No one to blame but Dirk

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well the Mavericks figured out how to guard him in the playoffs, Dirk dominated him.

If you think KG is primarily a low post scorer, then you don't watch KG play. He plays at the elbow, and he's primarliy a jumpshooter.

I stand by my statement, a team who's crunch time offense is to dump it down low to KG is a mediocre offensive team.

No, the Mavs did NOT, and KG decided to play tougher defense on Dirk, and see how far it takes them. Lastly, show me where I said KG was a primary low post scorer. You keep making up things to fit your statement. I said KG can play low post. Alot better than any player on the team BY far. KG can pass, KG can hit the short jumper from the free throw line area. He has a bank shot as well. Monster rebounder and intimidator down low, will muscle players with strength or smash talk. He is the one player that we need. I am NOT for losing Howard in ANY way at all. I feel the only way to get KG is Dirk or Howard/Devin. I choose losing Dirk. JMVHO

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well the Mavericks figured out how to guard him in the playoffs, Dirk dominated him.

If you think KG is primarily a low post scorer, then you don't watch KG play. He plays at the elbow, and he's primarliy a jumpshooter.

I stand by my statement, a team who's crunch time offense is to dump it down low to KG is a mediocre offensive team.

Yesterday when Avery was on with Norm, he mentioned that the Mavs didn't have a low post scorer like a Duncan, KG, or Boozer. Maybe he's just kidding?

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yesterday when Avery was on with Norm, he mentioned that the Mavs didn't have a low post scorer like a Duncan, KG, or Boozer. Maybe he's just kidding?

I wonder why Avery would say that KG is a low post scorer

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yesterday when Avery was on with Norm, he mentioned that the Mavs didn't have a low post scorer like a Duncan, KG, or Boozer. Maybe he's just kidding?

I never said KG isn't considered a low post scorer. Jermaine O'Neal is considered a low post scorer too. Now Jermaine is better at it than KG, but both of them are enefficient at it to the point that a playoff team thinking they can dump it down to them for every important possession is going to be hurting for offense.

Avery also thought it was a good idea to not play out centers against Golden State, I'm not exactly hanging on his every word right now.

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

No, the Mavs did NOT, and KG decided to play tougher defense on Dirk, and see how far it takes them.

I'm not really even sure what this means, but if you're saying Garnett focused mainly on stopping Dirk in that series in '02, then I'd be curious to know your reaction to the numbers of that series.

Dirk averaged 33 a game on over 50% shooting, while Garnett averaged 24 a game on 42% shooting.

In the elimination game, Dirk went for 39, KG 22.

That's some tough defense......

As for the stuff that followed that quote, we basically agree there. I admitted that KG CAN play the post, in some instances. But you're not going to be able to dump the ball down low to him and let him carry your offense. KG is incapable of carrying this Mavs' offense, as it is currently formed.

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

I am NOT for losing Howard in ANY way at all. I feel the only way to get KG is Dirk or Howard/Devin. I choose losing Dirk. JMVHO

I just don't understand this. How anyone could think Josh and Devin are even remotely close in value to Dirk is beyond me. The Mavs' aren't even sure that Devin is ready to be a starting PG in the NBA, and Josh is borderline All Star small forward who does all the dirty work.

Dirk is one of the 10 best players in the NBA.

[Mavfreak]

Dirk needs a sidekick. If only we could find a player, somebody on that level, for lively competition. The big guy is lonely on the court. I don't know what he's like away from work.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I never said KG isn't considered a low post scorer. Jermaine O'Neal is considered a low post scorer too. Now Jermaine is better at it than KG, but both of them are enefficient at it to the point that a playoff team thinking they can dump it down to them for every important possession is going to be hurting for offense.

Avery also thought it was a good idea to not play out centers against Golden State, I'm not exactly hanging on his every word right now.



I'm not really even sure what this means, but if you're saying Garnett focused mainly on stopping Dirk in that series in '02, then I'd be curious to know your reaction to the numbers of that series.

Dirk averaged 33 a game on over 50% shooting, while Garnett averaged 24 a game on 42% shooting.

In the elimination game, Dirk went for 39, KG 22.

That's some tough defense......

As for the stuff that followed that quote, we basically agree there. I admitted that KG CAN play the post, in some instances. But you're not going to be able to dump the ball down low to him and let him carry your offense. KG is incapable of carrying this Mavs' offense, as it is currently formed.



I just don't understand this. How anyone could think Josh and Devin are even remotely close in value to Dirk is beyond me. The Mavs' aren't even sure that Devin is ready to be a starting PG in the NBA, and Josh is borderline All Star small forward who does all the dirty work.

Dirk is one of the 10 best players in the NBA.

I am talking about this years match-up in the 4th quarter of the series with MN this year. 2002 is a year that MN had ZERO role players. KG has had a true supporting cast one time in his career. If Dirk did NOT have a supporting cast, then I feel that Dirk could NOT carry a team like that as well.

We will have to agree to disagree with Dirk and KG. I rate KG higher than Dirk as an overall player by far. So to me, the pluses for KG is exactly what the Mavs need.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

I am talking about this years match-up in the 4th quarter of the series with MN this year. 2002 is a year that MN had ZERO role players. KG has had a true supporting cast one time in his career. If Dirk did NOT have a supporting cast, then I feel that Dirk could NOT carry a team like that as well.

We will have to agree to disagree with Dirk and KG. I rate KG higher than Dirk as an overall player by far. So to me, the pluses for KG is exactly what the Mavs need.

I assure you Dirk would not miss the playoffs three years running with that Minnesota team.

Wouldn't happen.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I assure you Dirk would not miss the playoffs three years running with that Minnesota team.

Wouldn't happen.

What are you basing that on? Dirk has never had to carry a scrub team. His teams have always had either another star player (or 2), or lots of quality depth. That seems to get lost on this board when comparing him and his playoff success to other star players.

He really didn't start carrying this team as the MAN until Nash left.

