Mavs ponder lessons learned in finals

[Dalhoop]

I must say that it is refreshing to talk hoops without the usual "You Suck / I'm Right" type of posts.

Obviously we both agree that any game between the two team will be the game of month and this is for a reason, the next NBA champion will be playing in the game. We just can't agree on which team it will be

And now, back to the discussion ...

I think that most Mavs fans believe that we are better because of Player Moves (Croshere is better in every aspect in the game, including health and shooting, then KVH), Style of Play (The way we played the Spurs is now the way we will play most of the games), and Experience ("You have to get there before you can win" so-to-speak).

The Spurs have improved with player acquisitions (Vaughn is better NVE) but their style of play will be the same as it was last year, and their experience level will be the same.

why would anybody say that the Mavs have improved more than the Spurs did this off season IF the Mavs are planning on using the same personnel and strategy to play the Spurs?

The series with the Spurs was the first time that we went with that line-up for the whole game/series. The Terry/Harris back court success was discovered in a game with about two weeks to go in the season (I don't remember the date) In that game Harris and Terry played together for the final quarter (Harris got something like 20 in the quarter)

The Mavs filed that away and didn't play the two together again until the Spurs match-up in the second round. It was sort of a "surprise attack". This year the surprise is no more. The two will play together alot more and gain some level of chemistry with this line-up.

This is what is lost on many Spurs fans. What we did to the Spurs starting in game two was the first time that we even tried it for 48 minutes. We can improve that style of play and get better at it.

Edited this in, forgot to address this comment

Besides, Duncan averaged a lot of points (was it like 32?) vs. the Mavs last year in the playoffs. Yes, the Mavs won the series, but it was by a hairline, and given the way the composite ball could bounce this year, both the Spurs and the Mavs should think of better strategies to combat each other rather than relied on what worked last year.

Duncan always comes up big against the Mavs (We don't double .. He is a MVP) Looking at game seven you can say that it was a hairline win. I can understand this because you are looking at it from the Spurs standpoint.

From the Mavs stand point, we were a tip-in away from winning the series 4-1 and had several 20 point leads during the series. This is not quite the hairline win that you are making it out to be. Now yes the series did end up in game seven, but to say that the Mavs didn't have an opportunity to really embarrass the Spurs is looking past the facts.

The Mavs won vs their arch-rivals in seven games but from our standpoint, it was not a classic seven game series. The Mavs were in charge of most of the games (evidenced by their 20 point leads), that they had yet to develop the "killer instinct" made the series do to seven.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think that most Mavs fans believe that we are better because of Player Moves (Croshere is better in every aspect in the game, including health and shooting, then KVH), Style of Play (The way we played the Spurs is now the way we will play most of the games), and Experience ("You have to get there before you can win" so-to-speak).

We'll see. Van Horn hit 3 huge three pointers for the Mavericks in Game 7 -- one could certainly argue that without those shots, the Mavericks don't advance. Will Croshere hit those shots? George? Buckner? Johnson? Who knows. I'm a Croshere fan and think that he can do a lot of nice things to help a team win, but I'm not sure that he's healthier than Van Horn. Croshere hasn't exactly been an ironman while playing in the NBA. He also hasn't hit a bunch of huge shots in playoff games. I'm not saying he won't prove to be an upgrade, just that the assumption that he will be is somewhat of a reach.

The Spurs have improved with player acquisitions (Vaughn is better NVE) but their style of play will be the same as it was last year, and their experience level will be the same.

I'm not sold on the idea that the Spurs intend to play the same style that they've always played. I think Pop intends to get them out running a bit. I think, at the very least, he wants to have the option to run without completely undermining his defensive schemes. Had Pop intended to play the same old style, I think the Spurs would have made a much more significant effort to sign Przybilla or another plodding, defensive-minded center. They went with a lithe, athletic guy like Elson because he offers them versatility. I think that's why they acquired Bonner as well. The hallmark of the 2003 and 2005 Spurs was that they could beat you playing Spurs basketball and could beat you playing at a much faster pace. I think Pop is trying to create flexibility and versatility to get back to that standard.

The series with the Spurs was the first time that we went with that line-up for the whole game/series. The Terry/Harris back court success was discovered in a game with about two weeks to go in the season (I don't remember the date) In that game Harris and Terry played together for the final quarter (Harris got something like 20 in the quarter)

True enough, but I think it also warrants mention that Harris wasn't a problem for the Spurs in Games 6 and 7 of the WCSF. He was terrible in Game 6 and mostly invisible in Game 7. I think the Spurs figured out a way to control his penetration and force him to become a jumpshooter in Game 6; when he struggled mightily from the field in that game, he became an active spectator in Game 7.

