The Big Lies - by David Lord

[grndmstr_c]

The Big Lies
Center Stuff You Thought You Knew

By David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com

Three NBA big-man lessons we all need to learn: 1) This will never be a SmallBall league; 2) Short of employing one superstar center, teams need to stockpile an army of them; and 3) Shockingly, even a center as seemingly middlin’ as Erick Dampier is anything but overpaid.
DB.COM BOARDS
FISH ON RADIO
An expanded look at the above points, with Damp’s quite-acceptable salary offered as the cherry on top:

WINNING A TITLE TAKES BIG MEN

The NBA has always been a big man's league. How do you win? You either have to have the best big man in the game, or you have to find enough rugged big guys to overcome him.

Going back in NBA history, through the 60s and early 70s, titles were won by teams that had players like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, and so on. Moving to more recent times, in the 25 years since the Mavs have been in the NBA, it is still all about winning the battle near the basket.

In the 80s, it was a 3-way battle between the Lakers (with Kareem), the Celtics (Parrish-McHale-Bird), and the 76ers (Moses Malone). Then the Pistons found a way to climb to the top and win back-to-back without one of the elite centers, by employing a rugged rotation using players like Laimbeer, Rodman, Mahorn, and Salley.

After that, there were lots of titles won by the Bulls. But with Jordan's greatness on those teams, they only began to win titles when they got enough muscle in the middle to get past the teams with strong inside games. In winning 6 titles, they had a whole string of effective big men. None were elite players, but they were rugged and effective.

Outside the Bulls' wins, the title has been won ever since by teams with elite big men, until last year. Houston won back-to-back behind Akeem Olajuwon. San Antonio won twice with the David Robinson-Tim Duncan tandem. The Lakers won 3 in a row with Shaquille O'Neal. Then the Pistons won again by gathering a whole slew of effective big men (Wallace-Wallace-Okur-Campbell-Williamson-Rebraca) who were able to beat Shaq and the Lakers.

This year? It is more of the same. Two teams (the Pistons and Spurs) with scads of big men, battling for the area around the basket.

If the Mavs want to win a title, where are they? On their list of rugged big men, they have Dampier. Nowitzki and Van Horn help a bit. But since they lack the elite center, they need much more, if they want to some day be able to hold their own game after game through the grind of the playoffs and emerge with a title.

YOU ALWAYS NEED MORE

The Detroit Pistons under Larry Brown have been one of the better teams in the Eastern Conference and noted for their physical play, especially in the interior. Going into 03-04, they had an all-NBA center in Ben Wallace, complemented by a whole slew of valued big men: Mehmet Okur, Zeljko Rebraca, and Corliss Williamson, along with highly touted rookie Darco Milicic. Nevertheless, in the summer of 03, they added veteran big man Elden Campbell to the mix. Then at the trading deadline, they added another big man in Rasheed Wallace. Wallace became the starter at PF, Campbell played some key minutes against Shaquille O'Neal in the playoffs, and the Pistons won a title.

After the season ended, they lost Okur and Rebraca to free agency, and Williamson was also traded. That left a returning core of Wallace-Wallace-Milicic-Campbell. Again they added another big man in free agency, Antonio McDyess. During the season, they traded away Campbell for guard help - and then reacquired him, even though he was going to be no higher than the 4th big man in the playoff rotation at best. In their playoff run to the Finals, McDyess has been the key backup big man, and Campbell contributed some nice minutes against Miami that allowed the Pistons to defeat the Heat and advance.

The San Antonio Spurs won a title in 2003, and then big man David Robinson retired. They still had Tim Duncan, Kevin Willis, and Malik Rose. Yet they added inside big men Rasho Nesterovic and Robert Horry in free agency that summer.

After the season ended, Willis was not retained, replaced by veteran Tony Massenburg. At the trade deadline, the Spurs were already at the top of the standings, yet traded for the Knicks starting center, Nazr Mohammed. Mohammed became the Spurs starter in the middle and has been a key component in the Spurs' playoff success this year.

The one team that clearly has a dominant big man is the Miami Heat, with Shaquille O'Neal. In their quest for a title, who did GM Pat Riley (who won 5 titles with the Lakers) sign down the stretch? Backup big man Alonzo Mourning, to complement and bolster Shaq.

