Addressing some common fallacies concerning Dirk - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 12:53 PM

I've heard alot being made of Dirk's start this year. Many people have attributed his quick start to him finally being forced to be the man with Nash gone. Other's have speculated that he couldn't have taken this next step with Nash here still in the lineup. Sure, it's definitely possible that it has something to do with Dirk's surge.

But, haven't we seen this before for extended periods of time? Is this something new and exciting from Dirk that we haven't seen before? Sure, there are some changes in his game such as taking the ball to rack more, shooting less threes, posting up more, and attacking the glass harder. But aren't his numbers eerily familiar to some?

Well, being the type of guy that likes to do just a little statistical research and analysis, I'm here to show you that we have seen this type of production before WITH Nash on the court. The means by which he comes to some of the numbers has changed slightly, but putting up MVP type numbers over extended periods of time is nothing new to the Diggler.

Let's take a look at some numbers:

FG 9.3 - 8.8
FGA's 19.9 - 19.2
FG% 47.30% - 45.90%
3pt 2.2 - 1.2
3ptA's 5.7 - 2.8
3pt% 38.60% - 40.70%
FT 6.7 - 9
FTA's 7.4 - 10.4
FT% 90.10% - 86.80%
Pts 27.7 - 27.7
Reb's 9.5 - 10.8
Assists 3.3 - 2.6

Yes, we can see some differences in the numbers. Most notably, the numbers on the right show a more aggressive player getting to the rim 10.4 times a game while shooting less three pointers. We also see a guy that's grabbing more rebounds. But, look at the total points. Look at the FGA's.

Where do these numbers come from? They come from the final 43 games of the 2002-2003 season. You can even go back to the final 57 games of that season and find similar numbers. Dirk had taken over the reigns to this team. He was dominant. He might have been the MVP of the league the second half of the 2002-2003 season.

What happened? Was Nash out the entire second half of the 2002-2003 season? No, of course not. Dirk and Nash played alongside each other just like they had done for years. What happened? Dirk, Nellie, Fin, Nash, and everyone else on the team finally got it. Dirk had to be the go to guy. He performed that task brilliantly.

Well, if he did all of that in 2002-2003 AND in the playoffs (as usual), whathappened last year? I have an interesting email that I sent to several people last April addressing the same issue. Basically, every step that Dirk had taken to make this team his team was nullified by a coach with a new toy. Nellie got the point forward that he had always wanted in Antoine Walker. For about half the season, Walker actually took more shots per game than Dirk. Dirk was relegated to playing second fiddle offensively to Antoine Walker.

Basically, Nellie screwed the pooch. His handling of personnel and coaching strategies last season were some of the worst in the history of the Mavs organization. Yes, I know I'm saying alot, but how could anyone in their right mind make Dirk play second fiddle to Walker? It's just not logical in any manner.

To be brief, Dirk regressed. He took a step back. It wasn't the same Dirk that we had seen developing in the 02-03 season. It wasn't playoff Dirk. Yes, perhaps he should have just told the team to ignore the coach and give the damn ball to him. But hey, let's remember that Dirk was just initially taking his first steps as to being THE GUY on the team in the 02-03 season.

But what's the point of this thread? It's to point out that Dirk COULD have been the Dirk of 04-05 WITH Nash on the court. He had been the same Dirk previously in his career. Anothing point is to point out that we missed out on a year of Diggler domination because of the mismanagement of Nellie. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen this last year? Wouldn't you have liked to see Dirk finishing in the top 3 of the MVP voting? Wouldn't you have liked to see the Mavs getting out of the first round of the playoffs?

Put all the blame on Nellie and anyone else in the organization that made the horrible decision to make a budding MVP candidate take a backseat to Walker.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 12:56 PM

During the final 29 games of the 02-03 season, Dirk scored 20 or more point in 28 of the 29 games.

The one game that he did not score 20 or more points was against Golden State when he managed 18 points in 19 minutes. Dirk left the game injured. Surely if he would have played the second half he could have managed 2 more points.

