LaFrentz Vs. Dampier

[GP]

Raef is a true 4; however, when he played in Dallas he was the only player on the team besides Bradley who stood any sort of chance guarding 5's. He did a pretty good job at it from what I recall. Being a jump shooter does not preclude one from being a center. Bill Laimbeer shot nothing but 3's and he is a 5. I never saw McDyess play the 5 in Denver, though it may have happened. Raef is a good low post offensive player if matched up correctly and given space to work with, just like all other centers. In Dallas, Nellie wanted a center who shot nothing but 3's so that there would be lanes open for the guards in the paint. In my opinion, the only reason Raef was traded was because he was injured and the Mavs panicked, not because he wasn't working out. Nellie basically admitted that the Celtics got the best end of the trade.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

The problem was not so much that we needed a "good center" because definitions of "center" vary. The problem was that we needed a physical force in the paint, a problem magnified because of past maverick teams' horrible perimeter defense.

Although Raef does certain things well, and can be a decent player in some situations, he was not a physical force or a good man-to-man defender. He has a nice jumper, but the strategy of pulling opposing centers out of the paint didn't work. He couldn't clear the lane on the offensive end, and got pushed around on the defensive end. Raef would be great in a situation where he plays alongside a more physical 4, but that wasn't going to happen here.

The bottom line:
he could shoot-something Dirk does better
he could block-something Bradley does better
he couldn't physically assert himself on either end of the floor-something Dampier does.

If you subsitute a phrase like "physical low post defender" for the vague catch-all "center," this debate looks a little different. Raef may be the latter, but he's definitely not the former, and that's what mavs teams of the past were lacking.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

The problem was not so much that we needed a "good center" because definitions of "center" vary. The problem was that we needed a physical force in the paint, a problem magnified because of past maverick teams' horrible perimeter defense.

Although Raef does certain things well, and can be a decent player in some situations, he was not a physical force or a good man-to-man defender. He has a nice jumper, but the strategy of pulling opposing centers out of the paint didn't work. He couldn't clear the lane on the offensive end, and got pushed around on the defensive end. Raef would be great in a situation where he plays alongside a more physical 4, but that wasn't going to happen here.

The bottom line:
he could shoot-something Dirk does better
he could block-something Bradley does better
he couldn't physically assert himself on either end of the floor-something Dampier does.

If you subsitute a phrase like "physical low post defender" for the vague catch-all "center," this debate looks a little different. Raef may be the latter, but he's definitely not the former, and that's what mavs teams of the past were lacking.

[kg_veteran]

There are certainly plenty of common sense arguments for why Dampier is a better center for the Mavericks than LaFrentz was, but I think the stats really tell the tale.

Picking an arbitrary minute mark, let's look at a comparison of the two centers and the team play when they receive/received more or less than 25 mpg (Raef's 2002-2003 stats used):

<u>When Dampier plays at least 25 minutes</u>
Record: 15-5 (.750)

Mavs FG%: .453
Opp. FG%: .427
Differential: +2.6%

Mavs PPG: 101.6
Opp. PPG: 93.6
Differential: +8.0

Mavs RPG: 45.5
Opp. RPG: 42.5
Differential: +3.0

<u>When Dampier plays fewer than 25 minutes</u>
Record: 5-5 (.500)

Mavs FG%: .417
Opp. FG%: .442
Differential: -2.5%

Mavs PPG: 99.4
Opp. PPG: 98.2
Differential: +1.2

Mavs RPG: 43.9
Opp. RPG: 46.4
Differential: -2.5

<u>When LaFrentz played at least 25 minutes </u>
Record: 18-11 (.621)

Mavs FG%: .448
Opp. FG%: .452
Differential: +0.4%

Mavs PPG: 102.9
Opp. PPG: 100.0
Differential: +2.9

Mavs RPG: 41.1
Opp. RPG: 45.1
Differential: -4.0

<u>When LaFrentz played fewer than 25 minutes</u>
Record: 42-11 (.792)

Mavs FG%: .455
Opp. FG%: .429
Differential: +2.6%

Mavs PPG: 103.0
Opp. PPG: 92.6
Differential: +10.4

Mavs RPG: 42.7
Opp. RPG: 45.6
Differential: -2.9


The more Dampier plays, the better the Mavericks score, shoot, rebound, and win. It's a very noticeable difference.

