Rhythm and Blues

[Charlie Brown]

(I'm predicting there's going to be a total of no more than 3-4 responses for this thread, because this is too long. Oh well, the other sites complained about the same thing, so my feelings won't be hurt. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] I really need to learn how to write shorthand.)

This is something I posted way back early this year after the Mavericks' loss to SA. I posted it on Dallasbasketball.com and many of the posters seemed to agree with what I had to say. I'm posting this again just to see what you guys think and because many of the same issues still remain. I also bring this up again in light of the Lewis chase. I think Lewis will create even more chaos rather than "rhythm" as shots become spread around even more. I'm just trying to counter the notion that trying to add superstar after superstar isn't necessary the best formula for a championship. Just an opinion. Tell me your thoughts. I know it's long, but if you don't know by now, I have a hard time expressing opinions in a couple sentences.

--------------------

Raef mentioned in the Dallas Morning News today that basketball is all about rhythm.

What is rhythm exactly? In my opinion, rhythm results from players knowing their roles, knowing what to expect from their teammates, knowing when to receive passes, knowing who the leaders are, and a continuous effort to develop consistency each and every game.

However, through nelson's constant puppetteering of the marionette that is your Dallas Mavericks, he has placed very broad, general roles and responsibility for everyone on the team. Basically, his design is for everyone to think that they are the MVP of the team and places such unconditional trust in all five starters that everyone is given the green light to shoot at any point in the game. In fact, I believe the actual vehicle that drives the Mavericks through most games is the exceptional talent and gifted ability of the players themselves, where all 5 starters can score 30 on any night. Still, to win a championship, a team needs rhythm, consistency.

I believe guys like Nowitzki and Finley come into the game not knowing exactly how many shots they are going to get. They go through games not knowing whether they should back off from shooting or take over the game. There's no defined go-to guy, so I'm sure guys like Nowitzki and Finley tell themselves, 'should i take these last minute shots or give it to that other guy who has the hot hand.'

To solve this, I think Nelson needs to let the players understand that Nowitzki is their go-to guy and allow Nowitzi to play as if he is the leader. Shooting around 18 shots in the first half and limited to about 5 shots in the second half is no mark of a go-to guy for a team. Ferry did not stop Nowitzki in that second half. Nelson did. He continuously called isolation plays for Finley and Van Exel. I understood Van Exel, but Finley was 1 for 12 at that point and still Nelson kept calling his number instead of Nowitzki’s. He was overcoaching, trying to look for mismatches. I cannot understand this. Also, as most fans should know by now, Finley is NOT a great one on one player. Just observe how many isolation plays for Finley end up with Finley draining down the shot clock to one or seconds leaving him with an impossible fade away over two defenders. Have you noticed how most of Finley’s last minute shots end up being fadeaways or 30 ft shots. It’s because he has trouble creating his own shot and the only way to do it is to shoot from far away or fade away. He’s not Jordan. He could be a great Pippen, but not Jordan. I’d rather take my chances with Dirk shooting a jump shot than a Finley fadeaway.

Regarding Lafrentz, how can this guy find a rhythm when the coach keeps telling him to shoot, but knows he's the fifth option at best on an offense with two all-stars and two former all-stars, and knows there's a better chance of a Nowitzki next to him making a shot then him. In Denver, it was easier for him to take shots, because he knew he was the first or second best on the team. The problem is – he’s probably right when he thinks that the Mavericks have a better chance of winning when Nowitzki takes the shot then him.

How can bench players like Najera, Griffin, and Buckner find rhythm when they come into most games not knowing exactly how many minutes they're going to get. Some nights they start and get 30 minutes, and some nights it's DNP basically.

Nelson should try to develop consistency instead of trying to overcoach and ruffling his whole team's chemistry to meet the specific needs of each game.

Despite all this, the Mavericks are a great team and will go far in the playoffs because Nash, Finley, Van Exel, Nowitzki, and Lafrentz are all great players. But a championship??? Until a consistency is developed, i wouldn't bank on the Mavericks winning a championship anytime soon.

Maybe it's too early to ask the Mavericks to gain some sort of consistency. We just traded for Van Exel and Lafrentz. That's a valid excuse for the lack of rhythm. However, it's my hypothesis that the lack of rhythm has more to due with Nelson's pulling one too many string on the Maverick doll than anything else.
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[Charlie Brown]

Sorry, but one more thing as a corollary to what i wrote before. This is another post, which I placed on Mavtalk awhile back. But it talks about that "rhythm" again but from another light. I just want to hear everyone's thoughts and see if anyone's on the same page with me.

http://www.mavtalk.com/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=2;t=000023

This will be my last attempt at trying to get everyone on this board to believe that Dirk needs to take most of the shots, or even as a corollary, the Big 3 need to take a bigger percentage of the team's shots. (btw, i'm not expecting ya'll to read all this cuz i know it's long)

You guys'll think I'm a dork for doing this but i created a spreadsheet of shot attempts taken by dirk in each of the games and seen how this has affected the mavs performance.

