Round 1 Preview - Spurs statistical advantages

[draft87]

Here's NBA.com's preview page.

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/04/14/westseries2_preview/index.html


I'm sure most of you have looked at it but I'd like to point out the stat comparison. Both the full season/season series stats make me feel even more comfortable that coming off a great March/April we'll be ready to advance to the 2nd round at least!



On the season we're essentially tied with the Mavs in these categories:

1. Offense Efficiency (107.2/107.1)
2. Points per game (101.4/102)
3. Opponent FG % (.452/.457)
4. Opponent 3pt FG% (.343/.347)
5. APG (22.3/23.4)
6. Pace (94.0/94.8)


-I'm calling the APG stat a tie because they're only 1.1 more than us even though they have the 'great' Jason Kidd. Shouldn't a team with the 'elite quarterback' have a much stronger hand in that category?

-The Mavs in 2006 and 2009 clearly had more firepower than we could handle. Despite inconsistent scoring from the entire team we overaged only 0.6 points less per game than the usually high scoring Mavs. This is a good sign that in addition to our end of season chemistry we've made progress on lack of scoring in previous seasons

-Clearly we're going to have to guard the 3pt line well. Mavs have killed us here before and as other members have put in their keys-to-round 1 threads, this area is a must win for the Spurs.


The Mavs have the clear edge in:

1. FT% (.740/.816)
2. 3pt FG% (.358/.372)
3. Defensive Efficiency (102/103.2)

I consider this to be just a 2 category advantage-
I concede that our FT% is a disadvantage and there's a big question mark on whether or not our 3pt shooters will show up but I expect our Def. Eff. to be much better now that we have better chemistry and should have a tighter rotation, what do you think?


The Spurs have the edge in these categories:

1. Opponent PPG (96.3/99.3)
2. RPG (42.8/41.7)
3. Opponent RPG (39.5/42.9)
4. Opponent APG (19.2/20.2)
5. FG% (.473/.464)


-As small as our frontcourt is we still rebound better than the Mavs. We take rebounds away from our opponents and that will be help greatly considering Dallas' improved frontcourt depth.

-Our lower Opp. APG figure shows that we make players find their own shot. If we can continue that and take JKidd out of his game the Mavs offense might struggle.

-Considering that the Mavs have the advantage in 2 categories, we have 5, and 6 are essentially tied I think we have a good chance of controlling this series instead of adjusting to the Mavs' strengths. We've spent too many years playing behind them and this could be our chance to come out and dominate.




---------------------------------------
Now, head to head we "lost" the season series 1-3 but a) the last game wasn't a true competition, b)we beat them without Duncan and Parker, and c) the losses were before the team gelled yet we were competitive

The stats tell that story:

We were deadlocked in:
1. RPG (45.3/45.5)
2. 3pt FG% (.349/.344)

Mavs outshot us at the free throw line:
1. FT% (.690/.781)

Spurs won in these categories:
1. APG (20.8/19.3)
2. FG% (.446/.416)


I seriously don't think we'll be able to lift our game at the free throw line to the point that we're locked up with the Mavs but I do believe that we'll play tough in the paint and get RJ to keep crashing the boards even if he can't score. We're a couple made 3PTrs away from dominating the pace of the game.

Even though they have a 3-1 "edge" from the regular season, we have a real shot at quickly advancing to round 2 in less than 7 games. Let's hope for health and intensity. If we can get RJ and RMJ with their heads-in-the-game and/or some confident spot minutes from our D-leaguers, I think that'll be enough to let the Big 3+ Hill to run Dallas out of town.

[admiralsnackbar]

Good write-up, man.

Barring injuries to either team, there's every indication this is gonna be a great series to watch.