In short, Dirk was unstoppable..

MikeB · 12-09-2004, 01:34 PM

I agree that there have been stretches where Dirk was unstoppable and getting the ball...even with Nash here. I don't think Nash being gone has made Dirk better but he has stepped into a void that was created when Nash left and Finley got hurt that has him playing at a level he has only been able to play at in the playoffs consistantly.
Alot of Dirk's "improvement" has to be attributed to the fact that Nellie has no one else he feels secure enough with to run the offense thru so Dirk gets all the touches. Unfortunately the other players have tended to stand and watch Dirk go 1 on 1 instead of cutting or moving purposefully(for you Bob Ortegal fans out there [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] ).
With Finley coming back it will be interesting to see if Dirk continues his dominance or if he steps back a little to let Fin step in. That would be a mistake IMO...Fin is more of a complementary player now and should find his niche rather that Dirk deferring to him in any way. My hope is that Fin will hit some of the open jumpers that Queesy,Stack, and Josh have been missing and therefore open it up for Dirk even more.

TwoDeep3 · 12-09-2004, 01:39 PM

Somehow I knew the original post would end up blaming Nellie.

LRB · 12-09-2004, 01:50 PM

There's no doubt that Nellie screwed up last year with the Antoine Walker disaster experiment. I think that we saw the true Dirk in the playoffs last year, but even that wasn't enough with Nellie refusing to play the only true center on the team and many other experiments. I also agree that Dirk would have put up similar numbers with Nash here. However I do thing that Dirk has taken a major step in leadership with Nash being gone. I was at the Pistons game the other night, and I remember seeing Dirk talking and pointing out where players needed to go both on Defense and on offense. He was far more assertive with his teamates that I've ever seen him. That said, I still say that we would have a much better team now if we still had Nash. It will be the future that will tell us if letting Nash go was a success or not.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: TwoDeep3
Somehow I knew the original post would end up blaming Nellie.

Somehow I knew that your post would offer nothing of substance.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB
There's no doubt that Nellie screwed up last year with the Antoine Walker disaster experiment. I think that we saw the true Dirk in the playoffs last year, but even that wasn't enough with Nellie refusing to play the only true center on the team and many other experiments. I also agree that Dirk would have put up similar numbers with Nash here. However I do thing that Dirk has taken a major step in leadership with Nash being gone. I was at the Pistons game the other night, and I remember seeing Dirk talking and pointing out where players needed to go both on Defense and on offense. He was far more assertive with his teamates that I've ever seen him. That said, I still say that we would have a much better team now if we still had Nash. It will be the future that will tell us if letting Nash go was a success or not.

As far as barking out orders and taking over some of the leadership, I agree. With one less leader on the team, it became more important for Dirk to take on more of that responsibility.

jibikao · 12-09-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: TwoDeep3
Somehow I knew the original post would end up blaming Nellie.

And what's wrong with that? He is the COACH and he makes all the decisions. Last year is a STEP BACKWARD. Adding Jamison and Walker did not help Mavs at all. Defense was still horrible and Dirk got over shadowed for no reason. I am glad Cuban traded both of them away.

As a Nash fan, I agree what the poster said. Nash can only be a PLUS on the team rather than a NEGATIVE. Nash is having a career season at PHO right now. Many don't realize how good Nash is until this year and I think many Mavs fans take him for granted.

I don't think Finely wants to take over Dirk's job but NELLIE can. Nelson has the tendency to let Finely take the last shot in the end when Dirk is obviously the go-to guy. I know Nelson has helped Mavs to get great records but I don't think mavs would win any Rings under him. Sad, but true.

Jimmy

dirt_dobber · 12-09-2004, 02:09 PM

Fantastic homework Murph. You sir are a stat master. I think Cuban also bears some of the blame for his man love for Walker.
He AND Nellie put Dirk on a shelf last year. I shudder to think of the greatness we would be seeing now if they would not
have wasted last year.
ANY Coach that would yank around a great player like Dirk like that should be fired for that one reason alone!

