Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    144
    vCash
    1500

    Remaining roster moves for opening day roster

    By my count, there is likely no open roster spots.

    Sanders C 11 mill
    Mayo SG 8 mill
    Ilya PF 7.9 mil
    Pachulia C 5.2
    Delfino SF 3.25
    Knight G 3.75
    Henson PF/C 2
    Giannis SF 1.9
    Middleton SF 900K
    Wolters PG 500k

    and now

    Parker PF/SF 4.1

    That's 11, and this does include our 2 2nd round picks.

    Inglis SF
    O Bryant PF

    Do you guys think this is our final roster with O'Bryant making the roster and Inglis being a stash overseas?

    I don't see how it can be with only 3 guards on the team.


    BTW, if we trot a starting lineup of Pachulia, Ilya, Delfino, Mayo and Sessions on opening day, I may cry.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Palmyra,Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,972
    vCash
    1500
    You forgot Raduljica. 14 total. 1 spot open. Barring any one player trades for more players in return.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    684
    vCash
    1500
    I thought I saw a comment that hammonds was bringing Inglis over right away and he'll play in summer league.

    Isnt sessions a free agent? hammonds cant be that dumb to sign him can he??

    There is no way ilyasova is starting over Parker unless he got injured, buck fans will riot if that happens.. Same with Delfino over giannis.

    also pachulia wont start over henson or sanders i believe..


    pg - Wolters
    Sg - Knight
    SF - Giannis
    PF - Parker
    C - Sanders / Henson

    This is how id like the starting lineup to look like.

    I could see someone or a package of players being traded this summer for a decent young guard... Not sure who

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    146
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dcenate05050 View Post
    I thought I saw a comment that hammonds was bringing Inglis over right away and he'll play in summer league.

    Isnt sessions a free agent? hammonds cant be that dumb to sign him can he??

    There is no way ilyasova is starting over Parker unless he got injured, buck fans will riot if that happens.. Same with Delfino over giannis.

    also pachulia wont start over henson or sanders i believe..


    pg - Wolters
    Sg - Knight
    SF - Giannis
    PF - Parker
    C - Sanders / Henson

    This is how id like the starting lineup to look like.

    I could see someone or a package of players being traded this summer for a decent young guard... Not sure who
    Hammond told Bill Michaels this afternoon plan is to bring him over right away. Yes Sessions is a FA.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    144
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dcenate05050 View Post
    I thought I saw a comment that hammonds was bringing Inglis over right away and he'll play in summer league.

    Isnt sessions a free agent? hammonds cant be that dumb to sign him can he??

    There is no way ilyasova is starting over Parker unless he got injured, buck fans will riot if that happens.. Same with Delfino over giannis.

    also pachulia wont start over henson or sanders i believe..


    pg - Wolters
    Sg - Knight
    SF - Giannis
    PF - Parker
    C - Sanders / Henson

    This is how id like the starting lineup to look like.

    I could see someone or a package of players being traded this summer for a decent young guard... Not sure who
    Lets hope you are right on that starting lineup. That would be a fun team to watch. I bet the Bucks start out starting a few of the vets, though I doubt Parker sits. They may try to build their trade value up a bit.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Palmyra,Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,972
    vCash
    1500
    It has been a wild ride this free agency period.

    LeBron came home. Carmelo stayed home. Chris Bosh decided to be the Man in Miami while ruining the well-laid plans of the NBA’s craftiest GM.

    The impossible dreams of thousands of sports fans were realized or crushed in a few short weeks.

    An offseason of volatility saw the Bucks mostly standing pat with their roster. There was no signing of a blandly familiar veteran to the midlevel. Milwaukee didn’t overpay a contender’s sixth man to fade away on its bench.

    The first free agency bonanza of the Edens & Lasry era was marked by complacency.


    So far, so good.

    The Bucks stuck to their guns in the middle of the first honest rebuild in nearly two decades. Instead of seeking the quick fix in a moderately big name – a strategy that in the past landed the likes of Bobby Simmons and O.J. Mayo – management appears willing to invest in an existing roster that is stocked with youth.

