Skip to content

The Bucks and Celtics both showed us exactly who they are

Maddie Meyer / Getty Images Sport / Getty

All season, the Milwaukee Bucks and the Boston Celtics have been telling the basketball world, both in word and in deed, who they are. But it was often hard to believe what each team was revealing, because those revelations didn't jibe with what we'd previously known or expected them to be.

For three years running, the Bucks had been a promising but discombobulated puzzle that hadn't coalesced or won a playoff series. The Celtics, conversely, had scrapped their way to within a game of the NBA Finals last season - eliminating those same discombobulated Bucks along the way - without the services of their best player or their star free-agent acquisition. Next, one of those teams added Brook Lopez and Mike Budenholzer. The other added Kyrie Irving and Gordon Hayward. It seemed clear which side was set to contend in 2018-19.

But the preconceptions were challenged right away, with the Bucks sprinting out of the blocks as the Celtics tripped over their own feet and face-planted. And while there were ebbs and flows for both teams over the ensuing months, the early impressions proved predictive. In Budenholzer's revamped system, the Bucks got organized, and got MVP-caliber play from Giannis Antetokounmpo, along with contributions from perfectly situated role players up and down the roster. Meanwhile, the Celtics never seemed to click, both on and off the court, and their talent was probably overrated from the start.

Milwaukee had the season Boston was supposed to have - the kind where talent melds with unity, culture, role-definition, and fit to form a purring 60-win machine. The most charitable way to describe the season the Celtics did have is to say they won 49 games. Which, hey, is not bad! It's just that the Bucks were way better offensively and defensively, had a far more dominant individual superstar, and seemed to enjoy playing with each other a whole lot more.

Nathaniel S. Butler / National Basketball Association / Getty

Of course, it's easy to say we should believe players and teams when they tell us who they are, but playoff basketball has made liars of plenty of them before. To borrow a concept, there are "82-game teams" and "16-game teams," and while there are certain indicators that can tip you off, we usually don't know which ones are which until we actually see them play in the postseason. All year, Irving dropped crumbs that pointed to Boston's place in the latter category.

"I can't wait for all this other BS about regular season ... talking over and over and over again about what we can do to keep getting better in the regular season," Irving said during a losing streak in February. "I just wanna be at the highest level playing. That’s what I'm here for. ... I don't think anybody in the Eastern Conference can really compete with us at a high level when we’re playing the way we're supposed to be playing."

The Celtics commendably stayed out of their own way while completing a businesslike sweep of the undermanned Indiana Pacers in the first round, but it was their jarring Game 1 beatdown of the Bucks on the road that suggested they might indeed be a 16-game team with a gear we hadn't seen in the regular season. In that opening win, Boston demonstrated the matchup problems it can pose with its frontcourt shooting and positional versatility. The team executed its sets with seamless precision, honed in on Milwaukee's few soft spots, rained jumpers, and defended with a perfect mix of intelligence and physicality.

That game simultaneously seemed to hint at cracks in the Bucks' foundation. Irving and Al Horford exploited their inflexible drop-back coverage and picked on the slow-footed Lopez with repeated pick-and-pops. Horford also stymied Giannis Antetokounmpo - with help from Boston's stunting, digging wings - while Milwaukee's complementary players were unable to leverage the lack of attention paid to them. Old questions about Budenholzer's viability as a playoff coach resurfaced.

But despite some nervy moments, order was restored in Games 2 and 3. The Bucks made a crucial defensive adjustment - switching ball screens in order to wipe out the pick-and-pops that had burned them - and otherwise trusted the formula that got them there. Antetokounmpo solved the Celtics' transition defense and started hunting mismatches more ruthlessly in the half court. The Bucks' shooters kept bombing away whenever half-decent 3-point looks became available, and started knocking them down. On the other side, the Celtics' shooting cooled off (Irving's in particular), and they struggled to create against the Bucks' floor-shrinking defense.

Then came the proving ground of Game 4, which would either see Boston tie the series or go back to Milwaukee facing elimination. And over the course of the biggest game of the season, which gradually slipped away, all of the Celtics' shortcomings and worst tendencies (plus a dash of tough luck) came home to roost.

Brian Babineau / National Basketball Association / Getty

Their biggest issue wasn't a particularly familiar one. They simply couldn't hit shots, going 9-for-41 from 3-point range, including 8-for-28 on "wide open" threes, according to NBA.com. But that struggle also highlighted a persistent problem, which is the Celtics' lack of other reliable modes of scoring. It stood out even in a game that saw them get to the free-throw line with uncharacteristic frequency.

