Hollinger: The good, bad and ugly of team success - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

HexNBA · 11-14-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

The Bad
Dallas' defense. Avery Johnson won Coach of the Year in 2006 in part because he got the Mavs to play defense, ranking 11th in the league in defensive efficiency. Based on that criterion, don't count on a repeat for Johnson.

The Mavs are dead last in defensive efficiency this season -- a difficult accomplishment in a league that includes the Knicks and Sonics. That, in turn, explains most of what you need to know about Dallas' slow start. Yes, losing Josh Howard hurts, too, but the Mavs weren't guarding anybody even before he went out.

I should point out that some of this appears to be plain old bad luck. Dallas' opponents are shooting 80 percent from the line and 42.6 percent on 3-pointers, numbers that can't possibly hold up for a full season.

On the other hand, they're dead last in field goal defense at 50.1 percent, have allowed a high rate of free-throw attempts and are below average in forcing turnovers.

I'm at a loss as to why they've slumped so sharply, but one factor might be all their offseason moves -- in addition to needing time to incorporate all the new guys, the Mavs made themselves an older, slower team than they were a year ago while the rest of the league is trending faster and smaller.

Flacolaco · 11-14-2006, 12:15 PM

Let's all jump off of a bridge.

or we could give it about 20 games and see.

either way.

mary · 11-14-2006, 12:21 PM

Does trading Marquis Daniels = getting older?

We added Bucker, Kyle C., AJ and George.

We lost KVH, DA, Daniels and Griffin.

Unless I'm missing something, we lost 1 young guy that was in the rotation last year.

fluid.forty.one · 11-14-2006, 01:35 PM

Well maybe he was taking the vast amount of Daniels playing time into consideration..

Oh wait.. Daniels barely played. Hollinger is an idiot.

snoop · 11-14-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Well maybe he was taking the vast amount of Daniels playing time into consideration..

Oh wait.. Daniels barely played. Hollinger is an idiot.

agreed
while I do think quis was a player who had a high level of play he was so incosistant. The mavs made a move to go with a rotation of more battle tested-consistant players and this will take some time to mold. Hollinger is just giving a knee jerk reaction to get people to read his junk(which worked here). Too many media people have no long term insightwhich is why they write about how to coach instead of doing it

sike · 11-14-2006, 02:10 PM

"the Mavs made themselves an older, slower team than they were a year ago while the rest of the league is trending faster and smaller."

Devin in the starting spot has addressed this issue.

chumdawg · 11-14-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Well maybe he was taking the vast amount of Daniels playing time into consideration..

Oh wait.. Daniels barely played. Hollinger is an idiot.

Barely played? Huh? Dude was fifth on the team in minutes played.

Dr.Zoidberg · 11-14-2006, 02:52 PM

Cosher <-> van Horn = nerarly same age
Buckner <-> Griffin = Buckner younger
Johnson<-> Armstrong = Johnson much younger
George<->Daniels = Daniels much younger
Bonsu<->Powell = nearly same age
Ager<-> Marshall = Ager younger
Barea<->Podkolzin = Barea younger

So all in all the Mavs are younger than last year. In Coshere, Buckner, Johnson, George they have experienced players which are in my opinion better defensively than van Horn, Griffin and Daniels with exception of Armstrong. I wouldn´t know why the Mavs should not be at least as good as last year.

fluid.forty.one · 11-14-2006, 02:53 PM

That was only in the regular season due to injuries. I'm talking about their playoff run.

chumdawg · 11-14-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Does trading Marquis Daniels = getting older?

We added Bucker, Kyle C., AJ and George.

We lost KVH, DA, Daniels and Griffin.

Unless I'm missing something, we lost 1 young guy that was in the rotation last year.

I'm not sure it's necessarily all that meaningful, but we'll definitely be an older team this year. MD's 25-year-old minutes are gone. Griff and KVH are the same combined age as Buck and Cro. George is four years older than Daniels. Johnson is five years younger than Armstrong, but then again, Johnson is older than Daniels and Harris.

Not to mention that the eight guys who stayed all got a year older.

fluid.forty.one · 11-14-2006, 02:56 PM

What's the point in pointing out that Johnson is older than Daniels and Harris? Armstrong was waaaay older.

So we are a combined 7 years older... (without even taking Ager into consideration, and he is getting playing time).

13ish man roster aged 7 years... anything less than 10 years aging is a movement in a younger direction.

sike · 11-14-2006, 02:59 PM

a starting line of DH, JT, JHo, Dirk, Diop is actually younger and more explosive than last year's team...

