Question: Kings > Mavs?

[Mavs<Spurs]

I think that this is a legitimate question.
For Spurs fans, we can consider it in two ways:

first, are they a tougher team for us to beat in a 7 game series than the mavericks

second, could the kings beat the mavericks in a 7 game series?


First, despite my dislike of Dallas (heightened by a rodent perhaps), I will admit that Dallas is a much better team this year than in past years. While I believe that we will win, I think that it will go 6 or 7 games. So, this post does not mean that I think we will steamroll Dallas because I don't believe that. I hate to say it, but Dallas has a very good team this year; painfully, they may be one of the top 4 teams in the league (Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas, New Jersey). One of these teams may struggle against a lesser team due primarily to matchups. Dallas' defense has improved and they have a lot of good athletes and a good bench. Dirk is still a tough match up and he is an elite player.

Having said that, Bruce somewhat defangs the Mavericks since Dirk can't or won't post Bruce up. Dirk is on most nights relatively inefficient against Bruce. My biggest complaint remains that Dallas does not have a low post scorer who can punish you on the block, preferably a power forward. Plus, they don't share the ball, move the ball well. These two factors result in a lower field goal percentage against good defensive teams in the playoffs.

With Ron Artest and Bonzi Wells, the Kings do have low post scoring threats. They cause a lot of strain on our defense when they post us up. Normally, neither is a great 3 point shooter, but if I were Rick Adelman, I would prefer that they post up smaller defenders as much as possible. Besides, with Bibby and Miller, they can shoot the 3 well enough. Those mismatches are brutal.
When Miller is on, he can draw your big out of the paint, eliminating your big's ability to help out on Bonzi or Ron. We can put Bruce on Brad as some one suggested and these things can be played where a satisfactory outcome occurs, but it is not easy.

Plus, the Kings addition of Ron Artest did a great deal to improve their defense. I am uncertain if Artest can guard Dirk well consistently. However, that is possible.

Therefore, it appears to me that the Kings are a tougher match up for us than the Mavericks.

I do not think that the Mavs would be prohibitive favorites in a 7 game series against the Kings, even with home court advantage. They might be slightly favored due to home court.

During the regular season, I would expect the Mavs to have a much better record.

What are your thoughts, opinions? :blah

[Shank]

One game. It's been one game.

[NoMoneyDown]

Game #1: Sacramento @ San Antonio, SA +34
Game #1: Dallas @ San Antonio, SA +2

[LEONARD]

I don't know...I was at the Kings game the day before they came to SA and beat the Spurs (late regular season). The Mavs rolled em'...

[CosmicCowboy]

Playoffs are a chess match with each team making adjustment. Look for Avery to start running Dirk off of screens more to negate Bruce Bowen and expect Dirk to have at least a couple of huge games in this series. Avery is sagging guys on defense (usually dirk +1) to take away the Spurs fast break and Spurs offensive rebounding HAS to get better to stop this. Yesterdays game was like round 1 in a heavyweight boxing match with the two bruisers testing each other out before the serious slugging starts. Should be a great series. I think this one might go the distance.

[Fabbs]

Kings key seemed to be Brad Miller.
Artest and Bonzi were great.
Miller could have been that low block you talked about. However Miller played much of the Spurs series like he had cement in his shoes.

Kings were like a #3 seed, really. I would not attatch too much to their -30 buttkicking at the hands of the Mavs towoards end of reg season. Look at what the Kings bounced back from in Gm 1 of the series, -34 vs Spurs.
Also before Artest tweaked his ankle they were right in Gm 6.

[nkdlunch]

Come on. Dallas >>> Sacramento. Wait till the series gets to Dallas.

[mffl89]

this is a stupid question

[mffl89]

so are u saying that this years king's team is better than the 02-03 king's team which consisted of bibby,christie,peja,webber,vlade? with a very good 6th man in bobby jackson?
because the mavs did beat that 02-03 team and saying the mavs < kings means that this kings team is better than the 02-03 team
plus this years mavs team is definately better than any other previous mavs team in the past

[leemajors]

the mavs won 60 games. they are better.

[Obstructed_View]

Kings > Grizzlies. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

[Dunc]

Ludicrous statement.

[Obstructed_View]

Nah, dude. The Grizzlies suck.

[ChaCho's Nacho's]

The Kings are definitely the greater team out of the two....The mavs just dont have what it takes to take it to the spurs the way the kings did

[Trainwreck2100]

The Matchups at the 2 and 3 spots will be easier in the series than last.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

first, are they a tougher team for us to beat in a 7 game series than the mavericks

second, could the kings beat the mavericks in a 7 game series?

