Nowitzki: Lineup shouldn't matter

[sandman]

So are you personally not qualified to comment on basketball since you haven't been a part of an NBA team that has advanced past the first round? Or coached a team to a le? * Btw, how exactly do you win a le without dominant players?

* I'm assuming you've done neither of these things. Are you in fact a former NBA player or coach?

First, CryHavoc understood exactly the point I was attempting to make.

Second, anyone and everyone is allowed to have a comment about anything they damn well want to comment about. It's all about the degree of validity that we give comments from certain people and the criticism that they open themselves up to.

Third, kindly get the stick out of your ass so that we can be through with these righteous indignation posts.

[mavsfan1000]

Btw The Mavs Lost!

Thanks for saying the obvious. Btw the kings missed the playoffs.

[DubMcDub]

TMac has never seen action past the first round, and Phil has never had a championship level team not lead by someone named MJ or Shaq in their primes. Not sure that I would use either one of their viewpoints to be making a case about the Finals last year.

The only coaches whose opinion matter are the ones who won championships without superstar players, then?

[sandman]

The only coaches whose opinion matter are the ones who won championships without superstar players, then?

Feel free to read the entire thread before you post...

[nsrammstein]

lol @ spurs fans if you bring up that they are down 0-1 also they instantly come up with the ''hey it was only by 6 points'' a loss is a loss .

[theMUHMEshow]

I totally agree with _irk.

[Findog]

First, CryHavoc understood exactly the point I was attempting to make.

In his prime Jordan averaged 10 FTAs per game. In the first round series against the Bulls last year, Wade averaged 8 FTAs per game. Playing the same way against Dallas, he averaged 17 FTAs per game. That's 9 extra points per game in a series where Dallas lost three games by a grand total of 6 points.

As for Shaq, the rules of the game were changed to accomodate him. No player has absorbed more contact than he has, because he was simply unstoppable during his prime of 2000-02, a 35-15 guy. There was no way to guard him without fouling him. So any calls he got unfairly were balanced out by the many times he was hit and battered without the refs blowing their whistles.

So, no, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think Tracy McGrady and Phil Jackson know more about basketball than you or I.

[Cry Havoc]

In his prime Jordan averaged 10 FTAs per game.

Awww come on Fin, I respect you, but I respectfully disagree here. You can't compare eras. Jordan played in a decade where you could reverse-suplex a player without getting a call and still averaged 10 FTs a game.

In the first round series against the Bulls last year, Wade averaged 8 FTAs per game. Playing the same way against Dallas, he averaged 17 FTAs per game. That's 9 extra points per game in a series where Dallas lost three games by a grand total of 6 points.

I could make the same comparison to several Mavs players in the Spurs series. Wade did get the benefit of some calls, but the Mavs weren't exactly stopping him from getting into the lane. The razor cuts both ways.

As for Shaq, the rules of the game were changed to accomodate him. No player has absorbed more contact than he has, because he was simply unstoppable during his prime of 2000-02, a 35-15 guy.

No player has initiated nearly as much contact or the degree of contact that Shaq has, either. I have NEVER seen a player who can so commonly dislocate/dislodge an opponent from their defensive position without getting a charge call.

There was no way to guard him without fouling him. So any calls he got unfairly were balanced out by the many times he was hit and battered without the refs blowing their whistles.

I disagree. Shaq got position on his man by chucking him across the court with his backside.

So, no, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think Tracy McGrady and Phil Jackson know more about basketball than you or I.

Which doesn't necessarily indicate that their logic is infallible. AJ knows a lot more about basketball than most (or all) the posters here, but that didn't stop him from starting Devean George at C against the Warriors with a team that was on pace to win 70 at one point this season.

[resistanze]

Dirk is actually right. They should win regardless of the lineup as long as he doesn't turn into a vagina in the 4th quarter. That being said, there STILL was no reason to play small ball.

