Lakers : Shaq Is Back

[Chiwas]

Verbiage, as usual.

But a new fact has emerged. KG's egocentrism. It was time already for showing it to us openly, KG. No more hypocrisies. That's an improvement for your cure. Hope it lasts, for your own welfare.

[OutletPass]

Compagre...I'm going to suggest that you take this to pm or leave it alone. The posts have now gotten way off topic (which was Shaq, BTW) and are now purely personal. Some may want to see another horrific bloodbath...but I don't. Once was enough...please trust me on this, old friend.

[Chiwas]

Originally posted by: OutletPass
Compagre...I'm going to suggest that you take this to pm or leave it alone. The posts have now gotten way off topic (which was Shaq, BTW) and are now purely personal. Some may want to see another horrific bloodbath...but I don't. Once was enough...please trust me on this, old friend.

I you had said, "Murph, KG, and Chiwas...", I would trust you more. Don't worry, compagre, the virtual guys are far away from my real blood; they are just thougths, bad thoughts though, like a bad book.

[kg_veteran]

Verbiage, as usual.

Boy, that's profound.

But a new fact has emerged. KG's egocentrism. It was time already for showing it to us openly, KG. No more hypocrisies. That's an improvement for your cure. Hope it lasts, for your own welfare.

Stop trying to go off topic. Whether I'm egocentric or not (another diagnosis from the Lounge psychologist) has absolutely nothing to do with whether Najera is a good defensive rebounder, or whether I'm going to be forced to give you another verbal beating.

Talk basketball. Tell me why Najera is a good defensive rebounder. Otherwise, follow your friend's advice and walk away.

[Chiwas]

Yeah, you're profound, I like when you use your same context to get trapped.

[kg_veteran]

Talk basketball. Tell me why Najera is a good defensive rebounder.

[WayOutWest]

Hate to break up the another massacre but.....

I think it's a bit premature to break the MVP trophy for Shaq. There are still of "ton" [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] of things that can go wrong. Last year Shaq dropped around 10 to 15 pounds in the off season before his toe surgery, then came into camp about 30-40 pounds heavier, that was a shocking 40 to 50 pound swing so I'm not holding my breath. I want to get a look at Shaq around mid October before I get excited. If you don't understand how and why losing EXCESS weight would help you in the b-ball court then just ignore the rest of the post cause it's not for you.

That being said, Shaq losing weight is going to improve his game and potentially dramatically improve the Lakers. Shaq is alot more important to the Lakers success than anything else, more important than Kobe, the starters, the bench, the coaching staff and 100X more important than who did or didn't improve their rosters in the offseason. Shaq is the anchor on BOTH ends of the court, the triangle will not work without him because Kobe doesn't have the post game to make it flourish and Malone isn't the post player he once was. With the current roster and a healthy Shaq playing at or around 320 lbs I have alot of confidence in the Lakers winning the 2004 title with or without Kobe Bryant.

IMO the current front runners are 1.)Lakers 2.)Spurs 3.)Kings 4.)Wolves.

I'm really thrilled about the developments this offseason, next season has the potential of an 80's style of playoff basketball.

[kg_veteran]

IMO the current front runners are 1.)Lakers 2.)Spurs 3.)Kings 4.)Wolves.

WOW, I'm curious as to why you have the Wolves at No. 4. If you want to put the Mavs there, fine, I can at least understand your rationale for ranking them at No. 4. But I am confused as to how the Wolves have become a Top 4 team.

[Chiwas]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Talk basketball. Tell me why Najera is a good defensive rebounder.

I haven't ever said that he is a good defensive rebounder, in the way you mean. Yeah, maybe he is not better than Wallace ([img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img] ). You are all mixed up. Until your 1,000 or so posts questioning Najera, I haven't read something that makes a structured -and within a frame of reference- point. I mean, I don't know what you are defending (or attacking) objectively.