Here are the answers you seek:

Question 1: We'll know at the end of this series.

Question 2: It would be impossible for the Kings to beat the Mavs in a 7 game series because the Kings have already been eliminated from the playoffs.

[boutons_]

"the mavs won 60 games."

The Kings had the 2nd best record in the West after ASB+Artest, but that's not the real indicator.

The Mavs are better than the Kings because the Mavs have more offensive weapons and play better defense.

[Dunc]

Nah, dude. The Grizzlies suck.

Oh no, lol. Sorry, I wasn't arguing with you, I was addressing the original post of the thread. I agree with you, the Grizzlies do suck.

[Dunc]

The Kings are definitely the greater team out of the two....The mavs just dont have what it takes to take it to the spurs the way the kings did

After one game you're making these assumptions? You must be :drunk

[Obstructed_View]

Oh no, lol. Sorry, I wasn't arguing with you, I was addressing the original post of the thread. I agree with you, the Grizzlies do suck.
I've been waiting to see if you caught that post. :lol I knew what you meant, but it was too funny to pass up.

[Doc Holiday]

I reckon the Spurs are the best team in the west, and the Kings would have been the number 2 if they had Artest all year long

[Dunc]

I've been waiting to see if you caught that post. :lol I knew what you meant, but it was too funny to pass up.

Yeah, I suspected you were messing with me cuz you didn't try to rip my head off, lol. Touche. I woulda done the same thing to you :D

[Dunc]

I've been waiting to see if you caught that post. :lol I knew what you meant, but it was too funny to pass up.

Yeah, I suspected you were messing with me cuz you didn't try to rip my head off, lol. Touche. I woulda done the same thing to you :D

[batman2883]

Simply put the Mavs dont have a dominant force to outrebound and score like nuts like Bonzi wells did on us. Dirk definetly is that person for the mavs, Josh Howard is a great player and i respect his game but outside of him who else will step up??? Dirk is on lockdown, wont be the entire series but still on lock down. Jason Terry wont be scoring at will, Josh howard will have 20 point games, stackhouse wont be scoring like he did on sundayall the time....there is nothing left.....what devin harriS??? ha hah a ha

[DubMcDub]

"the mavs won 60 games."

The Kings had the 2nd best record in the West after ASB+Artest, but that's not the real indicator.

No they didn't.

In fact, they had a slightly lower winning percentage than MEMPHIS even if you only count the games after they got Artest. Much less Dallas.

[RON ARTEST]

No they didn't.

In fact, they had a slightly lower winning percentage than MEMPHIS even if you only count the games after they got Artest. Much less Dallas.
since the beginning of febuary they had the second best record in the league. 1st was san antonio. i dont know what dallas was but they werent 1st or 2nd thats for sure.

[DubMcDub]

since the beginning of febuary they had the second best record in the league. 1st was san antonio. i dont know what dallas was but they werent 1st or 2nd thats for sure.

This is not accurate.

[pache100]

This is not accurate.

Ok, hotshot, instead of continuing with the stuck needle, tell us the truth.

[RON ARTEST]

so are u saying that this years king's team is better than the 02-03 king's team which consisted of bibby,christie,peja,webber,vlade? with a very good 6th man in bobby jackson?
because the mavs did beat that 02-03 team and saying the mavs < kings means that this kings team is better than the 02-03 team
plus this years mavs team is definately better than any other previous mavs team in the past
what the hell are you talking about? webber played one fucking game in that series and then he hurt his knee. and in that game we blew you bitches out on your home court. and without our best player we still took you to 7 games. wow you cant even remember the NBA 3 years ago?

[Mavs<Spurs]

Ludicrous statement.Does this mean that you think the series would go four games and Dallas would win each game by 20?

Doesn't seem ludicrous. Plus, I am not saying it dogmatically. It's my opinion.

My opinion isn't based on this game 1 although a lot of games will probably be very close.

Remember, it's all about matchups. I don't see how a person looking at the matchups would conclude that clearly (in math- no proof is needed because it is so obvious) Mavs would destroy the Kings. I do agree with Boutons that Dallas's defense is somewhat better than the Kings (prior to Artest- much better). I am not crazy about either offense. Dallas does drive to the lane and get some points in the paint from drives, but again no low post player. Bibby can score points in a hurry and Miller does have a great jumpshot. Of course, Miller<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Dirk. Dallas does not share the ball. Too much 1 on 1. Kings are a better passing team and normally shoot about as well. Obviously, Bonzi and Artest are not normally good 3 point shooters.
Dirk would clearly be the best player in the series.


