SB Nation User Blog: Jakedfw

Marion Trade Agreed To By Memphis, Toronto, Dallas

Jakedfw — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:14:39 -0000

UPDATE: Now it looks like Orlando is involved due to Toronto looking for a sign & trade with Hedu Turkoglu. Look for the smoke to clear on Thursday.

Both the Associated Press and ESPN are reporting that the trade sending Toronto Raptors forward Shawn Marion to the Mavericks has been agreed to by Toronto and the Memphis Grizzlies. The three team trade sends Jerry Stackhouse and cash to the Grizzlies, while Toronto gets Devean George and Antoine Wright and their expiring contracts. Dallas receives Shawn Marion and forward Kris Humphries.

The Damp Bombshell

Jakedfw — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:27:38 -0000

Earlier this week, Dallasbasketball.com's David Lord took a look at Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract for 2010 and realized that it was a huge asset for acquiring one of the players amongst the amazing free agent class of next year. I can't believe that the story hasn't received significant national attention as it has spectacular implications.

There are a lot of questions about this situation, so I'll provide you with two scenarios below to illustrate how it could work. But first to answer two questions I've seen:

Can't another team do this? No, no other team has a non-guaranteed contract remotely close to the size of Dampier's.
Couldn't the Mavs trade Dampier this year for something so another team could use this chip next year? The Mavs could, but the one element of this that no one discusses is the absolutely massive impact this will have on the team's payroll. Teams willing to use this chip have to theoretically be willing to take on upwards of $30 million a year in extra payroll if you include the luxury tax. Very very few teams would be willing to swallow that much of a commitment for one player.

Let's use Dwyane Wade as an example as to how this could go:

The Knicks with a better roster than Miami and lots of cap space go to Wade and offer him the max they can.
Wade goes to Riley and says, "Look, I have a better chance of winning in New York. I'm not taking the extra year from you, I'm going to New York."
Riley, having already talked to Donnie Nelson, replies, "How about this: We'll sign you for more than you can make in New York AND you can go play in Dallas with Jason Kidd and their 50 win team."
Wade goes, "Shucks, I'm adding Cuban to my fave five right now!"
Riley goes to Cuban and says, "I want max cash and some draft picks, and you can have Wade."
Cuban looks at his payroll, slaps his forehead and swallows hard, and then sends Dampier and a second filler contract and the other stuff to Miami.

Some comments on this scenario:

New York is powerless here. They can't offer more money than Dallas, and their team simply isn't as good as the Mavericks.
Miami can nix this whole scenario, but why would they? They would be facing what Dallas did when Steve Nash left--nothing in return for losing a star player.

The results:

Wade joins Dallas.
Dallas' payroll goes into the stratosphere.
Dampier and a scrub joins Miami and both are cut.
Miami gets cash and draft picks and the same cap room they would have had if Wade left for nothing.
New York gets nothing.

Now, how realistic is this scenario? What exactly needs to happen for it to become a reality? Isn't this just a pipe dream? Answers after the jump.

What makes this a realistic scenario for the Mavs is the unique nature of two things: The Mavs can offer max money, and they can offer a roster that would contend for a title. However, there are nuances here that make things tricky. Let's look at them now.

For the Dampier chip to work, it must start with a player willing to take less money elsewhere to play for a contender (which is always a dicey proposition). That, to me, is the biggest drawback of this scenario. Of course, that's also what makes it good for Dallas, so there you go.

Here's what I mean, using Wade again:

Let's assume Wade wants the $$$ first and foremost. His second criteria is playing for a contender. In the NBA, this is always a pretty safe assumption unless you're talking about 30+ guys at the end of their careers. Let's also make the assumption that Wade's agent knows about the Dampier contract S&T possibilities. Actually, don't assume this: They WILL know about it.
New York or one of the other teams with massive cap room comes to Wade and offers him the max. Miami says, "We'll give you that PLUS the extra year, which is MORE money!" Wade doesn't want to play for a crap team like New York but he DOES want the $$$$. He also doesn't want to play for a crap team like Miami, but Miami is at least offering more $$$$. Hrm, his agent is thinking he can call in the Dampier chip. That gives Wade EVERYTHING he wants. Let's pause and be clear here: There is only ONE scenario that gives Wade everything he wants: Dallas.
However, for the Dampier contract to work, Wade has to illustrate to Miami that he is clearly willing to leave Miami for New York's lower $$$ offer. Because if Miami thinks Wade is bluffing and really just wants the money then they'll just make the max offer in a "take it or leave it" fashion. The Dampier chip actually hurts their negotiating position at keeping Wade, because now they aren't the only team that can pay Wade max $$$. However, THEY are the ones in control of making that happen.
And here's where the trouble lies: If Miami thinks that Wade is all about the Benjamins, then they hold all the cards. They do NOT have to play ball with Dallas if they think Wade won't leave to take less money. So the player must make it clear that he'd leave for less money.

