"Git er done" (fixing the Mavs) - db.com

[DLord]

Some of this was discussed earlier this week here at dallas-mavs.com, but here's the fuller detail of our current analysis of the Mavs. http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=365

'Git 'Er Done!'
State Of The Mavs: Our 4-Step Formula
By David Lord and Mike Fisher - DB.com

Who are these Mavericks? Are they broken or fixed? And if they are still broken, what will it take to fix this "couldn't-beat-a-good-team-for-six-weeks" version of the Mavs, and how long will it take?

In the wake of the Mavs' dominant 111-86 win over the Warriors on Wednesday, the natural reaction is to proclaim, "All is well!" and to blithely march forward. But we're not that easy to convince, and you shouldn't be either. This was one single game, against a Golden State team on a tough back-to-back that ran out of steam.

For a month or more, we've seen and heard the whining and despair, and we feel your pain, Dallas Mavericks fans. But unlike many, we've never thought this group of players -- despite its recent murky record -- has been far away from elite at all. We think the players are still incredibly capable of doing the "right things" to win big here, as seen (finally) against Golden State. And we think that type of performance can happen even more -- if the proper buttons are pushed.

However, for too long the solution has looked distant. This has been a team adhering to no apparent philosophy, a team that doesn't look like it knows how to win, a team with a confidence that simply had to be shaken, and a team that hadn't been showing an ability to compete at a high level anymore. Some numbers do not lie: Dallas home win Wednesday over the Warriors still left them 1-10 against winning teams in the Kidd Era. And when they get down, they stay down; this year’s record when the Mavs fall behind by double-digits is, by our calculations, a sickening 5-23.

That’s not what elite contenders do.

The only consistent thing we've been seeing about the present edition of the Mavs is an ability to always get beat by good teams.

Some in the bleachers, on the message boards and aboard their couches are now even wishing for this team to miss the playoffs entirely, with the aim of adding some talent via the draft.

But it shouldn't be like that. We do agree that we'd rather have a high draft pick than see this team play like a dog for another two weeks and then somehow back into the playoffs while being inept. A playoff run under those circumstances would be pointless (and brief).

But if this team is playing well, it can be very dangerous in the playoffs that they've been awaiting for a year. And frankly, the experts we talk to think this team has MORE talent than ever before, not less. We tend to agree. It is important to note -- important to the coming decisions about the franchise’s future -- that many in the Mavs organization think so, too.

Coach Avery Johnson's repeated explanation is that these players just haven't been performing properly. It happened in the first week of training camp on subjects as silly as leadership (Avery bizarrely claimed his team HAD NO LEADERSHIP) and it’s continued all year, on various and sundry other subjects. While we have real problems with a coach who chooses to throw his players under the bus on a nightly basis (and that's what you and your media surrogates are feeding us, Avery, whether you realize it or whether it’s intentional), that's an issue for a different day.

But more importantly, there's a problem with the specifics about which Avery keeps preaching to his audience: This is a manager who coaches one way, then complains about the predictable results of the choices he makes. Is he just not innately intelligent enough to see the fact that his choices are causing the flaws? Or is he just finger-wagging and finger-pointing at the players in order to shift the blame for what he realizes too late were his ill-considered coaching choices? Or is it some form of Kamikaze Hard-Headedness?

We hear the coach moan about the lack of defense. … while choosing to prioritize minutes for players whose known resumes include the fact that don't play good defense.

We hear the coach moan about rebounding. … while chaining his centers to the bench or worse, changing them to his doghouse -- and relying on SmallBall.

We hear the coach moan about his players’ failure to attacking the basket. … but you can't just tell a player "drive to the basket more" and get results, unless at the same time you are putting him in position with the ball to be able to get that done.

And when Avery says, "We just didn't attack the hoop" or “We shot too many jumpshots,’’ don't lose sight of the fact that the coach uttering those words is the man who is choosing to give burn to jump-shooter-style players over rim-attacker-style players, and that he seemingly isn't teaching plays to open lanes to the basket.

The results are predictable (at least to everyone not named Avery).

A year and more ago, this was more of a traditional team than it is now. They knew their roles, had an identity, and could play defense and rebound. Unfortunately, a behind-the-scenes architect of many of those strategies used to create the Dallas Mavericks juggernaut is no longer part of the day-to-day operation of the on-court product.

We said it was unfortunate when we first broke the news a year ago of Del Harris’ decision to “semi-retire.’’

Well, in a way, we were wrong -- because it’s turned out to be much more than “unfortunate.’’

In our 20/20-hindsight view, Avery’s 2005-06 Coach of the Year award was a negative turn of events. Rather than embracing the people who’d helped him achieve that success -- Harris prime among them -- Avery began to believe his own press clippings. For all of Johnson’s notable accomplishments (the numbers, the institution of an emphasis on defense and the Finals appearance), he did step into a situation that, while it might have begged for him, was also quite sweet: Mark Cuban and Co. had built a perennial 55-win machine, one that simply needed some new fuel (supplied by the youthful, forceful energy of Johnson) while still having the wisdom of the years of coaching experience provided by having Harris alongside.

Did Avery Johnson need a convenient spot to lay the blame for the Golden State flameout and run off his top assistant -- despite that top assistant’s status as a powerful brain behind all the success? That would be a horrible thrown-under-the-bus act, and we don’t know that it went down that way. But we do know for certain that Avery increasingly tuned out the previously-valued input from some of the people around him. And we do find it noteworthy that after the stunning playoff loss to the Warriors (which in our opinion was still more a "perfect storm" of injuries, matchup hell, catching a hot team that was way better at that point than a standard No. 8, plus a panicky rookie coaching decision by Avery to play SmallBall against a SmallBall wizard) there was no major player change. Instead there was only a staff change that resulted in one of basketball’s finest minds leaving the bench and instead sitting in a suite high above the floor at American Airlines Center.

Did you ever wonder: Why is Del Harris designated as a special consultant to Mark Cuban, rather than as a special consultant to Avery and the other coaches? Cuban made a genius move, rewarding Del by retaining him while salvaging him as an organizational resource. Avery made a short-sighted one by tossing away -- or at least by allowing the departure -- of such a source of wisdom.

Avery’s willingness to “do it his way’’ and to “go it alone’’ speaks to his self-assuredness and to his desire to “Aspire Higher.’’ “A man’s greatest strength is usually also his greatest weakness,’’ our buddy Michael Irvin often tells us, and it applies to Avery Johnson. The shuffling of his coaching staff was a bold move. But not an astute one.

This season we are seeing Avery as a “singular voice’’ (echoes of the tyrannical rule of Bill Parcells) and the results have been amazingly underwhelming. Philosophically, the changes tell us there's an attempt to create the next generation of SuperSmallBall, with just enough Dampier to help a bit plus smaller players in rotation spots 6-7-8-9 who replace the starting BigBallers. That added SmallBall approach eats up major floor time this year. But instead of making the team stronger, it has gutted the very strengths that had previously been created under Avery's watch.

Last season the team played a traditional center for about 3500 minutes; this season that total is only about 2400, with a handful of games left. That's a significant change in philosophy.

As a result, this team has now evolved into a weird stew with no particular strengths and no particular identity, an inconsistent defense, and a loss of much of the things they’d worked to build over the past few years. They don't know fully who they are. They don’t seem to know where to go to get the crunch-time baskets. They appear to lack the close-out confidence helpful when it comes to winning tight games.

So while keeping in mind that a team slated to win around 50 is hardly a disaster while also reminding that the Mark Cuban Era has raised the bar of what is acceptable -- how can it be fixed?

