MAVS NEWS:

[F Gump]

My comment was made before the 'bone spurs' part was reported. Even so, it's very concerning.

This morning, I posted this on discord before any Lively news: "Arguably the biggest season of Lively's young career. If he can show that he can stay on the floor, it'll lead to a big extension. Another year of less than 50% games played, it's going to be difficult to give him bigger money."

There are several that try to minimize and explain every reason he's missed games. I get the same push back every time I mention my concern. The fact remains, he's only played in 55% of games through two years and now has a major foot injury that are known to be troublesome for NBA Bigs.

I was not pushing back on concern about Lively's tendency for injury at all. (Although, if you are raising an alarm over THIS, then yes I am pushing back on THIS being a cause for alarm. Sorry, but this surgery per se is not "very concerning.") 

But for the record, I have expressed the very same concerns about the frequency of Lively missing games, many times, and how I am less than sold on Lively so far (and see more need for Gaff) as a result. I am hopeful on Lively's future but getting more wary.

My note was one of putting the bone spur surgery in context. It's a thing, but not really a biggie, not a cause for alarm for those of us who are concerned about Lively's injury record. 

Bone spurs are the foot equivalent of a hangnail - no, not literally, but they develop gradually over a long period of time, they make you hurt when you walk (off the court as well as on) but you can play anyhow until/unless the pain becomes completely intolerable, then you have surgery to remove them (preferably in the offseason, so you aren't missing games to recover from the surgery itself), then you don't hurt anymore.

[DallasMaverick]

I get that the end goal -being Lively has to be more available- is a correct and reasonable thing to pursue.

But context matters. And almost every single one of his injuries has been complete flukes. 

Rookie season in order starting from October:

Illness- missed 1 game
Bruised back- missed 1 game
Ankle sprain- missed 4 games
Ankle sprain- missed 4 games 
Broken nose- missed 7 games
Personal reasons (later discovered his mother's illness was terminal and her condition rapidly worsened)- missed 1 game
"Knee"- again later discovered the team let him go to be with his dying mother- missed the last 8 games of the season. Lively's mom passed April 12th

From his rookie year, of the 26 games that he missed, only 8 of them came from actual real injuries that were due to his "fragility". The broken nose was a freak accident. The bruised back came off a putback dunk where he landed hard. And the last 9 games were due to his mothers' rapidly worsening cancer diagnosis and eventual death.

I think that's reasonable.

His 2nd year you can definitely critique being fragile, although I think more of that is due to the Mavs training staff was quite literally a bunch of amateurs employed by Nico.

Going through those injuries and time missed:

Shoulder- missed 4 games
Illness- missed 1 game
Bruised hip- missed 4 games 
Stress fracture on the ankle- missed the rest of the season.

SO yeah, definitely more concerning type of injuries this year. But the Mavs were about to go let Lively play on a sprain before discovering how serious his injury actually was. I blame the medical/training staff than I do put the fragility on Lively. Context matters. Of all his injuries realistically only the ankle stuff has been concerning.

I think our label of “injury-prone” is often based on small sample sizes and recency.

If he’s still only playing 50% of the games in five years, then maybe we can label him that way.

[Smitty]

I was not pushing back on concern about Lively's tendency for injury at all. (Although, if you are raising an alarm over THIS, then yes I am pushing back on THIS being a cause for alarm. Sorry, but this surgery per se is not "very concerning.") 

 
You aren't one of the ones that push back re. Lively's missed games. 

Speaking of context, my OP was made before the bone spurs report came out. 

I'm also not worried about a bone spur procedure and think he'll be perfectly fine to start the season. 

My concern is about the future. Immediate future. The Mavs will have to make a financial decision at some point. 
It's a big year for Lively. He needs to show that he can be on the court. Impact means nothing if you can't suit up. 50% availability won't cut it going forward.

[Jmaciscool]

I'm medically ignorant, so I'm glad to read that we should probably be more concerned with the Spurs than the spurs.

[Smitty]

I get that the end goal -being Lively has to be more available- is a correct and reasonable thing to pursue.

But context matters. And almost every single one of his injuries has been complete flukes. 