FYI. "Can't rebound" (hypothesis for validation) in any language means 0 (nil) rebounds in the minutes -a specific frame of reference- you choose (per game, per quarter, per 48 minutes). That's to be objective.

[kg_veteran]

I haven't ever said that he is a good defensive rebounder, in the way you mean.

Your comment earlier in this thread certainly implied that Murphy was stupid for calling Najera a poor defensive rebounder. Did I misunderstand? If so, and you don't think he's a good defensive rebounder, then we can just move on, and I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. Is that the case?

Yeah, maybe he is not better than Wallace ([img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img] ).

Well, sure. Wallace and about 149 other players. I'm not picking on the guy, I'm just proving a point. It certainly was my understanding based on your earlier post in this thread that you think Najera's a good defensive rebounder. I cited those stats to show that it's just not true.

You are all mixed up. Until your 1,000 or so posts questioning Najera, I haven't read something that makes a structured -and within a frame of reference- point. I mean, I don't know what you are defending (or attacking) objectively.

I'll try to be clear. As I stated above, Murphy made the comment that Najera was a poor defensive rebounder, or somesuch, and you responded by saying that Najera was the 5th best defensive rebounder on the team and then some insult about movie contributions followed. I took that to mean that you disagreed with Murphy, and that you thought Najera WAS a good defensive rebounder. That's what we need to clear up for the purposes of this discussion.

FYI. "Can't rebound" (hypothesis for validation) in any language means 0 (nil) rebounds in the minutes -a specific frame of reference- you choose (per game, per quarter, per 48 minutes). That's to be objective.

Can't rebound is your words, not mine. My words were poor defensive rebounder. If we're going to use this definition as the criteria (the inability to physically get a rebound at all), then you and I qualify as someone who "can rebound". It's physically possible. If we got 20 minutes in an NBA game, assuming we didn't pass out, I can pretty much guarantee we'd have a shot at getting A rebound. But surely that's not what you meant.

The objective criteria I think we should apply is Najera as a defensive rebounder vs. other players in the league. Applying that criteria, he just doesn't stack up very well.

[Chiwas]

Can't rebound is your words, not mine.

You followed the discussion after Murph stated it here and in others threads today and several times the past months. You supported the point. Poor defensive rebounder continue being subjective. He, surely, rebounds better than 280 million Americans and 100 millions Mexicans; that's not poor at all and I'm being sarcastic cause it's the best way to understand subjectivity.

And if you think that he is a poor rebounder (or poor whatever, since there isn't a point) cause he is the 200th or 300th rebounder in the NBA, for me that's not being a poor rebounder. Why? Because the point continues being subjective and everybody can rate it under his/her own judgment. You would lack the frame of reference yet this way. Even if you compare one player (from other team or in another position) with Najera <u>or with anybody</u>, you can't bring the same frame of reference cause the conditions over both players are different.

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

WOW, I'm curious as to why you have the Wolves at No. 4. If you want to put the Mavs there, fine, I can at least understand your rationale for ranking them at No. 4. But I am confused as to how the Wolves have become a Top 4 team.

I have them at no. 4 because you're dumb, irrational, mean and cause my momma always says "for many, beauty is times but others are not".

Anyway...

Two reason, the Wolves improvements and the lack of Mavs improvement. The biggest weakness of the Mavs is post defense and rebounding. The Mavs do everything else pretty well. I was a Mavs basher all season long in regards to their playoff hopes, I've always liked them as a team and their style of basketball but I would never bet a dollar on them winning a playoff series against one of the "elite". In playoff basketball certain teams can dictate the style of b-ball played, usually it's the tempo that is dramatically affected. The Mavs like to play an uptempo style of play, Spurs and Lakers don't like that tempo and the Kings are great at any pace. The reason the Mavs wouldn't be able to dictate their style of play is because of their poor defense and rebounding. You can't move the ball around if you don't have it, if the Mavs opponent outrebounds them they have a hard time controlling the tempo. They have done nothing to address that shortcomming. While developing a post game around Jamison and Dirk is great, the defense is where it will hurt them. The Lakers have Shaq and Malone eating up the glass, the Spurs will have Duncan, Rasho and Rose. The Kings will come at you with Webber, Vlade, Miller and BJax. All those guys are strong rebounders on both ends and it's going to cost the Mavs precious playoff ball possesions. I was very impressed by the Mavs against the Spurs and the Mavs made the playoffs fun to watch after my Lakers got bounced, mostly cause I'm a huge NVE fan but I still wouldn't bet on them vs. the Lakers, Spurs, Kings and now the Wolves.