    It is an investment the Bucks hope pays off soon, but there’s no mandate of “win now” hanging over the front office this year.

    The 2014-15 season is all about development, team building and establishing the slow bonds that build true chemistry.

    Looking over the roster, we can start to get an idea of the future of basketball in Milwaukee:

    The Youth



    PG: Kendall Marshall, Age 22

    G: Brandon Knight, Age 22

    SF/??: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Age 19

    SF: Khris Middleton, Age 22

    SF: Damien Inglis, Age 19

    F: Jabari Parker, Age 19

    PF/C: John Henson Age, 23

    C: Larry Sanders Age, 25


    This is the future. This is the core.

    Parker and Giannis are the superstars in the making, the hopes of the franchise having been placed squarely on their shoulders. The point of Milwaukee’s offense will be to open lanes and get them the ball. Both players should see a minimum of 30 minutes a night.

    How those minutes are used will determine the structure of the team.

    Both Giannis and Parker are players without a defined position. While that might have been a terrifying prospect in the past, in the new positionless NBA it is a real asset. Jason Kidd is willing to experiment with unorthodox lineups to get the most out of his young stars. Parker will feel out both forward spots, while Giannis very well might see time at the point if he passes his training camp audition.

    In the backcourt, Marshall and Knight represent very different approaches to the point guard position. Marshall, the pure distributor, has to improve his defense to justify a starting position. Knight is a better defender and a capable scorer, but he might not be a point guard at all.


    It is possible that the Bucks end up following the Pistons lead in sliding Knight over to the 2. Kidd was known to run lineups in Brooklyn that featured multiple floor generals. A starting line featuring Marshall, Knight, and Giannis could be an interesting evolution to that strategy.

    On the wings, Middleton and Inglis will be fighting for time behind Giannis. Middleton had a very solid first year for the Bucks – playing all 82 games and starting 64 – after coming over in the Brandon Jennings trade. He showed potential as a future 3-and-D guy off the bench, but it’s unrealistic to expect much more of him at this point.

    Inglis is another wildcard. The Bucks still haven’t signed him, but Hammond indicated that Inglis would follow Giannis’ lead and come over – Inglis spent last season in the French Pro A League – right away. Though he missed Summer League due to a broken foot, he should be healthy in time for training camp. He’ll be buried on this roster but could emerge as the next Luc Mbah a Moute.



    If Larry Sanders can put the nightmare of last year behind him, he still has the tools to be a top 5 center in the NBA, even if his days as the face of the franchise are over. He is a terrific rim protector and is young enough to turn it around. He can be the Bucks’ defensive anchor, the menace to the two stars’ sunshine. The alternative is too horrible for me to imagine.

    Long John Henson seemed primed for a breakout season for the Bucks last year. Though his numbers were quite good – 11.1 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 1.7 bpg in 26 minutes – many fans expected a little more.

    The addition of Kendall Marshall could be the catalyst for the breakout Bucks fans have long awaited, but it will have to come in a reserve role. Henson will be the first big man off the bench.

    The Vets

    C: Zaza Pachulia, Age 30

    SG/SF: Carlos Delfino, Age 31


    Relics of the Kohl era, there’s no incentive to give these guys any more playing time than necessary.

    Zaza’s combination of physicality and passing distinguishes him amongst Bucks bigs. He will be in the rotation behind Sanders.

    Delfino spent all of last season recuperating from a foot injury that required two surgeries. His current condition is unknown, though he has met with a trainer in Milwaukee and is reportedly on schedule to be healthy in time for training camp.

    The Inbetweeners


    G: Jerryd Bayless, Age 25

    SG: O.J. Mayo, Age 26

    PF: Ersan Ilyasova, Age 27


    Players who have done enough to stick in the NBA but haven’t established themselves as stars find themselves in a dreaded purgatory. After a steep decline in production last season, both Ersan and Mayo will have to work to earn any minutes they get.

