Andrew Bogut Update: Surgery Not Expected On Left Ankle, But Return Still Unclear
A month after fracturing his left ankle in Houston, Andrew Bogut got mostly good news from his latest check-up this week, as John Hammond today announced that Bogut's recovery was progressing as expected and that his ankle would likely not require surgery.
"On Tuesday (February 21), Andrew had a CT scan performed on his injured left ankle. The results of the scan were reviewed by Bucks orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Michael Gordon, along with additional foot and ankle specialists who agreed that Bogut's ankle was healing appropriately and at this time surgery is not indicated.
"Bogut will be allowed to progress to the next stage of his rehabilitation program, and will undergo an additional scan in approximately one month. The initial recovery period of 8-to-12 weeks has not changed."
So despite the nominally good news about Bogut's recovery, the question of whether he can return this season appears as unclear today as it did a month ago.
We're now around four weeks into the suggested 8-12 week recovery period, which would mean Bogut could return as early as a month from now or as late as the end of April, coinciding with end of the regular season. Either way, with the Bucks' recent struggles dropping them into 10th in the East and 2.5 games back of Boston for the final playoff spot, it's looking increasingly unlikely that the Bucks will earn a postseason berth no matter when Bogut returns.
Needless to say, that's a big problem for a franchise that made returning to the playoffs its number one priority heading into the lockout-shortened 11/12 campaign. Instead, the Bucks find themselves staring at the possibility of NBA purgatory for the second year in a row: not good enough for a playoff spot, but not bad enough to claim a potential difference-maker in the June draft either. That would likely be a worst-case scenario for the franchise, though you can argue it's not much worse than sneaking into the playoffs only to be swept away by the Heat or Bulls (who would effectively have home games in Milwaukee anyway).
The reality is that the Bucks remain torn between the short-term credibility provided by wins and the long-term need for a core good enough to not only make the playoffs but do something once they get there. The Bucks understandably hoped that Bogut and Brandon Jennings could provide that foundation after their surprising 46-win season in 2010, but almost two years later we still don't know whether Bogut and Jennings are long-term building blocks or simply placeholders marketed as such.
Bogut's injuries have clearly been a huge challenge to figuring out what the Bucks really have to work with, while the sparkle of Jennings' breakout December/January has faded with his struggles in February. Either way, one thing that is clear: the Bucks have no untouchables right now. Bogut's injury will make him an unlikely trading chip until the offseason at the earliest, while a deal involving Jennings would also seem unlikely until the summer. Since Hammond has arrived, the Bucks have done almost all of their major wheeling and dealing around the time of the draft, with the most notable exception being their acquisition of John Salmons at the trade deadline in 2010. Moreover, if the Bucks do hit the reset button on Bogut and/or Jennings, it would only make sense to wait until closer to draft night, when drafting positions have been determined and prospects have been more closely evaluated.
So what happens in the short term? Given their position in the standings, a major win-now move ahead of the March 15 deadline would seem both less likely and more futile than in previous years, so the better question is probably whether the Bucks will entertain selling off assets like Ersan Ilyasova if they don't turn things around in the coming weeks. Bogut's possible return could also be an issue in this regard; Hammond and company might be tempted to hold off on becoming a seller at the deadline if they think Bogut could return for the final month of the season. Unfortunately, uncertainty all too often breeds complacency, something the Bucks might not have the luxury of affording much longer.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Shut him down!
Even if he’s healthy to return in a month, what’s the point?
Even w/ him, the Bucks are going no where – and I might kick a puppy if they bring Bogut back with the hope being the sacrificial lamb for Miami – while killing any chance of them landing a high lottery pick.
Shut Gooden down, too! ; )
Seriously…. they need to go into full “stealth” tank mode. Time for BJ, Ersan, and whoever else to start missing games w/ back spasms, sore hamstrings, etc…
They might not end up w/ a top 3 pick – but if they end up with 5-8, I’ll be happy.
with 6 you get egg rolls
Even if Bogut plays, he will be totally out of shape. Let his foot heal through the summer….. I would like to see more of Luer and the other young Bucks.
He needs to work on his offense
So better this year than next if he’s 100%.
by toasterrebound on Feb 24, 2012 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
Lakers playing let's sign a has-been?
