The Nick Van Exel playoff myth - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Hitman · 08-26-2003, 11:08 AM

I admit it. I was one.

I was one of the people who got pissed at Nick during the regular season last year, when he would come off the bench and start taking ridiculous shots. I would yell at him to stop taking these shots, fully aware that he could not hear me. There were so many times that he would force shots up in key moments, and I would wonder out loud if Nick understood that he was a career 40% shooter and he was playing with three all stars, one of whom is perhaps the best all around offensive player in the world.

I also sat there in somewhat awe as Nick played great during much of the playoffs. There were several times that he was so hot he could have thrown the ball up blindfolded and the ball would have swished through the net. I found myself yelling "No Nick, No!!!!!!.....YES!!!!" on many occasions in the playoffs.

However...

It has become popular to see people stating that Nick was the bes player of the playoffs for the Mavericks last year, or even that Nick was the only reason that the Mavericks got past the first round. I have seen writers writing about it numerous times since Nick was traded, and I have seen posters here post the very same thing. However, I simply don't think we were watching the same games.

Game 5 vs. the Blazers (Mavs looking to close out the series as Dirk had pretty much won 2 or the 3 wins singlehandedly) , the Mavs were up late in the game, and within the last minute and a half Nick took 2 early, covered, three point bricks that were converted into scores by the Blazers. No writer ever brings this up, do they? Instead of closing out the Blazers in 5, we were forced to go back to Portland where Nick (and the rest of the Mavs) stunk the joint up something fierce. But the point is without Nick's HORRIBLE decisions in the waning moments of game 5, there never would have been a game 6 or 7. In game 7, Nick showed up big with 26 points, but we all know who was the MVP of that game was, don't we?

In the Sacramento series, Nick was brilliant. He was the Mavs leading scorer, he was hot as lava. But lets examine his true value, shall we?

In game 2, about 22 of his 36 points came in the second half, when the rest of the starters were resting and the game was out of reach. He lit it up, and he was on fire, but the majority of his damage came with the Mavs up 20+ already. Nick didn't start his barrage in that game until the Mavs were already up big.

Game 3...he was the Mavs MVP. No question about it. He lit it up something fierce.

Game 4...5 points. Nowitzki was not great either, but he did come up with a double-double. Moot point, Mavs loss.

Game 5...he took 17 shots to get 18 points. Dirk had 16 points, 15 rebounds and 9 assists and the Mavs win.

Game 6...Nick notches 35 points...Dirk has 21 points and 12 rebounds and the Mavs lose.

Game 7...Nick gets 23 points, Dirk has 30 points and 19 rebounds and the Mavs win.

So this was Nick's LONE great series of the playoffs, and I'm not sure that Nick was even the MVP of this series.

I am not going to go through the Spurs series, but consider that after Dirk went down, Nick averaged 20 points, brought very little in the way of defense or rebounding and shot about 42%. Sorry, that is not good. Dirk was averaging 30 points and 13 rebounds in the first 2 games of that series before his knee injury forced him out in the 4th quarter of game 3.

It has become so commonplace for writers to talk about (a) defense being the Mavs biggest weakness, and that (b) Nick was the Mavericks best player in the playoffs.

However, the reality is that rebounding was the Mavericks biggest weakness (and they have addressed that), and Nowitzki was the Mavericks best player in the playoffs. (and they still have him.)

My point is not to disparage Nick. While he may have been the emotional and mental leader of the Mavericks at times in the playoffs, he was not their best player, anymore than Troy Hudson was the best player on the Wolves in their six game series vs. the Lakers.

Tarzan · 08-26-2003, 11:16 AM

Amen, brother!!!!

Dooby · 08-26-2003, 11:17 AM

Hitman, I know what you are saying. I agree for the most part. And the team obviously agrees with you because they were willing to trade Nick.

My only comment is that you are omitting the intangibles Nick brought to this team in the playoffs. We had a coach that was saying we weren't very good and that we were not as good as the Kings and also talking about how great and tough the Blazers were. And we had Nick who, as opposed to our coach, said "F'em" and we went out and beat them anyway.