The more LaFrentz played, the less the Mavericks scored, shot, rebounded, and won. It was also a pretty noticeable difference.

[kg_veteran]

There are certainly plenty of common sense arguments for why Dampier is a better center for the Mavericks than LaFrentz was, but I think the stats really tell the tale.

Picking an arbitrary minute mark, let's look at a comparison of the two centers and the team play when they receive/received more or less than 25 mpg (Raef's 2002-2003 stats used):

<u>When Dampier plays at least 25 minutes</u>
Record: 15-5 (.750)

Mavs FG%: .453
Opp. FG%: .427
Differential: +2.6%

Mavs PPG: 101.6
Opp. PPG: 93.6
Differential: +8.0

Mavs RPG: 45.5
Opp. RPG: 42.5
Differential: +3.0

<u>When Dampier plays fewer than 25 minutes</u>
Record: 5-5 (.500)

Mavs FG%: .417
Opp. FG%: .442
Differential: -2.5%

Mavs PPG: 99.4
Opp. PPG: 98.2
Differential: +1.2

Mavs RPG: 43.9
Opp. RPG: 46.4
Differential: -2.5

<u>When LaFrentz played at least 25 minutes </u>
Record: 18-11 (.621)

Mavs FG%: .448
Opp. FG%: .452
Differential: +0.4%

Mavs PPG: 102.9
Opp. PPG: 100.0
Differential: +2.9

Mavs RPG: 41.1
Opp. RPG: 45.1
Differential: -4.0

<u>When LaFrentz played fewer than 25 minutes</u>
Record: 42-11 (.792)

Mavs FG%: .455
Opp. FG%: .429
Differential: +2.6%

Mavs PPG: 103.0
Opp. PPG: 92.6
Differential: +10.4

Mavs RPG: 42.7
Opp. RPG: 45.6
Differential: -2.9


The more Dampier plays, the better the Mavericks score, shoot, rebound, and win. It's a very noticeable difference.

The more LaFrentz played, the less the Mavericks scored, shot, rebounded, and won. It was also a pretty noticeable difference.

[dude1394]

So that says that bradley is better than damp. Since when raef wasn't playing 25 minutes (shawn was).

[dude1394]

So that says that bradley is better than damp. Since when raef wasn't playing 25 minutes (shawn was).

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394
So that says that bradley is better than damp. Since when raef wasn't playing 25 minutes (shawn was).

Shawn averaged 22.7 mpg in those games where Raef played less than 25, but I don't know how you can reach that conclusion, particularly since this season hasn't ended.

What the numbers DO tell us, however, is that the team play improves the more often Dampier plays while it deteriorated the more Raef was asked to play.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394
So that says that bradley is better than damp. Since when raef wasn't playing 25 minutes (shawn was).

Shawn averaged 22.7 mpg in those games where Raef played less than 25, but I don't know how you can reach that conclusion, particularly since this season hasn't ended.

What the numbers DO tell us, however, is that the team play improves the more often Dampier plays while it deteriorated the more Raef was asked to play.

[madape]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember distinctly Del Harris saying that Raef was our #1 plus/minus player in the 2002/2003 playoffs.

Of course, Dampier has never been to the playoffs, so it's tough to compare.

[madape]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember distinctly Del Harris saying that Raef was our #1 plus/minus player in the 2002/2003 playoffs.

Of course, Dampier has never been to the playoffs, so it's tough to compare.

[dude1394]

By your winning percentages. You stated that playing Reaf less than 25 minutes (ergo Shawn played I assumed) whereas when damp plays MORE than 25 minutes they are .750.

