Stephen Jackson Edition: Milwaukee Bucks Success/Failure Project
by Steve von Horn on Dec 29, 2011 7:30 AM CST
in Originals
Email
PrintThe Milwaukee Bucks added veteran shooting guard Stephen Jackson to the team in a surprise three-team trade on draft day, and at the time the move generated a measure of optimism among fans. One of the most redeeming qualities about Jackson in the eyes of many Bucks fans digesting the trade was that Stephen Jackson wasn't John Salmons, whom Bucks fans and analysts had grown weary of after he signed a long-term deal with the team last off-season. In essence, Jackson will replace Salmons in the lineup for 2011-12. Out with the old and in with the... other old?
Here is why I am doing this: The Introductory Piece
Here is what I am doing: For each player on the Bucks roster, we will take basic statistical measures (FG%, 3PT%, TS%, Assist Rate, Turnover Rate, PER, etc.) and define ranges for each measure that qualify as either success, tolerable performance, or failure for the player in question.
To be fair, different ranges and different measures will be used for different players and diverse positional groups. It isn't fair to hold Brandon Jennings up to the standards of Steve Nash or Derrick Rose, but is it fair to say he needs to be better than league averages for a PG to be considered a success? I will try to create reasonable starting points for a discussion and explain why I chose a certain number as a cutoff.
Here is what I have already done: Brandon Jennings Edition
After combing over the numbers and comparing Stephen Jackson directly to John Salmons, it might actually be a problem that Stephen Jackson isn't John Salmons. First off, Jackson (33 years old) is nearly two full years older than Salmons and a more expensive contract on a yearly basis. When comparing the careers of the two players, Jackson actually sports a lower career true shooting percentage average, lower field-goal percentage average and lower three-point percentage average. In other words, he is not a master of offensive efficiency.
The numbers aren't good by any means, but at least Jackson has been putting his numbers up against NBA starting talent at all times and has been good enough to become a focal option on multiple squads over the years. Salmons simply couldn't handle the extra responsibility that Jackson has been shouldering with some measure of success for nearly a decade in the NBA. So, if the comparison to Salmons doesn't get us to a very comfortable place in the end, where does this addition leave the Bucks?
The thing to remember is that Jackson is 33 years old. NBA players typically don't get better heading into their mid 30s, and although Jackson has never really relied on elite athleticism to prop up his game, there still isn't a very good reason to think he will have a personal Renaissance this late in his career.
With this fact in mind, I looked to Jackson's best shooting efficiency numbers for a single season after turning 30, and then compared it to five-year NBA average shooting numbers for swingmen (SGs and SFs). Unfortunately for the Bucks, he has been steadily declining since turning 30.
Looking to the chart, the thresholds for failure are set at Jackson's best season over 30. It would be unfair to think he should perform as well as he did in his prime, but using the over numbers for seasons over 30 creates a proper context of accountability for his performance. Jackson has never been particularly efficient anyways, but if he falls any further off the table from his "old man" standards, the shooting performance must be considered a failure. As you can see by the marks on the chart, Jackson hasn't had many successes under my terms, but the bar can't be set too low. On the flip side, the thresholds for success are set by the five-year averages of NBA swingmen, because anything above average for his position has to be considered a success.
Here's the visual aid:
Even if fans don't have much hope for a good offensive season from their new starting SG, the real reason he has been billed as a positive addition is his experience. With a reputation for taking big shots and a style of play that lends itself to late game isolation looks, Jackson will be counted on as the primary offensive option in the clutch. Sure he is an NBA vet with a reputation for being clutch, but is there any evidence to back it up? In fact, what would it even mean to be clutch?
To find out, I crunched the numbers four years worth of clutch data for Jackson and for the league at 82games.com. Recall that the site defines clutch situations as:
4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points.