One possible solution, of course, is to dismiss Avery Johnson, and to replace him with a coach who can a) create a focused identity, and b) has the nuts to surround himself with assistants SMARTER than himself. (Phil Jackson has Tex Winter; Rick Adelman had Pete Carrill; Avery Johnson has … ?) With one move -- and the right choice of person, which seems easier than it is -- this team will soar again. The talent is already here and is as motivated and unified as an NBA team can be.

The Mavs play hard; some of the credit for that goes to their character, some to Avery’s relentlessness. Unfortunately, they need more than pushing. They also need wisdom and guidance to know in which direction they should be pushed.

But it is fixable, and with THIS core group of players.

There's a second solution, and one we like better than whacking the head coach. We think this team could be significantly repaired instantly if Avery were to be konked over head with a figurative baseball bat (or better, a bat made of rolled-up pro-Avery newspaper clippings) and was convinced to take some much-needed steps immediately.

Here's our Four-Step Formula of things Avery and the Mavs could do that would greatly increase productivity. And while these concepts are sound ones to be adapted this summer, we’d prefer they occur NOW. Four steps, and the Mavs’ playoff chances increase, and the Mavs’ potential for being lethal to a postseason opponent increase.

What’s more, if Avery is willing to "do what it takes" to get the job done, he will find that all four of these steps are eminently doable. They are already at his fingertips.

1. Make Dirk the focal point of the team again.

Peter Vecsey’s claim that Avery wanted to dump Dirk still seems absurd. But we are willing to believe that Avery lost some confidence in Dirk after the 2007 playoffs. That would explain why this season he has been trying to find "better" ways to win, “better’’ ways to utilize the reigning MVP (“making him more Dirk-like,’’ as people inside the organization tell us), failing to comprehend that Dirk's circa 2006-07 blend of skills make him the Mavs' ultimate weapon.

It might be true that Dirk-as-passer adds a “tool’’ to his “toolbox.’’ But that tool isn’t a hammer; it’s like, maybe, a stapler. Dirk’s “tools’’ are as a scorer, and by going away from that -- by losing confidence in that -- Avery this year has done what the entire NBA hadnt been able to do: He neutered Nowitzki.

Give Avery credit for building a better UberMan? Fine. Dirk has acquired added skills this year to attack double-teams. Now, assuming he regains his health – and by the way, this guy’s rub-some-dirt-approach to recovering from nasty ankle injuries and such is astounding -- make him THE focal point again. Do everything you can to maximize (not minimize) that advantage.

Once Dirk is the guy -- and by the way, this is Basketball 101 -- that opens up EVERYTHING for the rest of the team.

Of course, that means you play BigBall every second you can, because Dirk is much more effective alongside a big traditional center. Sometimes we think Avery believes that this team goes as far as Avery takes them, when in fact, this team goes as far as Dirk takes them. So Dirk needs to be the centerpiece. And Damp needs to be the center. Except as a changeup here or there, Screw SmallBall. (“Screw SmallBall.’’ We should make the T-shirts.)

2. Play as much BigBall as possible, even when Dirk is resting.

Every team needs an identity, and this team (if it's going to win) is best as a BigBall team.

And that identity cannot change based on the opponent, but rather on the strengths of that identity in regard to how they can be exploited based on the opponent. For example, virtually every coach in the league who has a legitimate center and frontline tries to beat Golden State by pounding them with BigBall. Why? Because "getting pounded" in the middle is Golden State's Achilles heel. But Avery does it differently. His favorite Warriors-beating strategy is to try to out-SmallBall a Golden State team whose strength is SmallBall. Wonder why Avery's way doesn't work?

Before Wednesday’s meeting with the Warriors, Avery excused Damp’s lack of playing time in the Sunday game against the Warriors, saying Dampier just couldn't match up against that team. That ignored the reality that when the teams met earlier in the year, Dampier played almost 30 minutes and the Mavs won, and that in Dampier's 12 minutes Sunday the Mavs were +12 on the scoreboard.

Wednesday, Avery for some unexplained reason chose to play the "overmatched" Dampier almost 30 minutes, and the Mavs won easily. Coincidence? We don't think so. Absolutely not.

(Does Avery’s flip-flop here mean he’s “flexible’’ and “learning’’? Or does it mean he’s “grab-bagging’’?)

For the Mavs to excel as the BigBall team they are, we would mandate going forward that Dampier plays as much as possible every game, until he poops out or fouls out. Jamaal Magloire (or maybe Malik Allen/Juwan Howard) gets the backup minutes. Not Brandon Bass, who has a different and important role elsewhere and just isn't big enough to be a real center in the NBA. We’re mixed on Magloire; he's a true center, yes. But to be blunt, so far he’s shown nothing in games (and we can assume, that same “nothing’’ in practices.)

But the goal must be to get as close as you can to a "real center" for at least 40-42 minutes -- not 25-30, which appears to be nothing more than an effort to motivate people, punish people or “mix things up.’’ (More “grab-bagging.’’) That extra 15 minutes of MunchkinLand is getting them killed on the scoreboard, it’s getting them worn to the nub (an obvious problem with SmallBall, no matter who plays it) and one more issue: Hey, Avery, the Mavs just aren’t very good at it.

One more thing, on a related point: Avery’s concerted effort to develop a "cohesive second unit" as we are a handful of games away from the postseason is outstandingly foolish. That “second five’’ will NEVER play together in the playoffs (or had better not), so why waste precious floor minutes while failing to teach truly key reserves how to mesh with four members of the starting unit?

3. Prioritize "defense" and make the fourth quarter about making it IMPOSSIBLE for the other team to score. Every game.

When the Mavs fall behind, they shift in pseudo-identity again. They are coached as if they believe that the way to catch up is by launching a high volume of outside shots.

A better idea: The Mavs need to try to regain the mentality that they'll catch up and close out games (and we say ‘’regain’’ because we believe Avery once did emphasize this) with choke-you defense. They once knew how to do that. Certainly they want to do that. But it’s a task made more difficult when the coach prioritizes offensive players instead of defense-first players.

What about the fear of being unable to score? Nonsense. If they know the other team CAN'T score much, it takes all the pressure off the offense. (Consider life for the Nuggets and Warriors, Dallas’ second-tier playoff rivals, who almost HAVE to score 115 to win with much margin. That’s self-imposed pressure. Most teams play this way out of underdog desperation; why should Dallas’ style be “desperate’’?)

Plus, if the Mavs focus at least as much on gaining turnovers as they do on 22-foot jumpers, they can turn good defense into the elusive-but-golden “easy baskets.’’ (Very much playing into the strength of the team’s second-best player, Jason Kidd.) However, when the other team is able to run its plays with ease down the stretch as they start a parade to the line, comebacks and close-outs become doubly hard.

Don’t necessarily take this as a direct criticism of the talents of Jerry Stackhouse, Malik Allen and especially Jason Terry, who are offense-first guys. We respect players like Jet who can add a spark (or better, 31 points in a game!). But they should play in key stretches and in crunch time only if they play hard defense, the very best they are capable of, or better, if they are presented a survivable matchup when they are on defense.

Let’s be frank: A final-stretch lineup that includes Stack, Allen and Jet is unlikely to stop anybody. And it’s not their fault they’re on the floor together in that circumstance.

4. Beg, plead, and cajole Del Harris to immediately return and be an ACTIVE part of all the strategy, including maybe even making him the prime bench assistant for the duration.

This is not meant to imply that the other assistants are unhelpful. But Del Harris has more coaching experience and skins on the wall than all the rest of the fellas combined. In addition, he was the aforementioned architect of the "system" that created all the success; as we’ve illustrated in this space before, Harris is the man who literally wrote the book on “The Mavericks Way,’’ the textbook/playbook that is still supposed to be the backbone of what the Mavs do.

This means Avery has to be man enough to admit he doesn't know it all, and needs aid from someone with 40 years more experience. A confident man can do that.