The same argument has to go both ways. So in essence you are saying that 22.7 minutes of shawn is better than +25 of damp, arent' you?

I'm trying to determine if you are counting games where raef didn't play at all, especially the 14-0 start which has been greatly attributed to a cushy schedule. I think it does as raef was hurt for that run I believe.

EDIT: I found a site that has the 2002-2003 box scores and it looks like raef played all games that season? So my 14 game comment is incorrect.
Raef log for 2002-2003 [l=http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerlog.htm?yr=2002&ilkid=LAFRERA01[/l]

[dude1394]

By your winning percentages. You stated that playing Reaf less than 25 minutes (ergo Shawn played I assumed) whereas when damp plays MORE than 25 minutes they are .750.

The same argument has to go both ways. So in essence you are saying that 22.7 minutes of shawn is better than +25 of damp, arent' you?

I'm trying to determine if you are counting games where raef didn't play at all, especially the 14-0 start which has been greatly attributed to a cushy schedule. I think it does as raef was hurt for that run I believe.

EDIT: I found a site that has the 2002-2003 box scores and it looks like raef played all games that season? So my 14 game comment is incorrect.
Raef log for 2002-2003 [l=http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerlog.htm?yr=2002&ilkid=LAFRERA01[/l]

[dude1394]

KG...Can you run the same numbers for raef in 2001 before he was hurt?

[dude1394]

KG...Can you run the same numbers for raef in 2001 before he was hurt?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember distinctly Del Harris saying that Raef was our #1 plus/minus player in the 2002/2003 playoffs.

Of course, Dampier has never been to the playoffs, so it's tough to compare.

Yeah, I'd like to see those stats, because his regular season +/- that year was -0.9.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember distinctly Del Harris saying that Raef was our #1 plus/minus player in the 2002/2003 playoffs.

Of course, Dampier has never been to the playoffs, so it's tough to compare.

Yeah, I'd like to see those stats, because his regular season +/- that year was -0.9.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394
By your winning percentages. You stated that playing Reaf less than 25 minutes (ergo Shawn played I assumed) whereas when damp plays MORE than 25 minutes they are .750.

The same argument has to go both ways. So in essence you are saying that 22.7 minutes of shawn is better than +25 of damp, arent' you?

If the Mavericks finish this season and the 22.7 minutes of Shawn stats are better than the 25 minutes of Damp stats, I might agree with you. Shawn did have a great year in 2002-2003.

BTW, I did count all of the games, including the games where Raef was out due to injury (and the games where Dampier was out due to injury). That's only fair because it shows whether the team performs better or worse without each guy.

KG...Can you run the same numbers for raef in 2001 before he was hurt?

Here they are, and I have to admit, they surprised me...

<u>When LaFrentz played at least 25 minutes </u>
Record: 16-4 (.800)

Mavs FG%: .466
Opp. FG%: .441
Differential: +2.5%

Mavs PPG: 106.8
Opp. PPG: 99.3
Differential: +7.5

Mavs RPG: 44.5
Opp. RPG: 43.8
Differential: -4.0

<u>When LaFrentz played fewer than 25 minutes</u>
Record: 41-21 (.661)

Mavs FG%: .461
Opp. FG%: .455
Differential: +0.6%

Mavs PPG: 104.7
Opp. PPG: 101.5
Differential: +3.2

Mavs RPG: 41.9
Opp. RPG: 45.0
Differential: -3.1


The team still wasn't very good defensively and ultimately got crushed inside in the playoffs, but your point about the knee injury is well-taken.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394
By your winning percentages. You stated that playing Reaf less than 25 minutes (ergo Shawn played I assumed) whereas when damp plays MORE than 25 minutes they are .750.

The same argument has to go both ways. So in essence you are saying that 22.7 minutes of shawn is better than +25 of damp, arent' you?

If the Mavericks finish this season and the 22.7 minutes of Shawn stats are better than the 25 minutes of Damp stats, I might agree with you. Shawn did have a great year in 2002-2003.