To make the analysis more meaningful, I dealt specifically with high volume clutch shooters across the league over the past four seasons. These represent the trusted starters and late game players across the NBA and roughly amounted to a pool of 110 players per season with regard to Clutch FG%, and the top 75 players in attempts for Clutch 3PT% per season. The thresholds are for failure are set at Jackson's clutch averages over the past four seasons, while success is defined by the NBA averages. Again, the sobering revelation is that Jackson has been a below-average clutch player for quite a while, and the past two seasons are no exception to that trend. Here is a closer look at the clutch data, if you can stomach it:
| Stephen Jackson Clutch Shooting (Past 4 Seasons) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Clutch FG% | |||
| Season | NBA Average* | Stephen Jackson | Diff. |
| 2007-2008 | 43.1 | 47.4 | 4.3 |
| 2008-2009 | 42.9 | 35.6 | -7.3 |
| 2009-2010 | 42.9 | 30.7 | -12.2 |
| 2010-2011 | 42.6 | 35.7 | -6.9 |
| Clutch 3Pt% | |||
| Season | NBA Average** | Stephen Jackson | Diff. |
| 2007-2008 | 34.3 | 45.7 | 11.4 |
| 2008-2009 | 36.6 | 16.7 | -19.9 |
| 2009-2010 | 31.3 | 31.4 | 0.1 |
| 2010-2011 | 33.2 | 27.6 | -5.6 |
* NBA Average For Clutch FG% Based On All Players With At Least 100 Minutes Of Clutch Play
** NBA Average For Clutch 3PT% Based On Top 75 Players In Terms Of Clutch Time 3PT Attempts.
So there it is for everyone to see. Jackson has likely been surviving on reputation alone for the recent past, and not much should be expected from him by fans in 2011-12 despite his pay grade and high profile. To expect good things would just set yourself up for a letdown. If he can do anything better than an average NBA SG it is probably best to consider that contribution a pleasant surprise. I hate to break the bad news in such an emphatic way, but I can't really see this move working out particularly well for the Bucks. In fact, this project, in tandem with my roster indexing project, has opened me up to the idea that Hammond really targeted Shaun Livingston from the Bobcats and simply bit the bullet on Jackson to make it happen. Dunleavy passing Jackson on the depth chart would be just fine by me, but hey, maybe S-Jax will prove the trend wrong.
Follow @brewhoop on Twitter | Like Brew Hoop on Facebook | Join and Start Posting Content
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can Jackson as described herein be a Big Brother?
Hmm… If Jackson does not play well enough to be in our current “core” can he still be the guy who mentors Jennings in playing the NBA game? (Of course, that’s if I’m right that Jennings may be looking for a mentor.)
Offensively, I’ve been suspecting that Jackson is a guy willing to take the clutch shot but not skilled enough to make it at a good percentage. The kind who’d get a lot of play on a bad team, by default, but wouldn’t be a valued asset on a good team.
But it’s occurred to me that Skiles may try to refine Jackson’s game with us. Reduce the number of outside jump shots. Get him to look more to penetrate, and dish or score. Make the most of Stephen’s savvy and team play. Let him earn the last two year’s of his contract by becoming the “ultimate” team player. Jackson has been openly commenting that he’s old and more-or-less damaged goods. He may accept that role.
As a starter. As a key sub.
HEY, what about the LEADERSHIP intangable?
Lost in the stats and numbers game is the leadership component being bantered about both amongst the players, and to a lesser degree in forums such as this. If indeed, has BJ states, “its about time” someone, for the love of an alpha male, anyone finally arrives that can provoke some voice then it appears the team has arrived.
Look, I was a fan of Salmons coining him “Jazzman” for his facial configurations parrelleling that of a musician. Yet, he was a quieter version of an eight million dolllar man to along with Bogut (who also seems more vocal, at least reported to be), and others who did not exercise the vocal cords to the point in which BJ, and others speak of in Jackson.
Therefore, if this year ends with Jackson’s voice/leadership being a catalyst to victory / glory then a-sa-lute. The move; Jackson for Salmons, will have been a good one. (Though the entire scenerio seems odd since we’re two years removed from ‘jazzman’, and the arrival of another in Maggettee). But, who am I to stall a topic.
