MavsBoard - TDL Archived: The 2nd Rnd Pick Yankee Swap

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353

(01-10-2023, 12:54 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Great post. Right there with you.

Especially the last sentence is important. ROLE is everything in some sense in the NBA. That is why great coaching and GMing is so important. All these guys are crazy talented, but putting them in the position to be successful and the TEAM to be successful along with their individual success is everything.

If the team is not succeeding well with SD in his current ROLE then they need to figure out how to adjust things.

(01-10-2023, 12:47 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]All I have to do is remember that the Mavs need 3 superior playmakers to drive the offense and keep it from being a perennial one-man Luka show, and SD's the only useful one of those they really have other than Luka.

It is odd to me how much we've started to overlook this throughout this thread. You can tell me all you want about how poor Dinwiddie is playing and how we need to upgrade his skillset and I can find myself agreeing at times but the moment you trade him (without bringing another ball handler back) is the moment you drop this team's ceiling dramatically. His ball handling is a necessity on this team right now, if we haven't replaced that skillset by the time his contract is up then I wouldn't be surprised if he is extended.

There is a very obvious reason that Hardaway has been shopped since the moment he signed that new deal and we don't see Dinwiddie's name come up.

I´m with Kammrath and Killerleft here. And i think 50% of the context is Kammraths sentence with the great coaching and gming. I am really not sure if every roster spot is used that optimally. And it starts with SD and JG here. I see too much SD and too less JG (before the injury). I hope Kidd figures it out eventually.
Many great posts, really enjoying just reading them Smile

(01-10-2023, 12:58 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]If the team is not succeeding well with SD in his current ROLE then they need to figure out how to adjust things.

What's got some people spinning (understandably) is this whole "two ball-handlers at once" concept that was trumpeted last season. The team told us that was the intent and we believed them. Then, it was successful, so many are assuming that it's STILL the intent.

But I'm not so sure.

One, if it was still the intent, they had the worst off-season ever. Utter failure, if what they were going for was a roster set up to play multiple ball-handlers almost constantly. Their choices were so inconsistent with that goal that we're forced to believe either that's not really their goal (or at least wasn't at the time) or that they're an unbelievably bad front office, as in even worse than what we suggest with our jokes born of frustration around here. Not sure which.

It's possible that they temporarily abandoned that approach (two ball-handlers) and then after the slow start had an "oh damn, we need to get back to that" moment...hence Campazzo, Wright, Walker. Again, not sure. I think the trade deadline might shed a little light.

What I think, at the end of the day, is that Kidd, a former NBA player, and probably still more player than coach, if we're honest, chose to start Brunson last season because it helped him define a hierarchal structure for the team that made sense to him, not for any tactical reason. Basically, the opposite of how Carlisle would ever do anything. And then, it worked, only he didn't get why. Maybe he thought the hierarchal structure and organization of egos is what "worked," not having two ball-handlers. I think maybe that two ball-handlers stuff was just spin for us (but ironically, the actual cause of success).

And now, I believe he's just as locked into Dinwiddie on the "totem pole" as he was to Brunson. I think he views Dinwiddie as the team's second best player, so he must be a starter. Simple as that. I don't believe he's thinking tactically at all. I've almost reached the conclusion that he can't. I hope I'm dead wrong about both of the last two sentences.

And this is all coming from someone who assumes the coach is right 99% of the time. I defended Carlisle for YEARS here, so I know how this looks from the other perspective. I just don't think much of Kidd as a thinker, and that makes it really difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he does things that surprise me.

(01-10-2023, 01:06 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]the moment you trade him (without bringing another ball handler back) is the moment you drop this team's ceiling dramatically

The SD+Luka minutes are not working (they are a slight net negative, -0.6 in 851 minutes). This is why so many have called for moving SD to the 6th man role. That is my number one desire and has been for 40 games.

If you trade SD (and I am one of the ones who has suggested I would explore that if GM), I don't think you are necessarily totally hurting the team.

1) The Luka+SD minutes aren't working, so no loss there if he is traded and 2) there are other ways to survive the non-Luka minutes than duplicating "Luka-ball" with SD (which is what I see this team doing oftentimes).

We always think about what would happen to the O if there was no SD, but WITH SD the D has been really, really poor. So if you could radically improve the D during non-Luka minutes, you might be able to survive them just as well without SD. And for ME, because I do not think this team is that close to truly contending, I would be making long term moves right now, even if it means short term set backs. Trading SD MIGHT set this team back in the short term, but I am personally ok with that if it leads to long term strides.

(01-10-2023, 01:11 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I believe he's just as locked into Dinwiddie on the "totem pole" as he was to Brunson. I think he views Dinwiddie as the team's second best player, so he must be a starter.

Word from Cato (if I am remembering accurately) is that this is exactly how they are thinking. They truly think SD is some sort of key, 2nd most important player on this team. Honestly, it might not be just Kidd. Cuban has a bromance with SD and so this could be Cuban driven as well.

