Late in the 2024–25 campaign, the Bucks featured a three-guard look that was quite effective, even in the playoffs: Kevin Porter Jr., AJ Green, Gary Trent Jr., Giannis, and Bobby Portis. It was so intriguing that many fans thought the answer this year would be to replace Portis with newcomer Myles Turner and run with it. But while that lineup has been good, we’ve barely seen it thanks to injuries and ineffectiveness. Still, we’ll attempt to figure out how playing three guards is going this year.
[Yesterday](/bucks-analysis/51941/milwaukee-lineup-three-guards-kevin-porter-jr-aj-green-gary-trent-jr-ryan-rollins), we found that when the best lineups stayed together over the 2024 offseason, they remained pretty good, even with a drop-off from increased playing time. That generally held when these teams swapped or added significant talent to their rotations too, improving their holdover lineups on paper. It also held when said talent came in the form of a big man.
But that was only entering last season. To get a handle on how it’s gone in recent years, we’re going to increase the scope here. I looked at teams that made a significant frontcourt acquisition the previous offseason, particularly additions who regularly played the five, then I compared how they integrated with smaller or less-talented groups from one year to the next. This dates back to offseason big man additions since 2018:
Horford/G. Williams/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
117
13.1
Horford/Porzingis/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
118
16.2
+3.1
Horford/Smart/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
432
12.2
Horford/Porzingis/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
118
16.2
+4.0
Horford/R. Williams/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
69
44.9
Horford/Porzingis/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
118
16.2
\-28.7
Horford/Brogdon/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
48
2.0
Horford/Porzingis/Brown/White/Tatum
BOS
118
16.2
+14.2
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Vanderbilt
UTA
133
15.7
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Collins
UTA
256
4.3
\-11.4
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Kessler
UTA
79
\-0.1
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Collins
UTA
256
4.3
+4.4
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Beasley
UTA
37
\-3.8
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Collins
UTA
256
4.3
+8.1
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Conley
UTA
30
30.4
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Sexton/Collins
UTA
256
4.3
\-26.1
Olynyk/Clarkson/Markkanen/Horton-Tucker/Kessler
UTA
41
18.4
Collins/Clarkson/Markkanen/Horton-Tucker/Kessler
UTA
84
\-22.1
\-40.5
Russell/Towns/Vanderbilt/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
155
\-4.6
Russell/Towns/Gobert/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
260
4.0
+8.6
Russell/Towns/Beasley/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
104
11.9
Russell/Towns/Gobert/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
260
4.0
\-7.9
Russell/Towns/Beverley/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
76
10.7
Russell/Towns/Gobert/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
260
4.0
\-6.7
Russell/Towns/Okogie/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
45
\-0.9
Russell/Towns/Gobert/Edwards/McDaniels
MIN
260
4.0
+4.9
Thompson/Smart/Brown/Tatum/Theis
BOS
95
\-4.3
Horford/Smart/Brown/Tatum/Theis
BOS
59
33.9
+38.2
Thompson/Smart/Brown/Tatum/G. Williams
BOS
32
30.1
Horford/Smart/Brown/Tatum/G. Williams
BOS
61
\-13.7
\-43.8
Valaciunas/Anderson/Melton/Morant/Bane
MEM
50
14.0
Adams/Anderson/Melton/Morant/Bane
MEM
60
\-25.2
\-39.2
Redick/Favors/Ingram/Ball/Hart
NO
94
\-10.7
Redick/Adams/Ingram/Ball/Hart
NO
46
20.0
+30.7
Bledsoe/Henson/Middleton/Giannis/Brown
MIL
32
20.7
Bledsoe/Lopez/Middleton/Giannis/Brown
MIL
130
\-10.4
\-31.1
Bledsoe/Henson/Middleton/Giannis/Snell
MIL
606
5.8
Bledsoe/Lopez/Middleton/Giannis/Snell
MIL
67
3.5
\-2.3
Bledsoe/Henson/Middleton/Giannis/Brogdon
MIL
224
13.0
Bledsoe/Lopez/Middleton/Giannis/Brogdon
MIL
597
5.7
\-7.3
Bledsoe/Henson/Snell/Giannis/Brogdon
MIL
40
\-23.4
Bledsoe/Lopez/Snell/Giannis/Brogdon
MIL
35
61.7
+85.1
Livingston/West/Iguodala/Thompson/Green
GS
139
9.4
Livingston/Cousins/Iguodala/Thompson/Green
GS
67
13.2
+3.8
Durant/Pachulia/Curry/Thompson/Green
GS
414
8.5
Durant/Cousins/Curry/Thompson/Green
GS
268
13.1
+4.6
These aren’t all elite teams by any means, but does the pattern above—the best lineups fell off but were still generally very good, and increased exposure lowered net ratings overall—hold? Well, lineups that shifted their biggest guy down the positional spectrum, then installed their shiny new big man in place of a guard or wing, sometimes saw a nice jump. Look at the Celtics replacing Malcom Brogdon with Kristaps Porzingis in 2023, then further down the list, Tristan Thompson with Al Horford in 2021. A post-ACL tear DeMarcus Cousins elevated some Warriors holdovers too.
On the other hand, newcomer Rudy Gobert plus lesser defender Karl-Anthony Towns lineups in Minnesota were a mixed bag, as were groups that added John Collins alongside one of Utah’s returning bigs, Kelly Olynyk or Walker Kessler. Even Lopez couldn’t elevate two of the Bucks’ better quintets in 2017–18, though they were still solid (the 20.7 net with Sterling Brown looks quite fluky).