*
I agree 100% witih you things like leadership can't be measured
I know Jax will do whatever it takes to win, and we need that. Should have mentioned this with the BJ success/failure too but he has an intangible as well. I think his first year he was a big part of putting Milwaukee back(temporarily) on the Hoops map. If BJ succeeeds and Milwaukee succeeds it would be great.
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
by CanadaBucks on Dec 29, 2011 11:15 AM CST up reply actions
It brings up an interesting argument about leadership. Is leadership at all linked to play, meaning does a player lead by example, or is it a separate trait that manifests in ways that can't be seen or recorded?
I’m not sure, but I suppose you guys could guess which way I lean :)
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 29, 2011 12:30 PM CST up reply actions
leadership
First the obvious: there probably are several types of leadership: by example, organizational, inspirational, etc. In part because most leadership is more humble than heroic. Workaday and unremarkable. We get by pretty well benefitting from only normal amounts of leadership.
Top-notch or superb leadership is what intrigues me. It’s hard to describe if I try to avoid the cliches that Hollywood and books and epic poems wrap around the subject. But if I were going to invent a LeaderMeader, er, a LeterMeter, make that a LeaderMeter, I would build it to measure the psychological effect the leader has on the led.
Under the influence of great leadership, participants have clear focus on the job to be done, they’re buoyed by increased confidence in themselves and the team, and their energies are fully marshaled and ready to be applied to the effort.
How does a leader achieve that? It’s deep baby — not deep intellectually but deep in what we are as animals, or instincts and our genes. And the values we share as members of a society.
I would think I’ve just given a suckass description. But there’s something there I’m trying to describe. We all have likely met leaders. There’s a gravitas there that catches the eye. Not relying on words or action. Another of my imperfect images might be: whatever they look like, whatever gender or age, they seem rather like a father. A good father makes more things achievable, gives support where you need it, knows much that you don’t and shares wisdom with you at levels you are able to assimilate. Motivates you in ways that run deep. The world is full of more possibility when you’re with a good father.
(And for those for whom the cosmic deck of cards did not deal a good father, I mean to stir no pain. There are substitutes; there are paths that will take you where you want to go.)
So without surprise I vote:
can’t be seen or recorded.
Well, this is the answer I was hoping to get, because I don't think it explains away guys like Jackson or any such non-performing leaders as players.
I too have encountered good leaders in my life, but they don’t always come for expected places. Sports fans love to confine the concept to expect players to be these leaders, but why does that make sense in the case of Jackson? If he doesn’t lead in any way that is related to basketball, and none of the teams he has tasked to lead have really exceeded expectations or achieved the highest honors in the sport, where should we look for his impact?
If his role is a motivational speaker, why would he be any better than a professional motivator like a true motivational speaker or even an assistant coach. If he is given the benefit of the doubt on coaching-related traits, there really isn’t any way to judge him or hold him accountable…it just is whatever anyone says it is…thats just intellectually unacceptable to me.
When I think of players as leaders in the NBA, they are all ones who execute at a high level and have led their teams to great accomplishment. More often than not their teammates haven’t even liked them as people, but they set a standard or play on the court and in preparation. The great coaches have been motivators and orators, buts that’s why players play and coaches coach to me.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 29, 2011 3:30 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Trading a veeran for another veteran
To get rid of Salmons and his contract, we had to take another. That’s what happens ini salary cap leagues. If the trade works out better on the court, that is gravy.
The numbers presented above are succinct and fair. I did not expect Jackson to be a statistical efficiency upgrade; I, like the other posters above, look to the intangible aspects of Jackson’s game. At some point, we will get younger again at this position. My hope is that we don’t keep offering contract extensions to mediocre players who, like Jackson, have surpassed their peak, a peak, by he way, that wasn’t all that special to begin with.
Even though it was technically two seperate trades, we're a more talented team with
SJax, Beno, and Shaun Livingston than John Salmons and Corey Maggette.
So I think overall, it was more than just aging player for aging player.