The Wolves have significantly improved and more importantly they've improved at their biggest weaknesses, the PG and a reliable secondary scorer, NOT shooter but scorer. Cassell is a score first type of PG but he's a very good ball handler and passer. He learned quite a bit in regards to post entry passing playing with Dream. Troy Hudson is and undersized 2 playing the 1 because of injuries. Even while he was torching my squad I knew he was playing above his abilities and he would cool off, and he did. Troy will be an excellent back up for BOTH Cassel and Spreewell, his move to the bench makes the Wolves bench much stronger than when Peeler was backing up the backcourt. Bringing in Spree is a huge deal because if KG would have had a RELIABLE second option then they would have beaten the Lakers. Troy was on half the time and WallyWorld was a joke. Why people think he's a legit second option and deserving of his contract I'll never know. He can't create his own shot, he's a weak defender and passer. Spree's all around game and Cassel's mindset are going to greatly reduce the scoring burdon shouldered by KG. Kandi is an upgrade over the stiff Rasho with the exception of his jumper. Rasho jumper kept the opposing team center at home against KG, most teams are forced to double with the 1 or 2 since even Wally can hit the wide open jumper. With Kandi it will be different, teams will try and crowd KG with their 5 because Kandi can't hit a jumper. But Kandi can hurt opposing teams on the glass and getting layups if he stays mobile and KG and find him under the rim or a pass out of the double for another player to hit Kandi under the basket. Plus Kandi, when he's interested, is a very efficient post player and can take alot of that burdon off of KG allowing KG to roam a bit and hit some open jumpers keeping him fresh for the season and playoffs.

Those are some but not all of my reasons but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mavs finish 1st or 2nd next year either because they have had the fewest number of roster moves and should be very comfortable playing with each other allowing them to repeat the hot start of last year. I'm pretty sure the Mavs will be 1st or 2nd by the all star break but once the other "elite" start to gel and click they will out last the Mavs.

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: Chiwas

You followed the discussion after Murph stated it here and in others threads today and several times the past months. You supported the point. Poor defensive rebounder continue being subjective. He, surely, rebounds better than 280 million Americans and 100 millions Mexicans; that's not poor at all and I'm being sarcastic cause it's the best way to understand subjectivity.

And if you think that he is a poor rebounder (or poor whatever, since there isn't a point) cause he is the 200th or 300th rebounder in the NBA, for me that's not being a poor rebounder. Why? Because the point continues being subjective and everybody can rate it under his/her own judgment. You would lack the frame of reference yet this way. Even if you compare one player (from other team or in another position) with Najera <u>or with anybody</u>, you can't bring the same frame of reference cause the conditions over both players are different.

You yourself just added the frame of reference, the NBA. Using the NBA as a frame of reference, Najera is a poor defensive rebounder. If you further reduce the frame of reference to front court players it gets worse for Najera. If you further reduce the frame of reference to the 4 spot then again it gets worse for Najera. The only frame of reference where Najera looks halfway decent is on a poor rebounding team like the Mavs or when compared to 280 million coach potato Americans or 100 million taco rolling Mexicans.

You're just trying to weasel your way out of this one but it's pretty obvious everyone's frame of reference is the NBA.