The Mavs are in excellent position if the teams looking to re-sign their big name free agents in 2010 honestly feel that they are going to lose them to another team. Actually, in that scenario, the Mavs aren't just in an excellent position, they are in a better position than EVERY team with massive cap space. Excluding their existing teams, Dallas is the only club that can offer free agents max money and a contender as a destination.

In the future, a good way to examine how this plays out is to look at what the players are saying. If a player starts saying that he wants to play for a contender and that he is withholding his 2010 decision until he sees what his current team does in terms of building a contender, then you have a good indication that the Dampier chip can be put in play.

Stay tuned.

"What Do We Do Now?" Open Thread

Jakedfw — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:37:12 -0000

Trade scenarios. Draft picks. Outline our weaknesses and holes that need filled. Leave your comments below.

What Is Wrong With You People?

Jakedfw — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:59:57 -0000

More photos » by Matt Slocum - AP

Dallas' 2008-2009 defense proudly on display.

Browse more photos »

Practically every piece of commentary on the Mavs exit from the playoffs and their season comes to the feel-good conclusion that the Mavs were "beaten by a better team," "should be proud of themselves," or "had a great season." Such an attitude is an insult to a team that won 67 games two years ago and whose core went to the NBA Finals. We're proud of a team that gave up 124 points in a must win game to Denver? To hell with that, I'm disgusted with them.

At least I have some good company. Dirk said in his exit interview: "It's only a successful season if you win a title." Exactly. This is an unsuccessful team. Bottom line. What are we, Hawks fans, who are happy just to have made it past the first round?

I'd feel differently if this team's gaping hole wasn't fixable. It's defense, and the fact is that this team had a top ten defense in the league last year, and it's now in the land of mediocrity. Heck, our defense is closer to the Oklahoma City Thunder than it is to the Denver Nuggets. How could such a thing happen? We upgraded our defense at the 2 spot for a good chunk of the minutes this year. Was Diop and Devin Harris the linchpin of our defense?Yikes.

I'd be willing to pin this on personnel changes or injuries if I hadn't seen embarassing game after embarassing game of little effort on the defensive end. It's like Carlisle took all year to make sure his offense was prepped for the post-season (which he did), but--oops--he forgot about the defense.

So, no, I'm not willing to admit we lost to a better team. I'm not happy about getting past the first round, and I'm definitely not on the "Let's just get some new names on the roster, and we'll be fine" bandwagon. The defensive issues this team has are core to everyone, from top to bottom, and that will not be fixed by simply trading a Barea for an Artest. It will help, but it won't get you where you need to be on the defensive end. That takes commitment and a total buy-in from the entire team. And I haven't seen that all year.

That is the story of these playoffs: A team unwilling (not unable, unwilling) to play defense, and that is not worth celebrating in any form or fashion.

Two Ways To Win Tonight

Jakedfw — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:38:08 -0000

In my Denver series preview I stated that the Mavericks had to push the pace to win. I went so far as to say:

(DMN writer David) Moore thinks that if the scores edge over 105 this game is a quick exit for the Mavs, I think the opposite: If the Mavs can get the scores over 110, they are in the driver seat.

Clearly I was right and Moore was wrong, as our one victory was the one where the teams scored over 110. :)

Actually, it's not so much the scores that I thought were important so much as the pace. My perception was that for the Mavs to counter Denver's much better half court defense they had to create a chaotic very fast pace to minimize it, as the Denver transition defense is much weaker. That absolutely happened in game four, where the pace was a scorching 101. However, the Mavs also "won" game three, where the pace was a moderate 92. What happened there?

Ah, I'm glad you asked, because it reveals the razor thin opportunties that the Mavs have to win this series. What happened in game three was basically what happened in San Antonio, and it is, indeed, a way for the Mavs to win, but it's also very risky. What is it? Well, as I outlined in my series preview:

Dallas got past San Antonio by basically using the Phoenix strategy: Don't worry about defense, just outperform them on the offensive end so much that it won't matter. This is obviously much harder against a Denver team with a formidable offense, but the Dallas offense is so good that it is still possible.

