^Manoshevitz! It's gets better than that. But, I'll be damned if I can cite it.
2005-06 27 DAL NBA 81 81 38.1 9.3 19.3 .480 1.4 3.3 .406 6.7 7.4 .901 1.4 7.6 9.0 2.8 0.7 1.0 1.9 2.0 26.6
2009-10 31 DAL NBA 81 80 37.5 8.9 18.5 .481 0.6 1.5 .421 6.6 7.2 .915 1.0 6.7 7.7 2.7 0.9 1.0 1.8 2.6 25.0
And watching his playoff stats against Hornets, Nuggets and 2x Spurs: No he didnt. The past years it was all about his choking inconsistent support cast (Terry, Howard, Butler).
Last edited by sefant77; 09-17-2010 at 01:03 PM.
Cubes > all
I like Sadat a lot, Lord Jamal is decent.
But Brand Nubian just wasn't the same without Grand Puba.
1. Lost in the first round.
2. The next time Marion gets 32 points, 19 rebounds, 4 steals, and 3 assists to key his team to a 2-1 series lead, let me know.
a Detroit F'n Pistons fan talking about a top team out West????? really?
When the Pistons become RELEVANT again you let me know, till then let grown folks speak
les, maggot.a Detroit F'n Pistons fan talking about a top team out West????? really?
When the Pistons become RELEVANT again you let me know, till then let grown folks speak
As far as the thread goes, we can't make any conclusions to how a series between these two would go because they haven't met since Cuban bought the team right??? in the postseason i'm speaking about obviously. I wanna see them play in the WCF as bad as anyone and see how we stack up, but till that happens we all can just guess about how the series would go between the two.
come up with something original and i'll play along
Well, get to the WCF and find out.
Mavs Both Deep and Shallow
By Bethlehem Shoals and Tom Ziller
Plumbing the Depth: When asked if his Mavericks can defeat the two-time defending NBA champion L.A. Lakers, franchise owner Mark Cuban argued that the team's depth will allow Dallas to reign supreme. The actual quote, from a Q&A with SportsDayDFW, is a bit more rah-rah: " yes. We've got the size now. We've got the depth. We've got a lot more depth than the Lakers. It's not even close there."
Uhh ...
Cuban is apparently arguing that having a better ninth or 10th man is a major factor in winning major games. To the contrary, research has repeatedly shown that a team's top three or so players account for much of the success or failure of a team. Sports economist David Berri, with whom I frequently disagree, has applied the Pareto Principle to the NBA, which has shown that using his (controversial) production metric, a team's top three players generally produce 80 percent of a team's wins. And while in basketball circles Berri is a divisive figure, this point is actually widely accepted. It makes intuitive sense -- your top players play more minutes, thus having a larger potential footprint (for better or worse) on a game. And the math seems to back it up.
So what about the Mavericks' depth?
What depth do they have, exactly? The team added Tyson Chandler via trade, losing the un-guaranteed contract of Erick Dampier. Chandler and Dampier, conveniently enough, aren't too different. They are rebounding post defenders with offensive skill-sets sitting on the border of troubling and non-existent. The Mavericks had Dampier and Brendan Haywood up front for the stretch run last season; this year, it will be Chandler and Haywood. On the edges, the team replaced Tim Thomas and Eduardo Najera with Alexis Ajinca and Ian Mahinmi, the latter of whom actually matters but won't see much playing time, in all likelihood, barring injury of course.
In the backcourt, the team added Dominique Jones. That is all.
If the clusterflock at the wing positions -- that'd be Shawn Marion, Caron Butler, Rodrigue Beaubois and Jason Terry, all of whom likely require a great deal of minutes and only one of whom (Marion) can realistically play another position (power forward) for extending minutes, a position which happens to be held by an All-World monster (Dirk Nowitzki) who plays tons of minutes and rarely misses game -- is depth, call me Georgia and hand me that fiddle. Sure, that's depth, better depth than the Lakers have on the wings. But does it matter?
And this ignores the possibly most important position on the floor: point guard. The Mavericks have Jason Kidd and J.J. Barea. In four playoff series with Dallas, Kidd has averaged 9.7 points and 6.4 assists in more than 38 minutes a game. The Mavericks are 1-3 in those series. Barea, who is fast, is not terribly good. Kidd will turn 38 before the '10-11 playoffs, and as noted has been largely terrible in the playoffs the last three seasons.
Where's the depth there?
