Are the Mavericks Becoming a Dominant Defensive Team? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 12:17 PM

Last year, the Mavericks were a good, not great, defensive team that was excellent offensively and very good on the glass. In fact, the numbers show that the 2002-2003 WCF finalist team was actually better in terms of defensive efficiency than the 2005-2006 squad that went to the Finals. Some of that had to do with the introduction of zone defenses into the league and the early dominance of Shawn Bradley as the anchor of the Mavs' zone defense, but the point is that no one would have confused last year's Mavericks squad with a dominant defensive team. But what about this year's team? Here are some pertinent numbers:

Season numbers
defensive efficiency: 103.5 pp100
opp. FG%: .447
opp. PPG: 91.9

Since 0-4 start
defensive efficiency: 101.1 pp100
opp. FG%: .436
opp. PPG: 90.2

Last 20 games
defensive efficiency: 99.3 pp100
opp. FG%: .429
opp. PPG: 88.7

Last 10 games
defensive efficiency: 98.3 pp100
opp. FG%: .431
opp. PPG: 86.3

These numbers suggest to me that the Mavericks are really growing into an excellent defensive team. Their defensive efficiency is progressing as the season wears on, and they are really applying the clamps to opponents over the past 20 games or so. If they can continue to defend in the 100-102 pp100 range, they are going to be odds-on favorites to win the title.

92bDad · 01-03-2007, 12:29 PM

Good post. I was asking myself, are the Mavs really as good as they are showing of late? This team, although great at outside and 3pt shooting is winning through a variety of ways. One of which is Inside Scoring and FT's!!!

Along with the offensive success, the defense is showing up and putting the clamps down at the most vital times.

As a long time Dallas Sports fan, this Mavs team is reminding me of the 99' Stars hockey team and the early 90's Cowboys team. You just knew going into any game that Dallas was the better team and should win.

Who knows what tomorrow will hold, but as of today, this Mavs team is the most exciting team in any sport to watch in the Dallas area!!!

StackAttack · 01-03-2007, 12:29 PM

Good to see that there's been improvement as the season progresses.

sike · 01-03-2007, 12:37 PM

the numbers, the wins, and the attitude all speak for themselves...this is a very good defensive team.

it was nice to hear those talking heads on TNT call the Mavs one of the best defensive teams in the league...

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 12:46 PM

good post...really interesting to see how much the first few games of the season drag the Mavs' D stats down.

I secretly and quitely harbored the suspicion last season that the Dallas' D was a tad over-rated, and that it was really the offense and the rebounding that carried them. This year the D looks to be the real deal.

sike · 01-03-2007, 12:58 PM

Damp and Harris are the players I give most of the props...

plus, DG and Buck are solid defenders in the back up role...

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 01:28 PM

Incidentally....

...last year the Mavs gave up 105 pts per hundred possessions -- slightly above average in the NBA. Not miserable, by any stretch, but not dominate or decisive either.

The Suns and Spurs gave up 106 and 100 points per 100, respectively. IOW, there was less of a difference, defensively, between the Suns and Mavs than between the Mavs and Spurs.

Which goes to show.....

a) defense doesn't win championships (or conference titles)--excellence wins championships. all things considered it's best to be excellent on both ends of the court. the Mavs are excellent on both ends of the court this year.

b) the suns defense was and is a bit underrated....my eyes do not deceive me when I see the Suns get a stop here and there. They make a concerted effot to foul infrequently for various reasons. Accordingly they seem soft from time to time, but they can man it up when need be.

AxdemxO · 01-03-2007, 01:32 PM

We are much better on defense than the years before because of Damp and Diop. They are back there and they block and alter shots and that mite not show up on the stat sheet but its HUGE. Also every1 on the team has improved a lil. But i think its mostly do to the big men being bak there.

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 01:33 PM

alexamenos - The Suns' defense is a bit underrated. Right now, their defensive efficiency is roughly the same as the Mavericks' defensive efficiency last year. In other words, the numbers say they are a good, not great, defensive team. The numbers also say they are an excellent offensive team and a terrible rebounding team.

Will excellence in one area win out over excellence in all 3 (the Mavs and Spurs are top 7 in offense, defense, and rebounding)? I doubt it, but we'll see.

craggmac · 01-03-2007, 01:33 PM

Dampier = NBA's Most Improved Player

dirno2000 · 01-03-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

Damp and Harris are the players I give most of the props...

plus, DG and Buck are solid defenders in the back up role...

I'd put Josh up there too. His on the ball defense has been inpressive and his blocks have gone from .4 to 1.3 which places him in the top 5 among SF's.

dirno2000 · 01-03-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

alexamenos - The Suns' defense is a bit underrated. Right now, their defensive efficiency is roughly the same as the Mavericks' defensive efficiency last year. In other words, the numbers say they are a good, not great, defensive team. The numbers also say they are an excellent offensive team and a terrible rebounding team.