Those that win titles understand the priority: you have to be strong enough near the basket, and deep enough in big men, to get through the playoffs and to win a title. Another big man always helps.

WHY DOES BEING BIG-AND-GOOD WIN TITLES?

We offer a few logical (maybe even ultra-obvious) ideas to explain the reason why success seems to follow teams that are good in their big man lineup:
1. EASIER SHOTS. Dunks and layups are more reliable than jump shots. The team that has better big men will generally be able to get more easy shots, and at the same time prevent the other team from getting those same shots.
2. REBOUNDS. Better big men will typically outrebound the other team, offering more possessions. In tight games, every edge is crucial.
3. DEFENSE. A size disadvantage offers a natural handicap, both in man-to-man matchups and in help-defense, when everything can be funneled toward a shot-blocker or a stopper.

THE PHOENIX SUNS' EXAMPLE

Many have cited the Suns as the team that is disproving the NBA's long-accepted axiom that "big and good is better than small and good." Local opinion-maker Randy Galloway recently wrote that the Mavs abandoned SmallBall too soon, while teams like Phoenix are heading the other way into the future. But are they?

The Suns effectively played all year without a center, utilizing a lineup with PF Stoudemire playing C, SF Marion playing PF, SGs Richardson and Johnson playing SF and SG, and PG Nash. The top backup was SG Jackson. The team led the league in wins in 2004-05 and won 8 of 10 games in the first two rounds of the playoffs.

Then they ran into the big-and-good San Antonio Spurs in the playoffs - and were handily dispatched in 5 games. But of greater interest is the following fact: in those 5 games, the Suns regularly replaced one of their SGs with seldom used backup center Steven Hunter, who rarely played in the regular season, with surprisingly effective results. Hunter, who only played 20 minutes or more in 12 games all year, played 30 minutes in two of the 5 games against the Spurs, and averaged over 20 minutes per game in that series. For those who like +/- stats, in the 90 minutes Hunter played in the Suns' 4 losses in that series, the Suns were +14 when he was on the floor, and -40 when he sat.

Small and good can beat ordinary teams in the regular season, but the Suns found out (just like the Mavs, Kings, and so many teams before them) that the playoffs ultimately favor the team that can win the middle. Since their success in 2002-03, the Mavs have abandoned the small ball concept and moved toward a more traditional game with a stronger presence on the inside. Will the Suns, touted as "revolutionary" in their small ball attack, soon follow?

As we’ve said a few times before, our prediction is that someday, the Suns will seek to sign a player kind of like. … Erick Dampier.

GOING BIG IS NOT CHEAP

Lots of Mavs fans have had sticker shock over the price paid for Erick Dampier. But it may surprise many to find out that, when it comes to the NBA's going rate for centers, Dampier doesn't seem to be overpaid at all.

Following up on a discussion at dallas-mavs.com and a list compiled by “jthig32’’ there of all the players that averaged 8 points and 8 rebounds in 2004-05, we wondered how many of those players are centers, and how much those centers are paid for that level of production.

We used the salary lists floating around the net that generally are said to be accurate, and our knowledge of how teams use their various players, and added that info to the list. Here's what we found: other than players who are on rookie contracts (RC) - for whom the salary is solely determined by their draft position and not their play - effective big man help is expensive in the NBA.

Here is the list of all players who produced the aforementioned 8ppg/8rpg this year, along with their position and salary:

POS.....NAME .......SALARY 2004-05
C .......Shaquille O'Neal ...27.7
PF .....Chris Webber ...17.5
PF .....Kevin Garnett ...16.0
PF .....Jermaine O'Neal ...14.8
PF .....Antoine Walker ...14.6
C .......Zydrunas Ilgauskas ...14.6
C/PF ..Tim Duncan ...14.3
PF .....Dirk Nowitzki ...12.6
PF .....Elton Brand ...12.1
SF(PF) ..Shawn Marion ...11.3
PF .....Carlos Boozer ...11.0
PF .....Lamar Odom ...10.5
C/PF.. Rasheed Wallace ...9.7
C/PF.. Marcus Camby ...8.5
C .......Jamaal Magloire ...8.5
C/PF ..P.J. Brown ...8.0
C/PF ..Brad Miller ...7.9
C .......Erick Dampier ...7.7
C .......Ben Wallace ...7.0
C/PF.. Kurt Thomas ...5.9

