Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Yu Darvish Diagnosed With Mariners Fever

Nuggets 91, Bucks 86: Al Harrington And Danilo Gallinari Too Much For Milwaukee In 4th

Box Score / HoopData Advanced Box

No rest, no Nene, and apparently no ability to make layups. Not exactly George Karl's typical recipe for success, but against a sloppy, unimpressive Milwaukee squad it didn't matter.

Mark it down as a major missed opportunity for the Bucks, who had every opportunity to steal a precious road win against a short-handed opponent playing its third game in as many nights. Instead, Scott Skiles watched the Nuggets outwork the bigger Bucks on the boards (49-38), while Denver's aggressiveness in transition and off the dribble earned them a +14 advantage at the line and +24 in points scored at the rim.

All told, Denver's best players soundly outplayed their Milwaukee counterparts and in the end that made the outcome feel about right. Ty Lawson (16 points on 13 shots, six assists, one turnover) bettered Brandon Jennings (5/16 fg, 12 pts, 3 ast, 6 to), Danilo Gallinari was steady and efficient with 21 points and 10 boards on just 12 shots, and Al Harrington (17 points on 12 shots, eight rebs) ran circles around the bigger Andrew Bogut and everyone else the Bucks threw at him. Not the way the Bucks wanted to kick off their five game Western road trip, but they don't have much time to dwell on it with a game in Utah on Tuesday night.

Star-divide

With their Brazilian big man sidelined with a sore foot, the Nuggets went conventional in the early going with former Ohio State big man Kosta Koufos lining up next to Russian seven-footer Timofey Mozgov to start. While Koufos was solid, the Nuggets' big lineups seemed to suit the Bucks just fine: Milwaukee didn't turn it over in the first and led by six after one quarter thanks in large part to 11 points off seven Nuggets turnovers.

Milwaukee extended to a nine-point lead midway through the second, but then the Bucks started to get sloppy themselves. Seven turnovers in the period allowed the Nuggets to up the tempo, with run-outs, penetration and ball movement leading to plenty of wide-open looks. Most of them seemed to go awry for Denver--heavy legs don't help jump-shooting--but they still managed to claw back to an even 48-48 at intermission. The Nuggets then went back to their starters coming out of halftime, but the Bucks shook off their recent third quarter troubles with a solid 26-20 effort in the period.

So in the fourth Karl did exactly what George Karl would do: go small. Really small. With his team trailing 77-71 with 10 minutes remaining, Karl subbed Danilo Gallinari in for Chris Andersen and shifted Harrington to center, despite the five inches and 20 or so pounds he would be surrendering to Bogut in the middle. Not surprisingly, Harrington's quickness and ability to step outside caused problems for the Bucks' defensively, as he twice lost Bogut for dunks and scored eight in the period. It also drew Bogut away from the hoop and opened up more driving lanes for the Nuggets, who struggled to finish all night but got enough chances to make the Bucks pay.

Even so, the Bucks' bigger problems were perhaps predictably on the other end, where the sharp ball movement that served them so well in the season's first week abandoned them down the stretch. Harrington also showed terrific strength on the block against Bogut, who struggled to back down his smaller defender and missed his only two shots in the game's final nine minutes.

That was an unfortunate theme for the Bucks, who had four chances to take the lead or tie the game in the final 76 seconds. Following a step-back three from Delfino and a jumper from Jackson to cut the Denver lead to 87-86, Jennings missed a good look at a three, Jackson front-rimmed another clean look, and Bogut came up well short on a hook from the right baseline, each of which would have given the Bucks the lead. To make matters worse, Ersan Ilyasova seemed unaware of the clock situation on Bogut's last miss, failing to foul the Nuggets in the backcourt and instead letting Ty Lawson eventually get an uncontested layup to stretch the lead to three.

Despite that, the Bucks still had a chance to tie with 11 seconds remaining and Delfino inbounding from sidecourt, but Jennings opted to shoot an immediate three from straight away rather than pass back to Delfino on the left wing. Ilyasova again forgot to foul immediately, but Gallinari's cinching free throws made it academic.

Three Bucks

Carlos Delfino. Carlitos was a late addition to the starting lineup but also the only Buck starter who didn't disappoint. With Mike Dunleavy out due to illness, Delfino followed up his strong debut on Friday with 14 points on 11 shots, a team-high nine rebounds, three assists, three steals, two blocks and just one turnover in a game-high 42 minutes.

Jon Leuer. The former Badger started brightly by hitting his first three shots (all mid-range jumpers) and made 4/5 on the night, the only Buck to hit better than 50%. The problem is that Leuer has become Bogut's de facto backup, so when Bogut came back for the final nine minutes it also meant Leuer became a spectator. It's understandable that Skiles wanted Luc Mbah a Moute on the court to defend Gallinari at PF for much of the fourth, but you also wonder how many quiet games Ilyasova (who reappeared down the stretch) can have before he loses more of his minutes to Leuer and Luc.

