(12-02-2022, 05:51 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]They did a very simple career PPG+RPG+APG between 10 and 15. So if a player averaged for their career 7 ppg, 2 rpg, 2apg they would be considered a "role player" (albeit low-end by this metric).
JG is 4.4 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.0 apg so far, so at 7.6 he would be considered a "bust" by this metric. This season alone he is 6.8 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.9 ast...so at 9.9 this season he is still in "bust" territory.
As always: expectations are too high/fans see things that are not there yet, because the situation is so dire. (Though this is the moment to push Green for a larger role)
People here started talking about Hardy HAPPENING, cause he played well in the G-League and was re-called. RE-CALLED. Hasn´t seen the floor since against the worst team in the league. Has still only played 10 minutes for the year.
Other teams are managing workloads and getting rookies minutes while obtaining a 13-9 record. We are going all-out starters 40 MPG just so we can be 10-11. Not all 10-11s come the same way. Lillard for example missed 11 games already. Btw sadly (one of my favs) the #1 candidate for that disaster trade....
(12-02-2022, 05:26 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]Once we convey the pick this year both those picks (and potentially 2028) will be moved for more immediate help. That's why I want the pick to convey.
...but that´s the whole point. If you want this immediate help the 2023 pick is a much BETTER ASSET than the future picks. And it comes with a chance to win a top 2 pick, that you don´t even want to trade (if you were sane, unlike Cuban). The best chance for immediate help is tanking.
(12-02-2022, 06:09 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Not with your logic, but with the idea that it’s pointless to discuss how players or assets are handled until the situation at the top (which I agree, is flawed) is fixed.
That is not gonna happen while Mark Cuban is alive.
So, if/when I get to the point where I’m not interested in discussing any other aspect of Mavs fandom due to the situation at the top (and I admit, this COULD happen) I doubt I will spend even one second more discussing things here. That would be the point when I would simply stop being a Mavericks fan. there is no fixing that.
I'm not suggesting you (or anyone else) should stop discussing ideas. That's still interesting.
But I am becoming more and more pessimistic about the potential and future of this team, and it all derives from the void of EXPERT Mav GM-ing. The ideas swapped here are certainly a mixed bag - some good or realistic, and some not so much of either - but when it comes to what the Mavs actually choose to do, it's blunder after blunder, which not only prevents this year's team from a better potential, but also is handcuffing ways to make things better in coming years.
They end up spending as much asset capital trying to fix the self-inflicted blunders of the past as they do trying to improve the future.
We keep coming to the awareness that this team lacks a real genius who understands the game, knows talent, and knows what he can make happen by expert moves and negotiations. As we sit in place or even slide downhill, we're being passed by the competition who has much better GMs making positive things happen. When will Cuban pay a guy with the ability to figure out the path to greatness, and who knows how to get it done? Ever? Until then, I don't think even Luka can win a title in Dallas, and the clock is ticking down on his time as a Mav.
(12-02-2022, 07:28 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, it’s only my opinion, but I guess my answer would be better, because Turner is a better player than those he’s trying play next to right now? Ultimately, it’s not the way I’d go (though I might be talked into trading Wood n the package FOR Turner).
But, that’s just me. I’m a one-big sort of dude. I know @"ItsGoTime" and @"dirkfansince1998" would both love to try that tandem. @"DanSchwartzgan" too, probs.
I’m fine with 1 big, as long as they can hold their own against the “dinosaurs”/bigger bigs of the league. That or we have a bigger wing than DFS who can take them on. We’re getting to that point in our roster’s useful part of their careers that we need to churn them for younger pieces though.
I’ve cooled a bit on Turner since there has been no improvement with his 3 shot over the last 3 years and his beef is wanting a bigger role in the offense. On top of that, foot issues makes me highly skeptical he would work out here. If we got him, I’d be happy to see if he did fit, cause that rim protection is top notch.
I think the tear it down and build it back up approach gets us closer to a dynasty that staying the course and hoping for that big swing. I guess that could happen this next offseason, one way or another.
(12-03-2022, 02:45 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]I’m fine with 1 big, as long as they can hold their own against the “dinosaurs”/bigger bigs of the league. That or we have a bigger wing than DFS who can take them on. We’re getting to that point in our roster’s useful part of their careers that we need to churn them for younger pieces though.