[Flux451]

Thanks for the great write up.
Spurs were only 5 games behind this supposedly elite Dallas team, or favored behind Lakers. That is not saying much when Spurs season was on the verge of disaster.
One song comes to mind. Wutang Clan ain't nuthin to f*ck wit. Change Wutang to These Spurs and you got a playoff anthem

[ohmwrecker]

Game 1 is going to tell us a lot about how this series will go. The Spurs have to come out with a ton of energy early and put the Mavs back on their heels from the get go. Win or lose we have to keep it close and make the Mavs work hard. I don't think game 1 is a must win, but I do think the Spurs have to take one of the first two in Dallas or they will be in trouble.

[admiralsnackbar]

No game 1 is ever a must-win, I guess, but the best way to play these Mavs seems to be to scare the shit out of them while they're still feeling smug.

[mazerrackham]

The Mavs have the clear edge in:

1. FT% (.740/.816)
2. 3pt FG% (.358/.372)
3. Defensive Efficiency (102/103.2)


You do know that a lower defensive efficiency is better, right? It's points allowed per 100 possessions, so the Spurs have the advantage there, not the Mavs, as they only give up 102 per 100 possessions, while the Mavs give up 103.2

[Avitus1]

I think the Spurs need to win game one it'll set the tone and really dictate the rest of the series. However as long as they split one in Dallas it'll be good.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

The problem with the Spurs needing game 1 is that there is no George Hill which is a huge blow to the team. I think at least a split, be it in game 1 or game 2 is crucial. I wouldn't be devastated if the Spurs drop game 1.

[nkdlunch]

as long as Hill can come back 100% in game 3 at the latest. I'm not worried even if we lose 0-2

[Sportstudi]

It's interesting that you give the Spurs the advantage in RPG, but on the other hand you call the APG tied. The difference is exactly 1.1 in both categories. If you say the Mavs' APG should be higher due to Kidd than it can easily be argued that the Spurs should have a higher RPG due to your rebounding machines (at least some members here called them that way) Duncan and Blair. Just sayin...

Edit: And your preview makes the Spurs being the favourites, not the Mavs. I'm interested how your resumee will be if the Spurs lose. Maybe the Mavs were the favourites, but you didn't want to call them as such? Anyway, I expect a very close series and either team has the power to win. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it goes down to the wire and we can enjoy seven very interesting games.

[Ryvin1]

It's interesting that you give the Spurs the advantage in RPG, but on the other hand you call the APG tied. The difference is exactly 1.1 in both categories. If you say the Mavs' APG should be higher due to Kidd than it can easily be argued that the Spurs should have a higher RPG due to your rebounding machines (at least some members here called them that way) Duncan and Blair. Just sayin...

Edit: And your preview makes the Spurs being the favourites, not the Mavs. I'm interested how your resumee will be if the Spurs lose. Maybe the Mavs were the favourites, but you didn't want to call them as such? Anyway, I expect a very close series and either team has the power to win. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it goes down to the wire and we can enjoy seven very interesting games.

I think the Mavs are favorites just not by much. Stats can be misleading as the situations are very different. Mavs were a different team before the all-star break and the spurs had rotating injuries and pop focused on lowering playing time of the big 3 all year so I don't know if number from the regular season can be that helpful to determine the outcome other then it's going to be a fun series to watch.

[Blackjack]

The problem with the Spurs needing game 1 is that there is no George Hill which is a huge blow to the team. I think at least a split, be it in game 1 or game 2 is crucial. I wouldn't be devastated if the Spurs drop game 1.

Agree. :tu

Of course you want to get off to a good start and set the tone for the series (which doesn't always necessarily have to be done with a win) but If George is out, someone who's vital to this particular matchup, it's hard to view a loss in Game 1 as a death knell.

The way I see it, the Spurs, in all likelihood, are going to have to win twice at the AAC. The Mavs have absolutely no fear playing in SA given their recent success; these Spurs aren't the dominant home team of yesteryear, either. Odds are the Mavs will get a win there.

I don't see this series ending in 5, but if it did ... I'd put my money on the Mavs advancing.

Get a split, however which way it comes, and the Spurs will have a chance to spoil the party.