That is what made Nick so valuable to me in the playoffs and the only thing about Nick I am going to miss. The question is, are the big 3 willing to step in and fill that void?

Big Boy Laroux · 08-26-2003, 12:23 PM

great post, hitman. i agree. but i also agree with dooby. nick's attitude and fire is what brought this "Dallas' MVP of the playoffs" attention, at least for me. I only hope his attitude rubbed off on our guys, especially nellie.

madape · 08-26-2003, 12:30 PM

Yep. Thanks Nick for putting together one hell of a playoff series. Without it, there would be no way that we could have fetched ANTAWN JAMISON, JIRI WELSCH, DANNY FORTSON, AND $6.6 MILLION IN EXPIRING CONTRACTS!!!!

sturm und drang · 08-26-2003, 12:38 PM

I agree. Actually, there was often an inverse relationship between Nick shooting lights out and us winning. When Nick is hot, he takes over the offense and takes every shot available. This stagnates the rest of our offense-- how often did you see the other 4 just standing around on offense when Nick was on?-- which saps our effort on the defensive/rebounding end, as well. The other well-documented issue was Nick as a defensive liability, especially in the 2 guard set.

Nick put up some fabulous games all season long. But the all-important statistic is wins.

Chiwas · 08-26-2003, 12:49 PM

Also, another myth would arise -and debunk- if you do the math with his plus minus statistics. Yes, he scored much, but he defended poorly. I dont' remember the figures, but I think he only had +2 points over Najera. I bet he didn't beat Shawn, Raja, Griffin or LaF, or was close enough and then was overrated by Nelson, in the regular season.

He brought the big spirit to the first and second round of the playoffs, though. Without him Dallas wouldn't have made the western finals, imo.

sturm und drang · 08-26-2003, 12:56 PM

I did a little research, and for the 2002 - 2003 season (including playoffs), Nick was our high scorer 11 times. In those 11 games, we were 4-7.

Interesting.

Drbio · 08-26-2003, 01:00 PM

First of all Hitman...nice well thought out post.

Now......I am one of the Nick praising fools. I have been praising him since his arrival. I think the mental aspect and the very undervalued and underappreciated F'em phenomenon are what made me proclaim NVE as a front runner for MVP in the playoffs. BUT...a HUGE case could also be made for Dirk obviously.

Somewhat sadly, I am accepting that he is gone. But good Lord did we fleece Golden State or what? I wish NVE the best, but he is the enemy now. I will now yell my arse off for Jamison, Fortson, Welsch and Mills and be damn grateful NVE was the currency to purchase those guys.

edit....added on one more thought

kg_veteran · 08-26-2003, 01:06 PM

Hitman, outstanding post. I agree with what Dooby said as well, but I think you're really on to something here.

Chiwas · 08-26-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
I did a little research, and for the 2002 - 2003 season (including playoffs), Nick was our high scorer 11 times. In those 11 games, we were 4-7.

Interesting.

Very good point sturm. I can't remember but somebody made a similar research last season (I think it was Mavkiki), on NVE (and Nash) playing the small ball. It showed also a losing pattern, I think.

Hitman · 08-26-2003, 01:16 PM

This is a statement I have seen so many times already from sportswriters, and we will continue to see in the next two months leading up to the regular season:

"The Mavericks failed to address their biggest weakness - defense - and they traded their playoff MVP"

That statement is wrong on both counts.

kg_veteran · 08-26-2003, 01:18 PM

Anyone who really knows the Mavericks knows that rebounding was their biggest weakness, and that Dirk was (and will continue to be) their playoff MVP.

Usually Lurkin · 08-26-2003, 01:19 PM

where have you seen this written, and were the authors just being sentimental, or were they trying to make rational statements?

edit: I can't believe anyone would call NVE anything other than emotional leader for the playoffs, but could understand if they though that was the most valuable component of our playoffs run.
the 'not adressing defense' thing might be hard to understand, since it was addition by subtraction.

