Where might the Bucks get worse next season, and where might they improve?
With Damian Lillard set to miss all or most of next season—and assuming Jon Horst elects against making any seismic moves—the Milwaukee Bucks will need to make do with what they have while still trying to be as successful as possible. Losing Lillard will hurt for many reasons, but could his absence force the Bucks into an extensive review of their gameplan and philosophy? In turn, could this review unearth opportunities for improvement that otherwise wouldn’t have been tapped into?
Granted, the fact that Doc Rivers remains the coach doesn’t exactly fill you with optimism that such innovation is in the offing. But hey, maybe drastic times call for drastic measures. Therefore, I wanted to explore three key questions, pondering how they best replace what Dame brought, and if there are areas the team can improve in because of his absence. Let’s rip in, eh?
Could there be a forced shift in shot selection?
Last season, Milwaukee sat atop the NBA in three-point percentage. They shot the ball well, a key reason for their success. However, they also ranked 18th in three-point attempts. What would have happened if they’d tried to get more threes up? How might that have changed their trajectory? We’ll never truly know, but Boston and Golden State, for example, have had great success with the “shoot lots of triples” philosophy; it’s built into their identity. I assume a key reason teams opt to play heavily through the three-point shot is because of the variance it can afford you. Teams can be up or down 15 points and increase the lead to 30 or tie the game in a matter of minutes due to the proliferation of the three-ball.
It is tough to beat teams that shoot threes well at a high volume because of the speed at which they can run up the score. At the same time, frequently attempting shots from a greater distance means there is inherently less chance of those shots going in. Thus, if a team does want to shoot threes at a high volume, ensuring those threes are open is incredibly important. The Warriors, who boasted the highest assist percentage in the NBA this regular season, achieved this because of Steph Curry’s gravity, allowing Draymond Green to play in numbers-advantage situations and hit open shooters. I think the Bucks have a credible case to mould their gameplan around such a strategy because they have an engine with incredible gravity (in a different way) to generate these open looks in one Giannis Antetokounmpo.
The rationale behind such a strategy would be that they need to create variance from night to night with no Dame (along with his 25 PPG). I don’t know if Antetokounmpo scoring 35 every night, with most of that coming at the rim, can lead to consistent winning if everyone else is accounted for. Maybe by shooting lots of threes and hopefully converting on a good percentage of them, they can paper over some of the holes in other areas of their game. It would take Giannis truly buying into the point-forward role and a system in which he is seeking out one of two shots: his high-percentage two, or a high-percentage three from his teammates. And to be clear, Antetokounmpo isn’t going to be able to create everything, which means getting your primary creators going downhill and spraying out to shooters, running movement shooters off screening actions, and involving shooters in lots of inverted pick-and-rolls.
Does Dame’s absence force more ball movement?
In stark contrast to the team Milwaukee played in the first round of this year’s NBA Playoffs, which ranked third in assists per game in the regular season (and third in secondary assists), the Bucks were not nearly as impressive, finishing 21st. I wonder if Dame being out gives the Bucks no choice but to become a more cohesive team that emphasises ball movement. Obviously, Giannis will still end up with a high usage. But with no Lillard to bail the team out at the end of possessions, does that change their larger philosophy? Should they set a goal of getting their assist ranking up to the middle of the pack at the very least?
The Pacers are proving how tiring quick ball movement is to play against. Consecutive trips to the Eastern Conference Finals? That’s no joke. And they don’t just pass for the sake of passing; there is a method to their madness. They might pass and quickly cut to the rim or pass and set a good screen to force a switch. The “I’m going to get rid of the ball because I know I’ll get it back” philosophy is a fun way to play basketball. The most impressive part to me, though, is the humility of the players knowing their roles. They have their creators—Haliburton, Siakam, Nembhard, Mathurin, and McConnell—and their utility guys—Turner, Nesmith, Toppin, Walker, and Sheppard. Each player appears to know what group they fall into and doesn’t fight it one bit; they embrace it.
For example, a creator will get off the ball early in the shot clock, passing to a utility guy they know likely isn’t going to create the final shot. However, the creator (key word) trusts the utility player to at least explore. They might run a dummy pick-and-roll on the wing, and one guy dives to the rim, which forces the weak-side defender to tag the roller. Still, the defence does a good job covering that initial action. Ergo, the ball is rifled back to the top as, say, Toppin sets a flare screen for Haliburton, whose defender gets caught on the pick and must sprint to prevent the shot, which they do. But then Toppin quickly turns around and sets an on-ball screen. The defenders are meant to switch this action, but are tired; they mess up and double Haliburton instead, leaving Toppin open for a floater in the lane. It’s an underrated and underdiscussed niche: the Pacers have become elite at forcing the defence to make correct decision after correct decision—eventually, the opponent cracks.
I guess what I’m trying to say from a Milwaukee POV is that there is value to ball movement of any kind, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. The Pacers ranked second leaguewide in passes per game in the regular season; the Bucks ranked 22nd. Indiana doesn’t have an MVP candidate, and because of that, they have had to create a system built on ball movement. Now they are undoubtedly one of the best teams in the league. It is a fun way to play, and when done right, incredibly tough to guard. A proper focus on ball movement is frankly something Milwaukee has neglected in recent seasons as they’ve relied on talent to get them through. If the Bucks want to stay in the title race, however realistic you may think that goal is, changes simply must be made to their offensive approach. Naturally, how they use Antetokounmpo—and crucially, how he is willing to be used—looms as the most significant variable.
Can Milwaukee become a defence-first team again?
When I think about what made the Jrue Holiday Bucks so successful, I immediately go to their ridiculously high floor. That team relied on defence first, and there weren’t many guys to attack. That identity went by the wayside when the front office traded for Dame. And to be clear, I am not here to relitigate the trade (that’s possibly for a future article), but to point out that Lillard’s arrival changed the team’s identity. Milwaukee finished 19th in defensive rating last season and got up to 12th this season after an offseason to build properly around Dame’s deficiencies. Can they rediscover some of that high floor with Lillard out and maybe sneak into the top eight?
Of course, we have no idea what the roster will look like; so much of this is up in the air. It’s tough to get into specifics with the unfinished roster when we talk about defensive coverages. However, removing a 6’2” guard from the lineup should automatically solve some problems; we can use the playoffs as an example. Doc opted to switch everything to stay out of rotation, forcing Dame to guard the likes of Pascal Siakam and Myles Turner. The number of points Indiana scored because of that felt like a lot. There was also a domino effect on everyone else. Brook would come over and try to switch Dame out of those matchups, which left Lillard with a long closeout to get back to Lopez’s man, who would often blow by him for a layup. It’s no shade to Dame, but playing small guards is tough, man.
What happened when this issue was removed from the equation? Well, we can use Game 5 as an example. I was very nervous watching as a fan, but the team came out looking the opposite. There was almost a strange calm and balance in the team’s play. They weren’t just giving the Pacers easy points, which forced Indy to play late into the shot clock and take tough shots, allowing the Bucks to score 13 unanswered points to start. It dawned on me that removing Lillard—along with Doc finally making obvious lineup adjustments—seemed to bring a level of clarity that they didn’t have in the previous games where it felt like they were constantly chasing their tail. Again, I’m not trying to say that the Bucks are a better team without Dame, but his absence does provide opportunities to improve in spots they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to—might as well make the best of those opportunities.