We acknowledge that this is unorthodox. It might mean Avery swallows some pride. But if it helps Dallas beat winning teams - and that 1-10 screams “It couldn’t hurt! – it’s not dissimilar to making a move at, say, point guard.

If you can change starting point guards before the trade deadline (and deal with the questioning, criticism and pride-swallowing that goes with it) then why can’t you add an assistant coach before the playoff deadline?

Assuming Del would be willing to take on the burden (he is a highly loyal and HIGHLY-paid consultant, friends), who would object? Popeye, Westphal or Prunty? Nah.

"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice," Solomon warned 2500 years ago. "Pride goes before the fall," he also told us, and a fall looks inevitable without some wise humility here.

Again, we prefer as a solution our second offering with the Four-Step Formula. Dirk, Damp, Defense and Del – all available right at the coach’s fingertips.

Don't fall, Avery. Make us proud for your maturity and adjustability, Avery. Do what it takes. Or to quote a not-quite Solomon-like wise man from the 21st century: "Git 'er done."

[jthig32]

Really, REALLY good stuff in there. Excellent work.

[slowmo]

AMEN!

[dirt_dobber]

Wow! Awesome work DLord!
Awesome journalism, too bad you can't get this kind of intelligent breakdown
from the beat reporters that regularly cover this team.

Del Harris's son must be through playing this season. It would indeed be great
to see Del back on the bench from now on.

It did look like Paul Westphal was a bit more involved last night. There were
different camera shots of him speaking to AJ and also he looked more
active in the timeout huddles.

[ghazi]

excellent read ty

[MFFL]

What a horribly biased article.

Lets blow off a win against Golden Stage because it doesn't fit our agenda. Despite the fact that the Warriors only played a back to back in name only - they raised the white flag in the 3rd quarter vs the Spurs. Lets ignore the win despite the fact that the Warriors were the BETTER team just last year. And lets ignore the win despite the fact that this was a high stakes game that BOTH teams had to have to make the playoffs. The Mavs responded with a roar - the game wasn't even close.

And lets hear both sides of the Del Harris story. Didn't he retire to spend more time with his family? Can't he retire at SEVENTY without people reading more into the situation. And it isn't like Avery hired a nobody to be the lead assistant. Paul Westphal is a legitimate assistant coach in this league.

I think a couple of writers are doing an Avery - they think WAAAY too much of themselves.

[ty]

Originally Posted by ghazi

excellent read ty

You're welcome man. I do my best to write good articles. Feel free to give me rep.

[ghazi]

lol

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MFFL

What a horribly biased article.

Lets blow off a win against Golden Stage because it doesn't fit our agenda. Despite the fact that the Warriors only played a back to back in name only - they raised the white flag in the 3rd quarter vs the Spurs. Lets ignore the win despite the fact that the Warriors were the BETTER team just last year. And lets ignore the win despite the fact that this was a high stakes game that BOTH teams had to have to make the playoffs. The Mavs responded with a roar - the game wasn't even close.

I tend to agree with you on this point, MFFL. I don't think anyone has hailed the GS win as evidence that "all is well", but it certainly wasn't an inconsequential win, either. In fact, it was an essential win if this team wanted to go to the playoffs.

Want to know what it reminded me of, honestly? Game 7 against the Rockets in 04-05. The team had its back against the wall, they came flying out of the gate against a team that has given them fits, and the game was never really in question.

And lets hear both sides of the Del Harris story. Didn't he retire to spend more time with his family? Can't he retire at SEVENTY without people reading more into the situation. And it isn't like Avery hired a nobody to be the lead assistant. Paul Westphal is a legitimate assistant coach in this league.

You might have a point about Harris, but I do think that Avery thinks too highly of his own coaching abilities. Hopefully that is changing.

[jthig32]

Del Harris was reportedly pursuing, or at the very least considering, head coaching jobs before last season.

I think the notion that he stepped away from the bench willingly is silly, especially given the dramatic change in philosophy this team underwent once he stepped away. Quite a coincidence, no?

I would also defend DLord's view of last night's game. While it was very, very important, and an impressive effort in a key game, there is no denying that the Warriors allowed the Mavs to play a style of basketball that they have been successful in already. Basically the Mavs trotted out the offense they use against terrible teams, and it worked because the Warriors were miserable defensively.

No real conclusions can be drawn about the state of this thing until we see what happens in a close game against a team that plays some semblance of defense.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Del Harris was reportedly pursuing, or at the very least considering, head coaching jobs before last season.

Nothing would have prevented him from doing that this past offseason, were he so inclined. The fact that he accepted a position as Cuban's consultant might, in fact, suggest that he wanted a less stressful role.

I don't pretend to know, I'm just sayin...

Basically the Mavs trotted out the offense they use against terrible teams, and it worked because the Warriors were miserable defensively.

To the contrary, I think the Mavs are finally figuring out how you beat a team like Golden State. You push the ball up and you take good shots when they're available rather than trying to slow it down and control the pace.

The Mavs had 44 fast break points and 50 points in the paint. That is NOT their normal offensive style.

No real conclusions can be drawn about the state of this thing until we see what happens in a close game against a team that plays some semblance of defense.

No real conclusions can be drawn until we see what happens in the playoffs. I was just glad to see the team demonstrate resolve with its back against the wall, something we haven't seen in over a year. I was also happy to see the team throw aside the "system" in favor of attacking the Warriors the way they should be attacked.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Del Harris was reportedly pursuing, or at the very least considering, head coaching jobs before last season.

I think the notion that he stepped away from the bench willingly is silly, especially given the dramatic change in philosophy this team underwent once he stepped away. Quite a coincidence, no?

In my mind the fact that he's recently turned down head coaching jobs actually supports the argument that he simply needed a break. I see it as an indication that he either didn't want the stress or the long term commitment.

Also, the fact that he's not coaching this year leads me to believe that he doesn't want to. Del has been one of the most respected assistants in the league the last few years and if the word got out that he wanted to coach, the line would have formed to the left with Nellie being in front.

[jthig32]

Oh I do agree that Del could be working just about anywhere if he wanted to. But the fact that he accepted Cuban's consulting role could also mean that he simply doesn't really feel like starting something new with a different team. I don't really think it diminishes the possibility that Avery dismissed him.

Again, the change in philosphy in certain areas seems to be pretty strong evidence that Avery was ready to move away from Del's advice, regardelss of whether he asked him to leave or not.

As to the Warriors game, I don't deny that it was a breakthrough for this team. Not so much a breakthrough against the Warriors themselves, we handled them pretty easily earlier in the season, but a breakthrough for the Mavs themselves.

However, pushing the ball the way we did will only get us so far against the better teams, as we've seen this past month. I need to see success and late game execution against better defensive teams before I get too excited.

But the part about coming out firing with their backs against the wall is legitmate. It was refreshing.

[DLord]

I didn't blow off the GS results, but it was just one game against a team that tends to not show up here and there - so in our estimation, we felt it wasn't wise to read TOO MUCH into the single win. Yes it was still definitely encouraging, and a significant step in the right direction. Absolutely. And we weren't trying to imply otherwise.

It must be noted vs GS we saw more centers, less small ball, better defense (and better defenders getting more minutes), so at least for one game much of our "formula" was used to good results.

What makes us hesitant to embrace the game fully, however, is Avery's tendency this season to flit from one style to the next, with no apparent rhyme or reason. In fact, this approach vs GS was completely different from the one he took vs GS Sunday, as we noted.

Hopefully we'll see more of this going forward, but we felt the need to stay in wait-n-see mode for now. And in general, our belief is that this team has the TALENT to do some real damage in the playoffs, so while we're not sure whether the glass is half-full or half-empty at the moment, as a whole we believe truly outstanding things are possible.