The problem with the Mavericks isn't that they can't beat the Lakers in the second quarter. Great wing depth and a solid (or better) big man rotation will help there. But how important is that if the first unit falls behind by a dozen points, or if the Lakers have no problem defending 4/5ths of the Mavericks' line-up in crunch time? To me, any argument on depth comes down to the graphic at right: the Lakers' fifth best player is as good or better than the Mavericks' second best player. That's a problem! After all these post-Nash years, Dirk still doesn't have help. Butler's nice, Marion solid, Haywood adorable. But none of those sidekicks comes close to comparing to someone like Pau Gasol, or Duncan's Ginobili (or Parker, for that matter), or Garnett's Pierce (or Pierce's Garnett, or Pierce's Rondo, or Garnett's Rondo). And we'll just ignore the Heat for a second, because I'm already laughing hysterically at the thought.
The Mavericks are not lacking for depth. They never have!, lest we forget the halcyon days of Antawn Jamison, Sixth Man. It's top-line talent Dallas needs, as well as serious aid at point guard. No wonder those Chris Paul rumors never die.
(That said, if coach Rick Carlisle realizes what he has with Beaubois, we can rewrite this whole narrative. I'm just not convinced Carlisle will give Roddy minutes owed to the veterans like Butler and Terry, never mind Kidd.) (TZ)
Solid article, thanks! But wait Pau is the real MVP of the Lakers ...this article is crap.Mavs Both Deep and Shallow
By Bethlehem Shoals and Tom Ziller
Plumbing the Depth: When asked if his Mavericks can defeat the two-time defending NBA champion L.A. Lakers, franchise owner Mark Cuban argued that the team's depth will allow Dallas to reign supreme. The actual quote, from a Q&A with SportsDayDFW, is a bit more rah-rah: " yes. We've got the size now. We've got the depth. We've got a lot more depth than the Lakers. It's not even close there."
Uhh ...
Cuban is apparently arguing that having a better ninth or 10th man is a major factor in winning major games. To the contrary, research has repeatedly shown that a team's top three or so players account for much of the success or failure of a team. Sports economist David Berri, with whom I frequently disagree, has applied the Pareto Principle to the NBA, which has shown that using his (controversial) production metric, a team's top three players generally produce 80 percent of a team's wins. And while in basketball circles Berri is a divisive figure, this point is actually widely accepted. It makes intuitive sense -- your top players play more minutes, thus having a larger potential footprint (for better or worse) on a game. And the math seems to back it up.
So what about the Mavericks' depth?
What depth do they have, exactly? The team added Tyson Chandler via trade, losing the un-guaranteed contract of Erick Dampier. Chandler and Dampier, conveniently enough, aren't too different. They are rebounding post defenders with offensive skill-sets sitting on the border of troubling and non-existent. The Mavericks had Dampier and Brendan Haywood up front for the stretch run last season; this year, it will be Chandler and Haywood. On the edges, the team replaced Tim Thomas and Eduardo Najera with Alexis Ajinca and Ian Mahinmi, the latter of whom actually matters but won't see much playing time, in all likelihood, barring injury of course.
In the backcourt, the team added Dominique Jones. That is all.
If the clusterflock at the wing positions -- that'd be Shawn Marion, Caron Butler, Rodrigue Beaubois and Jason Terry, all of whom likely require a great deal of minutes and only one of whom (Marion) can realistically play another position (power forward) for extending minutes, a position which happens to be held by an All-World monster (Dirk Nowitzki) who plays tons of minutes and rarely misses game -- is depth, call me Georgia and hand me that fiddle. Sure, that's depth, better depth than the Lakers have on the wings. But does it matter?
And this ignores the possibly most important position on the floor: point guard. The Mavericks have Jason Kidd and J.J. Barea. In four playoff series with Dallas, Kidd has averaged 9.7 points and 6.4 assists in more than 38 minutes a game. The Mavericks are 1-3 in those series. Barea, who is fast, is not terribly good. Kidd will turn 38 before the '10-11 playoffs, and as noted has been largely terrible in the playoffs the last three seasons.
Where's the depth there?
The problem with the Mavericks isn't that they can't beat the Lakers in the second quarter. Great wing depth and a solid (or better) big man rotation will help there. But how important is that if the first unit falls behind by a dozen points, or if the Lakers have no problem defending 4/5ths of the Mavericks' line-up in crunch time? To me, any argument on depth comes down to the graphic at right: the Lakers' fifth best player is as good or better than the Mavericks' second best player. That's a problem! After all these post-Nash years, Dirk still doesn't have help. Butler's nice, Marion solid, Haywood adorable. But none of those sidekicks comes close to comparing to someone like Pau Gasol, or Duncan's Ginobili (or Parker, for that matter), or Garnett's Pierce (or Pierce's Garnett, or Pierce's Rondo, or Garnett's Rondo). And we'll just ignore the Heat for a second, because I'm already laughing hysterically at the thought.