I’ve cooled a bit on Turner since there has been no improvement with his 3 shot over the last 3 years and his beef is wanting a bigger role in the offense. On top of that, foot issues makes me highly skeptical he would work out here. If we got him, I’d be happy to see if he did fit, cause that rim protection is top notch.
I think the tear it down and build it back up approach gets us closer to a dynasty that staying the course and hoping for that big swing. I guess that could happen this next offseason, one way or another.
I think Turner is a great player. I think he might be a little too high on the "crazy scale" to be an ideal piece, but he's a good player and the Mavs could certainly use him if they could get him.
Seems to me like he wants to be a Laker, however.
(12-03-2022, 01:37 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not suggesting you (or anyone else) should stop discussing ideas. That's still interesting.
But I am becoming more and more pessimistic about the potential and future of this team, and it all derives from the void of EXPERT Mav GM-ing. The ideas swapped here are certainly a mixed bag - some good or realistic, and some not so much of either - but when it comes to what the Mavs actually choose to do, it's blunder after blunder, which not only prevents this year's team from a better potential, but also is handcuffing ways to make things better in coming years.
They end up spending as much asset capital trying to fix the self-inflicted blunders of the past as they do trying to improve the future.
We keep coming to the awareness that this team lacks a real genius who understands the game, knows talent, and knows what he can make happen by expert moves and negotiations. As we sit in place or even slide downhill, we're being passed by the competition who has much better GMs making positive things happen. When will Cuban pay a guy with the ability to figure out the path to greatness, and who knows how to get it done? Ever? Until then, I don't think even Luka can win a title in Dallas, and the clock is ticking down on his time as a Mav.
Oh, I don't disagree with a single word of this. Right there with you.
But, I don't expect any of it to change in my lifetime.
At this point I've survived decades of incompetence from Jerry Jones, and while there were seasons when I barely followed the Cowboys at all, the emergence of Will McClay (the team actually drafts REALLY well these days and has for several years at this point) balances the scales enough to make it at least possible they'll win again in my lifetime.
I guess that argues for the possibility that Cuban will eventually figure out that he needs a McClay, too, so maybe @"F Gump"'s dream is alive. I'll keep hanging on, especially as long as they have Luka.
But, they just hired Harrison and Kidd, and Cuban's history shows a tendency to want to avoid turnover. I'm not optimistic that the decision making changes anytime soon.
Mavs looked better without Wood to my surprise. Dinwiddie and Powell have good chemistry. Defense looked more connected. I think Wood's style may not fit on this team or maybe he should play with Luka as a starter instead of with Dinwiddie off the bench. Wood has had good chemistry with Luka so I wouldn't mind seeing that.
That being said considering how short we are on ball-handlers I could see Dinwiddie being moved for a ball-handler/playmaker type that fits better with this team's style of play.
(12-02-2022, 03:55 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]Wood got 17 minutes in the one point loss to Denver. Media and Twitter went nuts: Why is Wood not playing?!
Since then, over the last 5 games, Wood has averaged 30 minutes and "Dallas is 1-4 and 3rd worst defensive team in the NBA, allowing 121.3 per 100 possessions. Detroit is really bad, struggled to defend basic sets in first half, but Dallas 61 first half point, or what would be 122 def rtg." (Iztok) and Wood is -41 plus/minus.
To expand on this, there have been six games where Wood got 28 minutes or more. Dallas is 0-6. To be fair, two of those losses came against Boston and Milwaukee. But, four were the Detroit, Houston and OKC humiliations and one was the NOP loss where they were missing Ingram, Herb Jones and Zion. Coincidence or Causation (or a little of both?).
The D seemed more together yesterday holding a Knicks team to 14 points under their average and 82 basis points under their normal FG% (.455 vs .537). Again, to be fair, Dallas really struggled offensively against Orlando and Washington the other two times Wood didn't play. The sample size is way too small to draw conclusions, but I would infer from Iztok's numbers and the results that there is a point where too much Wood isn't a good thing. Flashy numbers offensively, yes. But half of a basketball game is played at the other end. Kidd does everything he can to hide Wood against backups and even then playing alongside a defensive minded big in Maxi who takes the more difficult assignment. But, that only works for so many minutes. Once that threshold is crossed, Wood is playing against starters or without Maxi or both and it 'appears' it is a bad formula.
The better formula? In the 14 games Wood has played 20-29 minutes (and this includes two of the bad games above), the team is +4.3. Having a 15/7 guy off your bench who hits 40% of his 3's and 55% of his FG's isn't a bad thing.