[sandman]

In his prime Jordan averaged 10 FTAs per game. In the first round series against the Bulls last year, Wade averaged 8 FTAs per game. Playing the same way against Dallas, he averaged 17 FTAs per game. That's 9 extra points per game in a series where Dallas lost three games by a grand total of 6 points.

As for Shaq, the rules of the game were changed to accomodate him. No player has absorbed more contact than he has, because he was simply unstoppable during his prime of 2000-02, a 35-15 guy. There was no way to guard him without fouling him. So any calls he got unfairly were balanced out by the many times he was hit and battered without the refs blowing their whistles.

So, no, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think Tracy McGrady and Phil Jackson know more about basketball than you or I.

I's not about whether or not TMac or Phil know more than you or I. That point was never in question. I was simply stating that Phil's intrepretation of officiating differs from most other coaches, simply because he is used to coaching championship level teams that had dominating players, all of which plays into a mindset of expecting to get the calls. I take anything coming out of Phil's mouth with a grain of salt, because he has an elitist mentality.

[Carrot Top]

Mavs are champs

[icem]

^ u disagree? if the Mavs had made any of those shots, the loss might not have been a loss... thass the reality, if you make the baskets, you stand a chance of winning... and the Mavs did not make the baskets... so if you dont think that the 22 pts they missed out on, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, then you are mistaken.

well then you should also account for all the easy shots GS missed...

either way, mavs lose game 1

[johngateswhiteley]

^ u disagree? if the Mavs had made any of those shots, the loss might not have been a loss... thass the reality, if you make the baskets, you stand a chance of winning... and the Mavs did not make the baskets... so if you dont think that the 22 pts they missed out on, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, then you are mistaken.

games don't work like that. its just like if you traveled back in time, you would affect future events...

[Islymore]

games don't work like that. its just like if you traveled back in time, you would affect future events...

^thats not the point. the statement he made is the truth and it could apply to either team, period. who know's what the score would have been if either team made every shot, but you cannot say that 22 pts wouldnt have affected the game, by a Dallas team that hardly ever plays a game shooting so poorly. period. that was my point. not that i'm tryin to "change future events" or take away from the fact that GS won. i just happen to agree with the statement, give or take 22 pts, the game could have been different.

not sayin' it matters, just that it could happen. and yes, i know GS won and Dallas lost, thanx for the reminder...

[Cry Havoc]

i just happen to agree with the statement, give or take 22 pts, the game could have been different.

Next you'll be telling us that the first team to win 4 games is in good shape, and expect to get credit for it.

Congrats, captain obvious. That's like saying a grand slam in baseball "could" impact the outcome as opposed to a ground-out/double-play.

Stating the patently obvious is a waste of bandwidth and the time people take to read it. Don't get defensive when they feel the need to call you out as such. If the Mavs had made all 22 of those points, of course the game would have been different. 95% of NBA games are within 22 points, by my estimation. You can pretend that it was a personal funk of Dirk & Co. all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Golden State has given the Mavs more problems than any other team in the league the past two years. Was it a coincidence that you had a horrible night against them yet again? I guess that's up to you to decide.

Just don't be disappointed if you shoot under 40% against the Warriors again, and if you attempt to make a claim that the Mavs shot under 100% only due to their own mistakes, expect fewer individuals to take you seriously. If you go down 2-0 heading back to GS, don't expect ANYONE to pass the first two games off as flukes as you're attempting to do here. It's a bit insulting to the intelligence of other posters.

[Islymore]

Nobody is making anything out to be a fluke. U never read anything of the sort from me. Nobody said we shot under 100% DUE TO OUR OWN MISTAKES either. You sure are gathering a lot from me sayin' I agreed with his statement. PERIOD. I have always said the games would go at least 6, before the playoffs began. So how do you assume I am thinkin that GS is just so terrible? And not giving them any credit???

I apologize for agreein' with the "obvious", but I still do.