The Mavs filed that away and didn't play the two together again until the Spurs match-up in the second round. It was sort of a "surprise attack". This year the surprise is no more. The two will play together alot more and gain some level of chemistry with this line-up.

This is what is lost on many Spurs fans. What we did to the Spurs starting in game two was the first time that we even tried it for 48 minutes. We can improve that style of play and get better at it.

That's an assumption. I can equally assume that with more exposure, good teams will figure out ways to deny Harris penetration and to force him into shooting jumpshots, which will diminish his effectiveness. We'll see, but sometimes more exposure is not a good thing.

Duncan always comes up big against the Mavs (We don't double .. He is a MVP) Looking at game seven you can say that it was a hairline win. I can understand this because you are looking at it from the Spurs standpoint.

From the Mavs stand point, we were a tip-in away from winning the series 4-1 and had several 20 point leads during the series. This is not quite the hairline win that you are making it out to be. Now yes the series did end up in game seven, but to say that the Mavs didn't have an opportunity to really embarrass the Spurs is looking past the facts.

I think if you look at it objectively, you could certainly see why Spurs fans believe that the series could have ended in the Spurs' favor in 5 games, too. In Game 3, the Spurs had rallied from a deficit, only to have Dallas shoot 24 4th quarter free throws (to the Spurs' 8), including the 2 huge FTA that came on a controversial 6th foul against Duncan. I don't ever blame officiating, but it's not as if the Spurs weren't extraordinarily close to winning that game.

Likewise, Game 4 turned on some controversial officiating, including an unwarranted technical foul against Finley and a ridiculous blown call on a block/charge involving Duncan and Nowitzki on the baseline. If Jim Clark calls that play correctly, the Spurs are up 5 with the ball in the 4th. Clark makes the call against Duncan and Nowitzki goes to the line to cut it to 3. Huge, huge difference. Ginobili then fouls out on a questionable call and the Spurs lose in OT. Again, not blaming officiating, but it's not as if the Spurs didn't have reason to reasonably believe that they should have been up 3-1 after 4 games.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

I must say that it is refreshing to talk hoops without the usual "You Suck / I'm Right" type of posts.

Obviously we both agree that any game between the two team will be the game of month and this is for a reason, the next NBA champion will be playing in the game. We just can't agree on which team it will be

And now, back to the discussion ...

I think that most Mavs fans believe that we are better because of Player Moves (Croshere is better in every aspect in the game, including health and shooting, then KVH), Style of Play (The way we played the Spurs is now the way we will play most of the games), and Experience ("You have to get there before you can win" so-to-speak).

The Spurs have improved with player acquisitions (Vaughn is better NVE) but their style of play will be the same as it was last year, and their experience level will be the same.



The series with the Spurs was the first time that we went with that line-up for the whole game/series. The Terry/Harris back court success was discovered in a game with about two weeks to go in the season (I don't remember the date) In that game Harris and Terry played together for the final quarter (Harris got something like 20 in the quarter)

The Mavs filed that away and didn't play the two together again until the Spurs match-up in the second round. It was sort of a "surprise attack". This year the surprise is no more. The two will play together alot more and gain some level of chemistry with this line-up.

This is what is lost on many Spurs fans. What we did to the Spurs starting in game two was the first time that we even tried it for 48 minutes. We can improve that style of play and get better at it.

Edited this in, forgot to address this comment



Duncan always comes up big against the Mavs (We don't double .. He is a MVP) Looking at game seven you can say that it was a hairline win. I can understand this because you are looking at it from the Spurs standpoint.

From the Mavs stand point, we were a tip-in away from winning the series 4-1 and had several 20 point leads during the series. This is not quite the hairline win that you are making it out to be. Now yes the series did end up in game seven, but to say that the Mavs didn't have an opportunity to really embarrass the Spurs is looking past the facts.

The Mavs won vs their arch-rivals in seven games but from our standpoint, it was not a classic seven game series. The Mavs were in charge of most of the games (evidenced by their 20 point leads), that they had yet to develop the "killer instinct" made the series do to seven.

I agree with this post. We did outplay the Spurs basically that entire series from game 1-7 and the only reason why that series even went 7 games is cuz of our inexperience to close series out early. I dont see that being an issue with us this year because we have the experience now to put series away earlier. The Spurs biggest lead that entire series was like 10 points (Game 5 which quickly evaporated). Again great post!

[Trainwreck2100]

I agree with this post. We did outplay the Spurs basically that entire series from game 1-7 and the only reason why that series even went 7 games is cuz of our inexperience to close series out early. I dont see that being an issue with us this year because we have the experience now to put series away earlier. The Spurs biggest lead that entire series was like 10 points (Game 5 which quickly evaporated). Again great post!