So the optimist in me looks at tonight and sees two possibilities for victory:

The Mavs offense plays at an exceptional level, while containing the Nuggets to an average to slightly above average performance.
The pace of the game is high enough that the much better Denver half court defense is minimized.

Of course, the two work hand-in-hand. Negating a Denver defensive advantage allows our offense to perform better.

There's an easy way to assess the game as it goes along: If the Mavs are scoring between 25-30 points per quarter, then they are in the zone where a win is distinctly possible. Bump that up to 30-35 and then you can do your happy dance. Of course it also requires the defense to at least do a decent job of holding Denver back. If the defense falls on its face like they did in game two, then all bets are off and the Mavs have no hope.

Some notes:

I expect Denver to continue to have foul trouble. Dirk is on a mission, and he appears to be single-handedly removing Denver players from the floor due to foul trouble.
Josh Howard is the wildcard. You can no longer scoff at his importance to the team. If he is too hurt to be effective, everything I outlined above becomes that much harder, if not impossible. Yes, I'm basically saying that we have no hope without Howard being effective.
I'm curious if we'll see Carlisle toss the small ball team out there more often, with Bass playing in place of Dampier. I'm guessing yes after what we saw in game four. This also dovetails with my thoughts above in regards to offense. Quite simply, a Dirk/Bass frontline is harder to guard than a Damp/Dirk frontline--with the amount of isolations being given to Dirk, Damp's role has become less important. Of course, that crazy Birdman character can screw everything up by scoring instead of fouling.

Quick Look At Game Two

Jakedfw — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:24:27 -0000

I haven't had time to put together a comprehensive post like I would have liked, but I definitely have some strong feelings about game one, some of them perhaps unexpected. Suffice to say that the rule-of-thumb that the Mavs should do the opposite of what the Dallas Morning News' Jean-Jacques Taylor recommends is in effect here.

Taylor recommends the Mavs get physical and unleash some hard fouls on the Nuggets. This is absolute stupidity, as it was a lack of discipline and a huge foul discrepency that killed the Mavs in the first game. What the Mavs need to do is foul less not more. One of the reasons the Mavs fouled a lot is due to their weak defense--when you can't stop a person with your defense, the last gasp is to foul him. The good news is that this actually worked for the Mavs in a sense, since the Nuggets were well below their normal offensive performance of late. Still, you don't want to make a habit of using the free throw line as your core defense. Ultimately, it will start taking your players off the floor.

The real story of the game to my view was the 20 turnovers. Further down the page in my game preview I recommended that the Mavs play fast and with discipline. This strategy undercuts Denver's best defense, which is aggressive and gambling in nature. In short, if you make good judgments on the court, Denver's defense can be frustrated. Unfortunately, the Mavs fell right into the Nuggets trap and played a horrible offensive game thanks to their lack of discipline.

The interesting thing for me is that I'm more optimistic about this series after the game one loss than I was heading into the series. Our defense did an admirable job against a first-rate offense, and our offense showed that it was missing one piece: Discipline. If you were to tell me that the critical adjustment heading into game two for the Mavs was to show better control and judgment on the offensive side of the ball three days ago, I'd be quite happy about the Mavs chances, and that's where I'm at today.

So let's not fall into Jean-Jacques Taylor's knee jerk reactionism. All the Mavs need to do is show more discipline, and they very well may steal home court advantage.

Jake's Mavs-Nugs Series Preview

Jakedfw — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:15:28 -0000

This is a complex series to assess due to both teams taking their performances to a new level at the end of the season and into the playoffs. As a result, looking at past performances is not as big an indicator as we would perhaps expect. Quite the contrary: The past performances can be misleading. The best example being that there is the undeniable perception that Denver is clearly a better team based on their final standings and the head-to-head results between them and Dallas.

Dallasbasketball.com's Mike Fisher does an excellent job of dismantling the perceptual argument over a series of columns. In this one, he notes that the average margin of victory for Denver in three of the wins was fewer than 3 points. And the fourth loss, a ten pointer in December hardly qualified as a dominant win. As to the final standings, in another article Fisher observed: "The real difference between Denver and Dallas is four games. Dallas won 50, Denver won 54. The two teams played remarkably close games (as we all know). Give Dallas a win in one or two of those. Give Dallas a healthy Josh for some of those 35-odd games missed. Give Dallas something better than a 2-7 start. Let Denver miss one of their dramatic game-winning shots... And both Denver and Dallas are damn close to being … what? … 52-win clubs?" So there is definitely more here than meets the eye.