Dirkadirkastan · 11-14-2006, 03:02 PM

Why don't we just trade our entire roster for the Atlanta Hawks's? That will solve this so-called "age problem"...

chumdawg · 11-14-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

What's the point in pointing out that Johnson is older than Daniels and Harris?

Because Johnson may get some minutes this year that those guys got last year.

You don't calculate the age of a team by adding up the age of all the players. You have to weight it by minutes played.

Again, I'm not saying that the Mavs are worse off for being older than they were a year ago. I'm just saying that Hollinger is almost certainly correct that they will be.

sike · 11-14-2006, 03:12 PM

Top 10 last year's roster: JT, Griff, JHo, Dirk, Diop, Stack, Quis, Damp, DH, KVH

This year: DH, JT, JHo, Dirk, Diop, Stack, AJ, Damp, AJ, (with Buck being the 10th and DG as 11th?)
the big issue of those actually getting serious pt will be Buck for Griff...except Buck will see less than Griff did last season because of DH's emergence...so, in effect the guys seeing the most quality time will actually younger than last season (except with the fact that everyone is a year older)

AC is going to be a non-factor so his age is not really an issue to me...

fluid.forty.one · 11-14-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Because Johnson may get some minutes this year that those guys got last year.

You don't calculate the age of a team by adding up the age of all the players. You have to weight it by minutes played.

Again, I'm not saying that the Mavs are worse off for being older than they were a year ago. I'm just saying that Hollinger is almost certainly correct that they will be.

Harris will also get more minutes than he and Quis got last year (he's still younger than quis was last year I think).

Flacolaco · 11-14-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Why don't we just trade our entire roster for the Atlanta Hawks's? That will solve this so-called "age problem"...

I think this is likely.

sike · 11-14-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I think this is likely.

me likey Joe Johnson!

mary · 11-14-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Because Johnson may get some minutes this year that those guys got last year.

You don't calculate the age of a team by adding up the age of all the players. You have to weight it by minutes played.

Again, I'm not saying that the Mavs are worse off for being older than they were a year ago. I'm just saying that Hollinger is almost certainly correct that they will be.

Maybe I misread Hollinger's article. I thought his point was that the Mavs are older relative to the rest of the league.

chumdawg · 11-14-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Maybe I misread Hollinger's article. I thought his point was that the Mavs are older relative to the rest of the league.

Yes, I think that was at least partly implied. I have neither the time nor the inclination to calculate the ages for every team to see if he's right about that part.

But what he said was the Mavs got older and slower while the rest of league got faster and smaller. Not exactly a direct comparison, but I think he's counting on you to make some connections. Just my guess.

sike · 11-14-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

But what he said was the Mavs got older and slower while the rest of league got faster and smaller.

but would you not agree that the currect lineup getting most of the pt (DH, JT, JHo, Dirk, Diop, Buck, DG, Stack) can play faster than most?

Flacolaco · 11-14-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

but would you not agree that the currect lineup getting most of the pt (DH, JT, JHo, Dirk, Diop, Buck, DG, Stack) can play faster than most?

they CAN. I don't know that they've done it much this season to date. There are also times when you're going to have AJ and Damp on the court at the same time. That makes you look painfully slow, even if it's only briefly.

This hollinger guy probably hasn't watched a single Mavs game the whole way through.

dude1394 · 11-14-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop

agreed
Hollinger is just giving a knee jerk reaction to get people to read his junk(which worked here).

Very much a kneejerk...Our offensive woes are easily as much to blame for a slow start as anything. It's been a lack of focus and execution.

kg_veteran · 11-14-2006, 03:46 PM

Hollinger is usually an insightful writer whose statistical background makes him one of the few worthwhile reads among NBA writers. In this case, however, it seems to me that he's trying to use an unbelievably small sample size to draw a statistical conclusion.

I think he'd have been better off just saying that the Mavs haven't been playing very well so far.

sike · 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Hollinger is usually an insightful writer whose statistical background makes him one of the few worthwhile reads among NBA writers. In this case, however, it seems to me that he's trying to use an unbelievably small sample size to draw a statistical conclusion.

I think he'd have been better off just saying that the Mavs haven't been playing very well so far.

he just needs to read your sig, kg....and he'll get the idea

Flacolaco · 11-14-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Very much a kneejerk...Our offensive woes are easily as much to blame for a slow start as anything. It's been a lack of focus and execution.

well .....the defensive efficiency numbers don't lie, and we all know Avery doesn't need a good sample size for those. He takes them one game at a time.