Will excellence in one area win out over excellence in all 3 (the Mavs and Spurs are top 7 in offense, defense, and rebounding)? I doubt it, but we'll see.

I definitly think the Suns defense is underrated. This is especially true against us because we don't have the low post scoring to make them pay for being soft inside.

Seems like we always shoot a low percentage against them. We shot better against the Spurs than we did the Suns in last years playoffs.

bernardos70 · 01-03-2007, 01:52 PM

What a turn of events....... from having chuck every night call the Mavs the one team without defense to him calling us one of the best. Wow.

But I've come to expect players on the low post against the Mavs NOT to score. More times than not I am correct, they don't. I see a lot of tumult inside and the ball somehow always ends up with us and we are running it back on the other team. You don't see a lot of players taking it all the way to the rack against us. Think back to 2002-2003 and the Kings' layup drills against us. We were helpless. What a complete 180......

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirno2000

I definitly think the Suns defense is underrated.

Yeah, I'm not saying they're the '04 pistons, but they're not all bad either.

To listen to the average talking head on the tube, you'd think the Suns' D was the second coming of the Dallas Cowboys secondary. It's another case where I think most of the guys who talk and write basketball never actually watch any basketball games.....

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 03:04 PM

Legler still has Phoenix to win it all. He totally contradicted what he said in another broadcast.

Stranger · 01-03-2007, 03:10 PM

Thanks for more great numbers, KG.

Quick question on the stats: is rebounding included in points per possession? For example, if Phoenix forces a miss, gives up an offensive rebound, and the team scores, does that count as 2 points for one possession or 2 points for two possessions?

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Legler still has Phoenix to win it all. He totally contradicted what he said in another broadcast.

Do you think Legler remembers what he says from week to week?

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 03:13 PM

I don't know.. both him and Greg Anthony talk w/o a pause, which leads me to believe they are just reading from a card.. You don't hear any "ummms" in their sentences..

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

Thanks for more great numbers, KG.

Quick question on the stats: is rebounding included in points per possession? For example, if Phoenix forces a miss, gives up an offensive rebound, and the team scores, does that count as 2 points for one possession or 2 points for two possessions?

Yes, rebounding is factored into the pp100 (points per 100 possessions) stat.

Possessions = ((FGA+(FTA*.44)+TO-OREB)*.96)

pp100 = (Points/Possessions)*100

If a team attempts a shot, that's a possession. If a player gets fouled and goes to the line, that's usually also a possession (the 0.44 modifier accounts for the fact that some FTA are "and 1" situations, and some result from technical fouls). If a team turns the ball over, that's also a possession. If the team gets the ball back via offensive rebound, this definition of "possession" considers that the same possession, and therefore subtracts the offensive rebound, which basically cancels out the FGA in the equation.

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

I don't know.. both him and Greg Anthony talk w/o a pause, which leads me to believe they are just reading from a card.. You don't hear any "ummms" in their sentences..

Good point, but they aren't writing what's on the card.

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Good point, but they aren't writing what's on the card.

word

Stranger · 01-03-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Yes, rebounding is factored into the pp100 (points per 100 possessions) stat.

Possessions = ((FGA+(FTA*.44)+TO-OREB)*.96)

pp100 = (Points/Possessions)*100

If a team attempts a shot, that's a possession. If a player gets fouled and goes to the line, that's usually also a possession (the 0.44 modifier accounts for the fact that some FTA are "and 1" situations, and some result from technical fouls). If a team turns the ball over, that's also a possession. If the team gets the ball back via offensive rebound, this definition of "possession" considers that the same possession, and therefore subtracts the offensive rebound, which basically cancels out the FGA in the equation.

Thanks. That surprises me somewhat, as I expected Phoenix's poor rebounding would bring down their defensive numbers more. I always thought they were a pretty good perimeter defensive team, but I'm surprised that they can get that many stops even when they give up so many second opportunities.

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

Thanks. That surprises me somewhat, as I expected Phoenix's poor rebounding would bring down their defensive numbers more. I always thought they were a pretty good perimeter defensive team, but I'm surprised that they can get that many stops even when they give up so many second opportunities.

They are 18th in the league in defensive rebounding percentage (or its opposite, opposing offensive rebounding percentage), so they are just below middle of the pack there. They are dead last (30th) in offensive rebounding percentage, which helps explain why their overall rebounding differential is so bad.

Darth Ape · 01-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

We are much better on defense than the years before because of Damp and Diop. They are back there and they block and alter shots and that mite not show up on the stat sheet but its HUGE. Also every1 on the team has improved a lil. But i think its mostly do to the big men being bak there.