BTW, I did count all of the games, including the games where Raef was out due to injury (and the games where Dampier was out due to injury). That's only fair because it shows whether the team performs better or worse without each guy.

KG...Can you run the same numbers for raef in 2001 before he was hurt?

Here they are, and I have to admit, they surprised me...

<u>When LaFrentz played at least 25 minutes </u>
Record: 16-4 (.800)

Mavs FG%: .466
Opp. FG%: .441
Differential: +2.5%

Mavs PPG: 106.8
Opp. PPG: 99.3
Differential: +7.5

Mavs RPG: 44.5
Opp. RPG: 43.8
Differential: -4.0

<u>When LaFrentz played fewer than 25 minutes</u>
Record: 41-21 (.661)

Mavs FG%: .461
Opp. FG%: .455
Differential: +0.6%

Mavs PPG: 104.7
Opp. PPG: 101.5
Differential: +3.2

Mavs RPG: 41.9
Opp. RPG: 45.0
Differential: -3.1


The team still wasn't very good defensively and ultimately got crushed inside in the playoffs, but your point about the knee injury is well-taken.

[dude1394]

Something is awry with those because he only played 27 games total. I guess an argument can be made that getting nick/aj/raef versus donnell/juwan was a good, it's hard to seperate them out.

[dude1394]

Something is awry with those because he only played 27 games total. I guess an argument can be made that getting nick/aj/raef versus donnell/juwan was a good, it's hard to seperate them out.

[Pirate]

The difference in those numbers of Raef LaFrentz tell the story of a bad contract - what caused it, and what happened afterwards. In 01-02, he looked like he would work out at center, after a brief audition. They improved with him in the lineup at center, it appeared. So, they gave him the big contract. Then they discovered, to their dismay, that he couldnt hack it after all at center. They won in spite of him in 02-03, and he was no help after all. Ouch.

At that contract price, he was worth it if he had turned out to be a decent center. But, as merely a 4, he becomes grossly overpaid. At least to the Mavs' credit, they were able to ditch his contract onto Boston.

[Nash13]

Originally posted by: madape
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember distinctly Del Harris saying that Raef was our #1 plus/minus player in the 2002/2003 playoffs.

Of course, Dampier has never been to the playoffs, so it's tough to compare.

That's not fair, Lafrentz had never been to the playoffs before he came to Dallas.

Here's some more stats

Dallas w/ Lafrentz

Blocks per game: 5.5
Steals per game: 8.1
Opp. fg: .438
Opp. 3pt: .340
Offensive rpg: 11.1
Defensive rpg: 31.0
Rebounds per game: 42.2
Rebound differential: -3.1

Dallas w/ Dampier

Blocks per game: 5.7
Steals per game: 9.2
Opp. fg: .432
Opp. 3pt: .296
Offensive rpg: 13.3
Defensive rpg: 31.7
Rebounds per game: 45.0
Rebounding differential: +1.8

I let you draw your own conclusions about the stats. But it seems like Dallas is a better rebounding and defensive team with Damp than Raef.

[TheBaron]

using steals against Raef is a little unfair too. Neither Raef nor Damp are thieves (neither one has averaged a steal per game), and LaFrentz averaged more steals.

The real reason Damp's Mavs are better in steals than LaFrentz'? LaFrentz never had these guys

Marquis Daniels (16th in the league in spg 1.52spg) Jason Terry (24th in the league in spg, 1.45spg), and Josh Howard and Devin Harris(tied for 33rd in NBA with 1.37spg)

[Murphy3]

I can agree with your last statement to an extent. Part of the biggest problem with the Mavs big men back when Bradley and Raef were manning the middle was that the players on the perimeter were collectively absolutely horrible on the perimeter. Fin isn't a bad defender, but Nash and NVE were/are atrocious on that end. It made it virtually impossible for the interior players to look good no matter how good they were playing. You cannot expect your center to slow down constant penetration. It created constant and early foul trouble for the big men.