To beat the Kings, the Mavs would have to successfully address the matchups. However, it would turn out, it would not be easy. Mavs are a very good team, but the Kings seemed extremely tough. Who guards Bonzi? Who guards Artest? Do you double? What if Miller is hitting his jumpshot?
If this is a ludicrous statement, how do you match them up?

[td4mvp21]

We win one game, and everyone thinks for sure we are winning, its gonna be a sweep, Kings>Mavs, etc. We were down most of the game except in the fourth quarter....no one has any foreknowledge that the Spurs will come out firing and win easily in Game 2. Best of Seven, not Best of One.

[Mavtek]

what the hell are you talking about? webber played one fucking game in that series and then he hurt his knee. and in that game we blew you bitches out on your home court. and without our best player we still took you to 7 games. wow you cant even remember the NBA 3 years ago?

Correction, Webber played for nearly 3 quarters of game 2 as well, until his knee went out, one might want to wonder why he was even in the game, I was at the game and I remember 2 things when he went down.

1. The Mavs were up by 37 late in the 3rd, the Kings weren't coming back, why even have Webber playing heavy minutes?

2. The Mavericks reached a new playoff record for points scored in one half the place went fucking nuts. 83 points

Oh and I have another one for you, the series would have been over in 6, but even Nick Van Exel will tell you, they took game 4 off.

[Mavtek]

We win one game, and everyone thinks for sure we are winning, its gonna be a sweep, Kings>Mavs, etc. We were down most of the game except in the fourth quarter....no one has any foreknowledge that the Spurs will come out firing and win easily in Game 2. Best of Seven, not Best of One.

Couldn't agree more.

[Extra Stout]

We win one game, and everyone thinks for sure we are winning, its gonna be a sweep, Kings>Mavs, etc. We were down most of the game except in the fourth quarter....no one has any foreknowledge that the Spurs will come out firing and win easily in Game 2. Best of Seven, not Best of One.
Of course. And if the Mavs win Game 2, the sky will be falling, the Mavs will be winning in 5 or 6 games, Tim Duncan and the Spurs will be irretrievably on a downhill slide, never to return to serious contention, Tony Parker will demand a trade to the Lakers, marijuana will never be legalized, and employers in S.A. will snap to the fact that Latinos everywhere else in the U.S. work their asses off.

ARMAGEDDON

[RON ARTEST]

Correction, Webber played for nearly 3 quarters of game 2 as well, until his knee went out, one might want to wonder why he was even in the game, I was at the game and I remember 2 things when he went down.

1. The Mavs were up by 37 late in the 3rd, the Kings weren't coming back, why even have Webber playing heavy minutes?

2. The Mavericks reached a new playoff record for points scored in one half the place went fucking nuts. 83 points

Oh and I have another one for you, the series would have been over in 6, but even Nick Van Exel will tell you, they took game 4 off.
o please if webber was healthy you know we were the better team. you would say the same if dirk was out.

[Obstructed_View]

Ok, hotshot, instead of continuing with the stuck needle, tell us the truth.
Record since the all star break:

dallas
19-11

San Antonio
23-7

Sacramento
20-9

[RON ARTEST]

Record since the all star break:

dallas
19-11

San Antonio
23-7

Sacramento
20-9
in other words the kings will be better then the mavs next season but still not on the level of the spurs. i couldnt agree more.

[Obstructed_View]

in other words the kings will be better then the mavs next season but still not on the level of the spurs. i couldnt agree more.
There was no opinion tied to that statement. I'm just tired of DumMcDuumb not bothering to look it up. The Kings are going to have a hard time being better without Bonzi Wells.

[leemajors]

in other words the kings will be better then the mavs next season but still not on the level of the spurs. i couldnt agree more.

that's a bold statement, i don't see the mavs dropping off much if at all. the kings would need to resign bonzi and have him continue at a high level of play to catch up to the mavs, which bonzi has never really done consistently. the kings are headed in the right direction, though.

[5ToolMan]

"the mavs won 60 games."

The Kings had the 2nd best record in the West after ASB+Artest, but that's not the real indicator.

The Mavs are better than the Kings because the Mavs have more offensive weapons and play better defense.

With Artest added and Wells healthy, the Kings defense is near if not better than Dallas. The Spurs/Kings was the 2nd lowest scoring series of the first round. For that, you must give both teams credit.

[Walton Buys Off Me]

I said it last month- the Sputs toughest opponent, aside from Detroit of course will be the Sacramento Kings. Ron Artest is excatly the type of player that you do not want to face in the opening round. He's extremely physical, he wants to win and he's too stupid to stay down.

The Kings would beat the Mavs in a best of seven.

[pking]

The Kings would beat the Mavs in a best of seven.

