Well, the Milwaukee Bucks are now winless against the Cleveland Cavaliers—0-9 against the top three teams in the Eastern Conference, for that matter—and I wanted to talk through my feelings about where that leaves us as fans. And no, I’m not saying this one game on the second night of a back-to-back means everything, but to brush it off as nothing also feels wrong. Tired or not, Milwaukee’s approach and execution (or not) of a set gameplan showed us a lot, in my opinion.
I’ll start here: are the Bucks a better team than the Cavs? The answer for most people would be no; the stats tell us that, and so does the eye test. So if they are a fundamentally lesser team than Cleveland, and Milwaukee is playing to win championships right now, what is the scenario in which they steal a series from this team (or any other top team)? What is the answer to the question, “if Milwaukee does [blank], they will give themselves their best shot at beating the East’s top teams?” Not necessarily to win, but doing what would feel like they emptied the tank and fired their best shot.
If I were to take a stab at it, I’d answer: “unpredictably deploys Giannis.” Really, this is just an extension of “purposefully moving the ball more,” but I think Giannis fully buying into “playing unpredictably” is the best avenue to achieving that goal because of his innate ability to force rotations and creases in the defence. The Bucks currently rank 23rd in assists per game.
I would choose this option first with respect to GA as an NBA superstar but also because, as the best player, he will naturally dictate how Milwaukee plays. The Bucks’ chances of winning revolve around Antetokounmpo’s impact on the game. However, how they use Giannis is unquestionably the most significant variable. Make no mistake: the Cleveland Cavaliers and Boston Celtics are fine with him charging his way to the rim against their best defenders. That has proven to be a recipe for losing against these teams. So what’s the alternative? Well, I wrote about it earlier this season, but in a nutshell, it is to use him as more of a playmaking hub where he is attacking off of his second touch as opposed to trying to create against a more set defence.
Full transparency: I don’t love the isolation-heavy style against any opponent, even the tanking teams, and I’ve realised why. Sure, take the obvious mismatches, but I want Giannis to be the focal point of a repeatable and bankable system wherein yes, everything revolves around him, but it’s less of Antetokounmpo creating self-made offence and more using teammates to generate more effortless looks for himself and others. Not to compare their games, but I take inspiration from the Denver Nuggets’ system with Nikola Jokić; I’d say a big chunk of Jokić’s offence is built on him using others to create penetration (Murray, Porter, Westbrook) and scoring off second-touch opportunities following pick-and-rolls, handoffs, etc.
In short, I’ll die on the hill that getting Giannis going to the rim after his primary defender is forced to shift their focus elsewhere is the optimal way to use him, by and large. But even if one posits that this style of basketball is effective against teams without the requisite personnel to limit Giannis, I am 100% positive that he must play differently against the teams that do. The sample size of games where Giannis has tried to overpower Jarrett Allen or Al Horford through brute strength, to me, is large enough to conclude that it does not work. What was that Einstein quote about insanity?
So as I watched the game last night, I was hoping the Bucks would come out with a distinguishable gameplan in how they wanted to attack this Cavs defence—Giannis (and Dame by extension) being at the centre of it. Where are the pressure points in Cleveland’s defence? Because it certainly isn’t either of their big men, especially Allen. From there, the answer becomes obvious: involve Mitchell, Garland, Jerome, and Merrill in actions and make them guard. Now, I admit that’s easier said than done. Cleveland is a well-drilled defensive team, so soft screens and handoffs are getting blown up. But if the screens are solid enough, one of two things will happen. Either they put two on the ball (in which case you can play out of the short roll with a numbers advantage), or they switch (in which case Giannis has a guard on him, and that’s when you mash the button). This is the game within the game: getting to the options you want regardless of what the other team is doing.
And as that plan pertains to the game last night, I think most people would agree that the intent in the opening six minutes or so felt great. The Bucks were hitting those pressure points. Giannis was catching and making quick decisions. The screens were solid. The defence was physical and alert. And then that intentionality faded more and more as the game went along. Giannis went back to some of his iso-ball habits, Dame started foul grifting and giving away possessions, Gary kept going for high-risk steals, Kuz and TP were trying to do too much. It was a bit of a mess.
Cleveland had 25 assists to the Bucks’ 17, and everything appeared so damn easy for them. It felt like the Bucks got worn down and, for all intents and purposes, gave in to that physicality and went individual (which caused many of their 18 turnovers). To me, that’s where things went off the rails. You could see Giannis and Dame become exhausted because of all the offence they seemed to be trying to create on their own. It felt like there was a lack of connectedness with Milwaukee—and the exact opposite for Cleveland. The Cavs also won the math game, going 19/47 from three to the Bucks’ 9/31. As the game ended with a final scoreline not truly reflective of how the game went, I caught myself coming to a concrete conclusion: no amount of individual brilliance is going to be enough to compete with teams who make a point of playing together. The Cavs, who would tell you they also did not play well, taught the Bucks a lesson in that regard.