(12-04-2022, 10:15 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]To expand on this, there have been six games where Wood got 28 minutes or more. Dallas is 0-6. To be fair, two of those losses came against Boston and Milwaukee. But, four were the Detroit, Houston and OKC humiliations and one was the NOP loss where they were missing Ingram, Herb Jones and Zion. Coincidence or Causation (or a little of both?).
The D seemed more together yesterday holding a Knicks team to 14 points under their average and 82 basis points under their normal FG% (.455 vs .537). Again, to be fair, Dallas really struggled offensively against Orlando and Washington the other two times Wood didn't play. The sample size is way too small to draw conclusions, but I would infer from Iztok's numbers and the results that there is a point where too much Wood isn't a good thing. Flashy numbers offensively, yes. But half of a basketball game is played at the other end. Kidd does everything he can to hide Wood against backups and even then playing alongside a defensive minded big in Maxi who takes the more difficult assignment. But, that only works for so many minutes. Once that threshold is crossed, Wood is playing against starters or without Maxi or both and it 'appears' it is a bad formula.
The better formula? In the 14 games Wood has played 20-29 minutes (and this includes two of the bad games above), the team is +4.3. Having a 15/7 guy off your bench who hits 40% of his 3's and 55% of his FG's isn't a bad thing.
I think this is all more than fair, and I don't think any of it is connecting dots in the wrong way or anything.
But, is it just that "this is what he is" or can he be taught how to exist on a winning team? If he can be, don't you think that would help significantly?
(12-03-2022, 03:40 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Dinwiddie and Powell have good chemistry.
I think this argues for at least
trying to start Wood (with Luka) and playing Dinwiddie off the bench (with Powell).
If they
must make convoluted changes to get Kleber in there with Wood, fine...but before that I'd try this:
Luka
THJ
Bullock (or Green)
DFS
Wood
I honestly believe that while there would doubtlessly be growing pains, that is ultimately the best way to use all resources to the most synergetic effect.
EDIT: And, it's really not about
starting Wood so much as it is about bringing Dinwiddie off the bench. I feel strongly that this needs to happen, and if he has chemistry with Powell, I'd hate to lose that in the process. But, if Powell doesn't start, who does? For me, the answer is Wood and certainly NOT McGee.
(12-04-2022, 10:27 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ] I think this is all more than fair, and I don't think any of it is connecting dots in the wrong way or anything.
But, is it just that "this is what he is" or can he be taught how to exist on a winning team? If he can be, don't you think that would help significantly?
Absolutely. I was super hopeful about Wood when he was acquired. I was right about the role I thought he would get, at least initially. I never anticipated he would require the level of protection Kidd gives him.
If you think Wood has more value than he's shown (and I do hold that out as a possibility), then there are two ways to unlock it. Throw him to the wolves and let him start and get 32-ish minutes. Or, bring him along slowly and build his confidence and his ability to do things he's not done successfully before. This summer I said "let him earn it" and someone said that should be my signature. For the record I much prefer "#1 Green Defender". But "earn" it might not have been the best way to phrase it. Maybe "let him develop it" would have been better.
There are risks to both scenarios. In the latter, people might think the coach is an idiot, but at least the box score numbers look good and you have a trade asset. If you throw him to the wolves and it doesn't work, you may be able to change back to a bench role, but you have certainly killed his trade value by killing the dream that he could ever start successfully on a good team. BTW, I do think he has value in a limited role. The question that we can't answer with certainty yet is whether he has value in an expanded role.
(12-04-2022, 11:17 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Absolutely. I was super hopeful about Wood when he was acquired. I was right about the role I thought he would get, at least initially. I never anticipated he would require the level of protection Kidd gives him.
If you think Wood has more value than he's shown (and I do hold that out as a possibility), then there are two ways to unlock it. Throw him to the wolves and let him start and get 32-ish minutes. Or, bring him along slowly and build his confidence and his ability to do things he's not done successfully before. This summer I said "let him earn it" and someone said that should be my signature. For the record I much prefer "#1 Green Defender". But "earn" it might not have been the best way to phrase it. Maybe "let him develop it" would have been better.