Generally, though, new big men lineups did fit the pattern I mentioned: the four-returnees-plus-one-new-guy groups averaged a 1.5 points per 100 possessions decrease in their net rating. And when previous-year lineups saw an uptick in minutes, their net decreased 73% of the time. But the truly elite groups didn’t usually maintain a standard of excellence. Of all the fivesomes with net ratings above 12 (usually around 80th percentile), nearly all sank to league average or below in net, except for the Porzingis crews.
We now finally arrive to this year’s Bucks. Unfortunately, only two Milwaukee lineups with Turner replacing Lopez and the other four not changing have carried over from 2024–25 to 2025–26 thus far. The sample size is far too small to glean anything from:
Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Lopez
17
75.8
Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Turner
17
48.9
\-26.9
Porter/Green/Trent/Kuzma/Lopez
43
\-9.8
Porter/Green/Trent/Kuzma/Turner
4
18.3
+28.1
Though Giannis may be returning soon, we may not get more data on last year’s three-guard trio since Trent seems to have been replaced by Cam Thomas in the rotation. But it’s really Rollins who has replaced him in the Bucks’ three-guard groups, which they have used _a lot_ this year: they’ve played 373 minutes together, which CTG defines as 754 non-garbage time possessions. They have a very solid 119.9 offensive rating and 111.0 defensive rating; a +8.9 net rating, good for the 90th percentile. Their most successful and most used groups slot Giannis alongside Portis, Turner, or Kuzma, though using Portis and Turner together has also worked in small doses (only seen in four games):
Rollins/Porter/Green/Giannis/Turner
356
13.6
81st
123.0
74th
109.4
74th
Rollins/Porter/Green/Kuzma/Turner
99
\-17.6
12th
104.0
11th
121.6
26th
Rollins/Porter/Green/Giannis/Portis
94
30.2
96th
120.2
62nd
90.0
99th
Rollins/Porter/Green/Sims/Turner
87
4.1
54th
114.9
38th
110.9
68th
Rollins/Porter/Green/Portis/Sims
36
\-2.0
37th
133.3
96th
135.5
3rd
Rollins/Porter/Green/Kuzma/Portis
28
\-59.1
0th
96.4
2nd
155.6
0th
Rollins/Porter/Green/Portis/Turner
26
32.6
98th
115.4
42nd
82.8
100th
Rollins/Porter/Green/Kuzma/Giannis
19
31.6
97th
142.1
100th
110.5
70th
Of the four lineups that are made up of returning players from 2024–25, only one saw _any_ action last year: the one at the very bottom, with just five possessions. But the third lineup down, with its +30.2 net, is probably the best analogue for Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Portis, and the top lineup is the closest we’ll get to Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Lopez. If we use Rollins as our Trent equivalence (not too far off, given Trent’s excellent shooting last year and scratch defense), here’s how they compare across seasons:
Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Lopez
34
88.2
Porter/Green/Rollins/Giannis/Turner
356
13.6
\-74.6
Porter/Green/Trent/Kuzma/Lopez
84
\-7.4
Porter/Green/Rollins/Kuzma/Turner
99
\-17.6
\-10.2
Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Portis
88
54.6
Porter/Green/Rollins/Giannis/Portis
94
30.2
\-24.4
Porter/Green/Trent/Kuzma/Portis
33
61.5
Porter/Green/Rollins/Kuzma/Portis
28
\-59.1
\-120.6
Porter/Green/Trent/Portis/Lopez
22
\-58.2
Porter/Green/Rollins/Portis/Turner
26
32.6
+90.8
Porter/Green/Trent/Kuzma/Giannis
58
\-6.3
Porter/Green/Rollins/Kuzma/Giannis
19
31.6
+37.9
Porter/Green/Trent/Kuzma/Sims
96
4.2
Porter/Green/Rollins/Kuzma/Sims
3
133.3
+129.1
In a sense, the Bucks’ small-ball “death lineup” didn’t go anywhere, if you just replace Rollins with Trent, and the three-guard “triumverate” still exists with him alongside Porter and Green. The sample sizes of Porter/Green/Trent/Giannis/Portis and Porter/Rollins/Green/Giannis/Portis are now about the same, and though it’s seen a net falloff of 24.4, it’s still 96th percentile. That’s in line with findings from other teams dating back several years: the best lineups fell off but remained generally very good, and increased exposure lowered net ratings overall.
And as much as we’ve bemoaned the Bucks’ lack of size on the wing, playing AJG as an undersized three has actually worked pretty well as long as he has the right frontcourt: CTG gives lineups with Green playing alongside two smaller guards (not just Rollins and KPJ, but also small doses of Cole Anthony and Cam Thomas) a +7.8 net. What you don’t want, though, is him plus another non-ballhandling guard (-28.6 in 35 possessions). Or worse yet, one of Trent or Gary Harris moving up a spot to the three (-9.4 in 1228 possessions).
Rollins’ emergence has been so critical to the Bucks this year, as roster construction and an injury to Taurean Prince have dictated that they play three guards very often. Though they can now play bigger on the wing when necessary, thanks to Ousmane Dieng, it’s still a good weapon. One question moving forward is how it will work with Thomas: playing next to any of Rollins, KPJ, or Porter, will he bring enough offense to keep three-guard lineups above water? If so, how high above even, and who do they need in the frontcourt? We’ll check on this down the road, provided Doc doesn’t abandon the three-guard look, which he shouldn’t, even if playing that small is usually a necessity.