The Milwaukee Bucks finished the 2009-10 season with 46 victories, a mark good enough for the 6th seed in the 2010 playoffs. After such success (for Milwaukee, this was considered “success”), hopes were high for the 2010-11 season. But now the Bucks have been officially eliminated from the 2011 playoffs. And so the blame game has begun.
- Brandon Jennings is blaming his teammates and the front office.
- And the front office might be blaming the coaches.
So who is to blame?
For an answer, we of course look at the data.
The following table details how the Bucks have performed in 2010-11. After 78 games, the team has won 32 games. The team’s efficiency differential of -1.06 is consistent with a team that would win 36 games; or about 38 games across a complete season. In other words, the team’s efficiency differential says Milwaukee should still be in contention for the playoffs in 2011.
Of course, even if the team was winning as often as their efficiency differential suggests, the team has still declined relative to last year. Specifically, eight wins have vanished in Milwaukee. So where did these wins go?
If we look at what these players did last year, we see a team that would have won about 42 games this year (or about 44 wins across the entire season). That suggests the problem could be linked to the players – such as Andrew Bogut, Corey Maggette, and John Salmons – who have dropped off somewhat since last year.
There is, though, another issue. Carlos Delfino, Ersan Ilyasova, and Bogut have combined to miss more than 50 games. Had these players played more – and Larry Sanders (the only player to see more than 100 minutes of court time and produce in the negative range) played less – the Bucks would have won a few more games this year. In fact, if these players had been healthy, the Bucks would have probably made the playoffs this year.
And if the Bucks made the playoffs, would Brandon Jennings be upset? Would the jobs of the coaches be in jeopardy?
All of this suggests that people in Milwaukee do not understand what drives their success. At least, if the issue is just injuries, then firing the coaches isn’t really going to help.
Of course, Jennings doesn’t seem to have a problem with the coaches. He has a problem with the people selecting the players. But is this an argument Jennings should be making? To understand this question, let’s talk about Mr. Jennings.
The Bucks selected Jennings with the 10th choice in the 2009 NBA draft. In his first season, Jennings was the only player on the Bucks to score more than 1,200 points. Of course, he was also the only player to take more than 1,000 shots from the field.
This year, Jennings leads the team in scoring and field goal attempts per game. And given the role scoring plays in player evaluation, it is not surprising for Jennings to think that the problem in Milwaukee is someone else.
When we look at Wins Produced, though, we see that Jennings was below average as a rookie. And he is below average in his second season. Across the past two season, the players in Milwaukee have produced 82.1 wins (with four games left this season). Of these wins, only 6.7 can be traced to the play of Jennings.
Imagine if the actual production of wins from Jennings was consistent with his perception of his skills. For example, what if Jennings had a WP48 mark of 0.200? Then the Bucks would have already won about 44 games this year, or in other words, the Bucks would have already clinched a playoff spot.
So what can the Bucks do to improve in 2011-12 (assuming we have a season)? Here are some suggestions:
- The team needs to keep the productive players on the court. Again, if the productive players were healthy this year the Bucks would have probably made the playoffs.
- The Bucks would also be helped if they got more production at the guard positions. Currently the team does not have a single player who is above average in the backcourt. Yes, I know. Jennings is a “star”. And Keyon Dooling is one of the best players in the league according to Adjusted Plus-Minus (seriously, APM ranks him 15th in the league this year). But scorers are not always the most productive player (a story we have told many times before). And APM is not a very reliable measure of player performance (a story we have also told more than once before).
If we look past scoring and APM, it seems clear the Bucks need help in the backcourt. In other words, Jennings is right about the problem but he probably isn’t too keen on the solution.
If the Bucks can find a productive guard – and the other productive players on the team stay healthy – this team can make the playoffs in 2012 (assuming the playoffs are played in 2012). And that can be accomplished without firing all the coaches (although if Jennings can’t play better, the team might have fire him).
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
steve eichenbaum
April 7, 2011
Boom, you got it.
This pissant guard can’t finish at the rim, has no mid-range jumper and allows other teams’ point guards to have career games against him. There are only four players in the NBA this whiny punk can consistently shut down: His teammates.
stephanieg
April 7, 2011
In the past people have noted that WP is agnostic towards usage vs. efficiency, e.g. 1-2 FG is treated the same as 10-20 FG so “shot creators” aren’t rewarded. But that also means it treats Jennings shooting 38% about the same as someone going 2-5, even though it would seem to me that he should be punished harshly for using up so many possessions and the other player isn’t hurting the team nearly as much. So it works both ways.