Unlike Milwaukee, which endured an equally miserable shooting night, Boston couldn't make up for it by scoring regularly at the rim. With Hayward unable to turn the corner or break anyone down off the dribble, Horford struggling to make productive plays when forced to put the ball on the floor, and guys like Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, and Marcus Morris mostly looking to finish possessions, a roster that once tantalized us with the prospect of playmaking at every position looked light on off-the-bounce creation beyond Irving.

It didn't help that Irving was busy fighting his own demons, turning in a third straight disappointing performance after a magnificent Game 1. He shot 7-of-22 from the field, missed his own share of uncontested threes, and struggled to finish around the basket (though he was at least trying to attack downhill with regularity). The Bucks did a great job of showing extra bodies on his drives, collapsing when he picked up his dribble, and recovering out to shooters on kickouts. George Hill, in particular, was a menace defending on the ball.

The game brought Irving's running field-goal tally from the last three contests to 19-of-62, the worst shooting stretch of his postseason career. But when presented with that stat, he was nonplussed.

"Who cares?" Irving said. "I'm a basketball player. Prepare the right way. ... For me, the 22 shots, I should've shot 30. I'm that great of a shooter."

His phrasing probably could have been more tactful, but Irving's general point wasn't off-base. He's a proven shot-maker and at-rim finisher; an All-NBA scorer who just posted the most productive season of his career. Making or missing shots isn't typically the kind of thing that comes down to effort, and while Irving definitely forced up some needlessly tough ones, everything was within the typical spectrum for a guy who's made a career out of hitting jumpers and layups no one else can.

Maybe the Celtics would've survived Irving's rough shooting night if it hadn't occurred in concert with his lackluster showing on the defensive end, where he made no effort to fight unfavorable switches, often neglected to box out, got beat off the bounce, and got bullied by Hill. On the first possession of the fourth quarter, with Boston trailing by eight, Irving committed a three-shot foul on Pat Connaughton. That capped a 21-9 Bucks run that occurred almost entirely with Irving on the floor and with both Antetokounmpo and Khris Middleton on the bench due to foul trouble.

Irving, who'd complained after Game 3 that the Bucks were getting a favorable whistle, was out there leading a unit that got torched by a lineup of Hill, Connaughton, Lopez, Sterling Brown, and Ersan Ilyasova. You would have expected more from a guy who said the Celtics wouldn't have to worry about falling flat in the playoffs, "because I'm here."

Nathaniel S. Butler / National Basketball Association / Getty

Still, this loss was about so much more than just Irving or missed threes. It was about the Celtics not having anyone outside of Horford who was even remotely capable of guarding Antetokounmpo. Morris, Brown, Tatum ... one by one they tried, and one by one they bounced off Giannis as he drove and spun and overwhelmed them with sheer force.

This was also about the Celtics' complete helplessness when it came to slowing down the Bucks' transition game. It was about their inability to punish the switches - either big-on-small or small-on-big - that the Bucks decided to live with. In the first half, for instance, Sterling Brown switched onto Horford, who posted him up ... and flung a layup right over the rim. In the second half, Bledsoe switched onto Horford, the Bucks sent a help defender to the post, Horford passed out, and the Bucks rotated until the Celtics got hit with a 24-second violation.

In both cases, and in plenty of others since Game 1, Boston tried to leverage the pick-and-pop that had been so lethal, but found far less airspace to work with. Even though Irving dusted Lopez on a switch for a driving and-1 layup in the fourth quarter, the Bucks trusted that the trade-off would ultimately be worth it, just as they trusted all season that they could win the math battle with a drop scheme that prioritizes rim protection at the cost of surrendering above-the-break threes.

Above all, the biggest reason the Celtics are on the brink of elimination is their opponent. The Bucks are scary good, with a killer instinct and a clarity of purpose that both feel unique to ascendent championship contenders.

"I was talking to Bledsoe a little bit and I told him, 'Great teams and great players, when they find an opportunity like this, they don't waste it,'" Antetokounmpo told Matt Velazquez of the Journal Sentinel after Game 4. "You got to take advantage of it, you got to close the game out. That was my mindset both (road) games, especially this game."

These Bucks, it seems, are an 82-game team and a 16-game team. They jammed on the accelerator the moment the regular season began, and aside from that Game 1 speed bump, they've yet to let up. It still took a while to fully trust them, just like it took a while to disconnect from misguided notions about how good these Celtics could be. But this is who these teams have been all season, and who they are now.

In a Game 4 that Boston absolutely had to have, we finally got the definitive proof.

Daily Newsletter

Get the latest trending sports news daily in your inbox