Yes, because the Finals taught us that the Mavs are SO good about putting away series

[Mavs Fan Bullshit]

all you haters

Mavs 07 Champs!! Spurs ain't going nowhere

[FromWayDowntown]

all you haters

Mavs 07 Champs!! Spurs ain't going nowhere

Now that's a solid contribution. Great insight. Unbridled passion. Appropriate use of both vulgarity and emoticons.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

Lesson #1:

[Mavs Fan Bullshit]

Now that's a solid contribution. Great insight. Unbridled passion. Appropriate use of both vulgarity and emoticons.

Thanks, Spurs homer!

[Mavs Fan Bullshit]

Lesson #1:

OMG, you're teh ghey.

[Mavs Fan Bullshit]

Hook 'em, ponies!

[Ignorant Spurs fan]

Mavs had the series rigged and we still almost won! we're the better

[Mavs Fan Bullshit]

Mavs had the series rigged and we still almost won! we're the better

no. As you can see, Stern hates Cuban, so he rigs it up for the opposing team won. He even tried to get us beat by the Grrizzlies.




No stopping them Mavs!

[Dalhoop]

And so ends the intelligent conversation.

I will say that this year I hope that the Mavs have learned their lesson. They have been (for several years) a team that plays only the first 36 minutes of games and then sits back in hopes of coasting to victory. They did this with the Spurs and still won the series, I think that ultimately the win vs the Spurs, despite the "coast to the end" mentality will improve the team. If they had lost, then it would have been another second round loss to the Spurs (A team almost their equal ... from our point of view )

Instead it turned into a Finals loss to a team with one star and aging vets, a team that Mavs should have been able to beat. In the Finals, they played the same way. They would get a lead and then relax ... This time it cost them a great deal.

With any luck (Again, from a Mavs fan point of view) the sting of actually losing the le when it was within their grasp will wake the team up and teach them to play all 48 minutes in a game.

If this happens, it would be very bad for the rest of the league

[Mavs Fan Bullshit]

In case you ain't notcied, there isn't no intelligence conversations round here. The Spurs are washed up bas s, the Mavs are ripening young players. OWNED

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I haven't notcied. And there aren't any intelligent conversations around here.

[PixelPusher]

Apparently the Mavs are still busy "pondering the lessons"...The Kings are whoopin on them 94-69 in middle of the 4th.

[dirk4mvp]

Apparently the Mavs are still busy "pondering the lessons"...The Kings are whoopin on them 94-69 in middle of the 4th.

They're losing a pre-season game!?!?! Tell 'em to hang it up. The season if ing over. No chance at all.

[Ignorant Spurs fan]

expect a Cuban blog tommorow

[mavsfan1000]

The mavs are done. I can't watch this crap team anymore. them.

[phyzik]

The mavs are done. I can't watch this crap team anymore. them.

FINALLY!!! you see the light!!

Its about ing time Mavs fans realise the truth abouth their team.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

And so ends the intelligent conversation.

I will say that this year I hope that the Mavs have learned their lesson. They have been (for several years) a team that plays only the first 36 minutes of games and then sits back in hopes of coasting to victory. They did this with the Spurs and still won the series, I think that ultimately the win vs the Spurs, despite the "coast to the end" mentality will improve the team. If they had lost, then it would have been another second round loss to the Spurs (A team almost their equal ... from our point of view )

Instead it turned into a Finals loss to a team with one star and aging vets, a team that Mavs should have been able to beat. In the Finals, they played the same way. They would get a lead and then relax ... This time it cost them a great deal.

With any luck (Again, from a Mavs fan point of view) the sting of actually losing the le when it was within their grasp will wake the team up and teach them to play all 48 minutes in a game.

If this happens, it would be very bad for the rest of the league

Dalhoop is kicking ass with his facts!! The best point he makes is if the Mavs decide to play the full 48 minutes of Mavs ball and still show that hunger, the rest of the league is totally ed including the Spurs. God I am pumped to start the season cuz the Mavs will have a major chip on their shoulder with an even better roster then last season!!

[FromWayDowntown]

Opinions = Facts?

[ShoogarBear]

In Mav Land, opinions using words with more than two syllables = writ on stone tablets.

[ambchang]

I must say that it is refreshing to talk hoops without the usual "You Suck / I'm Right" type of posts.

Obviously we both agree that any game between the two team will be the game of month and this is for a reason, the next NBA champion will be playing in the game. We just can't agree on which team it will be

And now, back to the discussion ...