[boutons_deux]

win game1 ? would be great,

but game2 would be good enough, just get the split, neutralize HCA and come to SA

[draft87]

You do know that a lower defensive efficiency is better, right? It's points allowed per 100 possessions, so the Spurs have the advantage there, not the Mavs, as they only give up 102 per 100 possessions, while the Mavs give up 103.2


yeah, my bad, i should fix that. thanks for pointing that out.

[draft87]

Edit: And your preview makes the Spurs being the favourites, not the Mavs. I'm interested how your resumee will be if the Spurs lose. Maybe the Mavs were the favourites, but you didn't want to call them as such? seven very interesting games

First of all, sarcasm aside, what's with the word "interesting?"
Second, what the heck are you talking about? I seriously don't understand what resume, favorite, and interesting have to do with the thread. If there's any confusion, no I did not write the nba.com article, but I thought that went without saying. This is pretty simple, I'm a Spurs fan. I'm thinking/writing about things that get me excited for the Spurs. Clearly, there will be no thread where I spend a lot of time analyzing how my team is going to find a way to lose. I expect a Mavs fan to do the same for Dallas, LakerFakers to do it for LA, Portland..etc.... So what will happen if the Spurs lose? Well, definitely nothing will happen to my resume but probably some Spurs players' resumes will show that they did not bring it in the categories I showed favor San Antonio.

Anyway, I don't expect the Spurs to lose because I'm a Spurs fan and a basketball fan but maybe this confusion is moot cause I will add more to the interests of your post.


It's interesting that you give the Spurs the advantage in RPG, but on the other hand you call the APG tied. The difference is exactly 1.1 in both categories. If you say the Mavs' APG should be higher due to Kidd than it can easily be argued that the Spurs should have a higher RPG due to your rebounding machines (at least some members here called them that way) Duncan and Blair. Just sayin...

.

If you want to say you disagree or something of the nature, then just say it. You seem grounded enough to carry on a decent statistical debate without getting too homer-ish. We're big-boys here, say what's on your mind, it's a lot easier than tip-toe'n around with, "It's interesting....just sayin..."

If you make an argument with stats supporting your opinion I won't be the one to complain. And if you're looking for more justification, I'll elaborate.

Yes, both APG and RPG are different by 1.1. I'm saying that people are expecting Jason Kidd to lead his team to the conference finals and pave the way for Dirk to shine in the postseason so I checked out the team assists. I'm not too impressed. JKidd plays 36MPG. He dishes 9 APG. That's about 38% of his team's assists per game. San Antonio does not have a pass-first point guard but is tied for 6th place in the NBA with only 1.1 less per game than Dallas. San Antonio as a team moves the ball better than Dallas. They create plays for each other with a balanced attack and has more options for game time adjustments. Take JKidd out of the game and there's a huge void to fill.

I do not believe there is a case to be made that the Spurs RPG should be higher. To the contrary, I think the Mavs RPG should be higher. The Mavs clearly have a size advantage in the frontcourt. Dampier, Haywood, and Nowitzki are the top 3 rebounders. All three of them are taller than Duncan. Duncan is our tallest player. Spurs don't have two 7'+ Centers. We do have 6'5" Blair that plays 18MPG but does that mean we should have way more rebounds? No. Look at the Spurs top 3-Duncan, Blair, McDyess. Let's compare them with the Mavs top 3.

Mavericks

Minutes Per game

Dampier- 23.3,
Haywood- 26.5
Nowitzki- 37.5

Total=87.3

Rebounds Per Game

Dampier- 7.3
Haywood- 7.4
Nowitzki 7.7

Total= 22.4

Rebounds Per 36 Minutes(Difference)

Dampier-11.3(+4)
Haywood- 10.1(+2.8)
Nowitzki- 7.3(-0.4)
Total=28.7(+6.4)



SPURS

Minutes per Game
Duncan- 31.3
Blair- 18.2
McDyess- 21

Total= 70.5

Rebounds per Game
Duncan- 10.1
Blair- 6.4
McDyess- 5.9

Total= 22.4

Rebounds per 36 Minutes(difference)
Duncan- 11.6(+1.5)
Blair- 12.7(+6.3)
McDyess- 10.1(+4.2)

Total= 34.4(+12)


So the top 3 rebounders from each team grabs the same amount of rebounds but the Spurs do it in 17 LESS minutes. That means the rest of the Spurs put more into rebounding than the Mavs.