C/PF ..Emeka Okafor ...RC
PF .....Troy Murphy ...RC
C .......Dwight Howard ...RC
C/PF ..Tyson Chandler ...RC
PF .....Zach Randolph ...RC
PF .....Drew Gooden ...RC
PF .....Udonis Haslem ...RC
C/PF ..Amare Stoudemire ...RC
C/PF ..Chris Bosh ....RC
C .......Yao Ming ...RC



If you remove the PF's from the list, and remove the players on rookie contracts, you get the following "price list" for veteran centers in the NBA who are putting up at least 8/8. When we look at this, it is obvious that Dampier isn't vastly overpaid at all, and may even be a bargain in the salary structure of the NBA:

C .......Shaquille O'Neal ...27.7M
C .......Zydrunas Ilgauskas ...14.6
C/PF ..Tim Duncan ...14.3
C/PF ..Rasheed Wallace ...9.7
C/PF.. Marcus Camby ...8.5
C .......Jamaal Magloire ...8.5
C/PF.. P.J. Brown ...8.0
C/PF.. Brad Miller ...7.9
C .......Erick Dampier ...7.7
C....... Ben Wallace ...7.0
C/PF.. Kurt Thomas ...5.9



From that list, it is obvious that Ben Wallace is quite underpaid. Other than him, among guys that are producing, Dampier's deal is cheaper than anyone else's except Kurt Thomas (who is 3 years older, 3 inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter).

So what's the problem? In fairness, there might be problems to argue about in the fourth or fifth or seventh year of Damp’s $70-mil deal. But in terms of bang-for buck in the 2004-05 season, Dampier’s salary was VERY MUCH in line with others in the very exclusive club of productive centers.

HOW ABOUT THE MAVS?

From what we have discussed above, you have to have big men. Do the Mavs need to get rid of Dampier and his contract, as The Morning News’ Eddie Sefko wrote recently?

Not hardly. As we learned above, he is paid about what it costs for one of those big guys (or maybe even a bit less), and he is already here. The problem isn’t his presence - it is that the Mavs need more of his ilk.

In what was overlooked as just another transaction, the Mavs did make a trading deadline move for a backup player who is oft regarded as "just a shooter" but is big enough to offer some help inside at C/PF, Keith Van Horn. He isn't the prototypical "big man," but at 6-10 he is definitely big enough to help. In a world without injuries and fouls, a Dampier /Nowitzki/Van Horn trio would be enough to beat most teams. Unfortunately in the playoffs this year, Van Horn was hurt and Dampier was saddled with foul troubles, and what was behind that trio wasn't good enough.

So what are the options? An easy choice might be to re-sign Alan Henderson, who regularly provided gritty minutes and veteran knowledge of the game, along with an attitude that allowed the team to play him irregular minutes. It wouldn't hurt to bring him back in the same sort of role.

Beyond that, however, there still needs to be more - especially at center. Dampier certainly is a capable center when he is on the floor, but he was the only one the team felt capable of using in the playoffs. Bradley, Podkolzin, and Mbenga all are listed as backup centers, but none contributed in the playoffs, and the team needs someone other than PFs Nowitzki, Van Horn, and Henderson that they can rely on when they need another big man on the court.

Will one of the 3 backups on the roster (Bradley, Podkolzin, and Mbenga) be capable of stepping up this fall? If not, just like the teams that are playing for a title these days, the Mavs need to go get another big man - not to REPLACE all the guys that are already playing, but to ADD to them.

In at least one sense, the Mavs are no different than those other contenders: when it comes to big men, you always can use one more.

[dalmations202]

Good article that is hard to argue with. Thanks for posting Grand............

