Thanks a lot Cuban!!

[LonghornDub]

Well, he's 0 for 2, but fortunately he's got 998 more in the bank.

[markus1234]

And here is the icing on the cake

"We got stops and we were able to speed the game up some and play off the flow in transition," Nowitzki said of last year. "So, ultimately if you're good defensively you can be in games and big road games and give yourself a chance to win."

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/04/26/...#storylink=cpy

[LonghornDub]

Are we seeing the beginning of a Pujols-type streak here? Maybe he'll connect at 111.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

So the elements of transition offense are: 1) a stop on the previous defensive possession, and 2) "trying to score ASAP." Got it.

You learn something new every day in Basketball 101.

Rudy Gay falls victim to the ASAP-prong of transition offense.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by jthig32

This is just not true.

I looked at the advanced box scores for the 2011 Thunder series and the 2012 Thunder series.

In 2011 Thunder series, the Mavs scored 112 pp/100 posessions. They gave up 108 pp/100.

In the 2012 Thunder series, the Mavs scored 100 pp/100 possessions. They gave up 107 pp/100.

On the whole, the defense was basically the same, while the offense suffered a catastrophic fall.

Just look at the box scores and you'll that this narrative people have crafted about our suffocating defense being the back bone of our team is just false. It was a good defense, with the ability to be great for stretches, but the offense was just important, if not more so.

Hell we won a game against the Thunder last year while giving up 120 pp/100. Let that sink in.

The narrative being sown around here that the defense wasn't up to snuff just isn't accurate.

Mindblowing.

Did you see any of the playoff games? Especially the last one, where we gave up the same play for about 6 minutes straight in the 4th quarter? I'd hate to know what "snuff" is because I don't want to be up to that in the future.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

Mindblowing.

Did you see any of the playoff games? Especially the last one, where we gave up the same play for about 6 minutes straight in the 4th quarter? I'd hate to know what "snuff" is because I don't want to be up to that in the future.

That same game also saw them go the last 5:47 of the game without a field goal.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

That same game also saw them go the last 5:47 of the game without a field goal.

Sure. They get scored on and the defense has time to get set. They had a big lead at the end of the 3rd and going into the 4th.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Can't we just all agree that the Mavs sucked in the playoffs regardless? It really doesn't matter that the first two games were close because the difference between good and bad teams is winning close games.

[dude1394]

Yea the offense is why we won all of those championships under nellie.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea the offense is why we won all of those championships under nellie.

But we --


... Ooooh ...

[haCORErdMav]

Originally Posted by Jon

But we --


... Ooooh ...

I really like your sig cause that dude looks like he could be Jeremy Lambs dad.

Maybe its a little prophetic in that we draft Lamb and him and Deron tear it up for the next 4+ years in Dallas

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

Mindblowing.

Did you see any of the playoff games? Especially the last one, where we gave up the same play for about 6 minutes straight in the 4th quarter? I'd hate to know what "snuff" is because I don't want to be up to that in the future.

Yep, I did. And the defense was bad in the last game. And yet the Mavs beat the OKC once last year with a much worse defensive performance, and once with a fairly similar defensive performance.

The defense in the first two games was fine. In fact, it was better than three of the games against the Thunder last year, two of which were wins.

The defense, over the season and the playoffs, was about as good as last year. The offense saw a huge dropoff. I don't know how many times I can say this.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Jon

Not calling you a liar, but can you point me in the direction where you found those statistics? Per basketball reference, the Thunder shot .10 percentage points higher as a team this year from 2, and over 100 percent higher from 3, thus lending credibility to my assertion that the Mavs defensive philosophy of giving players plenty of space and collapsing the paint, rather than play tigh tight and man-up and funnel them toward a defender on the drive, seems to indicate.

2011: 456 from 2, .275 from 3.
2012: 467 from 2, .381 from 3


But I believe this to all be irrelevant given your latter assertion: that the defense this year was just as good as it was last year in the playoffs. All one would have to do to tell the difference between this year and last year is watch the 4th quarter of game 4. We star the quarter up 10 points, and end it down six. Meanwhile, Harden scores 13 points all on his own and dishes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgg-Om2EJrs
Harden in the 4th.

