Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

More on the Mavs

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver <deano@rawbw.com>
    I guess one of the underlying questions of why people (7/11, according to the poll) think the Kings are likely to win the title is: Do we think the Kings will
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
      I guess one of the underlying questions of why people (7/11,
      according to the poll) think the Kings are likely to win the title
      is: Do we think the Kings will end up with the best regular season
      record over the Mavs?

      I'll set up a poll for that, too. Clearly, most people pick one team
      at the start of the season to have the best regular season record and
      win the title. It's cases where we don't think that will happen that
      require some understanding.

      More informally, do we think the Mavs D -- if it's a gimmick -- is
      going to get worse as the season progresses? I think I see
      indications of that.

      DeanO
    • igorkupfer@rogers.com
      ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:30 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] More on the Mavs
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <deano@...>
        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:30 PM
        Subject: [APBR_analysis] More on the Mavs
        <snip>

        > More informally, do we think the Mavs D -- if it's a gimmick -- is
        > going to get worse as the season progresses? I think I see
        > indications of that.
        >

        Of the last 10 Mavs games, 9 have been against opponents they've faced earlier in the
        season (Miami being the exception). If we look at those 9 games, we see that the Mavs
        are 6-3 over that span, with an Offensive Rating of 119.6 and a Defensive Rating of
        03.9.

        Looking at the games played against those opponents earlier in the season, we see that
        the Mavs had an ORtg of 106.8 and a DRtg of 105.6, while posting a 5-4 record.

        The Mavs "gimmick" defense seems robust enough to be effective over the course of the
        season -- their opponents fared no better in general facing it the second team.


        1st meeting most recent meeting

        tm fga fta or to pts w/l tm fga fta or to pts w/l

        @ dal 81 28 15 10 92 W dal 85 18 6 15 106 W
        was 74 27 6 14 86 @ was 90 18 10 10 101
        @ dal 84 18 8 13 103 W dal 77 25 6 9 100 W
        hou 80 22 10 17 90 @ hou 85 28 23 16 85
        dal 93 13 6 11 104 L @ dal 82 19 13 13 95 W
        @ san 84 26 12 17 111 san 68 27 5 18 87
        dal 88 19 8 8 117 W @ dal 78 17 10 18 105 W
        @ atl 89 22 14 13 99 atl 79 37 19 18 79
        dal 95 20 13 14 119 W dal 85 20 15 16 110 W
        @ mem 77 32 6 21 108 @ mem 76 36 8 9 103
        @ dal 102 26 16 6 107 L dal 97 17 14 5 114 L
        mil 88 20 11 15 110 @ mil 82 27 8 12 120
        @ dal 91 23 15 5 112 W dal 82 19 6 14 98 L
        min 94 14 14 11 109 @ min 79 26 12 21 100
        dal 91 16 13 17 94 L @ dal 87 24 7 8 109 L
        @ sac 87 19 11 16 123 sac 85 23 7 14 110
        @ dal 75 31 10 12 81 L dal 84 7 8 11 92 W
        uta 71 37 11 19 93 @ uta 76 19 14 14 90


        tm fga fta or to pts w/l tm fga fta or to pts w/l
        Tot dal 800 194 104 96 929 5-4 dal 757 166 85 109 929 6-3
        opp 744 219 95 143 929 opp 720 241 106 132 875

        Ortg 106.8 Ortg 109.6
        Drtg 105.6 Drtg 103.9
      • igorkupfer@rogers.com
        ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] More on the Mavs
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <igorkupfer@...>
          To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:44 PM
          Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] More on the Mavs
          > Of the last 10 Mavs games, 9 have been against opponents they've faced earlier in the
          > season (Miami being the exception). If we look at those 9 games, we see that the Mavs
          > are 6-3 over that span, with an Offensive Rating of 119.6 and a Defensive Rating of
          > 03.9.

          Typo: that should read

          If we look at those 9 games, we see that the Mavs are 6-3 over that span, with an
          Offensive Rating of 109.6 and a Defensive Rating of 103.9.
        • Kevin Pelton <kpelton08@hotmail.com>
          ... It s a double-edged sword. I voted for Sacramento - though the Lakers are beginning to sway me - and will pick Dallas for the regular- season poll. That
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver <deano@r...>"
            <deano@r...> wrote:
            >
            > I guess one of the underlying questions of why people (7/11,
            > according to the poll) think the Kings are likely to win the title
            > is: Do we think the Kings will end up with the best regular season
            > record over the Mavs?
            >
            > I'll set up a poll for that, too. Clearly, most people pick one
            > team at the start of the season to have the best regular season
            > record and win the title. It's cases where we don't think that
            > will happen that require some understanding.
            >
            > More informally, do we think the Mavs D -- if it's a gimmick -- is
            > going to get worse as the season progresses? I think I see
            > indications of that.

            It's a double-edged sword. I voted for Sacramento - though the Lakers
            are beginning to sway me - and will pick Dallas for the regular-
            season poll. That doesn't necessarily mean I think the Mavericks will
            be less effective in the playoffs, but more that I think the Kings
            will be *more* effective, for a couple of reasons.