[dirno2000]

You want further proof of the PXH myth...Seattle played S.A. tougher than the Suns despite the fact that they limped into the playoffs and lost Vlad and Lewis early. PXH had 3 All-Stars while Seattle had Ray Allen and a bunch of guys. The difference was that Seattle was able to throw out a front line of James, Collison, Fortson, Evans and Potapenko. Not an All-Star in the bunch but all of them are physical. So when James invariably got in foul trouble the drop off wasn't as great as when Damp would get in foul trouble.

[capitalcity]

There's gotta be a way to get P.J. Brown or Maglore...

[LRB]

Originally posted by: capitalcity
There's gotta be a way to get P.J. Brown or Maglore...

PJ is probably attainable, but I doubt that Maglore is except for a lot more than we'll want to pay.

[ddh33]

You know, no one has mentioned him, but his name has crossed my mind several times. Vitaly Potopenko could be a good pickup as a rotational big man. He throws his body around well and plays solid defense. He shouldn't demand a lot of money or minutes though, and that could help.

[sike]

Lord is the best badketball writer in town...hands down.

[GermanBlitzkrieg]

Could someone send this to Sefko to show him what a real basketball story looks like? Nice analysis, and spot on.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: dirno2000
You want further proof of the PXH myth...Seattle played S.A. tougher than the Suns despite the fact that they limped into the playoffs and lost Vlad and Lewis early. PXH had 3 All-Stars while Seattle had Ray Allen and a bunch of guys. The difference was that Seattle was able to throw out a front line of James, Collison, Fortson, Evans and Potapenko. Not an All-Star in the bunch but all of them are physical. So when James invariably got in foul trouble the drop off wasn't as great as when Damp would get in foul trouble.

D2K, you don't think that PHX played SA tough? Didn't both of the first two games go into the last two minutes with PHX ahead, or virtually tied? I can't remember exactly, but I thought the early games were very closely contested.

[chumdawg]

This analysis is overly simplistic, and in some cases flawed. It's an attempt to make the facts fit the argument. Take the Pistons example. Corliss Williamson is a valued big man? Darko Milicic helped them to a title? He didn't even play. In adding Rasheed Wallace they added yet another bruising big man? Um, they added more than that. They added a guy with a deadly turnaround jumper, who also has quite a propensity for shooting threes. Plus, if Rasheed counts as a big man in the sense that Lord seems to suggest, then so does Antoine Walker.

There's simply far more to it than that.

Almost all discussion I read of "what it takes to win titles" suffers markedly from the fallacies of small sample sizes or misplaced causality. The real answers are far more complex than what most media types care to delve into, or are able to.

If not being big enough is the SOLE reason Phoenix lost to San Antonio, then how were they able to get by Dallas?

Other than that, the rest of the article is basically belaboring the obvious. Every team has "a slew of big men," by Lord's definition of same. I've yet to see a roster full of guys 6'7" and below. But the thing is, there is a wide range of quality among those big men. Lord doesn't seem to take that into account.

[LRB]

If not being big enough is the SOLE reason Phoenix lost to San Antonio, then how were they able to get by Dallas?

lack of big men on the floor. Damp mad cameo appearances leaving Dirk as the only player for the Mavs to play who was above 6'9" and then it was only Hendu at 6'9" until you got to 6'7" players. Phoenix didn't have a height and size disadvantage to the Mavs the way they did to the Spurs. And even against the Spurs the Suns were forced to go big a lot as Lord points out.

Still I agree with you on the points of Williamson at 6'7" being considered a big man.

[kg_veteran]

Chum - I really like Lord's work, but he does play fast and loose with some of the facts here to make them fit his argument. Still, I think the main point he's making is true: You need a dominant big man or a frontline with a lot of quality depth to win a title.

[dirno2000]

D2K, you don't think that PHX played SA tough? Didn't both of the first two games go into the last two minutes with PHX ahead, or virtually tied? I can't remember exactly, but I thought the early games were very closely contested.

The 1st two games were close but they should have been...PXH was at home. You don't see many blowouts by the road team in the playoffs. I just don't consider the 5 game series to be very competitive. I'm not saying that becasue it's the Suns, I felt the same way about the Mavs/Kings series. Games are going to be close, you have to find a way to win more than one.

I think Seattle was able to do more with less because they had a front line that could match up with SA's...maybe not talent wise but physically.

