MavsBoard

(01-10-2023, 10:47 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]My point is this: SD is somehow (whether his play or his use by the coaches, etc) central to the team defense issue through 41 games this season. I think the data backs this up massively.

That's it. I have said he needs to be moved to the 6th man role from literally game one of the season. I also think he should be traded as I actually don't care for his fit with the team long term and think the Mavs should "sell high" since his shooting has been fantastic. 

All I am saying is that the evidence is indisputably saying that the Mavs have NOT been a good team (especially defensively) with SD playing this year and that the TEAM has been way better (especially defensively) when SD is not playing. Those are statistical facts.

What to do with that is the question. My OPINIONS are 1) move him to the bench and 2) explore trades for him. Those do not have to be the answer, but something needs to be done because this 41 game trend correcting itself on its own without changes is REALLY unlikely IMO.

You argue that Din is the cause of all of our defensive woes with on/off numbers.

I respond with your same numbers showing the entire starting lineup is the problem.

You ignore my response, and switch gears and focus on his overall net rating.

I respond with a logical fallacy in looking at on/off with no context.

You ignore that response and go back to the defense argument with no new information, but terms like "statistical facts".

I can see this is getting nowhere so I will stop responding to this thread, but I will continue to call you out when you post misleading stats.  You had me rethinking my position (I am willing and have changed my opinion based on quality arguments and information on this board) when you posted his defensive on/off for the season.  That looks like he is single handily crushing the team defense until you go look and see that the top 6 rotational players all have roughly the same D rating (they are all bad).

(01-09-2023, 06:54 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I just cannot get excited about a soon to be 34 year old whose on/off is -3.9 while playing on a 11-32 team. Fool's gold IMO. Maybe for a straight swap for THJ, but not with FN and 2nds attached.

How about:
Cleveland: THJ, (McGee)
Dallas: Burks, Noel, (Osman)
Detroit: Levert

Guys in (parens) can be dropped from the deal and it would still work but I wanted to get McGee out...

Burks has been good for Detroit this year - they would do much better in the Wemby chase to move him.

(01-10-2023, 11:34 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/All_Things_Mavs/stat...1202240512

I would think the most likely are Rose or Noel.....after a buyout.

(01-10-2023, 11:47 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]You argue that Din is the cause of all of our defensive woes with on/off numbers.

I respond with your same numbers showing the entire starting lineup is the problem.

You ignore my response, and switch gears and focus on his overall net rating.

I respond with a logical fallacy in looking at on/off with no context.

You ignore that response and go back to the defense argument with no new information, but terms like "statistical facts".

I can see this is getting nowhere so I will stop responding to this thread, but I will continue to call you out when you post misleading stats.  You had me rethinking my position (I am willing and have changed my opinion based on quality arguments and information on this board) when you posted his defensive on/off for the season.  That looks like he is single handily crushing the team defense until you go look and see that the top 6 rotational players all have roughly the same D rating (they are all bad).

Your starting assumption is WRONG about my position. That is why I keep going back to ground zero.

I am not saying SD is the "CAUSE" of anything. 

Here is my quote again:

"SD is somehow (whether his play or his use by the coaches or his dynamic alongside other players, etc) central to the team defense issue through 41 games this season."

His presence is somehow central to the issue. Correlation is certainly part of it. I am NOT saying SD is the "CAUSE"---I never used that word. You are putting it in my mouth. 

Until we agree on my basic premise I am going to keep going there and not chase further down the rabbit hole. 


And again, it is a statistical FACT that the Mavs have been much better without SD on the court this year. That is 100% indisputable. But that doesn't mean SD singlehandedly is the "cause" for it (and I never, ever claimed it did).

(01-10-2023, 11:47 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]misleading stats

The stats are not misleading. People read them wrong. It is the interpretations and the meanings applied to them that are off, not the stats themselves. The stats are just numbers.

The Mavs defensive rating is 7.6 points per 100 possessions better when SD is on the bench than when he is in the game. This is a fact. It is not misleading. It is simply how the games have unfolded and the numbers therein.

https://twitter.com/TheNBACentral/status...3977693184

https://twitter.com/TheHoopCentral/statu...4046055424

https://twitter.com/TheNBACentral/status...2690693124

(01-10-2023, 11:59 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]
The stats are not misleading. People read them wrong. It is the interpretations and the meanings applied to them that are off, not the stats themselves. The stats are just numbers.

The Mavs defensive rating is 7.6 points per 100 possessions better when SD is on the bench than when he is in the game. This is a fact. It is not misleading. It is simply how the games have unfolded and the numbers therein.

Amen.

(01-10-2023, 12:04 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]Amen.

Numbers, like the ball, don't lie.

(01-10-2023, 11:53 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Your starting assumption is WRONG about my position. That is why I keep going back to ground zero.

I am not saying SD is the "CAUSE" of anything. 

Here is my quote again:

"SD is somehow (whether his play or his use by the coaches or his dynamic alongside other players, etc) central to the team defense issue through 41 games this season."

