2021-22 NBA Thread: The Bucks are Reigning Champs

[Hards Alumni]

As Barkley said last night, that Lakers team is going to need a lot of Ben Gay and rubbing alcohol.   Eight years ago that team would have been packed.  Now it is full of talent but old talent.  They can do it but I think its going to be hard to keep that team healthy.

Because Lebron still thinks its 2010, not 2021.

[GB Warrior]

Because Lebron still thinks its 2010, not 2021.

Same can be said of the Nets. Lot of veteran savvy there, but who knows what these guys still have left in the tank. That said, Patty Mills still has lots left...would have loved him in Milwaukee (or anywhere other than Brooklyn)

[Hards Alumni]

Same can be said of the Nets. Lot of veteran savvy there, but who knows what these guys still have left in the tank. That said, Patty Mills still has lots left...would have loved him in Milwaukee (or anywhere other than Brooklyn)

Eh, those guys are very early 30s and KD is the oldest at 33, and is a top 3 player in the league.

Lebron is 36, Melo is 37, Dwight Howard is 35, Rondo is 35.  Westbrook is 32.

That's a lot of really old dudes.

[JWags85]

Eh, those guys are very early 30s and KD is the oldest at 33, and is a top 3 player in the league.

Lebron is 36, Melo is 37, Dwight Howard is 35, Rondo is 35.  Westbrook is 32.

That's a lot of really old dudes.

Yea, the Lakers need minutes at the 5, especially with Davis being injury prone and Drummond sucked last year...so they go and get an ancient Dwight who hasn't averaged double digits in points or rebounds in almost 5 years and couldn't strongly beat out Javale for minutes the last time he was on the Lakers.

And then DeAndre Jordan who is also 33 and pretty much toast.  He was on Brooklyn to mentor young guys and then got traded anyways.  Yikes.

Then they trade a bunch of scoring for Westbrook, a VERY ball dominant player to go alongside a VERY ball dominant Lebron...and make up the difference by adding a 36 year old Trevor Ariza and the aforementioned Melo.

It honestly looks like a roster that someone assembled on NBA 2K12 with the trading restrictions toggled off.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Eh, those guys are very early 30s and KD is the oldest at 33, and is a top 3 player in the league.

Lebron is 36, Melo is 37, Dwight Howard is 35, Rondo is 35.  Westbrook is 32.

That's a lot of really old dudes.

Millsap and Alrdidge are both 36. And Blake Griffin has fallen off due to injuries, so he's an old 32 compared to Durant still being in his prime at 32.

[Hards Alumni]

Millsap and Alrdidge are both 36. And Blake Griffin has fallen off due to injuries, so he's an old 32 compared to Durant still being in his prime at 32.

I would 100% take the Nets lineup over the Lakers.

[JWags85]

Millsap and Alrdidge are both 36. And Blake Griffin has fallen off due to injuries, so he's an old 32 compared to Durant still being in his prime at 32.

But the difference is they aren't expecting anything out of Millsap or Aldridge. Those guys will probably combine for 20 min depending opponents and injuries.

And thats not a great look at Griffin.  Injuries, yes, but he was a completely different player in Brooklyn compared to the end of his time in Detroit.  And he's only played a bit over 700 games in his career.  Durant and Harden, for example, are both over 1000.  Griffin may not be jumping over Kia's anymore, but assuming he continues to evolve his game, he doesn't have a ton of miles on him.

The rest of the Nets key players are between 25 and 30.  They have young talent like Cam Thomas, Claxton, and Sharpe.  The Lakers traded all theirs away.

I think a decent look at the Lakers season is gonna be last night.  Lebron starts 7/7 from the field, 3/3 from 3.  Twitter delirious over YEAR 19, THE MAN WILL NEVER FALL OFF...Lebron finishes 13/23, 2/8 on his last 8 3s, Lakers are outscored by 17 the last 15 min of the game.  He can still play at an All-NBA level, I just don't think its sustainable for a full season.  And the roster is assembled like those Cavs teams that were peak Lebron and some guys he likes.

I also think Westbrook is gonna be a terrible fit.

[MuggsyB]

I would 100% take the Nets lineup over the Lakers.