.

dude1394 · 12-09-2004, 02:36 PM

It's obvious he missed raef last year.

SeriousSummer · 12-09-2004, 02:40 PM

There'a clearly some truth in the idea that the coaching strategy last year led to Dirk being less effective.

Still, given Nellie had to coach a team with Antoine Walker and Antwan Jamison, two players with considerable ability, I think Nellie had at least to try to find a way to make use of them. To some extent, Nellie may have been too creative for his and the team's good. He may also have stuck with the effort too long.

But how many choices did he have? Bench Walker for the entire season? Play Dirk at small forward? The structure of the team Nelson had to coach was untenable. Bradley is effective in a reserve role--and he might be an effective center in a larger role if playing with a brute of a power forward. Somebody has to do the muscle work, and neither Bradley nor Dirk are well fitted for that role.

At the beginning of the year, before Quis and Josh came along (for which I credit Nellie), Dallas had a team with Nash, Finley, Bradley and five power forwards as its best players (Dirk, Walker, Jamison, Fortson and Najera--Delk was hurt and Best wouldn't run the ball up the court).

Nellie, at least in hindsight, could have done better. But doing so would have meant giving up on finding a way to make use of the talent he did have. In the end, the best you might have accomplished was getting by Sacramento to the second round. As it turned out, there was no way to get any further with the particular talent on last year's team. I still prefer that Nellie made the effort to make something special out of the odd team he had, because the alternative was just to settle for mediocrity.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
There'a clearly some truth in the idea that the coaching strategy last year led to Dirk being less effective.

Still, given Nellie had to coach a team with Antoine Walker and Antwan Jamison, two players with considerable ability, I think Nellie had at least to try to find a way to make use of them. To some extent, Nellie may have been too creative for his and the team's good. He may also have stuck with the effort too long.

But how many choices did he have? Bench Walker for the entire season? Play Dirk at small forward? The structure of the team Nelson had to coach was untenable. Bradley is effective in a reserve role--and he might be an effective center in a larger role if playing with a brute of a power forward. Somebody has to do the muscle work, and neither Bradley nor Dirk are well fitted for that role.

At the beginning of the year, before Quis and Josh came along (for which I credit Nellie), Dallas had a team with Nash, Finley, Bradley and five power forwards as its best players (Dirk, Walker, Jamison, Fortson and Najera--Delk was hurt and Best wouldn't run the ball up the court).

Nellie, at least in hindsight, could have done better. But doing so would have meant giving up on finding a way to make use of the talent he did have. In the end, the best you might have accomplished was getting by Sacramento to the second round. As it turned out, there was no way to get any further with the particular talent on last year's team. I still prefer that Nellie made the effort to make something special out of the odd team he had, because the alternative was just to settle for mediocrity.

Again, I see little logic in negatively impacting one of the most unstoppable offensive forces in the NBA in such a manner as Nellie did last year. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no justification for that. At the end of the day, regardless of the changes around him, the Mavs still had the big 3. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to incorporate the Twans around the Big 3 instead of saying to hell with what occurred the last half of the season in 02-03.

Any coach that would think that it's a better idea to go with Antoine Walker as the point forward instead of riding the giant that Nowitzki was quickly becoming...well, there is no excuse for Nellie's decision. There's no justification for Nellie's decision. Sure, he had to do something to incorporate the 'Twans, but that does not mean you go to as drastic of an extreme as what Nellie did.

chumdawg · 12-09-2004, 03:08 PM

Great observations, Murph. Definitely food for thought. Makes you wonder--shudder to think, actually--if Dirk wouldn't be an even stronger player today if last year's disaster hadn't happen.