We've already seen that the two teams played close to even during the regular season (despite the win totals) and that both teams have turned it up a notch during the final few weeks and into the playoffs. So with this in mind, let's take a look at the bigger picture trends that may shed light on how this series will go.

A simplistic way to look at this series is to say, "Who's playing better now?" and there would be a lot of relevance to this. So let's take a look, comparing how they've done during the regular season to the end of the season to the playoffs.

Mavs Defense

Over the season, the Mavs were mediocre on defense. There were short stretches where the defense did better than others, but there was no real run of games that illustrated the Mavs were anything but a second-rate defensive team. The most relevant item when discussing the team's defense during the season is that it didn't improve as the season progressed, and during the critical close out to the season, the Mavs defense continued to falter, with the Mavs winning important games on the strength of its offense.

In defensive efficiency terms, the Mavericks ended the season with an efficiency of 108.4. Of all the playoff teams, only Chicago at 108.7 had a worse defensive efficiency. Facing a dynamic offense team like Denver, this is cause for major concern.

"But what about the San Antonio series?" I hear you say. Well, the pace of that series hid the dirty secret of the Mavericks' play: Their defense wasn't very good even though they held the Spurs to around 90 points per game. During the series, the Mavs defensive efficiency was a significantly better 105.4, but you have to account for the fact that the Mavs were playing a mediocre offensive team missing one its key offensive weapons. Against an anemic offense like San Antonio's, securing a good (not great) defensive performance hardly qualifies as a positive trend on the defensive side of the ball.

So the Mavs defense is still a glaring weakness.

Denver Defense

Denver's defense was signifiacantly stronger during the regular season than Dallas'. Their defensive efficiency of 106.8 was good for eighth in the league. It is important to note, however, that this is not the level of defense that can lock down exceptional offenses on a regular basis. But what about their domination of the Hornets? Their defensive efficiency against the Hornets was an unworldly 93.7. Again, context is important here. It may surprise some people, but the first point to understand is that the Hornets offense wasn't very good to begin with. It ended the season with the twelth best offense in the league, basically at the same level as San Antonio's. Add the limited minutes to Tyson Chandler, and the Hornets offense was even worse. Finally, the defensive stats are seriously skewed by the 58 point beat down in game 4.

In essence, the Nuggets situation is not unlike the Mavs in that they were playing an average offensive team that was even worse due to injury issues to a core player. The difference, of course, is that Denver's defense is much better, and they were able to dominate a crippled offense. The Mavs were only able to make the opposing crippled offense a little worse.

Before we assess this as a huge advantage for Denver, it is important to note that the Denver defense looked better than it is in its demolition of New Orleans. Against a world class offense like the Mavericks, Denver's defense will be over its head. This is where you start to see the difference between a great defense like Houston's and an average defense like Denver's: Houston's defense has the weapons to seriously affect even a great offense, Denver's defense does not.

So while Denver's defense is a lot better than Dallas', it is by no means strong enough to turn the series on its own.

Dallas Offense

All of the talk of the Mavs flying under the radar, sneaking into the sixth seed, or getting past San Antonio can be distilled into one simple fact: Since Josh Howard returned from injury, the Mavericks offense has been one of the best, if not the best in the entire league. This process began before Howard returned so this is not related to just one player. The Mavs offense has been getting better and better as the second half of the season has worn on.

The Mavericks ended the season with the fifth best offense in the league at an offensive efficiency of 110.5. They achieved this despite spending most of the season ranked about No. 10 on offense. Even with the slow start to the season on offense, the Mavs entered the post-season with the fourth best offense among all 16 playoff teams. Clearly, something has clicked.

Whatever clicked continued into the playoffs, where the Mavs offensive efficiency improved to 112.4, even though they were facing one of the best defenses in the post-season. The only offenses performing better in the post-season were Denver and Los Angeles, both of which faced inferior defenses.

It is entirely reasonable to state that the Mavericks offense is currently the best offense in the post-season.

Denver Offense

Denver's offense improved dramatically when they acquired Chauncey Billups, so much like the Mavs their offense improved as the second half of the season went along. As a result, their offensive rank from the regular season is a misleading No. 7. It is clearly one of the top three offenses in the league now and one of the most dangerous amongst all the teams left in the post-season.Their performance against New Orleans has been nothing short of spectacular, with the 58 point drubbing a high point.