I think Dirk is a great player but I don't think he is better than Kobe, and it's a struggle for him to get LA into the playoffs every year (and he has Odom). There is a huge difference between carrying a squad with no help, and considering how Dirk seems to lose confidence when things get tight (at times) I really wonder how he would handle being on a team with scrubs, losing, and being the #1 focus and having no help for an entire season.

Edit: And to clarify, I think KG's surrounding help has sucked ass for many a season. I don't think there are that many players in the league that you can throw on any team and that team would contend for a playoff spot, and I don't think Dirk is one of those players. I think those kind of players have to be VERY GOOD at multiple things. Dirk is great at scoring, but not really very good at anything else. KG has to shoulder the load on both ends of the court for his team every season.

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

What are you basing that on? Dirk has never had to carry a scrub team. His teams have always had either another star player (or 2), or lots of quality depth. That seems to get lost on this board when comparing him and his playoff success to other star players.

He really didn't start carrying this team as the MAN until Nash left.

I think Dirk is a great player but I don't think he is better than Kobe, and it's a struggle for him to get LA into the playoffs every year (and he has Odom). There is a huge difference between carrying a squad with no help, and considering how Dirk seems to lose confidence when things get tight (at times) I really wonder how he would handle being on a team with scrubs, losing, and being the #1 focus and having no help for an entire season.

Edit: And to clarify, I think KG's surrounding help has sucked ass for many a season. I don't think there are that many players in the league that you can throw on any team and that team would contend for a playoff spot, and I don't think Dirk is one of those players. I think those kind of players have to be VERY GOOD at multiple things. Dirk is great at scoring, but not really very good at anything else. KG has to shoulder the load on both ends of the court for his team every season.

is dirk a star because of his surrounding cast or is dirk a star in spite of his surrounding cast? lets look at the "quality depth" dirk was surrounded with this year:

devin harris: great speed, inconsistent jumper, no court vision, foul prone, coach doesn't like him much.
comparable talent at peak this season: tony parker
comparable talent on average: rafer alston

jason terry: doesn't drive, doesn't defend, doesn't pass particularly well, good jumper. career 41% shooter prior to coming to dallas
comparable talent at peak this season: poor man's ben gordon
comparable talent on average: cuttino mobley

dampier/diop: serviceable spare parts at the 5 spot. don't score, rebound fairly decently, and will block a few shots.
comparable talent at peak this season: mutumbo
comparable talent on average: mutumbo

josh howard: jack of all trades type. improved jumper, nice all around skill set. doesn't do any one thing particularly well
comparable talent at peak this season: poor man's lamar odom
comparable talent on average: slightly improved version of gerald wallace.

stackhouse: aging vet. capable scorer. injury prone. misses large portions of seasons due to age and diminishing skill.
comparable talent at peak this season: stackhouse of old.
comparable talent on average: no real comparison. maybe a broken down version of mitch richmond 2 years prior to retirement.

collection of spare parts on the bench: buckner/george/ager/mensa-bonsu

so if i told you the mavs rolled out on a daily basis:

rafer alston
cuttino mobley
mutumbo
and a poor man's version of lamar odom

how many games would you expect a team to win with that kind of lineup? if your name is elton brand, the answer is 41 games and if your name is yao ming, you have a much better second banana in tmac, but the supporting cast is still arguably similar and your answer is 52 games.

in short, the supporting cast argument for dirk is a total crock of crap. its no coincidence that players come to the mavs, have career seasons and get traded off where their numbers dip afterwards. antawn jamison, van exel, walker all had career seasons in shooting % with the looks that dirk got them. i hate the double standard that the media uses to judge dirk by, when i never hear this crap about mcgrady or brand.

wanted to add that kobe is a different type of player, but even kobe struggles to win 45 games with a 2nd banana better than anyone not named dirk on the mavs. for a guy that has that immense an amount of talent and a hall of fame coach, i'd sure like to see him cement his legacy by winning 50 games after a shaq departure.

[Captain Disaster]

Dirk is a top 5 player in this league; he is not a point guard, he is not a post player, and he is not a great one-on-one player. He is a matchup nightmare against all lineups except small ball (even against small ball when he has other players on his team that can make the other team pay.).

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by aexchange

is dirk a star because of his surrounding cast or is dirk a star in spite of his surrounding cast? lets look at the "quality depth" dirk was surrounded with this year:

devin harris: great speed, inconsistent jumper, no court vision, foul prone, coach doesn't like him much.
comparable talent at peak this season: tony parker
comparable talent on average: rafer alston

jason terry: doesn't drive, doesn't defend, doesn't pass particularly well, good jumper. career 41% shooter prior to coming to dallas
comparable talent at peak this season: poor man's ben gordon
comparable talent on average: cuttino mobley

dampier/diop: serviceable spare parts at the 5 spot. don't score, rebound fairly decently, and will block a few shots.
comparable talent at peak this season: mutumbo
comparable talent on average: mutumbo

josh howard: jack of all trades type. improved jumper, nice all around skill set. doesn't do any one thing particularly well
comparable talent at peak this season: poor man's lamar odom
comparable talent on average: slightly improved version of gerald wallace.

stackhouse: aging vet. capable scorer. injury prone. misses large portions of seasons due to age and diminishing skill.
comparable talent at peak this season: stackhouse of old.
comparable talent on average: no real comparison. maybe a broken down version of mitch richmond 2 years prior to retirement.

collection of spare parts on the bench: buckner/george/ager/mensa-bonsu

so if i told you the mavs rolled out on a daily basis:

rafer alston
cuttino mobley
mutumbo
and a poor man's version of lamar odom

how many games would you expect a team to win with that kind of lineup? if your name is elton brand, the answer is 41 games and if your name is yao ming, you have a much better second banana in tmac, but the supporting cast is still arguably similar and your answer is 52 games.

in short, the supporting cast argument for dirk is a total crock of crap. its no coincidence that players come to the mavs, have career seasons and get traded off where their numbers dip afterwards. antawn jamison, van exel, walker all had career seasons in shooting % with the looks that dirk got them. i hate the double standard that the media uses to judge dirk by, when i never hear this crap about mcgrady or brand.

wanted to add that kobe is a different type of player, but even kobe struggles to win 45 games with a 2nd banana better than anyone not named dirk on the mavs. for a guy that has that immense an amount of talent and a hall of fame coach, i'd sure like to see him cement his legacy by winning 50 games after a shaq departure.