I agree with Summer's observations as well. It seems that we have learned that the personnel decisions for the last couple years have excluded Nellie for the most part. He was put into a ridiculous position last year with the team that was assembled--especially if doing something like benching Walker would have brought admonishment from the brass above. I think Nellie should get kudos for handling Jamison well. Obviously the Walker experiments were disasters. At least he got that figured out by the end of the season. But, as Summer also points out, it probably wasn't going to impact the overall success last year anyway.

But in a bigger picture, if it hindered Dirk's development then that would be a terrible thing. I think it's safe to say, though, that Dirk came through last year okay. I haven't looked at those '03 games in detail, but were there any individual games that were as dominant as, say, the 53-point game? It appears that the highs are even higher this year.

It would be interesting to go into a little more depth on those '03 games and look at things like Dirk's stats as a percentage of the team's stats. It would seem that he has smoothly handled taking on the bulk of the workload this year.

But that does lead to an interesting question, which touches on the decisions last year: is this year's team too one-dimensional? You don't have to look far to find examples of one-dimensional teams failing in the playoffs. Sometimes it gets too easy to shut one guy down. Look at the Lakers last year. Two of the most dominant players in the game, but little else, and thus they were too easy to shut down.

So the interesting question would be: is it really in the team's best interest, long-term, for Dirk to carry such a disproportionate load? Would the team have a better chance deep in the playoffs if things were spread around more evenly--as Nellie attempted to do in '03?

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

I haven't looked at those '03 games in detail, but were there any individual games that were as dominant as, say, the 53-point game?

During the 43 game stretch, the most Dirk scored was 39. He did, however, top 30 points in 16 of the 43 games. Basically, he was pretty consistently in the upper 20's to the 30's.

I did mention that his stats were similar if you take it out to the final 57 games. During that stretch, he did top 40 points once.

For the most part, he was amazingly consistent. Like I mentioned before, he scored 20 or more points in 28 of the final 29 games.

jibikao · 12-09-2004, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
There'a clearly some truth in the idea that the coaching strategy last year led to Dirk being less effective.

Still, given Nellie had to coach a team with Antoine Walker and Antwan Jamison, two players with considerable ability, I think Nellie had at least to try to find a way to make use of them. To some extent, Nellie may have been too creative for his and the team's good. He may also have stuck with the effort too long.

But how many choices did he have? Bench Walker for the entire season? Play Dirk at small forward? The structure of the team Nelson had to coach was untenable. Bradley is effective in a reserve role--and he might be an effective center in a larger role if playing with a brute of a power forward. Somebody has to do the muscle work, and neither Bradley nor Dirk are well fitted for that role.

At the beginning of the year, before Quis and Josh came along (for which I credit Nellie), Dallas had a team with Nash, Finley, Bradley and five power forwards as its best players (Dirk, Walker, Jamison, Fortson and Najera--Delk was hurt and Best wouldn't run the ball up the court).

Nellie, at least in hindsight, could have done better. But doing so would have meant giving up on finding a way to make use of the talent he did have. In the end, the best you might have accomplished was getting by Sacramento to the second round. As it turned out, there was no way to get any further with the particular talent on last year's team. I still prefer that Nellie made the effort to make something special out of the odd team he had, because the alternative was just to settle for mediocrity.

Can somebody tell me why Jamison and Walker were traded to Mavs? I never understand this part. Did they really think Dirk could handle the center position or Walker could? Walker is an "ok" player and Jamison is better in my opinion but did Cuban or Nelly really think they can fit in by stealing Dirk's mins/shots? I can't really come up an example but do you think Bulls would include Kobe on MJ's team? Both of them thrive to score and fight for shots and I am sure with Kobe and MJ on the team, it can only be a negative thing. Walker and Jamison are known for scoring and not defense and I just can't understand why Cuban thinks they would fit in. Can somebody explain?

Jimmy

Poindexter Einstein · 12-09-2004, 05:24 PM

The idea that Dirk had the same ability we are seeing now, and excelled in the past, is valid - to an extent. Yet there are other factors, and I do believe Dirk is doing some new things. Is that related to Nash's absence? Probably, though it would be hard to prove either way.

