Milwaukee Bucks 2019 playoffs Rd 2 vs Boston Celtics

[DuWayne Steurer]

We'll have game times/dates soon I expect. Lots of analysts and experts picking the Celts to take this series because of "Playoff Experience". Go figure...

[OnTheBlack]

This one scares me. I guess at this point, you're not going to have any easy series, but Boston is so deep and so talented that I don't love this matchup. They've got a bunch of guys to throw at Giannis that can make life difficult enough that I think this is going to be a touch matchup.

 

I do think having Smart likely out is going to be big in this series. He doesn't put up great numbers, but he's one of the few non-bigs who can really change a game and energize his team with his defense.

 

It'd be nice to get Brogdon back this series.

 

And if we win this one, we've got the 2nd best player in the East(IMO) waiting for us with a team that's filled with All-NBA defensive players or players on the verge of becoming just that(Siakam is on the verge of becoming a star).

 

 

There feels like a LOT of pressure on the Bucks because of Giannis in his breakout MVP year(though every year he seems to breakout).

[lcbj68c]

Boston in 5. Just because my best friend is a Celtics fan and I expect to be disappointed again sooner than later. Somehow Tatum will overachieve, Brown will overachieve, Irving will be left wide open for 3's all series long and hit them and the season will be over.

 

If we somehow get past Boston, I feel we make the NBA finals. Boston is probably the worst draw we could have gotten, imho.

[lcbj68c]

We'll have game times/dates soon I expect. Lots of analysts and experts picking the Celts to take this series because of "Playoff Experience". Go figure...

 

I thought the schedule was out?

1/2 Sun/Tues,

3/4 Fri/Mon,

5/6/7 Wed/Fri/Mon

[owbc]

People are reading too much into Boston trashing a weak Pacers team.

 

Bucks in 5.

[coolhandluke121]

Lots of analysts and experts picking the Celts to take this series because of "Playoff Experience". Go figure...

 

I don't really consider most of them "analysts and experts." Most of them are just former players who back into those roles, like so many guys who got jobs as coaches and/or gm's and then were monumental failures because (guess what) being a former player - even a great one - doesn't mean you have good analytical ability. (See: Kidd, Jason.)

[FVBrewerFan]

We'll have game times/dates soon I expect. Lots of analysts and experts picking the Celts to take this series because of "Playoff Experience". Go figure...

 

I do believe playoff experience matters. But how much more experience does Boston really have? Or their individual players? Not much, so I don't see any advantage in this series. Now Golden State on the other hand, yea, that's a ton of experience and that is worth something.

[GAME05]

Boston scares me more than Toronto or Philadelphia will. I think we're going to end up seeing a lot more of Ilyasova in place of Lopez just because Ilyasova has the better speed to be able to get out and protect the 3 while also being able to get back and defend the drive. With Lopez out there, Boston could very well feast on passing the ball around the perimeter until they can find whoever Lopez is guarding for either an open 3 if he's defending back, or to try and drive around him. I think what's going to determine the series is simply if Boston can hit a decent percentage of their 3-pt shots or not. They hit something like 37% in the four matchups against Milwaukee this season, and Hayward is better now than he was before.

[coolhandluke121]

Any team that can play 5 guys who can shoot can expose Milwaukee's only significant weakness, which is Lopez not being able to guard the perimeter. The Bucks have a great scheme and great coaching, but their defense relies on giving up open 3's to second-rate shooters so that Lopez can patrol the paint. Boston can counter with Horford and Morris to exploit that weakness without sacrificing much toughness and muscle.

 

Lopez could abuse small-ball with low post offense, but it's hard to keep up in today's arms race with post-ups, even against mismatches. Fortunately for the Bucks, Brown and Tatum aren't very good 3-point shooters, and their surprising results last season are looking more and more like a fluke. That's an unheralded factor in their struggles this year, lost in all the other drama and story-lines. Hayward could be an x-factor. Would hate to see this be his breakthrough.

 

Boston has a chance, but the Bucks have clearly been the better team all year and I think that continues.

[xisxisxis]

I think the advantage the Bucks have is that they have excellent talent AND an excellent coach. I don't fear that the Celtics will have some miracle approach that will take down the Bucks because Coach Budz will figure out quickly how to adjust. I can't recall all the times the team looked bad in the first half and after the break, just demolished their opponents. Some of that is just the level of talent, but I think a lot had to do with adjustments Budz made.