It seems to me as though you are incapable of recognizing the shortcomings and liabilities that befall Haywood and Mahinimi. I am bereft of any joy when I suggest that Haywood lacks the lateral quickness requisite to play alongside Dirk when when the games are in balance and Harden proved as much. For all of Mahinimi's athletic prowess, he either A) refuses to make the right rotations, or b) doesn't know how to play team defense at an elite NBA level.

As you suggested earlier, our team's success last year was fueled primarily by our offense -- Dirk's ability to be Dirk. I heard a lot of people talk about how Dirty was able to "take it to the next level" last season and play his best basketabll of his career.. I think that's bullshit. IMHO, the Dirk we got in 2011 was the same Dirk we saw vs the Spurs in 2010 and vs the Nuggets and Spurs in 2009.

The difference between 2010 and 2011 is this: vs the Spurs, we had no one on our roster who could cover the PnR they used time and time again to stretch us out and murder us. Given our defensive philosophy then was to hedge hard and recover quickly, running a 1-5 PnR or a 2-5 PnR between Parker/Gino and Duncan/McDyess left us exposed on the inside. How many times did we all, as Mavs fans, watch in disbelief as Antonio hit J after open J while Dampier or Haywood rotated late because they were incapable of covering the requisite space?

We did not have that problem with Chandler. If you do not believe me, check the links I posted earlier. Marion said just as much. So did Jason Terry.

So did Dirk.


If Dirk believes we took a step back, why don't you?

The box scores are all at HoopData.

2011:

Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Game 5

2012:
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4

I don't have much use for anecdotes as being some sort of proof. Yes the Mavs had a really bad defensive fourth quarter in game 4. They had some last year too. Data is always going to be more reliable than anecdotes.

Am I the only one that felt like our decision to go small at times was at least partly because we couldn't score?

I've never said anything about the specific abilities of our current centers. They all have their shortcomings, as does Tyson. Let's not forget that Haywood was the best defensive center we had against the Blazers and the Lakers last year. He was a more than serviceable defensive center over the course of the season. He had a reallly bad series against the Thunder, so we'll have to see if that's a sign of things to come or an aberration.

But what I will not ignore, like so many here, is what the data says. And the data says the defense did not drop off nearly as much as people think. What dropped off was the offense, and that matches what my eyes told me all season.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Yep, I did. And the defense was bad in the last game. And yet the Mavs beat the OKC once last year with a much worse defensive performance, and once with a fairly similar defensive performance.

The defense in the first two games was fine. In fact, it was better than three of the games against the Thunder last year, two of which were wins.

The defense, over the season and the playoffs, was about as good as last year. The offense saw a huge dropoff. I don't know how many times I can say this.

I don't either and it's hurting my head.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Can't we just all agree that the Mavs sucked in the playoffs regardless? It really doesn't matter that the first two games were close because the difference between good and bad teams is winning close games.

YEah, I think we can all agree on that we sucked in the playoffs. I think we lost to this years champs fwiw, OKC or S.A. So maybe if that happens everyone might feel a tad better about it.

Idk if the difference between good and bad teams is winning close games. At least in our case, We aren't a BAD team. Ultimately you are right tho we just weren't good enough this year.

As far as the offense goes. For starters, I can't wait to see what a difference having a guard that can break the defense down and actually make a layup will make! Enjoyed Kidd but his limitations hurt us a lot.

[mav4ever]

am i reading those correctly saying that tyson last year out rebounded our trio of centers this year 54 to 36?

[Jon]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The box scores are all at HoopData.

2011:

Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Game 5

2012:
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4

I don't have much use for anecdotes as being some sort of proof. Yes the Mavs had a really bad defensive fourth quarter in game 4. They had some last year too. Data is always going to be more reliable than anecdotes.

Am I the only one that felt like our decision to go small at times was at least partly because we couldn't score?