But I dont buy the idea that the shortcomings of last year were due to Nellie having some sort of agenda regarding a point forward, or regarding Walker, to be the focus of the team.

Instead, I believe the organization (from top to bottom) made a direct change in focus - one which all of you would have agreed with in concept, I dare say. They decided: we cant win a title if we dont have a team that rebounds better and is stronger on the inside.

So for last year, their aim was to produce a better rebounding team somehow, while trying to maintain the offensive flow. That led to the additions of Walker and Jamison and Fortson and the subtraction of LaFrentz and Van Exel. They would have preferred a solid low-post center, but none was to be had. They probably made an assumption that Dirk would still excell somehow. Their main goal was likely "how do we get all these guys on the floor in a cohesive manner?"

Yes Nellie went back to an PUBLICIZED use of an old tool he used in prior years, the point forward. But with a need to get rebounders on the floor, he knew that Walker could help in that area. And he appeared to have ball handling skills. Furthermore, when Walker is added at the last minute, and Dirk and Walker play the same position, how does he paint things in a way that might get both players enthusiastic? He did what needed to be done, as I saw things.

Did it work like they hoped? Of course not. Was it a "gimmick"? Not really. Heck, other teams do the same thing and no one cares. The Mavs do it now and no one cares. THE ONLY REASON IT WAS AN ISSUE HERE LAST YEAR WAS BECAUSE (A) PEOPLE OVERREACTED TO NELLIE TALKING ABOUT IT, AND (B) THE TEAM DIDNT WORK AS WELL. I truly believe that if Nellie hadnt made an issue of it, no one here would have noticed or cared as to Walker handling the ball in some sets. It's just basketball.

Was their approach a good one? Yes and no. The rebounding was way better - but the team in general didnt work. Dirk didnt fit as well, because the other rebounders (three PFs) on the floor allowed teams to play Dirk in a different way. They gave it a year, and to their credit they determined they needed to change the makeup of the team to focus on Dirk - there wasnt even a "big 3" concept envisioned this year, for the very first time. The extra PFs all were tossed, and centers were added.

So this year with Walker and Jamison and Fortson and Najera sent away, have we seen the same Dirk as we did in 02-03? Not really. Dirks numbers look similar - but because the team around him offensively is not as efficient, he has become way more of a "dominant force" type of player. Fewer 3s, more drives, more free throws. Heck, even running hook shots here and there. He doesnt get as many finesse baskets, nor as many fast break chances, yet his scoring is at that 02-03 level.

Thats why observers around the NBA are now sitting up and taking notice in a way they didnt do before.

So Dirk in my opinion has gone to a new level this year. And Nellie last year tried to accomplish what was needed, using the tools on the roster.

Thats how I see it.

Stressboy · 12-09-2004, 05:32 PM

I have to disagree Murph.

I think the reason, Dirk and Nash(part of the reason for him - rest being the incredible athletes he gets to run the floor with) both are tearing it up right now is a simple word called - "REST".

After the playoff run, and another long summer of searious international ball for both of them, they came back without any energy. Just ask Rocket fans if they think Yao will ever be anything if he can't get 3-5 months off from the game. Dirk had no legs and it showed in his poor 3pt shooting last year.

Also, Donnie and Cuban were the ones that brought Walker to the team for strictly asset reasons. It helped aquire some good players, but might not pay off for a little while and it does suck using some of Dirks best years getting the team to gel. I bet cuban wishes he had coughed up the 60 mil right now, but he probably would not after the next CBA.

That asside, I don't think Nash or Dirk had enough gas last year for another run, even if they had kept the WCF team together.

If I have a gripe about nellie, it is this years coaching as this team should have started to establish an identity by now and he is still grasping as straws. Play man defense darn it and stick with it, and stop running so many stupid iso's.