[LSMF]

I definitely agree with Dlord

[birdsanctuary]

Dear D. Lord,

The solutions you are proposing are too logical. I'm afraid that they make too much sense. These common sense recommendations are simply too sensible for Avery to adopt. Others may not realize that what you propose is conventional wisdom and common sense; the problem with common sense is that it's just not very common.

Sincerely,
Birdsanctuary

P.S. Keep up the good work, idiots like me enjoy reading long articles about common sense, conventional wisdom, and sensible theories that lead to probable success. You are providing a kind service for to an under-serviced minority group (at least on this forum).

[Usually Lurkin]

1. Dirk as focal point.
Great idea. Only works if the other guys perform at some minimal level of role-play (ie, knock down the open jumper, JET, do something in half number 2, Josh). If so much of this year has been forcing other guys to step up no matter the situation, then most of the anti-avery arguments in the post are meaningless.

2. Play BigBall.
Absolutely agree. But I also agree that the best teams are flexible, and can win with small ball when it's called for. Was small ball warranted against GS last year? Maybe - but only if Damp was really hurt. Either way, a flexible team needed better small ball. If Avery's eyes have been on flexibility (and on Bass as the only guy on the team with an offensive post game), then much of the anti-Avery argumentation is unwarranted.

3. Prioritize defense.
Absolutely agree again. But also object as in the second point - if you really desire Bass's offense, then you gotta play him and hope he gets better defensively. It worked for Dirk. Of the names named here, only Allen wasn't on the super-duper-defensive team that steamrolled the league last year.

4. Del Harris.
eh. I think we have too much of a tendency to blame and praise single individuals, and I think the elevation of Del Harris into super-assistant-coach-supreme this last season is a case of that. The Mavs productivity took a step back and Harris took a step back at roughly the same point in time (1 month before the end of the season last year?) but as someone pointed out in the Hollinger thread - correlation is not causation.

On the jump shooting theme. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. Avery Johnson "run! run! run! [windmill's arm until it pops out of socket]" seems to hate it. Surely the players know, cognitively, that it doesn't work. Is it really Avery Johnson that doesn't give them the ball and put them in position to drive to the hoop? Is it really Avery Johnson that doesn't put them in position to slash without the ball? I think it's just as likely players choosing "option b" in the play, rather than make the modicum of extra effort to get around the defender. I've seen too often Josh Howard 1 on 4 while everyone else stands around. He'll try like the dickens to get around a couple guys, then give up and take a jump shot. It's a sharpness that's been lacking. Getting shots in the lane is probably directly correlated with gaining possession of loose balls and getting steals. Here, I'd say there is a causal connection to a third variable of player desire. Maybe it's Avery's job to keep that desire high at all times, but I think placing a player in a position to get to the hoop is largely the responsibility of players. I think we can see that when we occasionally get a game like last night, where it all works like everyone knows it should.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The Mavs productivity took a step back and Harris took a step back at roughly the same point in time (1 month before the end of the season last year?) but as someone pointed out in the Hollinger thread - correlation is not causation.

I think this is commonly misunderstood. It is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But many times it does. To use a basketball example, if Dirk were to have a season-ending injury and the team's production would then fall off dramatically, there is a pretty good chance that Dirk's absence and the drop in production are related.

On jumpshooting...I think people often blow this out of proportion. Something like half (or more, maybe) of all NBA field goal attempts are jump shots. It is a HUGE part of the game. You can have whatever mindset you want about going to the basket as much as possible, but you are still going to end up shooting a lot of jumpers.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DLord

I didn't blow off the GS results, but it was just one game against a team that tends to not show up here and there - so in our estimation, we felt it wasn't wise to read TOO MUCH into the single win. Yes it was still definitely encouraging, and a significant step in the right direction. Absolutely. And we weren't trying to imply otherwise.

It must be noted vs GS we saw more centers, less small ball, better defense (and better defenders getting more minutes), so at least for one game much of our "formula" was used to good results.

What makes us hesitant to embrace the game fully, however, is Avery's tendency this season to flit from one style to the next, with no apparent rhyme or reason. In fact, this approach vs GS was completely different from the one he took vs GS Sunday, as we noted.

Hopefully we'll see more of this going forward, but we felt the need to stay in wait-n-see mode for now. And in general, our belief is that this team has the TALENT to do some real damage in the playoffs, so while we're not sure whether the glass is half-full or half-empty at the moment, as a whole we believe truly outstanding things are possible.

Who is being referred to by "we", "our", and "us"?

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think this is commonly misunderstood. It is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But many times it does. To use a basketball example, if Dirk were to have a season-ending injury and the team's production would then fall off dramatically, there is a pretty good chance that Dirk's absence and the drop in production are related.

On jumpshooting...I think people often blow this out of proportion. Something like half (or more, maybe) of all NBA field goal attempts are jump shots. It is a HUGE part of the game. You can have whatever mindset you want about going to the basket as much as possible, but you are still going to end up shooting a lot of jumpers.

There is a big difference in shooting jumpshots (dribbling b/w your legs and juking a few times then jacking it) and shooting a jumpshot because that is all the defense is giving you (penetration, stopped, kick out, swing , open, shoot). Add in the low-IQ of a few starters and you get ALOT of ill-advised jumpshots.

edit: By the way, this is one of those times when you are arguing something just to be arguing. I think you are smarter and not this simple minded.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think this is commonly misunderstood. It is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But many times it does.

This is entirely true, but I hope you weren't referring to me (as I'm the one that used that phrase in the other thread), because I obviously completely understand that.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

This is entirely true, but I hope you weren't referring to me (as I'm the one that used that phrase in the other thread), because I obviously completely understand that.

I was only talking about the Del Harris thing. I do recall reading your mention of the fallacy in the other thread, but I can't remember what it was even about.

I'm just saying that I think sometimes people are quick to dismiss possible causes because they feel some sort of protection by that logical fallacy. As you know, recognizing the fallacy is not meant to dismiss any possible cause; rather, it is intended to guard against espousing one based on coincidence alone.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I was only talking about the Del Harris thing. I do recall reading your mention of the fallacy in the other thread, but I can't remember what it was even about.

I'm just saying that I think sometimes people are quick to dismiss possible causes because they feel some sort of protection by that logical fallacy. As you know, recognizing the fallacy is not meant to dismiss any possible cause; rather, it is intended to guard against espousing one based on coincidence alone.

Well put. I'm not sure what to think about the Del Harris situation. I do think we can all say with relative certainty that Avery had problems listening to him and taking his advice. He's just too proud of a man.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm just saying that I think sometimes people are quick to dismiss possible causes because they feel some sort of protection by that logical fallacy. .

it's so well known because it's so often ignored. And it shouldn't be ignored just because sometimes causation does yield correlation. Del Harris was not lifted to the status of uber-assistant until well into the search for blame this year. He was around in Nellie's days of a system that was entirely non-Avery (or non-Harris, or non-whoever was the genius that implemented whatever we loved about the winning that occurred the last couple of years). At that time he was in charge of a defense that looked like, well, a stereotypical Don Nelson defense. I think people have glommed onto whatever change they could see that occurred 'round about the time the Mavs became not-so-dominant and decided it must be causal. If before Del stepped out, someone was saying that losing Del's influence would be a huge factor dragging the Mavs into a tough fight for 8th place, then they've got a little more than just post-hoc "just-so" stories that they are fitting into what is essentially a reductionist blame-praise system of arm-chair ownership. Would he help? Probably, I like him better than Westphal. Is his absence a top 4 factor in the woes of Maverickdom? eh.