In fact, it may be tempting to state that the Denver offense is much better than Dallas', but I don't think that's true. Again, dominating on offense against the Spurs is much different than doing the same against the Hornets. Still, the Denver offense is powerful, make no mistake about it.

Putting it all together

It is safe to say that the Mavs offense is a little better than the Denver offense. But you need to counter that with the fact that the Denver defense is a lot better than the Dallas defense. Dallas got past San Antonio by basically using the Phoenix strategy: Don't worry about defense, just outperform them on the offensive end so much that it won't matter. I don't think that the Mavs have a prayer in this series with that approach.

David Moore from the Dallas Morning News recommends the Mavericks slow the game down against Denver due to the Nuggets' superior athleticism. That makes no sense at all, as Denver's half court offense is so much better than the Mavs' half court defense. If the Mavs get into a running game, their transition defense, which is better than their half court defense, can actually come into play. On the offensive end, I contend the Mavs would do better as well. Moore thinks that if the scores edge over 105 this game is a quick exit for the Mavs, I think the opposite: If the Mavs can get the scores over 110, they are in the driver seat.

Look at it this way, New Orleans significantly slowed down the pace against Denver, to the tune of five fewer possessions per game, and look what happened to them.

A western conference scout told the Dallas Morning News' Eddie Sefko: ""If Dallas can keep the game up-tempo, but under control, I don't think Denver has the depth to go with Dallas on that, Dallas will play 10 guys now. And Denver is going to play about seven or seven and a half." This is another element of keeping the game up-tempo that favors the Mavs--their depth.

The key, as the unnamed scout above states, is to keep the tempo up while remaining in control. Wild shots for wild shots' sake won't get it done. What the Mavs want to do is lure the Nuggets into a fast-paced running game where the team with the better discipline and judgment in closing out the breaks comes out on top. And when it comes to judgment and discipline, I'll take the Mavs any day of the week.

All in all, I go back and forth on picking this series. My deep concern over the Mavs defense gets balanced against my lack of respect for the Nuggets' self-control and the evolution of the Mavs' spectacular offense. In the end, I guess I'm going to go with Sefko's unnamed scout: An uptempo game will favor the team with the greater discipline and deeper depth. Both of those favor the Mavs, and as I think this series will be uptempo, I'm going to pick the Mavs. Barely.

Mavs in seven.

Sunday Evening Donut Holes

Jakedfw — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:45:11 -0000

More photos » by Darren Abate - AP

Browse more photos »

While I’m as excited as anyone about the Mavs win over the Spurs on Saturday, I certainly don’t think there is any justification for thinking this series is over or that the Spurs will be easily handled. That said, I should note that my comments from Friday are still in effect: The Mavs offense is so deadly, the team could realistically get to the Conference Finals while playing mediocre defense.

With that in mind, I thought I’d bring a much needed reality check to the proceedings by providing a short ~~theft of~~ homage to Mike Fisher over at Dallasbasketball.com with my Sunday Donut Holes:

Donut Hole 1: The Spurs dictated the pace of the game. The Spurs entered the playoffs as the fourth-slowest team in the league, and a big part of their game plan is working within those confines. This provides a real comfort level for San Antonio when they can make the other team play their game, and that was exactly the case on Saturday. The Mavs are an average-paced team but look like the roadrunner when compared to the Spurs. In terms of specifics, the Mavs average 91.6 possessions per game, and the pace of Saturday’s game was a glacial 82.4 possessions, which as Wes mentioned was the second slowest game of the season for Dallas. The Mavs only had 4 fast break points, as well.

It would be foolish to say that being forced to play slow is a fatal problem for the Mavs, but make no mistake about it—the Mavericks would much prefer to be playing a faster game with more fast break points.

Donut Hole 2: The Mavs defense stunk. Sure, the Mavs played some great defense during stretches of the game, but that can’t hide the fact that we gave up nearly 100 points in a game played at a snail’s pace. To put this game in perspective, the Mavs had a defensive efficiency of 119.8. This is very similar to the defensive efficiency they had in the Utah game on February 5, which was actually a slightly better 118.6. The result of that game where the Mavs played better defense? Well, you may remember it—the Mavs lost by 28, 115-87.

And this, in a nutshell, is the scary part of the Mavs this post-season: Their offense has become so spectacularly good that they can play worse defense than in a game they lost by 28 earlier in the season and still win.