    According to reports, the Bucks have been shopping Ersan Ilyasova hard. However, the market for the once-productive stretch-4 is much drier after he hit just 28.2 percent of his threes last season and is guaranteed almost $16 million over the next two years. If Ilyasova can rebound and once again prove his range, he’ll probably remain a Buck. Kidd has been talking up his potential to stretch defenses, so we’ll see whether that is a clever ploy or actual strategy come September.

    Mayo showed up out of shape and all but disappeared over the course of the season. He should have use as a scorer off the bench – hell, he should be the starting shooting guard - but now he looks more likely to settle into a permanent reserve role before age 30. A sad state of affairs for the former top recruit.

    It is unfair to lump Bayless with those two, but he has bumped around the league enough that it is fair to say he is not a core player. He was a steady presence at both guard spots after getting traded to the Celtics last season, even starting 14 games. Expect to see him in a similar role with the Bucks. He’ll provide playmaking and a little outside shooting off the bench.

    The Expendables




    SF: Chris Wright, Age 25

    C: Miroslav Raduljica, Age 26

    PF: Johnny O’Bryant, Age 21

    PG: Nate Wolters, Age 23


    Here’s the thing: we’ve just listed 17 players. There are only 15 open spots on an NBA roster. Barring a trade, someone is getting cut. Well, two someones.

    Wright is an explosive athlete who belongs in the NBA, but he has a non-guaranteed contract.

    Raduljica has NBA size and a surprising finesse game, but he is a step slow and seems destined to seek more playing time in Europe.

    O’Bryant was a fan favorite in Summer League, showing flashes of a refined post game. As an unsigned second rounder, the Bucks might not have room for him in a crowded frontcourt.

    This might get me in trouble, but Wolters has not done enough to prove that he belongs in the NBA. He is not an explosive athlete, he is not an elite distributor, and he has been a mediocre scorer thus far. He needs to improve his outside shot to have a chance, and he simply did not show much progress in Summer League.

    Nate will, in all likelihood, make the team next season. After that, I expect he will get the most DNP-CDs of any player on the roster.
    http://behindthebuckpass.com/2014/07...ks-experiment/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,535
    vCash
    1500
    I don't get why Nate is an expendable and Marshall is a core piece. All put together, Wolters is the better player to me. In Marshall's rookie year, he was well below average according to both Drtg and Ortg, and last year, he finally posted a league average Ortg, while still being below average Drtg. Wolters has more total win shares in his 1 season than Marshall has in his two seasons.

    For all the love Marshall gets as this elite passer, their assist to turnover ratio was virtually the same (Wolters was .04 assits better per turnover) with almost identical usage rates. Marshall actually shot it more efficiently last year, but that's because he only takes wide open looks. He literally never gets to the free throw line, attempting less than 1 free throw per 36 minutes, and his free throw rate is less than 10%, which is horrible. When looking at their seasons last year, they were virtually identical. Wolters scored and rebounded a little more, and turned it over less. Marshall was more efficient shooting and had more assists. Ultimeately, Wolters had a slightly higher Win Shares and a very slightly higher PER (.1). They are basically the same age as Wolters is about 6 months older. He had more college exp, but Marshall had a year of pro ball under his belt. Either way, I don't get how one is a future building piece while the other is expendable, considering they are virtually the same player at the end of the day. And I actually think Wolters has more upside than Marshall.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    144
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I don't get why Nate is an expendable and Marshall is a core piece. All put together, Wolters is the better player to me. In Marshall's rookie year, he was well below average according to both Drtg and Ortg, and last year, he finally posted a league average Ortg, while still being below average Drtg. Wolters has more total win shares in his 1 season than Marshall has in his two seasons.

