If before the Kidd trade I told you the Mavs would go 16-13 in the final 29 regular season games, you would be disgusted.
But what if I told you the Mavs margin of victory would increase from 4.8 (Mavs MoV 43 games into the season, time Devin went down) to 5.6, and 7.6 in games Dirk played? You would assume that would equate more wins, and assume that Kidd was an upgrade to the team.
I think there's a lot of hindsight. Anyone remember the problem last year? Dirk was out 5 games after the Kidd trade, and we lost 7 games inside the final minute. Our Pythagorean record was actually 56-26, which means we were simply "unlucky" in close games, unless you believe adding Kidd to the team hurt our ability to win games in the final minute, I personally don't buy that.
So from the simple standpoint of offensive and defensive possessions, which is basically what basketball comes down to, the Mavs actually improved. Thus, there is actually a legitimate case that the Mavs of 07-08 improved after the Kidd trade even though it wasn't reflected in wins and losses.
Now this year it's different. the Mavs margin of victory is hovering around 1.5 right now, but I don't think it's Kidd's fault as much as it is the defense regressing very badly, and Howard having his worst season in 4 years. Also, as great as Dirk has been this year, statistically it's one of his poorer shooting years in recent memory (true shooting %, + Dirk has ominously only shot 41% in the 4th quarter this year). Little things like these can be the difference between being 30-16 or 27-19.
The biggest issue with the Kidd trade was how much we gave up, but from a basketball standpoint, the Mavs regression is not solely attributable to the trade, if attributable at all.
|