First they give Arenas a try-out and now evidently will sign Rasheed Wallace, there’s a move that will make a difference.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
Scott Skiles Remains at the Helm...
..and while he does, for three seasons now, he’ll run this team toward the post season until they are mathmatically eliminated. And then, a few more games. I marvel at those that still insist a ‘tank job’ is in order knowing the way Skiles operates. He knows only one direction, and he’ll mix and match his rotations to get him pointed that way.
He doesn’t care about trades, the inclination of a fans hope of drafting high, or the general consensus that an eight spot is sure doom. Post season is all he coaches for, and those that desire anything less will spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to sell the virtues of the opposite to anyone who will listen. I’ve simply learned to enjoy the ride…no matter how bumpy it gets>>>
Isn't that the way the coach should operate though?
It’s frustrating for us but why shouldn’t he try to win, I guess I wouldn’t want a coach that would do anything less. It’s up to Hammond to tell him to put the engines on idle.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
Is it?
A coach that thinks only of the “battle” in front of him is locked into the short view. His pursuit of one battle victory may hurt the war effort. His use of his troops may leave his squad weaker in future battles. But, yes, he must work within the mandates given him by the top general (GM) and the president (owner) and winning the battle is Job #1. But simultaneously he also needs to operate in a way that is healthy for the war overall.
Put another way, if Skiles focus on winning every game is within the war plan, OK. But if it comes from a core stubbornness and listens to no reason, then it is crap.
If the Milwaukee Bucks were a movie thriller (don’t be alarmed, they won’t be), then Skiles never smiling on the bench (except for those sad small smiles that measure his angst) (as commented by that Rafe guy) then that would be the telltale symptom of coming madness…
Of course that’s a joke. But Skiles IS wound tight — a burden he seems incapable of sharing with anyone but himself. Picture him on the carnival carrousel, holding fiercely to a dull-eyed wooden horse, looking neither right nor left, going up and down and up and down, etc., until the camera pans away in silent shock.
Portrait of the Sullen Jackass?
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 25, 2012 10:40 AM CST up reply actions
INCOMING>>>>
Rarely appreciated ‘war-like’ metaphors in football where they at least have some common ground. Yet, to use this sort of language withint the context of hoops is just__________?
Additionally, I get it, and frankly it seems like an oracle of the obvious the Coaches play to win, and the playoffs is all that winning is about. My point was addressing more of the otherside, those that insist that in spite of that, losing should be part of the itinerary.
Can’t have both ways. And, if one understands the ‘winniing vs. purposeful losing’ why banter on the latter has though it is real? This whole playoff vs. higher draft thing never quit computed with me?
I'm fine if you hate military images.
They turn my stomach too. But aren’t sports minature wars? Little models of war. With brevity a premium I’ll dirty my hands. Especially with Skiles. In most of the infinite number of parallel universes, Skiles is career military.
by unklchuk on Feb 25, 2012 12:13 PM CST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
I wonder if Skiles would be the staff sergeant that everyone hates.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 25, 2012 1:37 PM CST up reply actions
thank you...great point
skiles and the team will coach and play their hearts out, we can only hope hammond can collect the right talent, before the deadline or in the off season.
Hammond's Job
It is up to John Hammond to set the tone for the rest of the year. As noted, Skiles is a fighter and will fight for every win. Trading Ersan presumably will make it very difficult for Skiles to win. This is the big decision in front of John Hammond at the trade deadline. I still don’t see the Bucks trading Brandon Jennings or Andrew Bogut in the off-season unless we get a deal that we can’t refuse. We made the playoffs with them a couple of years ago and I expect that John Hammond will believe that he can repeat the success with the right pieces around them. This is the reason that the development of Harris and Leuer is so important.
They made the playoffs a few yrs ago w/ Bogut pre-injury, and the league hadn't quite figured our BJ at that point
They also had Salmons playing great [contract yr] and really good team chemistry…. all of those factors are long gone.
The league now knows how to play BJ [contested long jumpers] – Bogut will never be the same player he was becoming at the time of the injury – they haven’t been able to replace Salmons’ scoring – and their chemistry sucks.
I’d like to think JH knows all this, and will plan accordingly….