I've never said anything about the specific abilities of our current centers. They all have their shortcomings, as does Tyson. Let's not forget that Haywood was the best defensive center we had against the Blazers and the Lakers last year. He was a more than serviceable defensive center over the course of the season. He had a reallly bad series against the Thunder, so we'll have to see if that's a sign of things to come or an aberration.

But what I will not ignore, like so many here, is what the data says. And the data says the defense did not drop off nearly as much as people think. What dropped off was the offense, and that matches what my eyes told me all season.

Thanks for the link, pal. By my calculations, OKC shot a higher percentage this year year than last year and our defensive efficiency dropped as well. I reckon stats can bend at the will of the arguer.

As far as anecdotal evidence, if you're willing to dismiss my opinion, so be it. But Jason Terry's? Shawn Marion's? Dirk Nowitzki's? Three of the five players most responsible for our championship run last year all explicitly state Tyson was sorely missed.

And it wasn't simply the fourth. I've stated my opinion time and time again that our defensive philosophy shifted substantially this season than in years past. We routinely sagged off, collapsing into the paint, and dared players to kill us from outside. Which they did. Routinely. When we adjusted and played them tighter, they were able to drive past us at will and to the cup.

If you're up 10 points headed into the final quarter, the expectation that you'll be able to keep a team at bay is not an egregiously fallacious one. Your opinion of Haywood, on the other hand, is. There's a reason we had a 3-headed rotation at Center: Carlisle didn't trust one center. If Haywood were truly the "more than serviceable defensive center" you claim him to be, wouldn't he register more than 21 mpg? Would he not garner enough trust from the coach to actually close out games, rather than be relegated to the bench for most 4th quarters? He is a good-great 1-on-1 post defender, I completely agree, but how many teams have players on their roster who will dominate in a back-to-the basket game?

San Antonio: Duncan demolished him in 09 and his lack of lateral quickness was our downfall in that playoff series.
OKC: Nope
LA: Yes.
Memphis: Z-bo yes, but Dirk would likely check him unless you want him to try to stop the other Gasol.
Clippers: No
Denver: No
Utah: Yes, and we watched Al Jefferson average 20/15 against us this year.

By my count, his best attribute -- post defense -- would be nullified by a lack of a post presence in 3 playoff teams, irrelevant vs two teams, and helpful against Bynum and maybe Z-bo.

If we had made it back to the finals, how many teams in the east have a legit post presence? Indy and that's all I can think of.

All this "anecdotal" evidence points to this conclusion: Haywood's biggest strength, his 1-on-1 post defense, is largely irrelevant in the modern NBA given the dearth of quality offensive centers. It is more important, as we saw last year, to have a defender who is agile and long to play beside Dirk. This is why Wright closed out so many games for us this year -- that and Haywood's inability to hit freethrows. It is also why he barely played over 20 minutes a game.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Jon

Thanks for the link, pal. By my calculations, OKC shot a higher percentage this year year than last year and our defensive efficiency dropped as well. I reckon stats can bend at the will of the arguer.

Why do we care if their shooting percentage went up in the context of this conversation? Defensive efficiency tracks how often the team scored relative to pace. Shooting percentage is a component of that. It's already figured in.

I'm not sure what you're saying about their defensive efficiency. I already posted those numbers. There's no "stats bending" here.

As far as anecdotal evidence, if you're willing to dismiss my opinion, so be it. But Jason Terry's? Shawn Marion's? Dirk Nowitzki's? Three of the five players most responsible for our championship run last year all explicitly state Tyson was sorely missed.

And it wasn't simply the fourth. I've stated my opinion time and time again that our defensive philosophy shifted substantially this season than in years past. We routinely sagged off, collapsing into the paint, and dared players to kill us from outside. Which they did. Routinely. When we adjusted and played them tighter, they were able to drive past us at will and to the cup.