[Murphy3]

Actually, doesn't that just make najera look worse? The mavs are a team that plays up tempo and gives up a ton of shot attempts. Since the mavs are a little short on top notch defensive rebounders, there's even more to go around than with the normal NBA team. So, if you're a bad defensive rebounder on a team that has more opportunities to grab defensive rebounds, that just makes najera look wors, don't you think WayOutWest

[Chiwas]

You're just trying to weasel your way out of this one but it's pretty obvious everyone's frame of reference is the NBA.

It' s not true. I made it posts above using the Mavs as reference. He was the best 5th among the Mavs in defensive rebounds. This continues being not poor for me. Better yet if we are talking about a team that was the first-second best team in the season, or the third-fourth best team in the playoffs. Better yet in a team that is among the worst rebounding teams in the NBA. If the Mavs rebound little and still a player can be the 5th in the team, he can't be considered "poor" rebounder; the isolated "poor" statistic can't tell you the whole truth. See? The frame of reference makes it all.

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Actually, doesn't that just make najera look worse? The mavs are a team that plays up tempo and gives up a ton of shot attempts. Since the mavs are a little short on top notch defensive rebounders, there's even more to go around than with the normal NBA team. So, if you're a bad defensive rebounder on a team that has more opportunities to grab defensive rebounds, that just makes najera look wors, don't you think WayOutWest

It could cut both ways. Since the Mavs team as a whole are poor rebounders that allows the oppositions players to box out a rebounder like Najera cause they don't have to worry about boxing out the player they're guarding. On the reverse side of the court because Najera's teammates are poor defensive rebounders as well, it puts more of a burden on Najera to look out for more than just his man and thus reduces his effectiveness.

I don't reallay believe that because players like Wallace, Shaq, Oakley and Dirk do quite well rebounding the ball on very weak rebounding teams.

[Murphy3]

why is being 5th on the team at 2.8 defensive rebounds per game acceptable?
being 5th in itself isn't necessarily bad, but 2.8 d-boards is reprehensible for the amount of minutes he played per game..especially when you consider that there's plenty of d-boards to go around in a mavs game.

[Chiwas]

Another who doesn't understand the main schemes used by the Mavs last season.

The boards weren't available. Read the games.

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: Chiwas

It' s not true. I made it posts above using the Mavs as reference. He was the best 5th among the Mavs in defensive rebounds. This continues being not poor for me. Better yet if we are talking about a team that was the first-second best team in the season, or the third-fourth best team in the playoffs. Better yet in a team that is among the worst rebounding teams in the NBA. If the Mavs rebound little and still a player can be the 5th in the team, he can't be considered "poor" rebounder; the isolated "poor" statistic can't tell you the whole truth. See? The frame of reference makes it all.

You don't get it, you keep contradicting yourself. If the frame of reference is Najera's rank on a poor rebounding team then by default he's already a poor rebounder becuase he's on a poor rebounding team. That's using YOUR frame of reference. You're just arguing for arguements sake, you're not making any valid points not to mention it's difficult to understand your posts because your grammar "no es muy bien", or as you would state it "es no mucho buenisimo".

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Another who doesn't understand the main schemes used by the Mavs last season.

The boards weren't available. Read the games.

Please show me where I can "read" about a game where the Mavs AND their opponent shot 100% from the field thus making rebound not available.

I'm starting to feel like I'm picking on a little kid. I think I'm gonna have to stop.

[Chiwas]

Please show me where I can "read" about a game where the Mavs AND their opponent shot 100% from the field thus making rebound not available.

Who's the kid? Just one example, out of 4 that come to my mind: small ball against conventional ball. Understood already the point, lad?

[Nash13]

Originally posted by: WayOutWest

Please show me where I can "read" about a game where the Mavs AND their opponent shot 100% from the field thus making rebound not available.

I'm starting to feel like I'm picking on a little kid. I think I'm gonna have to stop.