    For all the love Marshall gets as this elite passer, their assist to turnover ratio was virtually the same (Wolters was .04 assits better per turnover) with almost identical usage rates. Marshall actually shot it more efficiently last year, but that's because he only takes wide open looks. He literally never gets to the free throw line, attempting less than 1 free throw per 36 minutes, and his free throw rate is less than 10%, which is horrible. When looking at their seasons last year, they were virtually identical. Wolters scored and rebounded a little more, and turned it over less. Marshall was more efficient shooting and had more assists. Ultimeately, Wolters had a slightly higher Win Shares and a very slightly higher PER (.1). They are basically the same age as Wolters is about 6 months older. He had more college exp, but Marshall had a year of pro ball under his belt. Either way, I don't get how one is a future building piece while the other is expendable, considering they are virtually the same player at the end of the day. And I actually think Wolters has more upside than Marshall.
    The answer is because Wolters is a white guy without a flashy game that relies on Westbrook-like feats of athleticism and didn't go to Chapel Hill. Its a heuristic and its lazy/bad journalism.

    On the opposite side, I don't really get the love for Kendall Marshall. Your numbers back up a fact even more incriminating than the numbers you listed....he was not signed by the Lakers, a team the Bucks may be better than (depending on Bryants health), and certainly have more future potential than.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,535
    vCash
    1500
    To his defense, the Lakers did want him back, but if he really was supposed to be a building block for them, then they wouldn't have released him to clear up cap space for garbage players like Brian Kelly.

    To clear things up too, when I look at those stats, I don't think Nate Wolters is anything special either, but he's just as good, if not better than Marshall. And when I consider what each player has to improve upon to become a better player, I like Nate's chances better. Neither will be a great defender, and they both need the same improvements there. Neither is overly quick, so they will rely on length, getting stronger, and being a smart defender if they want to be good defenders. Neither really had a strong steal rate, which can indicate good instincts. They are both tall for PGs, but both have average wingspans. It appears Wolters didn't do any jumping at his combine, so physically when it comes to defense, I think they are both in about the same boat.

    As far as offense goes, Marshall has improved his shooting, but in order to be a guy who can be an effective offensive player, he needs to learn how to attack defenses, break down his guy, and get to the hoop. Wolters needs to improve his jumper to be a better offensive player. I think shooting is much easier to improve than getting to the basket, which either requires getting quicker or a complete change in philosophy. So I would give Nate the advantage as an offensive player in the future, but its probably not a major difference as they're both probably bench guys.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Whitewater, WI
    Posts
    642
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I don't get why Nate is an expendable and Marshall is a core piece. All put together, Wolters is the better player to me. In Marshall's rookie year, he was well below average according to both Drtg and Ortg, and last year, he finally posted a league average Ortg, while still being below average Drtg. Wolters has more total win shares in his 1 season than Marshall has in his two seasons.

    For all the love Marshall gets as this elite passer, their assist to turnover ratio was virtually the same (Wolters was .04 assits better per turnover) with almost identical usage rates. Marshall actually shot it more efficiently last year, but that's because he only takes wide open looks. He literally never gets to the free throw line, attempting less than 1 free throw per 36 minutes, and his free throw rate is less than 10%, which is horrible. When looking at their seasons last year, they were virtually identical. Wolters scored and rebounded a little more, and turned it over less. Marshall was more efficient shooting and had more assists. Ultimeately, Wolters had a slightly higher Win Shares and a very slightly higher PER (.1). They are basically the same age as Wolters is about 6 months older. He had more college exp, but Marshall had a year of pro ball under his belt. Either way, I don't get how one is a future building piece while the other is expendable, considering they are virtually the same player at the end of the day. And I actually think Wolters has more upside than Marshall.
    All of those stats mean virtually nothing. Marshall is an elite passer, and that doesn't just include the assists he gets. I watched a few Laker games after they got him and he just made their offense run alot smoother. Wolters doesn't do that, not to mention the fact that Wolters doesn't do any one thing great. I would much rather take Marshall over Wolters.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    144
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ_56 View Post
    All of those stats mean virtually nothing. Marshall is an elite passer, and that doesn't just include the assists he gets. I watched a few Laker games after they got him and he just made their offense run alot smoother. Wolters doesn't do that, not to mention the fact that Wolters doesn't do any one thing great. I would much rather take Marshall over Wolters.
    Curious. Do you think stats, basketball stats, in general, virtually mean nothing? or do you think the particular stats that were presented mean nothing?