There are risks to both scenarios. In the latter, people might think the coach is an idiot, but at least the box score numbers look good and you have a trade asset. If you throw him to the wolves and it doesn't work, you may be able to change back to a bench role, but you have certainly killed his trade value by killing the dream that he could ever start successfully on a good team. BTW, I do think he has value in a limited role. The question that we can't answer with certainty yet is whether he has value in an expanded role.
It's all just fan impatience, but I think what's frustrating me is that the "bring him along slowly" thing, while reasonable, A) isn't guaranteed to teach him any more than "throw him to the wolves" and B) it doesn't
seem to be resulting in good play from the team in the meantime, because they actually
need someone
like Wood in a high-minute role (competently, so maybe not Wood, specifically) to be a good team.
If they're losing, anyway, why not crash course him and pray?
I know they just won a game without him playing at all, and that there's reason to draw conclusions from that because yes, that was one of the better performances of the season in some ways, but I can't imagine going back to having
just Powell and Kleber in the rotation as bigs. Mix in the Powell/Dinwiddie thing with my wish to use Dinwiddie as a 6th man and it's tough for me to see how this all Works without Wood getting there.
(12-04-2022, 11:08 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly believe that while there would doubtlessly be growing pains, that is ultimately the best way to use all resources to the most synergetic effect.
Even if you do not want to tank there is still a STRONG argument to be made to severely expand the minutes of Green/Hardy and focus on getting Wood into the starting five.
If we are just realistic for a moment the Suns/Nuggets/Pelicans/Grizzlies/Warriors are top 6 locks imho. Then you are looking at the CLIPPERS, Kings, Jazz, Blazers, Lakers, Wolves and Mavs, who battle for the 6th spot. Four of the seven teams will end up in the play-in.
Realistically you are not making the top 6, even if you stay fairly healthy and overplay your best player, which we already do. Odds are just against you.
Also very realistically you are making the play-in, cause Utah will start to make some tankerish moves and sadly Lillard looks like he just can´t stay healthy anymore.
That is the most honest evaluation of the current situation.
So if you cannot integrate Wood and argubaly even Green into the starting line-up, while finding say (60 games left, every other game, five minutes on average at least) 300 rookie minutes for Hardy, while holding off at least the Jazz and Blazers for a play-in, then WTF is the point of this team.
There is no point to this roster, if they cannot absorb some wider organisational choices.
(12-04-2022, 11:22 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]A) isn't guaranteed to teach him any more than "throw him to the wolves" and B) it doesn't seem to be resulting in good play from the team in the meantime, because they actually need someone like Wood in a high-minute role (competently, so maybe not Wood, specifically) to be a good team.
If they're losing, anyway, why not crash course him and pray?
I know they just won a game without him playing at all, and that there's reason to draw conclusions from that because yes, that was one of the better performances of the season in some ways, but I can't imagine going back to having just Powell and Kleber in the rotation as bigs. Mix in the Powell/Dinwiddie thing with my wish to use Dinwiddie as a 6th man and it's tough for me to see how this all Works without Wood getting there.
A. There is something to be lost if this doesn't work.
B. It actually does result in good play. When Wood plays fewer minutes, he outperforms the team's +/-. When he goes over that number, the early indications are he's a fairly big negative. Obviously, it is more complex than that, but we only have so many games to look at.
No one is advocating going back to "Just Powell and Kleber in the rotation as bigs". I think there is a role that works for Wood. What I don't know is whether expanding that role works, but it doesn't appear that it does.
The answer to playing more successfully may not be about Wood. It may be more about making the minutes Wood doesn't play more successful. Kidd is certainly trying things. He sat (finally) McGee for Powell and that helped. He sat Bullock for THJ and it seems to have helped THJ at least. Intuitively, Powell, DFS, THJ, SD and Luka probably isn't the solution. I don't see replacing Powell with Wood working either. The answer may be Green. The answer may be someone who isn't on the roster right now.
(12-04-2022, 12:01 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]A. There is something to be lost if this doesn't work.
B. It actually does result in good play. When Wood plays fewer minutes, he outperforms the team's +/-. When he goes over that number, the early indications are he's a fairly big negative. Obviously, it is more complex than that, but we only have so many games to look at.
No one is advocating going back to "Just Powell and Kleber in the rotation as bigs". I think there is a role that works for Wood. What I don't know is whether expanding that role works, but it doesn't appear that it does.
If A and B are relative, and the team is hovering around .500 with the current approach, what's the downside to trying something different?