His presence is somehow central to the issue. Correlation is certainly part of it. I am NOT saying SD is the "CAUSE"---I never used that word. You are putting it in my mouth. 

Until we agree on my basic premise I am going to keep going there and not chase further down the rabbit hole. 


And again, it is a statistical FACT that the Mavs have been much better without SD on the court this year. That is 100% indisputable. But that doesn't mean SD singlehandedly is the "cause" for it (and I never, ever claimed it did).

This is the statement you originally made was

 "There is absolutely no way to look at the data IMO that does not come back to the conclusion that SD is central to the Mavs defensive struggles."

Calling SD central to the Mavs defensive struggles vs saying he is the cause seems like semantics to me.

---

(01-10-2023, 11:59 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]The stats are not misleading. People read them wrong. It is the interpretations and the meanings applied to them that are off, not the stats themselves. The stats are just numbers.

The Mavs defensive rating is 7.6 points per 100 possessions better when SD is on the bench than when he is in the game. This is a fact. It is not misleading. It is simply how the games have unfolded and the numbers therein.

It is misleading from the standpoint that you are implying these numbers are unique to him.  When you see that they are similar for the rest of the starting lineup, it paints a completely different (and more accurate) picture.

(01-10-2023, 12:30 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Calling SD central to the Mavs defensive struggles vs saying he is the cause seems like semantics to me.

Well when I say "central" (and that was a very thoughtful word choice by me), I am saying his presence is somehow in the middle of the defensive struggles. That is VERY different than saying he is THE "cause" of all the struggles (I do not believe that is the case, as he is just one player on a team of 15). He is A cause, as ALL the players are "A cause" in one way or another. 

Is SD being "central" to the struggles his personal play/effort? To SOME extent from my seat. Is it coaching? To SOME extent from my seat. Is it his role? To SOME extent from my seat. Is it the players he is playing with and against? To SOME extent from my seat.

 From my seat it is a very multi-faceted problem, but the data tells me that the coaches should look at addressing it somehow, someway. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist. That does NOT mean "never play him" and he is "useless" (or some other extreme reaction).

(01-10-2023, 12:30 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]It is misleading from the standpoint that you are implying these numbers are unique to him.  When you see that they are similar for the rest of the starting lineup, it paints a completely different (and more accurate) picture.

But the stat I am sharing IS unique to him. 



Look at the defensive on/off for the Mavs through 41 games. 

Of the guys with 500+ minutes, SD is the team bottom at -7.6. The next closest is DFS with -4.6. Then Luka with -3.9. And McGee in 214 minutes is only -2.8.

In On/Off numbers the far extreme on either end tends to be really telling and easier to interpret and potentially easier to address (the middle numbers are way messier and harder to sort through when looking at context). Luka is the extreme on offense with a +13.9 (not surprising). Maxi is the extreme on offense negatively -6.3. Green is the extreme on D with +12.8 (not surprising to me). SD is the extreme on defense negatively. 

Again, that does NOT mean Maxi is THE problem with the offense or SD is THE problem with the D. Not at all. But somehow their role within the context of the games is not currently working for the team on that end of the court. So the coaches and GM should take a long look at it.

@"mvossman" I will say, I always appreciate how civil you are when disagreeing with others. You never make it personal and turn things juvenile and narcissistic like so many. I REALLY appreciate that. We aren't always going to see eye to eye and that is part of the reason we are here discussing. You are VERY valuable part of this community.

I don't have a passion for these numbers like many of you do, but my eyes tell me Dinwiddie, despite hitting his shots a good clip, seems out of place on both ends of the court. How to reconcile that when he does some surface things that make it appear like he's playing well...that's tough. 

One theory I've been marinating is that he's a little selfish. He's a ball stopper, for sure, at least by my definition of that term. Basically, everything anyone says about Hardaway as a negative I disagree with, but change Hardaway's name to Diniwiddie and I start nodding my head. 

Loved what he brought last season, but I think he's under qualified for this more important role, which I suppose is just last season's role plus. That plus is the problem from my POV, not Dinwiddie. You put Brunson (or a reasonable replacement) back in the mix (ahead of Dinwiddie in the pecking order) and my guess is that Dinwiddie's effect on the team would start to become more positive again, especially since he's actually playing well.

Everyone lately has been assuming that Green needs to be a starter. While I agree he's probably ready, this assumption puzzles me because I don't know that Kidd has given any indication he feels that way. But, for my money, giving him Dinwiddie's spot in the rotation would be the place to start. Gets Dinwiddie back into a (slightly) smaller role wherein he can be a huge positive. "6th man Dinwiddie" was one of the things I was most excited about coming into the season.

(01-10-2023, 12:38 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]From my seat it [SD's poor defense] is a very multi-faceted problem, but the data tells me that the coaches should look at addressing it somehow, someway. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist. That does NOT mean "never play him" and he is "useless" (or some other extreme reaction).

This nuanced take is one that makes much more sense than the strident "gotta get rid of SD" takes. At least the bold parts.

I do find quite absurd the gratuitous calls for the coaching staff to "look at addressing it" and to not "pretend it doesn't exist" -- as if. Good grief.