[HiAndTight]

People are reading too much into Boston trashing a weak Pacers team.

 

Bucks in 5.

 

 

Yeah, that's just a really obnoxious comment in my opinion. As though we're all neophytes who can't possibly look at the Celtics and see their talent, but instead just look at the latest series they played vs a team without it's best player.

 

If we're going by how well a team looked in the 1st round, why wouldn't we be overly confident the Bucks would win?

 

So...yeah, don't tell me why I think this is a tough matchup. Especially after I already said why. They're a team led by a guy who's been there before and hit big shots, they've got 2 young, long and extremely athletic defenders to throw at Giannis as well as a couple older and bigger ones. Horford gave us a ton of trouble last year and...and I really didn't think it needed to be explained that the Celts were a talented team.

 

I think the Bucks are better, don't think they'll lose in 5, but just dismissing our opinions because it just has to be because of their first-round series is a bit annoying.

[HiAndTight]

We'll have game times/dates soon I expect. Lots of analysts and experts picking the Celts to take this series because of "Playoff Experience". Go figure...

 

I do believe playoff experience matters. But how much more experience does Boston really have? Or their individual players? Not much, so I don't see any advantage in this series. Now Golden State on the other hand, yea, that's a ton of experience and that is worth something.

 

 

Their best player at the most important position has hit huge shots to upset the Warriors in the finals.

They have a decided advantage over a team that just won its first playoff series vs a terrible team.

I don't think that'll be the factor that determines the series or not, but it's definitely A factor.

[OnTheBlack]

I think the advantage the Bucks have is that they have excellent talent AND an excellent coach. I don't fear that the Celtics will have some miracle approach that will take down the Bucks because Coach Budz will figure out quickly how to adjust. I can't recall all the times the team looked bad in the first half and after the break, just demolished their opponents. Some of that is just the level of talent, but I think a lot had to do with adjustments Budz made.

 

 

The thing is though, why do you expect it will take a miracle? The talent gap isn't big enough for there to need to be a miracle and you COULD argue the Celts have the better coach. I don't believe that's the case, but...

 

 

The Bucks have the best player in the draft and a great supporting cast. The Celts though have a elite player who's been there and performed in the biggest spots and a lot of different guys who can contribute.

 

 

I'd be shocked if this series went to anyone in 5 games. I'd be shocked if this series doesn't go at LEAST 6 and I wouldn't be surprised who wins it.

[homer]

Celtics were a .500 team after the all star break. Yeah I suppose they could all of a sudden click and beat the Bucks but I feel like people have been making excuses for them all season. I just don't see them winning a full series against MKE unless Giannis gets hurt.

[coolhandluke121]

That's what it boils down to - people making excuses for the Celtics all year. They're talented, but the whole is much less than the sum of the parts, and they have some overrated young guys. The only thing I'm scared of is Hayward rounding into form, because he could completely change the complexion of that team.

[young guns]

Bronson missing games 1 and 2. Will reevaluate then.

[HiAndTight]

Bronson missing games 1 and 2. Will reevaluate then.

 

Brogdon I assume you mean to say?

 

Not sure who gets hit worse, the Bucks without Brogdon or the Celts without Smart. Brogdon is much more likely to be back this series than Smart however.

[HiAndTight]

That's what it boils down to - people making excuses for the Celtics all year. They're talented, but the whole is much less than the sum of the parts, and they have some overrated young guys. The only thing I'm scared of is Hayward rounding into form, because he could completely change the complexion of that team.

 

 

Who exactly has been making excuses for them?

 

Also, it seems like you think pretty much every young talented player is overrated. Tatum's was a monster last year in the post-season and Brown was pretty damn good as well. Rozier outplayed Bled but has gone back to the bench as one of the best PG's in the game came back from injury.

 

They don't fit well, they have redundancies...which may be beneficial when those redundancies come with multiple guys who can match up against Giannis and eat up some fouls.

 

But they were +4.5 over the course of the year, the same they were last year when they trailed only Hou, GSW and Toronto. That's elite and not something that people need to make "excuses for." They're top 10 in both offensive and defensive rating. And this is while they've "struggled" for part of the season to incorporate their young stars with their older stars. Oh, and they also have one of the better coaches in the NBA.