You keep saying that we can't rebound, but if you look it up, the Mavs only average 2.2 rebounds less than the Lakers. Also, the Mavs gave up just as much opponent ppg as Sacramento, and averaged more points than them; they also gave up less points per game than the Lakers. The Mavs were 12th in the league in opponent's fg%, the Lakers were 17th. Mavs were 11th in steals, the Lakers were 15th.

So if we matched some of Sacramento's defensive stats and had better offensive stats, and had better defensive and offensive stats than the Lakers, why are we considered behind Minnesota?

I think it's time for you to stop listening to analysis and form your own opinions by watching them play more.

[kg_veteran]

You followed the discussion after Murph stated it here and in others threads today and several times the past months. You supported the point. Poor defensive rebounder continue being subjective. He, surely, rebounds better than 280 million Americans and 100 millions Mexicans; that's not poor at all and I'm being sarcastic cause it's the best way to understand subjectivity.

If you expand your "frame of reference" out far enough, I'm a hell of a defensive rebounder. But that doesn't mean I'd be a good defensive rebounder in the NBA. And it doesn't mean Najera is either. Let's stick to talking about how Najera stacks up against NBA players, okay?

And if you think that he is a poor rebounder (or poor whatever, since there isn't a point) cause he is the 200th or 300th rebounder in the NBA, for me that's not being a poor rebounder. Why? Because the point continues being subjective and everybody can rate it under his/her own judgment.

Honestly, you know that's not true. You have to evaluate by comparison. That's how you make it objective rather than subjective.

Why is Dirk Nowitzki considered a great scorer? Because he's ranked among the top scorers in the league. When you compare him to the other players in the league, he scores better than most of the other players.

Najera is ranked by TSN as the 153rd best defensive rebounder in the NBA. By comparison, the 153rd best scorer is Shandon Anderson, who averages a whopping 8.4 ppg.

Shandon Anderson is not a good scorer. Najera is not a good defensive rebounder.

You would lack the frame of reference yet this way. Even if you compare one player (from other team or in another position) with Najera or with anybody, you can't bring the same frame of reference cause the conditions over both players are different.

There might be slight team differences, but at some point, a rebound is a rebound. You're either good at getting them, or you're not.

I made it posts above using the Mavs as reference. He was the best 5th among the Mavs in defensive rebounds. This continues being not poor for me.

If you use the Mavs as a reference, look at who he outrebounds.

Van Exel, Griffin, Nash, Abdul-Wahad, and Bell are guards, none of whom is taller than 6'4".
Walt Williams is a small forward.
Eschmeyer and Jones are big men who never play.

It's really not impressive.

[kg_veteran]

I have them at no. 4 because you're dumb, irrational, mean and cause my momma always says "for many, beauty is times but others are not".

Your momma. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Anyway...

Two reason, the Wolves improvements and the lack of Mavs improvement. The biggest weakness of the Mavs is post defense and rebounding. The Mavs do everything else pretty well. I was a Mavs basher all season long in regards to their playoff hopes, I've always liked them as a team and their style of basketball but I would never bet a dollar on them winning a playoff series against one of the "elite".

As an aside, good thing you didn't bet in the second round last year, eh?

In playoff basketball certain teams can dictate the style of b-ball played, usually it's the tempo that is dramatically affected. The Mavs like to play an uptempo style of play, Spurs and Lakers don't like that tempo and the Kings are great at any pace. The reason the Mavs wouldn't be able to dictate their style of play is because of their poor defense and rebounding. You can't move the ball around if you don't have it, if the Mavs opponent outrebounds them they have a hard time controlling the tempo. They have done nothing to address that shortcomming.

Okay. Let's stop right there. I totally disagree with your statement that the Mavericks haven't addressed their rebounding shortcomings. Last year, the Mavericks threw out a combination of Adrian Griffin, Eduardo Najera, Raja Bell, and Walt Williams at SF, and got about 3 rebounds a night out of the starting position. By inserting Jamison into the starting lineup, they'll get in the neighborhood of 7-8 rebounds out of the SF position. That's a huge upgrade. When you factor in the added abilities of Fortson off the bench, the Mavericks have the makings of a much better rebounding team.