Chiwas · 08-26-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

That statement is wrong on both counts.

Agree.

Murphy3 · 08-26-2003, 01:27 PM

There are so many valid points in this thread..many of which I've tried to bring up on numerous occasions.

1. when NVE gets going, he takes a ton of shots and stagnates the offense
2. nve had a great streak during part of the playoffs
3. NVE was probably the second best player in the playoffs behind dirk
4. nve's perimeter defense makes the mavs interior defenders look like Ben Wallace in comparison
5. Golden State was screwed in the trade
6. Hitman's statement regarding the idiotic statements saying that the mavs didn't address their main weaknesses...defense and rebounding.

some things, I don't think you've heard come out of my mouth but were great comments
1. when nve leads the team in scoring, the mavs typically don't win at a high clip. (this kinda goes along with the first #1
2. NVE did appear to vocally oppose Nellie's loser mentality. I think most of the rest of the team did as well, but just not publicly

some things worth repeating that I've said that haven't been mentioned in this thread.
1. NVE is a 40% shooter. The chances of him putting together another run like he did in the playoffs this past year are not likely. The chances of him putting together another run like he did last year in the playoffs in next years playoffs are slim to none.
2. The mavs will play much less small ball without NVE
3. The mavs needs made NVE look like a huge luxury and by no means a necessity.
4. Najera is overrated

Drbio · 08-26-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

some things worth repeating that I've said that haven't been mentioned in this thread.
1. NVE is a 40% shooter. The chances of him putting together another run like he did in the playoffs this past year are not likely. The chances of him putting together another run like he did last year in the playoffs in next years playoffs are slim to none.
2. The mavs will play much less small ball without NVE
3. The mavs needs made NVE look like a huge luxury and by no means a necessity.
4. Najera is overrated

One of these things is not like the other...one of these things is kind of the same.....

LOL murph!

dirno2000 · 08-26-2003, 01:53 PM

Great post Hitman. Hopefully Don Nelson will come to grips with the fact that for perhaps the first time in his career, he is not the underdog. The Mavs are by no means the favorite (at least outside of Dallas), but they have as much talent as anyone in the league. It will be interesting to see if Nelson can change his demeanor to reflect that.

Raviadso · 08-26-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Hitman
This is a statement I have seen so many times already from sportswriters, and we will continue to see in the next two months leading up to the regular season:

"The Mavericks failed to address their biggest weakness - defense - and they traded their playoff MVP"

That statement is wrong on both counts.

well the problem with the Mavs is defensive pride. They just don't try as hard as they could. They think that since they can score 80 points in a half, they dont have to try to keep people in front of them. They did hold the 2nd highest scoring team to 13% shooting in game 5 of the Sac/Dal series. They can interrupt offense when they try, but to misquote Homer Simpson, "no offense and slow defense makes Dallas something something" "seem boring?"

Although Dallas allowed the opposing team a lot of points, Dallas' main problem always was rebounding! They score, they handle the ball well, they pass well, they work together well, they CAN play defense, they only other problem they have is rebounding.The only games they lost were games where they were outrebounded. That isnt to say they lost everytime because of rebounding, especially since they were outrebounded the majority of the time and came out of the 2002-2003 season with 60 wins. Jamison addresses that. They get rebounding from a guy who can also provide ball handling, offense and can contribute to team chemistry. In other words they only gain by losing a chemistry/offense player. Those sports writers are idiots.

jayC · 08-26-2003, 03:54 PM

His intangibles and great quotes soft white boyz, and F'em will be greatly missed but thats it. The mavs did the impossible and traded old and small for big and young.

Sure they lost playoff leadership , but Jamison has been in big games before in college. The only real negative is that this team has to find a vocal leader that tells everyone ot buckle up and play hard. That is what will be missed most by the departures of avery johnson and nick van exel. Another thing is shooting in the clutch remember the december 30th laker game in the fourth quarter the only one that wanted to shoot was nick van exel, finley and nash froze.

one long blue sock · 08-26-2003, 05:12 PM

Dang Hitman, your posts have been REALLY good the past few days.