Rookie season in order starting from October:

Illness- missed 1 game
Bruised back- missed 1 game
Ankle sprain- missed 4 games
Ankle sprain- missed 4 games 
Broken nose- missed 7 games
Personal reasons (later discovered his mother's illness was terminal and her condition rapidly worsened)- missed 1 game
"Knee"- again later discovered the team let him go to be with his dying mother- missed the last 8 games of the season. Lively's mom passed April 12th

From his rookie year, of the 26 games that he missed, only 8 of them came from actual real injuries that were due to his "fragility". The broken nose was a freak accident. The bruised back came off a putback dunk where he landed hard. And the last 9 games were due to his mothers' rapidly worsening cancer diagnosis and eventual death.

I think that's reasonable.

His 2nd year you can definitely critique being fragile, although I think more of that is due to the Mavs training staff was quite literally a bunch of amateurs employed by Nico.

Going through those injuries and time missed:

Shoulder- missed 4 games
Illness- missed 1 game
Bruised hip- missed 4 games 
Stress fracture on the ankle- missed the rest of the season.

SO yeah, definitely more concerning type of injuries this year. But the Mavs were about to go let Lively play on a sprain before discovering how serious his injury actually was. I blame the medical/training staff than I do put the fragility on Lively. Context matters. Of all his injuries realistically only the ankle stuff has been concerning.

I'm aware. I get it. If you think the lack of availability is all overblown, flukes, training staff... we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Still, my concern is about the future. Some pencil Lively in as a young cornerstone player that will be here 10 years+ with Flagg and play 30 minutes per game as early as this season. I can't get there. He has to show that he can be on the floor year 3, or I'm not even sold on giving him a big extension.

[mvossman]

I'm aware. I get it. If you think the lack of availability is all overblown, flukes, training staff... we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Still, my concern is about the future. Some pencil Lively in as a young cornerstone player that will be here 10 years+ with Flagg and play 30 minutes per game as early as this season. I can't get there. He has to show that he can be on the floor year 3, or I'm not even sold on giving him a big extension.

I get this sentiment, but AD is 32 (with his own injury concerns) and I would want to see Gafford succeed in the playoffs (against space) before I would be comfortable penciling him in for long term starter at center.  They all have their concerns.  If Lively can't get close to 60 games this coming season, then we will have a real problem.

[Chicagojk]

Anytime you have surgery it is concerning. Even a super minor one. I hope he can get healthy and focus in on the offseason as this year is important to him. IMO Mavs need a peak Lively to reach where they need. The west is a beast and Lively matches up well with those WC big man studs.

Last offseason, I wanted Lively starting and getting close to 30 minutes. He can be that good. Now, I am not sure that is desirable. Watch the highlights how our centers play. They go all out for 4-5 minutes. Playing physical. Crashing the lane on rim runs each possession (at least with a Luka led team). Contesting shots in a crowded lane. There are a lot of ways to get hurt. Probably why AD wants to play 4. So I am fine with Lively and Gafford splitting those minutes…at least in the regular season. It will give us a good viewing if the big lineup works with this new team. Eventually one of Lively or Gafford will be moved. For me it is an easy choice if both players are healthy. Even though I like both players.

Get well young Jedi. You have a bright future.

[Smitty]

I am consistent in being OUT on often injured players, whether it's the Mavericks, Rangers or Cowboys. The biggest predictor of future injuries is past injuries.

Therefore, even before this surgery news, I am not a Lively guy at all.  If someone values him as a franchise center, I would look into moving him.   You have Gafford and AD to cover that position.  I really like the kid but he's missing 50% of games at 20 and 21 years old, with various different injuries.

I'm not OUT on Lively. I just want him to be available. This season is a big one. Like you, if he's around 40-50 games played again this year, I'd be open to including him in a trade. So far, any mention of that has been Taboo. At the very least, I wouldn't give him Gafford money on any rookie extension. Which he'd be eligible for next summer.

[Scott41theMavs]

I'm not OUT on Lively. I just want him to be available. This season is a big one. Like you, if he's around 40-50 games played again this year, I'd be open to including him in a trade. So far, any mention of that has been Taboo. At the very least, I wouldn't give him Gafford money on any rookie extension. Which he'd be eligible for next summer.