Grillax people
True but none of it could have happened if we had not taken somebody off of some other team's hands?
I too believe that overall, they upgraded. But none of us will really know until the season is further along, or finished.
FWIW
Greg Stiemsma 6 blocks in 20 minutes
The trade did cost us 9 spots in the draft which is impossible to gauge even in the future, but all in all it was needed.
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
Would Philly trade Speights for Ilyasova or Delfino?
Am I the only one on this board that thinks that might be a good move for the Bucks?
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
Good move for us
Preferably Ersan. We have too many 4s and they have enough shooters. But would the Sixers do it?
by toasterrebound on Dec 29, 2011 12:23 PM CST up reply actions
He's not playing and I don't think he's injured
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
by CanadaBucks on Dec 29, 2011 12:25 PM CST up reply actions
Our big 3
Brick shooters will be Jackson, Delfino and Dunleavy. Now does that mean they should have better shot selection and shoot less or should they shoot more to get into a groove?
by toasterrebound on Dec 29, 2011 12:25 PM CST reply actions
Michael Redd signs with Suns
So much for him getting a shot at a ring this year…
I think it’s too soon to really call the move to get Jax but he definitely has spunk, something Salmons and Redd somewhat lacked in…
Whether spunk is really “leadership”… that’s also to be seen :P
As long as I’m thinking about SG’s… someone somewhere brought up Hobson and questioned whether he brings anything different that CD-R brought at as a backup SG. I know nothing about Hobson, I have to admit…
Redd signing with the Suns is kind of mind-boggling
It begs the question…….why You need a veteran who hasn’t played much in the ;ast two years to what…..;ead you to 10th or 12th in the west? Nash might be gone at the break if he has much trade value left, why not give Redd’s spot to a youngster who might actually be part of your future? Can the Suns trade Redd, if not it’s even a stupider move IMO.
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
spunk
Whether spunk is really "leadership"… that’s also to be seen :P
true
the way it shapes in my mind, Skiles can say and the coaches can say and Hammond can say — and it all is basically one voice, the voice of management. if Jackson says a similar message about teamwork and competing, that will be persuasive ‘cuz it’s an independent voice and a veteran voice. i think every team needs its Plan endorsed by a respected independent voice who Knows the way things are. for all his eccentricities, Jackson gets respect. he has strongly endorsed coach Skiles. they may make a good team.
Captain Jack, a leader w/ intangibles?
Folks, I hate to rain on the parade (though this sobering article on the empirical reality of Jax should be enough), but Stephen Jackson is a major thug and an occasional stud on the basketball court. I am originally from Milwaukee but more recently, Charlotte. I’m a fan without apology. Jax has nerve, can shoot, can score, plays suspect defense (so why would he fit in with Skiles?) and is old with a bad attitude. It’s scary to imagine someone saying Stephen Jackson is a mentor and leader. Come on! He’ll show the young guys how to get suspended and how to wear gang colors. (His wedding party was all dressed in red… yea, it’s real gangsters, not pretend). I can only imagine two things that might get him motivated: Another contract, but that motive will really only kick in at the beginning of next year. Or… oh, there isn’t another one. Sorry.
I love the thugs on the court: Kenyon Martin, J.R. Smith, Terrance Williams, et al. They’re fun to watch and can really put on a show. (Watch when T-Will gets starters minutes in Houston: triple/doubles in sight). The talent level is there, for sure. For example, in Atlanta Captain Jack hit one to win at the buzzer, yelling out his trademark, “This is what I do” (usually atop the scorers table, pounding his chest, frowning and maybe flashing his tat of praying hands holding a pistol on his stomach. Is that a good fit with the Milwaukee crowd?
Hang on folks….
I have no problem with the thug image
some players have. The only time I have a problem is when it’s totally disingenuous. Jackson, once a resident of Port Arthur, TX, comes off as far more genuine.
Milwaukee doesn’t care where you come from as long as you a) contribute to wins and b) stay out of trouble off the court. We’re not picky about our athletes, so long as they’re able to help the team.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 30, 2011 5:07 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed.