[vjz]

The only problem I have with David Lord is that I've never seen any article criticizing any Mavs move. It's always pro-Mavs. Seems always a little biased to me.

Having said that, this article is spot on. I hate the physical, 65-63 games as much as anyone else. BUT, you need big men to win it all. It's the sad, ugly truth. Give up on the NBA, or cough up the money and bring in the big men. Since I am never goin' to give up on the Mavs, I'll take the latter.

[dude1394]

You have to give lord a LOT of credit for being a thinking journalist. There aren't many around.

[mavsman]

Actually, imo he's a little too fast when it comes to the Bulls' 6 titles. Quality big men? Wennington, Cartwright and Longley? When other teams had Malone, Kemp, DRob and Ewing? No way his theory does hold water.

[Rhylan]

The Jordan factor offsets the necessary contributions from the big men.. however, you're underestimating the depth and serviceability of the big men that the Bulls had those six years.

First three titles, Cartwright was at the tail end of his career but quite solid. You had Cliff Levingston, as well, and a young Scott Williams.

Second three titles, you had Longley, who in '97 and '98 was at least as productive as Cartwright in '92 and '93. You also had Rodman (a huge factor in the 4th and 5th titles, but slowing down for the 6th), you had Brian Williams / Bison Dele for one run, as well. Even an ancient James Edwards and an ancient John Salley were there for one year each. Those two did nothing, but they make Lord's point about collecting big men.. and the solid contributions of the guys who were there contributing were damn solid, especially compared to the Dallas Mavericks. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[chumdawg]

If you remove the PF's from the list, and remove the players on rookie contracts, you get the following "price list" for veteran centers in the NBA who are putting up at least 8/8. When we look at this, it is obvious that Dampier isn't vastly overpaid at all, and may even be a bargain in the salary structure of the NBA:

C .......Shaquille O'Neal ...27.7M
C .......Zydrunas Ilgauskas ...14.6
C/PF ..Tim Duncan ...14.3
C/PF ..Rasheed Wallace ...9.7
C/PF.. Marcus Camby ...8.5
C .......Jamaal Magloire ...8.5
C/PF.. P.J. Brown ...8.0
C/PF.. Brad Miller ...7.9
C .......Erick Dampier ...7.7
C....... Ben Wallace ...7.0
C/PF.. Kurt Thomas ...5.9



From that list, it is obvious that Ben Wallace is quite underpaid. Other than him, among guys that are producing, Dampier's deal is cheaper than anyone else's except Kurt Thomas (who is 3 years older, 3 inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter).

So what's the problem? In fairness, there might be problems to argue about in the fourth or fifth or seventh year of Damp’s $70-mil deal. But in terms of bang-for buck in the 2004-05 season, Dampier’s salary was VERY MUCH in line with others in the very exclusive club of productive centers.

Just to make sure that the data endpoints we chose (8 and 8) aren't leaving out some other productive players, let's consider these guys, who also signed contracts last summer:

Brian Skinner - 7.4 pts, 8.7 rebounds - 4 years for 20MM
Mehmet Okur - 12.9 pts, 7.5 rebounds - 6 years for 50MM
Brendan Haywood - 9.4 pts, 6.8 rebounds - 5 years for 25MM
Chris Mihm - 9.8 pts, 6.7 rebounds - 3 years for 11MM
Primoz Brezec - 13 pts, 7.4 rebounds - 3 years for 8MM
Joel Przybilla - 6.4 pts, 7.7 rebounds - 2 years for 3MM

A couple other guys who signed a few years back but were close to the data endpoints:

Kelvin Cato - 7 pts, 6.7 rebounds - 6 years for 42MM
Lorenzen Wright - 9.6 pts, 7.7 rebounds - 7 years for 42MM

And then, of course, there were these two:

Dan Gadzuric - 7.3 pts, 8.3 rebounds - minimum contract
Dale Davis - 6.9 pts, 8.9 rebounds - minimum contract

I'm not sure Damp's 9.2 pts and 8.5 rebounds puts him in "elite" company. His 7 for 73MM, on the other hand? Yeah, that kinda does.

[grndmstr_c]

Well, as long as we're expanding the pool of players, might as well expand the pool of stats to include a little +/- action.