I look to the defense to get this thing turned around. More forced turnovers and a lower opp FG% are what they need now. The offense is going to work itself out as its done the last two games.

kg_veteran · 11-14-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yes, I think that was at least partly implied. I have neither the time nor the inclination to calculate the ages for every team to see if he's right about that part.

But what he said was the Mavs got older and slower while the rest of league got faster and smaller. Not exactly a direct comparison, but I think he's counting on you to make some connections. Just my guess.

Either way, he's wrong.

Marquis Daniels played a lot of regular season minutes last year due to injury, but he was the 10th man at playoff time.

The Mavs didn't lose a single member of their top 7 in the rotation from the playoffs last year, and with all due respect to Adrian Griffin, I think we'll be okay without him (he was No. 8).

DevinHarriswillstart · 11-15-2006, 08:59 AM

I think we're gonna be BETTER at defense this year when all is said and done. Why not? Diop had 5 blocks in 11 minutes against the Bulls.....with Buck and George lookin like they are turning the corner its just dumb to even comment on. Damp also looks like he could push for MIP. All this and we don't even have arguably our best defender in Howard right now.

Don't take analysts seriously. Most of them have no clue, even the smart ones. Hollinger is just a pure stat guy which is only one side of the picture. I was watching the hi lites on nba tv of the bulls/mavs game and the commentator said "how do you guard a 7 foot SMALL FORWARD" Dirk hasn't played SF in years!

No wonder the Refs give us bad calls, they must think Dan "the temper" Issell is coaching us with Rodman as our star.

sike · 11-15-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

All this and we don't even have arguably our best defender in Howard right now.

Howard is not a very good defender...I'd say that Damp, Buck, DG are the best defenders on this team...with Diop coming next.

aexchange · 11-15-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

Howard is not a very good defender...I'd say that Damp, Buck, DG are the best defenders on this team...with Diop coming next.

amen sikey, howard is an incredibly overrated defender. i've been saying it for years and i'm glad some other people agree.

sike · 11-15-2006, 11:31 AM

He has the makings of a good defender, but has never really taken the mantle. Long arms quick feet, tons of heart.....yet het still gets beat on a continual basis...I love the guy but lets not confuse potential for actuality

kg_veteran · 11-15-2006, 11:44 AM

Howard is not a consistent defender, but he definitely can defend when he puts his mind to it. His work on Steve Nash in Game 6, for instance, was phenomenal.

sike · 11-15-2006, 11:53 AM

Howard has always given Nash fits...he should be the constant assignment when we play PHX. Unless we know ahead of time that Stevie is going to turn it over 10 times with our guards on him

Five-ofan · 11-15-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Howard is not a consistent defender, but he definitely can defend when he puts his mind to it. His work on Steve Nash in Game 6, for instance, was phenomenal.

Hes a physically gifted defender who in the times when he can stay focused and avoid mental mistakes can absolutely be an elite defender. However, his lack of bball iq and focus can cause him to be maddeningly inconsistent...

spreedom · 11-15-2006, 01:54 PM

Speaking of Joe Johnson.. I'd trade any of our players (obviously besides Dirk) for him.. and include a couple of picks too.. I love his game.

sike · 11-15-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Speaking of Joe Johnson.. I'd trade any of our players (obviously besides Dirk) for him.. and include a couple of picks too.. I love his game.

uh....yeah.

the suns will rue the day...

Five-ofan · 11-15-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Speaking of Joe Johnson.. I'd trade any of our players (obviously besides Dirk) for him.. and include a couple of picks too.. I love his game.

I know this will piss sike off and it would scare me too but i would do Josh and Devin for him...I love devin and Josh but JJ is just that good...(doesnt work capwise so wouldnt happen anyway) I did a trade idea for him this summer but most seemed uninterested...

sike · 11-15-2006, 08:30 PM

JJ is one of the premire young guns in the league...to see Him beside Dirk would be simply amazing.

then again....I DO think Howard and Harris will be stars in this league....I just happen to think JJ will be a superstar if the opportunity presents itself.

bobatundi · 11-15-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Barea<->Podkolzin = Barea younger

Barea is also a better Center than Pavel was.

sike · 11-15-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

Barea is also a better Center than Pavel was.

underrated line