As long as they aren’t harming anyone, I will take my professional athletes as the three-dimensional people they are. Like in every other walk of life, people deal with different problems and different influences. I’m not looking for players to be role models, just damn fine players (once again, as long as they aren’t causing harm to others).
If he plays top-notch basketball or not, I don’t care about his rep.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 6:48 PM CST up reply actions
I think you take only stats into account is wrong
While it is obvious that his numbers have declined, you can’t argue with that, you should take into context about what he has done. It would be like taking Kobe coming off his championship run with the Lakers with Shaq (Jackson’s run with the Warriors), and then taking his efficiency numbers with the Lakers the following few years (Jackson’s stint with the Bobcats) and seeing his numbers drastically drop. Jackson might be getting a tad bit worse because of age but to claim it is only age is just plain wrong. The Bobcats have no weapons, he consistently had to take awful shots as the shot clock winded down and was the focal point of the offense with no other secondary option leading to increased bad shots and turnovers. I think this is a clear reason why his efficiency has declined more than his age. I would look for his efficiency to jump this year, but we shall see.
Secondly, on the “clutch” statistic. So what if his number is that? Kobe’s number last year… 25.3 (worse than Jacksons) and would you rather have anyone else taking the shot? I wouldn’t. The “clutch” statistic is something that is not perfected and I think is something that really shouldn’t be taken into account until they come up with something better. Jackson is “clutch” because he plays excellent in big games, makes big shots in big games. Just because he doesn’t hit the game winner against the Cavs shouldn’t disprove his clutchness. You have to watch him play rather than look at stats and stats alone.
I think your hope for Jackson would be optimistic but fair. If you think he didn't have much in Charlotte, I'm not sure the offensive options are that much better on the Bucks anyways.
Kobe isn’t comparable to Jackson to me, due to some combinations of his MVPs, NBA Championships, All-NBA honors, All-Star honors and overall production, in comparison so Jackson’s lack of all of the above and his one-round “run” as an 8th seed with the Warriors in a single season. To say I’m denying the existence of a second Kobe or some like-kind talent on the Bucks with my approach doesn’t seem quite right to me.
With regard to clutch, the small sample size is undeniable, but that’s why I looked at the trend over several season and also compared to the numbers across NBA with others who played big minutes in the clutch. Is the entire NBA a poor basis for comparison? I can’t just say he’s clutch because people tell me he’s clutch…it doesn’t exactly connect with reality.
I’m up for more conversion, but what is the push back based on? Examples, anecdotes?
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 6:41 PM CST up reply actions
IIm not saying comparable, I’m just saying that Kobe’s numbers obviously dipped and it wasn’t because he was “aging” or because he played too many minutes, it was because he didn’t have any options. I’m not arguing for a comparison of the players but rather the situation. The situation of the bucks with a second capable scorer/distributer in Jennings and a solid post man in Bogut is unquantifiabley better than what he had in Charlotte. Wallace is a nice player but you make plays so that he can score or he does it off of hustle not creating his own thing. Augestein couldn’t create at all. Thus it was in Jackson’s hands most of the time. I look for him to get more open shots in Milwaukee and thus he will have a spike in efficiency, or maybe I am off on this simple assessment and am simplifying it too much.
And in going back to last year, for the points per 48 minutes on the clutch statistic, he was 18th in the league. This I believe is a much batter rate of efficiency than field goal percentage. Can he score when the game is on the line and it would seem to clearly indicate yes. In fact he was much better than Wade, Anthony and Joe Johnson.
and, if you want to go with field goal % his was actually higher than some of the bigger names on the chart. His was 41.2%, higher than Kobe, Rose, Durant, Billups, Kevin Martin, Wade, and a touch under Melo’s (who some people consider to be the best in the biz). Additionally, his EXTREME higher percentage over Jennings (31%) ought to be a welcoming sight for Milwaukee fans.
See but the Jennings thing is what I'm talking about...it cuts against the cast being better than in Charlotte.