I think that most Mavs fans believe that we are better because of Player Moves (Croshere is better in every aspect in the game, including health and shooting, then KVH), Style of Play (The way we played the Spurs is now the way we will play most of the games), and Experience ("You have to get there before you can win" so-to-speak).

KVH, in my opinion, has become the undeserved whipping boy of the Mavs. The biggest problem he has is that he was drafted behind Duncan, and he gets paid stacks of money, while he should be a $5-6 M guy drafted in the middle of the 1st round. Crosher is not better in every aspect of the game, and their per 40 minutes stats showed it. KVH is a better scorer, and better passer. Croshere is a better rebounder, and has a higher basketball IQ, I would agree, but the two are basically a wash.

The Spurs have improved with player acquisitions (Vaughn is better NVE) but their style of play will be the same as it was last year, and their experience level will be the same.

I see a drastic shift in the defensive philosophy of the Spurs, which was to funnel everything to the middle. They are not going to be doing that this season, at least they don’t seem to have the personnel to do that.

The series with the Spurs was the first time that we went with that line-up for the whole game/series. The Terry/Harris back court success was discovered in a game with about two weeks to go in the season (I don't remember the date) In that game Harris and Terry played together for the final quarter (Harris got something like 20 in the quarter)

The Mavs filed that away and didn't play the two together again until the Spurs match-up in the second round. It was sort of a "surprise attack". This year the surprise is no more. The two will play together alot more and gain some level of chemistry with this line-up.

This is what is lost on many Spurs fans. What we did to the Spurs starting in game two was the first time that we even tried it for 48 minutes. We can improve that style of play and get better at it.

And that element of surprise was important. It was found that you just back away from Harris (Miami) and force him to shoot jumpers. Many teams will try that this year.

Edited this in, forgot to address this comment

Duncan always comes up big against the Mavs (We don't double .. He is a MVP) Looking at game seven you can say that it was a hairline win. I can understand this because you are looking at it from the Spurs standpoint.

From the Mavs stand point, we were a tip-in away from winning the series 4-1 and had several 20 point leads during the series. This is not quite the hairline win that you are making it out to be. Now yes the series did end up in game seven, but to say that the Mavs didn't have an opportunity to really embarrass the Spurs is looking past the facts.

The Mavs won vs their arch-rivals in seven games but from our standpoint, it was not a classic seven game series. The Mavs were in charge of most of the games (evidenced by their 20 point leads), that they had yet to develop the "killer instinct" made the series do to seven.

And playing the game for 48 minutes, and 7 games (at least 4 wins) per series is extremely important. And I do not agree with your assessment that the Mavs are so much better than the Spurs that they could have won in 5 games, because they didn’t. Because given how close the games were, I could easily say that the Spurs could have won in 5 games (take out game 2) based on how the ball is bounced, and we both know that not to be true.

The Spurs have a history of coming back for important wins (2003 WCF vs. the Mavs, 2005 Game 7 vs. the Pistons, 2005 Game 1 vs. the Pistons), and jumping out to a big and early lead without the ability to sustain it does not translate into superiority, it just shows that over the course of 48 minutes, the two teams are compe ive.

For example, you are having a haircut. You can’t say that since the first 60% of the cut was great, and the stylist messed up the final 40%, the stylist is a great stylist because s/he has show the ability for great cuts in the first 60% of the process.

[FromWayDowntown]

And playing the game for 48 minutes, and 7 games (at least 4 wins) per series is extremely important. And I do not agree with your assessment that the Mavs are so much better than the Spurs that they could have won in 5 games, because they didn’t. Because given how close the games were, I could easily say that the Spurs could have won in 5 games (take out game 2) based on how the ball is bounced, and we both know that not to be true.

The Spurs have a history of coming back for important wins (2003 WCF vs. the Mavs, 2005 Game 7 vs. the Pistons, 2005 Game 1 vs. the Pistons), and jumping out to a big and early lead without the ability to sustain it does not translate into superiority, it just shows that over the course of 48 minutes, the two teams are compe ive.

For example, you are having a haircut. You can’t say that since the first 60% of the cut was great, and the stylist messed up the final 40%, the stylist is a great stylist because s/he has show the ability for great cuts in the first 60% of the process.

So true. Mavs fan says that the Mavs showed themselves to be superior by jumping out to 10-20 point leads. The final scores reflect that those leads did not exist at the game's conclusion, which necessarily means that just as the Mavs were 10-20 points "better" for stretches of games, so too were the Spurs.

After all, you can't completely make up a 20 point deficit without outscoring your opponent by 20 or more during a given stretch of the game.

Mavs fans who rely on the "we showed we were dominant by getting big leads" frequently miss that converse (which is equally significant), which is just proof positive that those teams were remarkably, remarkably close last season.