The Mavericks are not lacking for depth. They never have!, lest we forget the halcyon days of Antawn Jamison, Sixth Man. It's top-line talent Dallas needs, as well as serious aid at point guard. No wonder those Chris Paul rumors never die.
(That said, if coach Rick Carlisle realizes what he has with Beaubois, we can rewrite this whole narrative. I'm just not convinced Carlisle will give Roddy minutes owed to the veterans like Butler and Terry, never mind Kidd.) (TZ)
the writer did not include shannon brown, matt barnes, derek fisher, and jason kidd.Mavs Both Deep and Shallow
By Bethlehem Shoals and Tom Ziller
Plumbing the Depth: When asked if his Mavericks can defeat the two-time defending NBA champion L.A. Lakers, franchise owner Mark Cuban argued that the team's depth will allow Dallas to reign supreme. The actual quote, from a Q&A with SportsDayDFW, is a bit more rah-rah: " yes. We've got the size now. We've got the depth. We've got a lot more depth than the Lakers. It's not even close there."
Uhh ...
Cuban is apparently arguing that having a better ninth or 10th man is a major factor in winning major games. To the contrary, research has repeatedly shown that a team's top three or so players account for much of the success or failure of a team. Sports economist David Berri, with whom I frequently disagree, has applied the Pareto Principle to the NBA, which has shown that using his (controversial) production metric, a team's top three players generally produce 80 percent of a team's wins. And while in basketball circles Berri is a divisive figure, this point is actually widely accepted. It makes intuitive sense -- your top players play more minutes, thus having a larger potential footprint (for better or worse) on a game. And the math seems to back it up.
So what about the Mavericks' depth?
What depth do they have, exactly? The team added Tyson Chandler via trade, losing the un-guaranteed contract of Erick Dampier. Chandler and Dampier, conveniently enough, aren't too different. They are rebounding post defenders with offensive skill-sets sitting on the border of troubling and non-existent. The Mavericks had Dampier and Brendan Haywood up front for the stretch run last season; this year, it will be Chandler and Haywood. On the edges, the team replaced Tim Thomas and Eduardo Najera with Alexis Ajinca and Ian Mahinmi, the latter of whom actually matters but won't see much playing time, in all likelihood, barring injury of course.
In the backcourt, the team added Dominique Jones. That is all.
If the clusterflock at the wing positions -- that'd be Shawn Marion, Caron Butler, Rodrigue Beaubois and Jason Terry, all of whom likely require a great deal of minutes and only one of whom (Marion) can realistically play another position (power forward) for extending minutes, a position which happens to be held by an All-World monster (Dirk Nowitzki) who plays tons of minutes and rarely misses game -- is depth, call me Georgia and hand me that fiddle. Sure, that's depth, better depth than the Lakers have on the wings. But does it matter?
And this ignores the possibly most important position on the floor: point guard. The Mavericks have Jason Kidd and J.J. Barea. In four playoff series with Dallas, Kidd has averaged 9.7 points and 6.4 assists in more than 38 minutes a game. The Mavericks are 1-3 in those series. Barea, who is fast, is not terribly good. Kidd will turn 38 before the '10-11 playoffs, and as noted has been largely terrible in the playoffs the last three seasons.
Where's the depth there?
The problem with the Mavericks isn't that they can't beat the Lakers in the second quarter. Great wing depth and a solid (or better) big man rotation will help there. But how important is that if the first unit falls behind by a dozen points, or if the Lakers have no problem defending 4/5ths of the Mavericks' line-up in crunch time? To me, any argument on depth comes down to the graphic at right: the Lakers' fifth best player is as good or better than the Mavericks' second best player. That's a problem! After all these post-Nash years, Dirk still doesn't have help. Butler's nice, Marion solid, Haywood adorable. But none of those sidekicks comes close to comparing to someone like Pau Gasol, or Duncan's Ginobili (or Parker, for that matter), or Garnett's Pierce (or Pierce's Garnett, or Pierce's Rondo, or Garnett's Rondo). And we'll just ignore the Heat for a second, because I'm already laughing hysterically at the thought.
The Mavericks are not lacking for depth. They never have!, lest we forget the halcyon days of Antawn Jamison, Sixth Man. It's top-line talent Dallas needs, as well as serious aid at point guard. No wonder those Chris Paul rumors never die.