Stressboy

Poindexter Einstein · 12-09-2004, 05:37 PM

Stressboy ...Great points.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Stressboy
I have to disagree Murph.

I think the reason, Dirk and Nash(part of the reason for him - rest being the incredible athletes he gets to run the floor with) both are tearing it up right now is a simple word called - "REST".

After the playoff run, and another long summer of searious international ball for both of them, they came back without any energy. Just ask Rocket fans if they think Yao will ever be anything if he can't get 3-5 months off from the game. Dirk had no legs and it showed in his poor 3pt shooting last year.

Also, Donnie and Cuban were the ones that brought Walker to the team for strictly asset reasons. It helped aquire some good players, but might not pay off for a little while and it does suck using some of Dirks best years getting the team to gel. I bet cuban wishes he had coughed up the 60 mil right now, but he probably would not after the next CBA.

That asside, I don't think Nash or Dirk had enough gas last year for another run, even if they had kept the WCF team together.

If I have a gripe about nellie, it is this years coaching as this team should have started to establish an identity by now and he is still grasping as straws. Play man defense darn it and stick with it, and stop running so many stupid iso's.

Stressboy

Yes, Walker was brought in part for asset reasons, but Nellie is the guy that decided how to use AW. His use of AW was nothing short of atrocious.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Yes Nellie went back to an PUBLICIZED use of an old tool he used in prior years, the point forward. But with a need to get rebounders on the floor, he knew that Walker could help in that area. And he appeared to have ball handling skills. Furthermore, when Walker is added at the last minute, and Dirk and Walker play the same position, how does he paint things in a way that might get both players enthusiastic? He did what needed to be done, as I saw things.

This is absolutely brilliant. He did what needed to be done as you saw things? Well, apparently you saw things in the same warped way in which Nellie saw things. Can you justify making Walker as much or more of an offensive focus as Dirk? How can you? Yes, getting more rebounders on the floor is important, but that's not really addressing much of the offensive issues is it? Does getting more rebounders on the court have much to do with the offense running through Walker? Does getting more rebounders on the court have a damn thing to do with Walker averaging more FGA's and getting more touches through much of the first half of the season? No, of course not.

Everyone has admitted to this error, but you continue to contend that it was the right thing to do. How?

Poindexter Einstein · 12-09-2004, 06:14 PM

I dont disagree that Walker on the Mavs was a square peg in a round hole. But I think Nellie did a good job of trying to find a fit, somehow, someway - and unfortunately, Walker just never worked out. You want to find a way to skewer Nellie because Walker was a knucklehead, and I just think you are flat out wrong with that.

You have beat the drum that Walker's use as a sometime ball handler somehow made WALKER the offensive focus by design. I say that is utter nonsense both as to design AND as to result. Walker was a SOMETIME BALL HANDLER. At times he passed the ball. At times Nash did. All that matters is that you have players playing ball, someone passes and someone gets a good shot. Hopefully.

Unfortunately coaches can only coach, but they cant always get the "knucklehead" to fit, even though they try every which way. The design of all offenses ALLOW idiots to mess it up if they just dont get it. To Nellie's credit he kept looking for ways to use Walker that would help the team, and also retain any trade value. Benching permanently wasnt a good option for the long term benefit of the Mavs.

Evilmav2 · 12-09-2004, 07:29 PM

Quote:

but Nellie is the guy that decided how to use AW. His use of AW was nothing short of atrocious.

I really don't see how Nelson could have handled that particular question any better. After the Boston trade, I can't see that there were any choices open to the Mad Scientist aside from:

A) Starting Antoine Walker at his accustomed power forward spot (a position where he had been an all-star in Boston).
B) Bringing 'Toine off the bench as the 6th man.
C) Starting Walker at an unaccustomed postion, namely at the 3 spot as 'Point Forward'.