Let's say that we knew for sure that Lively was a 41-games-a-year, every-other-playoffs center, guaranteed (to be that bad but no worse in terms of availability).

To me, due to his skill set and upward trajectory based on his elephantine BBIQ (cf. progress from Duke to now), I'd argue he's still almost worth Gafford (useless in the playoffs) money.

[Kidnova]

Let's say that we knew for sure that Lively was a 41-games-a-year, every-other-playoffs center, guaranteed (to be that bad but no worse in terms of availability).

To me, due to his skill set and upward trajectory based on his elephantine BBIQ (cf. progress from Duke to now), I'd argue he's still almost worth Gafford (useless in the playoffs) money.

Nah, I'd be out on that.  If we had perfect foresight and that was his future, then I'd be lobbying hard to nobody that has any decision making power to trade him immediately.

[ThisIStheYear]

It’s still hard to believe that Nico and his “training” staff had Lively on the court texting his ankle/foot when the injury first happened. I have no confidence the Mavs have a clue.

[KillerLeft]

It’s still hard to believe that Nico and his “training” staff had Lively on the court texting his ankle/foot when the injury first happened. I have no confidence the Mavs have a clue.

Yeah that was scary.

[DallasMaverick]

It’s still hard to believe that Nico and his “training” staff had Lively on the court texting his ankle/foot when the injury first happened. I have no confidence the Mavs have a clue.

Didn’t he fire them?

[Smitty]

Iztok Franko mailbag questions: 

Hey Iztok, I'd be interested to see some data related to AD when he is the sole big on the floor for his team, vs when he is on with another big. — KTOWN24

Interested in comparing the effectiveness of Lively or Gafford with AD as the PF vs their effectiveness when someone else is the PF on the court with one of them as the center. — Terry


Answer:

Despite the super exciting promise of Cooper Flagg and the much less compelling speculation around Kyrie Irving’s recovery timeline, it seems that questions about Anthony Davis and the Mavericks’ super big strategy are still the ones intriguing Mavs fans the most.

I totally get why looking at AD’s fit and the Mavericks’ lineup data is so intriguing. However, Davis has played only 266 minutes across 9 games as a Maverick, which is far too small a sample for any meaningful insights. For those who want to explore a much larger body of data from his career—and what we can learn from his past stretches as a power forward—check out the deep-dive I published right after the trade.

The Mavericks were very good defensively in the 199 possessions when AD played alongside either Dereck Lively II or Daniel Gafford, allowing just 110.8 points per 100 possessions. The sample is very small, but I have no doubt that once you add Cooper Flagg and P.J. Washington into the mix, that ultra-big Mavericks lineup could be scary on defense next season. In my aforementioned AD deep-dive, I wrote about the Mavericks’ strategy of replicating the 2020 championship Lakers blueprint—and the reunion of that Lakers coaching staff this offseason, with Frank Vogel, Phil Handy, and Mike Penberthy all joining the bench, only reinforces that vision.

In the aftermath of the NBA Finals, I wrote about how super-sized, defensive juggernaut teams might be the response that franchises like Houston, Orlando, and Dallas are building to counter the ultra-aggressive but smaller OKC Thunder. The draft and free agency only reinforced that the NBA is trending big—and watching how the Mavericks’ super big strategy unfolds next season will be one of the most fascinating storylines to follow.

Circling back to the AD-at-power-forward lineup questions— even in a small sample, a familiar trend has held true last season and throughout AD’s career: those lineups tend to produce a low three-point, mid-range-heavy shot profile.

   

With Davis playing next to either Gafford or Lively, the Mavericks ranked in the bottom 10th percentile in three-point frequency and the top 10th percentile in long mid-range frequency. How Jason Kidd and his staff navigate that, along with the added challenge of finding the best spacing and floor spots for Flagg, is another key layer to watch next season.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Iztok Franko mailbag questions: 

Hey Iztok, I'd be interested to see some data related to AD when he is the sole big on the floor for his team, vs when he is on with another big. — KTOWN24

Interested in comparing the effectiveness of Lively or Gafford with AD as the PF vs their effectiveness when someone else is the PF on the court with one of them as the center. — Terry


Answer:

Despite the super exciting promise of Cooper Flagg and the much less compelling speculation around Kyrie Irving’s recovery timeline, it seems that questions about Anthony Davis and the Mavericks’ super big strategy are still the ones intriguing Mavs fans the most.