The frustrating part is that if the Mavs defense improved just slightly, this game would have been a double digit blowout. In terms of efficiency, the Spurs were helped a lot by some good offensive rebounding and a tremendous night beyond the arc. Think of it this way, if the Mavs perimeter defense had led to just two more missed threes, the Mavs win this game by 14 points. And even then the Spurs would have shot lights out from three point range.

Donut Hole 3: Tony Parker doesn’t need to solve J.J. Barea, he simply needs to remember this is a team game. This was a game of two halves for Parker, and the tale of the second half was Parker’s misguided attempt to single-handedly win the game by finishing at the rim. As a result, he turned the ball over and missed layups. Certainly some of that was due to Barea, but a bigger part was simply Parker’s pig-headedness. What makes this especially mind-boggling is how well his guards were shooting from the perimeter.

Don’t expect this to go unnoticed. In fact, I expect Popovich to look for more mid-range solutions to exploit the openings that Parker creates. My guess is that Finley’s minutes get dramatically reduced and Ime Udoka gets much more burn. Udoka is badly needed on the defensive side of the ball, and he can knock down a mid-range jumper if he’s wide open—which he will presumably be if his man is helping contain Parker. Also, I expect Duncan to have at least one or more 30+ point games.

Are The Mavs Really Peaking?

Jakedfw — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:13:24 -0000

“The Mavs are peaking at the right time.” It’s a phrase you’ve heard practically everywhere in one form or another, from our friends over at Dallasbasketball.com to the Eddie Sefko in the Dallas Morning News to the national press. And, truth be told, there’s a lot to be said for the sentiment—the Mavs are 7-3 in their past ten, including victories over five playoff teams and one team that had everything to play for before missing the playoffs. In “must win” games, the Mavs delivered as well, taking out Phoenix to practically guarantee a playoff spot and then closing out the season with a win against Houston, which led to the Mavs moving up to the sixth seed.

Quality wins. Delivering under pressure. Mostly healthy. The Mavs are peaking. Right?

Well, there is certainly room for optimism, but let’s take a look at each of those wins and see if we can come up with some things to look for as we head into the post season. After all, if this is the Mavs peaking, any shortcomings should be particularly troublesome.

Game 73: Cleveland 102, Dallas 74

Well, let’s just file this as the final game “B.P.” (before peaking). The Cavaliers destroyed the Mavericks in the second half of what started out as a competitive game. How did they do it? With an absolutely stifling defensive effort. The Mavs ended the game with an offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions) of 81.3, one of their worst performances of the season. The bright side is that the Dallas defense showed signs of life, holding Cleveland below their season average for efficiency.

Good news: Dallas defense played better than the score showed and outperformed the offense, a rare feat during the previous 72 games.

Bad news: Dallas offense was completely muzzled by Cleveland.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Is the defense finally coming around?

Game 74: Dallas 108, Minnesota 98

You expect to win games like this one, but the real story is in how the Mavs won the game: The Mavericks were much more efficient than their season averages on both sides of the ball.

Good news: Josh Howard is back and the Mavs dominate on both sides of the ball.

Bad news: None. This was as complete a game as the Mavs played all season.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Defense performs well for second game in a row. Offense rebounds from horrible game with a thrashing.

Game 75: Dallas 98, Miami 96

Despite a third quarter run by Miami, the game was an intense battle the whole way. With the game on the line, the Mavs played strong in the fourth to seal the win. Josh Howard was phenomenal.

Good news: Josh Howard’s spark. Offense once again outperformed the season average.

Bad news: Defense not as good as it appeared, with Miami offensively more efficient against the Mavs than its season average.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Two wins in a row! Offense humming after laying an egg in Cleveland. Defense still more good than average.

Game 76: Memphis 107, Dallas 102

After two good defensive games, the Mavs put up another poor defensive performance. Dirk continues to rampage through the competition, but the outstanding Dallas offense can’t overcome the stench from the defensive side. Josh is rested in what is certainly a worrisome scenario heading into the playoffs.

Good news: Dallas offense notches third straight dominant game. Dirk looking in top form at exactly the right time of the year.

Bad news: Defense looked wretched after showing promise, a theme we saw repeatedly during the season.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: On offense, the Mavs are looking as good as they have all season. Peakworthy for sure. On defense, the Mavs continue to be inconsistent, a horrible sign as we head into the end of the season. Dirk is definitely peaking at the right time.

Game 77: Dallas 140, Phoenix 116

The Mavs absolutely destroy Phoenix in one of those “must win” games. Kidd looks phenomenal. Howard looks phenomenal. Dirk looks phenomenal.