If you're up 10 points headed into the final quarter, the expectation that you'll be able to keep a team at bay is not an egregiously fallacious one. Your opinion of Haywood, on the other hand, is. There's a reason we had a 3-headed rotation at Center: Carlisle didn't trust one center. If Haywood were truly the "more than serviceable defensive center" you claim him to be, wouldn't he register more than 21 mpg? Would he not garner enough trust from the coach to actually close out games, rather than be relegated to the bench for most 4th quarters? He is a good-great 1-on-1 post defender, I completely agree, but how many teams have players on their roster who will dominate in a back-to-the basket game?

San Antonio: Duncan demolished him in 09 and his lack of lateral quickness was our downfall in that playoff series.
OKC: Nope
LA: Yes.
Memphis: Z-bo yes, but Dirk would likely check him unless you want him to try to stop the other Gasol.
Clippers: No
Denver: No
Utah: Yes, and we watched Al Jefferson average 20/15 against us this year.

By my count, his best attribute -- post defense -- would be nullified by a lack of a post presence in 3 playoff teams, irrelevant vs two teams, and helpful against Bynum and maybe Z-bo.

If we had made it back to the finals, how many teams in the east have a legit post presence? Indy and that's all I can think of.

All this "anecdotal" evidence points to this conclusion: Haywood's biggest strength, his 1-on-1 post defense, is largely irrelevant in the modern NBA given the dearth of quality offensive centers. It is more important, as we saw last year, to have a defender who is agile and long to play beside Dirk. This is why Wright closed out so many games for us this year -- that and Haywood's inability to hit freethrows. It is also why he barely played over 20 minutes a game.

Despite all of these assessments of Haywood as a player (and I don't disagree with all of them), the Mavs were a top ten defensive team and struggled all season to score the ball.

And yet all anyone will talk about right now is the defense. It's very frustrating.

[dude1394]

Because the eyeball test says otherwise.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Because the eyeball test says otherwise.

Not mine.

[mav4ever]

can i get something straight here? are some of you guys saying we didnt have a major drop off at center playing without tyson chandler?

because minus the 2 or 3 of you here, pretty much the rest of the basketball watching world knows it, and is saying as much. (at least every single person ive heard discuss it on tv/radio, etc.

so is that what im taking from all the breakdowns from the experts here?

what i saw was center position that was slow to close out, and pretty much defenseless against anyone trying to put the ball in the basket, be it near, far, or a dunk.

it was like haywood was a toll booth and okc had those tolltags where you just haulass through the gate at 55mph.

im stupid, so thats how i have to describe it.

[mavsfan1000]

Originally Posted by mav4ever

can i get something straight here? are some of you guys saying we didnt have a major drop off at center playing without tyson chandler?

because minus the 2 or 3 of you here, pretty much the rest of the basketball watching world knows it, and is saying as much. (at least every single person ive heard discuss it on tv/radio, etc.

so is that what im taking from all the breakdowns from the experts here?

what i saw was center position that was slow to close out, and pretty much defenseless against anyone trying to put the ball in the basket, be it near, far, or a dunk.

it was like haywood was a toll booth and okc had those tolltags where you just haulass through the gate at 55mph.

im stupid, so thats how i have to describe it.

QFT. We missed Chandler's screens and contested shots. We also missed Barea's penetration.

[mav4ever]

that is extremely true too about jj

at least what i saw. he had a knack for creating his own shot, especially when it mattered.

[Como11]

Those who are degrading the value of Tyson Chandler do not know basketball.

Look back at all of the championship teams. ALL OF THEM had a dominant big man who could defend and grab rebounds.

Tyson Chandler did exactly that. He dominated the paint. This year we had no one and we suffered. Center or a power forward (who can defend and rebound like a center) are the most important positions in basketball. From what I've seen in basketball, there's never been a champion without one.

That theory of mine might be debunked if the Heat win a championship though. :P

[mav4ever]

Look back at all of the championship teams. ALL OF THEM had a dominant big man who could defend and grab rebounds.

like who?

edit: oh wait, you mean that whole russell, walton, kareem, shaq, hakeem, chamberlain, duncan thing right?

never mind.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by Como11

Those who are degrading the value of Tyson Chandler do not know basketball.

Look back at all of the championship teams. ALL OF THEM had a dominant big man who could defend and grab rebounds.