You can point to both Assist and Rebounds and find that the Spurs have stronger team performances.

[TD 21]

Agree. :tu

Of course you want to get off to a good start and set the tone for the series (which doesn't always necessarily have to be done with a win) but If George is out, someone who's vital to this particular matchup, it's hard to view a loss in Game 1 as a death knell.

The way I see it, the Spurs, in all likelihood, are going to have to win twice at the AAC. The Mavs have absolutely no fear playing in SA given their recent success; these Spurs aren't the dominant home team of yesteryear, either. Odds are the Mavs will get a win there.

I don't see this series ending in 5, but if it did ... I'd put my money on the Mavs advancing.

Get a split, however which way it comes, and the Spurs will have a chance to spoil the party.

Death knell is harsh, but it would be a big loss (I know in the playoffs they're all big, but hear me out). When you're the team without home court, it goes without saying that you have to take care of your home games and win one on the road. It's doable (to win), but who wants to be the road team in a game seven? Nobody, so the ideal scenario is to win it in six. In this case, I see this as possible, mainly because of the state the Spurs are entering the playoffs in. With the amount of rest Duncan and Ginobili have just gotten, it's not inconceivable that their best games of the series might be game one. The Spurs need to capitalize on that if that's the case. Who knows what type of shape they'll be in by game seven, when after game two the games are every other day?

The other thing is, since winning all homes games is a must for a team without home court, what's the likelihood of winning three games in a row? If the Spurs lose game one, but win game two, sure it'll be positive, but it probably makes it more likely that they lose a home game, which goes back to having to win a road game seven in order to advance.


Dampier, Haywood, and Nowitzki are the top 3 rebounders. All three of them are taller than Duncan. Duncan is our tallest player. Spurs don't have two 7'+ Centers. We do have 6'5" Blair that plays 18MPG but does that mean we should have way more rebounds? No. Look at the Spurs top 3-Duncan, Blair, McDyess. Let's compare them with the Mavs top 3.

Actually, all three are not taller than Duncan. Dampier, like Duncan, is 6-11. Haywood is 7-0. Nowitzki is 7-0, but, with the possible exceptions of Bargnani and Yi, plays as soft and as small as any 7-footer. His height will play no factor in this series, unless Pop comes with a defeatist attitude, puts smalls on him and doubles him. Outside of that, he's not a shot blocker, is a sub par rebounder and won't guard Duncan in the post. He'll primarily play against two jump shooters, McDyess and Bonner.

So it all looks nice on paper for the Mavs, but their size doesn't make nearly the impact that the Lakers size does. The reality is the Spurs are better at center: Who wouldn't take Duncan/Blair over Dampier/Haywood? Even though they're smaller, the Spurs bigs rebound better and score in the paint better. I was encouraged by Blair's play in the final game. Talk about the lack of intensity in the game, etc. all you want, but if he struggles in this series, it probably won't be because of the Mavs centers length. Neither of these guys is all that athletic or mobile.

[Blackjack]

Death knell is harsh, but it would be a big loss (I know in the playoffs they're all big, but hear me out). When you're the team without home court, it goes without saying that you have to take care of your home games and win one on the road. It's doable (to win), but who wants to be the road team in a game seven? Nobody, so the ideal scenario is to win it in six. In this case, I see this as possible, mainly because of the state the Spurs are entering the playoffs in. With the amount of rest Duncan and Ginobili have just gotten, it's not inconceivable that their best games of the series might be game one. The Spurs need to capitalize on that if that's the case. Who knows what type of shape they'll be in by game seven, when after game two the games are every other day?

The other thing is, since winning all homes games is a must for a team without home court, what's the likelihood of winning three games in a row? If the Spurs lose game one, but win game two, sure it'll be positive, but it probably makes it more likely that they lose a home game, which goes back to having to win a road game seven in order to advance.