Beno Udrih. Never a good sign when two guys who played fewer than 15 minutes make the "Three Bucks" section, but these things can happen when the starters are as lackluster as they are tonight. Udrih managed seven points and four assists in his 12 minutes of action, but didn't see the court in the final 15 minutes after taking a bodycheck to the shoulder from Andre Miller off the ball. His lack of footspeed likely would have played a role in Skiles' hesitation to match him up with Ty Lawson, but you still wonder if he might have been able to do something to help stop the bleeding in the fourth quarter.

Three Numbers

25/45. Tired teams typically settle for more jump shots, so maybe the Nuggets weren't tired after all? Denver took a staggering 28 more shots at the rim than the Bucks (25/45 vs. 13/17) in addition to attempting 16 more free throws, making up for relatively shoddy finishing by getting to the rim time and time again.

12. The Bucks' offense did them no favors in the fourth, as they scored a measly 12 points and missed their final five shots.

49-38. Perhaps my biggest concern with the early season Bucks: they've now been outrebounded by nine or more in three of four games.

Two Good

Luc returns. The Bucks weren't short on forwards to begin with, but it's obviously still very good news to see Luc Mbah a Moute on the court rather than in a suit. Mbah a Moute was his usual versatile self on the court, grabbing six boards and blocking a pair of shots in addition to six points on six shots in 21 minutes.

Mbah a Moute's return and Leuer's continued refusal to play like a rookie also meant another limited night for Drew Gooden, who was the first man off the bench but played just six first half minutes. Depth is nice, but you have to think the Bucks will be listening to offers from teams in need of power forward depth, with Ilyasova and Brockman presumably the most obvious candidates to be dealt for a pick or a legit center.

Depth. The Bucks expect to get Dunleavy back tomorrow and will no doubt benefit on this trip from having a bunch of bodies available up front and on the wings.

Three Bad

Starless. Not a good night for the Bucks' biggest names.

Jennings was at his best late in games last week, but he came up empty when it mattered most tonight. Meanwhile, Lawson was steady and continually set up teammates for good looks, even if Denver couldn't hit a jump shot most of the night (1/10 on long twos, 4/19 threes).

Then there's Bogut, who ate up Mozgov on the game's first three possessions but couldn't figure out Harrington late. Even with two supposedly healthy arms, the Aussie once again couldn't find his rhythm in the post and has yet to shoot better than 50% from the field in a game this season. One would think it's only a matter of time before Bogut starts dropping in hooks shots at a more respectable rate, but after four games we're still waiting.

As for Stephen Jackson, he led the Bucks with 17 points but needed 18 shots to do it. While it was encouraging to see him taking it to the hoop more regularly and he also added four assists, Jackson also took a number of those step-back jumpers that defenses love to concede. He's been taking that shot for years and probably feels no inclination to stop, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to complain, right?

Missed opportunities. The Bucks couldn't have asked for a better set of circumstances heading into the game, but they let the Nuggets boss the tempo for much of the game and didn't execute down the stretch.

Settling. While the Nuggets pushed the tempo and got to the hoop at will, the Bucks were the ones looking a bit tired and willing to settle for jump shots for most of the nights. Afterall, playing up-tempo is only fun when it's not the other team doing all the running and gunning. Overall, Milwaukee took 25 more shots between 10 and 23 feet and connected on just 14/37.

Comment 30 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Dont like the title of the article

I dont give Denver credit at all for that win. When you score 12 points in the 4th quarter, mainly because everyone refused to get a good shot up, its more on the Bucks then the Nuggets.

by Collin B on Jan 3, 2012 1:51 AM CST reply actions  

disappointing to miss a pretty good opportunity to go 3-1!

At least redemption could be immediate. Here’s hoping.

by AussieTom on Jan 3, 2012 2:49 AM CST reply actions  

That rebounding trend is quite disturbing, the Bucks have moved into the bottom half of the league in rebounding rates and differentials.

I’m sure the emphasis on transition has had something to do with that, and it has allowed the Bucks to move up somewhere around 20th in offensive efficiency (wow that offensive efficiency phrase sucks to write), so I wonder if Skiles will revert back to the pound it out. No transition would mean more players crashing the boards, but would also push the Bucks back into half-court offense full time. I think Gooden could actually help the situation, even if it sounds like crazy talk.

SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | Twitter: @stevevonhorn

by Steve von Horn on Jan 3, 2012 7:05 AM CST reply actions  

More Bogut offense = less rebounding...??

They obviously thought Bogut had the big advantage last night. So they went to him a lot. But he gets mediocre position (not very close) and takes awkward, mediocre shots (seemed to me his % was 35-40% or so). And with everyone rushing back on defense, there is almost zero chance of an offensive rebound.