Well, in 2002/03, when Bradley and Raef were defending the rim, the Mavs posted almost identical numbers in terms of points per possession. Of course, those guys played with a much more porous perimeter. Instead of Devin Harris and Josh Howard, Bradley and Raef were forced to clean up after matadors like Nash and Finley. Even Dirk has improved greatly defensively since then. So I wouldn't put everything on the shoulders of the slow moving, foul-proned Damp or the one-dimensional Dasagna Diop. I haven't seen a whole lot of Mav games this year, but I have years of experience watching Damp get blown up by quicker centers and power forwards. Usually a defensive liability like that isn't considered to be the reason you're successful. I'd say that the Mavs' improved perimeter defense is making up for their weakness at center. And you can't really call this team dominant defensively just yet, considering they aren't any better than the Maverick team many point to (incorrectly, I might add) as being one of the worst defensive teams in the history of the NBA.

MeganLuvsMavs · 01-03-2007, 05:22 PM

I should say so. I've noticed that a lot of shots by the opposing team, especially last night, were taken under 10 seconds on the shot clock. I think that's some good d.

dude1394 · 01-03-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

I haven't seen a whole lot of Mav games this year,

I'm sad to see this, but of course you manage to rag on dampier anyway.

LonghornDub · 01-03-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm sad to see this, but of course you manage to rag on dampier anyway.

A good portion of the criticisms levied against some of our players on these boards seem to come from people who don't watch many of the games.

Not that any of them are above criticism. But the next time I hear someone call out Howard as "overrated" I'm gonna flip.

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

Well, in 2002/03, when Bradley and Raef were defending the rim, the Mavs posted almost identical numbers in terms of points per possession.

Making a point in such a way requires the audience to know absolutely nothing about basketball or kin to the mentioned scrubs. I know your bit, but come on... that is taking a bit way too far.

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

And you can't really call this team dominant defensively just yet, considering they aren't any better than the Maverick team many point to (incorrectly, I might add) as being one of the worst defensive teams in the history of the NBA.

The '02/'03 team was a bit under-rated defensively, rather like the current version of the suns as noted above...that was the season Cuban hung banners on the walls during pre-season showing how many layups and dunks the Kings made during the prior season's playoffs. That rather infuriated Nelson, as I recall.

To be precise, the '03 Mavs were giving up about 103 pp100, and the current Mavs have been giving up just over 99 for a considerable stretch. That's a material difference, so I don't think it's reasonable to say that the current Mavs "aren't any better than the Maverick team many point to (incorrectly, I might add) as being one of the worst defensive teams in the history."

They are better, and anyone who has watched this team play several games can easily attest to this.

At any rate, I think a person would have to be high, stupid, or both to imagine that Sean Bradley and Raef Lafrenz are a better defensive tandem than Damp and Diop, regardless of who may be playing on the perimeter.

Cheers

Darth Ape · 01-03-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The '02/'03 team was a bit under-rated defensively, rather like the current version of the suns as noted above...that was the season Cuban hung banners on the walls during pre-season showing how many layups and dunks the Kings made during the prior season's playoffs. That rather infuriated Nelson, as I recall.

To be precise, the '03 Mavs were giving up about 103 pp100, and the current Mavs have been giving up just over 99 for a considerable stretch. That's a material difference, so I don't think it's reasonable to say that the current Mavs "aren't any better than the Maverick team many point to (incorrectly, I might add) as being one of the worst defensive teams in the history."

They are better, and anyone who has watched this team play several games can easily attest to this.

At any rate, I think a person would have to be high, stupid, or both to imagine that Sean Bradley and Raef Lafrenz are a better defensive tandem than Damp and Diop, regardless of who may be playing on the perimeter.

Cheers

The numbers are comparable on a season by season basis. Isn't that the best way to compare? Every team has hot and cold stretches. I'm sure you can pick out a week or two or three in 2002 where the Mavs were doing better than 99 per possession. Over the long haul, that team was every bit as good defensively as this team.

That being said, I don't think one has to be "high" to conclude that the 10th leading shotblocker in NBA history and two time NBA shot blocking champion playing in his prime can contribute more than an oaf like Dampier, who's performance over the past three years relative to his contract has been an absolute embarrassment.

Darth Ape · 01-03-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm sad to see this, but of course you manage to rag on dampier anyway.

I'm sad that it happened as well. But as you know, I have become fed up with Cuban. The disgusting manner in which he's conducted himself over the past couple of yeasr, particularly in the handling of Don Nelson and his shameful behavior in last year's finals, makes it impossible for me to actively support this team. I have better things to do than watch Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks. <spit>

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 06:04 PM

Well, if you are a permanent poster boy for anything around the basket??? But, I guess that is the perimeter players fault thinking that a 7 foot 6 bag of ass can actually defend the basket every now and then. He got blocks by default. Everyone wanted a poster!