This is my reaction:

[Image: giphy.gif]

(01-10-2023, 01:14 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]This is why so many have called for moving SD to the 6th man role.

I've been a proponent of this move as well. I've said I'd be happy with Green starting over Hardaway or Dinwiddie at this point.

(01-10-2023, 01:14 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]there are other ways to survive the non-Luka minutes than duplicating "Luka-ball" with SD

True but none of them involve having 5 guys on the floor who are afraid to dribble into a defense.

(01-10-2023, 01:19 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]True but none of them involve having 5 guys on the floor who are afraid to dribble into a defense.

Hardy will GLADLY dribble into a defense. Smile

(01-10-2023, 01:18 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Word from Cato (if I am remembering accurately) is that this is exactly how they are thinking. They truly think SD is some sort of key, 2nd most important player on this team. Honestly, it might not be just Kidd. Cuban has a bromance with SD and so this could be Cuban driven as well.

Wood edges him a bit but it's sad that it's even close
Poor Luka

(01-10-2023, 01:20 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Hardy will GLADLY dribble into a defense.

Totally agree and want to see more of it but my expectations for him this year don't reach the level of everyday contributor let alone playoff rotation player. Would be cool for that to turn out to be wrong but I'm afraid there's going to be many games like the one in OKC where he struggled mightily. Which is fine, just means it's going to take another season or two for it to come together (if it does).

(01-10-2023, 01:22 PM)Jym Wrote: [ -> ]Poor Luka

(01-10-2023, 12:45 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]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.

So my problem with the on/off numbers is that they introduce even more noise into an already noisy stat (single player net rating). Din has similar D rating to the rest of the starting lineup, so why are his on/off numbers worse? Is it because he has played less percentage of his minutes with Green (who currently is the defensive on/off God on this team) than the other guys? I struggle with a stat that is just as influenced by time when the player is not even on the court.

That being said, I do see that his defensive on/off looks to be an outlier, and if this is what you are looking at it is not misleading to show just Dinwiddie's numbers in this context.

I will say that if we are looking at those numbers above without context, Powell has a significantly higher impact on both sides of the ball than Wood, and using just that information it would be a strong argument to start Powell and give him more minutes. I know you don't advocate for that and neither do I, but my point is that context really needs to be looked at when we look at these kind of stats.

(01-10-2023, 12:54 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Agree with all of this. I think replacing Din with Green makes the most sense from a lineup construction standpoint, but I don't see any chance Kidd makes that move. We need a legit point of attack defender in the starting lineup, and unless Bullock pulls his head out of his ass I don't see it happening without a significant acquisition this season. If Green continues to play at this level, I could maybe see him getting into the starting lineup next season.

This is right were I am with LaVert.

https://twitter.com/BiasedSlightly/status/1612462179789185025?s=20&t=F2ziPU77Kj2nlN377vpXuA

(01-10-2023, 01:14 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]The SD+Luka minutes are not working (they are a slight net negative, -0.6 in 851 minutes). This is why so many have called for moving SD to the 6th man role. That is my number one desire and has been for 40 games.

If you trade SD (and I am one of the ones who has suggested I would explore that if GM), I don't think you are necessarily totally hurting the team.

1) The Luka+SD minutes aren't working, so no loss there if he is traded and 2) there are other ways to survive the non-Luka minutes than duplicating "Luka-ball" with SD (which is what I see this team doing oftentimes).

We always think about what would happen to the O if there was no SD, but WITH SD the D has been really, really poor. So if you could radically improve the D during non-Luka minutes, you might be able to survive them just as well without SD. And for ME, because I do not think this team is that close to truly contending, I would be making long term moves right now, even if it means short term set backs. Trading SD MIGHT set this team back in the short term, but I am personally ok with that if it leads to long term strides.

I would say the SD + Luka minutes are not working in large part due to the starting lineup they threw out there for the first month of the season. Luka + DFS is -.1, Luka + Bullock is -.4, Luka + McGee is -8.7. The Luka + SD minutes are trending better without McGee and less Bullock.

I'm curious what the numbers are when both Luka and Dinwiddie are off the court. My guess is they would be terrible (we did have that one Kemba night). If we are sending out Dinwiddie, it better be for somebody that can run an offense, and even then we still need somebody better than Wright to be our third playmaker.

(01-10-2023, 01:26 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]So my problem with the on/off numbers is that they introduce even more noise into an already noisy stat (single player net rating). Din has similar D rating to the rest of the starting lineup, so why are his on/off numbers worse? Is it because he has played less percentage of his minutes with Green (who currently is the defensive on/off God on this team) than the other guys? I struggle with a stat that is just as influenced by time when the player is not even on the court.

That being said, I do see that his defensive on/off looks to be an outlier, and if this is what you are looking at it is not misleading to show just Dinwiddie's numbers in this context.