While developing a post game around Jamison and Dirk is great, the defense is where it will hurt them. The Lakers have Shaq and Malone eating up the glass, the Spurs will have Duncan, Rasho and Rose. The Kings will come at you with Webber, Vlade, Miller and BJax. All those guys are strong rebounders on both ends and it's going to cost the Mavs precious playoff ball possesions. I was very impressed by the Mavs against the Spurs and the Mavs made the playoffs fun to watch after my Lakers got bounced, mostly cause I'm a huge NVE fan but I still wouldn't bet on them vs. the Lakers, Spurs, Kings and now the Wolves.

How much the defense improves remains to be seen, but I think they've addressed the boards.

The Wolves have significantly improved and more importantly they've improved at their biggest weaknesses, the PG and a reliable secondary scorer, NOT shooter but scorer. Cassell is a score first type of PG but he's a very good ball handler and passer. He learned quite a bit in regards to post entry passing playing with Dream. Troy Hudson is and undersized 2 playing the 1 because of injuries. Even while he was torching my squad I knew he was playing above his abilities and he would cool off, and he did. Troy will be an excellent back up for BOTH Cassel and Spreewell, his move to the bench makes the Wolves bench much stronger than when Peeler was backing up the backcourt. Bringing in Spree is a huge deal because if KG would have had a RELIABLE second option then they would have beaten the Lakers. Troy was on half the time and WallyWorld was a joke. Why people think he's a legit second option and deserving of his contract I'll never know. He can't create his own shot, he's a weak defender and passer. Spree's all around game and Cassel's mindset are going to greatly reduce the scoring burdon shouldered by KG. Kandi is an upgrade over the stiff Rasho with the exception of his jumper. Rasho jumper kept the opposing team center at home against KG, most teams are forced to double with the 1 or 2 since even Wally can hit the wide open jumper. With Kandi it will be different, teams will try and crowd KG with their 5 because Kandi can't hit a jumper. But Kandi can hurt opposing teams on the glass and getting layups if he stays mobile and KG and find him under the rim or a pass out of the double for another player to hit Kandi under the basket. Plus Kandi, when he's interested, is a very efficient post player and can take alot of that burdon off of KG allowing KG to roam a bit and hit some open jumpers keeping him fresh for the season and playoffs.

The Wolves are improved. But if you look at them positionally, the Mavericks are better at PG, SG, and SF, virtually even at PF, and just about even at C. Hudson off the bench should be a nice look for the Wolves, but I still fail to see how they're better than the Mavs.

If nothing else, I think the burden is on the Wolves to prove themselves, not the Mavericks.

[MFFL]

Najera can out assist me. Therefore he is a great playmaker.

[Murphy3]

i don't know..you're not giving yourself enough credit MFFL

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: MFFL
Najera can out assist me. Therefore he is a great playmaker.

Genius.

BTW, when I was in school I played ball with some of the Baylor players. And I scored. I think I could play at the Division I level. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Murphy3]

i averaged over 8 d'boards a game a couple of years in High School. Am I one of the top 250 d'rebounders in the world?

[kg_veteran]

It's entirely possible.

I beat an 80 year old in a game of 21. I am a great individual offensive talent.

[Murphy3]

what was the score?

[kg_veteran]

21-5, but the dude had a great hook shot.

[Big Boy Laroux]

murph, did your high school play solely against middle schools or something? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Murphy3]

no, i played on the middle school team when i was in high school..not sure why

[Drbio]

A girl looked at me today (ok, I yelled real loud and she kind of had to). I'm the next Brad Pitt.

[Drbio]

BTW, when I was in school I played ball with some of the Baylor players. And I scored. I think I could play at the Division I level.