    Also, do you always rate players based on your observations and intuition? For instance, how would you compare K Love to Carmelo Anthony to Kobe Bryant if not with stats?

    I am curious because I am a data analyst and have a very different viewpoint but I'd like to understand on how others view these discussions.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,535
    vCash
    1500
    If Marshall was such an elite offensive presense, then why was the team's offensive rating slightly better without him than with him?

    And how does assist to turnover not matter? Basketball is about scoring points, and you can't score points when you turn the ball over. Marshall turns the ball over on average 26 times per 100 possessions he has it. Wolters was better at that than Marshall. Like I said, Marshall does one thing at a high level, and that's rack up assists. Everything else, he is terrible at. The only reason his shooting percentages hover around acceptable is because he doesn't shoot unless he's wide open. I give him credit for that. He knows his game isn't to score. But that still doesn't make him a good player. Jon Brockman understood his role for the Bucks as well, and he was terrible. Maybe I'm wrong, but for a pg to be effective these days without being an great outside shooter, you have to do more than pass. If he was a great distributor and also played above average defense, then yes, he'd be more useful player. If he was more Rajon Rondo, and even though he couldn't make contested shots, could still drive and dish, then he'd be useful, but Marshall doesn't do that either.

    Additionally, Marshall's Free Throw Rate is really, really low. I know it looks like I'm nitpicking stats, and to an extent I am, but I think these are some telling stats. Free Throw Rate is a stat that measures how many free throws you shoot compared to shot attempts. Marshal's percentage hovers in the .08 range. Basically, if you look at the entire nba list last year, there's very few players under .1. And these players who are under .1, are almost exclusively guys whose only role in the league is designated 3 point shooter. Its guys like Battier and Matt Bonner. And its not the good designated shooters like even a Reddick either. Its a small group of guys, and its not an impressive group. I think the only two point guard types that were under .1 were Luke Ridinour and Jose Calderon. The rest of the guys who make up that list were pretty bad players. I know one stat doesn't make or break a guy good or bad, but when its a stat that has some correlation to how good you are at getting anywhere near the hoop, and you're only company at the bottom of the list is pretty bad players, its not usually a good sign. Jose Calderon is by far the best player below .1 in free throw rate by the way. Everyone else was really bad players.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 07-24-2014 at 06:07 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,535
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mseds99 View Post
    Curious. Do you think stats, basketball stats, in general, virtually mean nothing? or do you think the particular stats that were presented mean nothing?

    Also, do you always rate players based on your observations and intuition? For instance, how would you compare K Love to Carmelo Anthony to Kobe Bryant if not with stats?

    I am curious because I am a data analyst and have a very different viewpoint but I'd like to understand on how others view these discussions.
    I know you didn't ask me, but as you can see, I'm a big fan of stats as well. I know there's definitely a place in the game for watching the game and seeing it for yourself. Baseball is basically the only sport where advanced stats have really approached near perfect. Other sports, like basketball and football, have so many moving pieces that stats can't quite say everything that's happening. Take for instance DRtg and ORtg, which are stats I like. They are both a flawed stat of individuals because the rely on your teammates contributions. But, it isn't a terrible stat either. If a guy's ORtg is below what his team's average ORtg is, you can deduct that that player most likely was not an offensive benefit to that team. It goes vice versa and same with DRtg. I think it can also be a valuable asset when comparing guys on the same team, especially guys who play the same position. I've used it when comparing Ersan and Henson. Throughout a given season, both will play a majority of their minutes at PF, and will probably play in similar lineups. Its not perfect, but you can somewhat assume that the player with the better rating was most likely the better offensive or defensive player.