I totally get why looking at AD’s fit and the Mavericks’ lineup data is so intriguing. However, Davis has played only 266 minutes across 9 games as a Maverick, which is far too small a sample for any meaningful insights. For those who want to explore a much larger body of data from his career—and what we can learn from his past stretches as a power forward—check out the deep-dive I published right after the trade.

The Mavericks were very good defensively in the 199 possessions when AD played alongside either Dereck Lively II or Daniel Gafford, allowing just 110.8 points per 100 possessions. The sample is very small, but I have no doubt that once you add Cooper Flagg and P.J. Washington into the mix, that ultra-big Mavericks lineup could be scary on defense next season. In my aforementioned AD deep-dive, I wrote about the Mavericks’ strategy of replicating the 2020 championship Lakers blueprint—and the reunion of that Lakers coaching staff this offseason, with Frank Vogel, Phil Handy, and Mike Penberthy all joining the bench, only reinforces that vision.

In the aftermath of the NBA Finals, I wrote about how super-sized, defensive juggernaut teams might be the response that franchises like Houston, Orlando, and Dallas are building to counter the ultra-aggressive but smaller OKC Thunder. The draft and free agency only reinforced that the NBA is trending big—and watching how the Mavericks’ super big strategy unfolds next season will be one of the most fascinating storylines to follow.

Circling back to the AD-at-power-forward lineup questions— even in a small sample, a familiar trend has held true last season and throughout AD’s career: those lineups tend to produce a low three-point, mid-range-heavy shot profile.



With Davis playing next to either Gafford or Lively, the Mavericks ranked in the bottom 10th percentile in three-point frequency and the top 10th percentile in long mid-range frequency. How Jason Kidd and his staff navigate that, along with the added challenge of finding the best spacing and floor spots for Flagg, is another key layer to watch next season.

Thanks for this.  A couple of observations:

Realizing this is a super small sample size (most of which didn't include Kyrie or Flagg), I don't think anyone would be too upset with an EFG% in the sixties.  That would be historically good.  It won't be that good, but if we are putting any weight on this sample to criticize this style of offense, we have to also give some weight to the efficiency that was achieved.

Second, it isn't like we aren't shooting 3's.  We are basically trading non-corner 3's for mid-range shots.  Note that we are about 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 between at the rim shots, threes and some kind of mid-range shot.  Is a more difficult three worth that much more than a mid-range two?  Theoretically, it depends on the percentages shot, but in practice, if all you are doing is getting to the rim or shooting 3's, then you become pretty predictable.  We used to criticize the variability of "living by the three and dying by the three".  Now, we don't like the diversity of shots that might lessen the variability of outcomes.

[DallasMaverick]

Thanks for this.  A couple of observations:

Realizing this is a super small sample size (most of which didn't include Kyrie or Flagg), I don't think anyone would be too upset with an EFG% in the sixties.  That would be historically good.  It won't be that good, but if we are putting any weight on this sample to criticize this style of offense, we have to also give some weight to the efficiency that was achieved.

Second, it isn't like we aren't shooting 3's.  We are basically trading non-corner 3's for mid-range shots.  Note that we are about 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 between at the rim shots, threes and some kind of mid-range shot.  Is a more difficult three worth that much more than a mid-range two?  Theoretically, it depends on the percentages shot, but in practice, if all you are doing is getting to the rim or shooting 3's, then you become pretty predictable.  We used to criticize the variability of "living by the three and dying by the three".  Now, we don't like the diversity of shots that might lessen the variability of outcomes.

Dirk was king of the long midrange two, and did it with unbelievable efficiency.

[Chicagojk]

Iztok Franko mailbag questions: 

Hey Iztok, I'd be interested to see some data related to AD when he is the sole big on the floor for his team, vs when he is on with another big. — KTOWN24

Interested in comparing the effectiveness of Lively or Gafford with AD as the PF vs their effectiveness when someone else is the PF on the court with one of them as the center. — Terry


Answer:

Despite the super exciting promise of Cooper Flagg and the much less compelling speculation around Kyrie Irving’s recovery timeline, it seems that questions about Anthony Davis and the Mavericks’ super big strategy are still the ones intriguing Mavs fans the most.