Tyson Chandler did exactly that. He dominated the paint. This year we had no one and we suffered. Center or a power forward (who can defend and rebound like a center) are the most important positions in basketball. From what I've seen in basketball, there's never been a champion without one.

That theory of mine might be debunked if the Heat win a championship though. :P

Yeah that Bill Cartwright was the lynchpin of that first Jordan-era Bulls championship, with his 9 points and 6 boards a game. It's hard to choose between Cartwright and the next great center they had when they won a title, Luc Longley.

[Como11]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Yeah that Bill Cartwright was the lynchpin of that first Jordan-era Bulls championship, with his 9 points and 6 boards a game. It's hard to choose between Cartwright and the next great center they had when they won a title, Luc Longley.

Chicago Bulls first three-peat can be considered an outlier. You just have to realize that Michael Jordan was so amazing that he won without a dominant force in the paint. Probably the only teams to do so.

However, when Denis Rodman played for their second three-peat, he can be considered that dominant big man. He defended the paint and rebounded 15+ rebounds a game. He was a beast.

I mean look at the rest of championship teams.

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

They all had a dominant big man (besides those first three Bull teams).

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Como11

Chicago Bulls first three-peat can be considered an outlier. You just have to realize that Michael Jordan was so amazing that he won without a dominant force in the paint. Probably the only teams to do so.

However, when Denis Rodman played for their second three-peat, he can be considered that dominant big man. He defended the paint and rebounded 15+ rebounds a game. He was a beast.

I mean look at the rest of championship teams.

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

They all had a dominant big man (besides those first three Bull teams).

Kendrick Perkins on the 07-08 celtics wasn't very dominant

[mavsfan1000]

Horace Grant wasn't bad either. You gotta have some inside prescence offensively and/or defensively.

[mav4ever]

Originally Posted by xrobx

Kendrick Perkins on the 07-08 celtics wasn't very dominant

garnett is fairly big and fairly good

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by mav4ever

garnett is fairly big and fairly good

so is dirk

[mav4ever]

i know! right!?

[b_o_r]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Yeah that Bill Cartwright was the lynchpin of that first Jordan-era Bulls championship, with his 9 points and 6 boards a game. It's hard to choose between Cartwright and the next great center they had when they won a title, Luc Longley.

How dare you forget the greatness that was Bill Wennington!

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by mavsfan1000

Horace Grant wasn't bad either. You gotta have some inside prescence offensively and/or defensively.

11 points, 8 rebounds, and 1 block. They had 2 of the best perimeter defenders in the history of the league who would often peel off of their man to double down on opposing bigs. The point is that not every championship team in NBA history has had a "DOMINANT" center. For one of the better examples, look at the 2011 Dallas Mavericks.

[saclare]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

11 points, 8 rebounds, and 1 block. They had 2 of the best perimeter defenders in the history of the league who would often peel off of their man to double down on opposing bigs. The point is that not every championship team in NBA history has had a "DOMINANT" center. For one of the better examples, look at the 2011 Dallas Mavericks.

Oh, you may have just started World War 3 considering how deep in love with Chandler some on this board are...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Como11

Look back at all of the championship teams. ALL OF THEM had a dominant big man who could defend and grab rebounds.

Yeah!!...

Originally Posted by Como11

Chicago Bulls first three-peat can be considered an outlier....

They all had a dominant big man (besides those first three Bull teams).

...wait, what?

[SMC0007]

Idk about you guys but, Thanks a lot Cuban for not signing Tyson Chandler.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

Idk about you guys but, Thanks a lot Cuban for not signing Tyson Chandler.

It's a good thing you brought it up because I'm not sure anyone else would have. The biggest problem I have with the Rangers and Cowboys threads is that there isn't enough Tyson Chandler in them.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

It's a good thing you brought it up because I'm not sure anyone else would have. The biggest problem I have with the Rangers and Cowboys threads is that there isn't enough Tyson Chandler in them.

fixed..

[Jon]

Completely irrelevant to this thread, but can someone tell me why I can't create a new topic on this forum? I get this message:


"Jon, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."