line and doesn't take many three pointers. Those two traits will always limit his efficiency. I'd expect him to get better at getting to the line, maybe by 20% or so, over the next couple of years. The three point shot is a major unknown but assuming a low level of use (2 3FGA per game) of efficiency (33%) ... that would likely result in a TS% of about 55%.

It's rare to see guys improve their vision/creativity so it's unlikely Rose shows much improvement there. He should (will?) get better as a decision maker and as a floor general. He is still weak in that regard and benefited from Kirk Hinrich's presence as a starting two guard giving Rose a secondary ball-handler to help facilitate the offense.

--------------------------------------------

The main advantage Derrick Rose has is his overwhelming athleticism. His quickness is incredible, he has good size and excellent strength. It is very difficult for any opponent to gain a physical advantage against him (helps him defensively) and Rose is able to create a physical advantage against most of his opponents. That means he'll be very consistent and difficult for opposing point guards to shut down (and prolific - scorer).

In other words, he'll create a lot of mismatches and very few PGs can create a matchup advantage against him.

----------------------------------------

My expectations for Derrick Rose are ... Rose should be a very good scorer with solid efficiency + one of the best defensive players at his position + a good rebounder + a good average passer.

Rose's main positive attribute as a passer is the same as his scoring - his athleticism - that allows him to beat his defender with regularity, get dribble penetration, force the defense to collapse and then either score or make the pass.

So while his passing ability otherwise leaves a lot to be desired ... his ability, and frequency of, to break down a defense makes him slightly above average as a passer in my book. And in time, with the improved decision making and floor leadership he should becoming a good passer (but likely never a high assist man due to his lack of vision).

[Fafnir]

So what do you think Rose's ceiling is then, compared to Jennings?

[Who]

So what do you think Rose's ceiling is then, compared to Jennings?

Derrick Rose has a higher ceiling ... due to his superior ability to (1) create matchup advantages offensively (2) avoiding matchup problems defensively which will lead to a large advantage overall on the defensive end in Rose's favour.

So, Rose should become the vastly superior defensive player + the more consistent / difficult to contain / prolific scoring option. Jennings will be the better passer but I would take Rose's offensive game over his (due to the superior scoring). Neither guy appears to be the type to create a lot of possessions.

[Fafnir]

So what do you think Rose's ceiling is then, compared to Jennings?

Derrick Rose has a higher ceiling ... due to his superior ability to (1) create matchup advantages offensively (2) avoiding matchup problems defensively which will lead to a large advantage overall on the defensive end in Rose's favour.

So, Rose should become the vastly superior defensive player + the more consistent / difficult to contain / prolific scoring option. Jennings will be the better passer but I would take Rose's offensive game over his (due to the superior scoring). Neither guy appears to be the type to create a lot of possessions.

Hmm, interesting stuff TP for taking the time to give your opinions Who.

I've always described Rose as a PG playing like LeBron James does, glad to get some confirmation that the comparison is somewhat apt. (Rose creating with his physical quickness/strength/etc...)