Well, u guys shouldn't be shocked but this is what I found out. Like I've said before, Dirk needs to take at least 25 shots per game or 25% of the team's shots. So in the games where Dirk has taken at least 25 shots per game (i counted every 2 free throws as one shot), which has been 11 games, the mavs only lost ONCE . . . to the knicks. If u go percentage wise where Dirk has taken at least 25% of the team's shots, which has been 12 games, they've lost only twice . . . and both to strong teams - 76ers and Lakers, last year's championship finalists.

I believe it gets dangerous when Dirk takes less than 20 shots or he doesn't even play at all. These games - totalling 21 games, the mavs have lost 8 times.

In the 1 game in which the Mavs beat the clippers, Dirk shot the ball 23 times and the mavs won by 23. In the 2 games, they've lost to the clippers, Dirk shot the ball 16.5 (half a shot for one free throw) and 17 times.

In the 2 games in which the Mavs beat the T-wolves, Dirk shot the ball 18.5 and 22.5 times. In the one game they lost to the T-wolves, Dirk shot the ball only 12 times.

In the game in which they beat the kings, dirk shot the ball 28 times. In the game they lost, dirk shot the ball 22 times.

Of course there were exceptions to the rule, but in general, the pattern i found was that the mavs generally won when dirk took most of the team's shots.

Now, as a corollary, the mavs lost of 2 of 14 games in which the Big 3 shot over 60% of the mavs shots and lost 15 of the 40 in which they didn't.

I think this just goes to show that the mavs fare better when the shots get more focused on the Big 3.

Why does it work better to have your best players taking the most shots?

1) When your player takes a lot of shots earlier in the game, even if they were off early in the game, they'll generally more likely than not find their rhythm towards the end of the game when it really counts. That's why I hate it when dirk only takes like 5 shots in the first half and is expected to carry the load in the second half on cold hands.

2) Your best players generally have a better chance of making a basket than your other players. That's why their your best players. Let's say you had Jordan, Pippen, and Grant on a team. Would the Bulls fare better if the ball was distributed evenly among the 3 or if jordan took most of the shots. Of course, Jordan, which is why the Bulls won. Same with the Mavs, the ball should be geared more around dirk primarily and then followed by the other two.

Anyway, this was my 10 cents on this issue. If u've read the whole thing up to now, I'm impressed.

--------------------
3 Reasons Why I Love Germany:
1. Dirk Nowitzki - the source of my adoration
2. Albert Einstein - the source of my inspiration
3. Heidi Klum - the source of my perspiration

[Rhylan]

I'm not gonna gripe, I like wordy stuff!

I haven't read it yet because I'm at work.. but I'll get there.

Reading this is better than reading 100 posts that say "ur wrong," "no ur wrong jackass" 100 times. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Charlie Brown]

<< I'm not gonna gripe, I like wordy stuff!

I haven't read it yet because I'm at work.. but I'll get there.

Reading this is better than reading 100 posts that say &quot;ur wrong,&quot; &quot;no ur wrong jackass&quot; 100 times. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] >>



really? see, i hate reading other posters' wordy stuff. so i don't know if you call that irony or hypocrisy, but whatever, i'd rather write than read wordy stuff. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[pepperfletch]

Charlie you are right, a lot of words to express what I think are your key points:

You call it Rhythm - for what I take it to mean that you want Don to play a smaller number of
players and let them jell together. You implie that Don does play too many different
combinations. You also feel Nelson over coachs looking for mis-matches instead of letting hot
players shoot.

You think less players need to control the shots. You again imply that action would improve play.

And Dirk needs to take more shots.

Lewis will cause more shooting problems and cause even more confusion.

You best players will make more shots. Meaning Dirk again.

Charlie, I agree with most of your contentions but it is important that we play the quality players we have. Eddie , Wang, and even Bradley need minutes to improve their play which will help us late in the season. Griff and TAW provide defense more than others. AND finally Nick will get plenty of minutes. Now with that said DON could still focus good stretches of time allowing his &quot;Star 5&quot; (Which includes Lewis IMO), play together, mainly early to set the speed and pace the Mavs like and again during the stretch run in the 4th quarter to put games away. In between we can change the pace of the game and rest key players to perserve them for the season and let others develop into contributors and get ready in case one of the stars goes down.

And finally, play Dirk the most minutes in any of 3 positions throughout the game and yes make him the main focus of the team meaning Finley and Nash drop back a notch.

CB, please refocus me if I mis-read your points...Also does anyone else see problems asking Finley and Nash to let Dirk shoot more?