I doubt this. I'm a big Mavs fan, but I'm not a homer/excuse maker/unrealistic fan. Just because they gave the Spurs a small fit does not mean they match up the same against us.

Guess we'll never know.. but I'd be pretty confident going into a 7 game series against them. Not gonna say we'd win no question -- that's just dumb. But I wouldn't have huge doubts about it.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

This comparison between the Kings &. Mavs series is the kind of thing you have to wait and see, and it doesn't mean shit about which is the better team, it just tells who's a worse matchup for the Spurs..

Next year we'll see if the Kings > Mavs..(weren't the Kings predicted for this season to take their division this year before injuries?)By this guys logic, last year's Sonics > Suns because they gave us a harder fight which isn't fair because Suns have play with no center to match up with us. Hence not a true answer to Duncan, and recently this year with Nazr's domination game.

[CosmicCowboy]

If it works out that way the Spurs will kill the Suns in the finals. The brackets soooooo suck this year.

[mavsfan1000]

I actually think the kings are better. The mavs are soft and can't score at the same time.

[mffl89]

what the hell are you talking about? webber played one fucking game in that series and then he hurt his knee. and in that game we blew you bitches out on your home court. and without our best player we still took you to 7 games. wow you cant even remember the NBA 3 years ago?

u didnt answer my question...the mavs still had a better record with 60 wins than the kings who had 58 or 59 wins

[RON ARTEST]

There was no opinion tied to that statement. I'm just tired of DumMcDuumb not bothering to look it up. The Kings are going to have a hard time being better without Bonzi Wells.
bonzi is staying buddy. he said the only way he doesnt resign is if the maloofs dont want him. which they do. he said hes tired of moving. without bonzi? yeah right.

[RON ARTEST]

u didnt answer my question...the mavs still had a better record with 60 wins than the kings who had 58 or 59 winsjust like a mavs fan to talk about regular season. :lol the suns won more games then the spurs last year but the spurs won it all. regular season means nothing. if webber was healthy we would have kicked your asses. we took you to 7 freaking games without our best player. your out of your mind.

[J.T.]

I really like what John Hollinger said on his ESPN chat about Bonzi:

Here's a test for NBA Executives that I'll call "Sample Size 101." What do you use as a basis for your evaluation of Bonzi Wells? A) The six games against San Antonio in the playoffs, or B) The six hundred games he'd played up until that point. If you answered A), you're either Isiah Thomas or on the way to becoming him.

[Reggie Miller]

The Kings were not an opponent you wanted to go deep with in the first round. Look at how much punishment Artest absorbed and dealt. I have my issues with Ron, but you can't question his effort when he's playing. (It's all the mistakes/bad decisions that lead to NOT playing that are the issue!)

The Kings are on that brink. What they do (or don't do) this off-season is going to make or break this team. The Kings remind me of the Pacers; always in the playoffs, not making the most of their correspondingly late picks, problems with attracting free agents.

Part of the reason that I follow the Spurs is that they have done so well, despite a small market and always picking late. Pro sports are definitely big business, and I am becoming disenchanted with teams that are ripping off their fans. That is, teams that won't commit to winning, get fat on luxury taxes that aren't reinvested in the product on the field, etc., etc. Let's put it this way, I am this close to boycotting the Cubs (after 34 years) because I refuse to line the Tribune's pockets anymore. I will explain further if anyone cares...

[RON ARTEST]

The Kings were not an opponent you wanted to go deep with in the first round. Look at how much punishment Artest absorbed and dealt. I have my issues with Ron, but you can't question his effort when he's playing. (It's all the mistakes/bad decisions that lead to NOT playing that are the issue!)

The Kings are on that brink. What they do (or don't do) this off-season is going to make or break this team. The Kings remind me of the Pacers; always in the playoffs, not making the most of their correspondingly late picks, problems with attracting free agents.

Part of the reason that I follow the Spurs is that they have done so well, despite a small market and always picking late. Pro sports are definitely big business, and I am becoming disenchanted with teams that are ripping off their fans. That is, teams that won't commit to winning, get fat on luxury taxes that aren't reinvested in the product on the field, etc., etc. Let's put it this way, I am this close to boycotting the Cubs (after 34 years) because I refuse to line the Tribune's pockets anymore. I will explain further if anyone cares...
do you think the pacers should keep peja? are you happy with him?

[Reggie Miller]

Peja seems like a less effective version of Reggie Miller. Since he has been in the West, I won't pretend to really know his game, but he does not appear to have significant off-the-ball or leadership skills. (It's not exactly fair to evaluate a midseason trade in that regard).