Not sure if this is the case
The league now knows how to play BJ [contested long jumpers]
Ho do you explain January then? The chemistry thing is over-rated too, winning teams have good chemistry, losing teams bad chemistry. Two years ago the stars were aligned correctly and everything went the way it had to for the Bucks tp make the playoffs. Management and fans alike over-rated the team and thought the Bucks weere closer than they actually were. Even without the injuries we were probably little better than .500 last year and this year. We are short on talent, plain and simple, there are two guys on our team who might start for half or more of the teams in the league, the rest is just role players. If everyone on the team plays to their capapbilites and there are no major injuries we would contend for 7th or 8th. Need to make trades for players who might emerge with a chance from us, develop our youngsters, and hope we hit a good pick.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
by CanadaBucks on Feb 25, 2012 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
"The chemistry thing is over-rated too, winning teams have good chemistry, losing teams bad chemistry."
You are a very good poster here, CB. If that fact makes what I say in this post ridiculous, so be it.
I hate that quoted phrase. The phrase (not you! not you!) strikes me as smug, and dismissive, and in denial about the qualities that make a group activity like a sports team work well or not work well. It seems to suggest that only talent determines team success. And that team cohesion, that the anticipation that comes from knowing each other very well, and that the hoops intelligence that knows how to grab the win using the tools that the team has. That these things don’t figure in.
Chemistry is not automatic. You don’t put a bunch of men together on a team and say, “Look at that. They have great chemistry.” Instead it develops toward its potential as the men work together. Smart players are better at it than dumb players. Players who have brains that can track everything happening on the court are better at it. Players with egos comfortable being part of a group are better at it.
CB, if you publish a scholarly paper proving that everything I’ve said is wrong, then you will simultaneously have proven that I am not a sports fan.
What would you call it if I posted a scholarly paper?
Plagarism
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
I fall short of understanding.
Is that phrase your “child”? Have I impugned it? Or it’s father?
To me it’s a phrase that denies the magic in sports. Magic is shorthand for IMO real things that I, well, treasure. I must speak out.
INCOMING HIGH-FALUTING:
If the chemistry I describe is real then sports can be a model for society working better together. I’d like that.
by unklchuk on Feb 25, 2012 2:01 PM CST via Android app up reply actions
I was being self-deprecating
Does sports mirror life? I don’t think so. Can sports be a model for soceity working better together? Maqybe 30-40 years ago but not now, it’s all too self-serving.(cynic alert)
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
I'm not going to post any more on this now
But I plan to give it some thought. Right now those thoughts are largely unformed.
I do think models can (and perhaps must) come out of profane circumstances. The flower growing out of the garbage. OK, stopping that right now.
Self-deprecating. Why bother? Cynics are normally expected to be cynical about OTHER people. That’s usually considered to be more entertaining.
Must leave computer. Must shower and attend Saturday church.
I was responding to bwpngolds comment that JH might try to replicate the magic of two yrs ago
And simply stated my counter point.
He implied that JH build around BJ and AB – and two yrs ago it made more sense… not so much now IMO.
And I still contend that BJs rookie success had a lot to do w/ teams not really knowing him as a player [maybe because no college fim?] I dunno
I guess I was just saying that I don’t see BJ and AB as the building blocks they appeared to be 2 yrs ago…
And we can agree to disagree on the importance of chemistry, CB ; )
The subject of chemistry
I think what I mean is that people use that as an excuse i.e. If a team that you think has sufficent talent doesn’t deliver then it must be chemistry or lack thereof. I tend to believe more in karma/kismet/fate etc and teams being at the right place aat the right time, the 1982 St. Louis Cards or this years NY Giants being prime examples. Were they the best teams? No. Did they win because of chemistry? I don’t think so , it was more everything going their way.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
I think it's harder to pin point when good chemistry helps propel a team
versus when a collection of superior talent fails to meet an expected goal…
Pro sports of full of teams with big name players that should win titles, only to come up short to so called “underdogs” – making it easy for us fans and the media to blame the lack of chemistry.
Jeesh… just look at the Yankees and Red Sox… for all the obscene amount of money they spend, they have 3 titles combined since 2001.
"I think what I mean is that people use that as an excuse..."