I agree with everything.

Murphy3 · 08-26-2003, 05:19 PM

actually, i don't believe that it is as simple as "defensive pride".. It's the way the mavs are constructed. Just because you're a good offensive player doesn't mean that you have the same capabilities on the other side of the court. I believe that's the case with the mavs. some of the players simply don't have the same capabilities on the defensive side as they do on the offensive side

Drbio · 08-26-2003, 05:40 PM

I cannot imagine that Dirk will be anying less than a ball busting vocal leader this year. You began to see it in the playoffs and I am sure he will pick right up where he left off.

Jeremiah · 08-27-2003, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
actually, i don't believe that it is as simple as "defensive pride".. It's the way the mavs are constructed. Just because you're a good offensive player doesn't mean that you have the same capabilities on the other side of the court. I believe that's the case with the mavs. some of the players simply don't have the same capabilities on the defensive side as they do on the offensive side

Are you saying that at this level, defense is not constituted mostly of effort? By mostly, I mean at least 75%.

Jeremiah · 08-27-2003, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Hitman
Instead of closing out the Blazers in 5, we were forced to go back to Portland where Nick (and the rest of the Mavs) stunk the joint up something fierce. But the point is without Nick's HORRIBLE decisions in the waning moments of game 5, there never would have been a game 6 or 7. In game 7, Nick showed up big with 26 points, but we all know who was the MVP of that game was, don't we?

But was it really just Nick's decision-making? I think it could be argued that part of that decision-making was a product of Nellie's coaching. Remember when Nick got here he tried to fit in by distributing the ball more than he shot it? Remember when Nellie prodded him to shoot the ball more? It is my understanding that the players on this team are rather shy when it comes to taking shots, or were at one point, despite being good shooters or scorers; but Nellie coaches them to shoot more often. He certainly did it with Nash, he did it with Nick, and he's done it with Raef, though Raef hasn't quite produced much. I have a feeling that if Nellie pulled the reigns on Nick's shooting, whether he had any bit of a good playoff reputation or not, Nick would have taken less shots, and distributed more.

Here's something else to chew on. Perhaps Nick is getting the credit that he is because he was given the opportunity, and he succeeded in big games. Perhaps those that are giving him credit are not considering in totality the amount of raw statistics one puts up as the sole criterion of determining the MVP. Perhaps they are thinking about what makes the Mavs different from last year, or 3 games ago. It is well known that Dirk can score in bunches and score efficiently. He can also rebound very well as evidenced in the playoffs two years ago, and this past season, not to mention this past season's playoffs too. The same is true about Finley and Nash, for the most part, they are viewed as consistently good. Sure, to the more scrutinizing eye, they have days when they are trillionaires, but I think it's plausible to say that overall, they are viewed as consistently good. On the other hand, Nick is the wildcard. He's the guy that isn't expected to score 20 or more when no one else is scoring, and lead the mavs to a win. So perhaps, in the eyes of those that have given him so much credit, they are doing so because they think Nick's presence pushed the Mavs over the top. His out of nowhere performance, (at one point he scored more points than any other guy in the playoffs coming off the bench, isn't that right?) and his attitude that appeared so markedly different than the other Mavs perhaps gave these men the impression that without Nick, the Mavs wouldn't have done what they did. They took Dirk's, Steve's and Mike's performances and capabilities for granted, they were going to produce like they did anyway. Sure, Dirk's, Steve's and Mike's consistency was a tremendous factor in allowing Nick to score as much as he did, but I've a feeling that if someone like Raja Bell came out of nowhere and played as well as Nick did, he'd have a shot a being called the playoff MVP as well, don't you think? Nick's performance has overshadowed Dirk's incredible consistency and ability to them.

I imagine that these very same men and women would also assert that it never has been about the Mav's ability to score, but their ability to be confident against teams like the Kings and the Blazers (esp. in the Rose Garden). They can't really say with a lot of certainty that the Mavs weren't really confident in beating those teams, they can say that Nick appeared overwhelmingly confident as evidenced by his body language and by what he would say. I imagine that appearance as confident coupled with his performance, made plenty of people say he was the playoff MVP.

