Are the Bucks superstars being held accountable?

On defence and accountability over the last two games 

The Milwaukee Bucks have now lost four out of five, all against teams below .500. And in the last two games, both Dame and Giannis have posted largely unacceptable defensive performances. Before I start, though, I want to give them some leeway; both may still be ill. Is that sickness stopping them from executing on defence? Maybe. Who knows? But in both players’ cases, these issues have popped up in the past, before the Vegas flu.

Let’s look at Antetokounmpo’s game against the Portland Trail Blazers first. The problems seemed to stem mostly from his off-ball defence. I am not in the locker room, so I suppose it’s possible that he was instructed to help far into the lane. I can see the logic in him guarding bad shooters and roaming, but these are wide-open shots for NBA players. He also gets lost because he’s ball-watching, which he does often. Anyway, I took the liberty of compiling some notable plays, with a few from the Brooklyn game sprinkled in. What do you notice?

As Bucks fans, we often discuss how Antetokounmpo separates himself in MVP conversations because of his defence. And while he does make loud, spectacular plays, his fundamentals let him down. Do the coaches show Giannis this film? I sure hope so because he is just giving away points on otherwise (mostly) decent defensive possessions. It’s easily correctable!

Now, let’s talk about Dame against the Brooklyn Nets. His effort on defence was poor all night long. The Nets relentlessly attacked him in the pick-and-roll, and he sort of just let it happen. He didn’t meet their targeting with heightened physicality; he just rolled with the punches. I get that he’s not going to turn into a good defender magically, but he can force the ball one way, box out, take charges, and generally play with more effort.

But the main thing that bothered me about this game from Lillard was the final play. Why? Because it was a microcosm of the whole game. He got bullied all night by Brooklyn. They were extremely physical with not just him but everyone. And on the final play, he had a chance to return that physicality to get his teammate open… and wimped out (at least from what I saw). On the other hand, I could also squint and see the view that GA went too early and didn’t allow Dame to get set. In this case, this criticism would be unfair. Interested to read what other people see.

Regardless, here was the play:

Lillard is the designated screener in this “ram” action, where Connaughton screens for Lillard, who then screens for Antetokounmpo. Granted, there is a whole lot of holding going on, but Dame must make contact with Claxton or at least get in his way, force a decision, and allow Giannis to get downhill or play against a mismatch. Instead, Lillard gives in to the holding and ghosts out early without making contact, enabling the matchups to stay the same. Antetokounmpo can’t beat Claxton at the rim—although, he may well have gotten fouled—and misses. Game over.

This play frustrated me because it certainly appeared as if Lillard wasn’t willing to do the hard thing to get his teammate open—simple as that. That doesn’t mean I think he’s a selfish player or anything. But on this play, Lillard was trusted to be a crucial cog in producing one final bucket to cap off that insane comeback, and he just wasn’t up to the task.

My point is this: Milwaukee has maybe a few years to win another chip, and with each year, that task gets exponentially more difficult. Time is not on their side. So, amid this losing period, there is no time for egos. Guys need to be bought in and playing for the man next to them. Tough conversations from the coaching staff need to be had. You hope Antetokounmpo knows about his ball-watching, and Lillard knows his pride on defence must improve—no time to be worried about hurt feelings. This experiment may not work, but the players must max out on the controllables to know that they emptied the tank, and these last two games from the team’s leaders were inconsistent with that objective.