The way I use it, lack of chemistry is a description of a failing. Not in any way an excuse — just like you wouldn’t say that the inability to rebound is an excuse. It’s a reason, but it doesn’t excuse. As I’ve said, I view chemistry as the ability to do a lot of subtle or less obvious things in concert. A little bit like when they describe a jazz quartet as playing like one organism — not four.
Being a professional musician, I was gonna bring up the whole "playing as one" and "synergy"argument
But I didn’t want to sound like a know-it-all ; )
See, the reason I'm with Canada as it being an excuse is because the analysis on chemistry is always made ex post facto.
For example, chuk, IIRC you thought S-Jax would be a good mentor and leader when the season started. The Bucks lost a bunch of games, and the chemistry turned bad. Nobody said the chemistry would be bad when the season began (or even when Jennings had his short and amazing blip of great play), but as soon as things went sour the whole chemistry thing went into play.
Honestly, they all just started to play worse. At least to me. The whole chemistry assessment always seems like a proxy to wins and losses to me. It’s not very informative…Take a look back at our exclusive interview with Weltmann from the summer, and the chemistry question is the one I submitted for the site.
To be clear, I believe there is such a thing as chemistry of talents but everywhere else the chemistry label seeps in doesn’t really resonate with me.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 10:02 AM CST up reply actions
To be fair, we all knew that there as the potential for the "chemistry" to go south
I personally never bought the “mentor” argument – and I feel that the “mentor” labe is over used as well.
I laughed every time someone mentioned the Jerry Stackhouse “veteran contributions” on the PO team from two yrs ago Maybe Kurt Thomas…. maybe. But not from Stackhouse and certainly not from Jax..
But go back and read the comments about Jax after Jennings had those few good games.
He got some credit. I’m just saying the sentiment still did exist for a bit. The cheap narrative is always there if the chemistry thing is allowed to just become whatever it wants.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
I agree
If Jennings was still good Jennings and Jackson was playing and quiet we would all say what a great mentor he was. Now he’s a cancer. Some believe Maggette was the cancer last year even though he was quiet about his lack of burn. I think some of it comes from some people having the desire to label everything and everyone. Maybe a month from now Jax and Jennings are playing well and after winning 12 of 15 we are saying how great everything is. Ok I’m dreaming.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
by CanadaBucks on Feb 26, 2012 10:51 AM CST up reply actions
If A Davis keeps up his stellar play...
What would it take to move up to get him? [for arguments sake, let’s say we have the 8th pick]
I’d be willing to swap any picks/players, except for maybe Bogut. [though I’d like to hang on to T Harris]
IMO
What would it take to move up to get him?
More than we have. When was the last time a team knowingly traded the first overall pick?
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
by CanadaBucks on Feb 26, 2012 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
True and I don't think it will this year
A GM could get strung up by the cojones for trading the first over-all pick, especially for the players we have.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
by CanadaBucks on Feb 26, 2012 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
Kind of like the argument that
A player who has won a championship previously will help in the dressing room. If that’s the case let’s sign Adam Morrison to a contract. Still hoping the short and amazing play is not the blip but the longish and underwhelming is the blip but we shall see.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
by CanadaBucks on Feb 26, 2012 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
Skiles, Hammond, & Kohl
Nothing I have read even hints that our management team is divided. They are never going to openly acknowledge that they are putting anything above winning. So far tis season, there have only been the slightest hints that they are prioritizing winning next year and beyond over this year- the minutes have been widely dispersed, the rookies have played. Hopefully we will see more hints in the second half of the season.
by Southern Marxist on Feb 25, 2012 1:05 PM CST reply actions
I'm sure they are all divided to a certain extent
They all probably have different visions for the team’s future and how they would get there, It’s just a matter of how badly they want that vision put into place. For now I think it starts with Kohl, who does want to keep winning now. I understand that, but the Bucks are also running out of time to put a good product on the floor… They’re caught in a hard place no matter what.
by Jacob Grinyer on Feb 25, 2012 2:18 PM CST up reply actions
I think you nailed in in one
Kohl says win…..we need fans…….Hammond doesn’t make the moves we think he should…….Skiles plays his idea of the best team……And as that great Canadian band sings:
lining up, waiting on the trickle down
something’s up, taking time to get around
belly up, all the drinks are on the crown
it’s just a matter of trickle down
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
I’ll bite. Ask the obvious. What great Canadian band is that?