Skinner: -7.9 on-court, -7.7 net with the Sixers; -3.4 on-court, -6.7 net with the Kings; made 4.5 million this year.
Okur: -4.3 on-court, +0 net with the Jazz; made 7.5 million this year.
Mihm: -4 on-court, -2.1 net with the Lakers; made 3.4 million this year.
Brezec: -6.8 on-court, -2 net with the Bobcats; made 1.6 million this year.
Pryzbilla: -4.6 on-court, -1.2 net with the Blazers; made 1.6 million this year.
Cato: +1.1 on-court, +5.5 net with the Magic; made 8 million this year.
Wright: +1.3 on-court, -2.5 net with the Griz; made 7.1 million this year.
Damp: +9.2 on-court, +5.8 net with the Mavs; made 7.7 million this year.

Gad and Haywood were both, I believe, on their rookie contracts this year, and Dale Davis actually was on the books for 10.1 million this year but was bought out by the Hornets. Needless to say, though, when you bring +/- into the equation, and put aside the long-term salary numbers in favor of looking at what players made this year, I think Lord's conclusion that Damp wasn't really overpaid relative to his non-rookie-contract peers for his production this year stands.

[chumdawg]

Do those minus numbers mean that those players' teams were better off competitively without their spare centers on the floor?

[dalmations202]

Do those minus numbers mean that those players' teams were better off competitively without their spare centers on the floor?

Not really... those minus numbers mean they played for a sucky team who couldn't score as often as the other team.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally posted by: dalmations202

Not really... those minus numbers mean they played for a sucky team who couldn't score as often as the other team.

Depends on which numbers you're looking at.

[chumdawg]

GMC, do you know what Damp's +/- numbers were from two years ago at Golden State?

[grndmstr_c]

Damp wasn't a particularly good +/- guy in previous years. -3.4 on-court, -4.6 net in 02/03. -1, -.7 in 03/4. It was one of the things I spent a good bit of time looking at when it became clear the Mavs might sign him.

[chumdawg]

To what do you attribute his remarkable improvement in plus-minus last year?

[grndmstr_c]

Coulda been better coaching. Coulda been that in Dallas there was more of a market, if you will, for his strengths, whereas his weaknesses were better compensated for by his teammates' strengths. I tend to think both aspects came into play. Why? What's your theory?

[bo319]

Ummmm...better teamates?

[grndmstr_c]

The on-court +/- is obviously the result of being on, and being a part of, a better team. The corresponding improvement in net +/- from previous years to this year isn't quite as easy to sum up.

[chumdawg]

I was wondering if it would be reasonable to expect that a "lesser" center, like some of the names we have been tossing about, would also see his value increase if he moved to a team like Dallas...

[grndmstr_c]

If it can happen for one player it can happen for another (heck, it happened for Nash this year). Whether it would happen for any of the names you brought up (at least outside of guys like Cato, Gad, and Haywood who had good +/- numbers this year) is another question. We can look at it a slightly different way, though, by taking a quick peak at the starting lineups the Mavs fielded before Damp got here and how the production of those lineups compared to the current one.

In 02/03 the primary starting lineups the Mavs used featured the Big 3, along with either Raef or Bradley at C, and either Raja or Griffin playing alongside Fin at the 2/3. The AG/Shawn lineup saw about 253 minutes, and had a +/- of +11.9 with a 16-14 record. The Raja/Shawn lineup saw around 195 minutes at +17.6 with a 19-10 record. The Bell/Raef lineup saw about 178 minutes at +4.4 with a 15-11 record. The AG/Raef lineup saw about 141 minutes at +8.2 with a 12-10 record. In 03/04 the only starting lineup the Mavs used that saw more than 100 minutes that sported a noteworthy +/- was the Nash/Fin/Walker/Dirk/Fortson lineup, which appeared in 176 minutes at 13.1 with a 10-10 record. By comparison, the Mavs primary starting lineup this year of Terry/Fin/Josh/Dirk/Damp saw 409 minutes of court action at +18.9 with a 24-8 record. In other words, this year's starting lineup featuring Damp was the most effective, and consistent one the Mavs have fielded in at least the past three years, probably since the 80's, and possibly ever.