Now, the presence of Dirk on our Mavs precluded Nelson starting Walker at power forward, and Nelson determined (probably rightly) that Antawn Jamison was better suited to play as an energy, 6th man than Walker would have been. Consequently, Big Don utilized Walker in the only logical fashion left open for him- playing him at the 3 spot, where the skilled, ball-handling, pass-adept forward could hopefully learn to play away from the basket and initiate the Nelson offense in much the same way that Chris Mullin did for so many years with the Golden State Warriors.

Of course, as we all know, this experiment unfortunately failed, but I see that failure as being more the result of a badly-constructed, redundant roster, rather than as an indictment of Nelson's coaching acumen. Simply put, our 2003-2004 Mavs had too many power forwards on the roster, and we just didn't have enough minutes to parse out to them without playing them out of position. In this sense, Walker, Jamison, Fortson, and Najera were all placed in a dire position of having to change their games in order to fit into our crowded rotation, and as such they were all set up for failure last year. As it happened, Jamison was able to carve out the most successful rotation role from amongst our unfortunate forwards, but that was principally because he ate up all of the bench power-forward minutes that Dirk left open. All the others were forced to play out of position, and it made them all look bad (Fortson at center, Walker at 'point forward', Najera at small forward/center).

In my opinion, Nelson did a pretty gosh-darned good job of utilizing the talent that he had last year, and he did a commendable job of trying to make the disparate pieces of our 03-04 Mavs fit into a coherent rotation, but his efforts were ultimately confounded by the inherently imbalanced, power forward-heavy, constitution of his roster. In this sense, both Nelson's coaching, and the reputations of some of our mis-utilized, redundant players of last season, both ended up looking considerably worse than I believe they deserved to...

bloodyhell · 12-09-2004, 08:30 PM

You forgot dirks added shot blocking and better all around defense.

Murphy3 · 12-09-2004, 09:18 PM

The argument that Nellie couldn't have used AW any differently makes absolutely no sense. Didn't he use AW in a completely different manner than he did early in the season?

Come on, give me a break. That argument holds no water.

And yes, I know that Nellie was just trying to find a fit for Walker. But just one time PE..tell me why it was a good idea to make him as big of a focus to the offense? You've never explained that. All you've said is that Nellie had to find a fit. No crap. The company that I work for just hired a new staff accountant. Guess what, they made a mistake and are slightly overstaffed at that position now. Don't they have to find a fit? Yes, of course or get rid of him. I suppose the fit they need to find is to move one of them to a higher position. Hey, let's bump the most important person in the department down a notch. Let's make the new staff accountant the Controller because we've got to find some type of fit to make this work. That is what the Mavs did in the AW/Dirk situation to start last year.

bloodyhell · 12-09-2004, 09:46 PM

I think most people would agree that A.W. shouldn't have been playing as much as he did last year.

Poindexter Einstein · 12-09-2004, 11:55 PM

MURPHY ..I have answered this question for you repeatedly. You dont understand the answer for some reason - maybe you never played basketball, maybe all you understand is stats, maybe you are so intent on slamming Nellie at any cost that you dont realize coaches dont have robots for players - or maybe you just dont want an answer.

I will say it again.

The offensive focus was not around Walker. Ever. You seem to get this wide-eyed crazed look when you hear the words "point forward" and you instantly leap to the conclusion that "oh no, a point forward equals the offensive focus." Nope, wrong, utter nonsense. A point forward is merely a forward (not a guard) who handles the ball regularly. He is not Mr Basketball. He just passes the ball. Does that preclude Dirk from the offense? Nope, again such a view is utter nonsense. Indeed, Dirk was the INTENDED recipient (along with Fin and Nash) of the passes from having multiple points on the floor.

Now why is that bad for Dirk? IT ISN'T.

Then what was the problem? At it's core, the problem was that "Walker didnt get it." If it had worked, it would have been a great benefit. Nellie gave it lots of time - but note also, he didnt scrap everything else. In spurts, he tried other "solutions" also AS THEY WENT ALONG. Other than Nash, no one on the team was very good at passing the ball, and they eventually wandered into Marquis late in the year as a viable answer. (At the start of the year, he was a raw rookie, so he had lots to learn before he was able to show extra skills.)

