MAVS NEWS:

[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.