            The first, obviously, is injuries. Dallas hasn't seen its big three
            affected at all. The most serious injury they've faced that I can
            think of off-hand is to Raef LaFrentz. Sacramento, on the other hand,
            has been hit fairly hard. Obviously their record would be much better
            if Webber and Jackson/Bibby had been healthy all year.

            The other factor is I question whether home-court means as much to
            the Kings this season, and have since the fall. Losing to the Lakers
            at home in a game seven is bound to make a team question the value of
            home-court as I see it, so maybe they're not as willing to give 110%
            in the regular season and go all-out for the home-court.
          • Michael Tamada
            ... From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@rawbw.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:30 AM To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Subject:
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Dean Oliver <deano@...> [mailto:deano@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:30 AM
              To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [APBR_analysis] More on the Mavs

              [...]

              >I'll set up a poll for that, too. Clearly, most people pick one team
              >at the start of the season to have the best regular season record and
              >win the title. It's cases where we don't think that will happen that
              >require some understanding.
              >
              >More informally, do we think the Mavs D -- if it's a gimmick -- is
              >going to get worse as the season progresses? I think I see
              >indications of that.

              I guess what we should do is a study of playoff performances; series which ended in upsets and series where the higher seed won. What were the characteristics of the playoff losers, especially the upset losers. Here's some ideas, most of these have already been mentioned:

              -- Reliance on gimmick defenses (Mavs' use of zone; Sonics' use of Kloppenburg's trapping D in the mid-1990s) is one hypothesis.

              --Lack of defense in general(RunTMC Warriors; 1980s Moe Nuggets).

              --Reliance on depth rather than a few superstars.

              --Lack of playoff experience; I'm not sure whether that should be measured as the team's playoff experience, or the sum or mean of it's individual players' experience.

              --Reliance on players who either tend to choke or who don't have the talent to perform well against high-level competition (Tom Chambers would transform from a 24 point scorer in the regular season to a 15 point, 40% shooter around the 2nd round or so of the playoffs).


              I think those are concrete versions of the subjective fuzzy things that we use when we predict playoff failures for certain types of teams. In the Mavs favor I think is that they're now a playoff-tested, battle-experienced team, from their series last year against the Kings (still one of my favorite playoff series from the last several years: two teams actually willing to run and shoot). Against them is the Gimmick D accusation, and possibly their depth -- although they've got the superstars or near-superstars (I'd call Nowitzki a superstar and Nash and Finley near-superstars), I think some of their regular season wins come from the large amount of talent they've got on their roster (van Exel, etc.).


              --MKT
            • Dean Oliver <deano@rawbw.com>
              ... series which ended in upsets and series where the higher seed won. What were the characteristics of the playoff losers, especially the upset losers.
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                wrote:
                > >More informally, do we think the Mavs D -- if it's a gimmick -- is
                > >going to get worse as the season progresses? I think I see
                > >indications of that.
                >
                > I guess what we should do is a study of playoff performances;
                series which ended in upsets and series where the higher seed won.
                What were the characteristics of the playoff losers, especially the
                upset losers. Here's some ideas, most of these have already been
                mentioned:
                >
                > -- Reliance on gimmick defenses (Mavs' use of zone; Sonics' use of
                Kloppenburg's trapping D in the mid-1990s) is one hypothesis.
                >

                Tough to characterize. We'd need a whole list of gimmick D's and I
                certainly don't have one.

                > --Lack of defense in general(RunTMC Warriors; 1980s Moe Nuggets).
                >

                This one is problematic. The Lakers of 2001 were not a good
                defensive team in the regular season overall. Their last 10-15 games
                kicked it in, though, and they sustained it in the playoffs.
                Everyone seemed to know that they would, too.

                > --Reliance on depth rather than a few superstars.
                >
                > --Lack of playoff experience; I'm not sure whether that should be
                measured as the team's playoff experience, or the sum or mean of it's
                individual players' experience.
                >

                Not sure how it matters, too. The Kings did well last year after a
                bunch of lousy playoff showings. Do we weight it by how deep they
                get?

                > --Reliance on players who either tend to choke or who don't have
                the talent to perform well against high-level competition (Tom
                Chambers would transform from a 24 point scorer in the regular season
                to a 15 point, 40% shooter around the 2nd round or so of the
                playoffs).
                >

                Ugh. Who would that be? Chris Webber? David Robinson? I don't
                really want to pursue this one.

                DeanO
              • Gary Collard
                ... But not play D...around these parts the most repeated stat of the season is that, of 207 Sac FG in that series, 115 of them were layups or dunks. That
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 26, 2003
                  Michael Tamada wrote:
                  >
                  > the Mavs favor I think is that they're now a playoff-tested,
                  > battle-experienced team, from their series last year against the Kings
                  > (still one of my favorite playoff series from the last several years:
                  > two teams actually willing to run and shoot).