So my answer to you is several fold. (1) Walker was NOT the offensive focus at any time for the Mavs. They didnt try to do that. Ever. (2) Walker did take too many shots at times, and didnt shoot well enough to justify it. He was an idiot. They didnt plan it that way, however. (3) I didnt say they couldnt have used Walker differently. In fact, they tried him MANY different ways. You are the one that seems to think they only tried one thing with him - that is not my view. Unfortunately, everything they tried didnt really work. Thats a bad player - or a bad fit - but it isnt bad coaching, when a player just sucks regardless of how you use him. (4) As to why they didnt instantly scrap their attempts to get it to work, my view is that coaching, and offense, is not usually an easy quick solution. So to try it for a week or two, then drop it, made no sense. Nellie knew that it would work and help the team IF WALKER EVER CAUGHT ON. Unfortunately, he never really seemed to. So you give it some time, mix in a few variations and alternatives to see if those are better or more effective, and eventually you make a determination. They did. I have no fault with such an approach.

I have been there as a coach and as a player. Nellie does things that I question from time to time - but this attempt to create a better team out of bad parts was not one that I see any real problems with from any angle. That team was flawed, and the parts never fit for various reasons - but the problem was too many PFs and no real center, when all was said and done. And no matter what you did with Walker, that flaw was impossible to overcome.

BLOODY ... I would be one to disagree with you. I think Walker had to play, because the team didnt have enough quality big men, plus they needed to maximize his trade potential if things didnt gel. The problem as I see it was, he needed to play BETTER, and he never lived up to what they HOPED he could add here, regardless of what they tried.

bloodyhell · 12-10-2004, 12:44 AM

I liked jamison at the 3 and dirk at the 4. I would have started bradley and then looked to some centers in europe as backup. Of course I said this all last year.

4cwebb · 12-10-2004, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Can somebody tell me why Jamison and Walker were traded to Mavs? I never understand this part. Did they really think Dirk could handle the center position or Walker could? Walker is an "ok" player and Jamison is better in my opinion but did Cuban or Nelly really think they can fit in by stealing Dirk's mins/shots? I can't really come up an example but do you think Bulls would include Kobe on MJ's team? Both of them thrive to score and fight for shots and I am sure with Kobe and MJ on the team, it can only be a negative thing. Walker and Jamison are known for scoring and not defense and I just can't understand why Cuban thinks they would fit in. Can somebody explain?

Jimmy

I know the Mavs got Jamison b/c their previously horrible SF situation allowed SFs to guard Dirk constantly, and at the time when his post game was not quite as developed back in 02-03, it bothered him because he wasn't getting the space he was used to having to be effective with his jumper. The addition of Walker was just getting rid of Raef's contract (which was stupid when it was signed, and the Mavs realized it just a bit too late).

dude1394 · 12-10-2004, 01:25 AM

I don't have a clue why those trades were made other than to get rid of raef's and nve's contract. Really, no clue whatsoever. And of course as anyone familiar with MY redudant posting, I think that blowing up the team last year was stupid in the extreme. Still do.

Poindexter Einstein · 12-10-2004, 02:25 AM

DUDE ... The impetus to change that team, a year ago, was their sense that it just wasnt strong enough physically and athletically to ever win a title. As fun as they were to watch, they were very weak at center, and they couldnt rebound worth a lick. They had age. They lacked athleticism.

It is impossible to know what several years of "no change" would have done, but I cant honestly say I see them as being able to grab a title, even with more time together.

If that is indeed the case (that your team is not good enough), do you settle for several years of fun to watch elite teams, that play a few rounds in the playoffs? Or do you replace the pieces to fix the flaws and try to improve to a championship caliber level? I would do the latter - and I think everyone who is a Mav fan (including you) would have been frustrated with the status quo and no real shot at titles, had they settled for that course.