Personally, I think the Mavs problems are more player based than coach based, and more coach based than assistant coach based. Of all the visible differences between the dominant mavs of the past couple years and the mavs of this year, the biggest one in my eyes is that the players played like they were hungry to win. This year, they were up and down for the first half of the year, up against good teams, and down against the bad. I don't think it had anything to do with Del Harris.

[dude1394]

I do think that last year we won many,many games defensively at the end. I don't sense that this year, especially at crunch time. Now is that the players or the ko'ach not playing his center(s). We do know that diop is a better center than bass ever will dream about being, however bass was getting diops minutes, even down the stretch of games. ??

That makes me scratch my head. Why would that be? Why would we be trying to outscore the other team rather than defending them? Part of it, I thought was that we were trying to create a small-ball team to combat GSW's. And I guess the Amare-led suns. But a defensive small-ball center makes more sense than someone like bass?

Anyway...one of the points of Dlords article is that the defensive identity they had last year seems to be lacking and confused. I think that's the most telling part of the article, whether it is because Del is gone or not. IMO Avery has been trying to exercise the GSW demons and he was trying to do it with Bass. Obviously that warriors team doesn't exist anymore and Bass's defensive liabilities are a problem. In the past Avery would not have put up with those defenisve liabilities, he just would not, but now he does?
It is confusing and it makes you have to wonder what and why his philosophy seems to have changed. The players also don't know whether they are supposed to really buckle-down defensively or try and out-score the other team, it's been their problems down the stretch it appears to me.





is still trying to exorcise the GSW demons and that team doesn't exist anymore.

[endrity]

One of the points I liked the most, is one that I have had a debate with PDub in here.

That is that guys like Jet and Stack, can be as 'tough' as they want to be, but they are not good defenders. And ultimately if Avery keeps putting them in tough positions, they and this team, will not succeed.

There are no 'leadership' or 'lacking of heart' issues with this team. There are many Xs and Os issues with this team, that our current coach doesn't know how to solve.

[DLord]

On the Del Harris issue that people keep wondering about, none of it is random idle speculation. Here's more or less an outline of what is clearly fact and what is deduction.

In summary, here's my sequence that most fans probably haven't noticed ....

1. Total disaster loss to GS. (In my opinion, it was still more a "perfect storm" of injuries, matchup hell, catching a hot team that was way better at that pt than a #8, plus a panicky rookie coaching decision by Avery to go small that - in my best guess that no one will confirm but I believe - was NOT supported by Del)
2. Neon light #1 - no player change, but a SIGNIFICANT coaching change as the top asst "suddenly decides to go do something else" for vague family reasons [Note: Del is a family man, and in his view, it's a blessing in disguise to have a year off, but that doesn't mean HE initiated it no matter what the public spin is]
3. Neon light #2 - Mark Cuban keeps Del Harris on the Mavs payroll (which didn't happen with any other of the Nellie holdovers when they were let go)
4. Neon light #3 - Del is designated as a special consultant to Mark Cuban (not Avery), which tells you who is wanting to pick Del's brain and who values his input (and who doesn't)
5. Neon light #4 - the whole philosophy changes* which tells us whose philosophy was used before to make this team a big success.

Specifically, it is my belief that Avery shoved Del out the door as the scapegoat for the GS fiasco, and it is my belief part of Avery's argument was that he could do it better alone. (Those beliefs have foundations in things I've been told.) It is a FACT that he claimed he was Coach of the Year and didn't need Del's help anymore. It is a FACT Cuban kept Del on the payroll and that Del is a special consultant to Cuban but not Avery. It is an observation that the basketball philosophy has changed from last year to this one, and it is a deduction that Del's system featuring 40 years of coaching wisdom has now been replaced by Avery's (taken from his two years of using Del's ideas and his years of being a player)

Hope that helps.


* Philosophical changes on display this season
(1) moving toward less minutes by traditional style centers, down from 3500 to 2400, a huge decrease,
(2) end-of-game and catch-up lineups that feature lousy defenders jacking up 3s rather than superior defenders trying to get multiple stops, and
(3) Dirk as one of many weapons, rather than as the focal point of the attack that the others get open looks from - he still is the top scorer, but they don't play a big center next to him as much, and a big center is a key to making Dirk be Dirk.

[foglemann]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

it's so well known because it's so often ignored. And it shouldn't be ignored just because sometimes causation does yield correlation. Del Harris was not lifted to the status of uber-assistant until well into the search for blame this year. He was around in Nellie's days of a system that was entirely non-Avery (or non-Harris, or non-whoever was the genius that implemented whatever we loved about the winning that occurred the last couple of years). At that time he was in charge of a defense that looked like, well, a stereotypical Don Nelson defense. I think people have glommed onto whatever change they could see that occurred 'round about the time the Mavs became not-so-dominant and decided it must be causal. If before Del stepped out, someone was saying that losing Del's influence would be a huge factor dragging the Mavs into a tough fight for 8th place, then they've got a little more than just post-hoc "just-so" stories that they are fitting into what is essentially a reductionist blame-praise system of arm-chair ownership. Would he help? Probably, I like him better than Westphal. Is his absence a top 4 factor in the woes of Maverickdom? eh.

Personally, I think the Mavs problems are more player based than coach based, and more coach based than assistant coach based. Of all the visible differences between the dominant mavs of the past couple years and the mavs of this year, the biggest one in my eyes is that the players played like they were hungry to win. This year, they were up and down for the first half of the year, up against good teams, and down against the bad. I don't think it had anything to do with Del Harris.

Great post Usually, after reading your questioning of DLord's post, I wondered where your answers were. I agree a lot, but I do think that somehow the GS series cemented a domino/butterfly effect that caused these issues. Like you said, you think the players are more to blame, as I blame Avery more. But here's my belief from what I've think:

Avery loses confidence in Del(help staff) and the players(Dirk) after the GS series.

Avery then comes back, at the beginning of the season, without a 20+ year NBA coach and takes the bull by the horns himself, creating what he believes will be the most successful system.

The system is focused away from Dirk and forces his team to mix/match at anytime, believing by the end of the season the team would be familiar with everyone.

The wins don't come as easy with the experimenting, the west gets better by trades/internal growth (Utah, NO), and this causes a panic need to change for Kidd.

Now we sit here with one very strong win in the last 3 months, along with no idea how to finish a close game on offense or defense.

Who's to blame, Avery, Donnie, or Cuban? All of course, but who's going to pay after a 1 round loss, God forbit.


Great points by everyone in this thread and had to just throw in my JFK theories, since this thread is full of them.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by DLord

On the Del Harris issue that people keep wondering about,

Thanks for laying that out. I agree with most of those facts, though I wonder if your story filter has colored some of them (change in assistant coach was not the only change. THere have been significant player changes on the floor.) The only thing I'd like to see verified is Avery's claim that he's coach of the year and doesn't need Del's help. If you've got a link, that sounds juicy enough to read first hand, and to see what in the world kinda context might he possibly place a statement like that in.

Otherwise, your list of facts and deductions seem to be constructed as much for their soap opera juiciness as for any attempt explain the story. That it was Avery's choice for Del to step back shouldn't be any big deal at all (though you are obviously writing much of your own soap into it). Avery is the coach and his assistants are under him. What boss isn't in charge of hiring and firing, or rearranging those under him. That it was Avery's choice really isn't the point. Whether it was a good idea or not is. And bigger - whether Del's presence back on the bench would mean significant improvement or not is the question. That boils down to how much influence on the "system" Avery himself had. Taking the same facts you have, and juicing down the story a little bit, we come up with:

1) GS - I agree it was a perfect storm. Going small looks from our POV as the biggest mistake. Who's idea was it to go small? We can all accept that it was Avery's, I think. Was it necessary? That all depends on how injured Damp really was, and whether or not Diop would have brought more in more minutes. I think a couple more minutes for Diop would have won us the series. But I'm also very aware that such a thing is impossible to know. A bigger issue with the GS result is whether it highlighted for anyone in charge the need for Dallas to develop a small ball approach that would be implementable *if the need again arose* If you think that we should have been able to win that series with small ball, simply because a championship team can win that way when they need to, then you should at that point have been thinking we need to make some changes.