(To me that’s a losing strategy, just like the mediocre outside shots that his teammates take out of rhythm are a losing strategy.)

If there’s anything to this, a healthy Bogut is hurting our rebounding. Go figure.

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 9:08 AM CST up reply actions  

I disagree...

Boguts offense has little to zero impact on his defensive rebounding… he catches fairly deep and makes a move but nothing that would expend an inordinate amount of energy… I don’t know what happened last night but our entire team seemingly played with Drew Goodens mentality last night

by Superelkman on Jan 3, 2012 10:34 AM CST up reply actions  

not defensive rebounding

I was basically saying that when Bogut takes the shot we virtually never get an offensive rebound. So more Bogut shots equals fewer offensive rebounds. That’s not major in overall rebounding, but it doesn’t help. And IMO it doesn’t help our offense.

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 10:50 AM CST up reply actions  

Yeah... slightly harder for him to get back as the shooter...

I still like going to Bogut a good amount… if they double kicking it out and swinging it will almost always set you up for a good shot… Bogut needs to work on getting deeper catches though… there is no excuse for not being able to set up under the hoop against Al Harrington… Harrington did a great job of keeping Bogut out an extra couple of feet

by Superelkman on Jan 3, 2012 10:52 AM CST up reply actions  

I'd hope

that 3 Bucks could immediately get back on defense. And the PF could crash the boards on a Bogut shot for a rebound/put-back. Is 3 not enough?

Denver had 2 or 3 men under the hoop for Bogut’s shots. The PF can run with them.

And, yes, Bogut doesn’t get close enough. I like like-to-love going to Bogut for inside offense — but right now it looks like the percentage is with the house, er, the opponent.

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 11:09 AM CST up reply actions  

I completely agree...

The focus on transitioning is having an effect on the boards… that said… the Bucks looked groggy and lazy for the latter part of that game…

Not securing defensive boards, allowing WAY too many open 3’s, and getting burned on fast breaks are all signs of a lack of effort which is really concerning…

I can deal with a loss but not one where we weren’t the harder working team

by Superelkman on Jan 3, 2012 10:33 AM CST up reply actions  

"Horrible, sloppy, badly-paced game that was a torture to watch"

That’s what the Denver SB Nation recap says. And that description resonates for me.

At the end of the game thread here, I said I felt the Bucks were not THAT bad. Meaning that I saw this as a bad game for this year’s team, while a bad game for last year’s team would have been worse. True or not, I have calmly decided that subjecting myself to Bucks torture is an unnecessary form of masochism.

The Bucks team can and should be better than it is. And it may be s-l-o-w-l-y becoming better. But the bad in them is largely mental, and I don’t know why fixing it is so prolonged and painful. I’m much less willing to watch and wait for them to get better. They are going to have to prove it to me.

I’m going to watch tonight’s game, as I usually do. If it’s a good game, then life goes on under the existing paradigms. If it’s another edition of horrible, sloppy and badly-paced, then until further development, the games go to the DVR and I don’t watch a minute of them until I find out what kind of game it was. Yes, that means knowing the result before watching — which is not what sport is all about.

I retain hope for the development of the team, but can’t watch further large doses of last night’s futility. Call me half a fan if you want. That’s pretty appropriate since I’m following a team that is only half there above the neck.


Skiles was candid in his post-game interview. Said shot selection was “horrendous”. Talked about too much dribbling and not enough passing. But he sounded like a fan. If he’s the man in charge, why can’t he change things, both during the game and between games?

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 8:56 AM CST reply actions  

Skiles strikes me as the kind of coach

who wants his players to help coach themselves. If you watch a game live, you’ll see that every time he takes a timeout, he confers with his assistants for the vast majority of the down time, leaving the players to themselves. He’ll go over just before the end of the timeout and give one or two points, but that’s it.

I don’t know if that’s a good approach or not, but I can see how it would work with the right mix of players. I think this team has enough veterans where it could work.

http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.

by Mitchell Maurer on Jan 3, 2012 10:21 AM CST up reply actions  

Genuine questions, not sarcasm

If Coach Skiles thinks the shot selection is, his word, horrendous, can’t he change it during a timeout?

If he thinks, his description, they’re dribbling, not moving, can’t he demand that they pass and move?

AFAIK, we don’t have spoiled, temperamental players. Won’t those instructions make sense to them?

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 11:04 AM CST up reply actions  

yes, and i think those would be summed up in the one or two points he makes...

if he gets preachy and throws like 12 things at them they aren’t realistically going to be able to apply all of them… emphasizing one or two things is a far better strategy imo…

by Superelkman on Jan 3, 2012 11:40 AM CST up reply actions  

Jackson and Livingston passing

They’ve had more than there share of attacking passes that failed to work. Someone analyze that for me.