I totally get why looking at AD’s fit and the Mavericks’ lineup data is so intriguing. However, Davis has played only 266 minutes across 9 games as a Maverick, which is far too small a sample for any meaningful insights. For those who want to explore a much larger body of data from his career—and what we can learn from his past stretches as a power forward—check out the deep-dive I published right after the trade.

The Mavericks were very good defensively in the 199 possessions when AD played alongside either Dereck Lively II or Daniel Gafford, allowing just 110.8 points per 100 possessions. The sample is very small, but I have no doubt that once you add Cooper Flagg and P.J. Washington into the mix, that ultra-big Mavericks lineup could be scary on defense next season. In my aforementioned AD deep-dive, I wrote about the Mavericks’ strategy of replicating the 2020 championship Lakers blueprint—and the reunion of that Lakers coaching staff this offseason, with Frank Vogel, Phil Handy, and Mike Penberthy all joining the bench, only reinforces that vision.

In the aftermath of the NBA Finals, I wrote about how super-sized, defensive juggernaut teams might be the response that franchises like Houston, Orlando, and Dallas are building to counter the ultra-aggressive but smaller OKC Thunder. The draft and free agency only reinforced that the NBA is trending big—and watching how the Mavericks’ super big strategy unfolds next season will be one of the most fascinating storylines to follow.

Circling back to the AD-at-power-forward lineup questions— even in a small sample, a familiar trend has held true last season and throughout AD’s career: those lineups tend to produce a low three-point, mid-range-heavy shot profile.



With Davis playing next to either Gafford or Lively, the Mavericks ranked in the bottom 10th percentile in three-point frequency and the top 10th percentile in long mid-range frequency. How Jason Kidd and his staff navigate that, along with the added challenge of finding the best spacing and floor spots for Flagg, is another key layer to watch next season.

Thanks I am interesting to see how it looks both on offense and defense.  In my mind, I picture a long defense that really makes scoring at the rim difficult, one that can cover a lot of space, play passing lanes and limit open threes and forcing teams to hit difficult twos.   On the other hand, I could see a defense that is not connected that allows a lot of blow by and creates open looks.    I think the team still needs to identify a point of attack defender.    It will be interesting to see how they gel over time.

Offense is real tricky for me.  I know everyone was injured and they had no time to develop chemistry, so I hope the offense looks different.   The AD isolation and long two twos were ugly though.   I hope we see a much different offense.   My hope is a fast pace and more movement on offense.   It is going to be a challenge though with their current team imo.

[Winter]

Thanks I am interesting to see how it looks both on offense and defense.  In my mind, I picture a long defense that really makes scoring at the rim difficult, one that can cover a lot of space, play passing lanes and limit open threes and forcing teams to hit difficult twos.   On the other hand, I could see a defense that is not connected that allows a lot of blow by and creates open looks.    I think the team still needs to identify a point of attack defender.    It will be interesting to see how they gel over time.

Offense is real tricky for me.  I know everyone was injured and they had no time to develop chemistry, so I hope the offense looks different.   The AD isolation and long two twos were ugly though.   I hope we see a much different offense.   My hope is a fast pace and more movement on offense.   It is going to be a challenge though with their current team imo.

I think several people on the board have suggested strong 3-point shooters from our guards would help the balance offense... and I think it's the right approach. It's one of the reasons I would still like another guard with a good 3-pt shot and why trading Klay could be an issue if we traded him for defense.

[Smitty]

I think several people on the board have suggested strong 3-point shooters from our guards would help the balance offense... and I think it's the right approach. It's one of the reasons I would still like another guard with a good 3-pt shot and why trading Klay could be an issue if we traded him for defense.

Here is a list of Mavs that are above league average on 3pt%. Some are high-volume, others not so much...


  3PT.png (Size: 9.98 KB / Downloads: 150)

[Scott41theMavs]

This might be the deadest I've ever seen this board under any circumstances.

Did I just step into a twilight zone in which we didn't win the draft lottery?