2)Del stepping down - Who decided Del should play a less direct role is not at all the issue. Rather, 'why?' might be. To read through your facts, and come up with a different, entirely less salacious deduction, I'd say the "system" that steamrolled the NBA was something that came out of Avery and Harris working together. If Harris was unwilling to adjust that to one that's more flexible (ie, work out a small ball game to go along with the traditional system), then replacing him with another assistant that was willing to do it (or would be better at it) is a good idea. And using the same facts, writing in a different story, one might even think it's such a good idea that Del himself might've suggested it. If you've got more evidence to back up your 'wounded general' implications, then spell it out.

3)The benefit of Del's return - I'm not so sure it's necessary, or that it would necessarily turn the "system" switch back on. In order for it to be so, Avery would have to know nothing about the "system". This would be a logical conclusion if Avery has been trying and failing to implement the "system" all year this year. If he hasn't, then it's not. In addition, Harris would have to know everything about the "system". If you've got paperwork to show that's true, I guess I'd like to see that, too. If Avery was part architect in the system, and Del was chief assistant in the system, then Avery should be able to do a good job reimplementing the system. If my own story that I wrote around the facts (and into point 2) is correct, then Harris would be less flexible with the system and I think we'd lose something. Would the return of Del necessarily mean the return of the "system?" No. Del Harriss's arrival did not mark the arrival of the system. Maybe he had this brilliant scheme in his back pocket but couldn't convince Nellie to implement it. Who knows, but Del Harris and playing the "system" are not tied together absolutely. The bigger value to a return of Del Harris might be that it's a sign that Avery has quite monkeying around with things and settled back into something thats systematic. But Avery can do that without Del as well.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by foglemann

Great post Usually, after reading your questioning of DLord's post, I wondered where your answers were. .

For the reference point, here's my suggestions for fixing the Mavs (in order of how little I think they are being done).

1) JET, pull your head out of your butt. You are the guy that kills the other team by hitting the wide open shots at the end of the game. If you play like you did in the GS series, or you dribble around forever, we will lose games.

2) Josh, pull your head out of your butt. If you don't contribute for both halves of a game, and if you don't bring the energy, we will lose games.

3) Avery, pull your head out of your butt. Whatever you've been doing throughout the season, adjustment time is over. Play a center and make Dirk the primary option. If you don't do that, we will lose games.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by DLord

On the Del Harris issue that people keep wondering about, none of it is random idle speculation. Here's more or less an outline of what is clearly fact and what is deduction.

In summary, here's my sequence that most fans probably haven't noticed ....

1. Total disaster loss to GS. (In my opinion, it was still more a "perfect storm" of injuries, matchup hell, catching a hot team that was way better at that pt than a #8, plus a panicky rookie coaching decision by Avery to go small that - in my best guess that no one will confirm but I believe - was NOT supported by Del)
2. Neon light #1 - no player change, but a SIGNIFICANT coaching change as the top asst "suddenly decides to go do something else" for vague family reasons [Note: Del is a family man, and in his view, it's a blessing in disguise to have a year off, but that doesn't mean HE initiated it no matter what the public spin is]
3. Neon light #2 - Mark Cuban keeps Del Harris on the Mavs payroll (which didn't happen with any other of the Nellie holdovers when they were let go)
4. Neon light #3 - Del is designated as a special consultant to Mark Cuban (not Avery), which tells you who is wanting to pick Del's brain and who values his input (and who doesn't)
5. Neon light #4 - the whole philosophy changes* which tells us whose philosophy was used before to make this team a big success.

Specifically, it is my belief that Avery shoved Del out the door as the scapegoat for the GS fiasco, and it is my belief part of Avery's argument was that he could do it better alone. (Those beliefs have foundations in things I've been told.) It is a FACT that he claimed he was Coach of the Year and didn't need Del's help anymore. It is a FACT Cuban kept Del on the payroll and that Del is a special consultant to Cuban but not Avery. It is an observation that the basketball philosophy has changed from last year to this one, and it is a deduction that Del's system featuring 40 years of coaching wisdom has now been replaced by Avery's (taken from his two years of using Del's ideas and his years of being a player)

Hope that helps.


* Philosophical changes on display this season
(1) moving toward less minutes by traditional style centers, down from 3500 to 2400, a huge decrease,
(2) end-of-game and catch-up lineups that feature lousy defenders jacking up 3s rather than superior defenders trying to get multiple stops, and
(3) Dirk as one of many weapons, rather than as the focal point of the attack that the others get open looks from - he still is the top scorer, but they don't play a big center next to him as much, and a big center is a key to making Dirk be Dirk.

You've so far made the most compelling argument (to me) that Avery has done something terribly wrong, with possible reason for a firing. I'm gonna think about this a little more, but indeed it is very interesting.

[MavsX]

this is a very informative thread.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

For the reference point, here's my suggestions for fixing the Mavs (in order of how little I think they are being done).

1) JET, pull your head out of your butt. You are the guy that kills the other team by hitting the wide open shots at the end of the game. If you play like you did in the GS series, or you dribble around forever, we will lose games.

2) Josh, pull your head out of your butt. If you don't contribute for both halves of a game, and if you don't bring the energy, we will lose games.

3) Avery, pull your head out of your butt. Whatever you've been doing throughout the season, adjustment time is over. Play a center and make Dirk the primary option. If you don't do that, we will lose games.

it's basketball, not geometry.

[horse900703]

nice....

[Dirkadirkastan]

horse, you need update your sig~~~

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

horse, you need update your sig~~~

Frozen sigs and avatars, remember? Leave it, horse!

[purplefrog]

DLord, I have a question. Do you think the "blow-up" between Cuban and Avery (supposedly related to Bass) was somehow related to conversations between Del and Mark? That is, was it Del telling Cuban that Avery is screwing up? Del convinces Cuban, so he chews out Avery? There's probably no way of knowing, but I am interested in your thoughts. Not trying to make this a tabloid story but I never realized that Del Harris was consultant to Mark Cuban and not Avery. That makes for an awkward dynamic imo. Avery's gotta be wondering if Del is second-guessing him and whispering in Mark's ear. Especially if there were disagreements in the GSW series.

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Frozen sigs and avatars, remember? Leave it, horse!

horse doesn't count. You have to have 11 green boxes of reputation. For that to matter....duh..everybody knows that.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by DLord

Some of this was discussed earlier this week here at dallas-mavs.com, but here's the fuller detail of our current analysis of the Mavs. http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=365

'Git 'Er Done!'
State Of The Mavs: Our 4-Step Formula
By David Lord and Mike Fisher - DB.com

Who are these Mavericks? Are they broken or fixed? And if they are still broken, what will it take to fix this "couldn't-beat-a-good-team-for-six-weeks" version of the Mavs, and how long will it take?

In the wake of the Mavs' dominant 111-86 win over the Warriors on Wednesday, the natural reaction is to proclaim, "All is well!" and to blithely march forward. But we're not that easy to convince, and you shouldn't be either. This was one single game, against a Golden State team on a tough back-to-back that ran out of steam.

For a month or more, we've seen and heard the whining and despair, and we feel your pain, Dallas Mavericks fans. But unlike many, we've never thought this group of players -- despite its recent murky record -- has been far away from elite at all. We think the players are still incredibly capable of doing the "right things" to win big here, as seen (finally) against Golden State. And we think that type of performance can happen even more -- if the proper buttons are pushed.