Are they just not used to playing with teammates that do little to make an attacking pass work?

Are they not-great, gambling passers?

BTW, I’m lately not liking Livingston as much as I wanted to like him. He could really have helped last night but looked pretty much useless. Those post-ups had looked assured and comfortable. Lately they look forced. His court vision was said to be very good, but it doesn’t do much lately. He doesn’t even seem to be fitting in. Or adding energy.

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 9:24 AM CST reply actions  

I think we have too high of expectations for Livingston...

he is a backup PG for a reason and is doing alright on the season…

by Superelkman on Jan 3, 2012 10:37 AM CST up reply actions  

overly high expectations? Could be.

I personally am a sucker for a player described as gifted with good court vision and a belief in team.

Add to that the opinion I read that Hammond may have wanted Livingston as much or more than he wanted Jackson, and there is some reason for expectation.

Plus I think Livingston was praised by Skiles and got better minutes early on than he has lately.

I’d have guessed that the reason for the back-up label was the knee, not the talent. Wasn’t he a top 5 draft pick?

NOT suggesting that he’s proven himself to be no more that “just alright.” Only saying he’s not playing particularly well right now. The Udrih injury apparently isn’t major, but it might give L some increased PT.

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 10:58 AM CST up reply actions  

I think Miller had more to do with Livingston's post-up troubles than anything.

It seemed that was always the match-up and Miller is a load at pg. I think Livingston will post-up more effectively in the future.

by Finkle_is_Einhorn on Jan 3, 2012 5:48 PM CST up reply actions  

By playing Jennings the entire 4th quarter, Skiles didn't seem to show a lot of confidence in Livingston at PG.

That might have just been the matchups. Perhaps he didn’t feel comfortable with Livingston guarding Lawson on the perimeter. I know Jennings is young, but in that altitude, it would have been good for him to get a rest early in the fourth. It may have allowed Skiles some opportunities to coach him up/calm him down on the bench too.

by Brick's house on Jan 3, 2012 9:25 AM CST reply actions  

Per Bucks PR on Twitter:
#Bucks guard Beno Udrih suffered a left shoulder contusion in the 3rd quarter last night. He’s listed as day-to-day.

Good to see there isn’t any tears or broken bones. It sucks that the injury is on his shooting shoulder though.

by Brick's house on Jan 3, 2012 9:45 AM CST reply actions  

That was quite a collision.

Andre Miller looked like James Harrison.

Maya: "What are your first impressions of Denver?"
Mozgov: "I must break you..."

by margabelle on Jan 3, 2012 12:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Is Harrington doing Hamlet's soliloquy to celebrate an and1?

Maya: "What are your first impressions of Denver?"
Mozgov: "I must break you..."

by margabelle on Jan 3, 2012 12:15 PM CST reply actions  

a mirror?

Sometimes it seems Brandon is a mirror that reflects his team. When the team is active and creative, he works with that well.

When the team goes into zombie mode, he loses attack and makes impulsive, short-sighted decisions.

(One would hope the PG influences the team rather that the other way around, but that would take leadership. Jennings is still trying to figure himself out. If he manages that, he may have time to think “team.”)

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 2:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Leuer impressive

I watched / listened to the first half of the game with the Denver announcers. They were impressed with Leuer and the fact that he was a second round pick.
If I were captain of a pick up game and had a choice between Leuer or Sanders…. well.. Sanders could sell the popcorn.

by DAVEO623 on Jan 3, 2012 3:20 PM CST reply actions  

Denver announcers

Were really annoying and whiny!

by kanyon on Jan 3, 2012 4:13 PM CST up reply actions  

unklchuk, in the role of fan last night,

…was really annoying and whiny

(not happy with the play)

by unklchuk on Jan 3, 2012 4:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Milwaukee Bucks.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Clemson-38-va-tech-10_small
NBA Draft Big Board (15+)
Whammyfy2_small
State of the Milwaukee Bucks
Lanier1_small
The Canada Bucks Big Board 2012
Small
Bucks... Looking Ahead To 2013..
Lanier1_small
Canada Bucks Mock Draft 2012 v2.01
Small
Skiles and Team Chemistry
Jenkins_fearless_1280x1024_small
Two Recent Story Links
Clemson-38-va-tech-10_small
All In On The 8th; Plus Draft Stuff, And John Salmons
Jenkins_fearless_1280x1024_small
Ekpe Udoh
Lanier1_small
The CB 2012 Mock Draft 1-14 First Edition

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Frank_small Frank Madden

Capture_small Alex Boeder

Editors

Milwaukee_bucks_modern_logo_small Dan Sinclair

Bruv__316x634___316x634___316x634__small Steve von Horn

Authors

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Front_small Jacob Grinyer