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

The numbers are comparable on a season by season basis. Isn't that the best way to compare?

Certainly not in this case. Anyone who has watched the team this season, which we understand excludes you, recognizes that the first couple of weeks in the season were an aberration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

That being said, I don't think one has to be "high" to conclude that the 10th leading shotblocker in NBA history and two time NBA shot blocking champion playing in his prime can contribute more than an oaf like Dampier, who's performance over the past three years relative to his contract has been an absolute embarrassment.

well...I did say high or stupid, so I guess I'd concede one need not necessarily be high.

cheers

kg_veteran · 01-03-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

The numbers are comparable on a season by season basis. Isn't that the best way to compare? Every team has hot and cold stretches. I'm sure you can pick out a week or two or three in 2002 where the Mavs were doing better than 99 per possession. Over the long haul, that team was every bit as good defensively as this team.

That being said, I don't think one has to be "high" to conclude that the 10th leading shotblocker in NBA history and two time NBA shot blocking champion playing in his prime can contribute more than an oaf like Dampier, who's performance over the past three years relative to his contract has been an absolute embarrassment.

A couple of points here:

1. If we're going to make a "season by season" comparison, then we have to wait until the season is over. If the 06-07 Mavericks end up at 103.5 pp100 defensively, then I'll agree with your position that the teams are equal defensively (at least in terms of defensive efficiency).

2. The 02-03 Mavericks got progressively worse on defense as the season wore on. I can provide the stats if you like, but I suspect you know this is true. The question is, why did they progressively get worse? Was it because teams started to figure out their zone schemes? Was it because Nelson (another one of your idols) stopped playing Shawn Bradley as much? Was it a combination of those things? Was it something else? Regardless of the reason, the fact remains that they got progressively worse. This team is getting progressively better. We'll see how the rest of the season pans out.

3. You claim that Raef and Shawn had to clean up for much weaker perimeter defenders. Two thoughts there. First, I'd suggest that their ability to play zone (which they largely did in 02-03) offset individual defensive weaknesses. Second, I'd remind you that a lot of people around here used to talk about how badly Terry sucked defensively on the perimeter. Suddenly, that talk has vanished. Did Terry get better defensively? Anyway, the bottom line is that I disagree with your conclusion regarding Shawn/Raef vs. Dampier/Diop. I was a huge Bradley fan (and everybody knows this), and I argued at the time that Nelson was under-utilizing him. But I'm not crazy enough to suggest that the Bradley/Raef combo was better (or even as good) defensively as the Dampier/Diop combination -- particularly when rebounding is considered in the equation.

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

But I'm not crazy enough to suggest that the Bradley/Raef combo was better (or even as good) defensively as the Dampier/Diop combination -- particularly when rebounding is considered in the equation.

I would add to this "especially if we consider the ability to get a good post position in the equation." That's arguably the most important skill for a defensive player in the post, and one Bradley sorely lacked.

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 06:32 PM

Bradley was a good man. That is only compliment he gets from me.

Dalhoop · 01-03-2007, 06:34 PM

That being said, I don't think one has to be "high" to conclude that the 10th leading shotblocker in NBA history and two time NBA shot blocking champion playing in his prime can contribute more than an oaf like Dampier, who's performance over the past three years relative to his contract has been an absolute embarrassment.

I have better things to do than watch Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks. <spit>

If you don't watch the games, How do you know whether Dampier is earning his money or not? A lot of things that he is doing doesn't even appear on the box score. Take the Denver game for instance, He may have only recorded 2 blocks and 1 assist during a particular stretch late in the game, but those two plays awoke the entire Mavs team and as a result they rallied for the win.

Are you aware of what a starting Center in the NBA makes in a season? Why don't you look it up so that you can actually compare Dampiers money with other Centers in the league ... I think that you will find that his money is not too far out of whack for a team at or near the top of the league every year.

alexamenos · 01-03-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Bradley was a good man. That is only compliment he gets from me.

Well stated. I liked Bradley, and he wasn't all bad.

Nemesis · 01-03-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Well stated. I liked Bradley, and he wasn't all bad.

I met him and Najera at my wifes work one day. They are good people.

Thespiralgoeson · 01-03-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalhoop

Are you aware of what a starting Center in the NBA makes in a season? Why don't you look it up so that you can actually compare Dampiers money with other Centers in the league ... I think that you will find that his money is not too far out of whack for a team at or near the top of the league every year.

Other NBA centers like... Raef LaFrentz. His contract made Dampier's look like a bargain by comparison.