However, for too long the solution has looked distant. This has been a team adhering to no apparent philosophy, a team that doesn't look like it knows how to win, a team with a confidence that simply had to be shaken, and a team that hadn't been showing an ability to compete at a high level anymore. Some numbers do not lie: Dallas home win Wednesday over the Warriors still left them 1-10 against winning teams in the Kidd Era. And when they get down, they stay down; this year’s record when the Mavs fall behind by double-digits is, by our calculations, a sickening 5-23.

That’s not what elite contenders do.

The only consistent thing we've been seeing about the present edition of the Mavs is an ability to always get beat by good teams.

Some in the bleachers, on the message boards and aboard their couches are now even wishing for this team to miss the playoffs entirely, with the aim of adding some talent via the draft.

But it shouldn't be like that. We do agree that we'd rather have a high draft pick than see this team play like a dog for another two weeks and then somehow back into the playoffs while being inept. A playoff run under those circumstances would be pointless (and brief).

But if this team is playing well, it can be very dangerous in the playoffs that they've been awaiting for a year. And frankly, the experts we talk to think this team has MORE talent than ever before, not less. We tend to agree. It is important to note -- important to the coming decisions about the franchise’s future -- that many in the Mavs organization think so, too.

Coach Avery Johnson's repeated explanation is that these players just haven't been performing properly. It happened in the first week of training camp on subjects as silly as leadership (Avery bizarrely claimed his team HAD NO LEADERSHIP) and it’s continued all year, on various and sundry other subjects. While we have real problems with a coach who chooses to throw his players under the bus on a nightly basis (and that's what you and your media surrogates are feeding us, Avery, whether you realize it or whether it’s intentional), that's an issue for a different day.

But more importantly, there's a problem with the specifics about which Avery keeps preaching to his audience: This is a manager who coaches one way, then complains about the predictable results of the choices he makes. Is he just not innately intelligent enough to see the fact that his choices are causing the flaws? Or is he just finger-wagging and finger-pointing at the players in order to shift the blame for what he realizes too late were his ill-considered coaching choices? Or is it some form of Kamikaze Hard-Headedness?

We hear the coach moan about the lack of defense. … while choosing to prioritize minutes for players whose known resumes include the fact that don't play good defense.

We hear the coach moan about rebounding. … while chaining his centers to the bench or worse, changing them to his doghouse -- and relying on SmallBall.

We hear the coach moan about his players’ failure to attacking the basket. … but you can't just tell a player "drive to the basket more" and get results, unless at the same time you are putting him in position with the ball to be able to get that done.

And when Avery says, "We just didn't attack the hoop" or “We shot too many jumpshots,’’ don't lose sight of the fact that the coach uttering those words is the man who is choosing to give burn to jump-shooter-style players over rim-attacker-style players, and that he seemingly isn't teaching plays to open lanes to the basket.

The results are predictable (at least to everyone not named Avery).

A year and more ago, this was more of a traditional team than it is now. They knew their roles, had an identity, and could play defense and rebound. Unfortunately, a behind-the-scenes architect of many of those strategies used to create the Dallas Mavericks juggernaut is no longer part of the day-to-day operation of the on-court product.

We said it was unfortunate when we first broke the news a year ago of Del Harris’ decision to “semi-retire.’’

Well, in a way, we were wrong -- because it’s turned out to be much more than “unfortunate.’’

In our 20/20-hindsight view, Avery’s 2005-06 Coach of the Year award was a negative turn of events. Rather than embracing the people who’d helped him achieve that success -- Harris prime among them -- Avery began to believe his own press clippings. For all of Johnson’s notable accomplishments (the numbers, the institution of an emphasis on defense and the Finals appearance), he did step into a situation that, while it might have begged for him, was also quite sweet: Mark Cuban and Co. had built a perennial 55-win machine, one that simply needed some new fuel (supplied by the youthful, forceful energy of Johnson) while still having the wisdom of the years of coaching experience provided by having Harris alongside.

Did Avery Johnson need a convenient spot to lay the blame for the Golden State flameout and run off his top assistant -- despite that top assistant’s status as a powerful brain behind all the success? That would be a horrible thrown-under-the-bus act, and we don’t know that it went down that way. But we do know for certain that Avery increasingly tuned out the previously-valued input from some of the people around him. And we do find it noteworthy that after the stunning playoff loss to the Warriors (which in our opinion was still more a "perfect storm" of injuries, matchup hell, catching a hot team that was way better at that point than a standard No. 8, plus a panicky rookie coaching decision by Avery to play SmallBall against a SmallBall wizard) there was no major player change. Instead there was only a staff change that resulted in one of basketball’s finest minds leaving the bench and instead sitting in a suite high above the floor at American Airlines Center.

Did you ever wonder: Why is Del Harris designated as a special consultant to Mark Cuban, rather than as a special consultant to Avery and the other coaches? Cuban made a genius move, rewarding Del by retaining him while salvaging him as an organizational resource. Avery made a short-sighted one by tossing away -- or at least by allowing the departure -- of such a source of wisdom.

Avery’s willingness to “do it his way’’ and to “go it alone’’ speaks to his self-assuredness and to his desire to “Aspire Higher.’’ “A man’s greatest strength is usually also his greatest weakness,’’ our buddy Michael Irvin often tells us, and it applies to Avery Johnson. The shuffling of his coaching staff was a bold move. But not an astute one.

This season we are seeing Avery as a “singular voice’’ (echoes of the tyrannical rule of Bill Parcells) and the results have been amazingly underwhelming. Philosophically, the changes tell us there's an attempt to create the next generation of SuperSmallBall, with just enough Dampier to help a bit plus smaller players in rotation spots 6-7-8-9 who replace the starting BigBallers. That added SmallBall approach eats up major floor time this year. But instead of making the team stronger, it has gutted the very strengths that had previously been created under Avery's watch.

Last season the team played a traditional center for about 3500 minutes; this season that total is only about 2400, with a handful of games left. That's a significant change in philosophy.

As a result, this team has now evolved into a weird stew with no particular strengths and no particular identity, an inconsistent defense, and a loss of much of the things they’d worked to build over the past few years. They don't know fully who they are. They don’t seem to know where to go to get the crunch-time baskets. They appear to lack the close-out confidence helpful when it comes to winning tight games.

So while keeping in mind that a team slated to win around 50 is hardly a disaster while also reminding that the Mark Cuban Era has raised the bar of what is acceptable -- how can it be fixed?

One possible solution, of course, is to dismiss Avery Johnson, and to replace him with a coach who can a) create a focused identity, and b) has the nuts to surround himself with assistants SMARTER than himself. (Phil Jackson has Tex Winter; Rick Adelman had Pete Carrill; Avery Johnson has … ?) With one move -- and the right choice of person, which seems easier than it is -- this team will soar again. The talent is already here and is as motivated and unified as an NBA team can be.

The Mavs play hard; some of the credit for that goes to their character, some to Avery’s relentlessness. Unfortunately, they need more than pushing. They also need wisdom and guidance to know in which direction they should be pushed.

But it is fixable, and with THIS core group of players.

There's a second solution, and one we like better than whacking the head coach. We think this team could be significantly repaired instantly if Avery were to be konked over head with a figurative baseball bat (or better, a bat made of rolled-up pro-Avery newspaper clippings) and was convinced to take some much-needed steps immediately.

Here's our Four-Step Formula of things Avery and the Mavs could do that would greatly increase productivity. And while these concepts are sound ones to be adapted this summer, we’d prefer they occur NOW. Four steps, and the Mavs’ playoff chances increase, and the Mavs’ potential for being lethal to a postseason opponent increase.

What’s more, if Avery is willing to "do what it takes" to get the job done, he will find that all four of these steps are eminently doable. They are already at his fingertips.