Any band that points a finger at the “trickle down” has a leg up with me.
Tragically Hip
From the beautiful dity of Kingston, Ontario which is my home town as well. They were just starting out when I was in College.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
Running Out of Time?
Do you mean running out of time in light of the fans’ patience? The Bucks do have some young talent—Jennings, Bogut, Harris, Ilyasova and possibly Leuer and Sanders. By the way, I am not as sure at this point whether we have a good sense of Bogut’s ability to reach his pre-injury playing ability. He got hurt too early in the season and there was little in the way of pre-season. Until we know, we may have a difficult time figuring out what kind of potential this team actually has.
I meant in Milwaukee as a whole
While it’s true that the day might be away off still, building a team that truly captures a city’s attention in the NBA takes years, and the Bucks have to decide when and how they’re going to get there soon.
by Jacob Grinyer on Feb 25, 2012 4:06 PM CST up reply actions
I always thought
…that only a new owner could restore some “faith” in the team with the Milwaukee public. Would be granted the patience required to rebuild the team.
I always thought that the Bucks had to show some life, having some beginning success if they hoped to attract a local owner. I thought that’s what Win Now was all about. But Win Now has been a big failure, maybe a can’t go on failure.
Maybe there’s a dramatic move that can elicit hope. I have no idea what it may be.
Re: chemistry
Has anyone here worked with someone you absolutely hated? Were you able to maintain your own personal level of acceptable performance and that of whatever team you were a part of?
Chemistry is a real thing, but it’s just impossible to quantify. Teams can succeed if the individuals don’t care for one another, but I cannot recall such an instance.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 26, 2012 11:58 AM CST reply actions
70s Yankees?
Munson, Reggie and Billy Martin?
And yes I have worked with people I hated but if they were able to do the job that’s what counts. I have employees now that hate each other and occasionally it gets in the way but I remind them that you’re here to work and that’s what counts.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
by CanadaBucks on Feb 26, 2012 12:04 PM CST up reply actions
Everyone hated MJ, but he made them better. Kobe and Shaq did it too.
I’ve heard that response Mitchell, but consider this. It’s more reasonable to think that people respond differently to different interpersonal relationships, right? If you don’t like another guy, maybe it pushes you to outperform him and make him dispensable to the team. We talk about rivalries motivating players all the time in the inter-squad setting, why wouldn’t that also be true intra-sqaud at times.
Nearly everyone responds in a unique way to the quality of interpersonal relationships. Maybe the hate makes some players better (Kobe). It just seems too difficult to accurately project our feelings on players that happiness automatically breeds better play 100% of the time.
That’s why that aspect of chemistry has no real import to me.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 12:09 PM CST up reply actions
Just because it's difficult doesn't it isn't important
Why do you think San Antonio has been so successful for so long? They managed to foster a climate of respect and work ethic, but was it the doing of just one person? Between the coach, management, team reps, and players themselves, they figured out how to succeed without jeopardizing that environment.
Of course, they were blessed with Tim Duncan, who is as boring as he is effective. But after they got him, they figured out what they wanted and based everything off of that vision. That’s what chemistry is to me: how everyone fits together under one banner.
When have the Bucks had that? Who in this organization is truly on the same page?
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 26, 2012 2:57 PM CST up reply actions
Doesn't *mean* it isn't important
/iPad fail
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 26, 2012 2:59 PM CST up reply actions
I think your of course portion is a bit more important than the rest.
Look at teams that didn’t like each other or foster a positive environment (Kobe-Shaq Lakers, the Bulls dynasty). I just don’t think it’s worth worrying about. Get the talented players and chemistry will work out fine. People tend to like winning.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 4:00 PM CST up reply actions
So I'm saying building the "good chemistry" is only as hard as building a winner.
The difficult part to have a conversation on chemistry if people aren’t willing to consider that rivalries and tougher relationships aren’t also possibly good for a player or eventually a team. Guys respond to different stuff, which I think renders the whole exercise fairly useless, especially when I think it’s all just a proxy for wins and losses.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 4:06 PM CST up reply actions
It all plays a part
But in this chicken/egg merry-go-round of a conversation, we still haven’t figured out how to fix the Bucks problems in this area.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 26, 2012 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
Sure we have.