Dirk is a star because of who he is. His teams have had success because they have had a star player (him) surrounded by quality teammates. In these comparisons folks here always say Dirk is better than player X because he got to the Finals, his team wins a lot, etc....while failing to mention that the dudes on these scrub teams are surrounded by scrub players the majority of the time. Can anyone name the other 4 starters in MN? In Orlando D.Armstrong was T-Mac's 2nd best player. A look at Kobe's career will show you the dramatic change that can occur from playing with help to playing with no help. Kobe is still a star and arguably the best player in the game, but he went from rings and Finals appeareances to first round exits and cries for help. The same is true for Hakeem (since I'm a Rockets fan). His career went from Finals to first round exits to Finals again. He was still a superstar, but the main difference was the supporting cast. A star can get a teammate great shots but that dude still has to be able to knock them down.

And these players that you are mentioning having career years as far as FG% goes weren't scrubs prior to coming to Dallas, or after. Van Exel, Jamison, Walker, Nash, Stackhouse all were very good offensive player prior or after their days in Dallas. For comparison sake, T-Mac never played with 1 person that good in his Orlando days.

[dude1394]

Mark Blount - better than damp
Mike James - maybe better than our points
Ricky someone - also pretty good player I thought.
KG
--???

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Mark Blount - better than damp
Mike James - maybe better than our points
Ricky someone - also pretty good player I thought.
KG
--???

Dampier averages more rebounds and blocks than Blount and he playes less minutes per game.

JET shoots 48% and 44% from the arc. Harris shoots 49%. James had one solid year in Toronto.

Ricky Davis is a good player. Josh Howard is better.

KG's supporting cast sucks, especially in the Western conference. Dirk wouldn't lead that team to the playoffs either, especially since he isn't an impact player defensively (KG routinely leads the team in steals and blocks).

Both players are great and bring different things to the table, but I don't see Dirk leading that team anywhere either.

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by kingmalaki

Dirk is a star because of who he is. His teams have had success because they have had a star player (him) surrounded by quality teammates. In these comparisons folks here always say Dirk is better than player X because he got to the Finals, his team wins a lot, etc....while failing to mention that the dudes on these scrub teams are surrounded by scrub players the majority of the time. Can anyone name the other 4 starters in MN? In Orlando D.Armstrong was T-Mac's 2nd best player. A look at Kobe's career will show you the dramatic change that can occur from playing with help to playing with no help. Kobe is still a star and arguably the best player in the game, but he went from rings and Finals appeareances to first round exits and cries for help. The same is true for Hakeem (since I'm a Rockets fan). His career went from Finals to first round exits to Finals again. He was still a superstar, but the main difference was the supporting cast. A star can get a teammate great shots but that dude still has to be able to knock them down.

And these players that you are mentioning having career years as far as FG% goes weren't scrubs prior to coming to Dallas, or after. Van Exel, Jamison, Walker, Nash, Stackhouse all were very good offensive player prior or after their days in Dallas. For comparison sake, T-Mac never played with 1 person that good in his Orlando days.

you are conveniently ignoring my point. terry shoots a considerably higher percentage here in dallas now b/c of the looks dirk frees up for him, just as walker, van exel, and jamison all set career highs in FG% after coming to dallas and playing with dirk.

to say dirk isn't better than kg while pointing to kg's supporting cast, is superficial analysis that conveniently ignores the fact that KG's starting lineup isn't that much better than what the mavs are trotting out right now.

randy foye is a push with devin harris.
ricky davis is marginally better than jason terry.
josh howard is better than hassell.
blount is better on offense but worse on D, slight edge to Mavs.

while conceding the fact that dirk's supporting cast may be better, do you really think its 30 wins better? or can we for once give dirk his due?

let's compare your rocket's current cast to the mavs. do you really think the rockets starting lineup is 15 wins poorer?

alston is a slight push with harris, maybe slight edge to harris on potential and the fact that alston is a boneheaded idiot.
tmac is light years ahead of anyone.
battier is a poor man's version of howard.

is dirk 15 wins better than yao? replace yao with tmac, is dirk 15 wins better than tmac? you can make a significant case that houston's current starting lineup is better than the mavs.

[jthig32]

Aex is owning this thread now.

The point about so many different players shooting career high fg% while they are here is always overlooked.

People just don't understand the overall effect Dirk has on an offense.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Mark Blount - better than damp
Mike James - maybe better than our points
Ricky someone - also pretty good player I thought.
KG
--???

Um, have you seen Mike James play this season? He was a huge bust for them.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

I feel the only way to get KG is Dirk or Howard/Devin. I choose losing Dirk. JMVHO

Shoot if we could get KG for Howard/Devin, I would pack their bags myself.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by MFFL

Shoot if we could get KG for Howard/Devin, I would pack their bags myself.

And I would drive them to Minnesota.

[mary]

Originally Posted by MFFL

Shoot if we could get KG for Howard/Devin, I would pack their bags myself.

Howard/Devin for KG would work for me, but you'd have to throw in Bucker, Ager and DJ to get it to work.

Howard/Terry/Buckner also works, but its not nearly as an attractive option for Minny.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Um, have you seen Mike James play this season? He was a huge bust for them.

It's the kg mediocrity black hole.

[DarenG]

Originally Posted by Captain Disaster

Dirk is a top 5 player in this league; he is not a point guard, he is not a post player, and he is not a great one-on-one player. He is a matchup nightmare against all lineups except small ball (even against small ball when he has other players on his team that can make the other team pay.).

No he's not. Top 5 players in this league show up in the playoffs. I can name AT LEAST 5 players better then Dirk. Having said that, Dirk I agree still creates match up problems with teams because of his outside range. We need another star on this team that Dirk can play along side of.

[mary]

Originally Posted by DarenG

No he's not. Top 5 players in this league show up in the playoffs. I can name AT LEAST 5 players better then Dirk. Having said that, Dirk I agree still creates match up problems with teams because of his outside range. We need another star on this team that Dirk can play along side of.

Let's hear to your top five players, please.

[DarenG]

Originally Posted by mary

Let's hear to your top five players, please.

When I think about the answer I look at it from who would I want to build a team around more then Dirk. Here are some:

Kobe Bryant - yes selfish but proven when matched with another star he can get you there.
Dwayne Wade - shown ability to be clutch when healthy and put a team on his back
Steve Nash - defense aside (even though he was a leader in taking charges) - Nash is the type of player that makes others around him better - he is a general on the floor.
Tim Duncan - will go down as one of the best defensive and fundamentally sound center/PF ever.
LeBron James - IMO, it's just a matter of time before they add a Dirk like player to put him over the top.

These are guys that if I started a franchise tomorrow I would build around before selecting Dirk. Do you see a trend in my picks? These are all guys that have shown under pressure they will put their teams on their backs and show up. They might not win but they sure as hell show up. If I had to start over and build around someone I would take any one of those players first. If I got one of those guys guess who would be my second pick? Dirk.

I am not trying to take anything away from Dirk as a player. He IS one of the best players in this league. Top 10 in my book. I am one of the ones that thinks if Dirk is your best player, we can't win a title. I think Dirk is a Scottie Pippen to some team's Jordon. I think Dirk would put any team over the top that has a legit super star...period. Hand the title to that team. That's not a bad thing. That's a huge complement because there are not many players in the league that you can say "that guy would put you over the top". That's Dirk.

[jthig32]

I think it's arguable that Dirk is top 5. It's not a no brainer, I don't think.

Once you get around 8 or so, it's a no brainer.

[NYMavFan]

Originally Posted by aexchange

you are conveniently ignoring my point. terry shoots a considerably higher percentage here in dallas now b/c of the looks dirk frees up for him, just as walker, van exel, and jamison all set career highs in FG% after coming to dallas and playing with dirk.

You can't attribute the higher FG percentage solely to Dirk (if at all). The main reason for the higher FG% is the fact that these playesr were forced to play in a system that enforced much more discipline than the teams from which they came. Terry has said numerous times that AJ taught him how to be a better player in this league and that by undoing the bad habits he learned in Atlanta, he probably extended his career by 5 years. When Van Exel was on that horrendous Denver team, he was much more a gunner because he was one of the focal points of the offense. That wasn't the case in Dallas. Jamison was the main scorer in Golden State. In Dallas, he took far fewer shots, and the shots he took were much more opportunistic. He also shot from the outside a lot less, further contributing to a higher FG %.

I don't deny that players shoot higher FG% as Mavs as compared to their former teams, but giving credit to Dirk for that difference is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by aexchange

to say dirk isn't better than kg while pointing to kg's supporting cast, is superficial analysis that conveniently ignores the fact that KG's starting lineup isn't that much better than what the mavs are trotting out right now.

randy foye is a push with devin harris.
ricky davis is marginally better than jason terry.
josh howard is better than hassell.
blount is better on offense but worse on D, slight edge to Mavs.

while conceding the fact that dirk's supporting cast may be better, do you really think its 30 wins better? or can we for once give dirk his due?

let's compare your rocket's current cast to the mavs. do you really think the rockets starting lineup is 15 wins poorer?

alston is a slight push with harris, maybe slight edge to harris on potential and the fact that alston is a boneheaded idiot.
tmac is light years ahead of anyone.
battier is a poor man's version of howard.

is dirk 15 wins better than yao? replace yao with tmac, is dirk 15 wins better than tmac? you can make a significant case that houston's current starting lineup is better than the mavs.

Comparing lineups on paper, position by position is not conclusive evidence for anything. A team is far more than a sum of its parts so asking the question of 'is the supporting case 30 wins better?' is a moot point. Also, in no way do I think rafer alston is a 'slight push' with harris. Harris may have a lot of flaws, but he is WAY more valuable than alston.

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

You can't attribute the higher FG percentage solely to Dirk (if at all). The main reason for the higher FG% is the fact that these playesr were forced to play in a system that enforced much more discipline than the teams from which they came. Terry has said numerous times that AJ taught him how to be a better player in this league and that by undoing the bad habits he learned in Atlanta, he probably extended his career by 5 years. When Van Exel was on that horrendous Denver team, he was much more a gunner because he was one of the focal points of the offense. That wasn't the case in Dallas. Jamison was the main scorer in Golden State. In Dallas, he took far fewer shots, and the shots he took were much more opportunistic. He also shot from the outside a lot less, further contributing to a higher FG %.

I don't deny that players shoot higher FG% as Mavs as compared to their former teams, but giving credit to Dirk for that difference is just plain wrong.

just pure coincidence then? wow, you are awful. what's the difference then? it can't purely be entirely system driven since the majority of the players i've named played in a free wheeling system under nellie. so what is it then if its not dirk, its not the system? is it the rarefied dallas air?

a quick example disproves your analysis. jamison shot 53.5% here in dallas and shot 45% in washington this season as the third option behind arenas and butler. prior to this season he's shot 44.2 and 43.7% respectively.

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

Comparing lineups on paper, position by position is not conclusive evidence for anything. A team is far more than a sum of its parts so asking the question of 'is the supporting case 30 wins better?' is a moot point. Also, in no way do I think rafer alston is a 'slight push' with harris. Harris may have a lot of flaws, but he is WAY more valuable than alston.

wow, again you are horrendous. the argument was made that dirk isn't that big of a star because of his supporting cast. my argument was that the supporting cast was overrated.

your rebuttal to this is that you can't judge supporting casts, that you have to look at the sum. houston, do you see that we have a problem?!? it was pretty clearly delineated that houston and the clippers have lineups that collectively are arguably just as good as the mavs, so the difference in wins has to be attributed to someone. or is jerry stackhouse worth 30 wins a season? i got it, pops mensa-bonsu and barea are worth 30 wins.

for the record harris shoots a much better percentage, but alston averaged more points, assists, rebounds, and steals on a team that had two bona fide superstars. i think i'm being generous when i say on average harris and alston are pushes. and you extrapolated the argument out of context again when i said that harris was more valuable but all things considered, its pretty much a wash given their respective roles.

[NYMavFan]

Originally Posted by aexchange

just pure coincidence then? wow, you are awful. what's the difference then? it can't purely be entirely system driven since the majority of the players i've named played in a free wheeling system under nellie. so what is it then if its not dirk, its not the system? is it the rarefied dallas air?

a quick example disproves your analysis. jamison shot 53.5% here in dallas and shot 45% in washington this season as the third option behind arenas and butler. prior to this season he's shot 44.2 and 43.7% respectively.

Can you read? Do you have any ability to counter a point whatsoever? You seem to think you're smarter than everyone--calling people "horrendous, awful" but I think that speaks to how delusional you are.

Regarding Jamison--read my post again. Slowly. Just in case you can't, I'll spell it out for you, this time in more detail.

In Dallas, he played a completely different role. He was much more of an opportunistic scorer. A high percentage of his shots came from close range and putbacks. A much smaller portion of his shots came from the outside jumpshots and beyond the 3-point line. In Washington, he takes a good number of outside jumpshots, including threes. He's more of an offensive focal point. The volume of his shots has risen and the quality has gone down. Therefore, his percentage has gone down. If you STILL want to attribute the difference to Dirk, be my guest. Just further proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The point here is that the players you cited took vastly different KINDS of shots in Dallas vs. their previous teams (and their subsequent teams). Antoine Walker was allowed to jack threes with no conscience in Boston. In Dallas, he was on a much shorter leash.

Even under Nelson, the system and team concept were different. Under Nellie, the Mavs had quite a few weapons--the emphasis was never to depend too much on one or two scorers. As a result, these players didn't have to shoulder the same kind of offensive load, could be more selective in the shots that they took, and in general, took better shots, leading to a higher percentage.

Get it now?

Originally Posted by aexchange

wow, again you are horrendous. the argument was made that dirk isn't that big of a star because of his supporting cast. my argument was that the supporting cast was overrated.

your rebuttal to this is that you can't judge supporting casts, that you have to look at the sum. houston, do you see that we have a problem?!? it was pretty clearly delineated that houston and the clippers have lineups that collectively are arguably just as good as the mavs, so the difference in wins has to be attributed to someone. or is jerry stackhouse worth 30 wins a season? i got it, pops mensa-bonsu and barea are worth 30 wins.

What are you even saying? First of all, my point wasn't that you couldn't compare supporting casts. My point is that you were oversimplifying by comparing supporting casts, position by position, and then concluding Dirk was worth 30 wins per season just because of the binary statement "the Mavs supporting cast is worse."

Second, in doing so, you're not taking into account 500 million other factors, including how well that particular unit is playing together at the time, injuries (which you conveniently ignored in your Houston example), what the system is, how motivated the players are, etc etc. I'm not saying there's an easy way to measure these things--but you can't deny that they have a huge effect on a team's performance.

As an example, use the Clippers' roster from the last two years. Take Elton Brand as the star if you wish. He had virtually the same supporting cast over the two years, but the results were vastly different. Now apply your methodology here. YOU CAN'T. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by aexchange

for the record harris shoots a much better percentage, but alston averaged more points, assists, rebounds, and steals on a team that had two bona fide superstars. i think i'm being generous when i say on average harris and alston are pushes. and you extrapolated the argument out of context again when i said that harris was more valuable but all things considered, its pretty much a wash given their respective roles.

Good job. Only you ignored an important statistic that makes all your statistical assertions worthless. Rafer was a full-time starter and played 37 minutes game. Devin was a starter sometimes but also came off the bench and averaged 26 minutes a game. If you want to compare supporting casts equally, you need to account for those extra 11 minutes in some way. If you want to compare apples to apples, you'll need to combine Devin's stats with 11 minutes of whoever else fills that role on the team, which is very hard to do.

So again, you're just plain wrong. And I don't appreciate being called "horrendous" by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I've more or less refrained from throwing personal insults at you (other than the occasional accusation of being delusional), but if that's how you want to play, I can certainly start doing the same.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by DarenG

When I think about the answer I look at it from who would I want to build a team around more then Dirk. Here are some:

Kobe Bryant - yes selfish but proven when matched with another star he can get you there.
Dwayne Wade - shown ability to be clutch when healthy and put a team on his back
Steve Nash - defense aside (even though he was a leader in taking charges) - Nash is the type of player that makes others around him better - he is a general on the floor.
Tim Duncan - will go down as one of the best defensive and fundamentally sound center/PF ever.
LeBron James - IMO, it's just a matter of time before they add a Dirk like player to put him over the top.

These are guys that if I started a franchise tomorrow I would build around before selecting Dirk. Do you see a trend in my picks? These are all guys that have shown under pressure they will put their teams on their backs and show up. They might not win but they sure as hell show up. If I had to start over and build around someone I would take any one of those players first. If I got one of those guys guess who would be my second pick? Dirk.

I am not trying to take anything away from Dirk as a player. He IS one of the best players in this league. Top 10 in my book. I am one of the ones that thinks if Dirk is your best player, we can't win a title. I think Dirk is a Scottie Pippen to some team's Jordon. I think Dirk would put any team over the top that has a legit super star...period. Hand the title to that team. That's not a bad thing. That's a huge complement because there are not many players in the league that you can say "that guy would put you over the top". That's Dirk.

I, will 2nd that Top 5... Great points..

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

Can you read? Do you have any ability to counter a point whatsoever? You seem to think you're smarter than everyone--calling people "horrendous, awful" but I think that speaks to how delusional you are.

Regarding Jamison--read my post again. Slowly. Just in case you can't, I'll spell it out for you, this time in more detail.

In Dallas, he played a completely different role. He was much more of an opportunistic scorer. A high percentage of his shots came from close range and putbacks. A much smaller portion of his shots came from the outside jumpshots and beyond the 3-point line. In Washington, he takes a good number of outside jumpshots, including threes. He's more of an offensive focal point. The volume of his shots has risen and the quality has gone down. Therefore, his percentage has gone down. If you STILL want to attribute the difference to Dirk, be my guest. Just further proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The point here is that the players you cited took vastly different KINDS of shots in Dallas vs. their previous teams (and their subsequent teams). Antoine Walker was allowed to jack threes with no conscience in Boston. In Dallas, he was on a much shorter leash.

Even under Nelson, the system and team concept were different. Under Nellie, the Mavs had quite a few weapons--the emphasis was never to depend too much on one or two scorers. As a result, these players didn't have to shoulder the same kind of offensive load, could be more selective in the shots that they took, and in general, took better shots, leading to a higher percentage.

Get it now?



What are you even saying? First of all, my point wasn't that you couldn't compare supporting casts. My point is that you were oversimplifying by comparing supporting casts, position by position, and then concluding Dirk was worth 30 wins per season just because of the binary statement "the Mavs supporting cast is worse."

Second, in doing so, you're not taking into account 500 million other factors, including how well that particular unit is playing together at the time, injuries (which you conveniently ignored in your Houston example), what the system is, how motivated the players are, etc etc. I'm not saying there's an easy way to measure these things--but you can't deny that they have a huge effect on a team's performance.

As an example, use the Clippers' roster from the last two years. Take Elton Brand as the star if you wish. He had virtually the same supporting cast over the two years, but the results were vastly different. Now apply your methodology here. YOU CAN'T. It makes no sense whatsoever.



Good job. Only you ignored an important statistic that makes all your statistical assertions worthless. Rafer was a full-time starter and played 37 minutes game. Devin was a starter sometimes but also came off the bench and averaged 26 minutes a game. If you want to compare supporting casts equally, you need to account for those extra 11 minutes in some way. If you want to compare apples to apples, you'll need to combine Devin's stats with 11 minutes of whoever else fills that role on the team, which is very hard to do.

So again, you're just plain wrong. And I don't appreciate being called "horrendous" by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I've more or less refrained from throwing personal insults at you (other than the occasional accusation of being delusional), but if that's how you want to play, I can certainly start doing the same.

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

NYMavFan

Is owning this thread right now....

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Is owning this thread right now....

you add absolutely no value what so ever.

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

Can you read? Do you have any ability to counter a point whatsoever? You seem to think you're smarter than everyone--calling people "horrendous, awful" but I think that speaks to how delusional you are.

funny stuff.

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

Regarding Jamison--read my post again. Slowly. Just in case you can't, I'll spell it out for you, this time in more detail.

In Dallas, he played a completely different role. He was much more of an opportunistic scorer. A high percentage of his shots came from close range and putbacks. A much smaller portion of his shots came from the outside jumpshots and beyond the 3-point line. In Washington, he takes a good number of outside jumpshots, including threes. He's more of an offensive focal point. The volume of his shots has risen and the quality has gone down. Therefore, his percentage has gone down. If you STILL want to attribute the difference to Dirk, be my guest. Just further proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

i'll do my best to be civil here and spell it out in more clarity for you. he's the third option behind arenas and butler. i would say hes getting the same kinds of touches he got in dallas as the third or fourth option when he was on the court as he's getting now in washington. the systems may be different, but the looks he gets is a direct reflection of the players he's playing with.

in addition, he got better looks with dirk here on the court than he's getting in washington playing in a more traditional lineup. teams have to alter their lineups to guard dirk, and in doing so it results in better looks for other players. just like teams had to match up with shaq back in his prime which resulted in significantly higher percentages for his supporting cast. he got more opportunistic looks here in Dallas b/c of the players he was playing with.

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

The point here is that the players you cited took vastly different KINDS of shots in Dallas vs. their previous teams (and their subsequent teams). Antoine Walker was allowed to jack threes with no conscience in Boston. In Dallas, he was on a much shorter leash.

Even under Nelson, the system and team concept were different. Under Nellie, the Mavs had quite a few weapons--the emphasis was never to depend too much on one or two scorers. As a result, these players didn't have to shoulder the same kind of offensive load, could be more selective in the shots that they took, and in general, took better shots, leading to a higher percentage.

Get it now?

let's try it again one more time.

is it the system that allows players like jamison to shoot higher percentages playing with dirk or is it the system that forces players when they leave dallas to shoot a lower percentage? which one is it, and the answer isn't all of the above?

you can talk about system (like avery) all you want, but unless you have players capable of getting others good opportunities, shooting percentages are going to stay down. ignoring dirk and the mavs for a moment.

walker is the 3rd or 4th option in miami and shot 39.7% this season. granted some of that was due to injuries this year, but he shot a career best 43.5% last year playing with a mostly healthy shaq and fully healthy wade. same system, vastly different results.

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

What are you even saying? First of all, my point wasn't that you couldn't compare supporting casts. My point is that you were oversimplifying by comparing supporting casts, position by position, and then concluding Dirk was worth 30 wins per season just because of the binary statement "the Mavs supporting cast is worse."

Second, in doing so, you're not taking into account 500 million other factors, including how well that particular unit is playing together at the time, injuries (which you conveniently ignored in your Houston example), what the system is, how motivated the players are, etc etc. I'm not saying there's an easy way to measure these things--but you can't deny that they have a huge effect on a team's performance.

As an example, use the Clippers' roster from the last two years. Take Elton Brand as the star if you wish. He had virtually the same supporting cast over the two years, but the results were vastly different. Now apply your methodology here. YOU CAN'T. It makes no sense whatsoever.

my methodology is pretty applicable here and helps me make my point. the difference between the injury decimated clips was 7 wins between last season and this season. last years wins difference for the mavs ---- you got it, 7 wins.

if you want to play the injuries card, fine. the difference in wins last year between the clips and the mavs was 13 wins, this season 27 wins. 13 or 27 still is a pretty significant statistical difference. i've never denied that there are other dynamics that influence how well teams perform, but over the past 3 seasons, dirk sits close to or atop the league in number of wins. is this coincidence? my argument is that it isn't.

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

Good job. Only you ignored an important statistic that makes all your statistical assertions worthless. Rafer was a full-time starter and played 37 minutes game. Devin was a starter sometimes but also came off the bench and averaged 26 minutes a game. If you want to compare supporting casts equally, you need to account for those extra 11 minutes in some way. If you want to compare apples to apples, you'll need to combine Devin's stats with 11 minutes of whoever else fills that role on the team, which is very hard to do.

So again, you're just plain wrong. And I don't appreciate being called "horrendous" by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I've more or less refrained from throwing personal insults at you (other than the occasional accusation of being delusional), but if that's how you want to play, I can certainly start doing the same.

harris averaged 3 fouls for his 26 minutes of play this season. alston averaged 2.4 for his 37 minutes of play. wouldn't you say its important for players to stay out of foul trouble? again, if you look at the roles that alston and harris are asked to play, they are asked to do basically the same thing. harris can't play anymore also because he can't stay out of foul trouble. this past 1st rd debacle was a great example.

harris has the much higher upside, but avery's system neuters devin's skill.

this is the last i'll talk about this topic, because you're giving me tired head. and honestly, nothing said is going to change either parties mind.

[NYMavFan]

Originally Posted by aexchange

i'll do my best to be civil here and spell it out in more clarity for you. he's the third option behind arenas and butler. i would say hes getting the same kinds of touches he got in dallas as the third or fourth option when he was on the court as he's getting now in washington. the systems may be different, but the looks he gets is a direct reflection of the players he's playing with.

in addition, he got better looks with dirk here on the court than he's getting in washington playing in a more traditional lineup. teams have to alter their lineups to guard dirk, and in doing so it results in better looks for other players. just like teams had to match up with shaq back in his prime which resulted in significantly higher percentages for his supporting cast. he got more opportunistic looks here in Dallas b/c of the players he was playing with.

Again, you're making assertions with no statistical or factual basis whatsoever. Let's take a look at the statistics:

Antawn Jamison:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...s?statsId=3247

TM FG 3P
Gsw 3.8-8.4 0.1-0.2
Gsw 8.3-17.6 0.0-0.2
Gsw 9.8-22.1 0.8-2.5
Gsw 7.5-16.8 0.8-2.6
Gsw 8.4-17.9 0.8-2.5
Dal 6.0-11.1 0.2-0.5
Was 7.6-17.5 1.0-3.1
Was 8.0-18.2 1.8-4.5
Was 7.3-16.3 2.0-5.4

Look at his field goal attempts for every single season, except for his rookie year. He's hovering around 17-18 attempts except for his one season in Dallas which is 11.1. Now look at his 3pt FG attempts. He averaged 0.5 attempts per season in Dallas. He took 5.4 of them per game last year in Washington. You also claimed that he was the third option behind Arenas and Butler. I'll give you Arenas, but he took 16.3 shots per game last year vs. Butler's 15.5. Does that sound like a third option to you?

Still think he's getting the same kinds of looks in Washington that he got in Dallas? Did you even watch any Wizards games last season?

I think it's pretty clear who's right about this.

Originally Posted by aexchange

let's try it again one more time.

is it the system that allows players like jamison to shoot higher percentages playing with dirk or is it the system that forces players when they leave dallas to shoot a lower percentage? which one is it, and the answer isn't all of the above?

What are you even saying here? You claim that the two statements are mutually exclusive, but they're not.

I don't deny that players often shoot a higher percentage in Dallas. But I do disagree that it's because of Dirk. The players we've been discussing have had vastly different roles as Mavs as compared to their previous teams. In the case of Jamison, Walker, NVE, when they came to Dallas, they were much lower on the offensive food chain because of all the Mavs' weapons, and therefore took fewer shots, which allowed them to be more selective about the shots they took. This led to higher FG%'s. How can you attribute all of that to Dirk and not the system and a different team concept?

Originally Posted by aexchange

harris averaged 3 fouls for his 26 minutes of play this season. alston averaged 2.4 for his 37 minutes of play. wouldn't you say its important for players to stay out of foul trouble? again, if you look at the roles that alston and harris are asked to play, they are asked to do basically the same thing. harris can't play anymore also because he can't stay out of foul trouble. this past 1st rd debacle was a great example.

harris has the much higher upside, but avery's system neuters devin's skill.

this is the last i'll talk about this topic, because you're giving me tired head. and honestly, nothing said is going to change either parties mind.

I don't disagree with the fact that a player has to stay out of foul trouble to stay on the floor. But the point of your post wasn't to compare individual players. The point was to compare supporting casts (and you did so without even looking at the bench and therefore the minute breakdown). My point here is that if you want to accurately compare the supporting cast (specifically, the point guard position), you can't conclude the Harris and Alston are "almost a wash" at point guard without accounting for the other 11 minutes.

I agree with you on your last point. I don't have time for this anymore and I'm getting pretty tired of arguing with a brick wall.

[GermanDunk]

I think Cuban does a good job such as the team does. OK, Dirk blew the playoffs but the problem is, that there´s no second team-leader... there was no one to pick the ball and say "Here i am"...Stack did it twice, Diop once if i remember correctly, but thats it. Don´t think this team has chances next season, maybe the physical strengh, but now this team is mentally ill.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by NYMavFan

Again, you're making assertions with no statistical or factual basis whatsoever. Let's take a look at the statistics:

Antawn Jamison:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...s?statsId=3247

TM FG 3P
Gsw 3.8-8.4 0.1-0.2
Gsw 8.3-17.6 0.0-0.2
Gsw 9.8-22.1 0.8-2.5
Gsw 7.5-16.8 0.8-2.6
Gsw 8.4-17.9 0.8-2.5
Dal 6.0-11.1 0.2-0.5
Was 7.6-17.5 1.0-3.1
Was 8.0-18.2 1.8-4.5
Was 7.3-16.3 2.0-5.4

Look at his field goal attempts for every single season, except for his rookie year. He's hovering around 17-18 attempts except for his one season in Dallas which is 11.1. Now look at his 3pt FG attempts. He averaged 0.5 attempts per season in Dallas. He took 5.4 of them per game last year in Washington. You also claimed that he was the third option behind Arenas and Butler. I'll give you Arenas, but he took 16.3 shots per game last year vs. Butler's 15.5. Does that sound like a third option to you?

Still think he's getting the same kinds of looks in Washington that he got in Dallas? Did you even watch any Wizards games last season?

I think it's pretty clear who's right about this.





What are you even saying here? You claim that the two statements are mutually exclusive, but they're not.

I don't deny that players often shoot a higher percentage in Dallas. But I do disagree that it's because of Dirk. The players we've been discussing have had vastly different roles as Mavs as compared to their previous teams. In the case of Jamison, Walker, NVE, when they came to Dallas, they were much lower on the offensive food chain because of all the Mavs' weapons, and therefore took fewer shots, which allowed them to be more selective about the shots they took. This led to higher FG%'s. How can you attribute all of that to Dirk and not the system and a different team concept?



I don't disagree with the fact that a player has to stay out of foul trouble to stay on the floor. But the point of your post wasn't to compare individual players. The point was to compare supporting casts (and you did so without even looking at the bench and therefore the minute breakdown). My point here is that if you want to accurately compare the supporting cast (specifically, the point guard position), you can't conclude the Harris and Alston are "almost a wash" at point guard without accounting for the other 11 minutes.

I agree with you on your last point. I don't have time for this anymore and I'm getting pretty tired of arguing with a brick wall.

NYMavFan

Very good posts.

aexchange:

Your analysis is flawed. If a player has a history of being a quality, starting scorer (i.e. not a bench warmer or a 1 yr fluke season) and was a prior #1 or #2 option for a previous team, then I don't find it that suprising that they shoot better if they go to another team where their scoring isn't as relied on. If you aren't relied on to carry the offense any longer then you tend to get better shots, and usually LESS shots (which usually increases your fg%). That's what made MJ so great...shooting such a high % while consistently being a league leader in field goals attempted.

In ATL J.Terry was taking between 1350 and 1600 shots per season, and he was relied on as the Hawks main perimiter threat. His first year in Dallas (where he had his best FG%) he took 993...less than Finley, slightly more than Howard and Stackhouse got over 800 shots off the bench.

Look at the number of shots Jamison and Walker took for their teams prior to arriving in Dallas.

This still doesn't even take into account that all of these players were playing together. That 2003/04 Mavs team had Dirk, Finley, Jamison, Nash, Walker and Howard. You couldn't put full attention on one player on that squad because the other players could put the ball in the hole.

And sorry, but your analysis really hits the toilet when you say Alston is comparable to Devin Harris, or call Battier (a guy who can't create a shot to save his butt) a poor man's Josh Howard. Those statements really make me question how often you have watched these other squads play because I can't see how anyone who actually watched the Rockets could make those kind of statements.

[LonghornDub]

The problem with talking about trades is that nobody ever sees the flaws of players on other teams as much as they see the flaws of their own players.

I could write an essay about what's wrong with Dirk's game, but I couldn't say more than a sentence or two about the weaknesses of Carlos Boozer. And I'm a guy who watches as many games with as many teams as possible.

Point being--people talking up KG over Dirk wouldn't be saying the same things if they watched Minnesota as much as they watched the Mavs and had their hearts invested as much in Minnesota as the Mavs. I guarantee you Timberwolves fans think just as many negative things about KG as we do about Dirk sometimes.

[Stranger]

I think mental toughness is over-rated. How do you know a winning mentality? Because players that have it win. Who wins titles? Players with a winning mentality. It's circular reasoning.

I'm not saying that's all there is to it, but it's really easy to go overboard on mental toughness and a winning mindset. I mean, who considered Chauncey Billups a big-time winner until the Pistons won the title? Tim Duncan has all the characteristics people assign to "soft" players (not a vocal leader, misses free-throws in the clutch, etc.), but the guy just wins titles. If mental toughness could be predicted or quantified in some way other than after-the-fact judgments, I'd give it a little more credence.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

The problem with talking about trades is that nobody ever sees the flaws of players on other teams as much as they see the flaws of their own players.

I could write an essay about what's wrong with Dirk's game, but I couldn't say more than a sentence or two about the weaknesses of Carlos Boozer. And I'm a guy who watches as many games with as many teams as possible.

Point being--people talking up KG over Dirk wouldn't be saying the same things if they watched Minnesota as much as they watched the Mavs and had their hearts invested as much in Minnesota as the Mavs. I guarantee you Timberwolves fans think just as many negative things about KG as we do about Dirk sometimes.

Very true. Great post.

[kingmalaki]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I think mental toughness is over-rated. How do you know a winning mentality? Because players that have it win. Who wins titles? Players with a winning mentality. It's circular reasoning.

I'm not saying that's all there is to it, but it's really easy to go overboard on mental toughness and a winning mindset. I mean, who considered Chauncey Billups a big-time winner until the Pistons won the title? Tim Duncan has all the characteristics people assign to "soft" players (not a vocal leader, misses free-throws in the clutch, etc.), but the guy just wins titles. If mental toughness could be predicted or quantified in some way other than after-the-fact judgments, I'd give it a little more credence.

By looking at a players effort. You can be on a losing team but still make it seem like you are giving it your all, or just going through the motions, etc.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I think mental toughness is over-rated. How do you know a winning mentality? Because players that have it win. Who wins titles? Players with a winning mentality. It's circular reasoning.

I think T-Mac has a winning mentality. So there's one counterpoint.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think T-Mac has a winning mentality. So there's one counterpoint.

So you think his play shows that he is a great player that has been held back by a lack of opportunities or talent around him? I think that's a logical perspective.