I will say that if we are looking at those numbers above without context, Powell has a significantly higher impact on both sides of the ball than Wood, and using just that information it would be a strong argument to start Powell and give him more minutes. I know you don't advocate for that and neither do I, but my point is that context really needs to be looked at when we look at these kind of stats.

So to me the best way to look at on/off numbers is that they can tell you how successful a player is being within the ROLE they are being asked to play on the team within its given context. I find that to be maybe the most valuable thing to know anyway.

So DP's on/off numbers tell me he is being used GREAT by this coaching staff. Not being asked to do too much or put in a position where he cannot flourish. SD's on/off numbers tell me the exact opposite. The role and way SD is being used is not working for the TEAM (even if his individual counting stats look good).

So On/Off is not telling me DP "should start." If anything they are saying to me "keep using him like this, maybe expand his role a little, but know that an expanded role could easily change the outcomes in a way you don't like."

I haven't liked the way Wood has been used for most of the whole year, so it doesn't surprise me his numbers are "meh." In fact, I am personally shocked they are not worse than they are as I don't think the team has been playing to his strengths for many games.

(01-10-2023, 01:11 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]What's got some people spinning (understandably) is this whole "two ball-handlers at once" concept that was trumpeted last season. The team told us that was the intent and we believed them. Then, it was successful, so many are assuming that it's STILL the intent.

But I'm not so sure.

One, if it was still the intent, they had the worst off-season ever. Utter failure, if what they were going for was a roster set up to play multiple ball-handlers almost constantly. Their choices were so inconsistent with that goal that we're forced to believe either that's not really their goal (or at least wasn't at the time) or that they're an unbelievably bad front office, as in even worse than what we suggest with our jokes born of frustration around here. Not sure which.

It's possible that they temporarily abandoned that approach (two ball-handlers) and then after the slow start had an "oh damn, we need to get back to that" moment...hence Campazzo, Wright, Walker. Again, not sure. I think the trade deadline might shed a little light. .

I think all of that is right on target, that is ...
1 The intention after last season was to continue "2 creators at a time"
2 The expectation was Brunson would be back
3 They botched that completely
4 They thought, as their fallback going forward, SD could replace JB as the #2 guy (paired with Luka at times but also his backup) -- but if we recall, this team went to that next level when they got the 3rd guy
5 SD is not as good as JB individually, nor in his fit with Luke
.... That means that, for the time being, the positive dynamics of having that 3rd guy, and of having SD as your 3rd best, are no longer possible with this set of players

All of that having been said, I sure hope they never saw any of Campazzo, Wright, Walker as that 3rd guy, to be the new JB. It seems more like they are just emergency PGs rather than part of a 3-man PG setup. They only offered not-guaranteed deals, which limits the pool of talent considerably. The way they advertised the job with Dragic would indicate that "emergency backup PG" was what they saw when they signed those players.

But I don't think the real plan was a lack of desire to get another JB, but rather they faced the reality that they had no way to do it, and saw no value in moving forward this season with a team using a concept they couldn't staff properly.

In the present situation, they still need 2 really good PGs since Luka can't play 48 mpg, and I would hope they would love to find a way to add that 3rd guy -- another JB -- so they can do what they did in 2021-22. If not now, then later, so don't go backwards in that quest. But in the meantime, they have to use what works best on the court with only 2. IMO.

Some thoughts on THJ for Levert.

The deal makes no sense and a lot of sense for both teams.

Why would either team rearrange the deck chairs by swapping flawed $19 million guard/wings? Better the devil you know that the devil you don't.

Well, they're very similar but also very different. One is a ball peen hammer and the other is a clawfoot.

THJ is a volume 3 catch & shoot guy. You don't really want him dribbling the ball all over the place and missing layups. When THJ bricks a shot it should at least be a three.

Levert is a slasher and scorer who can handle. You don't really want him to be the guy spacing the floor and launching corner threes. When Levert bricks a shot it should at least be one that he created.

I'd argue Cleveland would improve with a floor spacing SF next to their ball dominant guards.

I'd argue Dallas would improve with another shot creator in the rotation.

(01-10-2023, 02:49 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]I'd argue Dallas would improve with another shot creator in the rotation.

Can he create shots? Yes.

Is he going to be what those calling him a "ball-handler" expect? No.

He is less of a PG than Dinwiddie is. He's a bad iso player, that's it.

(01-10-2023, 02:53 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Is he going to be what those calling him a "ball-handler" expect? No.

I don't think Dallas needs a "ball handler". Dallas needs more guys who can do something besides shoot or finish a lob. Bullock has to be the most extreme example because ostensibly he's a guard but DFS, Kleber, THJ, Powell -- none of our guys can do anything with the ball except shoot.

It's so defeating to watch a kid like Hardy pass the ball to Bullock who's like "WTF is this hot potato?"