[Nash13]

Originally posted by: TheBaron
using steals against Raef is a little unfair too. Neither Raef nor Damp are thieves (neither one has averaged a steal per game), and LaFrentz averaged more steals.

The real reason Damp's Mavs are better in steals than LaFrentz'? LaFrentz never had these guys

Marquis Daniels (16th in the league in spg 1.52spg) Jason Terry (24th in the league in spg, 1.45spg), and Josh Howard and Devin Harris(tied for 33rd in NBA with 1.37spg)

My posting about steals just further added on to those other stats you forgot to mention about the mavs being better defensively.


How about this.

Lafrentz takes about two more shots and two more minutes. If they both averaged the same amount of shots per game, and you add in the amount of free throws and 3pts made per game by Lafrentz, they'd still average the same amount of ppg b/c Damp's more efficient from the field.

[G-Man]

All the stats are interesting, but just imagine how many easy dunks Damp might get if Steve Nash were hitting him right where he wants to catch the ball. Remember, he could even throw passes Bradley could catch and score with.

I prefer to go with my memory on Raef LaFoul. Seems like he got 2 fouls in five minutes every game and spent most of the 1st half sitting. He couldn't defend anybody. Big guys pushed him around. Little guys went around him. The lane was a layup line for guards blowing by Nash and Van Exel.

With Shaq now in the East, there are few centers in the West who can deny Damp position, and few he can't move out. Remember how he destroyed Yao Ming. never let him set up in his comfort zone. All Raef could do was swat at guys from behind... hence constant foul trouble.

Plus he was supposed to be a 3 point threat and his shot departed the day his contract arrived.

He was here, he failed, its over.

Now Damp is here, Nellie is still learning how to use him, he's helped Dirk's D enourmously. He still fouls too much, but its all a work in progress. At least now we have a chance to defend in the center position, which we have not had since Nelson got here. At times, against some teams he can even dominate. Ever use that word and Raef in the same sentence? Sure. As in SHaq, Dunkan, McDyess, Garnett, etc DOMINATES Raef. Who didn't?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

Sure some quick centers can get around Damp. Thats why we have Booth,and Henderson. Both of them bring almost as much to the court as Raef. Good riddance!

[Julius]

Maybe a player who scores 26ppg, grabs 10rebs, blocks 1,3 shots and steals the ball 1,3 times and has a perimeter oriented game should play center. Or do you (dude) think he hasn´t the tools to play center like Raef? Then, all we need is a pf. And i think it should be a bruiser with an inside game. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
You just don´t play two perimeter oriented guys at your two biggest positions. For me one of those guys should be an inside player. If you have Dirk and Reaf you have two players who like to shoot and are good at it and two players who don´t like physical play and are not so good at it. So why take away there strength and force one of them to be the inside player?
Do i like Raef? Yes. Can he play alongside Dirk? Sometimes.
Do i like Dampier? Yes. Can he play alongside Dirk? More often.
Would i like to trade Raef for Dampier? No, where would be the bruiser?
Would i like to have Raef on the team. Oh yes, please! I trade a mix of Booth, Henderson, TAW, Armstrong, Mbenga and Stackhouse for him but not Dampier. And there are other players out there that i want to have and trade for also. I always want to upgrade the roster.
Is Dampier the perfect fit to play with Dirk? Nearly, atleast the best who was/is here since Dirk has arrived.
So dude, tell me. Do you really prefer Raef over Dampier on this team? I know madape would, but he seems to prefer a lot of players over Dampier.

[Arne]

Originally posted by: G-Man
All the stats are interesting, but just imagine how many easy dunks Damp might get if Steve Nash were hitting him right where he wants to catch the ball. Remember, he could even throw passes Bradley could catch and score with.

I prefer to go with my memory on Raef LaFoul. Seems like he got 2 fouls in five minutes every game and spent most of the 1st half sitting. He couldn't defend anybody. Big guys pushed him around. Little guys went around him. The lane was a layup line for guards blowing by Nash and Van Exel.