Augustin and Jennings are comparable to me, and from there the Bucks don’t have isolation players either (including Jennings).
Check this out: http://www.brewhoop.com/2011/12/16/2639802/milwaukee-bucks-season-preview-creating-shots-in-the-clutch-ian-levy
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 7:09 PM CST up reply actions
I just don’t think you give Jackson enough credit here. A year ago he received an MVP vote for leading the Bobcats to the playoff, I just don’t see his drop off from then to now being that drastic. Maybe he’s not the most efficient person in the world but he will average 20/5/5 and not many players in the league can do that and have that skill set.
So do you believe he will be an MVP type guy for the Bucks this year?
Or that he is that caliber of player? I know you don’t like what I have said, which is fine, but where do you come out on Jackson this year and next?
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 7:22 PM CST up reply actions
I think that he can be. His stats and efficiency are a reflection of the talent around him more than his aging. Some night he really doesn’t have it, like on opening night. But I’ve seen him go off in big games. He can d up some of the games best in Bryant, James, Wade etc. In fact he held Wade to his worst game ever two years ago. Something like 7 points on 1-14 shooting. This year Jackson can be that MVP guy (as in getting a vote not actually winning it) and if his back holds up I think he can do it for another two years. Hes played with injuries his whole career. And as you alluded to earlier in the write up, his game isn’t predicated on athleticism. He has a high basketball IQ. Also I think playing smaller guards/more post ups will help his aging.
Regardless, I always enjoy reading what you and the other contributes have to write. Thanks for taking the time and having this banter with me
Hey, it's been fun for me too. You can't have such firm opinion if you aren't reading the article in the first place, so I'm always thankful for that.
The push back is fun to because it forces us to take our opinions even deeper and see if they can hold up…it’s the essence of the whole blog universe.
I am interested to see how Jackson goes through his time with the Bucks. You have given me a bit to think about, and I will be watching along the way as always to see how it plays out.
Good to hear from you JSlotter, hope you comment again.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 8:13 PM CST up reply actions
But maybe we are just avoiding the point here...
What are you saying about Jackson. That he is good? Great? or just not terrible? Because I think he’s not terrible, but far from quality starting material and much less than his rep would suggest…but not terrible. Decent in spots, maybe.
So what is it you are fighting for here? How do you see Jackson. I’m still not sure.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 7:11 PM CST up reply actions
Points just could be a function of opportunity though...not necessarily skill. That's why points don't work quite as well.
I could tell you that Brandon Jennings scored 15.5 points per game in his rookie season, or I could tell you he was one of the most inefficient players in the NBA and it took him more possessions/shots than almost any other player would need to score those same points. Which information is more valuable?
To me, the fact that Jackson scored points in the clutch is less valuable than knowing how he got those points…which was almost always worst than his peers in the clutch. He can’t be a good clutch player if almost everyone else is better at converting shots than him.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Dec 30, 2011 7:07 PM CST up reply actions
I guess I'll eat my own words
At least for the for the first five games. He has looked unexplosive and really unpassionate. Maybe he has to knock off a lot of rust but other than his shots not falling he just isn’t as active as he once was. It makes me pretty sad watching him.
Jackson or Maggette?
Bottom line on the Captain Jack for Corey Maggette exchange: Maggette is a 20 point per night guy, which is why he and his 10 million dollar contract came to Milwaukee. But, though Corey is the nicest guy in the world, he would not dive for balls in practice and scamper around wasting energy like Skiles likes to see. $10M sat on the bench. Milwaukee was last in offense last year.
This year? Now we have an older guy w/ some attitude who will definitely not be expending a bunch of energy on non stat categories (like defense) because he’s looking to sign that last contract. So, we’ve sent Corey packing after wasting a year of his life and now we have Jax wasting a year of our lives. What does that equal? Some folks need to get fired. Harsh I know, but Milwaukee is a bit of a laughing stock and it’s sad.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Brew Hoop
Related FanShots on Brew Hoop
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