The Lakers still have 2/5 top players but I don't really like their other pieces and especially their 3pt shooting.  I think Westbrook is a terrible fit regardless of his regular season numbers.  The desperately need better shooting in the backcourt.

[MU82]

But the difference is they aren't expecting anything out of Millsap or Aldridge. Those guys will probably combine for 20 min depending opponents and injuries.

And thats not a great look at Griffin.  Injuries, yes, but he was a completely different player in Brooklyn compared to the end of his time in Detroit.  And he's only played a bit over 700 games in his career.  Durant and Harden, for example, are both over 1000.  Griffin may not be jumping over Kia's anymore, but assuming he continues to evolve his game, he doesn't have a ton of miles on him.

The rest of the Nets key players are between 25 and 30.  They have young talent like Cam Thomas, Claxton, and Sharpe.  The Lakers traded all theirs away.

I think a decent look at the Lakers season is gonna be last night.  Lebron starts 7/7 from the field, 3/3 from 3.  Twitter delirious over YEAR 19, THE MAN WILL NEVER FALL OFF...Lebron finishes 13/23, 2/8 on his last 8 3s, Lakers are outscored by 17 the last 15 min of the game.  He can still play at an All-NBA level, I just don't think its sustainable for a full season.  And the roster is assembled like those Cavs teams that were peak Lebron and some guys he likes.

I also think Westbrook is gonna be a terrible fit.

I thought Monk was a good signing because he fills a specific need for the Lakers. Otherwise, I didn't think they helped themselves during the offseason. You're probably right in that they actually hurt themselves with their moves.

I have long admired Westbrook's competitiveness, his motor, and his all-around game but I totally agree about the fit (or lack thereof) with the Lakers.

[JWags85]

The Lakers still have 2/5 top players but I don't really like their other pieces and especially their 3pt shooting.  I think Westbrook is a terrible fit regardless of his regular season numbers.  The desperately need better shooting in the backcourt.

I don't agree.  Davis is probably a top 10 guy, but he's not consistent nor healthy enough lately for him to be a top 5 guy.  And I'd rather have Giannis, Durant, Kawhi, Jokic, Luka, and Curry over current 36 year old Lebron.

[Jockey]

I would 100% take the Nets lineup over the Lakers.

And I would take the Bucks lineup over the Nets - even if Kyrie comes back. I would take Giannis, Khris, and Jrue any day over the Nets Big 3.

The Bucks Big 3 compliment each other. For the Nets, they almost take turns between their stars, rendering the other two guys on the court into just good NBA players.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The Lakers still have 2/5 top players but I don't really like their other pieces and especially their 3pt shooting.  I think Westbrook is a terrible fit regardless of his regular season numbers.  The desperately need better shooting in the backcourt.

And this is what I don't understand about the Lakers.  It's like they haven't watched the last decade of NBA ball.  Everyone knows you need shooting.  What they didn't need is Russell Westbook running point when you have LBJ and others who can run it fine.

[Holy hell all time]

And I would take the Bucks lineup over the Nets - even if Kyrie comes back. I would take Giannis, Khris, and Jrue any day over the Nets Big 3.

The Bucks Big 3 compliment each other. For the Nets, they almost take turns between their stars, rendering the other two guys on the court into just good NBA players.

You're letting the depleted Nets of the end of the second round series and the Kyrie-less Nets of last night blind you.  When the Nets' Big 3 were all available last year (which wasn't often) they were historically good and worked incredibly well together.  KD can fit with any player on the planet, and Harden was 7th in the NBA in assists per game (and Kyrie was 21st).  All three can beat defenders off the dribble, all three can shoot, and all three can create for others.  They were about 30 seconds away from taking a 3-0 lead on the Bucks, and they were about 0.75 inches away from winning game 7 in regulation without Kyrie and with a hobbled Harden.  The Nets were far and away the best team in the NBA last year (with the Bucks far and away the second best).  The Bucks are better this year than they were last year, but I think the Nets will be too if Kyrie returns.  Patty Mills is a huge addition for them and they'll only get better in year 2 playing together.