 

You're presenting them as though they're some afterthought whom we should blow off the court. That'd be nice, but it's probably fantasy.

 

 

There are some bad matchup's here, none worse than Horford and Lopez. The Bucks are going to have to figure out how to handle Horford as the Celtics dominated the Bucks when the two were on the floor together this year(-44 points in 3 games). You can't leave Horford open as he's become a good 3 point shooter in his own right, and the biggest concession the Bucks have made in their defensive scheme is allowing 3's. They're among the league leaders in 3 given up. The Celtics are 7th in the league in 3's shot per game and 3 point pct. That gets worse with Lopez on the floor.

 

So yeah, they're a tough matchup. Giannis can play Horford and take away his shot, but then you're losing a key piece to your team in Lopez and a big rim protector. They can go with Lopez and just hope the Celts don't hit their 3's. And if they take Lopez out, then Kyrie becomes that much more dangerous as he's one of the best in the NBA at getting to the rim. Giannis can't play everywhere. Plus there's just the fact that Kyrie is capable of taking over games like few other players in the NBA.

 

 

Either way, it's foolish to look at the Celts regular record alone and paint them as this overrated team and paint Tatum and Brown as overrated players(though I guess it depends on what you're "rating them" in the first place).

 

The Celts are a dangerous team and very capable of not only giving the Bucks a good series but ending their playoff run.

[HiAndTight]

And just for the record, I do believe the Bucks will win this series and I think the "Celts in 5" is nonsense, I respect what the Bucks have done this year. They've played hard all year long and they've been as good of a regular season team as anyone in the NBA.

 

But this is kinda like the Giannis for MVP discussion. If you grant Harden credit, you look to dismiss it even MORE than you look to Giannis.

You're doing the same thing here. The Bucks were the better regular season team. Those young "overrated player," already showed what they could do when they carried a team without two max players to the conf finals before losing to LeBron(Moreso Tatum and Rozier last year than Brown, but Brown showed up big at times last year as well).

 

 

But if you're not worried about a team that can shoot the 3 ball, can neutralize one of our most important players in Lopez and has a #1 who's been there before and showed up HUGE in the NBA finals, it feels like you're trying to convince yourself as much as everyone else.

 

Hope I'm wrong. Hope the Bucks can beat the Celts with the ease you seem to think they'll be able to. I think it's going to be a long, physically series that SHOULD go the Bucks way, but could easily go either way.

[coolhandluke121]

Who's making excuses for them? Anyone and everyone who acts like their talent and performance are comparable to the Bucks this year, that's who. Anyone who just lists how many big names they have and assumes the great results are going to start any day now. It's based on reputation and on-paper roster examinations, not on results.

 

You cite their +4.5 differential, 6th-best in the NBA and probably about 397th-best all-time, and call them elite; what does that make the Bucks and their +8.9 differential, 17th-best all-time? Nobody is saying they're bad and nobody is saying they don't have a chance, but the Bucks have been the far superior team this year, period.

 

Brown is a bad fit who can't shoot, Rozier's postseason last year was a fluke, and Tatum has molded himself into an iso-ball chucker, probably thanks to his offseason workouts with Kobe. Hayward is still working his way back into form, and Horford is a half step slower. Smart is hurt. Kyrie made them better on offense but much worse on defense. Toronto and Milwaukee are much better teams than Philly and Boston. The latter teams have a chance, as 3 and 4 seeds usually do, but they should definitely be underdogs.

[tmwiese55]

I believe Boston had a negative net rating post ASB as they've "turned it on". I don't recall exactly but I think they had the 2nd worst one of playoff teams, Indy being the only one worse. And they essentially played 3 close games vs a blah Indy team without it's star. Yea I don't think this is gonna be a cakewalk and am fully aware of how many good players they have, and some of the specific bad matchups for these two teams. So by no means would I be cocky and trash talking like this will be easy, but there is no reason to not be confident with the Bucks winning especially when you add in HCA. There's a reason we're like 8 pt faves this game and massive favorites for the series in Vegas. If they made the series betting line near even, everyone would dump money on the Bucks.

[Baldkin]

Bucks in 5.

 

Celtics are 1-10 vs over .500 teams not named Indiana after the All Star Break.

 

Indiana played at a 35 win pace without Oladipo. They were not good.

