Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NYMavFan
You can't attribute the higher FG percentage solely to Dirk (if at all). The main reason for the higher FG% is the fact that these playesr were forced to play in a system that enforced much more discipline than the teams from which they came. Terry has said numerous times that AJ taught him how to be a better player in this league and that by undoing the bad habits he learned in Atlanta, he probably extended his career by 5 years. When Van Exel was on that horrendous Denver team, he was much more a gunner because he was one of the focal points of the offense. That wasn't the case in Dallas. Jamison was the main scorer in Golden State. In Dallas, he took far fewer shots, and the shots he took were much more opportunistic. He also shot from the outside a lot less, further contributing to a higher FG %.
I don't deny that players shoot higher FG% as Mavs as compared to their former teams, but giving credit to Dirk for that difference is just plain wrong.
|
just pure coincidence then? wow, you are awful. what's the difference then? it can't purely be entirely system driven since the majority of the players i've named played in a free wheeling system under nellie. so what is it then if its not dirk, its not the system? is it the rarefied dallas air?
a quick example disproves your analysis. jamison shot 53.5% here in dallas and shot 45% in washington this season as the third option behind arenas and butler. prior to this season he's shot 44.2 and 43.7% respectively.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NYMavFan
Comparing lineups on paper, position by position is not conclusive evidence for anything. A team is far more than a sum of its parts so asking the question of 'is the supporting case 30 wins better?' is a moot point. Also, in no way do I think rafer alston is a 'slight push' with harris. Harris may have a lot of flaws, but he is WAY more valuable than alston.
|
wow, again you are horrendous. the argument was made that dirk isn't that big of a star because of his supporting cast. my argument was that the supporting cast was overrated.
your rebuttal to this is that you can't judge supporting casts, that you have to look at the sum. houston, do you see that we have a problem?!? it was pretty clearly delineated that houston and the clippers have lineups that collectively are arguably just as good as the mavs, so the difference in wins has to be attributed to someone. or is jerry stackhouse worth 30 wins a season? i got it, pops mensa-bonsu and barea are worth 30 wins.
for the record harris shoots a much better percentage, but alston averaged more points, assists, rebounds, and steals on a team that had two bona fide superstars. i think i'm being generous when i say on average harris and alston are pushes. and you extrapolated the argument out of context again when i said that harris was more valuable but all things considered, its pretty much a wash given their respective roles.