And, shouldn't your thought be amended to "
What I don't know is whether expanding that role works, but it doesn't appear that it does SO FAR"?
(12-04-2022, 12:01 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]No one is advocating going back to "Just Powell and Kleber in the rotation as bigs". I think there is a role that works for Wood. What I don't know is whether expanding that role works, but it doesn't appear that it does.
Cool. So, how do you bring Dinwiddie off the bench (which I think you agree needs to happen unless I've misunderstood you), keep Dinwiddie and Powell's minutes aligned as much as possible AND keep McGee on the bench without more big minutes from Wood?
(12-04-2022, 10:15 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]To expand on this, there have been six games where Wood got 28 minutes or more. Dallas is 0-6. To be fair, two of those losses came against Boston and Milwaukee. But, four were the Detroit, Houston and OKC humiliations and one was the NOP loss where they were missing Ingram, Herb Jones and Zion. Coincidence or Causation (or a little of both?).
The D seemed more together yesterday holding a Knicks team to 14 points under their average and 82 basis points under their normal FG% (.455 vs .537). Again, to be fair, Dallas really struggled offensively against Orlando and Washington the other two times Wood didn't play. The sample size is way too small to draw conclusions, but I would infer from Iztok's numbers and the results that there is a point where too much Wood isn't a good thing. Flashy numbers offensively, yes. But half of a basketball game is played at the other end. Kidd does everything he can to hide Wood against backups and even then playing alongside a defensive minded big in Maxi who takes the more difficult assignment. But, that only works for so many minutes. Once that threshold is crossed, Wood is playing against starters or without Maxi or both and it 'appears' it is a bad formula.
The better formula? In the 14 games Wood has played 20-29 minutes (and this includes two of the bad games above), the team is +4.3. Having a 15/7 guy off your bench who hits 40% of his 3's and 55% of his FG's isn't a bad thing.
I just don't agree with this. I might be shown to be wrong, but I think there is not some magic threshold of minutes with Wood where suddenly he is hurting the team. I think when he has played bigger minutes it has come often AFTER his spirit looked broken and after he was being used as an afterthought. I think you cannot and should not play him as an afterthought on the court. If you do, then you shouldn't play him at all IMO. It would be like the Mavs playing Luka and not letting him be central to the offense, if you do that then you lose any chance of Luka really being a positive on the court.
(12-04-2022, 01:20 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't agree with this. I might be shown to be wrong, but I think there is not some magic threshold of minutes with Wood where suddenly he is hurting the team. I think when he has played bigger minutes it has come often AFTER his spirit looked broken and after he was being used as an afterthought. I think you cannot and should not play him as an afterthought on the court. If you do, then you shouldn't play him at all IMO. It would be like the Mavs playing Luka and not letting him be central to the offense, if you do that then you lose any chance of Luka really being a positive on the court.
Wood has taken 86 shots in those six games where he has played 28 or more minutes (team is 0-6 in those). That is 14.33 shots per as opposed to his usual 11.3. He scored 20 per in those games. So, the afterthought theory doesn’t seem to apply in the high minute unsuccessful games.
My theory…just a theory…is Kidd is protecting him. He gets very few minutes against starters. If you watch closely, even the solo-big minutes he’s gotten when he subs in before and stays longer than Maxi tend to happen more against bad teams. Kidd on several occasions has changed that little mechanism against good teams.
So the threshold, if the theory holds, is things don’t go well when Wood leaves that cocoon of protection (playing against subs or being protected by maxi…or both). What site do you subscribe to that gives you those on/off player combo’s? I’d like to subscribe. Curious what the Wood w/Maxi and Wood w/o Maxi numbers look like.
(12-04-2022, 01:48 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]What site do you subscribe to that gives you those on/off player combo’s? I’d like to subscribe. Curious what the Wood w/Maxi and Wood w/o Maxi numbers look like.
It is my own spreadsheet tables.
Ask and you shall receive!
(12-04-2022, 02:34 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: Screenshot-2022-12-04-1.33.45-PM.png]](http://stlukeskck.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Screenshot-2022-12-04-1.33.45-PM.png)
So, either Wood/Kleber needs more time, or, if you buy the idea that there should be a 25 minute cap on Kleber (not sure I do) they need to find a different way of using wood so he can play more.
Personally, I think you would see worse defensive numbers with ANY new center, temporarily, so I’m not convinced about this “he is what he is” nonsense.