I get where you're coming from and understand the rationale (health, setting the tone, etc.) but look at it this way: If the Spurs are without Hill or he's hampered in any way for Game 1, which would probably (not definitively) hang a loss on the Spurs, how bad off would they really be if they came back and got Game 2? I contend not that bad at all.

I really believe the Spurs are going to have to win twice at the AAC, and I don't think it's that inconceivable for the Spurs to get Game 2 and 6; it's a 2-2-1-1-1 format, right? The Spurs could get games 2 and 3; lose 4; and seal the deal with wins in 5 and 6. (Even if the first 5 play out like that and the Spurs lose Game 6 ... the Spurs would still have an opportunity to exact a little revenge with a Game 7 win on their court -- which is really all you can ask for as an underdog.)

[TD 21]

You're probably right, the Spurs probably will have to win twice on the road. Yeah, it's 2-2-1-1-1, like every non finals series (finals is 2-3-2). I don't think that's all the Spurs can ask for, because I think they're capable of winning this series in 6. Obviously, it's not the end of the series if they lose game one, I'm just keying on that game for aforementioned reasons.

[Blackjack]

I don't know ... if the Spurs are capable of getting it to a Game 7, on their homecourt, I think you've got to feel pretty good about it; and it'd be absolute poetic justice to turn the tables on them after '06.

I'm hoping the Spurs will win and believe they've got the opportunity to get it done, but the Mavs are definitely the favorites. So if the Spurs can manage to get to a do-or-die Game 7 ... that's all I can personally ask for; it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if the Spurs wrapped it up before then, though.

[TD 21]

If they win it period, I'd feel very good about it. Honestly, I look at this as a series they should win. Are they the favorites? No. Are they head and shoulders better than the Mavs? Absolutely not. But it's winnable and like I said in another thread, I like the Spurs best better than I like the Mavs best. Is their talent really superior to the Spurs? I don't see it. I think if the Spurs play anywhere close to how they're capable of playing, they win this series.

[Blackjack]

I don't have much disagreement with that assessment. This team hasn't given me a lot of confidence when it comes to playing to their capability and with sustained consistency (for myriad reasons), so I've taken a wait-and-see approach.

The talent's there to take down the Mavs, even if it's not the most complimentary, so I don't have any problem with an outlook like yours and the almost expectation for them to get it done; the Mavs, and even the Lakers for that matter, are favorites in a down conference/league. They're not all-time great teams or juggernauts IMO.

[TD 21]

The reason I'm cautiously optimistic is the big three's incredible playoff track record. Last year doesn't count, because Ginobili didn't play and Duncan was clearly hurting. Save for that, at minimum they've always been an extremely tough out. I know that came with a different team surrounding them, but still.

I also get the sense that McDyess' intensity will be night and day from the regular season. I remember watching this guy with the Pistons, he competes as hard as anyone in the playoffs. He's got this year and next left, so I assume he's going to go all out. If his play goes up a notch or two, that's huge for the Spurs.

[Blackjack]

I was thinking about writing a piece on Jefferson and how he could win the fan base back with an inspired performance; no one gives a damn about the $14-plus million and an underwhelming regular season if you come through in the playoffs. And with a guy like Dirk as the Spurs' bane for this series, RJ could really play a huge role if he would be able to lock in on him for stretches and give him his undivided attention as his sole focus; 'Fuck everything else, I'm going to beat him to his spots, clean the glass and take away his driving lanes.' (He's got the physical tools to play him the way Bowen did in some aspects and also the way the Warriors did with their swingman.)

RJ coming through like that would be huge, as a 3 (small forward), because Pop wouldn't feel the need to leave them susceptible to the boards or fouls with them able to stay big; small ball has probably been the biggest ale for the Spurs against the Mavs. RJ comes through ... and Pop shouldn't be able to make us sick.