 

Giannis will play a bunch of "5" this series. Lopez might get played off the court on occasion - but Boston has no one to stop Giannis and Middleton - and Irving can't stay in front of Bledsoe.

[owbc]

People are reading too much into Boston trashing a weak Pacers team.

 

Bucks in 5.

 

 

Yeah, that's just a really obnoxious comment in my opinion. As though we're all neophytes who can't possibly look at the Celtics and see their talent, but instead just look at the latest series they played vs a team without it's best player.

 

If we're going by how well a team looked in the 1st round, why wouldn't we be overly confident the Bucks would win?

 

So...yeah, don't tell me why I think this is a tough matchup. Especially after I already said why. They're a team led by a guy who's been there before and hit big shots, they've got 2 young, long and extremely athletic defenders to throw at Giannis as well as a couple older and bigger ones. Horford gave us a ton of trouble last year and...and I really didn't think it needed to be explained that the Celts were a talented team.

 

I think the Bucks are better, don't think they'll lose in 5, but just dismissing our opinions because it just has to be because of their first-round series is a bit annoying.

 

Just to be clear, this was not directed at anyone in the thread, there are some good points here for why the Celtics are a tough matchup that I didn't consider. But I still think the Celtics will ultimately depend on hot 3 point shooting to beat the Bucks and that will happen only once in Boston. We'll see...

[HiAndTight]

People are reading too much into Boston trashing a weak Pacers team.

 

Bucks in 5.

 

 

Yeah, that's just a really obnoxious comment in my opinion. As though we're all neophytes who can't possibly look at the Celtics and see their talent, but instead just look at the latest series they played vs a team without it's best player.

 

If we're going by how well a team looked in the 1st round, why wouldn't we be overly confident the Bucks would win?

 

So...yeah, don't tell me why I think this is a tough matchup. Especially after I already said why. They're a team led by a guy who's been there before and hit big shots, they've got 2 young, long and extremely athletic defenders to throw at Giannis as well as a couple older and bigger ones. Horford gave us a ton of trouble last year and...and I really didn't think it needed to be explained that the Celts were a talented team.

 

I think the Bucks are better, don't think they'll lose in 5, but just dismissing our opinions because it just has to be because of their first-round series is a bit annoying.

 

Just to be clear, this was not directed at anyone in the thread, there are some good points here for why the Celtics are a tough matchup that I didn't consider. But I still think the Celtics will ultimately depend on hot 3 point shooting to beat the Bucks and that will happen only once in Boston. We'll see...

 

 

Well, they're a good 3 point shooting team, so I think they'll likely have more than one game that they'll shoot good.

 

My problem is the suggestion that people are just suddenly paying attention to this Boston team because of that 1st round series. Nobody cares about that. They showed some positive signs, but they played a team similar to the Bucks. Two teams missing their best players who would have only been marginally better with them.

[HiAndTight]

Bucks in 5.

 

Celtics are 1-10 vs over .500 teams not named Indiana after the All Star Break.

 

Indiana played at a 35 win pace without Oladipo. They were not good.

 

Giannis will play a bunch of "5" this series. Lopez might get played off the court on occasion - but Boston has no one to stop Giannis and Middleton - and Irving can't stay in front of Bledsoe.

 

 

Well, first of all, nobody can stop Giannis.

 

But Middleton? I think other than Toronto, they're as well equipped to slow Middleton down as anyone. They have young, long, athletic wings who they can use against both Giannis and Middleton.

 

And Bledsoe will be able to beat Irvin..but Kyrie's gonna get his too, and when you take Lopez, your big rim protector out of the game and make him a non-factor in this series, he's gonna be getting to the basket and scoring a lot of points. Last year they played good team basketball but they counted on Tatum or other young guys who weren't and still arne't ready to be THEE guy. This year, they have that guy and I could see him putting up 30+ in this series.

 

I think guys like Ersan, Mirotic and perhaps even Wilson may play a big role. Horford is gonna be a tough match up for us again this year.

 

I'll go Bucks in 7.

 

In fact, I'll just make the rest of my predictions, Bucks in 7, Bucks over Philly in 6(I'm calling an upset here, but it may be wishful thinking) and then Bucks over Hou in 7(that's not wishful thinking...my confidence is waining in the Dubs right now, despite the fact that they're better without Boogie).

 

But I still see 4 teams(Tor, Bos, GSW and Hou) who I think are capable of beating us in a 7 game series.