Good news: Even taking into account Phoenix’s porous defense, the Mavs offense performed in the stratosphere. Phoenix’s season defensive efficiency is 111.6. The Mavs delivered an offensive efficiency of 144.3. Wow.

Bad news: The tremendous offensive showing covered up a scary fact: The Mavs defense underperformed for the third game in a row, allowing Phoenix’s offense to drop 119.6 points per 100 possessions during the game.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Mavs offense: Peaking. Mavs defense: Failing.

Game 78: Dallas 130, Utah 101

Back-to-back demolitions of potential playoff competition. It is at this point that we are starting to hear the “Mavs are peaking” talk for real. But are the Mavs really peaking when their defense just came off three straight weak performances?

Good news: Another unbelievable offensive performance. The trend is clear: The Mavs offense is probably the best in the league heading into the playoffs. The Mavs held Utah slightly under their season offensive efficiency, so the defense outperformed the competition for the first time in four games.

Bad news: Utah playing like crap against everyone, so this win isn’t quite as nice as it would have been a month before.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Defense has come back to life. Can the team put together a string of complete games on both ends of the floor consistently heading into the final four games?

Game 79: Dallas 100, New Orleans 92

“Mavs are peaking” talk starts to really spread across the NBA. In terms of “peaking” where it counts, the Mavs have won three straight crucial games against three tough Western Conference teams.

Good news: Mavs offense again extraordinary. Offensive firepower with Josh Howard playing like his old self is downright scary. Dirk looks like he has a lot to prove.

Bad news: Dallas defense slightly outperform the New Orleans offense, but it is closer to a push than a dominant game for the defense. The Mavs really need to shut a quality team down, something they have yet to prove they are able to do.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Wins! Offense! Dirk! Jason! Josh! Jet! The bench! Lots to like and lots of reasons to see the team as peaking, but the dirty secret of the Mavs mediocre defense refuses to go away.

Game 80: New Orleans 102, Dallas 92

What happens when you mix a pretty good offensive performance with an awful defensive performance? This game is what you get.

Good news: Even when playing with a lack of energy and making poor offensive decisions, the Mavs offense still delivers.

Bad news: Defense is rather pitiful.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: A bump on the road or a sign of problems in the playoffs? It’s still too soon to tell and the talk of the Mavs moving up in the standings are still very much alive. However, close observers still note the team’s defensive shortcomings against quality teams.

Game 81: Dallas 96, Minnesota 94

A close call as Minnesota’s offense (surprise!) significantly outperforms while it’s defense is its normal wretched self. In short, the Mavs didn’t do anything special on either end of the floor here other than beat a team that is awful.

Good news: Jet was clutch when it mattered. That’s something to build on.

Bad news: Defense has devolved into not only performing poorly against playoff teams but also performing poorly against lottery teams.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Still alive thanks to the win, but can a 2 point win against Minnesota really count as an indication of a team peaking?

Game 82: Dallas 95, Houston 84

Houston is a dominant defensive team (fourth best in the NBA). So this was a real test of the Mavs peaking offense. The Mavs passed… barely. In what must have caused a huge sigh of relief from head coach Rick Carlisle, the Mavs won this game with an aggressive and stifling defense.

Good news: The Mavs offense closed out the season with a long string of very strong to dominant offensive performances. This was another good game. The real story is the defense, however, which dominated Houston.

Bad news: Against a stiff defense, the Mavs offense did well, but not great. Without a strong defense (which they got in this game), a good offense won’t be enough.

“Mavs are peaking” trend: Another win, and another example of the offense performing well. Defense was fantastic, but this has been an exception, rather than rule.

How Are The Mavs Peaking?

The Mavs are peaking in only one way: Their offense has evolved into such a deadly weapon that it is overcoming troublesome weaknesses on defense. As you look at the last ten games of the season, it is clear that Rick Carlisle has achieved what Mavs fans desperately needed after the last three playoff series: An offense that is not only potent but varied in its attack and difficult to stop even with the preparation you see in a seven game series.

The Mavs are not peaking at all on defense. They are better than they were during the entire season, but they are just as inconsistent and far from dominant or even very good. This has been hidden by the devastating effectiveness of the Mavs offense, but make no mistake: The defensive flaws are still there.

The good news is that against practically every team in the west this is probably enough to survive a seven game series. Yes, the Mavs offense is peaking at such a high level that it is really that good. The only real exception would be Los Angeles, which is too balanced on both sides of the ball to let a mostly one dimensional team like the Mavs win a seven game series.