[TD 21]

I just hope Pop goes with McDyess on Nowitzki in crunch time. Not Bonner, not Jefferson. Which will probably be Pop's preference, so that (if Hill is healthy enough) he can go with the three guards in crunch time. I don't like this, because Nowitzki, Butler and Kidd could easily post up Jefferson, Hill and Parker. Duncan will be coming over to help, leaving the basket vacated and we'll see a cadre of layups and open three's. Even if his shot isn't falling, Pop needs to stick with McDyess on Nowitzki.

[Blackjack]

But it's not necessarily who he goes with on him, it's who's on him after the switch (and there will be a switch).

More often than not when you defend Nowitzki you've got two things you really have to contend with: the 1-4/2-4 pick-and roll/pick-and-pop, and his isolations at the top of the circle (which prevent you from doubling effectively). There's not a lot you can do about either to really shut them down other than mix it up constantly, but RJ's ability to step up could really help with the top of the circle iso's.

The Spurs are going to get caught with their smalls on Nowitzki, no doubt about it. But I'd feel a lot better about it if the Spurs are playing Big; which Jefferson has the potential to allow them to do more of if he's successful defensively against Dirk (in stretches). Even if Dirk gets a small on him, he'll likely end with a jumper over the top since he won't have the quickness to go by. And if he's shooting a jumper over the top, you've got a 50% chance he'll miss the shot and an even better shot at the rebound if the Spurs have their best rebounders in the game.

Rebounding's going to be a huge key in this series and it's up to Pop to stay the course with his Bigs and not panic if they have a bad stretch.

[MaNu4Tres]

I just hope Pop goes with McDyess on Nowitzki in crunch time. Not Bonner, not Jefferson. Which will probably be Pop's preference, so that (if Hill is healthy enough) he can go with the three guards in crunch time.

I was discussing this very issue with a couple of buddies of mine.

I brought it to the attention that McDyess is a VERY underrated factor this series. For these reasons...

-This Mavs team is different than in the past. If Spurs elect to go small and use Jefferson on the kraut, then that leaves us more vulnerable in the rebound department. The Mavs have above average rebounding at every position from Kidd at PG, Butler at SG, Marion at SF, Haywood and Damp at C. We don't need to compound that negative aspect by playing small when our wings outside of Jefferson are all undersized. We need to limit the Mavs to one shot per possession as much as possible.

Another point I want to bring up, is something that I quite don't understand. Whenever a team's go to guy gets the whistle as much as Dirk, why do the Spurs choose to go small? Playing a smaller defender on Dirk only makes the defender have to crowd him and play more physical because of the defender being undersized. Which makes it easier for Dirk to create separation by employing his erray of moves from the triple threat position from jab steps and pump fakes, which consequently makes it easier to draw fouls due to the crowding and the quick reflexes necessary to contest.

Wouldn't you rather play a big man like McDyess on Dirk and play the drive( then closing out quick once he picks up his dribble for the jump-shot* This is when Mavs have Dirk iso at the top of the key*)? Me personally I would much rather Dirk take semi-contested 15-20 footers than going to the line 18 times a game.

Same theory when Dirk is on the block or with his back to the basket 5-12 feet out. Why play small? When your going to have to double and often leave the basket and the lane often occupied by your smallest and least threatening defenders? This is when second chance opportunities and cuts to the basket by the opposition from the weak side destroy the Spurs.

Not to mention smaller defenders are going to be more susceptible to fouling Dirk because they are undersized by length and strength. This is another way getting Dirk to the line when Dirk tries to establish his inside game.

McDyess' value is huge this series. IMO

[Blackjack]

Solid post, 'Tres; agree as usual. :tu

They need their Big 3 to come through (and Manu to be Alpha), rebound the ball, win or stay competitive at the line and be on top of their transition D (taking care of the ball, getting back to their end and jamming outlets when possible).

Pop staying Big puts them in the best position to achieve those objectives, IMO.

[ElNono]

Actually, as far as RJ is concerned, I would love if he would have at least a great game 1 and we win. The reason is, stuff like that gets magnified a lot early in the series. That would actually remove some of the attention from the big 3, and it would really help us out.