                  But not play D...around these parts the most repeated stat of the season is
                  that, of 207 Sac FG in that series, 115 of them were layups or dunks. That
                  could be only in the four losses, now that I think about it, not sure if
                  that is for four or five games. Whatever it was, it showed that you can
                  take the coach out of the RunTMC, but you can't take the RunTMC out of the
                  coach :)

                  --
                  Gary Collard
                  SABR-L Moderator
                  collardg@...

                  "Every time I see the U.S. flag, I don't see the flag only
                  representative of a country, but I see it as a symbol of
                  democracy and of freedom."
                  -- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
                • Dean Oliver <deano@rawbw.com>
                  ... Kings ... season is ... dunks. That ... sure if ... you can ... of the ... Having watched the most recent matchup between these two and seeing a bunch of
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 1, 2003
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
                    wrote:
                    > Michael Tamada wrote:
                    > >
                    > > the Mavs favor I think is that they're now a playoff-tested,
                    > > battle-experienced team, from their series last year against the
                    Kings
                    > > (still one of my favorite playoff series from the last several
                    years:
                    > > two teams actually willing to run and shoot).
                    >
                    > But not play D...around these parts the most repeated stat of the
                    season is
                    > that, of 207 Sac FG in that series, 115 of them were layups or
                    dunks. That
                    > could be only in the four losses, now that I think about it, not
                    sure if
                    > that is for four or five games. Whatever it was, it showed that
                    you can
                    > take the coach out of the RunTMC, but you can't take the RunTMC out
                    of the
                    > coach :)

                    Having watched the most recent matchup between these two and seeing a
                    bunch of layups, I decided to look at the Mavs trend this year.
                    Their D has definitely taken a dumper over the season after starting
                    off so well. They started off well through November, got bad in
                    early December, recovered a bit in late December to early January,
                    but have been bad since. Not really even average, but bad. The game
                    against the Kings was also bad.

                    Nowitzki gets a bad rap for his defense, but some of it is just that
                    his team sets him up for failure. He is not a bad defender at help
                    defense or getting boards. He's not particularly good on the ball,
                    especially against quicker guys. He's ok against big slow guys like
                    himself, but the Mavs leave him on an island and seem to assign him
                    to guys he shouldn't be covering. (He also needs a couple basic
                    lessons in stopping a shot.)

                    I didn't see a lot of the Mavs early on and their zone. But they
                    must have been communicating a bit better then. They seem to be
                    slacking right now. Their net point difference over the last month
                    and a half is not that of a 60 win team -- that would be a numerical
                    indicator for why we don't think they'll win, as well as some of the
                    other things we've said. The question is whether they can get their
                    D back. Is anyone down in the Big D talking about Better D? I'm not
                    there, so I don't know. I do believe that these Mavs can win the
                    title and have a very good chance IF they commit to defense (note the
                    big IF). I don't hear that commitment to D and I'd say the odds are
                    not great of them figuring out how to make that improvement.

                    DeanO
                  • Gary Collard
                    ... Oh, absolutely. All of it is covered regularly - the soft D, poor rebounding, 1-5 record against the top teams. The thing is, I think it has led to the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 1, 2003
                      "Dean Oliver " wrote:
                      >
                      > Is anyone down in the Big D talking about Better D? I'm not
                      > there, so I don't know.

                      Oh, absolutely. All of it is covered regularly - the soft D, poor
                      rebounding, 1-5 record against the top teams. The thing is, I think it has
                      led to the general fan being a bit more reserved in his expectations for
                      this team, and that is probably a good thing. Looking back at Det v Bos,
                      Chi v Det, and Sac v LAL, the team trying to get over the hump usually does
                      not do it in their second try. History tells us that Sac may well be ready
                      to beat LAL, but Dal is not yet ready to take that next step.

                      The good news for the locals is that they will probably get a Stanley Cup
                      out of the deal, a decent consolation prize.

                      --
                      Gary Collard
                      SABR-L Moderator
                      collardg@...

                      "Every time I see the U.S. flag, I don't see the flag only
                      representative of a country, but I see it as a symbol of
                      democracy and of freedom."
                      -- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
                    • John Hollinger <alleyoop2@yahoo.com>
                      My own supposition is that the Mavs will have the best record, but if the Kings had been in one piece they would have at least matched it; my playoff
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 3, 2003
                        My own supposition is that the Mavs will have the best record, but if
                        the Kings had been in one piece they would have at least matched it;
                        my playoff prediction assumes equal health by both clubs.




                        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver <deano@r...>"
                        <deano@r...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I guess one of the underlying questions of why people (7/11,
                        > according to the poll) think the Kings are likely to win the title
                        > is: Do we think the Kings will end up with the best regular season
                        > record over the Mavs?
                        >
                        > I'll set up a poll for that, too. Clearly, most people pick one
                        team
                        > at the start of the season to have the best regular season record
                        and
                        > win the title. It's cases where we don't think that will happen
                        that
                        > require some understanding.
                        >
                        > More informally, do we think the Mavs D -- if it's a gimmick -- is
                        > going to get worse as the season progresses? I think I see
                        > indications of that.
                        >
                        > DeanO
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.