Cool Hand Luke
April 7, 2011
It does punish more harshly. It only treats it equal if you’re exactly at the break even mark (which WS sets at 50%). 2/5 is considered less bad than 4/10 which is in turn not as bad as 8/20. 4 points in 5 possessions is -1, 8 in 10 is -2 and 16 in 20 is -4. It similarly credits 6/10 as better than 3/5, you might think it doesn’t credit/penalize enough (or disagree on the treatment of a break even point where 1/2 = 10/20). He is penalized more for shooting more at low efficiency, it’s not considered the same as 2/5.
fricktho
April 7, 2011
The Bucks only have 4 average+ players on their roster this season. I have no problem with Jennings complaining. If Bargnani complained about lack of talent around him would he be wrong? Of course not. Although he might be unaware he’s a part of the problem he’s also aware that if there were 4 stars around him his team might be better. The Bucks as constructed cannot be a contender. They simply need better players. Even if healthy their ceiling is fewer than 50 wins.
SA
April 7, 2011
Complaining that your teammates aren’t that good has to be one of the worst things an athlete can do. It only succeeds in getting your teammates to hate you. But I guess anyone who would say this in public and who shoots excessively on the court is already not popular with his teammates.
When people talk about the unmeasurable “intangibles” that people who “create their own shot” bring to the table, people should realize it’s more likely to work in the opposite direction. Anyone who has played even on a rec league team understands that when one or more players take excessive shots it encourages other players to take shots even when not really open. That’s because they understand the ball is unlikely to come around to them again, so this might be their only chance to shoot.
One mark of an athlete is to determine if he or she is likely to make their teammates better. I find it hard to believe that Brandon Jennings makes his teammates better. Trading players who are overvalued because of their scoring should be an obvious “Moneyball” strategy for NBA GMs. So in Milwaukee it sounds like trading Jennings would be the best way to bring in more talent.
arturogalletti
April 7, 2011
Hmmm. Fun offseason trade idea:
Brandon Jennings for Landry Fields and Balkman.
Who says no?
Schermeister
April 8, 2011
This guy is joke. Check his FG%. Yuck. Frankly I dodnt even understand how he has that high of a WP48. Maybe his rebounding his higher then a normal pg? He doesnt even get the Free throw line
Fred Bush
April 8, 2011
There is some sort of problem with your table. The far right column isn’t always the actual difference between 2010 and 2011 data. For instance, Carlos Delfino: 5.4 5.9 -1.1 (should be -.5), John Salmons 5.6 3.2 -1.4 (should be -2.4). I’m guessing one of the columns is out of order?
dberri
April 8, 2011
Thanks Fred. I think I fixed it.
Curious Guy
April 8, 2011
SA wrote: “Complaining that your teammates aren’t that good has to be one of the worst things an athlete can do”
That’s not true [injuries off the court, committing a crime etc] but IMHO the bigger issue here is the quality of players who are complaining.
If you are actually the best player on your team by far we can only nod in agreement but if you are the weak link it’s a high comedy or even a parody.
arturogalletti wrote: “Hmmm. Fun offseason trade idea:
Brandon Jennings for Landry Fields and Balkman. Who says no?”
Bucks. Unless they have another trade on the table because they would have 1 PG and 6 SG/SF on the roster.
Italian Stallion
April 8, 2011
Not drafting Jennings is one of the few things many Knicks fans wanted that the organization wasn’t dumb enough to do. I still read complaints about not drafting Jennings on Knicks blogs.
curtains
April 8, 2011
Weak article. I followed the link about Brandon Jennings “complaining about his teammates,” and he never said such a thing. He said: “Some guys have the mind-set of winning on the team and some guys just don’t”. That doesn’t mean “I play with a bunch of scrubs”.
Regardless, Brandon is the best guard on the Bucks’ roster; he’s not the problem. The problem is twofold: They got injured and they got unlucky. Those injuries affected their best players (specifically Bogut and Delfino), and their pyth record would have had them slotted into the playoff race.
Lastly, it’s nice when players are upset they are not making the playoffs. It shows they do care.
Italian Stallion
April 8, 2011
Finally, a high level conversation about the Howard/Rose MVP debate:
Gil Meriken
April 9, 2011
@SA Anyone who has played even on a rec league team understands that when one player has a decided scoring skill advantage relative to all of the other players on the court, it behooves the team to have that player take many of the team’s shots.
Brandon Jennings is not such a player.
reservoirgod
April 10, 2011
Arturo:
“Brandon Jennings for Landry Fields and Balkman. Who says no?” – The Bucks say “No.”
Italian Stallion:
That youtube video was great.
Coronado
April 18, 2011
It’s a PG’s job to make his teammates better. Jennings does not make his teammates better. He dribbles, looks at wide open seven footer under rim, then shoots. He is demoralizing. To anybody who is a student of the game, he is painful to watch. Sure, he has games where he is hot and shoots above 40 percent. SO WHAT. The Bucks need to work inside out, not outside outside. But don’t put all the blame on him, SKILES is a horrible coach. If he is not fired during the offseason, next season will be the same results.