With Kyrie, the Nets are the best team in the NBA this year, with the Bucks having a puncher's chance to beat them in a 7 game series.  Without Kyrie, that is reversed.  Everybody else in the NBA (taking into consideration injuries to players like Kawhi and Murray) are at least 1 step behind the Bucks and Nets.

[MuggsyB]

I don't agree.  Davis is probably a top 10 guy, but he's not consistent nor healthy enough lately for him to be a top 5 guy.  And I'd rather have Giannis, Durant, Kawhi, Jokic, Luka, and Curry over current 36 year old Lebron.

I disagree that Lebron isn't top 5.  Davis has to be healthy but you have to consider how much better he is than Jokic, Luka, or Curry on the defensive end of the floor.   It's debatable but I wouldn't put either Luka or Jokic in my top 5.  It's tough
after Giannis, Durant, Lebron.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I disagree that Lebron isn't top 5.  Davis has to be healthy but you have to consider how much better he is than Jokic, Luka, or Curry on the defensive end of the floor.   It's debatable but I wouldn't put either Luka or Jokic in my top 5.  It's tough
after Giannis, Durant, Lebron.

I'm not a Lebron hater, but there is no way he's top five right now.  I think it's generous to suggest he's top ten at this point.  We will see if he bounces back this year, but he's been declining for three years now.  (Anthony Davis was the best player on the Lakers' most recent championship.)

[JWags85]

You're letting the depleted Nets of the end of the second round series and the Kyrie-less Nets of last night blind you.  When the Nets' Big 3 were all available last year (which wasn't often) they were historically good and worked incredibly well together.  KD can fit with any player on the planet, and Harden was 7th in the NBA in assists per game (and Kyrie was 21st).  All three can beat defenders off the dribble, all three can shoot, and all three can create for others.  They were about 30 seconds away from taking a 3-0 lead on the Bucks, and they were about 0.75 inches away from winning game 7 in regulation without Kyrie and with a hobbled Harden.  The Nets were far and away the best team in the NBA last year (with the Bucks far and away the second best).  The Bucks are better this year than they were last year, but I think the Nets will be too if Kyrie returns.  Patty Mills is a huge addition for them and they'll only get better in year 2 playing together.

With Kyrie, the Nets are the best team in the NBA this year, with the Bucks having a puncher's chance to beat them in a 7 game series.  Without Kyrie, that is reversed.  Everybody else in the NBA (taking into consideration injuries to players like Kawhi and Murray) are at least 1 step behind the Bucks and Nets.

Not to mention one of the other 2 "good players" is the one of the 2-3 best pure shooters in the NBA. Harris is an unreal shooter who can just float on the wings while the Nets Big 3 do what they do.  He's not only the prototypical complementary player for that kind of team, he does it better than almost anyone

[MuggsyB]

I'm not a Lebron hater, but there is no way he's top five right now.  I think it's generous to suggest he's top ten at this point.  We will see if he bounces back this year, but he's been declining for three years now.  (Anthony Davis was the best player on the Lakers' most recent championship.)

I am a Lebron hater but his decline doesn't mean he's not in the top 5.  The guy still dropped about 25, 8, and 8 last year.  Davis got hurt, ergo he had no chance to beat Phoenix or advance in the playoffs. He plays more in spurts than the past but are there really 5 or 10 guys that you'd rather have in the playoffs?  I don't see it.  But I hope your observations are correct.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I am a Lebron hater but his decline doesn't mean he's not in the top 5.  The guy still dropped about 25, 8, and 8 last year.  Davis got hurt, ergo he had no chance to beat Phoenix or advance in the playoffs. He plays more in spurts than the past but are there really 5 or 10 guys that you'd rather have in the playoffs?  I don't see it.  But I hope your observations are correct.

There are definitely more than five guys I would rather have in the playoffs based on last year.  Curry, Giannis, Durant, Luka, Jokic and I may even throw a Leonard and Embiid in there.

Perhaps I will feel differently after this year is done.

[MuggsyB]

There are definitely more than five guys I would rather have in the playoffs based on last year.  Curry, Giannis, Durant, Luka, Jokic and I may even throw a Leonard and Embiid in there.

Perhaps I will feel differently after this year is done.

Fluffy he's been draining the three.  Maybe not at your percentage clip (which I assume is automatic) but Lebron has dramatically improved from distance.