    But I do really like the advanced stats in basketball. Even though they aren't perfect, I think they can provide insight into the game more than traditional stats can. Nick Young scored 18 ppg last year, but does anyone really think he's as valuable as other 18 ppg scorers? Obviously you can deduce some of those things with shooting percentages and things, but I like the way some of the advanced metrics take more into account. Again, they aren't perfect, and they're most likely never going to completely eliminate scouting, but they do offer different insight, especially for guys like us who can't/don't watch every game. Personally, I catch as many Bucks games as possible, but other than that, its more bits and pieces of other games that I end up watching. The stats can supplement what I'm seeing, and if the stats seem to tell a much different story than what I see, then its probably time to either watch more tape and figure out of the story is different, or if what I saw was an outlier game.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oak Creek
    Posts
    707
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rj_56 View Post
    all of those stats mean virtually nothing. Marshall is an elite passer, and that doesn't just include the assists he gets. I watched a few laker games after they got him and he just made their offense run alot smoother. Wolters doesn't do that, not to mention the fact that wolters doesn't do any one thing great. I would much rather take marshall over wolters.

    this!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    144
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I know you didn't ask me, but as you can see, I'm a big fan of stats as well. I know there's definitely a place in the game for watching the game and seeing it for yourself. Baseball is basically the only sport where advanced stats have really approached near perfect. Other sports, like basketball and football, have so many moving pieces that stats can't quite say everything that's happening. Take for instance DRtg and ORtg, which are stats I like. They are both a flawed stat of individuals because the rely on your teammates contributions. But, it isn't a terrible stat either. If a guy's ORtg is below what his team's average ORtg is, you can deduct that that player most likely was not an offensive benefit to that team. It goes vice versa and same with DRtg. I think it can also be a valuable asset when comparing guys on the same team, especially guys who play the same position. I've used it when comparing Ersan and Henson. Throughout a given season, both will play a majority of their minutes at PF, and will probably play in similar lineups. Its not perfect, but you can somewhat assume that the player with the better rating was most likely the better offensive or defensive player.

    But I do really like the advanced stats in basketball. Even though they aren't perfect, I think they can provide insight into the game more than traditional stats can. Nick Young scored 18 ppg last year, but does anyone really think he's as valuable as other 18 ppg scorers? Obviously you can deduce some of those things with shooting percentages and things, but I like the way some of the advanced metrics take more into account. Again, they aren't perfect, and they're most likely never going to completely eliminate scouting, but they do offer different insight, especially for guys like us who can't/don't watch every game. Personally, I catch as many Bucks games as possible, but other than that, its more bits and pieces of other games that I end up watching. The stats can supplement what I'm seeing, and if the stats seem to tell a much different story than what I see, then its probably time to either watch more tape and figure out of the story is different, or if what I saw was an outlier game.
    Everything you said in spot on. Context is critically important, so watching some games is a must for an complete perspective.

    I believe defensive stats are the ones the found wanting. For instance, it must be near impossible to quantify ball denials of the opposing teams best player. There are not traditional stats that quantify this but if you can prevent 25% of all touches by Lebron James by overplaying passing lanes to that player initially, that is a unquestionably a good thing. Defensive positioning, communication with teammates, and the propensity to double team in the right situations are all invaluable skills which I would have no idea how you'd quantify, but irrefutably are a factor in the outcome of a game. I have high hopes for the tracking data that is taking place these days, but I doubt that data is ever going to be publically available.

    But there are times when I watch a game and my observations do not fit with the data. An example...Valuncunas on Toronto. According to his age and his early numbers, he seems like a building block player for the future. But every time I've seen him play, he seems to have a complete lack of feel for the game and seems to be in the wrong spot, which messes up the team's spacing. Hibbert is another one. He KILLS the teams offense by clogging up the lane for low percentage post ups (defense is another story). Their numbers, without context, portray them as better players than they are.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •