This is what I want to see this summer

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ghazi

The more I think about it, the more appealing trying to get Redd and Maggette sounds. Maggette can make a case as the best player at drawing fouls in the league, and Redd got 6.8 FTA per game this year, which is pretty good for someone with as sweet a jump shot.

With Dirk, Redd, and MAggette, on paper, we could have a lot of games with FT parades.

A low post threat is nice because it can get you easy buckets. We could get easy buckets via FT line and fast break points, which is why I don't buy into a low post scorer being an absolute necessity for winning a title (fluke plays, officiating, and some crucial free throws cost us in 2006, not a lack of scoring).

I would really like to keep Bass though. I would like Wright to be in the rotation as well, and then 1-2 players acquired via MLE... what really catches my eye is Diop, Pietrus, and Azubuike..

Do we need a better backup PG than Lue?


Kidd/Redd/Maggette/Nowitzki/Dampier
Lue/Wright/Pietrus/Bass/Diop

That looks really sexy to me, but is it just wishful thinking? CMON MAVS MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Oh and hire a FT shooting coach for Dampier, same one Shaq got... Damp going to the FT line irks me.. lets get him up to 65-70%
ZOMOGMGOM!!!1

I duno.

There has never in the history of the NBA been a championship team that did not have a good low post scorer...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Love the ideas, and I would enjoy watching them play Alby.

I still think you would have issues though against SA. They get fairly easy baskets with TD in the paint, Manu driving, and Frenchy's quickness to the rim. Then they line up 3 pt shooters like Fin and Barry outside to "kick" to. It seems to work pretty well.

Dallas would have the better shooters in Redd and Dirk, and the Manu type in Magette, but to get through SA convincingly -- you need easy points in the paint, IMO.

I guess what I am saying is that on paper the Nets looked awesome with Kidd, Carter and Jefferson, but came crashing down because they couldn't score inside the paint.

In the playoffs, when everything is contested, you have to have that inside guy like a Boozer, West, Gasol, Amare, Howard,Yao, TD, etc that can get you points inside if you expect to win it all. If not, then the D sags inside, and only contests the outside stuff, if you are hot. If not, then they let you shoot it and you live/die by the jumper.

Well said. I agree that a championship contender team has to have a low post scorer.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There has never in the history of the NBA been a championship team that did not have a good low post scorer...

Name the low post scorer on the Bulls teams.

[ghazi]

I would say the 2004 Pistons didn't really have a true post presence, either. Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace were great as far as interior defense, but not really when it came to interior offense.

I'm guessing people may go ahead and count Rasheed as a post presence anyway even though he floats around the perimeter alot, and MJ had a great post game, but he really wasn't a "low post scorer".

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Name the low post scorer on the Bulls teams.

Bill Cartwright and Horace Grant each averaged 12 points per game in 88-89.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...cartwbi01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1989.html

The next year, Cartwright and Grant continued at the same pace roughly and Stacey King added another 9 points per game on average.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1990.html

Cartwright and Grant continued to do the dirty work the next year when the Bulls won the title. Between them, they averaged 22.4 points per game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1991.html

Cartwright was fading but Grant was coming on stronger the next year. They still combined for a total of 22.2 points per game when the Bulls took their second straight title.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1992.html

Horace Grant continued as the main power the next year when they won their third straight title. Cartwright and Scot Williams and Stacey King made roughly equal contributions per game. Point is that the three each averaged five points per game so there was still 15 points per game there not including the 13 of Grant.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html

Grant averaged 8.1 rebounds per year for his career. Not bad.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Name the low post scorer on the Bulls teams.

Although I think wmbwinn did a good job of explaining the players. I'll put it a different way.

Do you see a Michael Jordan type player on the Mavs? I mean a guy that is an inside, outside, control the game, DOMINANT, most important player to the league type guy.

I don't, so I look at what has worked in the past..... and inside scorer takes load off others.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ghazi

I would say the 2004 Pistons didn't really have a true post presence, either. Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace were great as far as interior defense, but not really when it came to interior offense.

I'm guessing people may go ahead and count Rasheed as a post presence anyway even though he floats around the perimeter alot, and MJ had a great post game, but he really wasn't a "low post scorer".

The 2004 Pistons benefitted from an average of 9.5 points per game from Ben Wallace. Okur added 9.6 points per game although I know he did not get all of those points in the paint. Eldon Campbell added nearly 6 points per game. Assume only half of Okur's points came in the paint and the 2004 Pistons averaged over 20 points per game from the low post.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

[wmbwinn]

Two of you picked two teams that won championships where you thought at first impression that low post scoring was not important.

However, both of those teams had stronger low post prescences than the Mavs of the last 3 years.

In 2005-6, Dampier averaged just over 5 points per game. Keith Van Horn scored nearly 10 points per game but not from the low post. Diop averaged 2 points per game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2006.html

That team nearly won the championship without a low post scorer. But, Coach Riley made sure it did not happen by taking advantage of Dallas's weakness. He put Shaq on the bench and told Alonzo Mourning to double Dirk at all times whether he had the ball or not. Allowing Damp and Diop to go relatively uncovered did not matter because they couldn't score enough to punish the strategy. Riley is a genius and he won that title because of that one decision. D Wade won the MVP but Alonzo (following Riley's instructions) made it happen.

The next year, Dampier, Diop, Kevin Willis, and Mbenga combined for 12.6 points per game.
This time it was Nellie who took advantage of the Dallas weakness. He played a zone defense that always leaned to Dirk whether he had the ball or not. Just like the Heat series, Dallas became a desperate perimeter shooting team.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2007.html

This last year, Dampier and Bass totaled about 14 points per game. No other centers or forward routinely scored in the paint enough to talk about. And, some of Bass's points are jumpers 12 feet away.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2008.html

[bcrav4]

Ouch, I had no idea the Mavs were that terrible in the post, but we've always known that Dampier is a huge liability on the offensive end. I still don't know how he couldn't manage at least 10 points a game though when Riley decided to change strategies on us in the finals.

[alby]

wmbwinn, you make great great points. In fact, it's slowly swaying what I really want this summer. The best thing about hiring Rick Carlisle might be the potential to bring in Jermaine O'neal. Personally, I've always been enamored with Maggette's game and what he would bring to the table as a #3 option behind Dirk and ____. However, I see a lot of Josh Howard in him--settling for jumpers and not trying on the defensive end--which would be more frustrating than having the actual Josh Howard here.

Actually, after reconsidering the above proposals, what if we somehow have Maggette AND Josh Howard as the 2/3 spots on our team? Long, extremely athletic, and fairly young to team up with Kidd on the wing positions.

PS: wmbwinn, the picture in your signature is no longer working

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by bcrav4

Ouch, I had no idea the Mavs were that terrible in the post, but we've always known that Dampier is a huge liability on the offensive end. I still don't know how he couldn't manage at least 10 points a game though when Riley decided to change strategies on us in the finals.

Defense on Dampier is simple. Watch closely and you will see that every single team in the NBA guards Dampier the same way. All you have to do is put your arm across his chest and swipe downwards. The guy continues to crouch, bend his knees, put the ball down by his waist, and then jump upwards while bringing his arms upwards. Everybody knows that all you have to do is swipe down when Dampier jumps... And, if you catch his forearms for a foul... who cares. He is a 50-60% foul line shooter.

Second Dampier issue is that he is slow and methodical. That works great for picks and rebounds and being in place on defense.

Watch the old films of the Heat/Mavs series. The whole Heat team knew (of course) that Zo was not guarding Dampier. When a pass was made to Dampier, they:
1)had time to provide help defense because he is so slow
2)even the point guard can stop him because of all you have to do is swipe down when he jumps...

I really like Dampier. But, he really has offensive problems.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alby

wmbwinn, you make great great points. In fact, it's slowly swaying what I really want this summer. The best thing about hiring Rick Carlisle might be the potential to bring in Jermaine O'neal. Personally, I've always been enamored with Maggette's game and what he would bring to the table as a #3 option behind Dirk and ____. However, I see a lot of Josh Howard in him--settling for jumpers and not trying on the defensive end--which would be more frustrating than having the actual Josh Howard here.

Actually, after reconsidering the above proposals, what if we somehow have Maggette AND Josh Howard as the 2/3 spots on our team? Long, extremely athletic, and fairly young to team up with Kidd on the wing positions.

PS: wmbwinn, the picture in your signature is no longer working

once upon a time, I figured out how to put a link in the signature line. I have forgotten now. The old expired link was of Dampier blocking a shot. It was a great pic of Damp in action on defense.

[slowmo]

I would like to see Jamison and Maggette here. Low post scorer in Jamison and slasher in Maggette.

[ghazi]

Jamison is actually not really a "low post scorer".

I find Jamison to be a highly inefficient player, plus he's about to turn 32.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by bcrav4

Ouch, I had no idea the Mavs were that terrible in the post, but we've always known that Dampier is a huge liability on the offensive end. I still don't know how he couldn't manage at least 10 points a game though when Riley decided to change strategies on us in the finals.

Does that mean that ko'ach was correct in playing bass as center so much?

[alby]

Dampier's problem is that he tends to put the ball on the floor EVERY TIME even when he doesn't need to. He doesn't have the balance after being in great position to pull down those weakside offensive boards to just go straight up with it, this is where he gets into trouble.

Jamison averaged 21 points, 10 rebounds, shot 76% from the line, and 34% from the three. However, he is probably going to ask for another monster contract--no thanks.

I think our biggest problem and most glaring weakness that has to be address this summer is the center position. I like Dampier, but do you guys realize that he is turning 33 in July? We've been blessed with 82, 76, and 72 games from him in the last three seasons and there are no viable backups behind him. We need some centers in here. I'm all for Jermaine O'neal.

[dude1394]

You are right on alby. Even though he's old I've always thought ballet, martial arts or any type of core balance would be good for a dampier.

I'm also pretty shocked that the mavs haven't forced it on him somewhat.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You are right on alby. Even though he's old I've always thought ballet, martial arts or any type of core balance would be good for a dampier.

I'm also pretty shocked that the mavs haven't forced it on him somewhat.

Ironically, Dampier is well known to participate in martial arts already...

[ghazi]

How are we gonna get JO, a shooting guard, AND a younger bench?

I am gloomy!

[Robillion]

Originally Posted by ghazi

How are we gonna get JO, a shooting guard, AND a younger bench?

I am gloomy!

Howard for JO, MLE for Ricky Davis?, and bring over our youngsters in Europe?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Ironically, Dampier is well known to participate in martial arts already...

Really??? I haven't read that anywhere at all. I knew DJ did but I haven't heard that damp does. If so the mavs are doing him a dis-service not letting it be known, it would help fans believe that he's working hard.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
Ironically, Dampier is well known to participate in martial arts already...


Dude:
Really??? I haven't read that anywhere at all. I knew DJ did but I haven't heard that damp does. If so the mavs are doing him a dis-service not letting it be known, it would help fans believe that he's working hard.

___________

I may be mistaking. I thought Dampier was involved in martial arts in the past. But, I can't find anything to support that.

[ghazi]

I don't like JO's low shooting percentages. Isn't the whole idea of a post player to get high % shots?

he's only shootign 45.9% for his career.

[craggmac]

Seriously, I've been wondering what happened to Trajon Langdon ever since he left Duke. Turns out, he's been tearing it up in the Euroleague. We sure could use the Alaskan Assassin!!

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by ghazi

I don't like JO's low shooting percentages. Isn't the whole idea of a post player to get high % shots?

he's only shootign 45.9% for his career.

But..but...he's a low post scorer!

I agree, wanting O'neal simply because he can score from the blocks is silly. Wanting him because he has a nice combination of defense and offense is something different.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The 2004 Pistons benefitted from an average of 9.5 points per game from Ben Wallace. Okur added 9.6 points per game although I know he did not get all of those points in the paint. Eldon Campbell added nearly 6 points per game. Assume only half of Okur's points came in the paint and the 2004 Pistons averaged over 20 points per game from the low post.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

I can't let this go unchallenged. You're counting Ben Wallace as a low post scorer? Come on dude. He scores on put backs.

So what is your argument? Do you need easy buckets or do you need points scored with your back to the basket from the block?

Here's the deal. Historically, dominant post up players are the most efficient scorers. Efficient scoring means baskets with less opportunity to screw things up. In a sense, easy baskets.

In reality, it doesn't matter WHERE you get these efficient baskets, as long as you have a way of getting them.

Listing role players on great teams that scored their buckets in the paint area is silly. The Bulls would have won those titles if those extra 10 points had come from the three point line as well.

Dirk is perfectly capable of leading a team to an NBA title. Would a scoring center be nice? Sure. If you want to find the elusive two-way center, I'm all for it. But let's stop the desperate search for a scorer on the blocks because it's somehow necessary. It's not.

[Dirkadirkastan]

I wouldn't sweat it too much, jthig:

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...513#post619513

[alby]

I definitely don't mind 46% shooting from Jermaine O'neal.

-he came in as a teenager and big men take longer to develop
-once he developed and joined the Pacers, he quickly became the #1 option (even more so after Reggie's retirement)
-he's always led the league in getting his shots blocked so it lowers his field goal percentage by a couple points, but it shows how much pressure he applies on opposing big men.

If he were to become a Maverick, he would be the #2 option with Dirk on this team. He would see much less double teams, and much less attention from opposing defenses.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I wouldn't sweat it too much, jthig:

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...513#post619513

Huh. I had no idea. So there's three of them?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alby

I definitely don't mind 46% shooting from Jermaine O'neal.

-he came in as a teenager and big men take longer to develop
-once he developed and joined the Pacers, he quickly became the #1 option (even more so after Reggie's retirement)
-he's always led the league in getting his shots blocked so it lowers his field goal percentage by a couple points, but it shows how much pressure he applies on opposing big men.

If he were to become a Maverick, he would be the #2 option with Dirk on this team. He would see much less double teams, and much less attention from opposing defenses.

Man he's got a lot of mileage on him doesn't he? 11 years pro and he appears to be averaging about 55 games/year the last 4 or so. But he's 30 now, not 35...Possibly...

He'd be a very nice center.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by ty

If we brought Redd here...wow.

You forgot to add in who we're trading Avery for =x

Here is an article from a Bucks fan on the possibility of trading Redd for Howard and Stack. At the bottom is a poll where you can vote and see how Bucks fans feel about the potential trade.

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/5/1/470...-available-let

[alby]

yup, so it's not that farfetched

ps: link was given in post 19 =]

If this proposal is really on the table, we should take it--not only because of acquring Redd, but also because we would be getting rid of Stackhouse and his contract.

[fluid.forty.one]

wow.. This might be the first trade thread that I could support 100%. This would make this team a contender again.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by alby

ps: link was given in post 19 =]

Sorry about that. I completely missed that link when reading through it.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I can't let this go unchallenged. You're counting Ben Wallace as a low post scorer? Come on dude. He scores on put backs.

So what is your argument? Do you need easy buckets or do you need points scored with your back to the basket from the block?

Here's the deal. Historically, dominant post up players are the most efficient scorers. Efficient scoring means baskets with less opportunity to screw things up. In a sense, easy baskets.

In reality, it doesn't matter WHERE you get these efficient baskets, as long as you have a way of getting them.

Listing role players on great teams that scored their buckets in the paint area is silly. The Bulls would have won those titles if those extra 10 points had come from the three point line as well.

Dirk is perfectly capable of leading a team to an NBA title. Would a scoring center be nice? Sure. If you want to find the elusive two-way center, I'm all for it. But let's stop the desperate search for a scorer on the blocks because it's somehow necessary. It's not.

The reason Dallas failed to beat the Heat was because:
1)Riley put Shaq on the bench and put Zo on constant double team duty on Dirk whether or not Dirk had the ball.
2)The rest of the team could not get "easy points" anywhere on the court (in the paint or from the half court line).
3)To me, it seems the easiest way to "rematch" that scenario and win that series is to put a low post scoring threat down near the bucket to force Zo off of Dirk.

The reason Dallas failed to beat the Warriors was because:
1)Nellie played zone defense. He had the zone constantly lean towards Dirk with the nearest two players in the zone leaning on/towards Dirk no matter if Dirk had the ball or not.
2)The rest of the team could not get "easy points" anywhere on the court whether in the paint or elsewhere on the court.
3)To me, the easiest way to "rematch" that 7 game series and win would be to have a low post scorer to punish that leaning, off balance zone.

The reasons Dallas lost to the Hornets are multiple and cannot be singled out so easily.

Now, back to the Pistons team that won the championship "without a low post scorer".

Look at the comparative figures for the 2005-present Dallas Mavs compared to the stats for the 2004 Pistons. The Pistons scored, on average, over 20 points in the paint per game. Dallas scored 7-13 points per game in the paint. Does it matter where the points are scored from? On the one hand, no it does not matter. If you can shoot with 50-60 percent accuracy from the half court, then that is what you should do. On the other hand, since no one can shoot a consistently high percentage from the perimeter for a 7 game series (even the Suns at their peak earned their "easy baskets" on transition and from Amare Stoudemire in the post in the half court), then the ability to score in the paint is important after all.

But, I'm not all that interested in talking about philosophy. I'm talking about real history. There has never been a NBA championship team that sucks as bad as the Mavs at trying to score points in the playoffs in the paint.

Is Ben Wallace a low post scorer? Not in the usual sense. But, if we had Ben Wallace instead of Dampier/Diop when we played the Heat, can Ben move fast enough with enough athleticism to punish being ignored on defense??? Yes, Ben is athletic enough to score if ignored. Dampier and Diop were not able to score even when ignored. The help defense was able to stop Dampier/Diop from scoring. Could Campbell score in that situation?? Yes.
Could Okur score?? ABSOLUTELY. Okur is no beast in the paint but he can score there if he has half a step or even a full step advantage.

Would the Warriors strategy work if we had Okur?? Heck no it would not have worked. Okur is skilled enough to pose a threat in the holes of a leaning zone near the paint.

Now, as to your point that Wallace and Campbell scored the majority of their points on rebounds and put backs. I won't argue that or contest that. It is true. But, I would ask you:
Why can't Dampier/Diop/Mbenga do the same thing???
Answer: Because they aren't nearly as skilled as Ben Wallace on offense. They can't score on "put backs" as well as Campbell, Okur, or Ben Wallace.

I continue to stick with my main point that the reason Dallas lost to the Heat and Warriors is because their big men are pathetic in the paint on offense.

[jthig32]

I think Damp has proven that when he is left completely alone and there is someone on the floor that can get him the ball he is perfectly capable of scoring. So no, I don't think Ben Wallace instead of Damp on the offensive end would have made much different against the Heat.

[wmbwinn]

And, as to the 2004 Pistons arguement, I have so far resisted talking about Rasheed Wallace. Wallace prefers to play on the perimeter and shoot 3 pointers. It has been that way for a while. It will probably lengthen his career to not be banging in the paint.

But, Rasheed is an incredibly talented post player. And, he still takes that ten foot territory post up pass and hits that jumpshot over anyone with great precision.

And, I guarantee you that if Riley or Nellie tried the same strategy against the 2004 Pistons that was used against the Mavs, that Rasheed would go to the low post and destroy those strategies.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I think Damp has proven that when he is left completely alone and there is someone on the floor that can get him the ball he is perfectly capable of scoring. So no, I don't think Ben Wallace instead of Damp on the offensive end would have made much different against the Heat.

I have too many vivid memories of Dampier receiving perfectly workable passes and blowing it. I remember too many balls going out of bounds off his hands. I remember too many delayed, slow moves when he was wide open allowing even a PG to stop him. I recall that the last game of the Heat season, at the end of the game, that Avery started intentionally feeding the open Dampier and he repeatedly blew it.

I know darn well that Ben Wallace is not that clumsy.

Go back and watch some film.

I will give you that the Mavs have improved on making sure Dampier receives his passes at a height of 9.5 feet off the ground to prevent him from putting the darn ball at his umbilicus before jumping. That has improved Dampier's offense. But, the production is still pitiful.

I'll also agree with another poster that noted that Dampier's production is in part tied to the fact that the team doesn't feed him the ball much. But, that is an issue of who his team mates trust when it matters... the abscence of passes to Dampier at that point tells the story.

[alby]

The Redd talk around here is get louder isn't it, I love it.

[Burn this City]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There has never in the history of the NBA been a championship team that did not have a good low post scorer...

That's a flawed argument. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's impossible. The Mavs were 5 quarters away from doing it. Eventually some team will do it. It's part of the evolution of basketball. There's very few "true centers" left in the NBA and you notice more teams playing smaller, quicker lineups.

I'm not saying the Mavs shouldn't pursue a low-post threat (but barring some Gasol-like trade, it ain't happening), but the idea that the only way to win a title is to follow the typical NBA formula seems archaic. The point is to get as many easy baskets as possible, rather than relying on tough shots. A good PG can get you easy baskets in transition. Using Princeton-style cuts will get you easy baskets. The drive and kick method the Cavs use with LeBron gets his teammates easy baskets. Yeah, having Tim Duncan on your team makes it a lot easier, but honestly, I don't think having a consistent slasher on the wing that can drive to the rim for layups, pts in the paint and get to the line is too much of a drop off.

Unless the Mavs decide to completely blow up the team, we're stuck with Dirk, Damp and Kidd. Which means, the only open slots are at the 2 & 3. Think slashers because that's the only route this team can go as presently constructed.