(That said, if coach Rick Carlisle realizes what he has with Beaubois, we can rewrite this whole narrative. I'm just not convinced Carlisle will give Roddy minutes owed to the veterans like Butler and Terry, never mind Kidd.) (TZ)
the real list should be like this
kobe
dirk
pau
odom
kidd
artest
butler
bynum
marion
roddy
fisher
terry
blake
haywood
barnes
chandler
brown
mahinimi
these are the top 9 from each team some can be switched around like kidd and odom, butler and bynum, barnes and haywood. but ya this how the hierarchy is.
Quit Hatin'
Sure, it's a piece of cake to run the Lakers, after all they are in a huge market with millions and millions of people, desired spot for FAs, all teams in these huge markets have enormous advantages which is why the Clippers and Knicks are so dominant and---
--oh, wait.
Something tells me there's a little more to running a team than that. Buss gets it. Dolan and Sterling do not.
I think Chandler will be an upgrade over Dampier and that gives the Mavs the size and defensive a en to compete with the Laker frontline, and they have enough solid wing defenders to induce Kobe into a few 9-27 shooting nights.
But I still can't believe that the Mavs didn't address PG in the offseason. To me Kidd is a Rolls Royce version of Derek Fisher. You need to hold his minutes to about 30 a game and give him the 2nd of a B2B off every once in awhile. He's done an amazing job of reinventing himself as a complementary player at this stage of his career, but I'm convinced that part of his poor playoff performances in Dallas is a result of having 70+ games of 35 mpg of wear and tear when the second season rolls around. I also thought the Spurs did a great job of taking away his three-point shot in the first-round series last year. That three-ball he's added helps with spacing and forces the other team to actually defend him instead of collapsing on Dirk or Butler. But the Spurs made a conscious effort to chase him off the line and take that shot away and it gummed up the works offensively. The Lakers and any other team would implement the exact same strategy.
The Mavs needed to go after a Steve Blake type, or something resembling competence to stick at PG for twenty minutes a game. JJB just won't cut it. This team gets outscored 110-109 per 100 possessions when he's on the floor and outscores opposing teams 111-104 when he's not. He's got a few skills, but he doesn't deserve regular rotation minutes or the backup PG role. Terry's skill is declining and he doesn't deserve 30-35 minutes anymore, but I think he could able fill the backup PG role. Not addressing backup PG is gonna bite us in the ass again.
LOL when has anything Cuban has ever said became true?
Whatever positive y thing he says for the Mavs, does NOT happen.
lol what is this crap?
Sterling is not even trying to build a great team, he is trying to build up his $$$
Nolan is just too stupid to put the right people in charge
Im not taking anything away from Buss, im just saying being in L.A. and owning the Lakers is helping A LOT. Like i told, same owner Buss in another crappy small market city and there still Buss but no Shaq, Kobe or Artest...
Cuban's the worstest ickiest owner in sports history! He made fun of my Spurs!!
It's pretty easy to run a team when you have the best player in the world, get Pau Gasol by trading away a lump of coal, and be able to sign the best defensive player in the league for the MLfreakingE
That's actually a quite reasonable article. The bottom line isnt if your 9th/10th man is better, it's that Dirk still doesnt have a sidekick like Gasol.
.......or, the guts to shoot a woodchuck.
We'll never know if Sterling gets it or not because Sterling has no interest in building a winner. As much as Buss gets it, he's one of the few NBA owners who isn't a billionaire. If he owned a team that wasn't able to charge up the asshole for tickets, he wouldn't be able to spend like the multi-billionaires of the NBA.
He's still a great owner because he knows how the NBA works as well as any GM and IS willing to spend the money he makes, but he wouldn't be able to throw longterm contracts around left and right or give into Phil Jackson's financial demands the way he does if he owned the Minnesota Timberwolves. A year ago when he had Morrison, Vujacic, and Walton making almost $20,000,000 collectively as 3 players who never played, no in way he'd be able to sign Artest and resign Odom if he owned a smaller market team. There's a lot more room for error when you can have a $95,000,000 roster payroll and still turn a profit.
And ownership + front office executive + even coaches to a lesser extent are overrated as . It's a players league, and it's also a league largely based off luck. Sam Presti is considered a great GM while Chris Wallace is considered a terrible GM. If Chris Wallace gets the #2 pick in 07 and Presti gets the #4 pick, I doubt that's the case. Rick Pitino was a giant flop with the Celtics as president/GM and RC Buhford is considered one of the best GMs in the NBA. Lets say they flip picks in 1997, I doubt things unfold the way they did.
Cuban is a cool owner ..... and dude has bank. Living the ultimate dream as a fan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
