Game 36: HOU (21-10) @ DAL (12-23)

[mvossman]

My thought -- maybe the Mavs (wisely) sacrificed something on one end, for parts of the game, and gained it back and more besides on the other. The Rox are big enough to overwhelm other teams. Here, the Mavs lineup overall did manage to shoot 55% (38% on 3s) and hold HOU to 39/24. If it was all a coaching disaster, nevertheless SOMETHING in those coaching choices sure went right. 

If you want to say CF is not (yet) skilled enough to run the offense most of the time, sure, that makes sense. But if you hope that he can get there, you have to accept the learning pains where he is given the task from time to time. And as you do that, what's the overall picture for the game? In this one, it's a win against a top team, and CF was a +4. That doesn't feel like a disaster at all.

Bigger picture for me is, when the team wins, against a top opponent who they should not beat, I don't think style point criticisms are really merited, as they ignore the fact that the sum total was a plus, not a minus. And no, the idea that the loss of Sengun made all the difference isn't persuasive to me at all -- I've watched too many NBA games and know it doesn't work like that.

So if they win then Kidd is a genius, and if they lose then he is "stealth tanking"?  Flagg may have been +4 for the game, but he was -13 playing in those silly lineups.  As others have mentioned, other than walking the ball up the floor he is not really doing a lot of PG things.  I was not watching the Bucks in Giannis early days, but I am doubting this is what it looked like.