[spurs10]

The will of Tim, Manu, and TP have long been underestimated by many, but perhaps not their opponents as much. I, too, would love to see a split in the first two games, obviously. I also seriously hope to see that will and intensity we've all been so lucky to have seen in this last great decade. I've seen that look of in Manu's and Tim's eyes in some of the games when TP was out. Dallas is hungry, but the Spurs might have that edge that stats alone can't explain. How the hell did Argentina ever beat the Americans in the Olympics? If they bring that certain unknown something, play smart, and keep their mistakes to a minimum, we have a shot to disprove all the naysayers one more time.GSG!!!!

[MaNu4Tres]

They need their Big 3 to come through (and Manu to be Alpha), rebound the ball, win or stay competitive at the line and be on top of their transition D (taking care of the ball, getting back to their end and jamming outlets when possible).

Pop staying Big puts them in the best position to achieve those objectives, IMO.[/I][/B]

Agreed :tu

[Blackjack]

Unless the Spurs are going to play sans Duncan and Parker, I don't see RJ putting up gaudy numbers and having the big type of game that would take pressure off of the Big 3 moving forward. But if he could have some key offensive and/or defensive stretches that would force the Mavs to account for him ... that would definitely be welcomed; which he's more than capable of doing if he keeps his head in the game and plays with a dogged purpose.

However, dogged purpose and attention-to-detail aren't traits one would attribute to RJ . . .

The guy could really turn it around perception-wise and help the team greatly if he steps up to the plate during this series; the opportunity is definitely going to be there.

[ElNono]

Well, I don't know what you would consider gaudy numbers. But if the guy manages to penetrate off Gino's drives and manages to score 16+ including a couple of And1, then all of a sudden you can't send his defender to cheat and clog the paint. Richard is the kind of guy that can easily finish over people. Especially against this team that really doesn't have shot blockers.
To me, the barometer should be fairly early, if his first two or three shots are jumpers, I'll start getting concerned.

[Blackjack]

That's perfectly reasonable. I think what we both want (and I'm sure everyone who's invested in the Spurs in some way) is to have RJ be an active participant. Someone that has to be accounted for and not some wallflower lost in the shuffle.

The guy's never going to be extolled for being a lock-down defender but if he competes well and gets on the board (there's no excuse for him not to with that body and athleticism), he can be a net positive. And if he can hit those seams the way he's capable of and get to the line ... the Spurs will be a much better team.

I really hope Pop decides to put Tim and RJ in the 2-man game and utilize Timmy's passing. There have been some brief flashes of brilliance between the two but that's the problem: it's brief. They run it once or twice every now and then and abandon it for games at a time. It's something that could really benefit the team while getting RJ enthused and playing a better overall game; RJ's offensive involvement tends to dictate his overall play.

I'm not willing to say RJ is the deciding factor or that he's the barometer for success, but he is an X-Factor and someone who could potentially be a difference maker; like I said before ... no one remembers the regular season when you have success in the postseason . . .

[wut]

Oddly I think all the pressure is on the home team in a 2-2-1-1-1 series; because the away team just needs to "steal" one of the first two games.

[Big Empty]

Whats with all the breakdowns? We have a bye in the first round yall! We need to see who we're gonna face in round two.

[mathbzh]

Yes, both APG and RPG are different by 1.1. I'm saying that people are expecting Jason Kidd to lead his team to the conference finals and pave the way for Dirk to shine in the postseason so I checked out the team assists. I'm not too impressed.

Dallas are top 3 in assist and only Utah is clearly better (they lead the league in assist every year with a huge margin which is even bigger this year). Kidd or not I think you have to give the edge to Dallas here.

[Jimcs50]

Championships: 4-0

[TD 21]

But it's not necessarily who he goes with on him, it's who's on him after the switch (and there will be a switch).