There is a joke here somewhere.......[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: Nash13

You keep saying that we can't rebound, but if you look it up, the Mavs only average 2.2 rebounds less than the Lakers. Also, the Mavs gave up just as much opponent ppg as Sacramento, and averaged more points than them; they also gave up less points per game than the Lakers. The Mavs were 12th in the league in opponent's fg%, the Lakers were 17th. Mavs were 11th in steals, the Lakers were 15th.

So if we matched some of Sacramento's defensive stats and had better offensive stats, and had better defensive and offensive stats than the Lakers, why are we considered behind Minnesota?

I think it's time for you to stop listening to analysis and form your own opinions by watching them play more.

I don't listen to analyist, my opinions are based entirely on watching games and once in a while I have to look at the sortable stats on NBA.com. You assume to much worst of all you're not paying attention. Read my posts again and this time pay attention, I wrote "players like Wallace, Shaq, Oakley and Dirk do quite well rebounding the ball on very weak rebounding teams" SHAQ (HELLO SHAQ PLAYS ON THE LAKERS). I didn't consider the Lakers a good defensive team last year, mostly because of Shaq poor conditioning, and that's why they lost. Lakers struggle on offense all the time, mostly when Shaq and/or Kobe are out of the lineup BUT what kept them in games was their defense. There were a couple of very embarrising defensive moments for the Lakers last year and it didn't change in the playoffs, the Lakers offense got better come playoff time but their defense didn't and that's why SA beat them. The Lakers went from being the best or second best defensive team in 2000-2002 to one of the worst but that should change IF IF IF IF Shaq is back in shape and ready to anchor the defense AGAIN. In any regard, what does the Mavs being as shytty on D as the Lakers have to do with why the Wolves are better? I'm guessing you missed the whole "proofs and axioms" thingies in math? j/k [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img].

Overall the Kings are a good defensive team but they like to run like the Mavs and that gets the scores up. Vlade is a very good post defender, Christie is a very good overall defender and with the shortest front court player for the Kings being 6'9 they are a very good defensive rebounding team. Webber, Vlade, Pollard now Miller and BJax are good rebounders and can kill you on the offensive glass as well, Mavs fans should know that better than anyone, I think you guys lost two very close games to the Kings on last second offensive rebounds and putbacks.

I look at the Wolves, Lakers, Spurs and Kings lineups and a see potentially good balanced basketball teams. When I look at the Mavs I still see mostly offense. I'm not sure how Jamison will fit in but KG is of the opinion that he will alleviate many of the Mavs rebounding woes. That may or may not be true, the little I've seen of Jamison would tend to make me think he won't and I've watched Forston since his last year in Boston hoping he would become a Laker and I also had him on my fantasy league but he's been a huge disappointment and I don't know if he'll turn it around. IF IF Forston would become the player I coveted in Boston and for a while at GS, I think all the Mavs rebounding problems would be solved leaving only the defense and most importantly POST defensive problems left to be addresssed. The other elite make their living in the post and that's why they are successful. In the past the Lakers have been able to disrupt the post play of the Spurs and Kings and that's why they beat them, last year the Lakers were not upto the task. I think Bradley is an effective post defender but he's always getting into foul trouble. Bradley needs to learn to JUST bother the post player and not try to stop the player or block the shot. If you notice Deke defending the post he just tries to make the offensive player work harder and shot over him NOT actually block the shot. Alot of shot blocks are against players he's not defending. Raef is useless and Dirk is way too valuable to risk getting into foul trouble, especially when the refs call fouls on Dirk for starring at a guy for too long.

[kg_veteran]

WOW, it should be interesting to watch.

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Your momma. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Well...my momma always says "If you have nothing to say nice then many others will feel it".

As an aside, good thing you didn't bet in the second round last year, eh?

