Bring On The Lakers

[Tokey41]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Awful comparison. Considering the objective facts--i.e. that they are the highest scoring bench in the NBA (by a few points, no less)--it's nowhere near "stupid" to say that the Mavs have the best bench in the NBA. It's certainly not even 1/20th as stupid as claiming that Devin Harris would somehow singlehandedly turn the Mavs into a team that can match up against the most talented team in the West.

I'm pretty sure we'd lose to the Lakers with or without Harris on this team. I didn't say we'd win that series and I'd thank you not to put words into my mouth. I'm simply stating that 'the best bench in the NBA' isn't really going to make a difference against that team because a) rotations are shorter in the platyoffs, b) our starters our going to get ridiculous burn since I don't forsee us blowing L.A out, and c) their bench is overall much more talented than ours and it will show.

Your numbers are inflated and utterly useless because Terry should be considered a starter. You've actually conceded this fact yourself in the Mavs vs Utah thread. Terry is better for us off the bench obviously, but if your looking at him as a starter (a point that can be made in that he plays starter minutes) then our bench isn't looking so hot. Go ahead and replace Terry's numbers with Wrights... where does our bench rank now in scoring?

The two best benches in the league are clearly L.A and Chicago. L.A because of the solid backups 1-5, and Chicago because their entire team is balanced with mediocore talent. Put Terry in our starting five and swap benches with them and we'd have a better team.

[alby]

If LA and Portland meet in the second round, maybe we won't even have to see the Lakers before we meet the Cavaliers in the Finals

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Tokey41

I'm pretty sure we'd lose to the Lakers with or without Harris on this team. I didn't say we'd win that series and I'd thank you not to put words into my mouth. I'm simply stating that 'the best bench in the NBA' isn't really going to make a difference against that team because a) rotations are shorter in the platyoffs, b) our starters our going to get ridiculous burn since I don't forsee us blowing L.A out, and c) their bench is overall much more talented than ours and it will show.

Your numbers are inflated and utterly useless because Terry should be considered a starter. You've actually conceded this fact yourself in the Mavs vs Utah thread. Terry is better for us off the bench obviously, but if your looking at him as a starter (a point that can be made in that he plays starter minutes) then our bench isn't looking so hot. Go ahead and replace Terry's numbers with Wrights... where does our bench rank now in scoring?

The two best benches in the league are clearly L.A and Chicago. L.A because of the solid backups 1-5, and Chicago because their entire team is balanced with mediocore talent. Put Terry in our starting five and swap benches with them and we'd have a better team.

It doesn't matter one single bit whether Terry "should be" a starter. He is on the bench. Therefore, he is part of the bench. Period. Just like Ginobili last year was part of the Spurs bench. Just like J.R. Smith is part of the Nuggets bench.

I don't know why you're talking about playoff rotations. I never said anything about how the Mavs' bench would give them a boost in the playoffs. You are absolutely, 100% correct that the shorter playoff rotations make that much less relevant. I made no claim there; I was simply countering your comparison of me saying the Mavs have the best bench in the league to random-poster X saying the Mavs could beat the Lakers if they had Devin Harris. The former statement is far from stupid, and even has support in statistics. The latter statement is absolutely stupid.

Lastly, I already said this, but apparently you didn't read it the first time--anybody who thinks LA even has a top-3 bench this year either has absolutely no clue about this year's NBA, or must still think this is 2007-2008. The Lakers' bench has HORRIBLY underperformed this year. It gets mentioned all the freaking time. I seriously have to wonder how little attention somebody must be paying to the rest of the NBA to not know that. The Lakers bench is 16th in the NBA in scoring, 11th in rebounding, 5th in assists, and 6th in +/-. So, no, the Lakers do not "clearly" have the best bench. As for Chicago--I'm just going to give you a mulligan there, because that's just ridiculous.

[Tokey41]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Yeah but he's our starting SG in name only.

For a backup swingman/defensive specialist I'm pretty happy with him. If he ever hits the three consistently he'll be damn valuable.

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I agree with both points.

Your saying because Terry is literally on the bench he is a bench player, but here your saying that Wright is our starting SG in name only, thus implying that Terry should be considered a starter which is what I've been trying to explain to you.

You can use statistics to make any claim you want but the fact of the matter is if Wright switches places with Terry (and apparently we all agree he's our starting SG in name only) then our bench becomes horrible, and yes, worse than the Lakers bench.

As for the Chicago suggestion there's nothing wrong with it... they have an entire team of bench players. My boy Hollinger seems to agree:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...PERDiem-090318

[tonyriceroni]

They got Bynum back so hell no. I would like to get past the first round

[fluid.forty.one]

can you guys even grasp how bad the jazz are going to get beat in LA? I can't. I just know it's going to be embarrassing for them.

[left texas]

No No No!! Maybe in the finals, but not in the first round!!!