The last thing the Pacers need is another player without a post game who commands a high salary. Cripes, they have too many CENTERS that fit that description. Also, they have to have someone to play 70+ games. The last two seasons have been absolute nightmares. You needed a scorecard because no two lineups were ever the same. If Peja is going to sit, we just can't afford him at any price.

This has been the worst stretch I've ever faced as a Pacers fan. To be frank, the Pacers were never the best team, rarely even the best team in the East. In that brief Jordan-free window when they were still pretty damn good, they couldn't get past Shaq (in either Conference). However, they were consistent and good enough to inspire hope. This is just a mess. I mean, you literally have no idea what to expect from night to night.

Interesting thought: Only the most successful and "safe" (not perceived as encroaching on much NBA territory) ABA teams came in on the merger. Of this group, the Pacers were overall the most successful (most ABA championships, highest average attendance, etc.), yet the Spurs are the only ABA team to ever win an NBA championship. "Logically," it probably should have been Indiana or New Jersey, not the team that has two other NBA teams in its own state. Good job, San Antone.

[Obstructed_View]

bonzi is staying buddy. he said the only way he doesnt resign is if the maloofs dont want him. which they do. he said hes tired of moving. without bonzi? yeah right.
I never said they wouldn't re-sign him. I just said they wouldn't be as good without him, and he will disappear as soon as he gets his money.

[mffl89]

just like a mavs fan to talk about regular season. :lol the suns won more games then the spurs last year but the spurs won it all. regular season means nothing. if webber was healthy we would have kicked your asses. we took you to 7 freaking games without our best player. your out of your mind.

then if the regular season doesn't matter, then why do guys like u bring up the record of the kings since they got artest? i remember reading that people were saying that the king's record since the all-star break were better than the mavs so therefore they are better than the mavs

[pache100]

wow you cant even remember the NBA 3 years ago?

I remember who brought the Larry O'Brien trophy home that year and had a river parade. Everything else that happened that year dims in comparison.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

so are u saying that this years king's team is better than the 02-03 king's team which consisted of bibby,christie,peja,webber,vlade? with a very good 6th man in bobby jackson?
because the mavs did beat that 02-03 team and saying the mavs < kings means that this kings team is better than the 02-03 team
plus this years mavs team is definately better than any other previous mavs team in the past
The Mavs of that year beat a team with a one-legged Chris Webber. Your point is moot.

[NoMoneyDown]

The Mavs of that year beat a team with a one-legged Chris Webber. Your point is moot.

Some people would argue:

Two-legged Webber = One-legged Webber

[MadDog73]

And some people last year argued that Tim Duncan = Chris Webber.

conclusion: some people are stupid.

[NoMoneyDown]

conclusion: some people are stupid.

Judging by Webber's BB career, I'd say some people are smart would be the correct choice.

[Extra Stout]

And some people last year argued that Tim Duncan = Chris Webber.

conclusion: some people are stupid.
That was just one guy.

And he continued the argument this year. Genius.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

The Mavs of that year beat a team with a one-legged Chris Webber. Your point is moot.

Some people would argue:

Two-legged Webber = One-legged WebberAnd those people are foolish. Chris Webber in his prime was one of a kind, much like Duncan in his prime.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

And some people last year argued that Tim Duncan = Chris Webber.

conclusion: some people are stupid.When you look at it strictly by the numbers the two are very similar. Webber career stats: 21 pts 10 reb 4 ast. This year: 20 pts 10 reb 3 ast. Duncan career stats: 22 pts 12 reb 3 ast. This year: 18 pts 11 reb 3 ast.

Statistically speaking this year Webber>Duncan. But that really means nothing as Webber is fishing right now.

[picnroll]

You need to figure in Duncan's defense compared to Webber's. Defense is half the game, in the Spurs case more than half. Include defense and Duncan >>>> Webber.

[SpursWoman]

You need to figure in Duncan's defense compared to Webber's. Defense is half the game, in the Spurs case more than half. Include defense and Duncan >>>> Webber.


And testicular fortitude. Do you guys have a measuring system for that? :lol

[KingsFanWithoutName]

You need to figure in Duncan's defense compared to Webber's. Defense is half the game, in the Spurs case more than half. Include defense and Duncan >>>> Webber.
Statistically, defense can only be measured by opp fg% against, and blks and steals. Duncan (.79 stls, 2.4 blks) Webber (1.5 stls, 1.5 blks). Duncan edges out Webber with the points scored against. It is obvious Duncan is overall a better player because a) he holds his opponents to less points, and b) his "team" plays better defense. My whole point in this was to prove that those who said Webber=Duncan were not entirely "stupid".