So the best case scenario for the Mavs is a loss in the Western Conference finals, assuming they face the Lakers. The only way to avoid this fate is for the team to somehow regain the defensive mojo it had when Avery Johnson was coaching the team, and what are the odds of that?

A Tale Of Two Defenses: Mavs v. Spurs

Jakedfw — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:03:51 -0000

As we head into the home stretch of the season I think a lot can be learned by looking at our hated rivals to the south. The Spurs are being heralded by many as a legitimate contender in the west, while the Mavs are being given little more than lower seed odds. What is interesting is that both teams started out the season in similar fashion: The Mavs started out 2-7, while the Spurs started out 2-5, including a loss to Dallas. As the season has progressed we've seen one significant trend, however, that has led to the divergent opinions on each team's fortunes: The Spurs return to defensive dominance, while the Mavs have continued to be little more than mediocre on the defensive end.

Take a look at the graph after the jump, which outlines the game-by-game defensive efficiency of the Spurs and Mavs over the season. Defensive efficiency breaks down how many points a team gives up during each possession, which accounts not just for how well a team contests shots, but also how good they are at forcing turnovers and stopping offensive rebounds. No other stat is better at showing how a team is performing on defense. In the graph below, I use a seven game rolling average, which takes away some of the "noise" you see in exceptionally good and bad games and gives you a very good idea as to how the team is trending over time. This chart looks at points given up per 100 possessions and lower numbers are obviously better.

The first thing to notice is the part of the graph marked as "A." Despite their poor records, both the Spurs and the Mavs started out the season very strong defensively. In fact, the first twenty games or so for both teams have been their best defensively so far this season. For the Mavs, the team also out-performed the Spurs for a run of games (from about game 15 to 20). Since that point the Mavs have never really come close to the defense of the Spurs.

In fact, the defining moment heading into the middle part of the season for both teams is probably the long run marked as part "B." Both teams were generally consistent for about 17 games, but the difference is that the Spurs settled in with a top five defense, while the Mavs settled in with a defense significantly worse.

The real story is how each team entered the new year and faced a challenging stretch of the schedule. The Mavericks, who were consistently mediocre, watched as the wheels came off and their defense collapsed. The Spurs, who were consistently excellent, hit a similar bump but quickly turned it around and kicked their defense into gear. This is indicated by part "C" on the graph. As you can see, this nearly 20 game stretch has featured the worst defense from the Mavs all season, while it shows a Spurs defense that is settling back into its groove.

Within this stretch of games, the absolute nadir for the Mavs defensively came during a 9 game stretch of the season when they had no less than three games with a defensive efficiency over 131. This stretch started with the 128-100 loss to the Suns and ended with the 124-100 loss to the Celtics. To put such horrible defense in perspective, the Sacramento Kings have the absolute worst defense in the league, and their defensive efficiency is 114.4.

If we use this as a microcosm of how bad the Mavs defense can be, how can we account for it? There were no injuries of note. About the only excuse can be that this was a particularly grueling part of the season. Seven of the nine games were away, and the Phoenix game was the second game of a home/away back-to-back. But is that an excuse? About the same time the Mavs were watching their defense fall apart (again, see part C in the graph) the San Antonio Spurs were watching their defense come back into focus. Did the Spurs have an easier schedule? No, they were on a part of the season where 11 of 12 games were away and also featured two back-to-backs.

Frankly, there was simply no excuse for the horrible defense being played for an extended part of the season. The fact that six of those nine games were losses is all the more evidence of how damaging the lack of defensive focus of the Mavs can be. Moving forward, the real question is whether this is a Mavs team that can play defense at all. It certainly hasn't earned any benefit of the doubt.

About the only thing that gives Mavericks fans hope is that the Mavs defense has been steadily improving recently. From the low point of the Phoenix game, the Mavs have been steadily tightening up their defense. This is indicated by the red arrow on the graph. Remember, a lower number is better, so a big slope downward from left to right is a very good sign. That's exactly what we see.

Of course, we may need to temper our optimism-the same time that the Mavs have been improving on defense, the Spurs have been improving as well. As it stands now, the Mavs have the remote hope that their defense will close out the season within the top ten in the league and better than average. The Spurs are looking at something entirely different: Defensive dominance.

It remains to be seen if this is enough to move deep into the playoffs. The worst defensive team to win the championship over the past ten years has been Miami, and they ended the year with the ninth best defense in the league. With the Mavs defense currently sitting at 14th in the league, things don't look good.