I can't say that I know for certain how people are characterizing Nick as the playoff MVP, they're not, too my knowledge, telling us how they are defining it, rather, they are writing their articles laden with assumptions, and expecting us to agree with them.

I think Dirk was the playoff MVP for the Mavs, but I recognize that there is a good argument purporting Nick as the playoff MVP.

Usually Lurkin · 08-27-2003, 07:47 AM

I think I once heard David Robinson refer to Avery Johnson as the Spurs MVP in 99.

You could argue with him, but I imagine he'd say, "Shut up, you idiot. You know what I mean."

Drbio · 08-27-2003, 08:15 AM

That was a really nice post Jeremiah.

Murphy3 · 08-27-2003, 10:59 AM

Or, perhaps some of us are able to look at statistics AND watch a game to actually formulate an opinion.

NVE wasn't a clutch performer last year until the playoffs. For that, I give him credit. For the most part, he stepped up in the playoffs. He was the second most important player on the team during that stretch.

However, I also realize that NVE isn't as clutch as people want to make him out to be. I realize that there's little chance of him EVER duplicating or even approaching what he did in the playoffs last year. I realize that he was a luxury. I realize that he stagnates the offense much of the time when he is "hot". Let's remember one thing, hot for NVE is hitting 46-47% of his shots in a game. I also realize that having him on the team only increases the mavs chances of going small and crippling the team on the defensive side and on the glass.

For all of these reasons and many more, i'm happy to see NVE go. congrats NVE for having a great playoff run. Congrats NVE for not being the problem that you've been everywhere else. And, thank you NVE for increasing your trade value so that the Mavs could get your ass out of here.

to sum it up, thank you NVE

EricaLubarsky · 08-27-2003, 12:13 PM

thats a really interesting article. I watched every game of the playoffs and Nick added a lot of style, and although the announcers thought he was the MVP, Im starting to wonder about that now

Murphy3 · 08-27-2003, 01:00 PM

a high percentage of the announcers are idiots like John Thompson, Danny Ainge ..or people that are so caught up in their own metaphors that they exaggerate everything such as Bill Walton

Big Boy Laroux · 08-27-2003, 02:47 PM

oh man, murph... thanks for reminding me that the season is approaching... and with it, the horrible announcing team of ainge and thompson.

"gee, dirk really is a good offensive player, but he's AWFUL on D" over and over and over again.

EricaLubarsky · 08-27-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
a high percentage of the announcers are idiots like John Thompson, Danny Ainge ..or people that are so caught up in their own metaphors that they exaggerate everything such as Bill Walton

John Thompson isnt that bad even though he is biased against the mavs. Walton was hilarious last season. I remember many times where he would just say something completely off base. One time during a spurs/mavs game he talked about how bad Jason Kidd was trashing the Spurs' backcourt. NJ wasnt even playing.It was great. If Bradley plays more aggressively Walton will overtalk him too, and I love when he says, "throw it down big man, throw it down!"

Big Boy Laroux · 08-27-2003, 03:18 PM

walton is a genius. thompson is not.

Murphy3 · 08-28-2003, 08:12 AM

walton can be good...thompson cannot

Drbio · 08-28-2003, 08:20 AM

Walton is a pot fried goofball. Thompson is just a bad commentator. He should have stuck to X's and O's.

Thank you Boston Celtics for removing Ainge from my TV.

Big Boy Laroux · 08-28-2003, 08:26 AM

that's right! ainge is gone! who are the going to package with thompson now? majerle? you know, i actually like majerle's few games he did last year.

denig · 08-28-2003, 12:18 PM

Hitman~
This is a great post. I really enjoyed reading it, along with many of the posts.

I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Lo and amazing, there is a following for this POV!

Thanks.

Murphy3 · 09-17-2003, 10:42 PM

bump...just thought i'd bump this up so everyone could look at a well constructed post.

good job hitman