When Larry Harris stabbed Terry Porter in the back this off season, I said on this site that he'd better have a damn good replacement in mind, and that the replacement had better perform. Well, here we are, halfway through the season, with a team that has the talent to be top 4 in the East and at least five games over .500, and we're shaking our heads over yet ANOTHER lazy, no-defense, disorganized HOME LOSS to a team that is NOT BETTER than us. I've sat back and watched this team and wondered what must be done, and the answer is now clear: a change must be made at coach. Say what you will about Porter, but when he had control of this team, he got on guys' asses and made them play defense. Stott's does not do that. He has no animation, no intensity, and his team reflects that. This is a team that can go out and beat the Mavs or Spurs, yet somehow they've lost AT HOME to Utah, Houston and Chicago (combined record: 52-70) by an average of 13 points per game. That is absolutely unacceptable for any team that has playoff aspirations. Far too many times this year, the Bucks have been disinterested, lazy, disorganized and soft against teams that just are not better than them. And who do you blame when a talented team fails to perform when it must perform, when a good team lacks motivation, when a talented bunch of player add up to less than their collective ability suggests? You blame the man in charge, and that happens to be Terry Stotts. This is a good team. TJ Ford, Redd, Simmons and Magloire are all above average players in the NBA, and Andrew Bogut is a rising player. Mo Williams is a fantastic 6th man. The bench is good. THIS IS A TEAM THAT SHOULD BE BETTER THAN 21-19. We allow opponents to score 99.7 points per game, the 8th worst mark in the league. We allow opponents to shoot 46.4% from the floor. In our losses this year, opponents have shot 41.8% from 3FG. This is a team that should be better than it is, and the man to blame for that is Stotts, who has not displayed any control over this team, and heart or any intensity, and his team is reflecting his style. It's time for him to go. Bring back Porter, for the love of Christ.
Are you serious? You think Stotts is bad, Porter was a lot worse. Most the time Stotts team at least has a clue what is going on out on the court. TPs teams were clueless. I'm not saying Stotts is a good coach, he isn't, but Porter was worse. I'm not happy with Stotts, but its not all his fault. This team may not be better than 21-19 2 young PGs Rookie Center Underachiving Simmons With Joe and Charlie out, not much of a bench. Give this young team and coach time, If this keeps up at the end of the year I'll be in agreement
blame stotts for not allowing double teams on t-mac in the 4th quarter, thats one thing i dont get, they did so good doubling him in the first 3 quarters and in the first half t-mac strgguled shooting, wtf happend in the 4th? double team stopped and michael redd was taken out for half the quarter, he checked back in with like 5:30 left in the game, redd would take pressure off his teamates if he stayed in and the bucks would have gotten way more than 9 pts in the 4th and who would you rather have? is there any other options than stotts right now
They had 2 guys in TMac's face most the night....then he'd find the open player, be it Wesley or inside to Baxter. TMac was simply unstoppable in the 4th quarter last night.......I was there real close to the action, Simmons was right in his grill, and TMac was draining it, nobody could have stopped him.
See that's the thing, Gman, I really liked Porter. He was more fiery, more intense, he got after the guys to play defense. Remember '03, when we had little talent but scrapped our way into the playoffs? I loved Porter for that and how he ran the team, but I see absolutely none of that toughness in Stotts nor his team. I hate to think of my team as anything close to lazy or soft, but I've realized that's how we've played at times this year, and I can't stomach that. I didn't like Stotts that much at the start, and now it's becoming a situation where every time we underacheive, I focus my frustration on him.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Schaddy:</div><div class="quote_post"> This is a good team. TJ Ford, Redd, Simmons and Magloire are all above average players in the NBA, and Andrew Bogut is a rising player. Mo Williams is a fantastic 6th man. The bench is good. THIS IS A TEAM THAT SHOULD BE BETTER THAN 21-19. We allow opponents to score 99.7 points per game, the 8th worst mark in the league. We allow opponents to shoot 46.4% from the floor. In our losses this year, opponents have shot 41.8% from 3FG. </div> I think one could argue that they aren't nearly as good as their record. John Hollinger makes this argument on ESPN Insider today, using his Expected Wins. Milwauke turns out to be a below average team based on point-differential, and they happen to have a good record because of their incredible record in close games. But, according to him, close game record usually has more to do with luck than how good a team actually is. He shows how, in recent playoff series, Expected Wins has turned out to be a better indicator of who should win than actual win-loss record. This is the adjusted records of Central Division teams, based on Expected Wins: <font face=""Courier New""><font color=""Green"">Detroit 33 wins 6 losses Cleveland 26 wins 13 losses Indiana 23 wins 18 losses Chicago 18 wins 22 losses Milwaukee 15 wins 25 losses</font></font> They might be under-performing, as you say, but I think they're fortunate to have the record they got.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I think one could argue that they aren't nearly as good as their record. John Hollinger makes this argument on ESPN Insider today, using his Expected Wins. Milwauke turns out to be a below average team based on point-differential, and they happen to have a good record because of their incredible record in close games. But, according to him, close game record usually has more to do with luck than how good a team actually is. He shows how, in recent playoff series, Expected Wins has turned out to be a better indicator of who should win than actual win-loss record. This is the adjusted records of Central Division teams, based on Expected Wins: <font face=""Courier New""><font color=""Green"">Detroit 33 wins 6 losses Cleveland 26 wins 13 losses Indiana 23 wins 18 losses Chicago 18 wins 22 losses Milwaukee 15 wins 25 losses</font></font> They might be under-performing, as you say, but I think they're fortunate to have the record they got.</div> You're right that our ability to win close games has given us an immense boost this year, and our differential is bad, mostly becuase of what I've been saying-we give up WAY too many points every other game, and we've been blown out by some bad teams. However, I look at our very talented roster and the fact that we've beaten good teams and conclude that we should be more consistent and a better team. When you beat the Spurs and the Mavs of the world, you're expected to be a solid playoff team. The Bucks don't look like that now, and I see no reason why they shouldn't. That's why I believe we're underacheiving; we've beaten some very good teams, and we have the potential to be a very good team, but we aren't, and that really gets me. I think that if one were to argue that the Bucks aren't nearly as good as their record, they'd be very, very wrong. We're better than our record, or at least we should be.