More often than not when you defend Nowitzki you've got two things you really have to contend with: the 1-4/2-4 pick-and roll/pick-and-pop, and his isolations at the top of the circle (which prevent you from doubling effectively). There's not a lot you can do about either to really shut them down other than mix it up constantly, but RJ's ability to step up could really help with the top of the circle iso's.

The Spurs are going to get caught with their smalls on Nowitzki, no doubt about it. But I'd feel a lot better about it if the Spurs are playing Big; which Jefferson has the potential to allow them to do more of if he's successful defensively against Dirk (in stretches). Even if Dirk gets a small on him, he'll likely end with a jumper over the top since he won't have the quickness to go by. And if he's shooting a jumper over the top, you've got a 50% chance he'll miss the shot and an even better shot at the rebound if the Spurs have their best rebounders in the game.

Rebounding's going to be a huge key in this series and it's up to Pop to stay the course with his Bigs and not panic if they have a bad stretch.

Fair enough, but the primary defender on Nowitzki (or any good player) is still significant. If Pop thinks the Spurs are getting away with long stretches of Bonner, Jefferson or even Bogans on him and has one of the first two closing games on him (unless it's out of necessity with McDyess in foul trouble), then the Spurs are in trouble. Because then they'll be forced to double consistently and that's never a good thing. I'm not worried with Nowitzki isolating on McDyess and beating him off the dribble or creating enough space to get off his shot. I could care less if he makes a half dozen of these a game, the big thing is McDyess should allow the Spurs to generally play him straight up and not leave Terry, Kidd, Barea, etc. for standstill three's.

Completely agree with the parts in bold.


I was discussing this very issue with a couple of buddies of mine.

I brought it to the attention that McDyess is a VERY underrated factor this series. For these reasons...

-This Mavs team is different than in the past. If Spurs elect to go small and use Jefferson on the kraut, then that leaves us more vulnerable in the rebound department. The Mavs have above average rebounding at every position from Kidd at PG, Butler at SG, Marion at SF, Haywood and Damp at C. We don't need to compound that negative aspect by playing small when our wings outside of Jefferson are all undersized. We need to limit the Mavs to one shot per possession as much as possible.

Another point I want to bring up, is something that I quite don't understand. Whenever a team's go to guy gets the whistle as much as Dirk, why do the Spurs choose to go small? Playing a smaller defender on Dirk only makes the defender have to crowd him and play more physical because of the defender being undersized. Which makes it easier for Dirk to create separation by employing his erray of moves from the triple threat position from jab steps and pump fakes, which consequently makes it easier to draw fouls due to the crowding and the quick reflexes necessary to contest.

Wouldn't you rather play a big man like McDyess on Dirk and play the drive( then closing out quick once he picks up his dribble for the jump-shot* This is when Mavs have Dirk iso at the top of the key*)? Me personally I would much rather Dirk take semi-contested 15-20 footers than going to the line 18 times a game.

Same theory when Dirk is on the block or with his back to the basket 5-12 feet out. Why play small? When your going to have to double and often leave the basket and the lane often occupied by your smallest and least threatening defenders? This is when second chance opportunities and cuts to the basket by the opposition from the weak side destroy the Spurs.

Not to mention smaller defenders are going to be more susceptible to fouling Dirk because they are undersized by length and strength. This is another way getting Dirk to the line when Dirk tries to establish his inside game.

McDyess' value is huge this series. IMO

Completely agree with your assessment of McDyess being highly important in this series. He's got to be able to give the Spurs 25-30 solid minutes on Nowitzki and Pop's got to give him that opportunity, even if he fumbles a pass or two or fails to connect on a high-low to Duncan or misses a few mid range jumpers.

Another big key is Hill's lateral quickness, because the Spurs need him to stick Terry, Barea and (though I doubt he plays much) Beaubois.

This is an excellent post overall, particularly your point about putting a small on Nowitzki. I agree, it exacerbates the problem.

[MavDynasty]

Im interested to see how the two teams matchup statstically post-trade. Can anyone put up the stats?

[sananspursfan21]

i never thought the day would come that the spurs would tie with the mavs in pts. per game. i guess it's a good thing....