[Charlie Brown]

Pepper,

I think you understood my points fairly well. But I never said we shouldn't play Wang, Eddie, and others quality minutes. I'm all in favor of going 10 men deep during the regular season, but reducing that to 8 men deep in the playoffs. I feel all &quot;stars&quot; need a little more rest this year, so role players are definitely key contributor. I'm just not in favor of having role players come in and take away shots from the Big 3, primarily Dirk. I'm not saying these other role players shouldn't shoot the ball. I just hate it when Dirk makes like 3 in a row and just when he's starting to get hot, Nelson calls for Finley iso's, then lets Nick shoots a couple, then Nash, then sometimes Adrian Griffin iso's (which i've seen many times), then a couple Wang 3 points here and there and then FINALLY back to Dirk again when he's got a cold hand. Put Rashard into that equation and I think the rhythm exponentially falters. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but there were many games last year (I saw or listened to every game) where some players just look lost on the floor, because they were not in sync offensively. I'm not just talking about the games right after Nick and Raef joined the club. I'm talking about the duration of the whole season, particularly in crunch time. We're lucky we have shooters in Nash and Nowitzki that don't always need a great number of shots to get their rhythm down, but it would still make them better in crunch time had they gotten more shots beforehand. I just want more defined roles instead of &quot;if you see a shot you like, take it&quot; kind of mentality. It works for the Mavericks at times because the players themselves are so talented, but over the long run, especially during the pressure of the playoffs, rhythm and defined roles is more important than this helter-skelter offensive mentality.

in regards to dirk, i do have to add that i do want dirk to shoot more, but that also depends on dirk's ability to improve his passing out of double teams. if that aspect of his game progresses, then we should get him the ball more, because i think we'd be a more dangerous team that way with all the open looks he creates for his teammates. we don't need 5 perimeter star-caliber shooters to create looks. one superstar can do it by himself. that's my humble opinion.

[Charlie Brown]

i've expressed these opinions over the course of the last two years. i've been on message boards well before dallas-mavs was even established. however, i've always been shot down by various posters saying that i should just let Nellie do his thing and that it's stupid for someone like me who's never managed a team to criticize someone who's been doing it successfully for years. i hate this kind of response. that's just like saying i shouldn't criticize Enron when it was starting to peak, because I've never been a CEO before (btw, I did catch Enron before its big fall. i'm a stock analyst.). anyways, just forewarnings for anyone who was going to use that argument.

[Just211]

I agree with tha fact Dallas needs to create rhythm, which is why I'm not pushing for them to add many players. Lewis is worth the risk to add and wait for him to develop a rhythm. Maybe Popeye is okay to add as well because he is a great role player.
I think this Mavs team does need time, and I agree Dirk needs to take the game over, as long as he is not forcing it. I also think Fin and Nash would gladdly take it a notch down. They are both team guys, and realize they need to focus on other areas. Nash...spreading the ball and Defense, and Fin...Defense and Rebounding.

In time not adding players might help the Mavs, cause although other teams added talent, they also have to figure out how to work them in.

[Usually Lurkin]

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie,

What are you thinking? Are you just nuts, or what??? Don Nelson is one of the greatest basketball minds of the century, the mavs have imroved dramatically every year he's gab blah blah.

Heh, heh. Just looking for your goat. I've always thought Nellie made great personel moves, but have not been a big fan of his coaching. This team looked absolutely fragile last year against the kings. Like their egos were eggshells. I think that happens to a lot of jumpshooting teams, and I can see how the lack of leadership structure within the team might compound that fragility. I think Nellie's freewheeling let the players shoot style has a lot to do with it.

I also think lack of time together has a lot to do with it. While that might not be all there is to it, it's a lot, and if the same guys stuck together for another year, maybe they could sort out some sort of 'go to' structure. The addition of Lewis, however, is a worthwhile risk. We all know we need an inside presence. This much talent on one team will make trades easier, and since our window of opportunity for championship is not 1 year long, we might be able to add the structure you are looking for by way of removing several shooters for a low post player next summer.

[slowmo]

CB, I guess your 3-4 threads estimate was wrong! Very nice, well thought out thread!. I agree with most of your points, especially about Nellie messing around too much with the rotation of shots. I belive that was a significant factor to several losses last year and definately in the playoffs. Now that they have lots of tapes to review from last year I suspect they will work on the weak points. I also agree that dirk should take at least 25% of the shots, IF HE IS OPEN AND HAS A HOT HAND! That is the key phrase. Dirk has a tendency to run out of gas at the last of the game. It happened in the World games as well. He does best when his shots are spread out and not all clumped in the first half. His arm starts getting tired and makes his shots fall just short enough to miss. Then he tries to overcorrect and pushes the ball too hard, which also misses. The rythem is lost to fatigue. You are very correct about finley as well. He can shoot extremely well sometimes and other times he can't hit the broad side of a barn. That has been the mav's downfall. They rely too much on the jump shot. They need to get the low post player involved more. Nice little hook shots or slam dunks can really keep the other team pressured defensively. I wish Bradley would get the message that we really need that from him. Forget the 15 footer. Just slam dunk over the other guys a few times. Get mean! Yea, right you say. He is 7'6 and could do it if he wanted. If he did that we would all feel better about the next season. Bradley could be the key component. It is sad that he does not care enough to want to do his best. We can only hope he comes to his senses soon.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]