OMFG! I bet and bet big, I went from being up $1,500.00 for the season to being down $300.00 when the Kings lost. The Spurs got me back over $200.00 after the playoffs. It sucked bigtime. After watching game one of the Spurs/Lakers I thought they BOTH sucked. The day before I had watched the Kings/Mavs and I thought the Kings looked very good. So the combo of the Spurs/Lakers looking like crap and the Kings looking good I bet big the next morning after the Lakers/Spurs game 1 but before the Kings/Mavs game 2 and got good odds. Then Webber went down and so did most of my money. I think the Mavs were lucky that Webber went down BUT I became a HUGE Mavs supporter after watching how they played against the Spurs. That was the best playoff basketball since the Lakers/Kings of 2002. It was exciting and got me interested in b-ball again after the Lakers got bounced. I was really bummed about the Lakers losing for two reasons. One, they had a shot at becoming only the second team in history to win 4 in a row. Two, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, the season was dedicated to the memory of Chick. Chick was more about the Lakers than Kareem, Magic, Shaq and Kobe. Like Jerry West, Chick was synonymous for what the Lakers stood for and with West leaving and Chick gone the "magic" that was the Lakers for me is gone. It was tough watching Chick's season going down in flames to the Spurs. It's gonna be tough watching the Lakers next year. Anyway, I bet big and I lost big.

Okay. Let's stop right there. I totally disagree with your statement that the Mavericks haven't addressed their rebounding shortcomings. Last year, the Mavericks threw out a combination of Adrian Griffin, Eduardo Najera, Raja Bell, and Walt Williams at SF, and got about 3 rebounds a night out of the starting position. By inserting Jamison into the starting lineup, they'll get in the neighborhood of 7-8 rebounds out of the SF position. That's a huge upgrade. When you factor in the added abilities of Fortson off the bench, the Mavericks have the makings of a much better rebounding team.

I guess this is where we have a difference of opinion. I've always thought of Jamison as an offensive player. Not much of a rebounder and doesn't play much defense. He may or may not be the rebounder we think he is but I'm pretty sure he's not much of a defender. Forston could be the answer to ALL of the Mavs rebounding problems but Danny will have to turn it around big time.

How much the defense improves remains to be seen, but I think they've addressed the boards.

I think the Mavs can succeed with marginal defensive improvements based on what I saw last year in the playoffs. Throwing the zone in sporatically really throws teams off balance. If the Mavs can hold their own on the glass then minor defensive improvements is all the Mavs need to take the next step.

The Wolves are improved. But if you look at them positionally, the Mavericks are better at PG, SG, and SF, virtually even at PF, and just about even at C. Hudson off the bench should be a nice look for the Wolves, but I still fail to see how they're better than the Mavs.

I don't agree the Mavs are better at the 2. I think the Wolves are better at the 4 and 5. I've gone over my opinion of KG vs the Diggler at legnth so I won't get into here and I've stated my opinion of Kandi vs. Rasho. That said I think the Wolves and Mavs are very evenly matched and would make a great series. The Lakers and Spurs are built to take each other out and the Kings are built to take out everyone. The Wolves and Mavs could be the X-factors or dark horses when I think about it that way.

If nothing else, I think the burden is on the Wolves to prove themselves, not the Mavericks.

Agreed. Next to the Lakers, the Wolves have made the most dramatic upgrades and this is KG's make it or break it year with the Wolves in regards to wether or not he will remain a Wolve. Should the Wolves fail to advance past round 1 next year I think both KG and the fans will not object to parting ways, only the Wolves management will be crying their eyes out.

[WayOutWest]

Originally posted by: Chiwas

Who's the kid? Just one example, out of 4 that come to my mind: small ball against conventional ball. Understood already the point, lad?

Man, you just don't get it do you? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

Kido, I guess "small ball" creates perfect shooting percentages for both teams thereby making rebounds not available?

The best shooting teams in the league can't get upto 50% FG% so please stop with your "rebounds not abvailable" garbage.

[Big Boy Laroux]

WOW, we are going to be a better rebounding team by default, simply because we won't have two PGs on the floor for extended periods of time. i think that's what kg is getting at.

but of course, nellie has to play those guys... if he wants to go small ball with nash and best, i'll fly down to dallas and punch nellie in the face.