1. Make Dirk the focal point of the team again.

Peter Vecsey’s claim that Avery wanted to dump Dirk still seems absurd. But we are willing to believe that Avery lost some confidence in Dirk after the 2007 playoffs. That would explain why this season he has been trying to find "better" ways to win, “better’’ ways to utilize the reigning MVP (“making him more Dirk-like,’’ as people inside the organization tell us), failing to comprehend that Dirk's circa 2006-07 blend of skills make him the Mavs' ultimate weapon.

It might be true that Dirk-as-passer adds a “tool’’ to his “toolbox.’’ But that tool isn’t a hammer; it’s like, maybe, a stapler. Dirk’s “tools’’ are as a scorer, and by going away from that -- by losing confidence in that -- Avery this year has done what the entire NBA hadnt been able to do: He neutered Nowitzki.

Give Avery credit for building a better UberMan? Fine. Dirk has acquired added skills this year to attack double-teams. Now, assuming he regains his health – and by the way, this guy’s rub-some-dirt-approach to recovering from nasty ankle injuries and such is astounding -- make him THE focal point again. Do everything you can to maximize (not minimize) that advantage.

Once Dirk is the guy -- and by the way, this is Basketball 101 -- that opens up EVERYTHING for the rest of the team.

Of course, that means you play BigBall every second you can, because Dirk is much more effective alongside a big traditional center. Sometimes we think Avery believes that this team goes as far as Avery takes them, when in fact, this team goes as far as Dirk takes them. So Dirk needs to be the centerpiece. And Damp needs to be the center. Except as a changeup here or there, Screw SmallBall. (“Screw SmallBall.’’ We should make the T-shirts.)

2. Play as much BigBall as possible, even when Dirk is resting.

Every team needs an identity, and this team (if it's going to win) is best as a BigBall team.

And that identity cannot change based on the opponent, but rather on the strengths of that identity in regard to how they can be exploited based on the opponent. For example, virtually every coach in the league who has a legitimate center and frontline tries to beat Golden State by pounding them with BigBall. Why? Because "getting pounded" in the middle is Golden State's Achilles heel. But Avery does it differently. His favorite Warriors-beating strategy is to try to out-SmallBall a Golden State team whose strength is SmallBall. Wonder why Avery's way doesn't work?

Before Wednesday’s meeting with the Warriors, Avery excused Damp’s lack of playing time in the Sunday game against the Warriors, saying Dampier just couldn't match up against that team. That ignored the reality that when the teams met earlier in the year, Dampier played almost 30 minutes and the Mavs won, and that in Dampier's 12 minutes Sunday the Mavs were +12 on the scoreboard.

Wednesday, Avery for some unexplained reason chose to play the "overmatched" Dampier almost 30 minutes, and the Mavs won easily. Coincidence? We don't think so. Absolutely not.

(Does Avery’s flip-flop here mean he’s “flexible’’ and “learning’’? Or does it mean he’s “grab-bagging’’?)

For the Mavs to excel as the BigBall team they are, we would mandate going forward that Dampier plays as much as possible every game, until he poops out or fouls out. Jamaal Magloire (or maybe Malik Allen/Juwan Howard) gets the backup minutes. Not Brandon Bass, who has a different and important role elsewhere and just isn't big enough to be a real center in the NBA. We’re mixed on Magloire; he's a true center, yes. But to be blunt, so far he’s shown nothing in games (and we can assume, that same “nothing’’ in practices.)

But the goal must be to get as close as you can to a "real center" for at least 40-42 minutes -- not 25-30, which appears to be nothing more than an effort to motivate people, punish people or “mix things up.’’ (More “grab-bagging.’’) That extra 15 minutes of MunchkinLand is getting them killed on the scoreboard, it’s getting them worn to the nub (an obvious problem with SmallBall, no matter who plays it) and one more issue: Hey, Avery, the Mavs just aren’t very good at it.

One more thing, on a related point: Avery’s concerted effort to develop a "cohesive second unit" as we are a handful of games away from the postseason is outstandingly foolish. That “second five’’ will NEVER play together in the playoffs (or had better not), so why waste precious floor minutes while failing to teach truly key reserves how to mesh with four members of the starting unit?

3. Prioritize "defense" and make the fourth quarter about making it IMPOSSIBLE for the other team to score. Every game.

When the Mavs fall behind, they shift in pseudo-identity again. They are coached as if they believe that the way to catch up is by launching a high volume of outside shots.

A better idea: The Mavs need to try to regain the mentality that they'll catch up and close out games (and we say ‘’regain’’ because we believe Avery once did emphasize this) with choke-you defense. They once knew how to do that. Certainly they want to do that. But it’s a task made more difficult when the coach prioritizes offensive players instead of defense-first players.

What about the fear of being unable to score? Nonsense. If they know the other team CAN'T score much, it takes all the pressure off the offense. (Consider life for the Nuggets and Warriors, Dallas’ second-tier playoff rivals, who almost HAVE to score 115 to win with much margin. That’s self-imposed pressure. Most teams play this way out of underdog desperation; why should Dallas’ style be “desperate’’?)

Plus, if the Mavs focus at least as much on gaining turnovers as they do on 22-foot jumpers, they can turn good defense into the elusive-but-golden “easy baskets.’’ (Very much playing into the strength of the team’s second-best player, Jason Kidd.) However, when the other team is able to run its plays with ease down the stretch as they start a parade to the line, comebacks and close-outs become doubly hard.

Don’t necessarily take this as a direct criticism of the talents of Jerry Stackhouse, Malik Allen and especially Jason Terry, who are offense-first guys. We respect players like Jet who can add a spark (or better, 31 points in a game!). But they should play in key stretches and in crunch time only if they play hard defense, the very best they are capable of, or better, if they are presented a survivable matchup when they are on defense.

Let’s be frank: A final-stretch lineup that includes Stack, Allen and Jet is unlikely to stop anybody. And it’s not their fault they’re on the floor together in that circumstance.

4. Beg, plead, and cajole Del Harris to immediately return and be an ACTIVE part of all the strategy, including maybe even making him the prime bench assistant for the duration.

This is not meant to imply that the other assistants are unhelpful. But Del Harris has more coaching experience and skins on the wall than all the rest of the fellas combined. In addition, he was the aforementioned architect of the "system" that created all the success; as we’ve illustrated in this space before, Harris is the man who literally wrote the book on “The Mavericks Way,’’ the textbook/playbook that is still supposed to be the backbone of what the Mavs do.

This means Avery has to be man enough to admit he doesn't know it all, and needs aid from someone with 40 years more experience. A confident man can do that.

We acknowledge that this is unorthodox. It might mean Avery swallows some pride. But if it helps Dallas beat winning teams - and that 1-10 screams “It couldn’t hurt! – it’s not dissimilar to making a move at, say, point guard.

If you can change starting point guards before the trade deadline (and deal with the questioning, criticism and pride-swallowing that goes with it) then why can’t you add an assistant coach before the playoff deadline?

Assuming Del would be willing to take on the burden (he is a highly loyal and HIGHLY-paid consultant, friends), who would object? Popeye, Westphal or Prunty? Nah.

"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice," Solomon warned 2500 years ago. "Pride goes before the fall," he also told us, and a fall looks inevitable without some wise humility here.

Again, we prefer as a solution our second offering with the Four-Step Formula. Dirk, Damp, Defense and Del – all available right at the coach’s fingertips.

Don't fall, Avery. Make us proud for your maturity and adjustability, Avery. Do what it takes. Or to quote a not-quite Solomon-like wise man from the 21st century: "Git 'er done."

So, in other words, Avery sucks.

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

So, in other words, Avery sucks.

Thats a very simple way of explaining it...