FA: Spencer Dinwiddie Heads to DAL | 1 yr/vet min

[F Gump]

What leads you to this belief? Is there some info I missed, or is it your own preference? 

From my POV, they used Kleber almost exclusively at the 5 down the stretch of the regular season, when those wins were stacking up, and then to start the playoffs. The lineup with Kleber at the 5 and PJ at the 4 was so clearly the best thing the Mavs had to offer defensively (at that time, at least - Lively continued to grow throughout the playoffs) and that's why they were closing many games that way.  Once Kleber came back from injury they tried him at the 4 a little in the Finals, but that was when Kidd was desperately trying anything, and those Kleber at the 4 minutes didn't exactly go well. All of that to say...my interpretation of what we just saw leads me to believe they absolutely view him as a center first. 

I also don't think playing him at the 5 makes them "small"...he's basically the same size as Gafford, length wise. Gafford is obviously a more vertical athlete. I think there are trade offs from one to the other in terms of skill sets, strengths, weaknesses, etc, and they are therefore a good set of options to have, personally, but neither is a 7-footer, or even 6'11", unless I'm mistaken. Both are more than strong enough to hold their own in the paint. Gafford is a little stronger, Kleber is a little quicker.

Info you missed -- all I am saying is simply based on what they have been doing, and apparently you failed to observe it.

I just did a manual count of Kleber's playoff minutes with/without a center (either Gafford or Lively). It was about a 60-40 split, with him playing PF more often. (I would have guessed it was more like 80-20, frankly.)

I agree it's hard to draw strong conclusions from the playoffs since he was dealing with injuries, but that's the raw data.

In general, I think the Mavs under Kidd have consistently seen him as their solution to a need for "big wing 3-and-D defender" who can help defend on the perimeter and that they otherwise lack. I would call that a PF.

In some situations, I would also perceive his play with PJW as functionally being a PF, in cases where it is designed to be a centerless 5-out approach with 2 F's (Maxi and PJW) and 3 guards, but the lack of either Gafford or Lively would allow us to class those minutes as him playing C.

My Opinion is that we are likely to see even more of Gafford and Lively going forward (which means fewer mins at C for Maxi), because I think Kidd likes bully ball, but we'll see.