Get more talented players.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
So in conclusion
We all agree that “bad chemistry” is a symptom of losing
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
Well last year the Grizzlies had Tony Allen punching OJ Mayo in the face during practice and they had their best season in franchise history.
But yeah, I think it’s an ex post facto observation projected onto winning and losing teams accordingly.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 4:16 PM CST up reply actions
That's the thing, though
At is level, everyone has talent. From LeBron James to Jon Brockman, everyone has either significant basketball ability or outstanding athlVeticism. It’s not about getting more talent, it’s about getting the most out of it. That’s where my notion of chemistry come in.
For the record, I don’t think chemistry has anything to do with friendship. Can’t hurt, but cooperation is much more important. And one of the overarching themes of the last decade of Milwaukee basketball is that nobody is truly cooperating, from the players to the coaches to the management to the owner. And that is what will undermine any efforts towards respectability.
We saw a glimpse of it two years ago, when Skiles got a ton out of the players and we made the playoffs. Who knows, maybe Bogut’s Elbow derailed what could have been a solid team?
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 26, 2012 4:09 PM CST up reply actions
But what does not cooperating mean?
They have a pretty solid assist rate, they spread shots around well, the have different leaders in most categories on most nights. Most everyone is playing at or around their career averages.
They are losing, but I don’t think their aren’t cooperating. They just aren’t good enough
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 4:13 PM CST up reply actions
I sense bad chemistry
Between you two, do you ever agree LOL.
They've got just enough talent and skill that teams will keep signing them and hoping they put the pieces together, until all of a sudden eight years have passed and they're John Salmons.(Rafe Bartholemew)
Yeah, I think we do on the draft. Our study turned out well.
Also, Mitchell is a pretty cool guy. I’ll bring him around on Jennings.
SB Nation Brew Hoop - Editor | SB Nation Midwest - News Desk Contributor | SB Nation Chicago - Writer | SB Nation Basketball - Scores & More | Twitter: @stevevonhorn
by Steve von Horn on Feb 26, 2012 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
NEVER
We’re just coming from two different places. Steve uses things like “facts”, whereas I’m a fan of the sorts of things that can’t be defined. That way, I never lose a debate.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 27, 2012 10:20 AM CST up reply actions
While talent is certainly low,
Cooperation cannot be measured by assist rate. Is everyone happy with the way the team is set up? Do certain players feel that they are being underutilized, or asked to do things that do not necessarily fit with their skill profile?
I guarantee you that there are several players who feel they can contribute in ways that they aren’t getting a chance to show. Jennings and Jackson are obvious, but I’d bet that Harris, Udrih, Ilyasova, and even Leuer feel that the team would have more success if they were set up differently as far as sets, rotations, and sub patterns go.
Let me put it like this: the only player on this team who is doing what he does best by design is Bogut. And where has he been?
Cooperation amongst the players is important. But that of the players and coaches and ownership is (IMO) moreso.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Feb 27, 2012 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
3 new events added to all-star festivities to excite Bucks fans!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 on 1 Layup Drill (sponsored by The Melting Pot)-
Watch Ersan Ilyasova use his amazing focus and athletic ability to miss a dunk, or wide open lay-up followed by Brandon Jennings shaking his head and dreaming of purple and gold in 2013
The 2-man Mid-Range Jumper Shoot-out: (Sponsored by the Freemasons)
This year Mike Dunleavy looks to retain his title, but with a hitch. Instead of being paired with another wing player, he gets help from teammate Larry Sanders. Watch the agony on the face of the rim as Larry hurls balls at it’s face! Observe the amazing ability of Sanders to elevate, reach his max vert, start to fall back to Earth, and then decide to release his jumpshot!
The Coaches Chicken Challenge (Sponsored by Popeyes)
Observe amazingly at the emotional stalemate Scott Sklies presents on the sidelines. Who will blink first? Coach Skiles or Bango? A four-time winner, Skiles is known for his ability to flummox opponents by refusing to change line-up after 30 minutes have passed in the game! A Chicken Champion indeed!
by Charlie_Buckets on Feb 26, 2012 12:23 PM CST reply actions 2 recs

by 




