[JWags85]

Fluffy he's been draining the three.  Maybe not at your percentage clip (which I assume is automatic) but Lebron has dramatically improved from distance.

Lebron's career average from deep is just under 35%.  The last 3 seasons in LA he shot 34, 35, and just over 36% from deep. 

In Miami, he shot around 38% and his last 2 years in Cleveland he shot better from deep than he did last year, which was his best year in LA (which also had the one of the fewest 3PA in a season of his career).

Sooo, not really sure what is "dramatic" about his improvement, which actually hasn't even been improvement.  He's actually regressed a bit from his mid career peak. He's always been a serviceable 3P shooter but not one who will ever strike fear in teams hearts

[MuggsyB]

Lebron's career average from deep is just under 35%.  The last 3 seasons in LA he shot 34, 35, and just over 36% from deep. 

In Miami, he shot around 38% and his last 2 years in Cleveland he shot better from deep than he did last year, which was his best year in LA (which also had the one of the fewest 3PA in a season of his career).

Sooo, not really sure what is "dramatic" about his improvement, which actually hasn't even been improvement.  He's actually regressed a bit from his mid career peak. He's always been a serviceable 3P shooter but not one who will ever strike fear in teams hearts

But isn't he shooting more of them?  I think we can all agree, at the end of the day, the game is about buckets JWags?  If it was about pure fundamentals I would play NBA ball for at least 50 yrs. 

[Jockey]

You're letting the depleted Nets of the end of the second round series and the Kyrie-less Nets of last night blind you.  When the Nets' Big 3 were all available last year (which wasn't often) they were historically good and worked incredibly well together.  KD can fit with any player on the planet, and Harden was 7th in the NBA in assists per game (and Kyrie was 21st).  All three can beat defenders off the dribble, all three can shoot, and all three can create for others.  They were about 30 seconds away from taking a 3-0 lead on the Bucks, and they were about 0.75 inches away from winning game 7 in regulation without Kyrie and with a hobbled Harden.  The Nets were far and away the best team in the NBA last year (with the Bucks far and away the second best).  The Bucks are better this year than they were last year, but I think the Nets will be too if Kyrie returns.  Patty Mills is a huge addition for them and they'll only get better in year 2 playing together.

With Kyrie, the Nets are the best team in the NBA this year, with the Bucks having a puncher's chance to beat them in a 7 game series.  Without Kyrie, that is reversed.  Everybody else in the NBA (taking into consideration injuries to players like Kawhi and Murray) are at least 1 step behind the Bucks and Nets.

I don't mean to call you out, Wades as you are one of the smart 'sports guys' here. But a team is not historically good based on 8 games. Especially when several were against some of the defensive dregs of the NBA.


Just a note of just how much they have touched the basketball in their careers. A good measure of this is usage rate, which shows the percentage of a team's plays taken up by a player's shooting or turning the ball over. A-level stars are usually in the mid-to-high 20 percent range. Durant is at 30.2 percent, and Irving at 29.3 percent. But Harden is on another level: He is one of two players in N.B.A. history to reach 40 percent for a season.

That was the point of my post. All of their usage numbers go down when they play together. They all like to play iso ball which means that often times 2 of the 3 superstars are little more than spectators.

All that being said, Durant and Harden are top 10 players. Kyrie may be one. I would not be surprised to see them win a title. If only basketball was played only at the offensive end of the floor.

Lots of teams are just a fraction away from winning a title. The Bucks were one warmup jacket left sitting on the floor away from winning a title. So, in the scheme of things, you either win or you don't. Coming close means you lost.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

But isn't he shooting more of them?  I think we can all agree, at the end of the day, the game is about buckets JWags?  If it was about pure fundamentals I would play NBA ball for at least 50 yrs. 

Please don't tell me you're one of these "NBA players aren't fundamental" guys.

[MuggsyB]

Please don't tell me you're one of these "NBA players aren't fundamental" guys.

I'm not.  Most all are fundamentally sound but my level is supernova-elite. 

[MuggsyB]

In all seriousness I think Lebron is still top 5  and I think most GM's would agree with me.

It's tragic I never had Muggsy's elevation.