With Shaq now in the East, there are few centers in the West who can deny Damp position, and few he can't move out. Remember how he destroyed Yao Ming. never let him set up in his comfort zone. All Raef could do was swat at guys from behind... hence constant foul trouble.

Plus he was supposed to be a 3 point threat and his shot departed the day his contract arrived.

He was here, he failed, its over.

Now Damp is here, Nellie is still learning how to use him, he's helped Dirk's D enourmously. He still fouls too much, but its all a work in progress. At least now we have a chance to defend in the center position, which we have not had since Nelson got here. At times, against some teams he can even dominate. Ever use that word and Raef in the same sentence? Sure. As in SHaq, Dunkan, McDyess, Garnett, etc DOMINATES Raef. Who didn't?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

Sure some quick centers can get around Damp. Thats why we have Booth,and Henderson. &lt;STRONG&gt;Both&lt;/STRONG&gt; of them bring almost as much to the court as Raef. Good riddance!

Excellent post, G-Man.

[Poindexter Einstein]

Reading this thread, I am flabbergasted that anyone is dreaming fondly for the return of Raef. Been there, done that. It worked so miserably that the front office decided we could NEVER get past the big boys with the talent on the roster, and went looking for a way to get a REAL center.

Time to move on. Gotta move on.

[dude1394]

I'm NOT sure if I'm dreaming of the return of raef over dampier. It is possible that by blowing up the WCF finals team, subjecting us to a completely wasted year last year that the mavs have gotten to a better place. We will find out obviously if the team gets to the WCF. If they don't, then the 2001 team will have proven itself.

We will find out. I DO however firmly believe that a slow-moving freight train of a center is NOT required to win in the nba. Detroit proved it, the spurs have proven it and minnesota has proven it. Also I would say that the Raef/Bradley mavs also have proven it.

So although at the end of the day I "may" not want raef over dampier, I WOULD have kept him and not busted up the team for the silliness that went on last year.

[Nash13]

So although at the end of the day I "may" not want raef over dampier, I WOULD have kept him and not busted up the team for the silliness that went on last year.

I do agree with that. I'd like to have Raef back, but as a backup to Dirk and maybe getting some minutes at the 5.

[Pirate]

Looking at your list of "successful teams," you apparently think getting to a conference finals is a major feat. The Mavs, and the rest of Mavs fandom, would disagree with you heartily.

If we are talking about being strong in the middle to get a title, Detroit was extremely strong, even though they didnt have one particular monster. Wallace, Wallace, Campbell, Williamson, Okur. San Antonio had BOTH Robinson and Duncan, along with Malik Rose, Willis, and Ferry. LA had Shaq. So your concept that "weak in the middle isnt a big deal" doesnt fit reality.

That 2002-03 team had gone as far as it could. It was too soft inside. You see last years group as a failure, but if you project the 02-03 team into 2003-04, it would have been even weaker. You would have the same players as were here in 2002-03, but subtract Van Exel and LaFrentz for season ending injuries. I prefer last year's team (as failed as it was) - with injuries to Raef and Van Exel, it was essentially the same exact roster - but with Walker and Jamison added.

[#41]

Also, the Mavs are 14-2 when Damp scores 10+ and 6-2 when he rebounds 10+ and 6-1 when he has a double-double.

[dirno2000]

Has any team ever won anything of consequence with a center that describes himself as a finesse player?

[G-Man]

Originally posted by: dirno2000
Has any team ever won anything of consequence with a center that describes himself as a finesse player?

Maybe 1. Kareem in his last few years was more of a finese player. But at 38, he still had more talent than any center in the league today. Including Shaq. Not more muscle,but way more skill. and class. Damn I miss him, even tho he was real Mav Killer.

[SeriousSummer]

I don't know if you would say they won anything of consequence, but Bob McAdoo and Alvin Adams were pretty effective finesse centers.